This is an archive of past discussions with User:Excirial. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hem, i am occasionally guilty of the same offense to be honest, so i don't think that i am the best person to relay this particular message. What you could do is advice the user to use twinkle while patrolling. Tagging with Twinkle will automatically warn the user in question, so it might be a solution for this user if his reason would be the time requirement (Twinkle is actually faster then manual tagging as well). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)00:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Re-removed. I have a feeling that this user might be a sockpuppet of User:Tony RUDE who was creating an article on the same topic just two days ago. However, the article is different and the the former account has stopped editing so i will just WP:AFG (Even though it might be a stretch to do so). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)01:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Question about Speedy Deletion
I was creating a page about a business I work for, just as a description of the business. I was leaving out any sort of marketing and sales talk. And it was speedy deleted before I had finished reading what speedy deletion was. Is there any situation where a business is listed in wikipedia, without them having ruined an ecosystem or broken a federal law? Just trying to make sure I don't make the same mistake again.
Hmm, seems we are quite the little busy bees today. I tagged the page for CSD under the notability criteria which most times means that the page receives a reasonable amount of time before being removed. But in this case a second admin (User:UtherSRG) followed up with the removal within a minute. The page itself wasn't that bad at all, but it didn't indicate why the company was notable, that is, what makes it important enough for encyclopedic inclusion. The best way to do this is by adding a few reliable sources that discuss the company at length, such as newspapers, major websites an magazines. That way the company will pass the general notability guideline which states that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."
I have restored the page to your userspace, where it is now located at user:Cokennon/Tanelorn New Media. The userspace allows a user to work on an article in peace, as it won't be patrolled such as happens in the main space. Once you are ready to publish the article, you can move it to the article space. If you need assistance with creating the article, or if you want to have the article evaluated before posting it you might want to join the wikipedia-en-help chat . Alternatively you can ask for a review at WP:AFC. These help channels are operated by experienced Wikipedians who can provide some valuable advice towards creating and improving the article, which means that you will likely end up with a higher quality article which is less prone to removal. I hope this helps, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)12:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Re: user:AlbertsRevenge
Hello, I just noticed you deleted the re-creation of this user's file. I left a username warning on its talkpage. I get the feeling he might be doing attack pages or bent on vandalism. Morenooso (talk) 14:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, so far it is the usual "I am cool, look at me" stuff. I wouldn't say that the user name is a blatant violation of the username policy. Either way i have a feeling that this editor is likely going to be a one-day fly as his only contributions so far are listing himself. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)14:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Help
Hey Excirial. Was wondering if you could unprotect my talk page, I think it's been long enough. Thanks, Tommy201014:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Since you answered someone's question on the Help Desk, in an answer I just now saw because I'm kind of slow in reading the archives, perhaps you would know if anyone would find this template useful.
We already have the {{HD/med}} template which covers medical advice. This template may be handy for situations covering animals since a GP won't really be the correct person to look after those. You could list it under Template:Help_desk_templates, and i presume that there will be few issues if it were to be created in the template space. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)19:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah, my apologies for that. The structure of the text seemed identical to the previous article, and the lead was virtually the same. After i ran a cursory inspection on the different parts i assumed that the article was mostly duplicate with the longer article. However on a somewhat closer inspection there are clear differences between the two. My mistake. With kind regards, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)23:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Usr vs. User
That is odd, any idea how that link is mangled? I cliekd on the redlink in this edit summary, which is where the "usr" comes from. I think you moved my comment to the wrong IP though, as the guy I was trying to get to is 208.114.71.183, but you put it at User talk:208.117.33.183. Also interesting but probably unrelated to any of this, is that even though that 208.117.33.183 talk page has an old warning on it, that actual IP is no longer in whois or geolocate. Tarc (talk) 01:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
How odd. I wonder if someone made a slight error with a wiki update that caused this, as i have never seen this happen before. Best to file it under "Creepy incidents" unless the problem becomes structural. As for that 208.117.33.183 IP, i can still get some results on it even though a standard DNS lookup offers nothing. Apparently it is (or was) located in USA, Texas, Boerne, and belong(s/ed) to Guadalupe Valley Telephone Cooperative. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)12:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
PlaneShift article
Hi, the article of PlaneShift video game has been moved to the Incubator for improvements as suggested by other admins. Many new sources have been added, including scanned magazine articles, computer programming and open source books. I think it's ready to be evaluated and moved to the main space. Please review it and move the article to the main space if you think it's ready. Here is the article Thanks. Xyz231 (talk) 10:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
You recently blocked this user, as a sockpuppet, but you haven't linked his userpage to either the WP:SPI page or the (banned) sockmaster's userpage. It currently states that he was blocked as a sockpuppet of himself, which doesn't make much sense. I presume that this was in error. Thanks. Claritas (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the manning.jpg image uploaded by a vandal I blocked. I was about to and discovered you'd beat me to it! Dougweller (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Credits go to User:Chzz to be honest. He gave me a nudge in the #wikipedia-en-help channel asking if i could revert and remove the offending image, so if anyone deserves credit for it, its him ( I was merely swinging the mop at the target he pointed to). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)16:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your constructive criticism on the attempted article about CRM Metrix. As consultants, it seems we could better learn how to talk about ourselves without being flagged as advertising.
I am the writer of the article, and would like to revise it to meet CSD guidelines.
We had used existing entries within our industry as examples, such as Foresee results and ACNielsen. Any more specific direction you could give is welcome--is it particular language or the amount of external links that were offensive? Are there better articles on corporations to be looking to?
