Talk:Sounds Fake But Okay/Archive 1

Archive 1

Notability

Notability has not been established, there are 14 sources only two of which are independent and reliable, the others are primary sources, blogs, interviews and YouTube. Theroadislong (talk) 08:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Theroadislong, what are you going on about now? We have a newspaper, we have a major magazine, we have links to the shows themselves (kinda have to do that), we have a link to a University of Michigan event involving the hosts, we have the Asexual Visibility and Education Network official blog (they are notable), we have a link to their GoFundMe for the WHO/United Nations COVID-19 Solidarity Response Fund, and we have their official YouTube account.

So, again I ask, what the hell are you going on about? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:25 on June 19, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome • #BlackLivesMatter

Articles require in-depth and independent coverage, in reliable sources, there are only two such sources, the rest are primary, blogs or interviews which do nothing whatsoever to support notability. Theroadislong (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Says who? You? Cause that's not how it works. 14 sources overall, 3 in off-site coverage is damned good. By the way, you are talking to someone with 5 good articles and 2 featured articles under his belt. So, I know what I speak. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:33 on June 19, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome • #BlackLivesMatter

Ok you clearly know best and have no idea how to work collegiately, good luck if it ever goes to WP:AFD. Theroadislong (talk) 16:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't?! Dude, you have been harrassing this woman across every part of Wikipedia. If I didn't know better (and I don't), I'd say you have it out for her. Yeah, I'll take my chances at AfD. I'll put the article right back up. Same sources, same everything...and you won't have crap to complain about. You clearly have a problem with Kayla and you need to chill. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:43 on June 19, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome • #BlackLivesMatter

I am an WP:AFC reviewer of many years standing, I have no desire to incur any further wrath from you, so will leave you to it. Theroadislong (talk) 16:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Lookee there, so am I. I can do autoreviews too. I have 14 years on Wikipedia with good standing. So, if you do wish not to incur any further "wrath", leave my friend and this page alone from your nonsense and we will be just fine. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:52 on June 19, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome • #BlackLivesMatter

Observation. WP:N states "We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic.". It's 'notable' (to coin a phrase) that this article is not a stub - there's enough 'significant coverage' in the sources to be able to pull out a reasonable-length article.

It also says "We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with WP:NOR requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources.". This exists.

Additionally: "Self-promotion, autobiography, product placement and most paid material are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article.". If I were to create a create a page about my own podcast, it would quite rightly be sent to WP:AFD quicker than the cookie monster at the International Biscuit Festival - an article which, incidentally, has fewer references, citations, and far less text than this one. This article, however, is independently sourced and ascribed.

One also has to remember the subject matter. As of the time of typing, there are more people in the average sports team than are listed as 'notable asesxuals' in the relevant categories on Wikipedia. This is a niche market. Therefore the entire concept is something that's not regularly seen in literature or media. It's a bit like saying that the Sawbones Podcast can't be notable because no-one talks about rare and unusual diseases. If one of the only resources talking about asexuality isn't 'notable', then that's implying asexuality itself isn't notable. And you *really* don't want to go down *that* road. Vrillon (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Vrillon: Couldn't have said it any better myself. But now I want to go to the International Biscuit Festival. Which isn't far from Shelbyville, Tennessee and it's RC and Moonpie Festival. Damn you, Vrillon! :D - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:01 on June 19, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome • #BlackLivesMatter

Neutralhomer - ty. And ha, I've never heard of Moonpie till now. Looked at the page - is it wrong of me to imagine it deep-fried?! :D Vrillon (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Vrillon: Oh, my friend, you don't know what you are missing. Actually, they deep-fry alot of things around here (aka: the south). Deep-fried pickles, deep-fried Oreos (amazing), deep-fried potato chips (very odd tasty, but good), deep-fried apples (that was a new one), and yes, deep-fried moonpies. If the person is good at what they do, you can get deep-fried ice cream. Insanely good. :D - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:30 on June 19, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome • #BlackLivesMatter

"Connected contributor"

Kayla kas only edited this page before it was moved from DRAFT by me. She has not edited the page since that time. Declaring her a "connected contributor" is false and incorrect in the chain of events.

Article creation by her in DRAFT, review by me IN DRAFT, some minor tinkering IN DRAFT, then move to mainspace BY ME. Her only two edits were to create the article. Since then 4 named editors and 2 IP editors have edited the article besides myself and Theroadislong.

Kayla edited the DRAFT, not the mainspace article itself. Per the history of the article, one can see that very clearly. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:43 on June 19, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome • #BlackLivesMatter

Possibly you are mistaking {{connected contributor}} for a cleanup template, like {{COI}}, which tells Wikipedians there is a problem that needs to be addressed, after which the template may be removed.

