User talk:Wikibones/Archive003

Question regarding the merging of hit song articles into album articles
Why are you so averse to merging anyway? Don't you think one longer article is better than two shorter articles? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hit singles (song articles) are separate resources, with individual content relative their own unique historical contribution to an artists career. Missing from album articles is the content specific to those singles or song articles (eg. songwriter credits, award acheivements, chart numbers, links to albums that also contain the same song, links to the songwriter for the research of other material written by that writer, lyrics of interest, etc). This is what I mean by "restricting wiki content". By merging the song article into an album article, everything I have mentioned above in parenthesis is lost. You mentioned "longer article is better than two articles". These are not two articles about the same thing. One is a single song article. One is an album article. Broader wiki content and a deeper resource for research is being destroyed by merging. It isn't about promoting any elements of the product. It is about providing users of Wikipedia the most detail possible. Thanks for asking. Wikibones (talk) 21:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * FYI this was raised at ANI. –xenotalk 19:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

As evidenced from the above and the ridiculous history on this issue, the only thing I can figure is that TenPoundHammer must be about 14 years old to not understand the difference between a song article and an album article. I feel sorry for the well-meaning serious contributors to Wikipedia who have to constantly deal with this virtual zealot, whose focus is largely on squashing the good work of others for the purpose of collecting Barnstars (little unofficial merit badges that a few other like-minded immature virtual zealots bestow on each other as virtual status symbols). At no time through the process of this issue has TPH been capable of considering the importance of the co-existence of a song article (for a hit recording) and an album article (by the same title). Read carefully what TPH first stated above. I rest my case.Wikibones (talk) 12:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please comment on content, and not contributors. I believe TPH is drawing from WP:NSONGS, specifically the portion "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." when he is deciding to merge the song into the album. I have suggested to him at my talk page that a formal proposed merge discussion take place if you still disagree. –xenotalk 15:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have dealt with this person for more than a year now on this. His motives are obvious. He wants ONLY the album article to exist, yet the title cut of the album was a hit song. Co-existing articles are not an option to TPH. The army of people out there who have to deal with this indiscriminate stuff from TPH is generating a ton of animosity. How can anyone so relentless with such indiscriminate and destructive edits be allowed to prowl through Wikipedia in this manner?Wikibones (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I keep song articles if they're long enough. Prove you can write more than two or three sentences on song articles. Why can't you see that it's COMMUNITY CONSENSUS — as in, not what I think but what Wikipedia as a whole thinks — that merging song articles is just fine? Is there something you fail to understand about "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album"?! You act as if I have a vendetta against you, and you act as if you own the article and won't let anyone harm the articles. That's called WP:OWN and it's not allowed. Also, do you really think comments like "the only thing I can figure is that TenPoundHammer must be about 14 years old to not understand the difference between a song article and an album article" are appropriate? Insult me again and you most certainly will get a block.


 * I have initiated a discussion here to gather whether or not the community agrees with my merge. If they do agree that a merge is appropriate, then the redirects will stay because they, not I, agreed on it being so. If they stay, please do not try to circumvent community consensus. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I added the proposed merge tags to each song which have been reverted to the live version after an agreement from TenPoundHammer to leave them unredirected while the discussion runs. Feel free to opine at the discussion. Note that the proposed merge tags must remain while the discussion runs. –xenotalk 18:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Smoke Rings in the Dark
The Runaway song is indeed the Del Shannon one. Why else would it credit Del Shannon as a writer? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 07:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Roger Brown &amp; Swing City
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Roger Brown &amp; Swing City, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.allmusic.com/album/roger-brown-amp-swing-city-mw0000185257.

It is possible that the bot was mistaken and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Roger Brown (songwriter)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Roger Brown (songwriter), but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from https://www.nashvillesongwriters.com/roger-brown, http://gene-watson.com/index.php/roger-brown.html, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Roger Brown (songwriter) and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Roger Brown (songwriter), in your email. See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Roger Brown (songwriter). See Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the material is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Roger Brown (songwriter) with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at [ this temporary page]. Leave a note at Talk:Roger Brown (songwriter) saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

You try to contribute a nice article, and even have the help of several good Wikipedians who help you get re-familiarized with proper source citation structure, and then someone comes along like this within a matter of days and slaps a big block on the entire article. Now I remember why I stopped contributing articles to Wikipedia from scratch and took a long break from all this.Wikibones (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited North Carolina Music Hall of Fame, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Mauldin. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mike Dekle


A tag has been placed on Mike Dekle requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://www.mikedeklemusic.com/bio.php. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  Onel 5969  TT me 18:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)