User talk:Mdann52/Archive 17

571:

place to seek knowledge about all kind of topics. That is the real meaning and purpose of Knowledge. The only place you can find complete information about this -70ths label is here on Knowledge and then information about their releases including links to scans of some of their most famous albums is very valuable.I have used hundreds of hours to find all the catalogue & matrix numbers in order to try to put together the most complete story of the label.I argue very strongly against what you have done and will revert your update. But I want to discuss this with you before I do this. I see no harm in having the catalogue, and it surely dont occupy much space on the site.I know for a fact that the article is being used as a reference to many collectors who collect and try to find information.Now you make it impossible regards

107: 31: 1620:

figure it out. There is no rush. Since you've done this before and been reverted, this is getting to the point of vandalism/edit warring, so please work with us. I AGF that your intentions aren't "vandalism" in the usual sense, but large deletions without consensus or discussion have the same effect. This isn't your personal blog or website. The article is covered by ArbCom's discretionary sanctions for a fringe subject, so tread lightly. --

1729: 3201:

revisions without talking to any one first? Can you please help me understand what it is that you are seeing that we might be missing? The added materials come straight out of the Al Jazeera article, do they not? And isn't Al Jazeera America a reliable source? The reporter who wrote the piece seems reliable enough, too. What are your thoughts, please?

718:

show a big lack of knowledge about the topic ..quote.."The music on them is going to be still available elsewhere (as they were re-bootlegged at the time, and also the music is from live performances- "..wrong...several of these releases are unique and can only be found on the original LPs..secondly at least half contain studio sessions..

1730: 3200:

when the version that is there is as a result of discussions between THREE editors. The information is fully sourced to the America Al Jazeera news organization's website which has an article about this guy. Just because it is unflattering does not make it any less true. Why do you make unilateral

2058:

AGF applies to other editors, not to outside sources. Outside sources are still bound by our rules (but they don't follow them), which is to provide a RS for their information. Then OTRS volunteers should present the concern and the RS on the article's talk page and let other editors deal with it. We

728:

after checking again on Knowledge do I realize that most record labels have a seperate article with the discography (cant see the logic) but I was clearly wrong.So would it be possible to ask for help to create an article and link to main TMOQ article or am I not allowed to ask for this and will have

725:..finally,this statement show how little the persons discussing know about the topic..quote.."Think I only had one Pig record, but I had a few TAKRL ones- didn't realise they were uncommon."..well that says it all..some of these originals are for sale for several thousand of dollars among collectors. 652:

Why should a label discography be on a seperate article as most collectors looking on Knowledge will want to read information about TAKRL & TMOQ and then look at the output of the label below. Secondly,what gives you the authority to make this judgement and alter based on your own opinion.This is

2131:

Then just deal with it like any COI edit, because if there is anyone who has a COI, it is anyone making an OTRS request, and you risk becoming a meatpuppet for them. You don't want to get caught in that position. That's why you should just take it to the talk page and let other editors who know more

1961:

If you read closely, you'll see that Signorile, in his 2010 comment, asserted that his article could not be found on The Advocate's website because, at that time (so he said), nothing from that time period was available there. However, now, in 2014, both the 2006 and the 2010 printings are hosted on

1639:

In the meantime, I would suggest you actually look through what I have removed. This is an article on the organisation, so inncluding excessive background information is not really appropriate. Additionally, basing stuff on dead links to the organisations own website is not really a good idea; There

451:

Why did you delete citations to 'Jezebel Complex' and the ABC Sound Quality Show which are valid sources? I have been watching how Knowledge's volunteers have been editing this article, why are there three people in 2 days from Wiki doing this, surely this is a waste of resource. Another contributor

2012:

Only OTRS agents can see the ticket, which I do not think you are. As of the edit, due to this evidence, I have self-reverted; Thanks for bringing this extra evidence to my attention. OTRS usually works on trust with situations like this; I prefer to AGF until evidence emerges to suggest otherwise.

