Hi there! I noticed you've been active lately with the articles for creation project. I wanted to invite you to our public IRC channel at #wikipedia-afc. In there, we field questions from IP submitters and reviewers can help each other out with reviews. Hope you can join! Thanks! GrooveDog (talk) 02:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed to restoration of early historic photographs
Thank you for making this edit. I am very opposed to having these early photographs interpreted in this way and would like you to read this discussion before continuing to honor similar requests at Commons. Thank you. Sswonk (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Niagara Falls Pictures
I just saw the link to the gallery there. I saw that the Niagara Falls article had a tag saying that it had too many pictures that's why I moved some of them to a new place. But you are right, a media commons gallery is more appropriate. I'll check if all the pictures are there so that they are not lost after the deletion of the Niagara Falls Pictures page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin.vp (talk • contribs) 13:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People Skills
Regarding your help on the almost empty initial page. (Please see below.) I didn't see your second note until after placing the full content on the article page. That did not stop the deletion. Now there is only a template to Wiktionary. What is the procedure now? Thank you, PSY7 (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"helpme: I have the content ready to post except waiting a few hours for the last editor. Can the page stay for 24 hours without content added? --PSY7 (talk) 23:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Make the edit and add a hangon tag, explaining here that the article has been modified since the speedy deletion nomination was made. ∙ AJCham ᵀᴬᴸᴷ 23:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I've just realised I misunderstood your question. It seems you're saying that you intend to edit the article tomorrow, and wish for it not to be deleted in the meantime, is that correct? If so, that's not really a valid reason for contesting the speedy deletion. If it is deleted before you edit it you can just recreate the article with the appropriate content when you are ready. There is no real reason to place a temporary holding page without any content. ∙ AJCham ᵀᴬᴸᴷ 23:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)"''
Hi PSY7, I've spoken with closedmouth, who added the Wiktionary link. I agree with him that the article was original research, so I'm afraid that I would have to say that the article was indeed unsuitable. Please don't let this discourage you though; we all have to learn the ropes when we start editing WP. There are some useful links in the Welcome section of your talk page. I'm sure in time you'll make plenty of valuable contributions. Give me a buzz if you need any further help.
I logged in to Wikimedia and tried to vote, but was disallowed as perhaps I do not meet the criteria. So I went back to Wikipedia, and clicked on Please vote, put in my choices and it worked. Thanks. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
COLLABOR8 Article
Hi AJCham,
I note that you requested that this article be deleted under the blatant advertising criteria. This article does not fall into this category for a number of reasons. This is an EU INTERREG sponsored programme that does not and will not seek to sell or otherwise gain financial reward from any source, either the general public or those people/businesses directly involved with the programme. In fact the programme provides funding for training programmes etc to participants.
In addition, there is no "product" on offer - it is simply a programme to encourage businesses to work together with the aim of establishing sustainable, quality tourism related businesses based on a sense of place in the the areas covered by the 9 partners involved in the project.
COLLABOR8 is a concept and the purpose of the article is to highlight the fact that the EU programme exists and to encourage people who are interested to seek more information on it and its aims. The programme has its own website www.collabor8.me and receives extensive coverage on the Interreg website.
As I am a new user of the site I would appreciate any help and assistance you can offer to ensure that this article can comply fully with the sites conditions.SeandeB (talk) 13:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SeandeB, sorry for the late reply.
My understanding of the blatant advertising criteria does not require the the offering of a commercial product, nor the pursuit of financial gain to qualify as advertising, and I still believe your article met the criteria. Furthermore, an item on collabor8's website which reads, "[The article] is part of our PR and Media strategy to spread the news a far and wide as possible," only serves to undermine your claim that this is not the case.
I would advise that creating an article where you are personally affiliated with the subject is discouraged. You can refer to the Wikipedia's guidelines regarding conflicts of interest for more details. A better solution would be to list the article at requested articles, preferably directing other editors to reliable and verifiable, third-party sources which can establish COLLABOR8's notability. Someone else can then create the article instead, avoiding any conflict of interest issues.
Alternatively, if you really would prefer to create the article yourself, familiarise yourself with the guidelines and policies I have linked to (see also Your First Article) , and work on the article in userspace - for example you could create the page at user:SeandeB/COLLABOR8. While in this space it will be mostly safe from deletion, and you can have another editor (such as myself) look at it before moving it into live. If you go this route it may be beneficial to declare any conflict of interest you may have openly on your userpage, as if you are perceived as attempting to conceal this information, some Wikipedian's may look upon you less sympathetically.
