User talk:EdGl

if you're going to remove g12 tags you need to request revdel in it's place. Praxidicae (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae: Huh? The CSD template just said I needed to remove the template. The template was added in error; there were no copyvios in the article. Not seeing anything in WP:REVDEL or WP:G12 that backs what you're saying... if I'm mistaken, please direct me to where it says that. ~EdGl talk 18:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for saving Arambai its not copied from anywhere,also I am currently blocked indefinitely due to misunderstanding can you help me out with the ongoing copyright investigation(check user) to speed things up.ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ (ꯆꯥ) 17:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

before listing for deletion articles on Spanish language writers with articles in esWP, please check if there is additional material in esWP. It frequently happens that people translate articles without attempting to translate the references, becuse the limitations of the current version of the Wikipedia software makes necessary a tedious manual conversion of the templates DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Sometimes I forget to check the other wikis; thanks for the reminder, and for your work on the article. Although I've often found "questionably notable" articles on other wikis to be in similar shape (indeed, some are copied from the English Wikipedia), this one in question is an exception. ~EdGl talk 14:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yes, and also the esWP will have articles on people whom w would simply not consider `n on enWP, and their sourcing is sometimeses sloppy or nonexistent. The mere fact of an articcle there shouldn't prevent deletion, but it's an alert to be careful. The only 2 I really rely on for javing similar to en are fr and de, and for topics invovlign the ancient world, it. DGG ( talk ) 17:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 17:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

[[User:EdGl|<font color="green" face="Magneto">'''~EdGl'''</font>]] [[User talk:EdGl|<font color="purple" face="Magneto">'''''talk'''''</font>]] : ~EdGl talk

to

[[User:EdGl|<b style="color:green; font-family:Magneto">~EdGl</b>]] [[User talk:EdGl|<b style="color:purple; font-family:Magneto">''talk''</b>]] : ~EdGl talk

—Anomalocaris (talk) 00:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Anomalocaris: Thanks! Updated and will test it now: ~EdGl talk 02:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for editing your signature. You've doubled up on the bold markup, which is OK, but the markup <b style ...>...</b> specifies bold, and then '''...''' specifies bold inside the other bold markup, so there's no need for it. —Anomalocaris (talk) 02:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tweak made. ~EdGl talk 04:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit on the 6th of January added Category:AfD debates relisted 3 or more times to your user page. Instead of showing the link, as it would with a template such as {{cl}}, it added your user page to the category. This results in it showing up in the administrative backlog. Was this your intention? Thank you for your time. Opal|zukor^(discuss) 14:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake; meant to do [[:Category:AfD debates relisted 3 or more times]]. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. ~EdGl talk 15:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 19 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Alexe Gaudreault, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 2015, Alexe Gaudreault became the first independent artist to top the BDS charts in 15 years? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alexe Gaudreault. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Alexe Gaudreault), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the article of the Crossmen Drum and Bugle Corps was removed, and i feel as this was a very poor decision as it seems like a very notable organization, with this opening the potential can of worms for similar articles to be erased. is there any way for this decision to be reversed? 73.40.33.136 (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@73.40.33.136: The plan is to copy the most relevant information from that article and paste it into List of DCI drum corps, so each DCI organization will have their own section within that article. It will just take some time to do. ~EdGl talk 21:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

i strongly feel as that organization as well as others are notable enough to have their own page. each nfl team has their own page, and i feel as drum corps are large enough for the same. 73.40.33.136 (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm coming to this very late, as I don't frequent the drum corps corner of Wikipedia. However, I revisited recently and -- as someone very familiar with the activity and marching music in general -- I was surprised to see that some very notable corps are missing, while others with much less history, success, and influence on the activity are present. This appears to be the result of some very questionable deletion decisions for the pages of several very notable corps (Crossmen, who have had a HUGE influence on the activity, especially in percussion, are probably the most notable, but there are other surprising omissions), with the decisions being made by people who have little to no expert knowledge of marching music and who offer many reasons that simply don't make sense to someone familiar with the subject. For instance, in many cases they have marked corps as not relevant because they have never won the DCI championship or placed in the top 3. Following this logic would also mean deleting the page of, say, the Los Angeles Clippers of the NBA (they've never even won their conference); it also ignores that 1) at the highest level ("world class" in today's DCI terminology") these are all really all-star units that are extremely selective and draw membership for all over the United States and Canada and sometimes overseas, 2) that DCI shows are more about performing arts than competition (people are not attending DCI Finals and only watching the top 3 shows, each about 10 minutes long, and ignoring the other performances), 3) that getting into Finals actually has been very significant in terms of relevance and influence, because for a very long time this meant a corps appearing in the national telecast (very important pre-YouTube), and 4) well, I could go on, but this isn't the place for it.

