User talk:Wawzenek

Hello, Wawzenek, and Welcome to Wikipedia! As you have just started editing, I hope you find the following selection of links helpful and that they provide you with some ideas for how to get the best out of Wikipedia. Happy editing! Fæ (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard - a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Spam

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 01:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Prince (musician) do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. MarnetteD | Talk 21:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Jack White (musician). Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. MarnetteD | Talk 21:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Stevie Ray Vaughan. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. MarnetteD | Talk 21:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you insert a spam link, as you did to George Harrison, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. MarnetteD | Talk 21:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits.
The next time you insert a spam link, as you did to Mike Bloomfield, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Spammers may have their websites blacklisted as well, preventing their websites from appearing on Wikipedia. Please discuss why this link is relevant on the Talk page. Rodhullandemu 21:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Gibson.com list edits

I think the rankings of the Gibson.com Top 50 Guitarists list should be included on artist profile pages. As it is, most (if not all) of those pages already have lists referenced to give historical context as to how they are revered in the musical community. For example, many pages list where artists ranked on Rolling Stone magazine's 100 best guitarists list. Why is it wrong to present another opinion, which differs in many ways from the Rolling Stone list?

I'd like to present a few instances where this could be beneficial to the reader. Jazz musician Wes Montgomery (a well-respected guitarist among musicians and one that many cite as an influence) was not ranked at all on Rolling Stone's list, possibly because of a pop music bias. However, he is listed on the Gibson.com list. Another example is AC/DC guitarist Angus Young. He was ranked very low on Rolling Stone's list (96, I think), but he is number 25 on Gibson.com's list. This ranking shows he is hugely popular and influential among hard rock and metal guitarists. Should readers be denied another opinion? They can see the Rolling Stone ranking and the Gibson.com ranking (and any other future rankings done by major publications and websites with a global reach) and then gain a grasp of that musician's legacy.

Also, the reference links provide insight into the talents of each guitarist on the list. I don't see how this is spamming. It is a useful, and easy to navigate reference. I've seen many pages with uncredited or poorly explained information. Example: Mike Campbell's page, which I think only has one reference for the whole piece. I'm puzzled as to why my edits are taken issue with, when almost his entire profile isn't supported by referenced facts.

I think there's a very good case for my edits, including precedents that have already been set. Please let me know if you have any further questions and thank you for your time. Wawzenek (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Wawzenek

Yes, several of us have concerns. Note all the warnings above. What you consider "beneficial to the reader" is spam. Please read all of the blue links above and stop adding such links, because if you continue you certainly will be blocked, perhaps indefinitely. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 00:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand the warnings and I understand that you think my contributions are spam. What I don't understand is why? Why is one list spam and another list OK? I took the time to make a thoughtful case for my edits. You have not addressed any of them. I still would like more clarification. Thank you. Wawzenek (talk) 01:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Wawzenek

The "why" is simple: It violates policy. Again, click the blue links and read. You can disagree with the policy, but you should not violate it. If you wish to address the policy itself, leave your comments at WT:SPAM and/or WT:EL. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Leaning the ropes

Hello Wawzenek, and welcome to Wikipedia. I see from your comments you are eager to learn to be a good editor. That's great, I'm sure you will be. All of us made a few mistakes when we were first starting out, just as you have, so don't worry; just learn from your mistakes and move on. I can explain most of your mistakes to you if that would help.

Your first mistake was a matter of notability. Believe it or not, the "Top 50" list you found on the Internet is not important enough to go into an encyclopedia, certainly not Wikipedia. It might be important enough to go in a blog somewhere, but not here. If you would like clarification on this, feel free to reply to this post asking for more clarification, but that will not change this outcome. You should try to see for yourself why this is true: This information is not notable.

For example, in the George Harrison article, there is an interesting passage that mentions Harrison's love of gardening. It turns out that gardening was one of the most important activities in that man's life. A fact like that is clearly notable—there was more to the man than just guitars. It's a good thing someone added that to the article. Compare that to the random list you found, that basically only says "Harrison was a good guitar player". I think we know this already.

Another mistake you made was the placement of the information into the articles. More than one editor complained that it appeared to be just "dropped in there", and not skillfully composed. They have a point. If you are going to edit, you need to have good writing skills. If you don't have them, you're better off not editing.