(I picked on you for help because you once edited this article.) User 108.2.200.127 has blanked the same section of this article three times now, with no Edit Summary or discussion. I reverted the first two, but I think it's time for some admin intervention. Thanks.--BillFlis (talk) 14:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Enrique Sendra
Hi, I have contact with Artist Enrique Sendra and i am authorize to post about him, I would like to request my article about him to not be deleted, I am only learning how to post about cuban artists on this website, becuase whoever has been writing articles seems to have forgetten several hundreds of cuban artists from the beginnig all the way to our time, anyway thats another story, my point is the info is incomplete and I would like to aid to furthering the information missing as well as adding desired articles, can you please help with this? thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubanartcollector (talk • contribs) 06:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Someone on the English Wikipedia claiming to be you has asked if it is possible to usurp the "Enric" account on the English Wikipedia. I am afraid to say that this will likely not be possible - usups are generally only done when the uruped account made no or no significant edits during a relatively long time frame (A year or so). In this case the user made nearly a hundred edits, and has last been active in December 2009, with editing patterns suggesting that he my still be using this account infrequently.
Assuming you do not wish to rename your entire account on all Wiki's i would suggest registering a sidderent user (Such as enwiki.Enric or something alike) and add some information on ots user page regarding the connection between this account and the new account. Kind regards, Excirial (disc.) 15:08, 7 juny 2010 (CEST) (Excirial, En-Wiki)
Hi! I'm Enric, from Catalan wikipedia, where I'm contributing since 2004. I tried to create a new user page in English wikipedia with the name suggested by you, enwiki.Enric, but I'm not allowed to. What am I doing wrong? --195.53.5.10 (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The name i mentioned was just a random example instead of an actual suggestion. I see no blocks on account creation so i I presume that the enwiki. part creates a conflict somewhere. The easiest way to solve it is simply selecting a random other name and using that instead. However if this does not solve it - is there are specific error returned to you when you attempt to create an account? Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)13:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Good! :). I took the liberty of adding a small message box on your talk page to point users to your Catalan Wikipedia talk page. Most times user don't look at the user page which means they might miss your preferred area for communication. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)14:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Could you take a quick look at User_talk:Taelus#Denialism if you have spare time? I would like a third opinion on whether my full protection of the page, and handling of the content dispute, was justified. Contacting you since I saw you active recently on RPP. Thanks in advance, --Taelus (Talk) 11:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I had a look at the entire situation (More specifically the article itself, the article talk page and your own talk page, including their histories) and i would say that the temporal full protection was correctly placed. I see 7 reverts over the course of two days, and around that time the talk page looked like this. All i see is a tug-o-war where two parties disagree who should post their own rationale first; I see absolutely nothing about the actual issue. Even now the talk page is sadly devoid of any clear reasoning between parties; At the very least i still cannot figure Verbal's reason for objecting.
However, i do agree with PBS that Verbal's revert of the article and reporting it as an edit war two minutes later screams bad faith. If you know you are in an edit war you stick to the talk page and leave the article alone, and you definitely don't revert it right before reporting. However, both PBS and Verbal are highly experienced users, and BOTH should know that being the "Top page" in a dispute is not a goal or even sensible. In a few days there should be a consensus on whether things should be changed or not, or lacking that a WP:3O or WP:RFC (Or any other mediation options) should be run. In short the "top page" would only last a few days anyway, because the other party will still disagree after the protection ends. I would therefor urge both editors to get a real discussion starting rather then the "You tell me, No! You tell me first!" discussion style i see so far. Explain your own stance first and only then ask other editors to do so. Passiveness on both sides will lead to nothing. :)
Besides this i would point out that an uninvolved sysop is free to block a page on procedural grounds if they are there. If i see a content dispute on, for example, Semi-empirical mass formula i will protect the page. There is no need to involve myself in the discussion as i am neither interested nor knowledgeable about the subject. Hence, if the formula in that article was to be disputed i would have really no clue whatsoever who might be right - but an edit war is an edit war and should be actioned as such. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)11:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
why do you keep deleteing my page...he is a widly known rapper from Jackson I even included a damn discography...he's on itunes look him up...just because ur a nerd and don't know about real world shit doesn't give u the right to delete my page so go read a book and listen to some classical music and put my page back! Comment unsigned by Franklucasofasheville
In order to be on Wikipedia an article's subject has to be notable enough for inclusion (This means that the article must proof that the subject is important.) Doing so requires citing reliable sources which cover the subject in detail - in this case the rapper you are writing about. Do note that "Itunes, Myspace and the like" are not reliable sources. Example's of reliable sources are books, newspapers and news websites. In this case the Wikipedia:Burden#Burden_of_evidence burden of evidence lies with you.
Besides this i would point out that we have a civility policy around here. In short this means you don't go to someone's talk page posting lines such as ".just because ur a nerd and don't know about real world shit doesn't give u the right to delete my page so go read a book and listen to some classical music and put my page back!". That should actually be common sense but o well. Either way, the page will not be undeleted though you are free to recreate it IF you add some good sourcing to it. Repeated recreations and repeated incivility will just lead to a block though. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)23:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Automated Issue
I noticed when you were tagging "Undoer" sockpuppets that you apparently tagged the main account as a sockpuppet of itself. I'm willing to bet that was semi-automated, so perhaps it could be modified to automatically recognize the sockpuppeteer instead and tag the rest as sockpuppets. mechamind9003:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah yes, this is related to a semi-automated script that i use for blocking. It supports "Suspected sockpuppet" and "Confirmed sockpuppet", but does not allow you to tag someone as a puppet master directly. Most times i end unblocking and tagging the puppet master manually, but in this case i blocked them all as sock puppets since i was still busy searching if there has been an undoer account without a number. I forgot to switch the template afterwards. But indeed, a "puppetmaster" option would be neat. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)08:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Taakatism
Hi,
I went to explain why the article should be kept, and contest the deletion with a holdon tag, only to find someone had deleted it before I managed to edit!
Can you please allow a deletion discussion at the very least?
