This is an archive of past discussions with User:Seraphimblade. 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.
Richard Dinnick
I note that my first page that I have created has been put up for deletion. Almost all authors who have writtten for Doctor Who (some of which have not written anything for years and whose books are lonmg out of print) have active pages (e.g. Simon Butcher-Jones) . I was trying to update this database of names.
My next move was to include John Dorney who has also written for many franchises and numerous productions as well as for the Royal Court theatre in London; and then David Richardson who is the line producer at Big Finish who has weorked on a number of Doctor Who ranges as well as other spin offs and who used to be a genre journalist.
I have tried to include footnotes about my first entry that comply with the notoriety guidelines - the interviews in two magazines, etc. There is an online interview I can link to and he also keeps a blog... If you tell me how I can improve, I will get right on it!
From the current look of it, Butcher-Jones will need to be deleted as well, though I'll take a look for additional sources before nominating it. Currently, I've proposed Dinnick under the proposed deletion process. Anyone may disagree to that process and stop it by removing the proposed deletion tag, and you may do so if you choose. However, since I can't find any additional sources about Dinnick, it would probably have to go to articles for deletion, and such a discussion would likely end in a consensus to delete with the sources as they are now, unless you know of some more substantial ones I've not been able to find.
Keep in mind, for Dinnick, Butcher-Jones, etc., to be notable (a specific term we use, it does not mean the same thing as "notorious" or "famous"), there must be substantial independent ("Doctor Who magazine" is probably not independent, and its reliability is unknown) reliable source material about the person. It's entirely possible for an author's writings to be notable while the author him/herself is not, and that appears to be the case here. Not every writer for a TV show, movie, etc., is in themself notable, even if the resulting production is. Finally, note that Wikipedia is not a database or directory, and so does not necessarily include every item in a given "category". Rather, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that includes only notable subjects. If you can point out that online interview, though, that'd be most helpful, but we usually want a little more than just a few interviews. SeraphimbladeTalk to me13:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the pointers. I really want to be a valuable contributor to WP so your help is much appreciated. :)
I have added a few more things about Dinnick himself. He makes numerous convention appearances and there is video footage of him in LA that I have linked to. I have found the interview and will link to a podcast he appears on. Google also reveals that he has been quoted by BBC websites on a few occasions with regards to his internet experience. I don't know if this counts as adding notoriety...if you'd have a look at the entry as it is now and let me know if it's any better I'd be grateful. I haven't removed the deletion tag as I think I'd be a bit presumptious of me. I want to get things right and create and edit lots of pages but only if they're any good!
Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timeschampignon (talk • contribs) 14:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, do keep in mind still, that the idea here is reliable and preferably secondary and fact-checked sources. A YouTube video can be used as a primary source, but doesn't really establish notability. The BBC bits certainly might, though.
As far as the proposed deletion goes, though, it really is meant to be for entirely uncontested deletions. You're not required to ask permission to dispute and remove one, and it really is alright! Since you clearly don't agree, I can't in good faith leave it there, so I'll go ahead and remove it, but in the future it really is alright for you to do if you don't agree that a proposed deletion tag is warranted. (There are other deletion processes, such as speedy deletion and articles for deletion where there are certain restrictions on deletion tag removal, but proposed deletion tags may be removed by anyone who disagrees, including the person who initiated the article). As it appears you still are turning up sources, I'll also hold off on any AfD nominations for the moment. Sourcing really is critically important to articles, and we do especially require impeccable sourcing in the biography of a living person, but it might turn out there's enough here to sustain it. You're certainly making an excellent effort, though. SeraphimbladeTalk to me22:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! I really appreciate it. I am quite a Doctor Who fan and I noticed the other day that the Doctor Who Adventures page has a notification that "it reads like an advertisement" and I was thinking I'd have a crack at that, too! I will continue to dig up as many sources as I can with Dinnick. What this experience means is that hopefully I'll be more prepared with sources, etc for when I create further pages in the future.