That is not the function of connected contributor. The template discloses a real world relationship, namely that an editor has a conflict of interest with regard to a topic. It links to any declaration the editor has made that they understand the relevant policies and guidelines and aim to abide by them. And it records the last time that a neutral editor checked the edits of all known connected contributors for neutrality. Having a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgement about that person's good faith or ability as an editor.

The author's relationship to the topic does not change depending on the namespace in which they have edited the page. Indeed, the connection exists whether or not they have edited the page, hence the template's "edited here" parameter. The argument that the template should be removed because the author has so far edited the page only while it was in draft space is inventive, but nonsense. In whatever space they edited, they still chose all of the sources and wrote 98% of the text. Nor is your involvement a reason for removing the template. That is only a reason to set its "checked" parameter.

Fully disclosing a conflict of interest is ethically, morally, and in some circumstances legally necessary. Wikipedia aims to be transparent about the connection so that readers can evaluate the impartiality of articles. The connected contributor has revealed their employer and has not objected to the template. If they don't think it belongs here, let us hear their reasons. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Worldbruce: I already said those reasons above, so I won't repeat them again.

Now, if necessary, I will nom the article for deletion, bring it back under my name, and the problem will be solved. But at the moment we are arguing over something that took place IN DRAFT NOT IN MAINSPACE and the neutrality of the article is NOT being addressed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:38 on June 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome • #BlackLivesMatter

I don't know what about the "neutrality of the article" you expect to be addressed in this thread. That would be a different discussion. You've said in edit summaries "it was written in a neutral form" and "the article is neutral". So far I've been willing to take your word for it. I'm not arguing about neutrality, or about any event in any namespace. {{Connected contributor}} describes a circumstance in real life, not an edit.

Your nomination's rationale for deletion should make entertaining reading. No one would support your reason if you explained it as above, but participants always might decide that there's a legitimate reason for deletion, one that could make it difficult for anyone to recreate the article. If by "bring it back", you mean copy it, then you would need to attribute the text to Kayla Kas to avoid plagiarism and a copyright violation. If you mean you would re-write it from scratch, knock yourself out. Clearly you are willing to go to ridiculous lengths to circumvent policies and guidelines and conceal the origins of the article.--Worldbruce (talk) 15:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Worldbruce: "...avoid plagiarism and a copyright violation." That would be if it was written somewhere (ie: a book, another website), this is Wikipedia. We don't CopyVio Wikipedia on Wikipedia...come on!

But, I can't get you (or anyone else) to understand that her "contributions" took place within DRAFT and not within MAINSPACE. DRAFT is basically a sandbox for articles. It's even in the edit summaries: "Neutralhomer moved page Draft:Sounds Fake But Okay to Sounds Fake But Okay: reviewed by User:Neutralhomer."

My point with the neutrality with the article is, if she can write the article in a neutral way, taking herself out of it, then she is not connected. One of the synonyms for "neutral" is "unconnected".

As I described here, one can be connected to something (ie: an employer) and edit the article for that place at the same time. All you have to do is devoid yourself of any emotional connection to that employer and write in a neutral way. It's really very easy and not this horrible thing you all make it out to be. It's a writing style, not someone getting paid. You all are stuck on one thing (ie: broken record syndrome), there is more out there. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:19 on June 22, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome • #BlackLivesMatter

@Neutralhomer: Wrong again. Kayla Kas holds the copyright to what she wrote on Wikipedia. She grants you a license to reuse it, but a condition of that license is that you must attribute her work to her. If as part of your proposed "delete and recreate to hide the real author" scheme you were to copy without attribution, it would be a violation of her copyright. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

Everyone understands that her contributions took place in draft space. The reason no one is paying any attention to your argument is that for the purposes of the {{connected contributor}} template, it doesn't matter what namespace her contributions took place in. She has been involved with the page. You haven't cited any policy or guideline to support your position.

You write, if she can write the article in a neutral way ... then she is not connected. One of the synonyms for "neutral" is "unconnected". That simply isn't true. Neutral and unconnected are not synonymous at all. See again WP:COI, and specifically WP:DISCLOSE.

We aren't making progress here, so I've asked at WP:THIRD for dispute resolution. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

No shit we aren't making progress here. I make a logical arguement and I have to revert things to get your attention (after pinging you two days ago and you have edited plenty since) and all I get is basically "wrong again" and "simply isn't true" and some malarkey about copyrights, which I've never heard. Per your logic, I hold the copyrights to all the radio station articles I've ever created.