It is super-important to read and comprehend the Wikipedia:List of policies. You will not be happy until you do (and neighther will any of the rest of us).

Try just reading Wikipedia for awhile. Then read article's talk pages. You'll read about other people making mistakes and you can learn from their mistakes. And you'll learn that it is the article, not the subject of the article, is the most important thing here.

After you've done nothing but read Wikipedia for awhile, try making only one small uncontroversial change. Consider getting consent on an article's talk page for anything non-trivial you really do want added.

That's enough for now. I'll watch your Wawzenek user page over the coming weeks to see if you have any questions. —Prhartcom (talk) 05:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to address this issue. It is appreciated. However, I still don't understand why the list I posted is not considered notable enough. This is not an obscure list. It is on Gibson.com, a worldwide publication with tons of exclusive musical content. On nearly every guitarist page on which I posted the information, there were tons of other awards and accolades. Why are some of these OK and some not? It's not as if this list was from a local newspaper. This is Gibson Guitar. If that company doesn't know guitarists, I don't know who does. I'm not saying that these rankings should be the first sentence of any of these passages, but what I don't understand is including one worldwide publicized ranking list (Rolling Stone, Guitar Player, etc.) and not including another. That seems biased to me. And really, if we already know that George Harisson is a great guitar player, then why are any of these lists on these pages. Shouldn't they all be wiped out? This appears hypocritical to me. Wawzenek (talk) 22:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Wawzenek

RE: Gibson.com Guitarist Rankings

I would like to challenge my additions to guitarist's pages being considered spam. I have two questions I would like answered. First, why are sentences about Rolling Stone magazine's ranking lists not spam and Gibson.com's ranking lists are? Both are from respected publications in the pop music community. Why is Wikipedia biased toward one and not the other? This appears hypocritical to me. Maybe there's a technicality I am not aware of.

Second, I find it interesting that some references to the Gibson.com Top 50 Guitarists list that I did not put on Wikipedia remain on the site. For instance, on Danny Gatton's page, there is a sentence about his Gibson.com ranking that follows his Rolling Stone ranking. I was not the person who put this here. The other day, I incorrectly added an outside link to the sentence. That was my mistake and it was rightly removed by another editor. However, they didn't remove the original sentence. It remains on the page. So clear this up for me: It's OK for the Gibson.com list references to be posted, just not by me? I don't understand. Please explain. Thank you. Wawzenek (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Wawzenek

My talk page is not the proper forum for this issue. As I have told your previously, any concerns you have about spam policy and adding numerous links to a single website that promotes a product should be addressed at WT:SPAM and/or WT:EL. Continuing to message me at my talk page will get you nowhere. This is a community issue about policy. It is not an issue between you and me. You also need to carefully read Phartcom's comments and links below about good writing skills, because your edits, even if they didn't violate spam policy, reflect poor writing style by Wikipedia's standards. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I did post my comments on the spam page. I also posted them on your talk page so that you could see my response. Didn't mean to offend you. Feel free to remove it from your page. But, I must respond to what you said about writing. My edits reflect bad writing? My sentences were quick, to the point and they were referenced. Have you seen the Mike Campbell page? There's one reference for the entire article. Only one fact is accounted for on the whole page. And yet, that's all just left up there. I need to learn how to better integrate edits, I agree. I am new to this and I will learn to edit closer to your standards. But for you to get on your high horse about the "standards" of Wikipedia is a little bit crazy to me. Have you taken a look at your own site lately? Wawzenek (talk) 00:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)Wawzenek

They're not my standards. They're Wikipedia's standards. As for your "high horse" comment, please read WP:5P, especially the part that says "all of your contributions can and will be mercilessly edited". Unlike other encyclopedias, the only editorial oversight is from other editors. That's the only means of quality control. If you can't accept that, you don't need to be editing. Now, excuse me while I ride away on my standard Wikipedia horse. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 01:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

An apology followed by my concerns

I have to begin this by offering my deepest apologies for my assumption that you are a sock of a problem editor that we have been dealing with for several months here on Wikipedia. It looks like you are not a sock of that editor (more about that later) and it was wrong of me to to have stated that you were. Now, the concerns that I have about your additions, apart from my error and aside from the ones that other have expressed on this page, are as follows.

