User talk:Vanished user iojhij329ujsd/Archive 1

Regarding the ongoing discussion
Hi again, Rob, and thank you for your support. Although Tokyogirl79 made some inexplicable mistakes that looked quite suspicious, I have been able to confirm that she is a very competent administrator with an excellent reputation, and she is in no way involved with this malicious effort to delete the Camille and Kennerly page. That's why I decided to apologize to her publicly and on her own talk page. Even though you have valid reasons for wondering how on earth she became an administrator, I encourage you to apologize as well, explaining why you were upset with her, and blaming it on a misunderstanding or something like that. I am convinced that she made an honest mistake and feels bad about it. Besides, she has too many powerful friends, and we don't want them to turn against us, even though I'm not seriously concerned about that because Wikipedia administrators take their job very seriously. Thanks again! Dontreader (talk) 01:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand
Hi Rob,

Well, I understand your points, certainly. At this point I'm sure you are fed up with this situation, and I feel the same way. We have done our part. We have defended these exceptional ladies as much as possible. Now we just have to be patient. Kind regards... Dontreader (talk) 19:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

New Message from Chiswick Chap (talk)
Hi. I'm sorry you felt upset by my AfD. I've just reread WP:NALBUMS, and it doesn't seem to say anything about preliminary manoeuvres before AfD; just that albums must be independently notable, etc. Of course a proposed merger would also be a possible route in such cases, you're right, but I had straight deletion in mind at the time. I'm honestly not sure that a merger has many advantages in such a case, but am happy to go along with the consensus. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit count and AWB
Hi Robcamstone,

Your editing looks good and constructive (not just reverting others work). But for AWB I would like to hear what you would like to do. It sounds as if you have a plan, but I don't know what it is. If you have a use for AWB I will enable it for you. Sorry I may have sounded a bit bureaucratic, I admit I was disappointed by some of the AWB applications too! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have added you to the list, now that you have given me a reason to use AWB. I encourage you to be flexible enough to cope with policies that you don't agree with, or editors that make your life difficult, so don't give up and keep up the good work! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Metal Hammer magazine interview
Hi Rob,

I just commented on the Harp Twins' talk page regarding the concern you have. Please visit that page. Thanks, and bye for now. Dontreader (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

A user tried to impose a new format for the Harp Twins page
Hi Rob,

A user tried to entirely change the formatting style of the references section of the Camille and Kennerly Kitt page. I reverted that edit and left an explanation on the talk page of the article. Please support me if he or she tries to change it back again. I am one of the main contributors to that article, and I should have been consulted. The format that was adopted was unpleasant, in my opinion, and I'm certainly not accustomed to it, so it would be very difficult for me to use that style for future edits. I don't want an edit war to occur. Therefore, please write something on that talk page supporting my position, since you are another main contributor, and we have adopted a certain style for the references section since a very long time ago. Many thanks. Dontreader (talk) 09:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Many thanks, Rob, for your generous help. I very much appreciate your recent contribution to the talk page of Camille and Kennerly Kitt, and for constantly updating their page. Have a great day! Dontreader (talk) 10:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Potential edit war on Harp Twins page
Hi Rob,

I did not start any trouble on Camille and Kennerly's page. I don't see why we have to comply with the arbitrary demands of others who do not contribute to the page. Besides, did you not recognize that this latest editor who went back to the unpleasant references format is the same person who insistently tried to get the page deleted? I think this case should be taken to an administrator. Please let me know your opinion. I certainly will not comply with that format, so I guess you will have to fix my references in the future if you let this guy have his way, but I would rather have an administrator let us continue with the style we had before. Thanks in advance. Dontreader (talk) 12:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Rob for your support. I did read your excellent message on the talk page of the article. I have reverted two edits over a span of over a week, so I think I'm still okay. I hope others will help resolve the issue. I contacted an administrator already. I am almost sure that the two users that have changed the references section are the same person. Duffbeerforme spent so much time and effort trying to destroy that page, and he ignored our request to discuss matters on the talk page, so I don't assume good faith in him at all. This is very frustrating because I've been awake all night long putting together information to enhance the notability of the page, which should be finished in maybe three hours, because I think Duffbeerforme is going to try to propose it again for deletion. My day has been ruined already, but I'll try to have the page strengthened in a few hours, as I said. I have excellent links. Thanks again. P.S. I wasn't trying to sound rude. The reality is that I don't know how to edit using that format, and I have no time to learn to do so. Dontreader (talk) 13:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Rob for your advice regarding sandboxes. I will take the measures you suggested in that sense. I think I'll go ahead and get the page updated as soon as possible because my links will make it impossible for even the most wretched people to question the notability of the Twins. Besides, my day has been ruined anyway, so I might as well get it done. My project is long overdue, besides. Thanks again! Dontreader (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much, Rob, for the PDF. I will examine it as soon as I can. I spent the entire night dealing with this situation and adding a paragraph that should help the article, but I'll polish it later on. Right now I seriously need some rest. Thanks again and have a great day! Dontreader (talk) 19:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Harp Twins Discography section
Hi Rob. Please tell me what you think about this situation with the references for the discography section being deleted. I think it's serious. Now that section has no sources and could be deleted. Do you know any administrators? Please contact one or two, if possible. I knew that guy was up to nothing good. Dontreader (talk) 10:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Rob, thanks for your thoughts. I certainly won't consider making a new wiki because I have invested over a thousand hours on this one, easily. My latest idea was to simply state at the top of the discography section that "Camille and Kennerly have released several of their harp duet arrangements on iTunes, Amazon, Google Play, CD Baby and SoundCloud." without the links to the sites where you can directly buy their music. Just like it was before, but without those links. That way any Wikipedian could look up those sites and confirm that the tracks exist as stated, but without making it seem like we are trying to help the Twins sell music on their Wiki page. Please let me know what you think about that. Also, I still have not had a chance to learn about the new format for references. My edit from yesterday has the old style still in the references section. Thanks again, Rob! Dontreader (talk) 11:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Bonnie Langford Now (Selections From Her One Woman Show Live and Direct) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bonnie Langford Now (Selections From Her One Woman Show Live and Direct) 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/Bonnie Langford Now (Selections From Her One Woman Show Live and Direct) 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. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Jazz At the Theatre for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jazz At the Theatre 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/Jazz At the Theatre 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. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Very sorry
Hi Rob,

