User talk:BostonMA/Rosencomet

This is an archive page. Please do not edit this page without permission. If you would like to comment, please do so at User talk:BostonMA. Thank-you.

Thank you!

You are a wonderful person. No one bothered to actually check the edits. Thank you so much! Timmy12 00:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not spam links

The Starwood Festival is the most notable pagan event in the US. Any neo-pagan being a speaker or a performer at that festival is a significant event in their career and it deserves mention. Mattisse and her socks went around adding fact tags to every mention, which is why there are citations. Those are NOT commercial pages, but archives of past events. Are you anti-pagan? —Hanuman Das 01:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Rolling Stones are a very notable rock group. However, if someone started putting links to an advert for a Rollings Stones concert in Wikipedia articles, I would delete those as well. The degree of notability of the artist or the event has nothing to do with the matter. Further, the pagan-ness or otherwise also has nothing to do with the matter. --BostonMA ^talk 01:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hanuman Das, I question your assertion that "The Starwood Festival is the most notable pagan event in the US." It's a big one, but I'd point out that (a) it's not specifically Pagan, and (b) there are other similar events that are equally significant, including Rites of Spring, PSG, and Heartland.

OTOH, BostonMA, Hanuman Das has a point. If {{fact}} tags get applied all over the place, what else does one do but provide citations? If the only citations available are links that may appear commercial, one is between the rock and the proverbial hard place.

BTW, your handle conjures images of the area around Faneuil Hall and Quincy Market for this expatriate now living in the Midwest. Why, I don't know, but it does make me a bit homesick.

Septegram 13:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quoth BostonMA:

If a fact is notable, then there should exist references to it in independent literature, such as newspapers, magazines, etc, and fact tags should be replaced by citations to such sources per WP:V.

"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

OK, may I give you an analogy where I think one's own website could be a reasonable source?

I'm a Wiccan in the Blue Star Tradition. It's a moderately-large Trad, as these things go, with over a hundred verified members at last count (and in the Neo-Pagan community, that's pretty good, as is our longevity, given that the Trad was founded in the early 1970s). However, an article about one of our members, who might be notable for other reasons, might make reference to something about her that was only verifiable on the Tradition's web page. Should I, as creator/editor of the article not put the link up in response to a {{fact}}? Remember, we're talking about some moderately big fish in a fairly small pond here.

Please take this as a civil inquiry; I'm not trying to be combative here.

Septegram 16:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I take your comment as a civil inquiry. Please read WP:V.

"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."

There is an exception:

"Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."

However the exception still requires previous publication by a third party publisher. I hope this helps to explain the policy. --BostonMA ^talk 16:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But this isn't Rosencomet's "personal website (or) blog;" it's the site for the Association for Consciousness Exploration. Nor is this being cited as an expert opinion, but merely as a matter of historical record. If I mention in the article on Sonia King that she came to an event sponsored by the Minnesota Mosaic Guild, and the only reference is to the Guild's website because no news source bothered to show up, does that make it an invalid reference?

If someone sprinkles {{fact}} tags on an article and the link verifies the event, I can't see how that's a problem. It's not like Rosencomet is going to unrelated pages and linkspamming them; the links are being emplaced because someone kept questioning the veracity of the statements in the article.

Person A creates article which mentions a certain artist's appearance at an event
Person B applies a {{fact}} tag to the statement
Person A supplies a link to the program of the event

I fail to see the problem. This looks like a case where the rules are being applied in such a way as to go against the goal of creating a complete and accurate encyclopedia. Is there some suspicion that the artist(s) in question did not perform as stated?

If there's a concern about conflict of interest, what about if someone else put up the link? I'm entirely unaffiliated with Rosencomet and ACE, so there's no conflict of interest there.

Septegram 16:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC) (making mental note to create article on Sonia King)[reply]

Hi Septegram. You ask:

"Is there some suspicion that the artist(s) in question did not perform as stated?"

Citations are needed for two reasons. One is to demonstrate a fact. The other is to demonstrate that the fact has been published by a reputable publisher. I don't think there is any doubt that the assertions that artist X performed at venue Y are true. However, truth is not a sufficient reason for inclusion within Wikipedia, or at least that is the policy.

I am not familiar with Sonia King or the Minnesota Mosaic Guild. However, if no-one has bothered to report that Sonia King attended a particular event, exactly why is it something notable deserving mention in Wikipedia? --BostonMA ^talk 00:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So perhaps the {{cite}} tags should simply have been removed if there wasn't a sufficiently "reputable" source?

I think if the appearance is part of the artist's career history, then it's reasonable to include it. If it then gets a {{cite}} tag, the only options are (a) to ignore/remove the tag, or (b) provide whatever citation is available. Given the choice, I'd go with (b). Your mileage may vary.

In my Sonia King example, if the MMG event was part of an explanation of the extent of her professional travel, or of her willingness to appear before small organizations, then it would be relevant to her bio. Again, if there's a {{cite}} tag, then one can either remove it or provide what citations are available. In this case, it's not as though there's any question of the veracity of the statement; perhaps the {{cite}} tag should simply have been removed?

Septegram 05:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Unindenting) You ask:

"So perhaps the {{cite}} tags should simply have been removed if there wasn't a sufficiently "reputable" source?"

My answer is no, if there is no reputable source, the cite tags should remain.

"I think if the appearance is part of the artist's career history, then it's reasonable to include it."

My answer is sometimes, but certainly not every appearance that is part of an artist's career history is worthy of mention, let alone a link. Do you disagree?

"if the MMG event was part of an explanation of the extent of her professional travel, or of her willingness to appear before small organizations,"

If an artist's willingness to perform before small organizations is notable, then it belongs. However, Wikipedia has a policy of No Original Research. That an editor might think it is notable that an artist performed before a small organization, does not mean that a reputable publisher has found it fit to state that fact. What you proposes appears to me to be including original research. --BostonMA ^talk 17:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the unindent. I was about to do that myself.