1. One of the principles that Wikipedia community operates on is consensus. While I am the editor that removed most of your entries I am not the only one who did so. When multiple editors remove your edit that indicates that there is a problem that needs to be discussed. Usually, the discussion takes place on the talk page where the edit occurred. Due to the fact that you edited 50 pages moving the discussion here was okay. However, you should have informed all of the editors that have removed your edit not just me. If consensus is that the item that you added is not appropriate then that is the way it is. Hypocritical or not that is the way it is. Most of us have had articles that we worked on for days or weeks removed in part or entirety. That hurts for a time. Some editors retire others pick up the pieces and move on to other editing.
2. Wikipedia is not a collection of lists. Entities, both print and online, too numerous to count publish "top of all time" or "best of lists". That does not mean that all of them need to be in our articles. Just because we have The Rolling Stone list does not mean that we have to have every list published.
3. Wikipedia has fairly strict guidelines regarding edits that have a conflict of interest. Based on the information at the bottom of this page [1] I have a feeling that you are one of the people who helped to compile and vote on the Gibson list. If I am incorrect then again I apologize. However, you have been a single purpose editor whose only edits here have been to add the list in question and that still raises COI problems in my opinion.

Based on all of this I would recommend against adding said list. Please note: there are hundreds of places on the web to share the Gibson list. Nothing that happens here at Wikipedia prevents you in the slightest from pursuing those other possibilities. MarnetteD | Talk 03:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

First, I want to thank you for your obviously heartfelt apology. We got off on the wrong foot here, and that's partly my fault, too. I'm a newbie, and I was far too aggressive in my edits. A lot of that had to do with not knowing (and not taking the time to look up) the standard procedure. So apologies are in order on my side of this, too. I didn't mean to cause such headaches. But, imagine my confusion when I was being called a "sock" and being associated with someone nefarious. I felt a little like Cary Grant in "North By Northwest." Ha. I'm glad that this has been cleared up.

Thanks also for outlining your concerns one by one. That's what I've wanted once I realized what was going on. I've gotten some snarky and unhelpful feedback up to this point, and I appreciate the point-by-point description. It helps me understand how the editors look at these sort of things. Now I will respond to each point.

1. The consensus principle makes complete sense to me. As someone with a background in editing and writing, I am intimately familiar with my works being ripped to shreds, thrown away, etc. I totally get it. However, I think that there are some positive aspects to my posts that editors might have overlooked or not been fully aware of.

2. I agree that Wikipedia shouldn't be a collection of lists. That would be a dull read. However, There are very few entries on well-known musicians, songs, albums, etc. that don't have some sort of lists referenced. For instance, The Monkees' "I'm a Believer" page references a Dallas radio station's listener poll. I'm an avid fan and reader of Wikipedia and I've seen these sort of things referenced time and time again. Used appropriately, I think they can give a reader a sense of the subject's legacy in the music world. Here's the thing: One of Wikipedia's five major principles is that it remain unbiased. Right now, most of the guitarist pages that I edited highlight the Rolling Stone magazine list in a major way. Now that's a respected list from an institution in the music industry. It belongs there. However, that list has been questioned by many for its rankings and for non-rock players who were left out. The Rolling Stone list is important but imperfect. It's also seven years old. In the interest of balance, shouldn't other guitarist lists from major, global institutions in the music world also represented, giving readers a "second opinion" of sorts? I'm not talking any web site or local newspaper. I mean lists done by well-respected fixtures in the industry. I would think the Gibson list would qualify. Gibson Guitar has a global reach and a long-lasting legacy in music. The list was compiled in smiliar fashion to Rolling Stone, with a team of music experts, famous guitarists and readers contributing to the final tally. In some instances the results are very similar (Eric Clapton is at number 4 on both), but different in many other ways. For instance, jazz player Wes Montgomery was left out of Rolling Stone's list. Many music fans and guitarists were upset by this. He is on Gibson's list. Why shouldn't that be represented on Wikipedia? I'm not saying one list is right and one is wrong, just that there is room for both. Both are major lists by major forces in music. Both are imperfect, but both are important. I don't want these entries to be a list of lists. But I think this information can be added succinctly and tastefully and I'm certainly open to any suggestions on what the best method might be for this. I don't think that this information needs to be in the first paragraph of an entry. The only reason I put some of them there is because I was following the example of how the Rolling Stone list had been presented. I was trying to keep the style consistent, where I could.

