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.
I updated the info on the request, is there anything we can to do protect the page as much as possible for however long possible? Phisigadmin (Phisigadmin) 18:14 March 2011 (EST)
The information being added is being removed on the basis that it is unsourced, and seeing it is a secret society i believe it will be nigh impossible to source it reliably even if one intended to do so - which means that the edit could essentially be mere speculation. I do, however, see no reason to protect the page as of current, let alone fully protect it for an extended period of time. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone, and protections are only placed in severe cases as outlined in the protection policy.
I would add that Wikipedia equally isn't bound by internal rules from an origination or corporation, which means that any restrictions that organization has do not apply on Wikipedia, provided that no U.S law or Wikipedia policy is violated. As an example i would note another secret society who had a rule that their symbols (Much like the ΦΣK that Phi Sigma Kappa has) may not be posted anywhere. For Wikipedia however, this rule does not apply, as it was valid, source-able information that didn't violate any copyright or other laws.I would argue that the added content falls under the same category, as there is no copyright on certain information - provided that the sentences weren't directly lifted from a copyrighted document. Having said all that, i see no reason to include the added for reasons mentioned above, so there should be no real problem. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)22:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Words have been "directly lifted" from copyrighted documents. Does that not count? Phisigadmin (Phisigadmin) 18:44 March 2011 (EST)
Provided that the copyrighted content is still in the article, it certainly does count - Wikipedia's copyright policy is quite strict on these matters. If there is a copyright violation, please refer to the copyvio page, section "Copyright owners" for details on how to report it. Normally i could verify this myself, but seeing the subject matter i believe that this will not be as simple as checking a public website for content that was copied over. Copyright violations are not, however, a reason to protect a page unless it meets the criteria in the protection policy. Deleting the infringing content and (if needed) blocking the users who added it is the prefered way to handle such situations. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)22:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Can you look over the edit summary again please. I did not, ever, say his edits were vandalism. It was he who described my edits as such.
Further, I don't agree he's trying to prove the article. He was just passing through, took a POV-fancy to something there, and is now warring over it. It is unlikely that he would have returned to the article had I not reverted his edit in the first place. Dapi89 (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Which is exactly why i labeled that section "Specifically for user 86.4.81.225" - the comment regarding the vandalism warnings was meant for him. I presume the confusion was caused because i tend to use the same reply for both parties. As for 86's edits, please assume good faith. The edits are not plain vandalism or PoV pushing, and he did bother to write a three paragraph explanation on the article talk page. If the both of you cannot agree, its likely best to seek a third opinion and go by that. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)20:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok. Re: he did bother to write a three paragraph explanation on the article talk page. He did minutes ago only. i.e, after the horse had bolted. Dapi89 (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually it would be an expanded version of the explanation presented to you at 19:30, 24 March 2011 on your talkpage. The same explantion presented to you during my edit of 19:16, 24 March 2011, and of 08:33, 24 March 2011. Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.81.225 (talk)
Hi, this discussion over such a minute and trivial matter appears to have reached an impass following this diff. Two, one involed already, editors have also chimed in but appear to be mostly ignored. I can appreicate we all have better things to do that argue in circles over this pretty superficial matter, but it is going nowhere; can you advise on the best course of action? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.81.225 (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Well how about a block then? As you can see from the log, it was protected for a few days, and now he is back to the same old tricks. CTJF8323:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I haven not read the entire AVGN discussion, but from what i gather from it, you and Anber ran into each other before in a negative fashion - After which you made the ANI thread regarding his userpage. No complaint from me about that since the page was indeed way to promotional to be kept around.
What i AM concerned about, is your insistence to have him blocked. On the ANI thread you made 17 posts (i counted them) and in those you explicitly asked for a block five times already. During this you equally requested a full protection on his page, and messaged me with an explicit request to block him, while messaging EyeSerene, where you more or less asked the same (Though not as explicitly as on my page).
If i factor this with the previous issues you had with the editor, i find this way and way to close to wikihounding to issue a block in this case, or at least as of current. Don't get me wrong - i agree with your call to report that page, and i agree that the insistence to re-add the same links is starting to get tedious (If your in a debate about them its best to evade or discuss reading discussed content, rather then just doing so)to the point where it will move in the disruptive editing area, and warrant a block. However, for now i am calling WP:STICK on this, and i'd like to ask you to stop asking explicitly for a block. Doing so seven times (+1 protection) in a few days - after the previous AVGN discussion - such requests just look extremely negative in my eyes. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)12:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Well if we had an admin (not you or EyeSerene specifically) that would do their "job", then I wouldn't have to ask repeatedly for a block. Obviously the user in the case of his page, and AVGN Episode has blatantly gone against consensus and did what ever he wanted. Clearly if this user had advertising issues a few years ago, they haven't learned, and never will it appears. CTJF8316:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
If a situation warrants a straight away block, i would say that no single admin will ignore or evade issuing one. However, not every situation is best solved with a straight away block, as some patience and talk may be a lot more productive way to deal with an issue. As i did note before, asking for a block several times is not a productive way to deal with such an issue, since it tends to sour any form of intelligent discussion. Also keep in mind that i also have to factor in your past dealings with this particular editor; I saw some past edit wars where the editors eventually decided to aim for the editor instead of the article by trying to get the other banned for 3RR and whatnot. I am definitely not stating this is the case here, but please understand that i have to keep this in mind when dealing with a case such as this.
As said before i don't say don't disagree with your tedious and disruptive editing concerns regarding this editor, and i wouldn't challenge another admin's decision if they decided this already went over the line and issued a block for this. I still hope that this may be resolved peacefully and without the need for admin tools though, so I'll be posting a note at Anber's talk page to point out a few things he should keep in mind (with some luck that will resolve the issue). If not, or in case this simply continues at another page at some later time, i presume that a block would be the best idea to deal with it. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)17:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
He emailed Arbcom, and I agreed to look at the block thinking he was a new editor (my bad), however I now see he is not a new editor at all, and has 'form'(see notes on my talkpage). Thoughts? Would you think it was OK to unblock him, or should he wait out the week. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
If I may weigh in...there i no reason to unblock him. The user has been given more than enough chances, and still does what ever he wants despite consensus and policy. CTJF8321:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I stated before that any admin may change the block without consulting me if they feel it is warranted, and i still stand behind that statement - So if you believe an early unblock is a good idea, i have no problem with that at all. I equally have to mention that, To his credit, Anber is by no means a vandalism-only user, and it doesn't look like he isn't reasonable about the situation. What concerns me though, is the huge amount of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and the lack of ability to drop an issue and move on. I see that the "forms" section is mostly a list of past issues, and i think we can add these two as well:
I actually share your "Too much or too little" concern. One side of me sees he is by no means a vandal and by no means unreasonable, but the other side sees an editor who managed to spark two ANI debates along with a large amount of advertising, page removals and similar concerns in just 329 edits. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)22:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
(e/c with Excirial) Oh geez, I didn't guess he had emailed arbcom, I figured you saw the ANI thread but skipped some of the tl;dr. The guy has used a way-disproportionate amount of DR and process resources already considering the thinness of his contribution record, and feels entitled to use an unlimited amount more, not good. Also I forgot to mention his IP sockpuppet on your talk page[1] (somehow I thought there was more than one, though).
IMO the 1 week block was reasonable at first instance but begins to not feel like enough now, given his apparent intention to sit it out and resume the same activity if nobody unblocks him earlier. At ANI I suggested salting the userpage since I don't have any better ideas, short of an indef if it comes to that. For COI documentation purposes if the userpage is deleted, I guess we could open a COI noticeboard thread and let it make its way to the noticeboard archive so people can find it if issues come up later. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Ehm... i don't think that i actually qualify as a new user :). Even so that does by no means mean that i cannot make mistakes, and it seems i mistook the large removal of (sourced) content for vandalism this time, mostly because i missed the edit summary on your edit - so apologies for that miss. As for the content itself, i have no real opinion or advice to offer, as i am not well versed enough in the matter to determine if the section can or can't be considered WP:NPOV. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)20:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
That was indeed quite an intersting page to protect. I could have sworn i reverted it a load of times already, and still Huggle reported warning level of 1 and 2 on the users in question. Seems that an entire school class is having a very, very boring lesson today. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)20:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The Aquinas School appears to have had a small fire and therefore the kids had some time off - clearly idle hands there!
"There was a small accidental fire in a Science Prep Room, damage is minimal but there will be clearing and cleaning up to do. For Health And Safety reasons school will be suspended for all Years 8, 9 and 10 pupils tomorrow Tuesday 29th"Tlozinski (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
Hey, thanks for helping me with that vandal who was blanking The Picture of Dorian Gray, he was rather annoying.
Shakinglord has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can 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.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Based on the amount of thanks i received the past two days, it almost seems as if this is the "Thank Excirial" week. But really, just doing my job, and therefor more then glad to help with keeping things clean. :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)20:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Institute for Learning
This page is under repeated 'attack' from a small group of individuals intent on editing it to bring the organisation into disrepute. As the creator I have no idea how to prevent this, other than to repeatedly delete the content - which I am now unable to do. Your advice would be appreciated.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as of such it covers all relevant andreliably sourced information regarding a certain subject in a neutral and unbiased manner. This means that Wikipedia will always contain information that may be deemed positive or negative. Most article's have criticism weaved into their main text structure, but some article's may contain a separate section that details the critique.
Where i am going with this explanation? Looking at the article itself i note that the criticism section is rather substantial, but i do note it seems to be entirely sourced. As of such i see no reason why all the negative content should be removed outright. It is possible to challenge the neutrality of the sourcing, but at the very least people can verify where the information originally came from - thus allowing them to draw their own conclusions as to the worth of the critique. I do note that the critique is rather long and substantial in regards to the rest of the article, so it may be an idea to trim it down to the most relevant cases, removing any overlap. For example, "Increase in Membership Fees" seems to overlap entirely with "Surplus Funds", while other sections of the criticism seem to be fairly irrelevant\trivial or overly drawn out.
One thing i would mention, is that article's are not owned by anyone. This means that article's may be adapted over time, and that their content may change radically - at times not to the liking of some interested parties. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)22:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately WP:NPOV is a double edged knife in most cases - If you wish a neutral representation of a subject, it requires all viewpoints and all available information, both positive and negative. The result of this is that article's may not be as positive regarding a certain subject as people hope at times.
As i stated before i believe that the negative content of the page is overly long and should be trimmed down - same goes with the external links section. However, as long as criticism is valid and correctly sourced, it should not be removed entirely (Keyword being entirely). I do question the necessity and purpose of your above comment though. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)07:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I think
I'm normal? A tap on the wrist? I think I'm doubly insulted. LOL. Seriously, I'm trying not to stir up trouble, I thought the guy would take it with a grain of salt. I guess not. I presume I better not add any porn to my medical/science/hockey articles. :)OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions00:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
If you're around, can you deal with Overseer19XX? He's gone on a semi-tirade calling me "biased" and that I'm hounding him. You can see the diffs that I left on his page. I think he's got an interpretation of what constitutes collaborative writing which means he's right, and well, no one else is. :) I don't want to get into a war with a young editor, so maybe a third party can remind him of a few things. And no, I'm not going to do an AN/I or anything. He's not worth that much trouble. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions19:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) user:Worm that Turned 1 was created in close succession with with user:Worm that Turned 2, user:Worm that Turned 3 and user:Worm that Turned 4. Since there was no clear reason for creating multiple accounts - let alone creating them at high speed, and because the account name that was incredibly similar to a excising contributer i blocked the entire batch. User:Worm That Turned himself is not blocked. (Edit: @Bsadowski1 - if it was one account i wouldn't have leaped in like that - Unfortunately it was not just 1 account, there were actually four. I cannot directly think of a reason why someone would need four Doppler's, or why so many would have to be created rapid succession, without using the create account interface from the main account that at least signals they would belong to him.)
@The computer rocks!: What i wonder though - How did you notice that the account(s) were blocked? I took care of them right of the new user list, so there was no report about them being created elsewhere as far as i am aware. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)22:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Oki, thanks. I was wondering if it was mentioned somewhere that i wasn't aware of. That which might have lead to more sockpuppets, or the conclusion that the accounts were really Worm himself. :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)06:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Morning Excirial. Thank you very much for taking care of them, the accounts were nothing to do with me (I was asleep at the time). Bsadowski, I have a Doppelgänger based on my signature should I need it, User:WormTT, so don't worry too much about that. It's quite possible that The computer rocks! was looking for and found the alternatives through the search (though there are a lot of subpages in the search with a higher ranking...) so I'll WP:AGF and carry on. Will have a conversation with him though :)
Hiyas there Beeble. A very quick question about the above page, and this recent edit that was made to it. I remember very vaguely (It was over two years ago) that there was a persistent sockpuppeteer who would use a load of accounts to vandalize article's related to special education. I just came across the above edit on a similar page, which you protected from sockpuppeteering, and where a relatively new editor made a similar style edit to what i remember from that previous case.
I really have no clue if this editor is related to the above blocked (banned?) editor, or even to the sockpuppetry that caused the protection. Any chance you could have a look at it? Thanks in advance! Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)21:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Reviewing edits is quite similar to vandalism patrol, and as of such it is good to have some basic experience with vandalism patrol before requesting reviewer rights. At first it can be tricky to determine what is vandalism, and what is a good faith edit. Thus i would advice to get some basic vandalism patrol experience with twinkle or lupin first - this equally allows you to demonstrate that you are aware what vandalism is, and what isn't. After doing that for a while (And in case you enjoy it of course), you could request reviewer rights. If you really enjoy vandalism patrol, you may equally wish to request WP:rollback and switch to WP:Huggle. Either way, good luck patrolling a bit if you choose to do so. :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)07:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Portadown FC
My edit of the Portadown FC page is not vandalism, it is to remove a sectarian paragraph that has been inserted onto the Portadown page potraying Portadown in a false and bad light. I also added some up to date information about the club which is of use to anyone who views the page.
You removed a section of sourced content without as much as an edit summary explaining why it was removed, which is why it has repeatedly been reverted. I would add that wikipedia covers all relevant content - both positive and negative - provided that it had a reliable source to back it up. In this case the problems section is entirely sourced, which means that it should stay unless there is a good reason to believe that the sourcing is not reliable, or in case there are other problems with the text itself. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)08:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
About Regnum Online
Everything I tried to post in that page is absolutely true and veryfiable. The other person who is deleting my changes and replacing them for his text is obviously someone from NGD -the company behind Regnum Online-. I tried to post those changes just to give the possible customers an impartial and sincere view of the game as it is actually and not a propaganda talk as they do. If you think this is wrong, then I am going to doubt about the quality of Wikipedia. Thank you for your time.--Kelthicum (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I forgot to ask you for your comment on this subject.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelthicum is is wrong, then I am going to doubt about the quality of Wikipedia. Thank you for your time.--Kelthicum (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There is not one editor reverting you, but a total amount of three (Myself included). The content is removed on the basis that the edit is not sourced with reliable sources, and because it doesn't adhere to WP:NPOV. The added content is equally not a fact, but rather an opinion - for example, the overpowered part is a judgement regarding the games item shop. If i would say item shop items are underpowered, that would equally be a judgement, and thus an opinion. Criticism and opinions are not bad per sé, but they need to be a majority vision, and require a reliable source to back them up. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)07:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. About that reliable source: It is not very clear to me. It is indeed an opinion, but not only from me. If you read the game forums (the English forum, the Spanish forum, the French Forum and the German forum) of Regnum Online of the last 5,6 weeks, you will see that my opinion is backed up by 99% of the players posts. I wouldn't know how to find a "reliable, published source" by an authority on this matter. This is about a game, not about a scientific subject. I understand that you have to make a difficult decision about what's right and what's wrong but if you have to find a reliable, by an authority published source to change something in a Wikipedia page.... you must agree with me that then it would be almost impossible to change propaganda texts.--Kelthicum (talk) 08:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Please Help
I have posted an update to Kyrene School District (where I work) severl times and it keeps getting denied. I dont know why. What in the post is the problem? Can you look at what you reverted today on Kyrene School District and let me know. Thanks - KyreneNet — Preceding unsigned comment added by KyreneNet (talk • contribs) 20:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
There are actually a few problems with the change you made - for readabilities sake i made a list out of the issues.
Accounts cannot be deleted - you are, however, free to stop editing at any one point. You could, however, change your password to a scrambled one so you cannot access the account again. Another option is WP:RTV, but that is unlikely to be worth the hassle. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)14:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Polyfluorene Nomination
Hi Excirial, With your suggestion and after having read the article, I nominated the Polyfluorene page to be a good article. Please comment on the article to start the review. Thank you! MichChemGSI (talk) 03:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
First off, very nice work on the Computer security compromised by hardware failure page. Unfortunately i could only glance over it so far, But it looks very promising, and i guess i will definately enjoy reading it entirely this evening. Besides this i moved the draft page you created at User talk:Driquet/Computer security compromised by hardware failure to the mainspace to preserve the edit history, which is actually required for copyright reasons (See WP:HISTMERGE for some details). Besides this, did you consider nominating your article for a WP:DYK? I haven't fully checked it, but it may very well be eligible for one. Nothing like seeing a lot of hard work showcased on the front page where everyone can see it, after all. :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)07:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry it took me a little bit longer to get to this a little longer then i initially expected - life was a bit busier then i expected it to be. But on to the article!
The article seems to be tagged with four different tags - "Long", "Essay-like", "Uncategorized" and "orphan", so let me get over these in details.
Long - This one is a bit straight forward to explain. The tag itself means that the article is rather long, and could therefor best be split into multiple (sub)article's for readabilities sake. For example, an article about World War 2 would be incredibly bulky if every single battle was described in detail (Not to mention it would be confusing to read) I would note that i am not entirely in agreement with this tag - judged by its size along, it seems to fit nicely into the recommended article lenghts, so i presume that the tagger noted that the article covers quite a few different sub-subjects of hardware security. Even so, i would leave it in one piece for now, since chopping it up would be rather complex.
Uncategorized - This means that no categories are added to the article, which are used to index article's by subject (So one can easily find related subjects). I took care of that one for you by adding some categories to it.
Orphan - This tag means that very few article's link to this article, which means it may be difficult to find. Since a lot of the views for a page come from internal links (Page to page links) a page that is unlinked can only be found by search or categories. Adding a link to this article in related other article's (This can be done in the See Also sections, or in the main content) solves this problem.
Essay-like - This is probably the hardest one to explain, and the one that is the most difficult to fix. The tag itself means that the article is written in a style that resembles an essay, rather then as an encyclopedic article. In general this means that an article contains a certain amount of personal opinion rather then entirely objective writing. Another thing that is somewhat prevent, is that the article is somewhat argumentative as opposed to being purely descriptive.
Now i know i am being quite vague here, and to be honest, it is rather difficult to explain the issue since it is a rather subtle difference. In all due honesty it isn't that bad in the article, and seeing it is a new article i am already impressed with its content - it certainly looks a LOT better then the absolute majority of the new article's. For example, have a look at this early edition of computer security. I presume you can see the difference in quality.
As for the DYK, anyone can nominate one, so you can nominate your own article's as well. There are just a few criteria to a DYK:
The article must be in the article space less then 5 days, OR its prose section must have grown in size by 5x during the same time period (You pass this one).
It must be at least 1.500 characters in prose (You EASILY pass this one)
The article must have a cite hook that meets the hook criteria. This hook is a short and interesting sentence that will be placed on the main page. The hook itself must be reasonable in size, the fact MUST be in the article and it MUST be sourced with a reliable source. Have a look at the "Did you know..." section on the main page for examples of current approved hooks. (No hook yet, so no pass or fail)
The article must meet verifiability, notability and other basic criteria. I'd argue you pass this one well enough, since larger size article's are more complex to structure correctly. The editors at DYK are often helpful and may give a hand or two cleaning and improving an article to make it ready. (For example, they often spot my typo's and creative usage of grammar).
Hello, I have no clue why i was deleted, there was no copyright issue or unverifiable information.
My name : Marcel Provost
My tags inserted on page : National Anthems
Links to myself and "Chante Le Pays"
I simply cannot find anything.. it all vanished.
Thank you in advance for your time in helping me find my content and restoring or instructions on how to restore the information.
MP Article unsined by WowCestMoiSurWiki (Talk)
That was sure a while back - the article you mention (Marcel Provost) was origionally deleted on 22 June 2009, on the basis of WP:A7. I origionally tagged it with a PROD (A proposed deletion), but it seems that another editor upped that to a CSD A& (Criteria for speedy deletion, criteria A7). Now, i doubt that the number / letter combinations mean anything to you, so let me elaborate. Under the criteria of speedy deletion there are several reasons as to why an article may be deleted speedily - that is, without community discussion. The page itself was deleted under A7, which means that the article gave no indication of notability. This means that the article didn't explain why the subject of the article is notable enough to be contained in an encyclopedia.
Though it is quite long ago, you can request the deletion on WP:DELREV, but be aware that undeletions are only done if there had been an error. Alternatively, you could ask for the page to be userfied, in which case it can be restored to your user page so you can work to make it comply to Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:N, WP:V and WP:NPOV (If you are interested in this, i can do this for you). I do advice though, that it is wise to read this page first. It provides tips on creating article's, and the type of content that is accepted into Wikipedia. I warn in advance that not all subject are notable enough to warrant inclusion, so be critical and objective when determining if the subject is notable. You can ask at the helpdesk for advice, or you can submit the article to WP:AFC for review. The latter may be advisable at first, since the article will receive improvement tips then. On the other hand article's in the main space are always subject to removal if they do not comply, so AFC may be a bit of a safe-haven option.
Hi Excirial. I am supporting a new member who is an academic well able to contribute a lot to Wiki, but is looking to orient himself with house-style, gadgets etc. I want to recommend the citation gadget to him - the one which appears on your toolbar in edit mode, with links to various forms for citations for web, news etc. I vaguely remember getting mine from My Preferences a couple of years ago. I looked for it in My Prefs but can't find it. Where has it gone? Or has everyone got it automatically now? --Storye book (talk) 07:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Hiyas there Storye - long time no see!
The citation gadget is a standard button in the new user interface (Vector). Since you mention he is a new member i am quite certain he uses that interface, since few users switch around from the default (Unless one is attached to the old monobook interface, such as me). In the new vector interface there is a Cite button on the absolute right side of the edit bar. Once it is clicked it will expand and allow one to select Cite web, Cite news, Cite book and Cite journal. Once it is selected it comes up with a new window where this information can be filled in.
One extra handy tool which you may like (And this is the tool i use myself), is [2]. This tool allows you to automatically convert barebone references to cite templates (+ it fills them in as far as possible). It will even name duplicate references so that they will be grouped automatically - really convenient if you ask me. An example of a reflinks edit is [3], in case you are wondering.
Thanks for your kind help. I don't know why he's stuck on refs then - maybe he hasn't spotted it yet. I'll ask him.
Thanks for the heads up on the auto reflinks. I've put it in my Chrome bookmark bar, and I'll try it out later. Yay! - a new gadget! --Storye book (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Removal of posts & warnings
Hi, I have received warnings about 'unconstructive' posts and 'vandalism' regarding some updated entries to the UK Punk Bands list. I can see nothing wrong with these entries - it is just a list of band names and links to a Wikipedia entry on the 'Bullshit Detector' punk compilation series. Is this just an automated bot responding to the phrase 'Bullshit Detector'? I have now been threatened with removal of editing rights, so please could you remove the warnings. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.20.46 (talk) 20:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Shazia_Khalid
AS YOU HAVE noticed I have been watching over IP User:178.104.110.68. He has been repeatedly vandalized the article Shazia Khalid. That's all that he has done. Please block him for this is his/her 6th time vandalizing the article.
Arman Cagle (Contact meEMail MeContribs)
Please remember if you have any questions, please reply on my talk page. 20:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)Arman Cagle
Done, but remember that an editor normally needs to be warned in order to be blocked (Otherwise they might not know they are doing something wrong). In this case though i agree that blanking several times is really something that should fall under common sense. And before i forget, thanks for reporting him! Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)20:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I have just warned him about his/her editing about Shazia Khalid.
Hey, Once again, I need another user blocked.
User talk:97.101.2.172for the following reasons:
He/she has been vandalizing the article War and I have already warned him. It started today, and there several warnings already posted.
Please respond with your verdict
Arman Cagle (Contact meEMail MeContribs)
Please remember if you have any questions, please reply on my talk page. 20:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)Arman Cagle
Thank you for blocking the IP user
(edit conflict) Already done, even before you posted here :). It is, however, best to report to WP:AIAV since more admins are watching that then just me. If i would go for some snack, your report might go unnoticed for quite a while. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)20:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
User talk:205.155.37.4
Can you block User talk:205.155.37.4 because he/she has nonstopped vandalized wikipedia since his last block. He has already been blocked, but the block has been expired now. Can you renew the block?Arman Cagle (Contact meEMail MeContribs)
Please remember if you have any questions, please reply on my talk page. 21:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)Arman Cagle
Hello Excirial! A couple months ago I warned ip 63.199.37.150 on vandalism of Ostrich on his talk page. I noticed he had vandalism all the way back to 2008. After I warned him, there have been reapeated warnings and blocks to his account, with no sign of stopping his vandalism. I have requested that ip 63.199.37.150 be blocked permanently. I also left a message on his talk page. Please connsider my request. Shakinglord (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
IP adresses are never permanently blocked, since an IP address is not a static means that can be used to identify a user. For example, an IP adress may be dynamically assigned by an ISP at the beginning of every session, which would mean that the same IP address would represent a different user a day later. Even statically allocated IP addresses (IP's given to set customers) may eventually change due to network adjustment or due to users changing ISP's.
In general this means that IP's are not blocked for long amounts of time, unless vandalism is extremely similar or persistent. In cases of schools blocks can go up to 5 years, though they mostly limit at 1 year (Easy enough to reblock after the year expires). In this case the vandalism isn't so persistant, so the 1 month will easily deal with it. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)21:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Unsure where exactly to put this, so if it is in the wrong place, please forgive me. You are one of many who have excoriated me for vandalism of articles I never read, much less edited. I have an account (this is it, username Altgeld, etc.), yet it is evidently possible for others to post nonsense edits labeled as mine. Any help you can offer will be appreciated. Altgeld (talk) 06:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I just removed the User talk:Bruin2/William G. Skelly page you marked for removal. If you need more userpage deletions, it may be more convenient to tag them with the {{db-u1}} template. This will place the article in the relevant deletion categories so that it can easily be spotted by people currently doing cleanups. The template equally saves you the hassle of having to type an explanation along with the helpme template(helpme based deletion request are fine as well, but the DB template is likely more convenient). Just to let you know :). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)17:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your help deleting a user page, as I had requested. I found a couple more that I will mark per your advice. Bruin2 (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I read your comment on that page, and i deem the action you propose fine. If someone challenges factual accuracy of an article, and no sources can be provided to prove that the content is true, it is at times best to remove the content altogether. In this case i see no issue with removing a particular school, provided no sources are found that prove its actually a part of the article's subject. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)06:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
You recently edited this page. It is my view that this page is just a corporate marketing listing, there are several hundred companies that do the same job yet are not listed in Wikipedia - Do you not think that this is advertorial? JasonBournes1 (talk) 13:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Could you also clean up those pages as well? This would allow all schools to function in a fair environment on Wikipedia in which all data is accurate, non-promotional, well sourced, and patrolled/cleaned-up when necessary by administrators. I have also asked Tnxman307 to look into editing each other school, but Tnxman307 has not followed through to perform such edits (it has been about a month since I notified Tnxman307 of this). Not sure how to resolve this and don't want to get the feeling that the Fuqua School of Business, as compared with other business schools, is being unfairly targeted by administrators. Thanks.
User Flying Fische still vandalizing templates, despite warnings and your previous block
Despite multiple warnings from three different editors to Flying Fische about removing templates without addressing the issues they raise [4][5][6], and despite two previous blocks for this offense, one of them by you [7] and one from another editor [8], he removed yet another maintenance template today [9]. Since he has ignored all warnings and learned nothing from his blocks, I believe a permanent block may be in order. Qworty (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but at I assert that User Kralizec! is a crony of the unnamed "other three editors." Ruleslawyer away, the facts are what they are; not all of us are "professional wiki editors," and some folks have better things to do than navigate through the morass of wiki-lore-and-custom.
RPG.net did rip off advertisers by heinously overstating their traffic. Sorry, but Napolenoic law does not come naturally to citizens of the U.S.A. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agoodbadhabit (talk • contribs) 23:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
You unblocked him because he said he wouldn't spam anymore...and now he is doing it again while logged out. here and here. This is the same IP range as what he openly used here and here. 76.235.54.197 (talk) 17:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
REQUEST TO UNDELETE ARTICLE" ASHWORTH HAROLD McGEE"
Dear Excirial,
Greetings, It was quite surprising to find my article "Ashworth Harold McGee" deleted from the Wikipedia English section. This article is purely my creation and all photographs icluded are from my personal family album. There is no question of any infringement of interest or rights whatsoever or violation of copyrights.Nor is there any kind of vandalism or insult to any one either living or dead. The article is purely a biography of a renowned Methodist Evangelist of India who lived from 1898 - 1970. I therefore very humbly request you to please undelete the article and let the world know of the good deeds of the Rev. Ashworth Harold McGee. Wishing you all the very best,
yours sincerely,
Raja McGee (talk) 19:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Raja McGee.
Hi Excirial, I have published an informative, biographical article entitled Christopher Scott (choreographer) and it has been marked for "Speedy Deletion." I have attempted to defend the validity of the article on my Talk page but am unsure if I'm supposed to do something else to prevent deletion. I am new at this and anxious to learn how to publish on Wikipedia.
What is the best way for me to get the Speedy Deletion warning removed. I am not finished with the article although I think the fundamentals are there, but I plan to add to it continually as the story of Christopher Scott unfolds. Thank you so much for any help you can give me.
This is really unlike you to cut all the contact like that and this is the last way I can try to get in touch with you again. I don't expect you to come back, but at least let me know everything is ok and you're still out there, somewhere.
What happened to you man? You left us without saying goodbye? I mean fair does you had to leave but you should have least popped on to say adios :( - Leuma.
Cratox0 (talk) 02:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello Excirial
Apparently you have reverted something from my IP address on Jackie Wilson's (author) Vicky Angel's(book) page. I didn't write the offending note so I don't know quite what this is all aboutJude12 (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
per the message u sent me, I made no such edit and have never heard of that person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.204.116 (talk) 18:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
New Page Patrol survey
New page patrol – Survey Invitation
Hello Excirial/Archive 16! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.
Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.
You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey
warning instead of hardblock?
I'm just curious, why did you give this user a lvl 1 warning ([12]) instead of an indef-block? The username is clearly inappropriate. I indeffed it for both vandalism and the username. Horologium(talk)19:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Mostly because i entirely missed the username. I just noticed the page blanking and reverted that - good catch there though, that username is clearly one fit for an indef at once. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)19:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
From what i can see we reverted at nearly the exact same instance. Because of that it seems you reverted the edit we both intended to revert, while my own edit managed to revert yours. Since WP:Huggle automatically sends a warning to the user it reverts, you got incorrectly bombarded with a warning, while my edit managed to reinstate the vandalism - Sorry for that. I reinstated the correct version of the page, and i removed the warning from your talk page. And before i forget - Happy editing! :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)19:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
If i remember well Huggle reads the history of a talk page to determine earlier blocks, so removing the warning itself won't stop it from showing on that log. It is nothing to be worried about though - the only difference is that your edits will be flagged on top of the Huggle list rather then being placed on the bottom. After a while you will become automatically white listed, so your edits won't be added to the list anymore. And when that happends, Huggle actually gives a warning if it tries to revert you. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)19:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
No, you are not stating truth - Instead you are adding your own opinion about a subject to the article. This is against WP:NPOV and WP:BIO - any added content must be neutral in tone and sourced, which, in this case, clearly isn't the case. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)20:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry if I put something in the wrong place (Afghanistan War)....are you saying I put it into the article itself? I thought I was posting to the discussion area. If so, sorry and glad you got it quickly.
At issue is some guy calling legitimate, factual questioning of an article "disruptive" and deleting it w/o discussion/notice. This has not happened before, and I am infuriated. I see a lot of people here who do not understand the differences among fact, fiction and opinion, and people who think theirs is the only viewpoint. If there is a problem with something I wrote, I should be first notified. I don't know how to talk directly to this person. I will spend some time and figure it out. Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenfo 0 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Hiyas there Kenfo,
No, the content wasn't saved in the article itself, though it would have been a two-second job to correct it if that had done. What i meant was that you create a new article in the "Article Space". The Article Space is there area where content-based articles are saved. On a similar note talk: pages are called the talk space, and the wp: article's are project or wikipedia space.
As for the issue, i think this is simply a misunderstanding. The deleted entry logs you included in your post are actually not related to any content you posted. What happened there is that an administrator (Mentifisto) revdelled two edits to the Afghanistan War because the user that made them had an offensive username. The watchlist shows any edits made to an article, so if another editor changes something, you will get notified as well. What i think you are referring to, are the sections you created on the discussion page? If that is the case they have not been removed, but rather they have been archived. This happens automatically on some pages to make sure that talk pages don't get unreasonably long. On the talk page in question sections older then 3 months are automatically archived - your comments can still be found in the archive of the page.
As for contacting Mentifisto directly, you can do this the same way you just contacted me. By posting a note on their talk pages you will almost certainly grab their attention. Most times it is best to contact an editor first before starting any more "formal" process such as an RFC on conduct - After all, it may just have been a misunderstanding :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)09:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
might have made an error but I'm no vandal!
Ahoy Excirial, I confess I am somewhat confused and quite new to editing in wiki. I apologise in advance if I do not follow protocol 100%! I tried to add some useful info to the page 'folding boat' as I consider the current version extremely bias to the point where it is a diatribe about Porta Bote which is by no means the only folding boat on the market. I sell the Origami and Fliptail dinghies on line and they are extremely popular so I do not understand why my added paragraph about them was removed. Perhaps you could explain to me why I am not allowed to post useful information when the current article might as well be an advert for Porta Bote with half a dozen direct links to their site! I tried to cite a video which gives visual evidence of a claim I made in my paragraph, that of the speed attained with a 3.3hp engine. When my paragraph was first removed, I though maybe it was the You Tube link (although I checked first and was informed that it was OK to link to You tube) so I removed it and tried again but then you took it down. It seems that the page as it stands is acceptable but I can't for the life of me see why. I feel that it is poorly written, bias, one sided, lacking in useful facts and certainly could include information about many more folding boats. Cheers Benjy (Benjy1966 (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC))
Hiyas there Benjy!
Before saying anything that is a bit more related to the above let me just say: Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy your stay! As for the above, let me first say that i wholeheartedly agree with your statement that Wikipedia can be quite confusing at first. If not for the editing syntax and the "What does that button do?", then for the policies and rules that are in place. Don't let that discourage you though! One of the most important policies is that you should be Bold when editing - if something goes wrong that can easily be reverted, so don't be deterred by a feeling that something might not be entirely in line with policy. Having said that - if you have any questions, feel free to ask them. You can ask them on my talk page right here (I may be a bit slow to respond due to out of wikipedia work trough), on the new contributers helpdesk or the regular helpdesk. Alternatively The help pages may provide some assistance, though it may require a bit more reading.
Now, on to the folding boats that caused the above question. First off you are entirely right that the page itself was quite a blatant promotion for Porta Bote, and i see that another user already went in and cleaned it up rather well. As for the links, there are a few policies to be aware off - First and foremost pages need to be neutral in tone, with as little opinions as possible. At the same time advertising links and Advertising are not allowed as well. Pages that are linked should follow a similar format - a neutral technical description might be a fine link, but a link to a page that is selling and promoting is not. There is actually a page going into this in detail, but it is a rather long read.
Ahoy Eccirial, thank you for your detailed explanation and welcome to Wiki. I confess that I am not really any the wiser. I appreciate that direct links could be seen as advertising but surely the site where the dinghy originates is the best source of information. If not, then please can you suggest where to go for such sources? I mean, does someone's blog count? If one of my customers built one and wrote about it, does that count, or is that too opinionated as well? I just don't see where these sources are? I thought that the you tube link that I put up was no more than visual proof of, not only the existence of the boat but also proof of a claim made in the text yet it appears not.
I have to be honest, I am finding the whole thing far too difficult to use and understand. I see that the folding boat article has had the Porta Bote links removed but it is now as good as useless and tells the reader nothing of any use whatsoever. At least when Porta Bote was there, there was at least one folding boat mentioned. Now there are none. I would be happy to write a non bias article about folding boats but I have very little interest if someone can just come along and change it when they feel like it. This experience has made me doubt the validity of much of the info on Wiki.
I thought Wiki did not allow businesses so what is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Seacraft If this is valid, can I write an article about woodenwidget? After all I am a valid and genuine Internet presence and have been for about 6 years.
Ahoy Excirial, Have been doing some research and it seems that no one takes much notice of the Wiki rules. No wonder everyone is so confused. Apart from Pacific Seacraft, there are the following pages which (as far as I can tell) are out of order and full of links to companies selling products. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folbot for example. And again here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_(dinghy) there are list of manufacturers. Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinghy under references are a list of manufacturers of dinghies. It seems to me that the whole Wikipedia is a bit of a mess! Please confirm that these are all illegal entries. Thanks, Benjy (Benjy1966 (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC))
Hiyas Benjy,
Sorry for not being able to get back to you sooner. I am incredibly busy outside Wikipedia so I have little to read or even reply to any questions I receive. I will try to reply to the above tomorrow evening, when i hopefully have some time to write a decent and non-hurried reply. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)10:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
For future reference, new messages go at the bottom of talk pages, not above previous sections.
To link to an article, all you have to do is place the article title [[in double brackets like this]].
May i ask the both of you to cease reverting eachother, and instead discuss the issue on the talk page? Reverting over and over will not solve the issue, and it will definately not improve the discussion, so please, i would really prefer to see this solved without the need for silly measures such as full protections or 3RR blocks. Also as a warning, you are technically already over the 3RR Josh, which normally means an automatic block. So please, don't step over it any further and discuss before changing again. And please provide a source on the talk page for the claim. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)19:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I tend to post the same message to both parties, since that tends to make the discussion a lot easier to document on a talk page (And it prevents people from thinking i'm taking sides in a discussion) - the latter part of the message was only meant for Josh though, since he is the one outside 3RR. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)19:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Editors are allowed to remove warnings from their talk page par WP:VAND, so please don't keep replacing it as that is considered disruptive as well. And i ask that both of you stop the constant reverting on the talk page, as it is far from productive, nor desirable. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)21:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Your welcome. As a piece of advice - if you seem locked in an edit war with another editor, it is most times best to send a personal message rather then a warning template when contacting the other editor. Questions and comments work much better then warning templates, as they actually refer to the situation, rather then being a generic warning.Most times people react a lot more productive to these. If that doesn't work, or in case you two cannot seem to agree asking a third opinion might be a good idea, among other dispute resolution measures. But try to solve it on the talk page before going that way! Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)21:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. One question: why did you ask us not to revert the warnings after mentioning our ability to remove them, and then revert the warning on my talk page? 174.253.24.15 (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
How odd. That last edit was just intended to copy the conversation above to your talk page - i didn't notice i somehow restored the warning and conversation above it as well. Guess i just copy-pasted to much in this case, so feel free to re-remove them if you wish. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)22:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, i did (Does that count as an admission of guilt?). That is why i initially opened the section at ANI to make sure i didn't go over that line. However, seeing that the content is promotional and that we suddenly have another account editing the page i decided to revert it anyway for now, along with opening a SPI case on the quartet of accounts.
It... does kind of skim the WP:3RR line i guess since i cannot really call this straight out vandalism, so it might have been smarter to stay clear of it or keep it at reporting the SPI case. May i for once abuse the WP:IAR excuse on this one, or did i earn myself a 24 hour timeout for breaking WP:3RR? :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)22:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, i never tried that, i wonder if it would work. Along the same train of though, did they ever protect the mainpage from being deleted? Is i start experimenting, i might just as well see if those bugs at the stocks are already fixed. ;) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)22:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Pages are only protected if they meet the requirements set in the protection policy. In general this means that editing pages is only restricted in cases where pages are subject of a content dispute or unless the pages are subject to heavy vandalism from multiple sources, where blocking editors would be impractical or would cause to much collateral damage. Protections are kept as short as possible and as open as possible, to keep in line with the mantra "The encyclopedia that everyone can edit". In the case of the Ros Bates page there was no indication that the page met any of the protection criteria so i declined the protection.
Administrators themselves are chosen by the community. There are no "set" criteria to become an administrator, but in general it requires a clean editing history, at the very least a year of editing experience (And likely more) and several thousands or more edits. Creating high quality content, working in vandalism patrol or other constructive area's is generally appreciated as well. So technically, yes, you can become an administrator, but it would take quite some time and work before any nomination would be accepted. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)15:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Excirial,
Sorry to bother. Btw, I'm the one who is maintaining Ros Bates website and some few other websites. I have few questions 1. What if Ros Bates submit valid identification to you and request the page be protected, is that acceptable? 2. Can I become a administrator only for Ros Bates page and few other pages I wanted to built? And you will be the super administrator, is that acceptable?
I am afraid i am going to have to answer with a negative on all three questions. Pages are never protected to a preferred version, as Wikipedia is a community-written project where everyone can edit. This means that any page can be adapted by anyone, save for a few critical pages such as the front page, a few critical templates and the mediawiki installation files. In essence all content pages are not owned by anyone in specific and may thus be edited freely - even page protection on content pages is only temporal in virtually every situation. There are equally no "Partial" admins for certain pages. Actually, at the very core administrator powers are nothing more then a bit of community trust that one can responsibly use some of the more "delicate" features, such as blocking users and protecting pages. That being said - everyone lives by the same rules, and whoever misuses or abuses his extra buttons on the interface will surely lose them.
Now, i do believe i understand the reasoning behind the questions. Wikipedia is a much used source, so i presume that Mrs. Bates is concerned that her article becomes libelous, defamed or otherwise negative in tone? In that case i would point out that all article's content must meet certain criteria to remain - content has to be neutral in tone and verifiable using a reputable source - note that this automatically scratches any blogs, paparazzi magazines and so on as those are not reliable. In cases of living persons these standards are vastly higher compared to regular article's trough the biography of living persons policy. In essence all content in a biographic article must be sourced before it is allowed - unsourced content may be challenged and removed as non verifiable until a source is found. This is because the impact of an incorrect "possible divorce" statement in a living persons article can have a lot more impact then say, the incorrect average size of a mammoth tooth in another.
There is of course some form of limit to what is and isn't allowed. While libelous content may not be posted in any form, any 'negative' well sourced content may be included, such as court cases or criminal convictions (if relevant). At the same time article's may not swing in the direction of being overly positive/promotional or negative in nature. As a sidenote, if you are closely related to the subject, please see the WP:COI policy, as, generally taken, editing pages on subjects you are closely related to is discouraged (Most often paired with the word strongly). This is due to the difficulty one may have to write neutral content in these cases.
I took the liberty to merge the two comments into one, and i removed the text itself from my talk page as it took a rather large section of space (I can see deleted contributions, so i can just have a look in the history to find the text to comment on it). I will try to have a look at it this evening (Europe timezone). By the way, you can add new comments under the existing section of my talk page, rather then creating new sections - This will keep a conversation one the same the subject grouped together and allows for easier archiving. Also, new entries are usually placed on the bottom of the talkpage rather then on top. I haste to say that both are not really a problem since i can just move them around myself, but i figured i might just as well mention it. :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)08:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello Bruce,
I went over the article in some detail, but i am afraid to say it does quite clearly fall under the advertising header - in fact so much that i cannot help but agree that the removal criteria for advertising (G11) more then clearly applies to it. I will try to list the issue with it, but it will likely be a rather long read.
First and foremost is that the article counts as blatant advertisement. This is both visible in the general structure and in individual sentences. For example: "by a number of leading industry professionals in Australia". "We are an independent and not-for-profit organisation with a focus on:". See the highlighted words for example. " Leading" is called a peacock word which do little but place importance on a subject. Using the "We" form is not-done for similar reasons, as Wikipedia's intend is to be entirely neutral in writing. In short, "We" does not denote a neutral point of view. Besides these specific words the article equally very positively biased. The article mostly talks about the great things that OCAP does, and while doing so it does not adhere to a neutral point of view.
Second is that there is no claim to notability. In order to be allowed to remain on Wikipedia an article needs 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 around the corner here is an example of an article of would not be notable. Notability can be established trough citing reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Full guidelines on that can be found at WP:N, though you may also want to take a look at the Business FAQ. In essence this is the core for any subject to have an article at all. In other words, you need to prove that a subject is important enough to have an article - mostly this is done trough the usage of articles in major news publishers. Be very stringent when selecting reliable sources. Press releases, blogs, minor publishers, paid-to-publish content, adverts, small-time newspapers and mere mentions do not count as reliable sources.
I would advice having a look at Pearson's Candy Company, one of my personal favorite demonstration article's for cases such as these. It is recognized as a good quality article, and at the same time it demonstrates quite a bit of the wiki syntax, has decent sourcing, and is above all not so long that it would discourage people to read it. I would equally using the "Article's for Creation" page in combination with the Wikipedia help chat] as both can give you assistance while writing an article that complies to the guidelines. This is not mandatory, but these methods generally increase the survival rate of a page by several orders of magnitude. This is due to the fact that there channels are staffed with experienced volunteers that can aid in the creation of a page that complies to the (many) policies and guidelines. Do note though that far from all article's are being accepted, and that the standards for AFC article's tend to be higher. Also, expect that writing a good AFC article requires quite a bit more time as it will likely be declined a few times with pointers and hints for improvement. At the same time, the article's that do pass RFC tend to be quite a bit higher in quality then the average new article's, and thus much less prone to removal.
