User talk:Abtmcm

Welcome!

Hello, Abtmcm, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Gramsci melodic, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted (if it hasn't already).

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 00:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I tagged a bunch of your articles for deletion and rather than just leaving all the canned messages here, I wanted to make sure you understood the process. WP:BAND explains what criteria are necessary for a band to warrant a Wikipedia article. Gramsci melodic doesn't appear to meet the criteria. I had initially tagged all of the band members too, but we should wait until a decision is made on the notability of the band. I removed the tags on the band member articles. If the band article is kept, it is very likely that the band member articles will be redirected to the band. This is because the band members don't seem to be notable on their own outside the band per WP:N. Let's see how the discussion goes. Ask any questions if you have them. Make sure to make your argument at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gramsci_melodic. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 01:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD process is pretty straightforward. If an article gets nominated for deletion through the AfD process, it is discussed by whoever happens to wander by the discussion. If you look at WP:AfD, you'll see that there are many articles undergoing discussion at any one time. Editors discuss why an article may or may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. What comes of the discussion is a consensus on what to do. The usual outcomes are either delete, keep, redirect (to another article) or merge (with another article). Everyone has an equal weight in their argument so just because I nominate an article doesn't mean I have any greater say than you do. We both can argue our interpretation of policy. The discussion is not a vote, but it often resembles one. Discussions go on for at least five days unless it is extremely one sided. Once the decision is made, generally by an administrator, the discussion is closed and the articles is deleted, kept, etc. When an article survives AfD, it is tagged on the talk page as having done so. This usually prevents the article from being nominated again, because consensus has been reached that the article should not be deleted. Once in a while an article will get nominated again, but overall this is rare. I think that sums it up. Let me know if you have more questions. Ask your general questions here and I will see them. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 13:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mufka. Thanks for the quick response. Again, I would disagree with the assertion that "local" coverage leads to a lack of notability. Being that both sources are available on-line and in-print, the potential audience is unlimited (if distribution is the point of contention). Most newspapers are, in essence, local newspapers. Does a "regional" magazine one would receive with his/her junk mail carry more validity (i.e. "notability") than a "local" city newspaper (in a city of 250,000) simply because of their geographic bases? It appears that the criteria in WP:Band were left vague in order to allow an open forum where topics could be accessed and discussed regardless of their international appeal, so long as the information provided was cited, accurate, and independent. I will include more information at the AfD page pertaining to my argument. I mean no disrespect, and the nature of my argument has less to do with the band's inclusion than it does with maintaining underlying ideas that give life to forums like Wikipedia. Is there open access? Is there truly a public "consensus" when that "consensus" was built by a relatively small group of people who have the time, computer knowledge, and "Wiki-savvy" to debate the validity of various articles on discussion pages such as these? Is something only relevant when 500,000 people are aware of it? Should that number be 50,000 or 1,000,000? It seems to me that as long as the information provided is free of hyperbole and can be cited by independent sources it should merit inclusion (even if the article only consists of a person, group, or concept whose name recognition is confined to a relatively small corner of the world).Abtmcm (talk) 14:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The city newspaper is a reliable source. But WP:BAND is specific in saying that press releases and similar publications cannot be used to establish notability. Consensus can only be built by those interested in participating. Consensus is as public as possible. You might be interested in reading how consensus can change. It is not set in stone. If you want to argue the policy set forth at WP:BAND, the proper place to do that is at WT:BAND. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 15:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I mean no disrespect toward you or your opinion on the matter. As for the article, it was not a Press Release -- instead it was included in the "features" section of the paper and included information obtained through interview. Also, that specific source was approved by an experienced editor on 2-13-09 ("03:20, 13 February 2009 Jclemens (Talk | contribs) (878 bytes) (Decline A7, actually has coverage. wow.") who was evaluating the article to determine further action. I am going to add a few print (hard copy sources) today. These print sources include another article from the City Paper (albeit a short article). Thank you for explaining the process to me as well. I think I will take the time to chip in on the argument for revising WT:BAND. It seems like it has much different notability requirements than you would find for, say, a (semi-)professional athlete. Talk soon. Abtmcm (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take no offense at your arguments. We both have the same right to argue on the merits of notability and I can certainly be wrong. We'll see what others feel. I don't want to keep throwing wiki facts at you, but it might help you in future issues. When someone declines a speedy deletion (the A7 above) it means that the notability of the subject has been asserted and therefore the article cannot be deleted without detailed debate. This usually comes from only a cursory analysis by the denying editor. Basically, if you write a new article and say "So and so was the leading authority on this and that and this was recognized by the such and such international authority" notability is asserted and therefore the article doesn't qualify for WP:CSD. Let me know if I'm offering too much help and I'll shut up. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 15:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the tips Mufka. I have added an additional scanned in source - I erased all of the surrounding images and ads in order to protect privacy and usage of outside photos. I am hoping that this will help satisfy some of the concerns you have expressed. Abtmcm (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Abtmcm[reply]

Also, the article confirms that they won the Joker Rock Off. Let me know.Abtmcm (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Abtmcm[reply]

Just so you understand where I am coming from, this debate (for me) is about questioning why people like us (those who have the disposable time, resources, and inclination) get to impose our definitions of vague terms onto the majority who use this site as a reference community. This is not Britannica, and I am happy for that. The old-Wikipedia was much more in-tune with this difference and, while it had problems (vandals, spammers, etc.) it was more aligned with group think. Again, I mean no disrespect, especially since I am a new editor myself. I only want to point out the difference. The article has verifiable, third-party resources. It is difficult not to take this scrutiny personally, especially when I consider how this scrutiny is unevenly applied throughout Wikipedia. In any case... Abtmcm (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Abtmcm[reply]

You shouldn't take the scrutiny personally. This happens all the time with bands. Usually they just get deleted without discussion. At this point, I think we should just see what others think of the arguments that we have made. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 18:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if nothing else, we certainly have created one of the more in-depth discussions on the AfD page! haha Abtmcm (talk) 22:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Since you're a member of WikiProject Pittsburgh, I wanted to invite you to the Wikipedia Tenth Anniversary celebrations we're having in Pittsburgh on Saturday, January 15. During the daytime, we're going to be having a photo contribution drive where anyone can bring in their digital photos or prints and Wikipedians will teach people how to upload them and add them to articles, and maybe introduction to Wikipedia workshops as well. Then in the evening, we'll have fun at the Carson City Saloon. There will be free Wikipedia t-shirts and other goodies, as well. See the Pittsburgh meetup page for more details. I hope to see you there!--ragesoss (talk) 15:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Abtmcm! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 22:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Pittsburgh is rolling out some new features (see our discussions at WT:PITTSBURGH). We are also trying to determine how many members are active, and interested in contributing to Pittsburgh content or coming to our real life meetups to discuss Wikipedia in general. If you could go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pittsburgh/Members and move your name from inactive to the active or semi-active group (depending on your interest in Pittsburgh issue and overall activity) groups, this would be great. Hopefully in a near future you'll also receive our first newsletter with various information on what we have been doing, and what useful tools are available. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!