1619:

Per BRD, please discuss such large changes. I don't doubt that some of it may be an improvement, but too much is happening and you need to get a consensus for undoing a version created through the collaboration of many editors. Just explain what you intend to do on the talk page and I'm sure we can

558:

I can put over 30 wikipedia articles of music artist subjects that state prolific in context of their work, on your page in answer to your good faith prolific comment regarding other subjects on MC Opi's history but I gather you understand this, so enlighten me further, this looks like it has been

473:

You have deleted several cited reliable sources, this is vandalism and will be reported. As for prolific ARIA award winning singer, this is correct. At this stage I will be reporting all of this, I have read through all revisions in the last 24 hours and I am now convinced there is a serious issue

2077:

If someone contacts me, says their article is wrong, and provides a satisfactory explanation about why, why should I not assume good faith that that version of events are correct? I had a look to see i could find anything to the contrary, but I could find nothing, so I made the edit. Someone asked

1635:

That edit was an edit made as a result of an email sent to OTRS via the WMF. There are issues here in the background, and interest in this from both OTRS and the WMF. Before reverting OTRS actions, you should seek advice from the agent who is dealing with the ticket; Your actions with reverting my

717:

sry I am confused. I read the link. Who is talking to who ? Meaning that Knowledge is updated by millions of users and under which authority shall some have the power to decide what is right or wrong =? You mention consensus. Please clafiry and point me in the right direction. The discussion also

570:

I have to admit.I was quite shocked to see that you just deleted/erased several years of hard work and investigation into this label.Stating that,I quote.."Knowledge is not a catalogue of releases".Ok, we all have different opinions but as far as I have experienced the view is that Knowledge is a

1669:

Thanks for the reply, and I'm fully prepared to cooperate with any concerns. In the meantime, you are not above our policies here, and that includes not having some special right allowing you to edit war against consensus. You're supposed to use the article's talk page, not respond with a bold

721:

another statement..quote.-"The lists were probably copied from Hot Wacks. "...wrong..the HW book is incomplete/wrong and I have used several years of research to be able to put the list together.Including contact with one of the founders of the label Ken Douglas who have verified some of the

732:

and finally,who is to decide that these rare releases are "non-notable" ? Thousand of collectors will prove that statement wrong. Just check the auction results on Popsike...I made a random search for TMOQ and found about 20 000 items sold for the value USD 100 and up to several thousand

2894:

Hi there, I've received an message; An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect A Madness Shared by Two. Since you had some involvement with the A Madness Shared by Two redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so...

2703:

I am the web coordinator at Austen Riggs. I emailed you about the vandalism we received. We have changed the page to what we would like it to say and you had reverted it back to simplify the language. We are OK with the previous revision before you made the change today. Thanks.

3261:"The author only appears to have published one article." Dude, the guy has his own Knowledge page and has published HUNDREDS of articles, as well as several books. He might not be known or famous in your part of the world, but here in the US he is very widely known. See 562: 590:

I would like to add a comment.I made a search on Knowledge for record labels and found hundreds with complete discography.so what is the difference between those and the TMOQ and TAKRL label ? here is an example with a discography simular to the one you deleted.

3279:

When I posted that, I was using the information given to me on the site, which stated one article. Personally, I have no opinion on this, but as another editor is challenging thus, I suggest you also discuss it with them or gain consensus first; Preferably both.

965:

No, thanks. I cannot waste my time again. You should have removed the article which was paraphrased. You, however, also deleted those paragraphs which were perfectly fine (the introductory para for example). You have wasted the hard work of a lot of people.

614:

Having a full discography on a separate article may be fine, if there are a large number of notable, blue-linked releases (such as the example you linked above). However, in this case, there is no reason to merge this into the main article.

856:

The submission for Kevin Arthur Rolle was declined. I do not fully understand why. I compared the write-up to other Knowledge articles. Would you please assist me in understanding this so I can make the necessary corrections? Thank you.

2132:

about the subject deal with it. It is only in totally, unquestionably, clearcut BLP cases that a deletion cannot be immediately reverted, and that was not the case here. Differences of opinion and choice of sources are another matter. --

372:

I see you have chosen to reject my article because it references IMDB. I have come across a good number of actress profiles that have Imdb as sources to reference films they've acted in but for some reason you picked this one to reject.

