User talk:DoriSmith/Archive 3

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Well..

Why do you continue to say i have copyrighted images? Image:EVHSGYM.jpg and Image:AlbuquerqueView.jpg belongs to me.. please stop talking about me at other pages, if you have something to tell me say it at my page, its getting pretty old.. either that, or just leave me alone. LamyQ (talk) 13:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I continue to say that you have copyrighted images because you keep uploading copyrighted images. Some recent examples: Image:Amanda struss.jpg, Image:Albuquerque Infobox Montage.png (twice), and Image:EVHSLOGO.png (4x). As the saying goes, "Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results." If you keep uploading them, we'll keep taking them down—so make life easier on all of us and stop uploading them, okay?
[Note: on 26 September 2008, Aleta tagged LamyQ as a suspected PoliticianTexas sockpuppet.]
Dori (Talk • Contribs) 22:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case for User:LamyQ

Hello Dori! I have started a sockpuppetry case on LamyQ (talk · contribs) here: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PoliticianTexas (2nd). Please feel free to jump in with additional evidence. I know you track these cases but I did not update your PolTx page. Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good start—I've added a few things as well.
Two thoughts, though: it appears that (while you've created the page) you didn't finish the listing. Was that on purpose, or ? Also, just my experience, but I've found WP:RFCU to be fairly useless and WP:SSP even less helpful. In practice, what it means is that eventually the account gets blocked, he goes and creates a new account the next day, and then we have to go scouting to find the new username and start things all over again. That's why I haven't really bothered with the process any more.
And now that you mention it: feel free to update the PolTX page, any time. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 04:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I forgot to list it at WP:SSP but have done this now.
I agree that the Wikipedia banning system is weak. A banned user (banned for whatever reason) can simply register under a new name and continue. WP:SOCKS doesn't say so in so many words, but I think it is intended against simultaneous sock puppets who generate a false consensus, rather than sequential banned users such as we are dealing with here. We should have been able to get LamyQ banned for copyvio but for some reason than hasn't worked. I only filed a sockpuppetry case because WP:ANI didn't work.
My strategy now is to try to get the editors on a particular page to repel suspicious photos. The theory is that if he can't get his photos displayed he'll stop uploading them. This seems to be working on Albuquerque, New Mexico, where an IP editor attempted to restore LamyQ's last infobox photo and the change was reverted [1]. For Española Valley High School this may be harder, because PoliticianTexas is really the only editor. I'll see what I can do, though. --Uncia (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
LamyQ has been blocked as a sock puppet and there is a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Community_ban_for_PoliticianTexas? about possible long-term solutions. The discussion includes blocking IP ranges, which I know you have mentioned before. --Uncia (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for all your work! I've put my 2¢ in over at WP:ANI. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 04:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

CFVMS

Why should article Carlos F. Vigil Middle School be deleted what is wrong with it? Middle School Pages are made everyday. I dont think your playing it fair i have seen your edits and arguements they should not be allowed on this site, especially when you mark me as a sockpuppet? I'm not a sockpuppet maybe someone shares the same IP i really dont know but i will always make edits to this site. DeLaCueva (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

User:DeLaCueva was blocked on 11 October by User:Blueboy96, for being (surprise!) another PoliticianTexas sockpuppet.

Thanks for help on David Ferguson Bio page

However, someone has reverted our request for facts. I'd appreciate your advice on how to handle this one. This time, it's someone from an IP. I've warned a user, requested protection, and filed a notice of 3RR violation, but I'm in violation myself at this point. Cassandrar (talk) 07:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Cassandrar, I saw what you were up against and decided you could use some help. Some things you might try:
  • Don't change things tiny bits at a time. If someone reverts everything you've added over your last five changes, change them all back at once (loading in an old version and saving that can be the fastest method). That way, you're doing one revert, not several.
  • Pick one place to report problems and keep reporting them there. Reporting problems to 3RR, page protection, vandalism, etc. all at once gives the appearance of forum-shopping.
  • Make sure your hands are clean—do you have any conflicts of interest where you could be seen as having ulterior motives regarding this article?
  • Use the user talk pages as much as you can, and use the standard user warning templates. It's a lot easier to get a vandal blocked if you can show that they've been consistently getting stronger warning messages.
Hope this helps, and if there's anything else I can do, just let me know. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 09:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Note to Dori. CassandraR is vandalizing David Ferguson bio page