The other issue is that many of the criticisms about articles not being adequately sourced are not valid, because articles from several independent publications have been incorrectly dismissed as somehow "not legitimate" because they are focused on marching music. This would disqualify almost all of the Wikipedia articles in the academic fields that I work in -- you could argue that, hey, all computational mathematics articles should be deleted because they all cite computational mathematics journals! I understand the motivation for cleaning up these drum corps articles, because they really are of generally poor quality and full of irrelevant trivia and *do* need cleanup, but the outright deletions have been really arbitrary and haphazard, and are being driven by people who don't actually know enough to be able to put the articles in context of the marching performing arts niche (which gets little outside attention but is actually very large in terms of numbers of participants). Some of the arguments for deletion seem undemocratic and against the spirit of Wikipedia, actually: they appear to be driven by people who don't know anything about marching bands or drum corps and just don't think this corner of the arts deserves coverage and the people interested in it should be marginalized, despite the fact that it is now expected that, for instance, every sports team in every college athletic league (no matter how small) gets a page on Wikipedia -- a clear double standard.

I've gone on too long on your talk page: What I really want to ask, since I've never been involved with an issue like this on Wikipedia and am not sure where this should happen, is is there is an appropriate place for a larger, unified discussion of the criteria that should be used for deciding what corps get pages (and what should go in them) to take place? I've only seen piecemeal discussions about individual pages (all long after they have been deleted), and there isn't any uniformity or consistency in the discussions. I think there needs to be a real discussion, because the justifications that I have seen for the deletions have caused me to lose a lot of faith in Wikipedia: I've always felt that the people who are knowledgeable in a subject and take the time to create content about it should, within reason, be left to make the big decisions about how their corner of Wikipedia is organized. But what I'm seeing is people who have no clue about marching music (it is obvious from their arguments) making big decisions to eradicate drum corps pages that people have put a lot of work into, overruling the people who actually know about the activity, and often using arbitrary standards of relevance that don't make sense, or applying arguments about "scholarship" (e.g., lack of legitimate citations) that, to my eye as a professional scholar and an academic journal editor, don't pass muster and are at odds with the standards used in the scientific and technical portions of Wikipedia where I generally spend my time. Dr.RMills (talk) 07:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr.RMills: Wow, it's been close to a year since I've been involved with this issue! I sympathize with you; Wikipedia is a mess when it comes to policy and procedure. I'd say either try Wikipedia:Requests for comment (don't know for sure if that's the right place) or, better yet, just be bold and make the changes you feel would improve Wikipedia. With this particular case, I haven't had the time to finish merging various articles into the list page, and you are much more knowledgeable than I on the subject. I would love to leave this group of articles in your hands, if you have the time and energy to straighten things out. Best of luck! ~EdGl talk 02:21, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your assumption of good faith; however, the IP has been blocked for a month. Another IP address they used was blocked for three months. I've looked at enough of their contributions to know that they're trolling. A few – a very few – of their edits have been helpful and non-disruptive; perhaps their their little brother made those. Those few edits don't make up for all the time of other editors that they've wasted. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BlackcurrantTea: Gotcha. If they continue editing the article then please escalate to the admins. Maybe a range of IP addresses needs to be blocked. ~EdGl talk 18:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Already escalated, thus the one-month [range] block. (With IPv6, it's generally a range block; the numbers shift too quickly.) GorillaWarfare blocked them yesterday. That expired, the IP went directly back to edit warring, and I consulted an admin. The behaviour was disruptive enough to warrant a longer block. With the other IP range (2A02:C7F:8C03:7900:*), they've been doing this off and on since July. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]