I'm very sorry to hear this news. Obviously Duffbeerforme is targeting you since there are countless pages out there for him to try to delete, which is basically all he does here on Wikipedia, so to nominate two of your own is not a coincidence. Keep in mind, however, that many of his speedy deletion tags are systematically overruled by smart, fair, and more knowledgeable Wikipedians. Your cases are not speedy deletions, but he completely failed to persuade anyone to delete the Harp Twins article even though according to his "knowledge" of the rules, it had to be deleted.

My advice for you, although I'm just a rookie, is for you to at least defend those two pages to some degree, and then let others decide. If the links are not considered reliable, or that iTunes and Amazon promote sales, then keep in mind that the Lindsey Stirling page, for example, has a link in the discography section to a website of her own that sells her music. That is permitted based on this page:

WikiProject_Discographies/style

It says:

Useful resources General The artist's or label's website Allmusic link

However, it does not say that those are the ONLY resources allowed. The artist's or label's website, and iTunes, for example, serve the same purpose, and in your case the iTunes links prove that the contents are true. Besides, those albums that you deal with are not going to create massive traffic to iTunes or Amazon. Therefore, ask why they cannot be used. There ARE some pages that include iTunes links. Furthermore, you can cite Ignore All Rules if that approach doesn't work, just to see what they say. Look:

Ignoring_all_rules_–_a_beginner%27s_guide

It says:

"If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the Wiki, then ignore them and go about your business."

"It means things can be done which might be against the word of the policy but passes the essence of them."

Insist on that the iTunes and Amazon links are the only ones you have, and therefore you could request that they stay to support the material contained in the article.

Anyway, I understand that this is an awful situation for you, having been through a similar experience myself because even though I did not create the Harp Twins page, I had invested many hundreds of hours in it, and over 100 hours just to upload the picture. But try to contest the deletions with a counterargument or two (use the Ignore All Rules if the first method doesn't work), and hope for the best. I do wish you succeed, and I certainly would appreciate counting on you for the Harp Twins page, which I'm currently semi-banned from editing because of the same person. Luckily a very fair and smart Wikipedian has taken over, so I'm not worried, but it would be regrettable if in the near future the page is down to one contributor, as it would get weakened.

However, I understand your feelings and I respect your decisions. How are you expected to donate to Wikipedia when guys like Duffbeerforme are out there without a leash, making life impossible for you? He is suffering badly now, in this life, but he will suffer much greater torment in the afterlife. Very few people know more about demonology than I do. But anyway, Rob, thanks for being such a great helper on the Harp Twins' page, and I hope you return some day. All the best, Dontreader (talk) 12:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * @Robcamstone, there's a profound misunderstanding of how to create wikipedia articles that is common to many (and maybe most) of our new editors. They start with an idea of an article they'd like to write, start writing it, and then begin casting around for reliable sources.  At this point they've got quite a bit of time and emotional energy invested in the article (it's their very first one, or one of their first) and when it turns out that there just aren't any reliable sources, it's understandable that they'll launch their work into mainspace with whatever unreliable sources they have at hand (amazon, itunes) and hope for the best.  As you're now discovering (and trust me, you aren't alone here), those articles get deleted quickly&mdash;as they should.


 * More experienced editors have figured out to start with the sources and build their articles around them. If you don't start writing until you have three good sources at hand, you're pretty much guaranteed the article won't be deleted.


 * Finally, if another editor notices you're creating articles without using reliable sources, it's not WP:HARASSMENT to review that editor's contributions to determine how widespread the problem is, and then to fix the problem. That's good-faith editing.  The best way to prevent this from happening is to write impeccable articles.  Don't push them to mainspace until you think they're ready for WP:GA or maybe even WP:FA review.  If you're aiming at that level of quality, other editors will notice and respect that.


 * I'd like to see you stick around; we can certainly use the help. But please, no more marginal articles.


 * @Dontreader: Wishing torment in the afterlife on an editor you disagree with is... well, childish is the kindest word that comes to mind.  Please consider striking that remark.


 * As to demonology, are you familiar with Robbins's 1959 Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology? It's an excellent scholarly reference and I had great plans on using it as the basis for several articles.  Unfortunately, once the romantic notions are stripped away from the topic what's left are medieval communities torturing and killing vulnerable women (and a few men) whenever the community comes under stress (poor harvest, sickness, etc.).  It's a very human reaction, and in both the accusations and the demonology you can see the fears of the community writ large.  It's still with us, although we've replaced most of the supernatural aspects and now call it lynching.  Anyway, it's a fascinating topic, but ultimately I didn't have the stomach for it and went on to other, gentler pursuits.  If your interests lie in that area, though, let me give that book the strongest possible recommendation.


 * Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)