User talk:Audiori

Question born of curiosity

Audiori: Do you happen to be associated with the forums at the Daniel Amos site? (Maybe Lost Dogs or 77s, I do not remember accurately.) Just wanted to greet you. After reading your user page I can identify with some of your frustration. I am a relatively new "editor" and have only authored 2 articles, but have done a bunch of edits of articles that are of interest to me. Most recently did some work on Aaron Smith's article which has a ways to go. I realize this may be inappropriate use of this talk page, but, frankly, I don't agree with that assessment. Anyway, hope you're doing well.THX1136 (talk) 01:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is me. More specifically, I have worked for Terry Taylor for more than 20 years.

And yes, Wikipedia and the "self-proclaimed owners" of specific pages can be very frustrating. When I first started creating articles for Wikipedia, me and a couple of other folks were creating a bunch of music related pages. I would also frequently look at Wikipedia's "most needed" pages and create new articles. At that time, one of the main creators of Wikipedia defended many of the articles I had worked on stating that "Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia." The purpose was to create articles that you would not normally see anywhere else. Some notability was needed of course - a musician that made music in their bedroom and was never heard by anyone outside of their own family was not considered notable enough to warrant an article. But, if an artist or band actually sold music to more than a few dozen people, they could have an article. Especially if they were known all over the world - as was the case of most of the articles that I created.

Well, somewhere along the way, that viewpoint has changed on Wikipedia - at least, thanks to certain editors. It used to be that you only needed citations for content that was potentially controversial. Not any more - you sometimes have difficulty even saying that someone was born unless you can "prove" that they were born. It doesn't matter that they may appear on television, or albums or in newspapers. It is of course enforced very inconsistently... some articles contain no citations whatsoever, while others need a citation for every single sentence otherwise some random editor will just delete the article out from under you. Why? Seemingly just because they can. The owners used to say that no article could be deleted until the people questioning the content at least attempting to help improve the article.... not anymore. Now if someone objects, they will just delete the article. Audiori (talk) 16:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I recently had a situation where I had added cites in response to some citations needed notes in an article. I used the cite form and had just clicked on the "date accessed" entry which fills in automatically. Another editor came in and arbitrarily changed the formatting of the dates for all the cites I put in which was puzzling since I had used the autofill that Wikipedia designed into the cite form. I thought maybe I missed something and asked about it as I wanted to learn more about the issue. The editor provided a link to one of Wiki's help pages for "explanation". The help/policy page, by my reading, confirmed that the date format change was indeed arbitrary. I pretty much decided to let it go as the editor has been around longer than I and I'd rather not get into it with another editor, especially over this kind of issue. Some things I get the "why" of and some I don't. Some I agree with and some I don't. Kinda similar to your frustration, especially in the area of inconsistent application of policy/rules. I hope it doesn't put you off completely. Hope all is well for you otherwise. Thanks!THX1136 (talk) 00:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ben Pearson (photographer)

The article Ben Pearson (photographer) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non-notable photographer. First reference is outstanding. Second is a passing mention so fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:ZeroZeroZero.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:ZeroZeroZero.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:PreachersfromOuterSpace.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:PreachersfromOuterSpace.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 20:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Imaginarium: Songs from the Neverhood

The article Imaginarium: Songs from the Neverhood has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NALBUM

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:ImaginariumSongsfromtheNeverhood.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:ImaginariumSongsfromtheNeverhood.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Eighty Eight

The article Eighty Eight has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Tooncool64 (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Eighty Eight (the 77s album - cover art).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Eighty Eight (the 77s album - cover art).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ~ GB fan 14:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Neverland Studios

The article Neverland Studios has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced since 2009, unable to find much via Google

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]