If you need to ask any more questions, there are a few options:
Leave me a message here - despite the tardiness of this response, I should be more available in future.
Place a {{helpme}} template on your userpage, followed by a question, and an editor should be with you shortly.
You can access the live help chat by visiting here or here, where you are likely to be able to get instant help 24-7.
You could just leave a note on the Project talk page where any of the editors involved could see it. But, if you want to speak to a particular editor, try looking at WikiProject Companies/Participants. This lists all the people who contribute to the WikiProject, many of whom also give a little overview of their specific interests. I notice that Ojay123 and Antandrus express an interest in energy companies. I doubt they would mind if you made a polite request for help on one or the other's talkpage. Be sure to explain why you are approaching them specifically - some time may have passed since they became involved in the WikiProject, and they may have moved onto other things. DoktorMandrake15:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks AJCham for your recommendations. I follow your instructions and started contacting one of the person you've mentioned. Did get a response back, but I was suggested back that I could make the edits myself as long as its all NPOV. For now the only critical thing is to clear up the company profile as the headquarter is even incorrect. So, I know I know ... but I could not help it and make the edits myself. They are all credible sources. I really hope that we will get more luck later once we will have more sections to edits. Thanks Again!
The article was originally stub tagged on 14 August by Beeblebrox - he tagged it with bio-stub, and I was merely changing it to a more specific stub category. Feel free to remove the tags if you feel that it doesn't qualify as a stub. I would point out that the article still seems very short, but I am not familiar enough with the subject matter to judge how big the article is likely to become (so cannot apply the Croughton-London rule). DoktorMandrake20:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm grateful to you for your research - indeed, that is where I got the concept from. The Peter Principle is very widely quoted and highly influential. Even though the work was somewhat tongue in cheek, it was nowhere near a hoax - it was a genuine study of bureaucracy by a cynic and humorist. The term 'tabulology' appears to originate in his work. Other authors have certainly studied table arrangement and so on but have not done it under this term. I've recreated the article as a redirect. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. BTW, I hope that tagging as "hoax" did not imply any suspicion of malintent. My only motivation was to have what I regarded as misinformation removed, and I don't doubt the submission was made in good faith. On reflection, I think "hoax" may have been too strong, in spite of the fact that the deleting admin did not seem to question my assessment. DoktorMandrake20:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the wording significantly, so it is not covered by their copyright. Notice no sentence is the same.
But I see your point that it is very similar. So even if it is covered by the copyright, I can substantiate my submission because I know the copyright holder of http://www.machlispresents.org/, and have their permission to use that text. How can I submit this proof of permission to you?
Edit: OK, I couldn't think of how I could get to you the copyright permission without e-mail, which I suppose you can claim is fake. So I just completely rewrote it. The text is now my own, which I wrote without even looking at the website you cited.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 56.0.163.16 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 23 September 2009
Actually it is possible to verify copyright permission - either the license can be displayed at the source website, in this case http://www.machlispresents.org/, or the copyright holder can email the Wikimedia Foundation, as detailed at WP:PERMISSION.
However, if you have already rewritten the article in your own words I will reopen the submission. Chances are it will be another editor that reviews it, as it is outside my area of experience. Therefore, I don't wish to comment on the reliability of the sources or notability of the subject at this point. DoktorMandrake20:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, again. And thanks for adding the year of birth categories. I thought of it at the last minute, but got distracted rewriting the little rail engineer stub. --69.225.5.4 (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Minor barnstar
The Minor Barnstar
That was nice of you to spend extra editorial minutes on the stub I submitted to make Helen Westcott a more useful article for wikipedia readers. In my opinion, this type of attention to detail, on articles written by others, is what will make wikipedia's team effort a success. --69.225.5.4 (talk) 20:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your prompt response. But this rule seems strange. I can remove the tag within "7 days", but not after? Are you sure you don't mean it the other way around - that I can remove the Tag only after 7 days? --Ludvikus (talk) 01:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. After seven days, if the tag remains, the proposal to delete will be considered uncontested and the article will be deleted. Removing the tag before then is the correct way to contest a proposed deletion. The proposer then, if they still believe the article should be deleted, may take it to Articles for Deletion to be discussed. DoktorMandrake01:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. But I created the article. Since I created it - is not the case that I may not remove the Tag? Someone else - like you = must do it? --Ludvikus (talk) 01:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For speedy deletions and AFDs, that is correct, you should not remove the tag. (In fact doing so repeatedly can get a user blocked).