Oh and you tell Merriam-Webster, Dictionary.com, and Thesaurus.com that "neutral" and "unconnected" aren't synonymous. Let me know how that conversation goes. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:31 on June 24, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome • #BlackLivesMatter

3O Response: The connected contributor template documents where an editor having an external connection (i.e. connection other than "editing the article on Wikipedia") has made substantial contributions to the article. It is not a comment on the state of the article, but a part of the COI disclosures required as part of our COI guidelines. According to those guidelines, the template may be added by another editor. In my opinion, the template is applicable to this article, as much of the content has been written by a connected contributor and checked for neutrality. I think the template should not be removed without consensus, either here on the talk page, at WP:DRN, the subject specific noticeboard (WP:COIN) or an RfC. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Alpha3031: So, we are going to completely ignore that Kayla only "edited the article" within the confines of DRAFT and has not since edited the article after it's move to MAINSPACE? That the article is written in a neutral form (a writing style anyone can do), that others have updated the article since (and others still can)? That an editor (Hi) with 14 years experience here on Wikipedia (and 5 GAs and 2FAs) approved it for MAINSPACE inclusion?

We are going to ignore all that, ignore Kayla's own words, and ignore the template itself which shows "conflict of interest" and "neutral point of view"? We aren't discussing the article itself, just the editor. Let's discuss the article, the text. Theroadislong said there is COI, tagged every article she was ever apart of. Said there wasn't NPOV, tagged that too. Worldbruce has got damn near close to 3RR putting the template back on this very page for that.

Let's discuss the text of the article. As written now, with 14 sources, with second-person, neutral writing, it would stand up to an AfD easily. Kayla spoke of herself not in the first person (by first name), but in the second, by last name or "she". Kayla isn't the subject though. Her co-host is as well, but she isn't the subject either. The podcast itself is. Yes, we are included. That's from May, but still. I expect a Part 3 after this.

You all are focused on the editor. You are focused on a template. But no one has read what the template says. COI and NPOV. That has to do with the text of the article and BURDEN is on YOU, the person putting the template on the page to prove it should be there, not I. If you think it's COI, prove it. If you think it's NPOV, prove it. Take it to one of those boards. Otherwise, you are deliberately and prematurely and unilaterally declaring this article is something it is not before a proper discussion of the content of the text of the article can begin. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:38 on June 25, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome • #BlackLivesMatter

@Neutralhomer: Look, it's a nice article, and I don't see any content issues with it, but the "connected contributor" is about the editor(s) that have contributed to the writing of the article. It doesn't matter if she emailed you the complete article released under CC-0 so you don't even have to attribute her. She created most of the content of the article, and she is connected to the subject of the article. I disagree with adding the {{COI}} and {{Notability}} tags to the article, but {{Connected contributor}} doesn't say anything about content, that's why it has a shiny parameter that goes "hmm, content looks good!" and those article maintenence tags haven't been added for almost a week now, so I don't see a problem unless you feel there's a conduct problem (which should be brought to AN or ANI as you've suggest yourself). {{Connected contributor}} is not about content issues. Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

​Fix ping. Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Alpha3031: OK, for the moment, I am focused on the article because of those COI and NPOV additions to the template. Those remain there right now. Now I can't remove those without getting insta-reverted. That's why I want to have a discussion about the content of the article itself. Two people agreeing those shouldn't be there does not a consensus make. This is Wikipedia, ya gotta have consensus for everything and BOLD only works for people the community likes. :)

Sarcastic joking comment: If she did email the text of the article to me, why would she have to release it under anything and why would I even attribute it to her if we are being sneaky like that? Wouldn't I just continue being sneaky and post it under my own username as my own work? <_<! O_O! No one would be the wiser! >_>! /sarcasm and joking. ('s true though.) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:51 on June 26, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome • #BlackLivesMatter

@Neutralhomer: I may have confused myself a little. {{Connected contributor}} is template protected so yeah, if you think the wording of "these PAG may be relevant" is too bitey then you'd probably need a positive consensus and an actual proposed new wording. If you want to remove the template... The way I see it, even if I agreed with you that the template should be removed, that'll be a 2–2, no specific PAG cited that jump out to me from either side, so no consensus either way, and the discussion is clearly deadlocked in a way a single extra voice won't resolve. Better to poke COIN with things even if someone else jumps in in favour of removal. Re: sarcastic joking comment, it's true that people usually only care about things being done if they know that things have been done, and the whole copyright thing would be a mere technicality. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Alpha3031: At this point, I think the "connected contributor" template itself isn't going anywhere. My problem is this line within the template Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest and neutral point of view. That's where I have an issue. Specifically with the mention of COI and NPOV without discussion of the content of the article itself. Now, I could be BOLD and remove that portion of the template (don't know how), but again, I would be insta-reverted, per usual. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:29 on June 26, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome • #BlackLivesMatter

@Neutralhomer: The template is template protected, so nobody can change it unless they're a template editor or sysop. Basically, I'd poke COIN with a proposed new wording. (since that's likely easier than trying to get a consensus on Template talk:Connected contributor, RfC or no) It's possible just do a edit request, but it's more likely to be accepted if you have consensus or a really solid new wording. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Alpha3031: I tagged you as well, so there goes nothin'. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:59 on June 26, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome • #BlackLivesMatter