User talk:Robzwop

Welcome!

Hello, Robzwop, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Dying Scene Radio, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

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 Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

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:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! — Masum Ibn Musa ^Conversation 03:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Dying Scene Radio

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Dying Scene Radio requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spam blacklist

At Dying Scene Radio, you used the edit summary "Someone put DyingScene.com on the blacklist - we suspect this to have been done by somebody at a competitor's website - this page must not be deleted again without resolving this issue (because DyingScene.com is a valid website for citation)". This is completely incorrect, as Wikipedia only blacklists sites after they have been spammed constantly throughout Wikipedia, and they aren't a beneficial reliable source. There have been discussion about it [1], [2], [3], [4], and [5], and I see all of these have supported it staying blacklisted. Adding an article about it isn't a reason for it to be whitelisted, you could start a discussion there again though. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect because it is actually a completely valid news source and I challenge you to state clearly in your own words without use of invalid citations. Are you bought and paid for? Is that why you are targeting our site? Erase Punknews.org's wikipedia page if you are going to harass and erase our persistently.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Robzwop (talk • contribs)

No, no-one one Wikipedia is paid, we're all volunteers. Also, no admins would blacklist it unless the spamming of this on Wikipedia had been severely disruptive. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a bad argument, and Punknews.org is supported by reliable sources, whereas your radio station doesn't have that, which is why it was deleted before and will likely get deleted again. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Robzwop. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Dying Scene Radio, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. This shows you have a conflict of interest, and therefore should not be creating an article about your organisation. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page was written by one of our listeners months ago and I am simply trying to save it. The language I used was from the original poster. I was being neutral here. Our page was flagged for better citations and due to the fact that our site - which is a VALID news source (just google us or visit the site, don't take my word for it) - we were unable to offer the credible citation we so desperately wanted to. Unfortunately, what has happened here is foul play - and apparently, due to your behavior here - I suspect your participation in that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Robzwop (talk • contribs)

As mentioned above, that deletion discussion shows that the Wikipedia community believes your radio station is non-notable. There is no foul play involved, but if you recreate something deleted as non-notable before, it will still be considered non-notable. Also, linking to your own site would be a primary source not a reliable source anyway. Also, accusing users of bias/foul play is a personal attack, which is not permitted- repeated personal attacks will get you blocked. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so now you are threatening to block me because I have valid points here. Why was DyingScene.com blacklisted? How do we get it whitelisted? What evidence do you have that our show is not notable? Can I just simply make up random unsubstantiated claims like this too?

I don't know why it was blacklisted (I wasn't around), but the usual reason is that multiple users/IPs were spamming the site around Wikipedia, with the aim of promoting it.
As mentioned above, there's been 5 discussions about it getting whitelisted, and all have resulted in a consensus of not whitelisting it again. YOu can try starting a discussion again at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist to get it whitelisted.
Community consensus was that you weren't notable, as there was a discussion about it, with an overwhelming consensus that it isn't notable and should be deleted.
To show notability, you'd need to find lots of reliable sources about you- your own website is not a reliable source, but a primary source.
Calling other users biased is harassment/personal attack, so stop doing it. Repeated attacks get you blocked, per WP:NPA. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian, as you did at Talk:Dying Scene Radio. This is a harassment of Wikipedia users by calling them biased. I will report you to administrators the next time you harass myself or other Wikipedians by calling them biased. Your radio station isn't notable due to a lack of reliable sources, but the other one is notable because it has reliable sources. No bias, just applying Wikipedia notability guidelines. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At no point whatsoever did I call you personally biased. My language never implied you at all whatsoever. To blatantly defend every single wiki editor as categorically unbiased is a repugnant display of ignorance. How can any person assure another unequivocally that no wiki editor is biased? We are all human being and we are all biased in someway. As for me - in this case for instance - the language I used was not my own - it was written by one of our listeners and is therefore unbiased. And the question, which I have consistently brought up, and which has never been answered by you once - is the following (and this has zero to do with my radio station) - why was DyingScene.com blacklisted in the first place? DyingScene.com is not my radio station. My radio station is called "Dying Scene Radio" which is connected with dyingscene.com - but is not dyingscene.com. This is what we are trying to find out. Because we could easily prove the legitimacy of my radio show if we were allowed to use a citation with the dyingscene.com extension. And my apologies for assuming the worst of you, but all anybody has to do is simply google the phrase "punk news" to see where dyingscene.com ranks in the google searches. If one were to do just a tiny bit of due diligence here, they would find that the site is indeed a credible, valid news source.

