To access previous iterations of my talk page, click here User:Dobbyelf62/Talk Archive 1, 2

Thanks. I work under the general understanding, the custom it seems, that if you create an article you can't—and shouldn't—really rate it any higher than start-class. Daniel Case (talk) 22:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the Content assessment page, and the rules do not prohibit editors of the articles from assessing unless the rating is GA status or higher. If a dispute arises over an assessment, then the details can be hashed out in the talk page, but this has yet to happen to me. I generally base my ratings on other articles with comparable content and quality, and from my assessment, "We Work the Black Seam" was more comparable to C class and even B class, but I instead opted for the more conservative option. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, I still feel editors who contribute most of the content to an article should leave the assessment beyond start-class to others. It just looks better. Daniel Case (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone popped by my DYK nom for the article and suggested that, for the ALT3 hook which mentions the miner's strike, if it were as I suggested to run on March 6, the 40th anniversary of the miner's strike beginning, which as I said will probably generate some coverage in the British media and thus increase interest in the hook, it might be better to take it out of the DYK queue and nominate it for GA since that way it would be fresher by then.

I admit I'm thinking about this more and more since no one's reviewed the nom in the almost-month since I made it. As I indicated, back in December it mattered less since I had plenty of hooks, but now, with that date just over two months away ... it might have just enough time to work.

Do you think there's time to nominate it, get it reviewed and promoted, and then through DYK? I don't know what the turnover is with song GA noms ... it seems that noms about, say, Taylor Swift or Meghan Trainor songs are getting reviewed quickly, but I don't know about 40-year-old Sting songs. And I'd like it to be reviewed by someone with the freshest eyes possible, i.e., who hasn't worked on it even a little. Daniel Case (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice to hear from you again! I was on a wikibreak over the past week, so I'm just getting to this message now. My experiences with GA nominations are largely confined to a failed attempt of an article I significantly contributed back to 2019, and the article was quickly reviewed (and rejected) back then. Seeing that the article is in stable condition right now (it has not experienced significant revisions since mid December), it's certainly worthwhile to submit it for GA review now. If the article falls short, then there will be opportunities to take that feedback and make additional improvements. I agree that the article should be reviewed with a set of fresh eyes.

As for the DYK queue, I have yet to make any submissions, but it appears that March 6th is the best chance for the ALT3 hook to be featured given the timeliness of the miner's strike. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jarble (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, welcome, welcome Dobbyelf62! I'm glad that you are joining the drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

CactiStaccingCrane (talk)18:46, 1 February 2024 UTC [refresh]via JWB and Geardona (talk to me?)

Hello, Dobbyelf62. Thank you for your work on Farmer's Daughter (The Beach Boys song). Bastun, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hi Dobbyelf, nice work on your new article. I would recommend including it in relevant Wikiprojects. Good job!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Bastun}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		Citation Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to Dobbyelf62 for collecting more than 25 points during the WikiProject Unreferenced articles's FEB24 backlog drive. Your contributions played a crucial role in sourcing 14,300 unsourced articles during the drive. Thank you so much for participating and helping to reduce the backlog! – – DreamRimmer (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dobbyelf62, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled user right to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as 'reviewed', and no longer appear in the new pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned to prolific creators of articles, where those articles do not require further review, and may have been requested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn't affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload of new page patrollers.

Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevant WikiProject templates, stub tags, categories, and incoming links to them, if you aren't already in the habit; user scripts such as Rater and StubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia's core content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become a new page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project's standards and encourage other good faith article writers.

Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your contribution here. I think a lot of editors would just reinstate the false title, but you managed to find an improvement there. Thank you. JeffSpaceman (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I looked at Popcornfud's essay for the rationale behind removing false titles and found it reasonable enough. For all future articles I create, I'll attempt to abide by this rule. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 17:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are several sources for song lyrics, other than YouTube. Can you suggest one? I see lyrics.com , azlyrics.com , musixmatch.com , genius.com

I feel that if the previous paragraph discusses former husband John McVie didn't know Christine McVie's lyrics were about him, some lyrics should be included to illustrate the song's direction. Thanks.