534:

You deleted reliable sources, such as archive.org Jezebel Complex which actually has not only the writers names but an actual track. You deleted a valid source of a program schedule of a national government funded radio show. As for

788: 2059:

should be distrustful of outside sources and do as we always do here, which is to let the Reliable and Verifiable sources determine the matter. OR from an outside source is not a RS which is verifiable by ALL Knowledge editors,

3223:

I'm not too convinced by the source myself, but will look into it a bit more; The author only appears to have published one article, but I will see what else I can dig up on them. It might be worth you raising this over at

2335:. I am letting you know out of courtesy and to say it is not intended as a criticism of your actions, but as a general uncertainty and discomfort about some uses of OTRS actions. Please do not take it personally. 1731:

Knowledge:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Article_whitewashed.3B_when_reverted.2C_the_whitewashing_happens_again_as_a_supposedly_official_.22OTRS_action.22_that_must_not_be_reverted_.22without_permission.22

1636:

actions have already been causing issues. If you think the issue here is me, feel free to bring this up with ArbCom; However, editing against stuff based on non-public data is rarely appreciated by them.

1086:

There was a problem on right-to-left wikis with Wikidata log entries. The text was messy in watchlists and recent changes. The problem is now fixed. The same problem will be fixed soon for user names.

1893:

for "Andrew Marin" and did not find any apology. I found the original article from 2006, and a reprint from 2010 (along with an unrelated 2014 mention of a photo, picturing Marin, which went viral).

935:

from various sites, hence why it was removed. If you continue inserting copyvios into the article, then you will be blocked, and the article protected again. Additionally, please log in to edit. --

648:

Pls advice were to find guidlines for what you are saying as I dont find any logic in this.Here is a link to another well know label with complete discography but few links to the the releases:

1743: 1798:

afoot, but I don't know how to log in or look at it, so I don't know why you removed this material. Would you explain how to view the ticket, and why these edits were performed? Thank you.

871: 1273:"? From what I could see, most of the content that was hatted was discussion on various allegations against Archive Today (including a bulleted list of the allegations), not incivility. -- 751: 674: 608: 585: 2768: 909:

Can you point out the website from which (according to you) the first paragraph of COMSATS Institute of Information Technology was copied in the last version edited by Master07420?

2927: 496:

I have removed no reliable sources from the article. I removed a number of unsourced pharagraphs and unrealible sources. If you feel that reporting my actions is nessicerry, then

2802: 2238:" for a field in TemplateData. When users add the template to a page, the value will be added automatically. An example is when a clean-up template shows the date it was added. 2078:

for clarification and sources to the contrary. I reviewed the case, found the burden of proof was with the original, and reverted myself. Looks like the system working to me. --

684:. I would argue against a separate article myself, as clearly many of these releases are non-notable - when maybe over 50% are bluelinked, then it may be worth considering. -- 656:

I will of cource,if needed, create a seperate article with the discograpy and make a link from the main article.This discograpy is too valuable to be deleted an unobtainable.

1753:

Hi Mdann52, please don't collapse sections and discussion on arbitration pages. Whilst in good faith doing so generally just causes more trouble than it's worth. That's why

1295:

by the end of that section, it had decended into incivility. If you feel I have hatted in the wrong place, feel free to move it, however I feel my action is appropriate. --

1848:

The story seems to have been fabricated, and an apology later printed by the magazine. Due to this, it was requested it was removed from the article, which I have done. --

2715: 2602:

We fixed some more Internet Explorer bugs. If you use Internet Explorer 10, you will be able to use VisualEditor next week. Support for earlier versions is coming next.

3012: 2840: 2793: 550: 463: 2883: 2340: 485: 328: 977: 920: 2615: 3140: 2663: 2290: 1580: 1190: 269: 2267: 1715:

I merged two "I didn't hear that" follow ups to this one, if you want to assign it to me I'll give it a go. Just didn't want to take it over arbitrarily :)

1381: 1331: 1233: 3160: 2683: 2310: 1600: 1210: 289: 2273:

JavaScript authors: Many old methods will be removed soon. Please check your scripts and gadgets and replace the old methods by the new ones if needed.