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Dying Scene Radio. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove a speedy deletion notice from a page you have created yourself, as you did at Dying Scene Radio. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am having an articles written by Rolling Stone Magazine and a slew of other credible sources - to cite here. Get ready buddy!

Those would be good reliable sources. However, you are not allowed to remove speedy deletion tags from articles you created yourself- if you do it again, you will be reported to admins. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dying Scene

Unfortunately, the mere fact that a publication, web or otherwise, may happen to publish original content is not, in and of itself, what determines whether the publication qualifies as a reliable source or not — if it were, we'd have to accept virtually every single Blogspot blog as a reliable source, which we don't. Rather, there's a lot more to the determination than that; you can read our rules about reliable sources, at the link I provided above, for a bit more information. The fact that you have a direct conflict of interest, by virtue of your direct involvement in the site, also doesn't help your case — see, for example, the parts of the COI policy which mandate against writing about yourself or an organization that you're directly involved with.

It's certainly possible that the site should be considered an acceptable reliable source, but I can't just overrule another administrator arbitrarily — rather, if you want it to be reconsidered you should post a request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard so that it can be reviewed for a consensus position on whether it meets the standards or not. Your request should be as neutral and respectful as possible — specifically, avoid lapsing into criticism of administrators and just make a case for why it should count as a reliable source, because taking an accusatory or critical tone against other Wikipedians may actually work against you instead of helping to bolster your position. Hope that helps a bit. Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Messages go on user talk pages, not user pages

Greetings! It appears as if you've left a number of messages for other editors. However, you've misplaced the messages. A message left for another user should go on that user's User talk page, just like this message is at User talk:Robzwop. A User page is for a description of that user, and generally it should not be edited by others.

In the case of your message to MelanieN, I've moved it from User:MelanieN to User talk:MelanieN. Please be more careful with where you leave messages in the future. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Fred. --MelanieN (talk) 19:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to your note

Hello! I was one of many people you appealed to about Dying Scene. You asked me about the website dyingscene.com being on a blacklist; I can't help you there, I have nothing to do with blacklisting. My only connection with this subject was that I deleted your initial article about Dying Scene Radio, as the result of a community decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dying Scene Radio. The subject of dyingscene.com did not come up in that discussion; it was simply decided that the station does not meet our requirements for notability. You immediately recreated the article twice, and it was deleted twice, based on the community's decision and additional judgments by additional administrators. Somebody finally locked the title to keep you from creating that article any more. Now you are posting notices all over Wikipedia about the website dyingscene.com. I think I speak for many of us when I advise that, frankly, it is time for you to stop beating a dead horse and accept the reality that this station does not qualify for an article here. This is an international encyclopedia and it has to have standards; we can't just have articles about everything in the world or we will lose our value and credibility as an encyclopedia. There are plenty of places where you can promote this station; Wikipedia is not one of them. --MelanieN (talk) 19:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should add: even if dyingscene.com gets removed from the blacklist, it would not affect the article Dying Scene Radio. That's because dyingscene.com is the website of Dying Scene Radio. Wikipedia's WP:General notability guideline requires coverage by independent reliable sources, and this website is not independent of the subject. So nothing published on that website can be used to show notability for the radio. --MelanieN (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is hilarious. I am asking about something that is COMPLETELY and TOTALLY separate from Dying Scene Radio. I am asking about DyingScene.com. Please stop bringing up the page I created - because that is a separate issue. Let me try this again, I am contacting you to find out what I just do, what we must do (because there is a HUGE community of readers out there who frequent DyingScene.com as a notable, viable news source and not you or anybody will ever be able to refute that. All one must do is check out the website - as stated before - why are similar sites that publish similar news stories accepted as viable citations? why are they not blacklisted? I would like to find out who I can appeal to in order to get the website extension un-blacklisted. I will not stop my pursuit because you tell me to. This is not right - it's injustice we are talking about here and it will be overturned eventually because I am very persistent. The stuff about the page I created - once again - completely separate issue, which I am not asking you about, so please do not bring that up again. I am inquiring specifically about how to get a site whitelisted. Whomever blacklisted the site originally, I want to know under what grounds they did this. DyingScene.com is a legitimate news source. Why are so many wiki editors trying to block its legitimacy? It won't work, just so you know. Eventually, the truth always come out and justice will prevail and people will find out about the shady tactics going on a wikipedia. If you want to misconstrue those words into some sort of ridiculous threat against my editing rights, for speaking truth to power - then have it and I hope it makes you feel better about yourself. Because regardless of your denial of the legitimacy of this website - it is legitimate, and the thousands of readers who frequent the site, proves that unequivocally. Robzwop (talk) 23:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. First, calm down. You will get much further here if you can talk in a professional and courteous manner, rather than blathering on about "injustice" and "ridiculous threats". Second, the reason I focused on the article is because that is the only part of your activities I have been involved with, and you contacted me, so it seemed reasonable to think that was what you were talking about. Third, you have already been told one place to ask for a reconsideration: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. You might do even better at Wikipedia:Spam blacklist#Requests for delisting; it has instructions and a link to a site where you can actually make the request. Note the format used by others, and the fact that requests should usually be quite brief. Also, note the proper terminology: what you are asking for is "delisting", not "whitelisting" (that means allowing it to be cited in one particular case). Finally, before you do any of this, take a look at actual Wikipedia policy to see what makes a source acceptable for Wikipedia's purposes. Read WP:Reliable source. Read this more specific explanation of the requirement. Read those discussions, linked above, about why the site is blacklisted. It appears to be because a lot of the content is user-generated, which in Wikipedia's eyes makes it an unreliable source, since anyone can say anything they want about themselves at such a site; it is not verified at all. Also, apparently the site was being WP:spammed, cited over and over in a promotional manner, all over Wikipedia; maybe that concern is over now. The main requirement is that the site have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Does dyingscene.com? If you can prove that, and do it in a concise and calm and factual manner, then you might prevail. But if your argument is "this site is legitimate because a lot of people read it," you will convince no one; a lot of people read the supermarket tabloids about aliens and Elvis, too, but that doesn't make them acceptable sources here. So, here's some free advice, given with good will: do your research first, and write out a draft, and then revise your draft to get rid of any speechifying and drama and SHOUTING. Then post your request. Or if you prefer, go there and talk about "shady tactics" and "my editing rights" and "a HUGE community of readers", and wonder why it stays blacklisted. Your choice. --MelanieN (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to also post a link to MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed_removals. I have to concur with MelanieN - if you're going to do this then you need to be calm and rational about it. You were decently calm on my userpage for the most part, but going into a discussion assuming WP:BADFAITH is not going to help you. What you need to do is pretty much what MelanieN said. Go in and write a neutral, calm summary of why you think the site could be used as a reliable source if it was un-blacklisted. This is going to be the most