Gregg - nh153

Thanks for reaching out. Generally, user-generated content is discouraged on Wikipedia, so none of the aforementioned sources would work. If you can find a professional music review that highlights the optimistic lyrics, I would be willing to look at it. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Just regarding your edit [1] – I might be missing something but I can't see where the source says it's "musical gold" or where it says it should've been a hit had it been an A-side. I see it says the Mac version should've been a hit, and of course it actually was an A-side in some countries. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bretonbanquet: Upon further examination, the "musical gold" quote was actually for the song "Hypnotized", although the article does cover "Sentimental Lady" elsewhere. This was an oversight on my part, so I will make those changes right now. Thanks for the catch. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 18:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Dobby. I was able to finally find the second part of Christine's 1984 documentary and uploaded it to the internet archive, here. I also uploaded this magazine interview excerpt someone uploaded it to The Ledge. Thought you'd be interested and hopefully it can also help you out. Have a good day! Juand.1974 (talk) 16:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for posting this. I just finished the full documentary, and I believe that we can incorporate a few things from here into the article. As for the August interview, a lot of the information is already accounted for, but I might be able to find one or two tidbits that are worth including. You can expect some changes to be made tomorrow. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 23:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dobby. I found this other Todd interview from 2016 we can use, if you're interested.. Its split in two parts but these are the time stamps where he talks about Christine: part 1 (34:48–47:55) and part 2 (0:46–5:40). In the first part he talks about how he got to work with Christine, a bit about the albums recording, and Clapton's contribution, while in the second one he talks about why Billy Burnette did not tour with them and about Stephen Bruton and how he met him. I think we'll be done with the article soon after. Anyway, I hope you have a happy New Year and thank you again for all your help. Juand.1974 (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice find! The Stephen Bruton information will likely fill in some of the few remaining gaps that still exist in this article. Very soon, I will be ready to move on to other Fleetwood Mac articles. Currently, I'm in the process of creating a new article for "Angel" from the 1979 Tusk album, but after that, I plan on splitting my efforts between Fleetwood Mac's 1969 Then Play On and Mick Fleetwood's The Visitor from 1981.

Thank you for the extensive effort you have put into this article. Back in 2023, the article was incredibly sparse in terms of substantive content, so I did my best to cover some key facts that provided readers with a decent synopsis. Now, I'm happy that we are finally finishing it. I never expected the article to become this comprehensive and your efforts have far exceeded what I initially thought could be accomplished. Enjoy the New Year! Dobbyelf62 (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Your look at Smitten was one of the more thorough GA reviews I've taken part in. May your work serve as an example for others! Gen. Quon[Talk] 14:30, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dobbyelf62, just asking a favour. Could you stop adding dates when you tag sentences? If you leave the date blank, anomie bot comes in and adds a date. That then allows people like myself who resolve tags to quickly identify a newly added tag and fix it. If not, it becomes much more difficult to locate newly tagged phrase and resolve the problem.

This is not policy whatsoever, as I'm sure you know there is nothing wrong with what you are doing in terms of the rules, it just will sometimes help people catch the problems you tag.

All the best Boynamedsue (talk) 07:38, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Boynamedsue: Sure. I was under the impression that it was standard procedure to add these dates manually. Does this rule also apply to templates that are added at the top of a page or the beginning of a section? Dobbyelf62 (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not a rule! You are doing nothing wrong, and it might even be better to put dates on in tags in the great scheme of things as it leads to fewer versions of the page to be created. It's just that wikipedia lacks an effective worklist system, and the easiest way for me to keep track of my chosen area (resolving by whom tags) is stalking anomie bot, which is the bot that adds dates to tags (among other things). I'm not even sure how many people but me use this method!Boynamedsue (talk) 17:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Your "cleanup" of the extended quote in the Yes article, actually removed helpful, sourced information from the article (lead singer's influences). Please pay attention, and please use better edit summaries when removing that much content. Thank you. Lofi Gurl (talk) 01:24, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was in a mood when I wrote this. I feel like I bit your head off. Regretful. Thank you for your contributions to music-related articles. Lofi Gurl (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're fine. I could have provided a better explanation on what I was trying to accomplish in the edit summary. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 03:01, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Onward and upward then. Nice meeting you! Lofi Gurl (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scott_the_Woz&diff=1282378966&oldid=1282355579 Hello Dobbyelf62, just want to ask you about this edit. That page is full of primary sources, which is not good, certainly needs quality control. Why did you remove some paragraphs about the character Scott, G4 interest in second season, and channel spin offs? Are these things not relevant enough? 11=Fish (talk) 04:12, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@11=Fish: Many of the reasons that you outlined reflect my concerns with the content that I removed. Biographies of living people on Wikipedia tend to have stricter standards for permissible content. Self-published sources are generally discouraged on BLPs, and my edits were intended to address the information that was either entirely unsourced or accompanied with a self-published source. I would not be opposed to restoring some of this content if a third party source can verify the information. The Scott the Woz video titled "Taking a Look at My Wikipedia Page" invited an influx of good-faith editors to make adjustments to the article; while this did usher in some improvements, some problems that had already existed (the use of multiple primary sources) were exacerbated. My edit sought to mitigate the excesses of these problems. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for explaining. I'm learning something from this, being my first article in a while. I'll try to note this issue on the talk page, and mind this living people policy. 11=Fish (talk) 06:09, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Christine McVie (album) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LastJabberwocky -- LastJabberwocky (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Christine McVie (album) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Christine McVie (album) for comments about the article, and Talk:Christine McVie (album)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LastJabberwocky -- LastJabberwocky (talk) 09:02, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline at MOS:NUMNOTES says "Adjacent quantities not comparable should ideally be in different formats". "Not comparable" includes a quantity versus a chart ranking. I understand the guideline to mean we should write music chart rankings like the following:

• The band had three number 1 hits on the Billboard Hot 100, and four number 2 hits in the UK.

With regard to the term "Top 40", I think it should be capitalized because it is a ranking rather than a description. Same with Top 10 rather than top ten. Different groupings are not include, such as top five, because they are not a common cultural term like Top 40 or Top 10.

FYI. User:Binksternet (talk) 23:50, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Binksternet: Thank you for the clarification. I'll keep this in mind for future edits.

Pursuant to Wikipedia:The problem with elegant variation, I will also heavily reduce my usage of the terms "self-titled" and "eponymous". I noticed that you invoked this essay in your edit summary for some articles that I've edited (including "Frozen Love"). Are there any instances where the term "self-titled" is appropriate? Dobbyelf62 (talk) 03:02, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've seen some instances of "self-titled" that make sense in context. One I saw earlier today was part of a musician biography with sections reading the year date and album activity as "YYYY: Album name", and one of the sections was listed as "YYYY: Self-titled album", because the album name is already the artist's name, and a header repeating his name would be confusing. There are other cases, too, but I'm not remembering them right away. Binksternet (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closer to home, your GA page Christine McVie (album) offers a great example. The two ways I can see presenting the background material would be as follows, with your version first, and my reworking second:

• It was McVie's first solo effort in over a decade, following her 1970 self-titled debut, which was released under her maiden name.
• It was McVie's first solo effort in over a decade, following her 1970 debut album Christine Perfect under her maiden name.

I think both ways of expressing the information are fine. Binksternet (talk) 03:16, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Several of my edits have been related to self-titled albums (including Peter Gabriel's first four studio releases), so I would prefer to have the proper information now as opposed to the alternative of unknowingly making edits that deviate from the manual of style. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 22:05, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are an absolutely talented editor who also finds reliable links as references that I didn't know existed! I appreciate your work on my article! SpongeBobMusicFan123 (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It's an enjoyable challenge to dredge up reliable sources. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 22:50, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Dobbyelf62. Your wiki edit anniversary is today, marking 13 years of dedicated contributions to English Wikipedia. Your passion for sharing knowledge and your remarkable contributions have not only enriched the project, but also inspired countless others to contribute. Thank you for your amazing contributions. Wishing you many more wonderful years ahead in the Wiki journey. :) -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 08:18, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your continual removal of the artist Robby Ameen's sideman discography page and equipment page is unwarranted. All of the listed recordings are documented on All Music Guide and his equipment referenced is listed on each company's artist endorsement pages. If you continue to remove I will have no alternative but to report you for editing misuse to Wikipedia. Thank you.