Thanks for reading and may you be well. Inner strength from love (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for protecting the Abby Sunderland article. However, I'd like to suggest you may want to extend protection beyond the three days. Communication with her was lost today and the nearest rescue ship is at least 40 hours away. One hopes they will find her soon, but if not the search-and-rescue attempt could drag on for many days. Editors have been inserting a death-date for her, which is a particularly sensitive edit. Thanks for your consideration of this suggestion. (SEC (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC))
Indeed, good call on that one. I have increased the protection to a week - that should cover the two days the boats will require, and allow another another 5 days of search and rescue operations. If she is found within these 5 days we will likely have a bunch of press coverage people will try to add (Thus possible BLP concerns). If she is not found within this time frame i fear the worst, since i presume that carrying 7 days of supplies is difficult. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)20:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, I hope that does it. I did just finish reading the book Adrift about Steven Callahan who was rescued after 76 days at sea in his life raft... (SEC (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC))
"Because", as I have explained many times before (with Diffs) that there was no sockpuppetry. The allegations were all part of a strategy for the Brahma Kumari adherent {User3|Bksimonb}} to own any topics relating to his cultic religion.
Yes, it looks bad now but I assure you that if you look at the actual content, the Brahma Kumaris' MO, the history and the diffs ... instead of kneejerking off ... you will see I am right.
Now, again nicely, please butt out of something that you know nothing and is none of your business.
Hi, I apologise if you've been already invited to help out with this, but please consider becoming a part of the July Backlog Elimination Drive. A target of clearing the whole two and a half year backlog has been set, and if you would like to help out, please notify me on my talk page and add your username to the page linked above. Of course, if you are currently busy with other things, that's fine. We just need all the help we can get and you were one other user that would probably take a minute to listen to me :) Thanks! Chevymontecarlo17:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Hiyas Chevy, and thanks for the notice. I will not officially join the project as i tend to be busy on vandalism and new page patrol (Which means that my contribution may be low or non existent); But that does not mean that i will not be taking a look. I may, if time permits, grab an article from the list to do some initial copy-editing. Kind regards, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)11:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
That is very kind of you. I do not really mind where it is awarded, though awarding them at the awards page would mean that i might not immediately see them, due to the lack of a "new message" bar And my watchlist tends to be rather full, so i might easily overlook the chance there). Regardless of where it is placed, an award eventually finds its way to the award page as i copy them over from the talk page to the awards page. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)11:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the cookie and the shield, though it was merely a single revert on your user page. hat being said, i can use that shield as a platter for the cookies as well. :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)13:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
That was mainly because that was the first vandalism on my page. Also, put them together on your awards page! :) dffgd (talk) 18:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Dffgd has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
It seems account creation has actually been blocked - Current settings are "Block all users including registered account", "Block account creation" and "Allow talk page access". Perhaps just a random guy who made some silly comments? At the very least this IP cannot be the source of his sockpuppet creations. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)20:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Good call. I was trying to dissect those date issues until I saw your fix. That article's been constantly vandalized for at least the last 2 months. Shadowjams (talk) 10:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
It could certainly use some more references as it is currently hard to verify most statements in the article. But at the very least the birth date change issue should be solved for now, as i found a reference for it. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)10:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/India Empire and your revert
It seems that you managed to read my mind on this one (Or perhaps i read yours) - one minute before you posted this message i decided to block the IP for disruptive editing. In total he attacked 9 AFD's trough vote deletion, vote altering, harassment and other tactics. It seems he stopped after 20 minutes, but seeing the amount of disruption he caused i agree it is better to block him to prevent another round of this. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)11:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Wow! I was thinking something along those lines. Blocking him wasn't the primary thought but works for me. Kind of reminded me about a Frazier episode where he was frustrated and began running with scissors. That anon IP seemed like it was frustrated and took it out on several AfDs by "running with scissors" through the AfDs. Hopefully you reverted its posts as well. I think it voted in the majority with the ones I'm on but it doesn't seem fair to have its comments in the debates. ----moreno oso (talk) 11:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
You know, on my talkpage I opined that I thought you should remove the anon IP's votes/comments/disruptions. Some many minutes later, I'm glad you didn't because I know the AfD participants in my debates will see them for what they are: petty rants by someone running with scissors. BTW, how do you (meaning me) get that green paneled box to display when editting your talkpage. If you could improve my talkpage with that, I'd really like it. ----moreno oso (talk) 12:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I tend to leave votes around for the sake of discussion, unless the vote in itself is clearly disruptive (such as this one). Votes are weighted based upon their content, and not upon their amount so his votes would warrant little to no weight in the final decision. Still, i decided to stripe them while leaving a short commentary regarding the user's other actions to point out the issue more clearly just in case someone overlooks them. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)12:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Improving my talkpage with the green paneled display yours has
How do I get that panel? Could you improve my talkpage with it so it displays when someone leaves me a message? ----moreno oso (talk) 12:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
That green panel is an edit notice, which is a header that only displays if you edit the page upon which it is set. Technically they can be set on every page, but only administrators can do so outside the talk / user space. In this case you are referring to your own talk page, so you can easily create on yourself :).
To do so, navigate to your own talk page and go into edit mode. On the right side above the " This page is 45 kilobytes long. " bar will be a tine red link called "Page notice" Clicking this link will take you to User talk:Morenooso/Editnotice. Just create that page and add something akin to my own green template there; It will be shown above your talk page every time someone edits the page. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)13:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry my brother vandalizes wiki sometimes, he lives with me at my parents, so I guess he saw my account and wrote those links or somethin'.. I'll make sure he stops. CrowzRSA02:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I posted the page on "asset progression" Im new to this, but after much reading, I feel that you may have made a mistake by acknowledging my post for speedy deletion. I have responded on the talk portion of the page giving my reasons why, and Im not sure if that actually went through. wondering if you would remove the deletion notice and allow me to continue editing the page with links and references to make it a more user friendly and informative page.