But PRODs are different, and as I said, the correct way to contest it is to remove the tag; see WP:CONTESTED. Of course, it also helps to explain why you are doing so, in the hope that the nominator will accept the explanation, and not take the article to AFD. DoktorMandrake01:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's very, very nice. But you probably haven't notice - I'm an editor upon whom a WP:Restriction has been place. So I would appreciate it if (a) you removed the Tag yourself, or (b) posted your 100% assurance that I have a right to remove that Tag - because I am being carefully watched by the Restricting editor. If I'm wrong on this, I may be Banned, not you. So please make this statement-of-Tag-removal-advice on my Talk page. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am the contributor who added information to the "Fabulous Mr. Fox" entry, noting that the directory is under fire for signing the petition to free Roman Polanski.
I see from your edit work that you are a serious contributor and Wiki volunteer, and not a studio rep. Thank you for any guidence you may provide. This was my first post, and I hope I did it right technically. Here's what I wrote:
Two months prior to the film's release, Director Wes Anderson inserted himself into the "Free Roman Polanski" controversy, when he joined 137 other directors, actors and other film industry leaders who signed [2] a widely-circulated petition demanding that the 76-year old director and fugitive child rapist be released from Swiss custody, after his capture days earlier. In 1977, after his confession and a brief incarceration over the drugging, rape and sodomy of a 13-year old girl, Polanski fled the US. He had been living in Paris for 30 years, finally being arrested by the Swiss en route to an international award ceremony in Zurich, infuriating members of the international film community. A number of bloggers and columnists seized upon the resulting petition demanding Polanski's release as an example of what they believe to be an outrageous and twisted sense of entitlement and blatant acceptance of immorality shown by the artists. The petition was notable by its ironic inclusion of Woody Allen, who years earlier had endured scorn and controversy by marrying his 18-year old stepdaughter, and director Anderson, hoping for commercial success as he directs his first childrens' movie. Because of this, some bloggers have gone so far as to call for a boycott of the film, claiming Anderson is far too insensitive to Polanski's horrific crime to be rewarded commercially by parents and their children.
Doktor, this issue simply erupted in the news over the past 24 hours. It's not ranting; the contribution was factual, clearly written, topical, and supported by a solid base of global news, as cited in the reference I provided. Thus I am at a loss as to why you deleted it. Would you be so kind as to help me understand your rules, and the process you followed in taking this action?
First I would say that the bulk of the submission was irrelevant to the article, which is about the film, not Wes Anderson or Roman Polanski. Also, the submission was largely unsourced - the source provided only supports the claim that the director was a signatory on the petition. Furthermore, the text seems somewhat POV (eg. "twisted sense of ... immorality" and "horrific crime") - weasel words such as "a number of bloggers" need to be made more specific and cited to reliable sources.
However, as I said most of this is irrelevant to this particular article, and the only part that may be worth keeping is that there may be a boycott due to the director's signing of the "Free Roman Polanski" petition - but only if it can be appropriately sourced, reworded, and added in a more suitable part of the article, rather than the lead section.
My revision WAS NOT in anyway an advert for any commercial site and was an attempt to provide viewers of the page a further reference to follow. The sites I listed are non profit making and are purely reference based, as there are already "adverts" on this wiki page pointing to the Scootdawg forum and the buggynews forum, are you going to be removing them also?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveatgy6 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These links have already been removed from the article twice, and I suggest that you discuss them on the article's talk page, where someone has already copied them for discussion. If the links add genuine encyclopaedic value, that is where you should make your case.
In future, a descriptive edit summary explaining why you are adding external links can help your cause, and may be less likely to appear as spam. All the best, DoktorMandrake00:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Swati Mia Saini
Non-free content is not available where the engagement of the subject with CNBC is concerned which contributes more than anything else to notability. This why this particular image showing CNBC background is kosher.--History Sleuth (talk) 04:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I love Wikipedia, but it's very liberal. I inserted info about a book to "winter soldiers", and obviously you had no idea about the book before you reverted the change I made.