important aspect of things since they will be unlikely to block it if you cannot show how it would be useful to unblock it. For example, if the site has an editorial staff that can be verified (meaning that it's posted on their website somewhere) then that's something to mention. Now here's something that may be difficult: be honest with the site's faults. If the site has ever posted incorrect information, mention this - and mention how they dealt with this information. Every site will inevitably post incorrect information that they received from a seemingly valid source. What sets a lot of places apart is how they deal with this when it happens. Also, what type of journalism do they practice? Is it self-published-esque type posts? Gonzo style reporting? Do they seem like they write neutrally or do they seem like they're promoting a little? All of these will be looked at and scrutinized very, very carefully because it's really not easy to get de-blacklisted from Wikipedia (nor should it be). You don't have to be the site's harshest critic but you will need to be honest and look for these things when building your case because the other editors will be looking for these faults and they'll be looking to see how you can explain these things. Now if the site doesn't get de-blacklisted (again, this will likely depend on whether or not the site can be used as a RS), don't take it personally. A lot of sites are considered to be non-useful on Wikipedia despite having a decent sized readership. I know of quite a few book and film related sites that I regularly visit that would otherwise fail RS guidelines on here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Malanie/TokyoGirl, I wanted to thank you for your perfectly rational and patient responses to Robzwop's well intentioned but perhaps overly passionate and slightly misdirected rants here on Wikipedia. I run Dying Scene and Rob runs the DS Podcast for me. Of his own volition he created the DS podcast wiki page and I failed in looping him in on the fact that DS was blacklisted years ago. I'll be the first to admit that the original blacklisting was entirely my fault. I didn't read the site's policy closely enough and when the site was first getting off the ground I had instructed DS editors to update band wikipedia pages if those pages were missing info that DS had done a story about (new album releases, tour announcements, etc). They only did this when the information was relevant and not already listed on the wiki page but I also had them list DS as a reference source when they did it. I can honestly say I did not know this was a violation of the terms (the fact that I had all editors do this through a single account named DyingScene sorta emphasizes that we weren't trying to be sneaky about anything). In any case, we were warned to stop and unfortunately not all my editors saw my memo to stop doing it and not surprising we were officially blacklisted when they (unknowingly) continued to violate the terms. This all happened 6 or 7 years ago and DS has grown significantly since then. We're not a UGC site as suggested by the previous wiki editor you mentioned. We have a staff of over 40 editors, writers, reviewers, photographers and overly passionate podcast producers - one of which you've had the pleasure of already meeting ;). We occasionally publish stories submitted by regular readers but only after a site editor fact checks them, rewrites as needed and formats appropriately. Nothing submitted by a user ever goes straight to the site and I'd say only about 5% of what is submitted actually gets published by our editors. Anyway, I really appreciate your feedback about how to possibly get the site un-blacklisted. We're definitely not a perfect news organization and have had our fair share of accidental misinformation publishes but we ALWAYS correct them the moment we're aware of the mistake. It's happened a few times but when you consider the fact that we publish roughly 20 stories a day and have done so pretty consistently for 7 years I'd say our track record is pretty good. Do you guys think its worth taking the time to request removal from the blacklist or is it a lost cause? Dsjohnnyx (talk) 02:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dsjohnnyx Hmm... upon reading the rationale on the request board it looks like a request from you or anyone affiliated with the site will be automatically declined. However at the same time, I am impressed that you have not only acknowledged that you guys were the reason for the blacklisting but also that you basically understand why. I figure that what I can do is mention this on the talk page for the request board and see where it goes from there. Something that I can request from you, if I may, is that you post this same information about the editorial oversight and staff somewhere on your website. Not only would this make it easier for Wikipedia to justify de-blacklisting you, but it's also good to have in general. The reason for this is that I've actually taken some classes for my library science degree that go into helping patrons/clients look for sources - one of the number one things that was stressed was that a good source will usually have their staff members clearly listed (with positions like editor, writer, etc) and will have their article/story acceptance policy clearly listed on their site. You do have this to a degree on your website and your story acceptance policies are listed on the FAQ page (although it doesn't mention that an editor will glance over the submission), but the staff list is a bit unclear. This isn't stuff that you absolutely have to change, but I will say that this is stuff that Wikipedia tends to like when it comes to looking at sites and something that would definitely help you out with the request board. (I'm not guaranteeing that it will be de-blacklisted but this could only help.) It doesn't have to look like this, but Dread Central has something along the lines of what I'm talking about as far as staff rosters go. This is just my own personal preference, though, but it's one that I've seen others prefer as well. (Putting the titles somewhere with the staff profiles.) Hmm... something else that could help is if you could show where reliable sources have covered your website in some form or fashion. WP:PRIMARY sources like websites for bands you've covered wouldn't be usable, but mentions in places like this could help, although preferably it'd be in more visible newspapers. Another good thing that would help show that your site would be reliable is if your site's reviews were used in ranking aggregators like Metacritic. Heck, if your reviews were used in Metacritic then that'd likely be something that would be enough to de-blacklist you on that alone. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]