The speedy deletion tag was not placed by me. It was actually placed by Empty Buffer in this revision. My own edit was the removal of the extern links you added to the article.
Even so i can give you feedback on this page, and i am afraid i agree with the removal template. The page itself details a technique developed by "Vanquish Asset Progression", while equally telling everyone how superior this method is when compared to the currently available methodologies. The explicit linking of the company name to an external company website didn't help this initial impression either.
You left a message on this page with a link to the ANI. I couldn't find any discussion there. Did you forget to create it or did it get removed already? - in which case perhaps we should update the message on the anon talk page. Rmhermen (talk) 18:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Please see the latest comments in the discussion here. Both Syracuse University and the United Methodist Church have confirmed the affiliation with one another. With regards, AnupamTalk21:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the protection. Please revise the interaction history between me and Hekerui and you will clearly see that he is only edit warring for the sake of "making a point." As I mentioned on his talk page, I cannot currently log in due to computer issues and this is the reason I have been editing from different IPs lately (I travel a lot). I am in fact the creator of this article, I have worked on it for a good amount of time. Therefore, it is frustrating to the least when an editor comes and hinders my work with edits that significantly reduce the quality of the grammar, removes a link to the café where Ruslan made his first impression on the Boston music community (apart from Berklee) and messes the nationality, basing it on pretty much nothing, and adds a source that would require me to give away my credit card number! To add insult to injury, he calls my edits "vandalism" just because I edit from an anonymous IP. I will appreciate your prompt response. 72.214.77.70 (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Also, I have noticed that he removed all my requests for interaction, as well as your warning. Geez, is the pot calling the kettle black? As for the consensus issue, since he was the one who altered my article without just cause, he is the one who needs to form a consensus. I don't think I should defend myself without being proven guilty. 72.214.77.70 (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree that those flat-out reverts aren't exactly the most productive way to solve this issue, though i would point you to WP:OWN since your response gives me the impression that you deem the article "Yours". I see you have attempted contact several times without response, which is a positive thing on your side. The article will be protected for the rest of the day, so in that time i advice you to state your opinion on the article talk page so it is visible to everyone. Do keep in mind to keep it civil and don't point fingers to other editors - just plainly describe why you believe that your revision is an improvement.
After that, drop him a link inviting him to discuss his point of view. If he removes the link - well, at least you have tried and it shows that you informed him. The content on the article talk page should not be reverted, so it is a more "permanent" way to discuss the issue at hand. If Hekerui decides to respond it can be discussed, which would be for the better. If he refuses and continues reverting after the protection runs out.. Well, then it is simply edit warring which can be reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)14:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Seems to be the same set of IP's that are causing trouble. Because it is fairly long-term, and because no good contributions came from that range anyway i blocked 93.35.240.0/20 and 93.35.224.0/20 (8182 IP's in total) for the next two weeks. Perhaps being incapable to edit everywhere will solve the issue with this vandal. If this continues after two weeks the blocks can be extended, or the page can be protected for a longer amount of time. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)14:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I have copied (If you don't mind) your Navigation Template of your User page but I got stuck on the Email part. I have copied the intro Email User:Arman Cagle/Mail but when i got to the Email me Part, i got stuck. Can you help me with email part so i can get like yours Ex.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Excirial.
Okay, I found the problem. I have a space in my name (Arman Cagle). So i put Special;Emailuser/Arman Cagle. However this doesn't work. So I had to put Arman_Cagle (a spacer) and it worked. Just to let you know in case someone else asked about this Thanks! Arman Cagle (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Arman Cagle
Sure. There are two reasons: First of all it is recentismas the red card has no long-term relevance. It may seem important for now because the game is still ongoing but after it is finished it has no real historical value on an article about the referee. Ergo: If we include that particular card we might as well log every card a referee ever gives.
So - just remove the word controversial? As for it being recent - red cards given in the world cup are usually added to the referee page - see Horacio Elizondo. This is an important decision and will be added back to this page in the future - heck, I'm not even a Germany fan. 90.5.192.84 (talk) 12:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Good call. I added a section to the page which describes the game in line with the style of the page you linked. I will have to keep updating it though since the final result is not yet known, and because i see more and more yellow cards being awarded. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)13:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
In regards to the barnaster I put on your rewards page... You may not have seen it, but if you did, you didn't pay attention. I would give you another, but you frustrate me. Haha. Maybe reading this message will give time to revert something haha! Keep it going, just not as fast haha! Mr little irish(talk)13:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the award, and yes, it managed to distract me for a while. I also see that you are a new user involved in vandalism patrol, and that you already have the rollback right. In that case you might be interested in using Huggle, a tool specifically made for this task. It is much faster then watching the recent changes list, so it might allow you to be me to the reverts (Though keep in mind that i got experience, and that vandalism patrol isn't a race ;P) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)13:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
See the thing at the moment is, I am at work, and I cannot download or install anything, but I like to revert vandalism while I have nothing to do. It hasn't been too bad today for vandalism I must say. I've been sat here since 9am this morning, and its now quarter past three. Have had nothing at all to do today and I just thought I would commend users on their fast vandalism reverting. Anyways, when I get home, I will have to look into Huggle and see what it does for me. Keep it up either way. Mr little irish(talk)14:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I hope you don't mind, but I extended their block to a week (I was in the middle of doing so when you beat me to it!). I blocked them previously for 3 days and they seem quite persistent, so I don't think there's much risk of a week-long block affecting innocent editors. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Sure, no problem at all. I tend to go along with Huggle's default suggestion on IP's, unless i see it is a school IP. Vandalism so closely aftern an unblock either signals a high-vandalism IP or a persistent (ab)user, and either can use some more time in that case. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)16:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with most of them, though it seems the IP user and you didn't exactly reach consensus on it. To elaborate:
I linked the original Washington Times article which is free-to-access for everyone, and it indeed supports the Ukrainian / Israeli claim. Since it is now visibly sourced for everyone it should stay in unless another reliable source with a counterclaim is found.