Hi Doc, I was attempting to roll back the multiple vandals on the page and got caught in the middle, I would appreciate a retraction. Ooops, I see you already responded to the situation. All well then. Jusdafax03:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments on the help desk. I'm a little confused; although I am most of the time. At present the raw code for my signature is <font face="Kristen ITC"> <font color="#FF6600">~~</font>[[User:Declan Davis#top|<span style="color:#006600;">Dr Dec</span>]] <font color="#009999">([[User talk:Declan Davis|Talk]])</font> <font color="#000099"> </font> <font color="#FF6600">~~</font> </font>, with the output ~~Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ . You mentioned something about using <span style="font-family:Serif; color:#006600;">'''this'''</span> instead of <font face="Serif" color="#006600">'''this'''</font>. Why is that? Wouldn't it make my signature too long if I were to change it in this way? Could you have a go at re-writing my signature using span style, etc, instead of font? I'd be most appreciative. I've tried but I get confused! ~~Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 15:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dr Dec - the reason I advised against <font> tags is that they are now deprecated HTML, and have been superseded by CSS styles. I've created 2 CSS versions of your sig below - the first should produce the exact same result as your current sig (and is actually shorter):
History and quoting text that contain colorful or puff words
When doing historical research one is allowed to 'copy exactly' if one is only taking parts from the original source material. If one comes across colored words in the source text
can these be added to the Wikipedia? For example: [The control wrote violently with abbreviations that Dorr was to fix anything that was wrong.] "Violently" is used here in the primary source. Can you copy the phrase exactly as shown by citing it in the wikipedia as: 'The control wrote violently with abbreviations that Dorr was to fix anything that was wrong.' <ref> Studies in Spiritism by Amy Tanner, Prometheus Books, 1994, Hall's introduction page 22</ref> So that the reader will know the word "violently" is NOT MY word or a puff word but Hall's word used in the primary source and therefore it is protected from deletion. Or must the phrase be written without color or puff as [ The control wrote with abbreviations that Dorr was to fix anything that was wrong] EXCLUDING the word "violently" Personally I think the word "violently" is a proper description about HOW the control wrote. Please reply soon. Kazuba (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. I must confess to not quite understanding what is meant by "violent" writing - and I'm not sure whether this is merely descriptive terminology, or if it may carry the author's personal agenda with it. (Sorry, but it is difficult to be precise without a good understanding of the context). It is OK to cite people's opinions - the important thing is that the article itself does not push an opinion. And whilst you can quote short sections verbatim, they must be clearly indicated as quotations, beyond just putting " " around them.
If you would like to give me more information regarding where exactly you are looking to add this text, or indeed if you already have, so that I have a better chance of understanding the context, and may be able to advise better on an appropriate style. Regards, AJCham02:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. It just occurred to me that my username has changed in between you posting the question and me replying - at the time of your message, I was using the name DoktorMandrake, but have since changed it (back) to AJCham. Sorry for any confusion I may have caused. AJCham02:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Several of our members monitor Wikipedia's help IRC channel, and you are welcome to join in to ask Wikipedia-related questions.
The IRC channel #wikipedia-en-afcconnect is used occasionally for internal discussion regarding the AfC process, and also serves as a recent changes feed, displaying all edits made in the Articles for creation namespace.
The help desk is the place where new editors can ask questions about their submissions. You are welcome to help in answering their questions.
I am doubtful as to the subject's notability - I cannot find much coverage, and sources would be needed to establish if he is. If those can be found, please add them and also address the wording of the article, which is currently non-neutral. If these issues can be addressed, the submission can be reopened.
The orginal source , SikhHockeyOlympians.com, granted the permission to upload them on wikipedia so long as source SikhHockeyOlympians.com is credited.
Awarded to AJCham for his work on Berthold Faust--and by extension to all the stub-sorters and categorizers and proofreaders who help manage and improve our new articles and stubs. Thank you AJ, thank you all. Drmies (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My ability to evaluate the sources is hampered by my lack of knowledge of Norweigan, but I'll give it a go:
flipkart and americanpoems could be used to source basic information (eg. ISBN, publication date etc.), but don't establish notability - they only show that the book exists, not that it is notable.
IDG, if I understand correctly, is the book's Norweigan publisher? If so, then it is a primary source - again it can be used to source some basic information, but does not establish notability.
digi.no seems to be an adequately reliable source, so should be OK, although I can't evaluate how significant the coverage is. Assuming they have no connection with the author or publisher these should be fine as independent references.
The link to a freely distributable copy of the book should be perfectly fine, I believe, but make sure it appears in an External Links section at the end (after the references) rather than in the body text of the article.
If my evaluation is correct, then we only have one independent source so far (although they do cover it three times) so one or two other sources would be very handy and assuage any doubts people may have over notability. AJCham21:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