Wiseblood777 (talk) 12:06, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Wiseblood777: One of the many reasons why I removed the sideman discography was that it lacked a source. Unless one is provided, it is otherwise difficult for editors to know where this information is coming from. Unsourced material on Wikipedia is generally discouraged, and as such I decided to remove the sideman discography section. Another concern I had was the length, which exceeds the duration of any other section in the article and also renders it difficult to navigate. My edits were intended to make it more concise by deliberately retaining his primary albums and removing the extensive list included further down in the article. Pursuant to WP:INDISCRIMINATE, it is generally advised to keep articles confined to summaries rather than a list of bullet points. Based on this, I maintain that my edits to this article were completely reasonable. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All Music Guide is listed as the source, where all of the cited recordings appear. Moreover, many of the recordings are even linked to separate Wiki pages. As for the length, the discography section is almost always the longest section of any artist's Wiki page. I therefore see no justification to have removed the discography section. ~2026-38968-7 (talk) 18:43, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AllMusic is listed as a reference in the article, but it is not used for the select discography. Can you find any decent examples of articles that dedicate nearly 75% of the space toward select appearances as a side musician? Also, the Equipment section is also completely unsourced. Do you have any explanation for this? Dobbyelf62 (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That is the only place you would list the source, in this case, All Music Guide, and to repeat, many of the recordings are already linked. As for the discography space ratio, go to any session musician's page and you'll find the same type of ratio; check out Vinnie Colauita or JR Robinson for example. As for the equipment page, the companies named are also linked, and Robby Ameen is an official endorser of these instruments. Again, it's presented in the same format of the previous two drummers I mentioned, just by example. ~2026-38968-7 (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is not entirely unprecedented to include a select discography section, but several of the listed songs and albums lack a link, which puts into question the inclusion of this section. Take a look at the Hal Blaine article for a more tasteful way to handle a session musician's discography. It's more concise and serves to highlight some of the musician's most significant contributions. The Robby Ameen article as it stands largely comprises a list of unnotable albums. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree strongly. Wikipedia is supposed to provide the most up to date and accurate information on a subject, in this case, a prominent jazz musician. What you choose to consider a notable record is entirely subjective on your part, and should not enter into the equation as to it's inclusion on a Wiki page. Many jazz recordings do not have there own links as compared to pop recordings; it doesn't make them any less notable. ~2026-38487-9 (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum I'd like to point out that your justifications for your edits have been entirely inconsistent and almost arbitrary; including one of your original concerns that Paul Simon shouldn't be linked; you contradict yourself by now claiming that primarily only linked records should be included. I have answered all of your claims about citation and sources, you are now reduced to expressing your own personal opinion about what you consider notable. I consider the issue closed at this point; while you are certainly entitled to your opinion I don't think you are entitled to erase documented and relevant information on an artist's Wiki page; and most importantly in the medium in which he mostly works, to wit, his body of recordings. Would you omit films that you don't consider notable on an actor's page, or only include certain books an author has written? ~2026-38487-9 (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Third-party coverage and commercial performance are indicators of notability, which are metrics that I take into account. What criteria are you using to determine notability? And what justifies the inclusion of an arbitrary list of miscellaneous recordings that a session musician happened to play on? Even though a website like AllMusic may include this information, it may not always be appropriate to regurgitate that content here on Wikipedia. Also, I have no issue linking Paul Simon. The issue that I had was that his name was included in bold, which is not a standard procedure here.

What criteria are you using to determine what warrants inclusion on this article? Editing choices come with a degree of subjectivity; I do not claim to be entirely objective when editing Wikipedia. While there are general rules that are largely observed on Wikipedia, editors have different interpretations on how these practices are implemented. Your criteria for inclusion appears to be far more expansive than what I would consider worthwhile for inclusion. I am willing to accept this, provided that you elaborate further on the merits of this section. We have established that there is indeed a precedent for session musicians to have a list of selected works. I accept this. The disagreement is now over the length of this section. My position right now is to cut the albums related to Dave Valentin, Conrad Herwig, Kip Hanrahan, and Jack Bruce as none of the albums have their own respective articles. As for the section listing the equipment in his possession, it appears less common for session musicians to have a section related to this, especially in list form, so my position is still to remove it. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Ameen has a longstanding relationship with all of the artists you have mentioned; he didn't just "happen" to play on some of their records, as born out by the fact that he did multiple recordings with each of them. Secondly, some of the aforementioned recordings do in fact have their own links, and as for criteria for notability, ALL of the said artists have their own Wiki pages, and are widely acknowledged as being highly influential and regarded artists, which, not to disparage you personally, you would know if you were at all conversant in jazz music. Once again, it is common for jazz artists not to have individual links for all their recordings; and again with regard to notoriety, some of the aforementioned records, while not having their own wiki links, have in fact been Grammy-nominated recordings.

As for equipment, Mr. Ameen is an artist in his own right, having recorded extensively under his own name as well, and even if he were only a session player, people often want to know what gear they use. I refer you to the Wiki pages once again, of guys like Colauita and Robinson. And finally, going back to your assertion of "miscellaneous" recordings without sufficient notability, I can't fathom how, your apparent unfamiliarity with jazz notwithstanding, you would put three records with Jack Bruce, widely acknowledged as one of the most influential bassists in history in ANY style of music, as not worthy of inclusion. Once again, it is the contradictory nature of your quibbles that illustrate precisely why your position is far too subjective and not based the data, however imperfect one's definition of "data" may be. Wiseblood777 (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensive prose is often worthwhile for an article. Instead, the article in question makes passing references to the individuals that he collaborated with. Seeing that you're presenting yourself as knowledgable on Robby Ameen, it would be instructive to add substantive prose so that readers truly have a better understanding of his work. His "longstanding relationship" with artists such as Jack Bruce, Dave Valentin, etc are merely listed in the article. Very little context is provided as to why these collaborations are significant.