I Re-Removed the redundant categories, as they are either higher-lever categories or categories that should not contain any data, such as "Category:Israeli musicians by instrument". The latter one is merely a top level category for the other instrument-related categories so having it on any article makes no sense at all.
I removed wallies bar as the article never even mentions it. As soon as the article at least mentions it (And sources it), it may be an ok link but until then it seems entirely unrelated.
Seems like it; Blocked all three of them with talk page disabled to prevent more social networking. No content edits whatsoever, so not a great loss I'd say. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)20:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Done - but in the future you should file these protection requests at RFPP. That particular page is watched by more then one admin, and is therefor generally faster then contacting an individual such as myself. For example: I was about to log off when you posted your message. Has you been slower it might have taken hours for me to see this, which could have resulted in a lot of vandalism. :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)16:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
The recent edits to the Koman Coulibaly page make it seem like there is a debate on whether it was a bad call. It says only American media disagree with the call and that Slovenian media agreed. That gives an impression that it is just bias making people feel that way. However, Soccer experts WORLDWIDE have said it was a terrible call. Therefore there really isn't much of a debate on the merits of the call. I think the page should be changed to reflect this. I think the part about the slovenian media should be removed because they are obviously talking from a biased viewpoint. The part about American media should be changed to Worldwide media. I would have posted this request on that page, but it is protected at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfourni (talk • contribs) 17:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Seems that this has already been changed. The sourcing already included French, Dutch and American sources so i changed the text to "International". As for the slovenian media: Of course they are talking from a biased viewpoint, but the same goes for the American media. I altered the line a bit since they were not exactly supporting the decision, but rather pointing out that there were other occurrences that didn't result in cards. The Slovenian media seems to represent the minority point of view, and because of this they are only mentioned briefly. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)18:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I think this article should have a statement right in the beginning that states something to the effect of "Koman Coulibaly is best known for his mistake in the USA-Slovenia match during the 2010 World Cup." Statements like this appear in the articles for Jim Joyce and Don Denkinger who had similiar type of gaffes leading to instant fame. I don't think this article in its current state does justice to why Coulibaly is a notable figure. His call in that match is what made him known worldwide. You would not get that impression from reading this article. It reads like the whole thing was no big deal.
Oh Gee.. I spent a half day by searching how to get back to Excirial who helped me today with an issue very fast, so leaving a message right here before I get retired from all those tools and links.. Sorry for any inconvenience (m)anyway and THANKS HEAPS, EXCIRIAL, FOR A SWELL JOB! Previous comment unsigned by User:Gasuser
I just want to assure you that my recent involvement on the Ashley Madison article was boneheaded, but not intended to promote the AshleyMadisonSucks.com blog site. I noticed that someone kept replacing the link to AshleyMadisonSucks.com with a link to AshleyMadisonSucks.info, a website that promoted Ashley Madison. The latter link was counter to the text of the paragraph, so I reverted the change several times. I am a relatively new editor, and I didn't stop to ask myself what that blog link was doing in the article in the first place, nor did I consult the article's talk page the way I should have. Well, it's a learning experience. Susfele (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh trust me, i wasn't questioning your edits at all since it was quite clear you were doing vandalism patrol. The IP's were removing the criticism section, and together with your explanation on the .info domain it is quite clear that they were just trying to take out the criticism entirely. On the other hand some of the other editors seem related to the .com domain which represents the other side of the spectrum, resulting in a "neat" POV war being fought out on the article. I guess that i will have to keep an eye on that article for the next few weeks to see that things go out of hand.
Besides this, i noticed that you are quite active in vandalism patrol, and that your reverts seem to be good as well. So i would ask: Have you ever considered requesting the Rollback permission? It is similar to Twinkle's rollback, with the exception that it is a lot faster (Twinkle's version is actually a slow software emulation of the original permission). Rollback is also a requirement for using Huggle, which is arguably the most popular anti-vandalism tool currently in use. It is radically different from user scripts such as twinkle or lupin, but it allows for extremely easy and fast vandalism patrol - It automatically selects the appropriate warning level, it can be configured for automatic reporting to WP:AIAV and it only requires the use of the keyboard (And why do i feel like a second-hand car salesman after i summed that up?). Either way - you will likely benefit from the actual rollback privilege as it works flawlessly with Twinkle as well, and it may be worth the time to give huggle a test run once you have that permission. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)19:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I am sure that rollback and Huggle would be useful to you, Susfele, and that you would use them responsibly, so I encourage you to take up the invitation. A word of warning though. It is very easy with Huggle to make mistakes, reverting and warning as vandalism when the edits in question were not vandalism. It is a tool to be used with great care. I have learnt this by making mistakes, and I know of other editors who make more mistakes with Huggle. I really do think you would make good use of it, though. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the encouragement and the words of warning. I had been dithering whether to ask for rollback rights or not. Having two different people encourage me tipped the scale and I have made the request. Thanks! Susfele (talk) 01:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Redux
Hello Excirial,
I'd like to ask you to reconsider your removal of the section about AshleyMadisonSucks.com from the Controversy section of Ashley Madison. I believe that the page does fulfill the requirements of being a reliable source, and if you take a look at the bottom of the discussion page for Ashley Madison, you'll see several arguments that I think do a good job explaining why the information is both relevant to having a balanced "controversy", and why the site itself is a reliable source for what is being referenced. Specifically, in the controversy section that was removed, it simply makes 2 claims:
1) That there are a significant number of people complaining that the company is scamming it's members. AMS documents these unlike any other site on the Internet, culling these complaints into one resource. The citation doesn't go into whether the complaints are valid, but documents that there are such complaints and where to go to see them.