Thanks again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timeschampignon (talk • contribs) 10:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I came across this place, where your edits are being discussed. For what it's worth, I agree with the removal. The rationale is weak for this use, being "To illustrate the appearance of the main characters". Rationales like this almost always find the image being used in a decorative, rather than informative, way. They're usually cut/paste jobs. As to the specific use, the section is short, comprising just eight sentences, and the only additional regular character added that makes this cast photo different is the addition of Moisés Arias, whose appearance in this cast garners one...one...sentence. So we're adding a non-free image to depict one new character, supporting one sentence in the article prose? Utter failure of #1 and #8, where almost all such images fail. Plus, as you note, the image is already available on the list of characters article. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
If I had two signs on my door asking not to be disturbed while I sleep, would you bang on my door to tell me my signs were redundant?
Yes, those two signs may be redundant and not the style-police way of doing things. The fact that two redundant messages weren't enough to prevent your edit shows that maybe I need to add a third message in bright flashing lights? Does it help to wake me to tell me that? Could your offended style sense wait until the 'Increation' tag expires? Does requesting 2 days to create an article on an obsure topic really imply a neurotic attempt to claim ownership?
Thank-you for your threat to block me, hence demonstrating your superior mastery of Wikiquette. Besides, I am rapidly losing the will to edit. You may as well go ahead and delete any articles I have created.
Seraphimblade, I commend your efforts to create goodwill amongst editors.
There seems to be an increasing tendency to value a high number of minor edits spread across WP from an individual editor. I can only hope that chatroulette style editing proves more effective than people wasting time thinking carefully about articles.
Sorry for ranting, but what did you really expect?
I expect that when someone is told by two different editors that what they're doing is inappropriate, they'll stop doing it, at least until and unless they can discuss the matter and come up with something people can agree on. I tried converting your note to a hidden comment, that anyone actually editing the article would see, but readers would not. But you cannot have editorial comments like that in an article. I'm sorry if you're offended by that, but while we do allow a lot of things, we don't allow everything. SeraphimbladeTalk to me23:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey bud, another editor asked for my help in posting/reviewing the Legal Aid Ontario. Any chance you could pop by and provide some feedback on the talk page? I nominated it for GA review, but would really like your feedback. I know the author would appreciate your feedback. Alan.ca (talk) 05:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you my friend. I'm heading off to Dubai on Friday and I wanted a good neutral assessment of his work, but I lack the time at the moment. I'm not sure how long that review took you to write, but it is quite comprehensive and fair. Alan.ca (talk) 06:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey Seraphimblade, thanks for the edits on the Legal Aid Ontario article. Alan has been helping me with getting the article from my sandbox to the mainpage since I have a COI with the material. Is there a way I can help with editing the context and implementing your feedback without risking tainting the article? I just don't want it to look like the person that crafted the original piece is also the one who is making all the changes. Lawyer in training (talk) 13:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Deletion of Asia Network for Sustainable Agriculture and Bioresources Page
Hi there,
I understand that my page about the Asia Network for Sustainable Agriculture and Bioresources has been "speedily" deleted for the following reasons: A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content) and G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion). I wrote this page after noticing that not a lot of major Nepali organizations were present on Wikipedia, and used a very similar NGO as a model, namely ICIMOD. I have avoided to insist on ANSAB's significance (first to introduce Forest Stewardship Certification in Nepal, helped to create more than 1,000 economic entities benefitting about 80,000 people throughout the country, represent civil society in the government of Nepal apex level committee on Herbs and NTFP, brought more than 100,000 hectare of forests under sustainable management, created the Nepal NTFP Network and the Private-Public Alliance, manages FAO's Forest Connect network for Nepal, etc.) specifically to avoid G11, but perhaps I should have?
I also guess the criteria are more stringent now than when the ICIMOD page was created and that I should have provided "reliable sources independent of the subject" as per the notability guidelines? These could have included:
Please let me know what changes need to be made to reinstate the page - it would be a shame not to mention ANSAB in Wikipedia as it is one of the most important NGOs in Nepal and one of the most innovative forestry-related NGOs in the developing world.
I'm doing an analysis of the sources you provided now. In the end, that's all that matters.
The Yale PDF only mentions the organization in passing as the "home organization" of a few attendees at a conference. It doesn't cover it at all. That's the definition of trivial coverage, because it doesn't give us any material we can use.