Please refrain from blocking attempts to reverse edits made by CassandraR. Initial edits by CassandraR requesting further verification of facts were acceptable, and additional sourcing was provided to meet those demands. However the recent bombardment of edits by CassandarR are clearly personal attacks aimed at discrediting Ferguson and the article, thereby making earlier requests for legitimate edits moot. The consistent re-posting of legal cases is a prime example, in which the user, CassandraR (Dori, please ask CassandraR if 'she' is John Gluck) is asserting opinion about the content of the cases, some of which he has been a party to. So, 'CassandraR' is hardly a disinterested party and clearly has ulterior motives which constitute conflict of interest with the edits in question. Moreover, while the legal cases are indeed public record, they include the access to home addresses and the posting of such personal information online violates Wikipedia policy. CassandraR is a disgruntled former associate of Ferguson and, with the user name of 'CassandraR,' the user is posing as Cassandra Richardson, whom I believe to be a professional acquaintance of Ferguson's, and whom is cited in the article. The real CassandraR (Cassandra Richardson) has made postings or edits to the Ferguson article under 'CassandraCamorra'. This impersonation by CassandraR is therefore a bald-faced attempt at sowing discord between Ferguson and the 'real' Cassandra Richardson (the user, CassandraR, went so far as to intentionally delete the link to Cassandra Richardson's website [Camorrafineart.com] under 'External Links'). I believe that the efforts by 'CassandraR' violate Wikipedia's requirements for edits being conducted in 'good faith' and it is certainly questionable that CassandraR's edits are done with 'make-sure-your-hands-are-clean' warning you issued. Furthermore, 'The Avengers' section at the end of the current version of the article in the Ferguson bio entry clearly violates the Wikipedia warning about not posting 'controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced that must be removed immediately, especially, if potentially libelous.' CassandraR's posting under 'The Avengers' alleges that band members were not paid. That remark is clearly a controversial AND unsubstantiated comment. In addition, staying with The Avengers issue, CassandraR's citation that Ferguson allegedly lost a lawsuit ('he lost the lawsuit' is the direct quote) directs the reader to an online link to a fan website. This is typical of CassandraR's 'bad faith' use of citations to verify what clearly is opinion. DrJamesX (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Response to DrJamesX

Hi Dori At this point, I need to admit COI. I am personally acquainted with Mr. Ferguson. I believe DrJamesX is also acquainted with him and, may, in fact be a sock puppet or meat puppet. The history of his edits shows that he is new and has only contributed to the Ferguson bio page. His name is similar to that of the the originator of the article JamesHX who has little else to say on any matters that do not pertain immediately to Mr. Ferguson. He clearly refers to people who know David Ferguson. If you ask me if I am John Gluck, please ask DrJamesX if he is or works for/with David Ferguson/Cassandra Richardson.

As you pointed out, David Ferguson's bio page is poorly sourced. It presents a slanted view of Mr. Ferguson's career not in keeping with Wikipedia's goals.

I also have to point out that I did not remove the link to Camorra Fine Art. I checked the Revision history.

Also, I will remove the Avengers section until I have received third party opinion on it as requested

I am sorry this is all going on on your personal page. I did not mean to drag you into brawl. Please advise Uwishiwazjohng (talk • contribs)

I'm taking this back over to Talk:David Ferguson (impresario)‎, as I think that's where it belongs. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 06:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Hello Dori, I have been accused of sockpuppetry and I was wondering if there is any way to prove that I am not DrJamesX! I am, in fact, an 18 year old Canadian female... far from whomever DrJamesX appears to be. Uwishiwasjohng seems to believe that I am a man twice my age from my "similar writing style." Thank you for your help, I am new to wikipedia and I wish to avoid confusion. Is there any way that you can confirm that I have been using a mac laptop through the McGill University network in Montreal, Canada for all of my activity on Wiki?

Thanks! Switchintoglide (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm neither an admin nor a checkuser, so there's nothing I can do to help. Sorry! Dori (Talk • Contribs) 23:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


Why Hasn't UwishIwasjohng recused himself from editing?????

There was a request that both 'uwish' and me refrain from submitting additional edits to prevent a possible editing war from impeding on the construction of a sound article for David Ferguson (Impresario). I have taken that advice and refrained, yet 'Uwish' -- despite acknowledging a rampant COI -- continues to submit questionable legal histories and challenge all facts no matter how trivial. His bias is still unbelievably clear, yet no Wiki monitor has blocked him from submitting further edits, many of which still clearly bear the stench of petty vindictiveness. What gives? DrJamesX (talk) 05:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)DrJamesX