2) The site presents original research that is well documented and based on factual data and analysis which presents arguments against Ashley Madison. This is unique and original content which can't be found elsewhere, and again the wikipedia entry merely documents that these articles presenting this research exist, which seems appropriate under the controversy section.
3) The site is quite noteworthy, receiving 30,000 uniques a month, linked to and referenced by numerous sites, and containing stories and comments from a wide selection of users. The site has no affiliate links to Ashley Madison or any other site, no advertising or other way that it is attempting to 'monetize' the traffic from Wikipedia. Purely an informational site.
Please reconsider, as it seems valuable to have this information available to people assessing this highly controversial company.
Excirial, my comments on this RfA were meant in earnest and represented my true opinion and feelings on the matter. I state for the record that they were not campaigning in any way, shape or form. I ask that you please assume good faith in that I was in no way campaigning for NF but rather putting forth an opinion only. Additionally, striking through the comments of an editor on this project without first discussing the matter with that editor is poor form. Lastly, the strikethroughs make it seem as if I changed my mind and wished to withdraw my comments. This could not be further from the truth. I ask that you please undo these edits. Please and thank you. Basket of Puppies18:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Even if your comments were made in good faith, i would point out that the other editors opposes were also made in good faith - at the very least i don't think that anyone opposed just for the sake of opposing. Calling their arguments "Extremely Poor" while urging the crats to disregard them altogether is bad form to say the least. What would you think if i placed a message under every comment-less support vote (4 or so), stating "The user didn't include any supporting reason for his vote, and therefor should be given less weight"? I doubt you would be to thrilled about that. Ergo: You are free to have your own opinion, but there is a difference having your own opinion, and placing a message under three oppose votes which requests that the crats ignore that editor.
Your "not me" striking concern is valid though. Therefor I added an addendum after each strike indicating that i made the strike trough, while also pointing to the reason for doing so. That should prevent people from thinking you changed your mind. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)19:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Exciral, you have neither consensus nor my permission to modify my comments in any way. You may post a followup statement with your opinion, which is welcome, but I see no policy, guideline or consensus that would indicate you can modify my statement. Can you please provide a rationale as to why I should not revert my comments to their virgin state? Basket of Puppies21:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
See WP:CANVAS, Campaigning subsection (Even if you didn't intend for it to be campaigning, the amount of posts and the content of this message makes it a case of campaigning). You may also wish to consider NativeForeigner opinion as it is his RFA, and i would point out that two other editors (Me and native not included) voiced their opinion on this matter as well. If you are still not convinced that those comment are better left striped, go ahead and de-stripe them. I thought that pointing to the campaigning guideline would be sufficient to explain the stripes, but seeing it isn't i don't think it is worth the time to quarrel about it. The bureaucrats tend to be sensible in these matters, and i don't believe that a comment asking them to change their opinion will actually do so. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)22:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Again, my comments did not meet the definition of CANVAS, either in the wording of the policy nor in the spirit of the policy. Your continued insistence demonstrates a serious lack of good faith. Please stop accusing me of violation policy. Please and thank you. Basket of Puppies00:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia sign sheet
Arman Cagle (Contact me,
EMail Me,Contribs)
Hey, Excirial/Archive 14 this is Arman Cagle (talk·contribs), and I have A question. You Know how you have your name like this Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 14:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC) [[User:Excirial|<font color="191970">'''Excirial''']]</font><sup> ([[User talk:Excirial|<span style="color:#FF8C00;">Contact me</span>]],[[Special:Contributions/Excirial|<span style="color:#FF8C00;">Contribs</span>]])</sup> 14:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)<nowiki />
Well, I tried to copy yours <sup>If you don't mind</sup> (I aslo have added the <b>email me</b> part, but when i put it on and saved it, it said that I had <b> <big> Invalid raw signature. Check HTML tags</b></big> What does mean?
: Here is my signature in its no wiki form (I will also sign my name)<br>
<nowiki>[[User:Arman Cagle|<span style="color:#191970">'''Arman Cagle'''</span>]]<sup> ([[User talk:Arman Cagle|<span style="color:#FF8C00;">Contact me</span>]],
[[Special:Emailuser/Arman Cagle|EMail Me]],[[Special:Contributions/Excirial|<span style="color:#FF8C00;">Contribs</span>]])</sup>
[[User:Arman Cagle|<font color="191970">'''Arman Cagle''']]</font><sup> ([[User talk:Arman Cagle|<font color="FF8C00">Contact me</font>]], (talk) 19:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)Arman Cagle
Oh good heavens... Since the vaporizer page was quite the last few days i almost thought that he finally got the message that his text was promotional and his product not notable. But it seems i made a mistake assuming that - same old "conspiracy theory" rant with promotion included and pointers that he made 5 good edits in other articles. You would think that someone would get the message after two blocks (Only counting user accounts), a dozen of reverts and messages across the 'pedia an the unblock-en-l mailing list. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)11:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
You appear to have deleted the Alison Chapman entry for copyright infringement. I actually wrote everything on the wikipedia page, you'll also find it on alisonchapman.com, she is my mother. If you saw it anywhere else I would greatly appreciate a link to that page as I'd like to bring it up with them. As it is, are we able to restore the page to how it was or am I going to have to write it all again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merryck (talk • contribs) 12:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I would also point out that direct copies are generally a bad idea, since external content is rarely written for encyclopedic purposes. I would advice reading WP:COI, WP:V, WP:N, WP:BLP and WP:NPOV to see the requirements of such a new page. You may also wish to read the "your first article" page as it gives general pointers for writing a new article. I hope this helps, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)15:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Excirial,
Thankyou very much for bringing that to my attention, I will CERTAINLY be taking it up with that website. Sorry about the header thing, new to all this! Merryck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merryck (talk • contribs) 18:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
TechtalkRadio
Please Remove All References to TechtalkRadio - Any Edit Pages, And Declines Etc, This is a Copywrite Infringment Issue and we do not want ANY Wikipedia References to TechtalkRadio.