The Cornell PDF only mentions it in a glossary and footnote. Again, trivial coverage. No number of trivial mentions indicate notability, coverage must be in-depth and substantial, and be largely or solely about the proposed subject, not mention it briefly in connection with something else.
Global Development Conference: Again an "attendee" mention, no substance.
Mountain Research and Development-Name drop/trivial mention, no substantial coverage.
The IASC page doesn't even name drop the organization, there's nothing whatsoever about it there.
International Forestry Review-Name drop/footnote mention, no substance.
"IDRC"-Now we're getting somewhere, at least. That whole article is about ANSAB, so if it's reliable, we've got one source. That's an "if", though. Who is IDRC? The header on the page says "Partnership & Business Development Division". Are they a reputable organization with a sound reputation for publishing fact checked and neutral work? If so, this source is a starting point (though more are required), but I'd like to know where I can find more about them. But this, in general, is the type of thing you want to look for.
East Anglia-Didn't need to go past the disclaimer. It says "....Moreover, it is supplied on the understanding that it represents an internal University document and that neither the University nor the author are responsible for the factual or interpretative correctness of the dissertation." When a source specifically says it can't be relied on, we, well, can't rely on it.
Bango Jankari-Now we're back to trivial sources. Just a footnote mention.
France BTP-I don't speak French, but a machine translation gives the rough idea that this article is about a CO2 reduction program, and only mentions the organization in passing in connection with it. Nothing in depth on the organization.
Himalayan Times-A name drop within an article about an organization that happens to share office space with it. Trivial coverage.
SciDev.Net-Again, just a name drop in an article about a CO2 program. Nothing of substance.
So, we've got one source of questionable reliability, one clearly unreliable source (it even says so itself!), and a bunch of name drops. This does not meet the notability standard of multiple clearly reliable sources which cover the organization in depth. So, however nice of people they may indeed be, it does not appear at this time that the subject is an appropriate one for an article. If it's an area you're interested in, there might be other articles you'd be interested in editing. If the case is instead that you're affiliated with the organization and want to "get the word out", then even if an article's appropriate, you shouldn't be writing it. SeraphimbladeTalk to me23:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate the time you spent reviewing the references I provided, but I do find you quite severe:
I included the Yale PDF because it has a case study devoted to the result of one of ANSAB's project (box 29, p. 88);
Contrary to what you report, the Cornell document mentions ANSAB no less than 11 times (p. 8, 9, 11, 12), excluding glossary and footnotes. The whole document is more or less a case study of how the organization created a new company, HBTL, and then helped them receive FSC certification...
ANSAB was not a simple attendee at the Global Development Network conference - they won the second prize for the world's most innovative development project! In all fairness, I should rather have provided this link.
I included the Mountain Reseach Development document in a spirit of balance, because it is the only critique I could find against the work of ANSAB. They basically say that the livelihood of poor Humali has remained unchanged in 3 decades despite the work of organizations such as ANSAB;
I included a conference attended by (ANSAB did a presentation at the IASC 2008 Conference) and a paper prepared by members of the ANSAB team to demonstrate that the organization is regularly invited in world class event and regularly published in peer reviewed publications. From what I know they go to these kind of events and are published in scientific papers several times a year so I guess I should try to spot them all;
According to Wikipedia, IDRC is a "Canadian Crown Corporation created by the Parliament of Canada". So hopefully this is credible enough...
I included 3 media articles to show that ANSAB programs regularly receive media coverage, that is all. I guess I could dig in older articles to find some that are more descriptive, i.e. a reporter who visited a program site for example.
Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks. • Ling.Nut (talk) 03:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Request for mediation - your input is required
A request for mediation has been filed concerning a matter in which you have participated.