My thoughts:
  • Sadly, there seems to be no shortage of new SPA editors who have stepped in and done their part to bring about an edit war, with or without your contributions.
  • If you have verifiable reliable sources that question those legal histories, then you can either add them to the talk page (which is always allowed, no matter how conflicted someone is) or add them to the page yourself. I've looked, and I have not found anything published that questions those cases.
  • I've done my own part of "challenging all facts, no matter how trivial" for one simple reason: complete hogwash keeps being added to the article. Books written in 2000 are used as references for 2006 events. Other books are used as sources to back up the many famous people he's worked with, but once page numbers are included it's clear that the books say no such thing (or commonly, don't even mention Ferguson). Or it's a Q&A with Ferguson, where it's obvious that no fact checking was done. Or it's an article written by an employee. And so on, and so on. As a result, I doubt everything that anyone has added to that article, unless I see multiple, verifiable, reliable sources.
  • I'm not sure what you mean by when you say "Wiki monitor"—are you referring to admins? Generally, they show up when a clearly defined problem is brought to their attention. I haven't reported any issues, myself, as I haven't seen anything that couldn't be fixed by simply deleting the vandalism.
And as to the question in the heading: I'm not comfortable answering that question for anyone else. I don't know, and I wouldn't want to speculate. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 08:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Content Question

Hi --

I updated the page for the town of Healdsburg to include the tourism directory. Here is the guideline I followed: Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons. The town is tourism driven (foodie and wine lover haven) and the site is inclusive and there is too much detail to include all the winery and restaurant opportunities here in Wikipedia. The Chamber of Commerce site does not include all the local restaurants and wineries as you have to pay to be listed on their's. That is not the case with this directory.

MissyM22032 (talk) 05:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's true that that's listed as one of the items under What should be linked. However, if you read a little more about WP, you'll come across policies such as What Wikipedia is not, which includes items such as Wikipedia is not a repository of links, Wikipedia is not a directory, Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It's also worth checking out Links normally to be avoided, which includes "Links mainly intended to promote a website," as well as How not to be a spammer.
If your link was allowed, why not Fodor's list of Healdsburg restaurants? Or the one at WineCountryGetaways? Or the one at Yelp? Or the one at TripAdvisor? Or the one at Yahoo? And so on, and so on... Do you see how this opens up a can of worms?
So what's the answer? Simple—check out Wikitravel, which is where tourism information like this should go. In particular, you want this page. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 09:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Dori —Preceding unsigned comment added by MissyM22032 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 22 December 2008

Edvin Marton Wiki Page

I must say that my including the ontheglobe.com article on Edvin Marton is not at all advertising, but actually because the text was lifted from the article in a blatant copyright infringement. What I did was simply annotate the original text. Thanks, ontheglobe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ontheglobe (talk • contribs) 22:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the citation to be in proper {{cite}} format—when it's clear what's a citation and why you're adding it, it's less likely that your change will be reverted. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 03:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Healdsburg climate

Healdsburg weather data is found at: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca3875 Sallyrob (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The full discussion is at User talk:Sallyrob#Healdsburg_Climate. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 03:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of David Ferguson (impresario)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article David Ferguson (impresario), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Legal Section author admits his contribution may violate WP:SYN, WP:V, and/or WP:OR and would like all history of Legal section expunged and the article to start over from current state

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uwishiwazjohng (talk • contribs) 13:43, 31 January 2009

Removed the prod, as it's not applicable in this situation. Suggested trying for oversight instead. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 03:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

SYn and Or

It's a bug. Cause by alternative capitalisations of the templates not being the same. viz: {{OR}} dn {{SYN}}. I have changed SYN to a redirect to Syn OR I thought I had caught, but apparently not...

Thanks for your note.

Rich Farmbrough, 04:11 3 February 2009 (UTC).

Similar problem noted. Ah! I'm glad I read on here. I see the problem may have been resolved. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough#OR_template_error --CyclePat (talk) 23:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:prod of XML-Retrieval

I removed your prod tag from XML-Retrieval - it seems like the author has reliable sources and does not make unreferenced claims. I added some wikilinks to relevant articles - not being a computer programmer myself, adding links from other articles would be harder. I also fixed (somewhat) the referencing format on the article. I think it's worthy of keeping. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, one of us is a computer programmer, but it's the one that doesn't think that the article rates. I've begun trying to clean it up and tagging it so that it might get the attention it would require, but I doubt it's worth anyone's time. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 06:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Tagging for speedy deletion

Hi DoriSmith. Thank you for your work on patrolling pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I just wanted to inform you that I declined to delete Saban Capital Group, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion under criterion A7 because of the following concern: I know the Google test is not a proof of notability, but Google News mentions are usually an indication of notability. In this case, the subject has more than 500 such hits, which should be more than enough to indicate notability. Please remember that A7 only requires such an indication, not proof. I suggest you consider this method when deciding whether to tag articles in future. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion and especially what is considered Non-criteria. In future you should rather tag such pages for proposed deletion or start an appropriate deletion discussion. Regards SoWhy 09:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case for User:Chuckeasttom

Hi, just a heads up that I have started a sockpuppetry case on Chuckeasttom (talk · contribs) here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chuckeasttom. Please feel free to jump in with additional evidence. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 01:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)