Thank you for your time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.119.153 (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I would point out that User:Techtalkradio originally created the article, which makes me assume that the radio station itself was responsible for the original content, so i believe that man simply doesn't want the public to see that the article was previously removed. I'm not an expert on copyright laws, but i can assure you that the mere mention of a product is in no way infringement. Deletion discussions are equally kept for future reference, and they will not be removed either. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)15:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Request for help
Hi, there's currently an unregistered user who keeps adding additional links to Warped Tour 2010 to try and promote his own band. His band is appearing twice on the tour and they are already listed once per stage. He's now constantly adding additional links to their Myspace page along with redundant information in what seems to be an attempt to make them seem more important than any of the other actual notable bands appearing. It is clearly one of the members of the band because the IP points to the area of the country where they are located and the only edits, outside of some vandalism a year ago, that they have made have been about this band. I'm not even sure how to warn them on this but it does seem like Spam to me. Just looking for a little help dealing with this matter. DX927 (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, could you please take another look at the article history of Ruslan Sirota and tell me how to properly handle the page ownership, falsifiation of supposed consensus and COI the IP has admitted to without getting another block threat? Thank you. Oh, and no need to replicate the post on my talk, I have this watchlisted. Hekerui (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
There is no ownership. The sole issue here is forcing an unnecessary parameter in the lead. Ruslan's nationality is well mentioned throughout the article, as well as in the source quotes that have been recently added. For the last time, here is my rationalization: an Israeli artist has a career in Israel, whereas Ruslan has not had a career in Israel ever since he left the country, which was over a decade ago; his main career is in the US. I am not calling him an American because of the nationality issue, but there is no just cause for insisting on calling him a Ukrainian-born Israeli artist in the lead section. As for allegations of falsification of consensus, an apology from Hekerui would be nice... since I have openly admitted to have been editing from different IPs due to computer issues, and never did I use those IPs as socks. COI? Hardly; I am not Ruslan, although I know him and occasionally notify him of the article progress. The fact that I am pointing at myself being the main person that cares enough about this article to properly formulate sentences, sections, categories etc. – does not indicate ownership. Thank you in advance for your understanding. 12.130.118.170 (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
The definition of COI is wide, and includes any situation where an editor has a (close) connection to a subject. Since you personally know Ruslan Sirota and communicate with him regarding the article you indeed have a CoI, but there are of course multiple levels of influence when referring to a CoI. Man could argue that i have a slight CoI towards the Wikipedia article. This is not necessarily a bad thing, just something to keep in mind while editing.
As for the issue at hand: WP:MOSBIO and WP:MOSLEAD generally state that context should be added (MOSBIO, Point 3). To quote the policy: "In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable.". In other words, the geographic area should be included in the lead. However, there is a footnote for this. To quote the MOSBIO policy again "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities and/or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability.". In other words: The lead should mention his nationality, or the nationality he had when he became notable (Note: If the birth country is the same as the "famous" country, it should of course be added). Thus: Etnicity / Birth countries should not be mentioned if they are not explicitly relevant to the subject. Do note that i may not be the best suited editor for answering WP:MOS related questions as i am mostly involved in new page / vandalism patrol and not in content issues. In these cases WP:CNB might be more helpful regarding content and style policy questions as people with more MOS related experience tend to work there.
As i sidenote,12.130.118.170, i see that you are re-adding top level categories ([[Category:Jazz pianists]][[Category:Keyboardists]][[Category:Pianists]]). I would point out that categories work in a tree-like fashion, where the usage of lower level subsets is preferable over using high level ones. For example "Israeli jazz pianists" is a subset of "jazz pianists", and therefor the lowest level categories should be picked. For example, you wouldn't want to add "Earth Creature", "Earth Human", "Asian Citizen" "East Asian Citizen", "China Citizen", "Citizen of Beijing" to the biography of a random person living in China. Instead, you select the lowest subset of each tree as they are relevant. I hope this helps, and with kind regards, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)22:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Back to my username In Ruslan's case, the geographic location of his country of citizenship is utterly irrelevant to his career from the moment he became notable in the US. Therefore, as far as the lead section is concerned, the nationality throws off the reader and is nothing more than useless trivia. As I wrote before, the nationality, along with the country of birth, are mentioned in the first few sentences, as well as two footnote quotes (right now these are footnotes number 11 and 12).
As far as categories go: call it COI if you will, but I believe that Ruslan deserves to be listed in the major categories, not just those that limit the list to artists that have a career in Israel (which, again, Ruslan does not). Naturally, I have supplied enough evidence (RS) to remove all "promotional"-esque allegations. If you insist on removing "redundant" categories, I would have significantly less objection, had you removed the local (lower level) sub-categories.
Don't tell me you think his T-ball career and the other useless information I removed from this article is worth keeping. I feel like I'm living in Bizarro world. Anyway, there is a debate on the topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball. By all means, join.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
A number of baseball editors from the baseball project have edited this article today. What Spasm deleted was the culmination of all their edits, and he failed to provide a rationale. The RS sources are article in RSs that are about the ballplayer, and the information is information that the newspapers and books thought sufficiently notable to include. Spasm's deletion of them on the basis of "I'm being nice" is not the non-frivolous explanation required when deleting the bulk of an article, all RS-supported material. It falls neatly, however, into the wiki def of vandalism. And Spasm has done so five or six times today.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Already corrected myself prior to your message as i accidentally diffed an incorrect version of the article by accident. Personally i deem this a content dispute related to the level of detail of the article, and not vandalism. Do keep in mind that newspapers and books tend to include a large amount of facts, but not all of those facts are important enough to include in an encyclopedia; for example, is there a reason to include three lines on hazings followed by a quote from the club manager speaking about them? Is it really relevant to his career, or is it mostly trivial?
Even so i would point out that it is better to establish consensus before making such large removals rather then removing content. Remember WP:BRD - Be bold and make the change, have it reverted, and then discuss and form consensus. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)20:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Help Excerial
I need help, there are Puerto Rican vandals popping and destroying Salsa (dance) and Salsa (music) pages. The even put stuff like "Puertoricans are #1 salsa dancers in the world". How do we combat it.
PlanPrescriber is referanced in two articles on Wikipedia, but there is no link, reference or description of the comapny on Wikipedia.
eHealth, Inc. - the company that work for - acquired PlanPrescriber in May, and we're planning to take their CEO on a road trip to meet with the media and press. Many of the reporters we work with check Wikipedia for information about a company, so I would like to have a description available here if possible.
You noted that the pharmacy - CVS - has a description of PlanPrescriber on its web site, and that is because they're one of our partners and they use the PlanPrescriber platform to help senior citizens enroll in medicare plans. Their page is actually a copy of OUR page which is on our web site at this URL [About Us].
Please let me know what I need to do so that you'll allow us to recreate our PlanPrescriber page in Wikipedia.
The page was removed for two reasons under the Criteria for Speedy Deletion) policy - Criteria WP:G11 (Blatant Advertisement) and Criteria WP:G12 (Unambiguous copyright infringement). A secondary concern was A7] (No indication of notability, and the obvious Conflict of interest you have with the subject. Don't worry, ill explain there in a moment. However, since there are loads of things i will have to explain, i would advice a getting yourself nice cup of coffee for the long read.
G12
For legal reasons wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material, even if you are the copyright holder. External websites or publications may be used as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. There are multiple reasons for this restriction. First and foremost content on wikipedia can be reprinted, adapted, shared or partially removed on a whim. Due to this Wikipedia can only accept content that is released under a CC-BY-SA or lighter license. This release has to be done explicitly, as we cannot verify if a user adding content is the same user that owns the content. You should also keep in mind that, even if allowed though copyright, directly copying content is rarely a good idea due to formatting and writing style.
In simple terms: You can not copy the content from another website that doesn't freely license the content, even if you are the subject or the writer of that article.
G11 and A7
The first one, G11, rules that an article has to be witting from a neutral stance, as if someone is just plain describing the business. When writing an article, don't just highlight the good things of the business, and try to avoid any "Peacock" words and sentences such as "An excellent player in the ... market" and "Of Exceptional quality". Those lines are most times indications that an article is in the area of advertising, which often causes deletion. Full details can be found at WP:NPOV.
The second one, Notability, rules that to be on Wikipedia, the articles subject needs to have some kind of importance which warrants an encyclopedia article. For example an article about Google is notable because Google is the worlds biggest search engine. An article of the butcher on the corner here is an example of an article of would not be notable. For companies, notability is most times established trough citings publishings in secondary sources. Full guidelines on that can be found at WP:CORP.
In simple terms: Article's may not be advertisements, and must detail a subject that is important enough for encyclopedic inclusion.
CoI
We usually ask editors not to write or edit articles about subjects they are personally related to, such as their own company. Wikipedia strives to remain neutral in all of our articles, so that they may be easily used by our worldwide base of readers. When editing with a conflict of interest such as I just described, it can be very difficult not to introduce some sort of bias into the article, even if you don't intend to. Over the course of several years, we've noticed that articles about companies or products written by employees or owners of those companies tend to be heavily biased, some to the point they need to be deleted as outright advertising. So while it's not against our policies to write about your own company, we'd really really prefer you didn't.
In simple terms: It is difficult to write an objective article about an subject you are closely related to, so these subjects should be avoided or approached with extreme care.
What to do now?
In general the best course of action is waiting till someone else starts an article about you. If your company is truly notable, someone will eventually start an article about it. I strongly advice against writing it yourself since being objective about your company is hard - in fact, this isn't exactly the first removal of an article regarding PlanPrescriber. There have been two creations of similar article's which were equally removed.
If you insist on writing the article yourself, ask whether it is worth the time. Wikipedia is not a vessel for advertisement or promotion, and promotional article's are removed on sight, same with companies that don't pass the notability threshold (Described in the A7 section). Equally i point out that having an article about your company can be negative as well - if your company received negative news coverage this may be included in the article all the same. Besides this, i would advice you to read our FAQ for businesses
I applied a short 1 day semi protection on your talk page par a WP:RFPP request, due to the large amount of IP sock puppets that were making a mess of things. I realize user talk pages are rarely semi-protected (Especially other users semi talk pages) but in this case i decided to go ahead and apply a short protection until you are around to decide what to do with this. If you do not wish to leave it protected, by all means remove the protection. (And feel free to trout me if you feel this was a stupid action)
Well it seems a lot has happened since I was asleep, you did the right thing given that this talk page was being over run by IPs, so good work. When I first blocked this user for a 3RR violation, I did not expect it to end with en masse range blocks and semi-protection, but that's what happens when you upset a troll. CT Cooper ·talk08:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Your welcome of course. Quite a collection of sockpuppets for this guy tough, with a lot of VPS and dedicated server hosts among them. I wonder if we should just block those hosting companies from accessing Wikipedia altogether - either their servers act akin to open proxies where everyone can connect, or they act similar to closed proxies where someone can hide his IP address. To be honest i see little legal reasons as to why someone should connect to an external server in order to access Wikipedia. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)23:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
The size of the image was briefly mentioned on the foundation-l mailing list, with the question as to why it was larger then an usual image ([http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-July/thread.html#59843 Section "Boycott in ace at wiki") I would link the exact post, but somehow i cannot seem to find the exact message that contained that comment in the archives (I have a copy of it in my own inbox though).
Since it is generally preferable to set images to thumbnail size anyway (That way someone can change the default image size though the preferences) i just went ahead and removed the set size, mentioning the mailing list as the source for making tha change in the first place. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)20:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