3. COI. Yes, I worked on the list and contributed to the write-ups. I've read the policy on COI and I'm not sure it applies here. I wasn't trying to boost the list or gain links (Gibson's doing pretty good, it doesn't need my meager help in this instance). There was no slant on any of the edits I posted. I wasn't claiming that this list was better than others or anything. I was just stating the facts of what the final tally was. I made a conscious effort to keep my entries as unbiased and straightforward as possible. Let me explain how it was that I got the idea to add these entries. Earlier in the week, I was looking at the Wikipedia page for Danny Gatton, a guitarist who ranked on our list. Someone had added to his entry that he was ranked 27 on the Gibson list. It came right after the sentence about his ranking on the Rolling Stone list (I believe it's still up there, if you want to look). I went to look at other guitarists' pages and noticed that this information had not been added to everyone's page, just the Gatton one. Using that initial page as an example, I thought, "Why shouldn't the information be on every ranked player's page?" If it was pertinent information for one guitarist's page, I thought it would apply to all. I wonder what other editors think. Should it be on every list member's page, or just selected ones? I'd love to know others' opinions on this.

So, those are my thoughts. If you think I should post this anywhere else, please let me know and I'd be happy to do it. I'm not looking to step on anyone's toes or force anything into Wikipedia that doesn't belong. But, I think my ideas have merit and I want to share them with any editor that wants to take the time to read what I have to say. Like everyone else, I don't want these pages to just be lists, lists, lists. But I think a few examples of these kind of lists can help give people a snapshot view of the musical legacy involved. I might not be familiar with Charlie Christian's work, but if I see that other guitar players, experts and music fans called him a top-ranking guitarist, I would get a sense of his continued importance.

I'm a music fan and I'd love to be able to share my skills to make the music content on Wikipedia better, clearer and more substantiated. These are only the first edits I was planning to make. What I'd love to do is get Mike Campbell's page in better shape (at present, there's only one reference for the whole thing. Surely, citations can be found to represent his decades-long career). Thank you for your time and for your thoughts. Wawzenek (talk) 06:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)Wawzenek

Apart from all of the other problems in this issue, Wawzenek, I do believe there is at least the appearance of conflict of interest, if not COI per se; my personal opinion is that it is COI because you have been involved in the list in question. The general guideline in cases like this on Wikipedia is to let the community decide whether the links to the list are notable and not spam. So far you have a single purpose account which, combined with your direct connection to the list and the fact that the links are to a website that promotes products, strongly suggests that someone besides you should be adding the items in the list to Wikipedia, if they are ever added. Regardless of whatever merits the list might have, Wikipedia must always be extremely cautious about unobjective promotion of products. Please allow others with no involvement decide if they want to add items from the list to articles. If the community feels that the list is notable and that the links are not spam, someone will add them, especially now that you have raised the issue on a policy talk page. You might also raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music where editors with similar interests will be aware. Otherwise, I think you're wasting your time. Thank you. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 15:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Wawzenek, I would like to take a minute and apologize to you also, although I must agree with the editor above regarding your first contribution to Wikipedia. As you have gathered by now, your edits, to the George Harrison article, and your initial response, looked exactly like the behavior of a sock puppet we have been observing on the George Harrison article for months now. You couldn't have known, but unluckily, you behaved just like him. We have been understandably upset at him, and we thought we had found him when you stepped into our line of fire. But It was our error and I personally hope you will forgive us, as we do not want to discourage you from future editing of Wikipedia. Also, I think your explanation of Gibson vs. Rolling Stone is absolutely a strong argument; you still have a valid point there. Maybe you can go to the talk pages of one or two of your favorite guitarists and ask there if anyone who watches those pages thinks it would be a good idea to include the alternate point of view, and try to get concensus. If that works, be sure to use good writing skills when you include the information. Anyway, take care and I wish you good luck. Prhartcom (talk) 17:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)