1521:

The "Cancel" button of the VisualEditor save window is now called "Resume editing". This shows that you can still edit and you won't lose your changes.

1709: 3058:) has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since 9 October. It will be on non-Knowledge wikis from 14 October, and on all Wikipedias from 16 October ( 3177:

Please don't put categories which affect other user's messages, especially when they haven't done it themselves. Her being blocked is not an excuse.

2854: 2832: 2774: 1362: 932: 879: 863: 819: 800: 769: 403: 381: 2588:) has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since 2 October. It will be on non-Knowledge wikis from 7 October, and on all Wikipedias from 9 October ( 1697: 1495:) is on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since September 18. It will be on non-Knowledge wikis on September 23, and on all Wikipedias on September 25 ( 1153:) is on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since September 11. It will be on non-Knowledge wikis on September 16, and on all Wikipedias on September 18 ( 1009: 993: 3099: 2762: 2454: 2037: 1988: 2570:

tool has a clearer link to the file page. It also has buttons to download, share and embed the file. You can enlarge images by clicking on them.

1979:

Would you comment further on this? Or can you tell me how to see this OTRS ticket, if my comments are duplicating a prior discussion? Thank you.

1832: 226:) is on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since September 4. It will be on non-Knowledge wikis on September 9, and on all Wikipedias on September 11 ( 3304: 3274: 3252: 2378: 2220:) is on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since September 25. It will be on non-Knowledge wikis on September 30, and on all Wikipedias on October 2 ( 1685: 1225:

I am referencing my sources but the article still keeps getting blocked. How can I stop this? Is it worth requesting an article to be written?

528: 363: 2906: 2141: 2102: 2072: 1791: 1679: 1664: 1413: 1319: 959: 743: 666: 600: 577: 413: 412:

that it needs to establish notability. Without these, it will not be accepted. IMDb sources were not the reason why it was rejected; They are

440: 1038: 2558: 1776: 659:

I am under no circumstances interested in getting into any argumentation, I just want to be informed in how to do this the correct way.

2954: 2398: 781: 708: 639: 1872: 1825: 1670:

deletion. I'll get back to you later as I have to leave right now. You're welcome to email me any concerns. I can keep a confidence. --

1472:

Sites were down for users in the Pacific area around 7:00 UTC on September 20. It was due to a problem in the San Francisco data center.

2859:

looks like an improvement. As I have previously reviewed it, I will let someone else review it, but I will make a few cleanup edits. --

2719: 1824:. Only OTRS agents with access to corresponding queue can see the actual ticket (email). I don't have access to that ticket, either. — 1724: 1503: 1339: 931:

I never said the first paragraph was copied specifically. A lot of the content of the changes was unsuitable in tone, and a lot was

2384: 1282: 3148: 2976: 2961: 2671: 2490: 2475: 2298: 2175: 2160: 1588: 1437: 1422: 1245: 1198: 1060: 1045: 277: 194: 179: 2918: 2344: 1748: 3210: 3136: 2659: 2286: 1629: 1576: 1186: 265: 1754: 1541:

In VisualEditor, you can now see that you are switching to the source editing mode. Before, it was not clear it was happening.

1807: 681: 3144: 2711: 2667: 2294: 1584: 1194: 1167:

will no longer work. JavaScript tools and scripts will no longer work in that browser. You should update to a newer browser.

756: 273: 2188: 981: 924: 332: 3186: 2469: 2417: 563:

Re. The TMOQ label and erasing the complete catalogue because (in your opinion).. Knowledge is not a catalogue of releases.

546: 459: 3066: 2624: 2336: 1558: 1241: 481: 393: 324: 2644:

More changes to Media Viewer are coming. It will be easier to disable it, and you will see the caption below the image.

452:

on MC Opi's page said you are very focused on this. Just seems like some sort of agenda as the other contributor said.

1795: 1475:

There were two bad bugs messing up articles in some browsers in VisualEditor. We fixed the bugs and updated the sites.

973: 916: 554: 467: 2975: