You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete or generic. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact source (such as the web page, or printed document) where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain, search engine, pinboard, aggregator, or the direct/bare URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you. — Ирука13 11:44, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
To access the direct link on the site, one first navigates to https://amandashiresmusic.com/ then clicks "Enter Site". The page changes to the page with the album cover image, but the URL is still https://amandashiresmusic.com/ with no subdomain or directory. Following such a link would not lead to the page displaying the file, without that click on "Enter Site". So, that would be the URL, but the two step process may confuse users. Either way, the domain name is exactly the same. I've been uploading images here since 2008, seems to me the copyright is clear on this, it comes from the website owned by the artist. I think listing what is there already, regardless of the bare URL, is the way to approach this. Sswonk (talk) 14:06, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
@Iruka13, I asked Help, got some clarity, all set, and I will review other images. Sswonk (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
Hi, out of the blue though, I can only deny your notice. I haven't "not assumed" sorry, can you tell me where your faith assessment comes from, because I think you have it wrong? Sswonk (talk) 12:00, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
I provided the link to the page. 11WB (talk) 12:01, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Just want to leave a final note here. It would be in your best interest to wait at least 90 days before requesting AP again, otherwise the bot will automatically reply to any request that is left. You've now had two declines in a six-month period. Demanding respect and preaching about biases that may or may not exist is an extremely poor way to approach an administrative noticeboard request. Your request was essentially doomed as soon as you left that reply. Your AP was not removed for any reason other than simple inactivity. This rule was established by consensus one year ago for security reasons. Wikipedia functions on consensus. My best advice for you would be to work with other editors, not against them. We're here to build an encyclopedia together after all. Thank you for your contributions to the project and happy editing! 11WB (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Yeah no doubt, it makes no sense 11WB. Perspective this side is that if there is a way to combat the real issue, I will repeat, subconscious misogyny, it should be found. Not found here in this series of interactions. I am not assuming bad faith! It is the very opposite, so that is why I at one point recently wrote "I deserve respect". How do people see that as a demand? Basically it is a plea for some sort of understanding that is absent, expressing a feeling of disrespect.
I have no idea what feeling it gives anyone to have an article written about their work. Each artist is a different individual. But, I think that Amanda Shires did what she could do about a severe drop in airplay for songs by female performers. Given that, I think Shires and others probably look at the coverage of their genre and specifically at the coverage of female Americana artists here and would want more articles. They aren't demanding, at least that isn't the word I would use. They are pointing to the obvious, which does the demanding for them.
I could fall further down the hole, write about that word consensus, it isn't worth it. 11WB, "honest" is hard. But trying to use words that historically have resulted in repeated failures – I mean wars – is not in the cards for me. I have to try to "break" the language that causes the bad, the injustice. English is not sacred to me, and it is for all of us including me, to improve it in the same way you talk about improving Wikipedia. Great to know that you want to help do that, by your message I can only assume that you do. Sswonk (talk) 16:22, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
"I have no idea what feeling it gives anyone to have an article written about their work." I actually have a very recent example that I can share for this. The BLP Monica Tranel was seen by the actual Tranel, their reaction is observable at the AfD and their talk page. Based on this, my answer would be: not very good. 11WB (talk) 00:06, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
I just noticed you addressed something I said at WP:AN/I without making me aware of this. You also tried to get @Sohom Datta (and @Voorts) into trouble, when there was no actionable violation. I am very disappointed by this. 11WB (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
I didn't realize you would need notification. On what you feel dissapointed about: No 11WB, I tried to get them to hear me rather than mischaracterize/se me. I really don't mind talking about it for you this time, and hope you can not, repeat, not (!) worry that I called for action on the two editors. This continues to be a bad, unfortunate experience so I do mind that it is continuing. I asked for advice about how to disavow any formal authority or mark against me that their poor portraits of my intentions and even my words themselves might carry. It isn't right to think of it, should it disappoint you, as any sort of curse, judgement, omen, trouble, upon anyone. We need less of what they were saying, it was wrong and somewhat slanderous, but if I cared that much like the word "actionable" implies, I would consider myself a bit crazy. Hope that is all you need on it, 11WB.
On the BLP point above, I venture back to something I wrote here, each artist/BLP subject is a different individual. That means, I don't think there can be an answer, or "no idea". Sswonk (talk) 03:31, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
This matter is settled. I was simply responding as I hadn't seen the various threads that were opened at AN/I or XRV. WP:AN/I says at the top: 'When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.' The AN/I was about @Sodium and @Voorts, but a ping to let me know I had been mentioned wouldn't have gone amiss. I also don't agree with the personal attack that was left on your talk page. I'm sorry you received that. It looks like @voorts has removed it. 11WB (talk) 03:36, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.
was assigned to me by @AirshipJungleman29 for not being clear and causing confusion, I think. Sswonk (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia in real time
Geese feeding along the Charles River in Cambridge, Massachusetts, January 15, 2026
I have attempted to improve the encyclopedia. Hoping we all can enjoy the rest of spring, I am posting because I get the feeling there is more acrimony on Wikipedia than we all deserve, and it is caused by hubris and vanity. Sometimes I think this site is played, as in jumped the shark, kaput, sorry. I see @Jimbo as doing a good job, and recognize it is hard being famous, as Juliana Hatfield recently substacked about. Jimmy Wales does it well, but there is a problem of authenticity for men here that creeps up often, even after 25 years.
The policies are not allowing coverage that isn't important to what is already important to the people that think they are important. It is probably a reflection of academia. When I started college in 1978, the University of Notre Dame was still in the process of fully inviting women to attend, having converted the first dormitory for their use, Badin Hall, in 1972. Women were about one-fifth of the students when I was attending. I don't think the efforts to force this encyclopedia to break from a similar ratio are working.
The situations, the late arrival of women in professional society nearly 200 years after admonishment from Abigail Adams to accommodate them, and the lack of diversity in the editorship here, both do not speak well for this male dominated world we live in. I, from my heart, believe that to lessen future suffering, eliminate wars, and avoid possible societal collapse, we need to find solutions that don't exist within that male-dominated world.
To a degree, Wikipedia works well. There was a lot to celebrate on Wikipedia day, January 15. I was there at MIT, led by @Phoebe and @Amy, it was good to be there watching the live link of, and with, users around the world. But I think with all sincerity that the result of all our efforts are only serving a portion of society that follows the same rules; rigorous peer review is limited in its applications. That thought leads me to conclude that Wikipedia suffers an insurmountable obstacle: the fact that it wants to be an Encyclopedia. It needs to be something more, it needs to transcend academic reference and really focus on the whole of truth. Somehow.
Academia is not where we are going to find the solution. Access to pinnacles of academic success for almost all women was not available until the 1970s. In 2026, the greatest television exposure universities in the United States are allowed involves men playing games that are announced with tremendous passion about strategies, and discussions of the careers ahead for the players, and thoughts on the salaries of the coaches, and occasional images of women jumping up and down in short skirts cheering them all on. 2026. Twenty twenty-six.
To get beyond the old societal problems while living within their very legacies is tremendously difficult, I cheer the efforts of everyone involved in this effort. I don't think that this essay violates WP:RGW, and so what if it does. This site has to be recognized as part of the problem, the gravity of past years forcing continuation with policies that were written before #MeToo and Andrew Tate's popularity alike. We should not turn a blind eye to those things, and reconsider everything on the site at this point. Sswonk (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