My initial reflex was to become combative after your last comments. I got a hold of myself, and I'm going to AGF here and say that we're going to just have to disagree. I'll respond to your query, but I'm not going to try to persuade you further; that's clearly not going to happen with any argument I can muster. I believe I've made cogent, reasonable arguments, but you clearly don't find them so. Conveniently, this is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, so I'll leave that to those who are interested in doing so. I'm not going to mess into this any further with you if I can avoid it.

I am aware, by the way, of Wikipedia's policy of NOR, but I don't think that applies to my example or to the question at hand.

To answer your question, no, I do not disagree; not every performance of an artist's career is necessarily notable. In that case, however, the reference to these events in the artists' careers should be removed as non-notable, not hit with {{cite}} tags. That's a different issue, and perhaps worth pursuing if you so desire.

Thanks for an interesting discussion.

Regards,

Septegram 19:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Badal Roy

Hi, if you believe the Badal Roy article to read like an advertisement, why not simply spell out, in a constructive manner, exactly which sections you object to on that article's "discussion" page? Badagnani 01:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the section that I think is an advertisment link was what I deleted. --BostonMA ^talk 01:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't my question. You added a tag at the moment you deleted those links. That doesn't make sense, and must therefore have been a mistake? Badagnani 01:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I reverted an edit which introduced link spam. --BostonMA ^talk 16:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You really ought to take responsibility for your edits, and edit more carefully. The article now has a tag that you introduced (however you did so), which does not belong. Please correct this situation, will you? Otherwise you're just as bad as the editors about which you complain. Badagnani 22:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you ask me to "please correct this situation,...otherwise [I'm] just as bad as the editors about which [I] complain." Please understand that the tag of which you complain was present prior to the edit which I reverted. I have not studied your article, and I do not know if the tag of which you complain is appropriate or not. It is quite possible that the editor who added the link to the promotional website also made some valid and positive contributions to the article. It also happens that sometimes vandals make valid contributions to an article in an edit which also inserts the word "penis" into that article. Although it would be nice if I were an expert on all the articles which I might revert, I am not. So, it is often the case that I don't spend a great deal of time trying to determine whether some of a problematic edit deserves to be kept. I assume that the individuals who are more familiar with the issues surrounding a given article will address those questions.

So, despite your request that I "correct" the situation, I will not make the change that you suggest, unless and until I have investigated the context. Is there a reason why I in particular ought to investigate further? I don't see how my removal of a link to a promotional website makes me resonsible for undertaking such an investigation. Please remember that I am a volunteer. --BostonMA ^talk 22:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a personal attack

A fact: Mattisse has been confirmed to have used [18 sockpuppets, is probably running Timmy12 and several others. We will see, I see there is an open checkuser request. —Hanuman Das 01:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And while your tagging people for personal attacks, check out User:Calton's latest updates to my talk page. —Hanuman Das 01:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reread the discussion several times. It seems to me that your first comment could be interpreted as playing the "anti-pagan" card. To be quite honest, that is how I interpret your remark. Although Calton's comments were not civil, I have deep reservations about whether you should be complaining about how others have treated you. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 02:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wierdo link spam on Rosencomet pages

Just sent this to Timmy12 after looking at those spam links he is finding, http://www dot freefind dot com/. It seems to be a service Rosencomet's ISP is offering and he must have signed up for it. Looking around the Rosencomet site is interesting -- he is selling everything. You get the idea of an energetic businessman behind the whole thing. Plus you can email him at the site (if you should ever feel the need). Mattisse (talk) 00:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rosencomet links

Hi BostonMA, I think the bigger issue is whether these articles need mention of the artist having performed at an ACE-festival -- Samir धर्म 03:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I've tried to raise this on the Starwood Festival page, but no one responded. Perhaphs better is to ask the broader question as to when its appropriate to list the the places a particular has performed. This really comes down to is it a notable fact. Say playing at Woodstock Festival is probably notable, as might be headlining at Glastonbury Festival. However, for other performers, with a string of other gigs, then playing on one of the smaller stages at Glasonbury probably would not be notable. This really boils down to is the gig a high spot in the performers carear. There might also be a case for listing if the artist has very close ties with the event, with far more regular appearances at one festival than others, hopefully with some third party source to make the link. Policy-wise we can think of undue weight - is it undue weight to list just one gig out of many, and I'd probably say yes. The third reason for listing is if it helps explain the artist and their work. For example I've included that Kneehigh Theatre have performed at a outdoor castle as it gives a flavor to their work. --Salix alba (talk) 22:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spam again

Sigh. It's late where I am, and I really should be off to bed instead of fighting off what looks like a drawer full of socks (or sock-like entities). So in the morning, I'm going to leave a notice at WP:AN/I and see if I can't attract some larger admin interest in this mess, If you want to do so first, go ahead with my support. --Calton | Talk 16:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Communicating with other users

Please do so on their talk page, not mine. Thanks. —Hanuman Das 23:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't agree

I don't agree with you. —Hanuman Das 23:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't agree, why don't you lay out your case. --BostonMA ^talk 23:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This may help

[1] from me to Netsnipe long ago.

Rosencomet has a long justification for why he is not who he is. [2] and I wrote this to Netsnipe: I have found a nest of interconnecting articles - the kind of thing you are good at

Don't know how I happened to find this because I haven't figured out how to get the green-at-the-top links showing changes. ~~ Mattisse (talk) 23:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starwood festival

Hi, I know you have a lot on but theres now a mediation cable case at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-03 Starwood Festival, you may wish to participate. --Salix alba (talk) 09:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]