Cindy10000

B-sides

Ok miss 10000, I'm not trying to anger you. According to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style on this website it is NOT necessary to have the B-sides on an artist's discography page unless the B-side was a charting single itself. For example, American country artist, Patsy Cline had several B-sides (such as "Who Can I Count on," "Strange," and "A Poor Man's Roses (Or a Rich Man's Gold)") that charted on the Billboard charts, which is why it's included on her discography. Every single released by an artist usually contains a B-side, as you already know of course. However the need to actually include every single's B-side is just much too overwhelming for a singles chart on a discography page or article. Remember these are discographies we're talking about here, not "songographies," and here we're concerned just with the release, not the songs on the releases. Usually when a song article is created (it has to be a major hit in order for a page to be created about it), a B-side section in the infobox is allowed so that the article's creator can add the song's B-side. I can understand your frustration because I'm sure finding all of those B-sides must of been hard to do, but they're not necessary on a singles table or on a discography. If you would like to create song articles for Charly McClain's hit singles and add the B-sides to the song infobox, then go ahead and do so, but until then, B-sides will be removed from the articles you added them to. I hope you can understand, thank you :) Dottiewest1fan (talk) 01:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

As I had stated before they are not desirable to a singles chart. You have to understand this issue. Also when leaving a response on my talk page, please do copy and paste what I had previously said to you. I can remember what I am saying, I'm pretty sure. Please don't take this the wrong way, but the discography is just suppose to include, singles released, albums released, music videos, etc. B-sides are just not a part of that. If would like to comment on this issue, please discuss it on a talk page before making unnecessary revisions to a talk page. Everything that seems out of the ordinary should be discussed before being put into action. Dottiewest1fan (talk) 18:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Dottiewest1fan is right. B-sides are much harder to source, and border on indiscriminate information. There's no point in adding information which would be nearly impossible to source — how would anyone reading the article know it to be true? Don't think that Dottiewest1fan is singlehandedly reverting your work; indeed, B-sides are discouraged on discographies. Check any discography that's listed at featured lists, and you'd find that none lists the b-sides. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, B-sides are much harder to source. All the more reason to compile the information. In time, this info will be lost if not documented. I happen to have original copies of all the 45RPM records in question and so know the info to be absolutely factual. Accuracy is extremely important to me and so is completeness. By the way, it is not correct that there not other pages that include b-sides, because there are. I would hate to see those deleted and other people who went to the effort to compile the information upset too. Also, as I stated in another communication, the guidelines are not policy. There has been and is current discussion on this topic going on. (Cindy10000 (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)).

Oops, no. Your looking at the 45s to determine the B-side tracks is original research, which is not an acceptable source of support for assertions on Wikipedia. All questionable assertions must be verifiable by reference to reliable sources. It can seem a little counterintuitive when you're first starting out that the actual record itself is not considered a "reliable source", but in fact that is the case. Please take a few minutes to brush up on an overview of the main community expectations and standards here, and you may also want to take a look at WP:NOT, which spells out what kind of information is not appropriate for inclusion. Most of all, please bear in mind we work by consensus and coöperation—not by competition—within Wikipedia's policies and protocols (also determined by consensus) to improve the project. It is neither helpful nor productive for you to make accusations of censorship, and it is apparent you don't yet understand very clearly how things work here. Many editors and administrators will be glad to help get you up to speed, but please assume good faith and take a more coöperative tone; with time and experience your understanding of how Wikipedia works will surely improve if you let it. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C00:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest and advise. I really appreciate it. Yes, I am rather new to Wikipedia and some of the ways are alien to me. But, I can learn. That doesn't mean that I will abandon my views, although I am persuadable with sensible argument.(Cindy10000 (talk) 01:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)).

You certainly needn't abandon your views, though you will often have to figure out how to incorporate elements of your views with those of others to arrive at a consensus all interested parties can live with. One thing: it's best to keep discussions in one place. If a discussion is started on your talk page (such as this one), reply on your talk page, not on the user talk page of whomever you're replying to, and definitely not on that party's user page as you inadvertently did on my user page—as you can see, I've moved your comment ↑here↑. In most cases, a user participating in a discussion will keep track of changes to that page where the discussion is located. Keeping any given discussion on one page makes it much easier for everyone to follow and participate, and makes your future reference much easier. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C02:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Forgive me for the copy and past to your talk page (you can delete after you read), but I just noticed your post on my talk page and it's been a few days and so thought you might not check back for a reply. First of all, sorry for my bungling edit to your user page, it will not happen again, it was a mistake. I completely agree with you regarding keeping the discussions on one page to make the conversation flow easy to follow. However, everyone does not seem to agree, which is why I did what I did to you. Another user had just chastized me for trying to keep the back and forths on one page and I had just apologized for that.(That's the appology that Dottiewest1fan was accepting on my talk page) Anyway, you see the confusion. I want to thank you again for taking the time to assist me in learning the ways of the Wikipedia community. I truly appreciate it.(Cindy10000 (talk) 17:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC))

(Retrieved from User_talk:Scheinwerfermann)

Hello again. Whoever chastised you for keeping the discussion on one page is out of line. Keeping it on one page is the courteous and correct way to do it, and there is an easy special tool for alerting somebody that there's been an update to a conversation on a talk page other than their own. All you have to do is go to their talk page, hit the "new section" tab up at the top, then type {{talkback|WhateverWhichPage}}. Obviously, you substitute the actual user name where the discussion is taking place. So, for example, if we were in the middle of a discussion on my talk page and I wanted to make sure you stopped by for an updated look, I would type {{talkback|Scheinwerfermann}} and then save the page, and it would appear on your talk page like this:

Hello, Cindy10000. You have new messages at Scheinwerfermann's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

This way, the recipient of the talkback notification need only click a convenient link to be taken to the discussion, which is kept all in one place. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C20:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Very Cool!... Thanks... (Cindy10000 (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)).

Yep, just like that. You're welcome. Now if I may offer one more bit of advice: Assume good faith. ← Please click on that blue text right there and read it carefully. Accusing others—whether in general or particular—of censorship, suppression of dissenting views, etc., means you are assuming bad faith. It will not accomplish anything worthwhile here. With the odd exception, most contributors who even just try to align their participation with the core principles of Wikipedia (coöperate, build and abide by consensus, etc.) truly do have at heart and in mind the betterment of the encyclopædia—even if you may not agree with how they strive towards that common goal. Your sockpuppet case was not opened because you and another editor happen to agree on a viewpoint not currently supported by consensus. It was opened because the pattern of edits by you and the other editor look as though they might be the work of one and the same individual, operating two accounts. If that's not the case, you've nothing to worry about; the investigation is generally fair and thorough. But loudly proclaiming your persecution right out of the gate is only going to alienate many contributors who might otherwise be inclined to help you. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Your advise is very welcome..... I'm assuming it stems from my response to the sockpuppetry (what a word!) accusation, which to me sure feels like my good faith is being questioned.... It's difficult to calmly assume good faith towards someone that is disparaging yours. If someone had thought this about me, why couldn't they ask questions first, and act later if my response didn't clear up their concerns?... I can assure you, I am operating ONE account for myself... The other account in question IS another individual... I am taking your words to heart and TRYING to rein in my offense, but it's not easy.... At least I learned a new word to add to my vocabulary...(Ha, Ha..) (Cindy10000 (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)).

The "sockpuppet" term is actually rather apt for the phenomenon it describes. Think about a real-life sock puppet and it may make better sense to you. Because Wikipedia works on the basis of negotiated consensus, sockpuppetry is regarded very dimly. I know it's difficult not to feel upset and impugned when you are being scrutinised as a possible puppetmaster, but—assuming you aren't one—it'll blow over with no harm nor foul. If it's just by pure happenstance that another editor's first and almost-only contributions have been to agree very closely with you, the admins who look at such matters will see so. If you haven't yet read my quick guide to the basics of interaction on Wikipedia, you may want to. Oh, and hey, we are having this discussion in the middle of another discussion. You may want to separate out this exchange and put it under its own section header just to keep your talk page tidy (but it's your talk page, so you can do or not-do whatever you please.) I've taken the liberty, I hope you don't mind, of fixing the indentation hierarchy of your comment just above this one. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C01:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the term itself now makes more sense, although the rush to judgment still doesn't... And, I have to say, you have been quite helpful in pointing me to areas within Wikipedia that are intended to explain the various terms and traditions followed here, however, I have still been unable to comprehend many of the fine points which seem to me to have many stated contradictions. I'm not complaining about that at all, because I think including pro's and con's, and other considerations within a guideline provides insight and helps to prevent rigid thinking. But, I think it is worth pointing out, that a person creating a new account for the purpose of edit identification, does not come already credentialed with a degree in Wikipedia protocol. And, the sign up page in no way implies that they should, nor are there any readily noticeable cautions or pitfalls described, such as the possible appearance of something like sockpuppetry and how to guard against it.... Most new editors begin with a single item of interest where an error or omission catches their eye and for which they feel motivation to correct or improve.... Most do not intend to make a career out of editing, and most, like me, couldn't even if they wanted to, due to demanding and time consuming jobs. But, I firmly believe that Wikipedia benefits from these first time and occasional editors.... They can bring new information, new ideas, and additional insight into the mix.... By all accounts, this was the original foundation of the Wikipedia idea....... By the way, your "Quick Guide" is great, but I would have never seen it except for our coincidental meeting.............No, I don't mind you taking a liberty that is educationally intended... And, I'm all for clarity of communication as well as aesthetic tidiness... So, please feel free... And again, Thanks....(Cindy10000 (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)).

P.S. I still don't get how consensus is is reached an implemented.... I really don't.... I never thought of myself as thickheaded...but......(Cindy10000 (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)).

I accept your apology :) But again, please create a discussion about such a subject, which I can see you have already did on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style. As you can see, for now B-sides are not necessary in discographies right now, but Wiki always changes the rules so you never know. Have a good day =) Dottiewest1fan (talk) 01:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

(I saw the discussion at ANI) Just one little advice: never accuse editors here of "censorship" when they are trying to enforce some guideline or when they try to fit the article to the structure given at a wikiproject page. Never, you will just piss them off. There is a 99.9% chance that they are not making censorship, and that they are just enforcing n good faith the guidelines. If they are so insistent about the guidelines it's probably because they had previous problems when the guidelines weren't being enforced, and some articles had become a mess because of this, and they had to work a lot just to repair the articles. There is a small percentage of cases when there is actual censorship going on at a given article, but this is not the case here, just look at how many different editors tell you that it's just guideline enforcement. It's just good-faith editors trying to keep all discographic articles inside a guideline so the articles don't become a mess, because it takes a lot of work to clean up that mess. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:

You posted it twice, so I removed the one at the top of the page and said in my edit summary "Once is enough". All new talk page discussions should be placed at the bottom of the page, which you did correctly, just there was no need to post it at the top as well. No one deleted your comment, it's still there down the bottom with a few responses. Your comment is definitely worthy of further discussion, don't be detered by a negative response. If you believe you have a valid point, argue it, convince the rest of us. That's the idea! :) k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 16:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cindy10000 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. JD554 (talk) 19:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I got the same notice. Looks like descenting views by people who agree are discouraged. (Cdmass (talk) 21:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)).

Here is an example of a bad call and the reason CheckUser should not be used except in extreme cases of real abuse. It is not a fool-proof means to prove Sockpuppetry. There are multiple explanations why IP’s can show a “connection” between innocent users. Here is such a case…..I have been a reader of Wikipedia for a long time, but signed up for an account back in 2007 as a pleasure. I resent having to reveal any personal information about myself just to defend against this accusation….. I am part of two different networks. One of which is made up of many computers, eleven of which are openly available to me as well as many other people. The other network is made up of 4 computers, all available to me (although I traditionally use only one) and to 6 other people. There are two other people besides myself who have these two networks in common….. I never had any concerns about this, nor did it ever occur to me that this could create a problem with the appearance of illegal multiple accounts at Wikipedia or anyplace else. Since this accusation, I have made inquiries and found out which of these persons owns the other account in question. This person was not recruited by me to take my side in discussion or for any other reason. He made the decision on his own and it came about because of some common interests. He suspected, but did not ask or know for sure, that Cindy10000 was me. Yes, it turns out that we know each other, but we have NOT been working in collusion. (However, I have seen lots of evidence of other editors in good standing, openly working together against users they do not agree with. Is this OK?)….. If Wikipedia frowns so heavily upon acquaintances with interests in common participating in the editing process, then it should be so stated as part of the sign up process. Although, I find it really hard to believe that the founders of Wikipedia intended to exclude all those with any IP or personal connection. In fact the log out page states “This computer may be used to browse and edit Wikipedia without a username, or for another user to log in” This clearly implies that multiple users are allowed to use the same computer and therefore IP to edit… Doesn’t it?.….. Speaking only for myself, it appears to me that some of the most active editors of Wikipedia have evolved into a club of sorts and feel ownership and authority to protect their charter from newcomers that have not passed initiation….. Here is a case of two individuals, expressing their views with good intentions of improving Wikipedia for all (although admittedly unfamiliar with all the various guidelines), and who have been maligned and had their privacy invaded in the name of …. Uh… What??..(Cindy10000 (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)).

You are blocked because CheckUser turns up positive and what you stated clearly means WP:SHARE OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I just read WP:SHARE... I could not give advanced notice if I did not know in advance that someone sharing my IP was, or would become, a Wikipedia user and/or likely to edit one of the subjects that I did... Whatever happened to the concept of fair warning?... (Cindy10000 (talk) 18:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC))

I don't buy the story of 2 people using the same IP which "happens" to edit on the same page and making exactly the same edit. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You choose not to buy it due to circumstantial evidence which would not be sufficient in a court of law before the defense presented opposing evidence... It is not fair for a judge to apply a verdict before all the facts are known... The fact is that both parties coincidentally had a past personal connection to the subject (person) of the article and both parties therefore had an interest in anything written about that person, including said article, which was rather new, and that is how it happened to attract their attention near the same time... This was not an old article on any old subject that 2 people just happened to visit and similarly edit... This was a new article drawing the attention of anyone (especially Wikipedia users) interested in the subject, and was in the process of being built and refined... Think about how this could make a coincidental difference in events.... Coincidences do happen and this is the truth.... It's not that I don't understand the initial suspicion, but I think it always best to ask questions first and take actions later... There are plenty of people convicted of crimes they did not commit due to a rush to judgment, selective evidence or preconceived prejudices of the jury... It's near impossible to prove innocence in the face of suspicious circumstances... That's why a person should be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt... I was first accused of Sockpuppetry, which wasn't the case, and so the accusation changed to Meatpuppetry which wasn't the case either, so now I'm still presumed guilty due to WP:SHARE... It seems that no matter what the truth really is, good faith presumption will not be extended to me even though I have been a Wikipedia member for 2 years with never a hint of impropriety, and I will be found guilty of some infraction covered in the multitudes of Wikipedia policies and guidelines that would take a person many hours of directed reading to learn about... I never edited much and never had the time (or I the thought need) to study for a Wikipedia exam or credential... Injustice is harmful for everyone... How would you feel if you knew yourself to be innocent of purposeful wrongdoing and those with the power refused to see it?...(Cindy10000 (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)).

←Personally I find this whole chain of coincidences you want us to accept as pretty unbelievable. However, if you wish to pursue it, you are entitled to appeal your block. Details can be seen at WP:APPEAL. --JD554 (talk) 07:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been in mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cindy10000 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)