When it comes to good sources, DownBeat magazine would likely be a good place to start. World Radio History is also a good resource, which provides access to archived editions of various music magazines. Granted many of these are geared more toward pop music, but you still might have some luck. Furthermore, Newspapers.com may secure you additional sources that could be used for the article. Heck, there's already some sources included in the Further Reading section. You could certainly start there! If you're successful in improving the article, the excessive list may be more justified. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 01:12, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Haha you know what? Now I agree with you ...in truth there isn't much biographical prose at all and the article reads more like a "just the facts ma'am" bare bones resume. Indeed, I don't spend a lot of time on Wiki in general, but I notice lately there is more detail about artists' background, style, etc..and I'm not talking about promo fluff kind of stuff. I will take your suggestion under advisement and see if I can improve the article in this regard. I genuinely appreciate your input. Wiseblood777 (talk) 02:59, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to reach out if you would like further assistance in enhancing the article. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm JeffSpaceman. I noticed that you recently removed content from Fleetwood Mac without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. JeffSpaceman (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@JeffSpaceman: The edit that I reverted was marked with a "Use of deprecated (unreliable) source" tag in the edit history. Upon checking the edit, I found that the archived url did not align with sentence and thus removed it, believing that my revert did not require an explanation. Since then, I have added the proper archived url to the article. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, thanks for letting me know. Admittedly, I should have checked that myself. I appreciate the clarification. JeffSpaceman (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stereotomy, a link pointing to the disambiguation page was John Milesadded.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Earth Trust Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free 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) 18:31, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're still not telling me what you're calling "original research". If you're calling the description of an object "original research", most of Wikipedia would be deleted. DiogenesNY (talk) 12:50, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@DiogenesNY: Please look at WPNOR. Pursuant to the policy, original research entails "any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources." Dobbyelf62 (talk) 00:34, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do not agree that generating a plot for a music video is "original research", any more than generating a plot for a television program or a movie is "original research". Your (personal) definition is overly broad. DiogenesNY (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what your (personal) definition of original research is. You have failed to make that clear. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"An article is considered original research if...

it is the report of a unique study written by the researchers who actually did the study.

the researchers describe their hypothesis or research question and the purpose of the study.

the researchers detail their research methods.

the results of the research are reported.

the researchers interpret their results and discuss possible implications."

Which of those criteria does a description of the plot of a music video meet? DiogenesNY (talk) 05:30, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This may be an applicable definition for academic papers, but I struggle to see how this relates to Wikipedia. Is this definition cited anywhere in Wikipedia policies? Dobbyelf62 (talk) 13:02, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Even under the terms of your 5FEB26 posting, I'm not seeing how a plot summary "reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources." How does this diverge from the myriad plot summaries of all varieties of media widespread throughout Wikipedia, all accepted without question? DiogenesNY (talk) 05:25, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Upon looking at some policies, I came across MOS:PLOTSOURCE, which should carry more relevance to the topic at hand. The points outlined come out largely in your favor, and as such, I am now amenable to restoring the synopsis. Before we do so, I would like to highlight the most relevant bits of information:

• "The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with inline citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary"
• "In many visual works, viewers with relevant local or specialist knowledge may easily identify real-world locations, objects, or brands. However, such details should not be included in the plot summary unless they are explicitly referenced within the work and are directly relevant to the narrative"

Based on this information, I will largely restore the plot summary with a few changes so that it conforms more to this policy. To my understanding, the music video does not explicitly take place in Florida during the 1940s or 50s, so I have removed this portion of the text. If I am wrong, you can politely correct me. Most of the other information should be suitable. Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention and let me know if you have any further questions. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 06:05, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dobbyelf62,

The article Let's Talk About Me (song) was created a couple of months ago but, if I'm not crazy, there used to be an article for this song which provided information about its music video and the actress that was on it. Do you know what happened to that original article? I was also not able to find it in the deletion log.

Thank you kindly, LaFleur93 (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall this article existing previously. Around November and December of last year, I created several articles for singles released by The Alan Parsons Project. Of those, only "Snake Eyes" was a redirect. The article for "I Wouldn't Want to Be Like You" used to have a section related to the music video, but I removed it as the information lacked an adequate source. Is this the article you are thinking of? From Billboard, I was able to find basic information on the director and the producer of the "Let's Talk About Me" music video, but not much else. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]