Hi, I noticed that you posted as disagreeing with the request for mediation, which is your right of course. I notified everyone who made even a single post on the issue, as is required (I think), and sorry if this has been a bother to you. If your objection is just that you don't consider yourself a party to the discussion and/or don't want to be bothered with the issue, would you consider removing yourself as a party (or I'll do it for you if you request) rather than remaining as a party but actively disagreeing. Herostratus (talk) 05:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
My RFA
You posted a question on my RFA as I closed it, so I'm going to address it as best as I can recall. I noticed an admin posted his password in a recent changes view (the user deleted the main page with the edit summary "my password is password". check the deletion log, it's still there May 6 2007) and I decided to log in and see it if really was the password, it turned out it was. I experimented with the account to see if this is user was in fact an admin. I gave a poor block summary and lost control of the account minutes later. All users on my IP were blocked including my own account. Being suspected as the one who obtained the original password I was initially denied an unblock, but was unblocked a few days later after a back and forth talk after it was revealed that I wasn't the one who was the cracker the passwords. It was an experiance I would like to forget and I made a difficult decision to wait until this was asked for, but since I withdrew the RFA I decided to answer it here. Since the incident, I haven't had any other conflicts or blocks. –BuickCenturyDriver05:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Also, please remember that the subject must be notable, not just released. This would mean that several independent and reliable third party sources have covered it in depth. If that hasn't happened, it's not a suitable article subject at all. SeraphimbladeTalk to me00:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Darkness2005
Hi Seraphimblade. Could you please give me some advice? Last week you blocked Darkness2005 for being uncollaborative. On 8 November Adultnature1989 began making the same systematic kind of technical, statistical edits to the same kind of articles that Darkness2005 worked on. They are all without edit summaries as Darkness's used to be and the new account does not respond to talk page messages, as Darkness did not. I'm inexperienced in cases of possible sockpuppetry; can you say if you think it's too early to make a report? Is a very similar style of editing insufficient evidence? Is it best to wait and see if Adultnature1989 causes disruption? Fairest just to leave it alone for now? Thanks. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 20:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Please Review Ganas page
I request assistance on the summary section of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganas. I seem to be in an edit war with Campoftheamericas, and am unable to engage him in stating his case(s) on the talk page. At this point I am mostly concerned with getting agreement on what belongs in the summary, also the validity of some of his references, especially Ganas' own website. Thanks so much. Eroberer (talk) 14:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Clear on one issue, unclear on another
As I've noted, I freely admit that I missed an important aspect of question 6. I am quite unhappy about missing it. One of the jobs of admins is to step in when things are a mess. It is easy to see things like personal attacks, but if that's all the skill that was needed, we'd hardly ask for thousands of edits and demonstrable experience in multiple areas.. The admin has to look past the obvious things (such as a personal attack, or a violation of 3RR) and see what else is going on that might not be so obvious. In question six I glommed onto the disagreement between an admin and non-admin, "knew" I had to take care not to automatically side with the admin, and missed that I was involved and had to get someone else to step in.
However, in question 9, I got something wrong, and I'm not yet fully able to articulate what I got wrong, so I hope you will help me out. I read the link, but haven't come away with a clear understanding of what I should do. I still feel stopping the edit war is the right place to start, but if full protection is needed, it seems to me there needs to be some consideration of what version. Are you suggesting that the actions to stop the edit war ought to be done by someone different that the admin who considers what version to protect? Or are you simply saying in an "ordinary edit war" the protection)if needed) should be on the latest version, full stop?--SPhilbrickT01:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Generally speaking, it is not the job of an admin to "decide" a genuine content dispute (and if you look at a content dispute and see that one editor is pretty clearly right, it may help more for you to put on your "editor hat" and just join the discussion to agree with them, rather than bringing up enforcement at all.) But if you just see an edit war going on, and there's not a clear breach of BLP/copyright/NFC on one side or the other, it's inappropriate to say "I favor this side, and will take administrative action against anyone who changes it from that." You can take one side or the other as an editor, or you can step in as an admin to say "This reverting needs to stop" without choosing a side. But you can't do both—basically, that's a use of your admin tools to gain an advantage in a content dispute scenario. Does that make more sense now? SeraphimbladeTalk to me12:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, and I'm happy to report that we were far closer than my answer may have implied (and are definitely closer now). I had thought that it might make sense, in the case of a well-defined edit war, to revert to the version just before the war started, then send parties to Talk to work it out. However, it occurs to be that defining the start of an edit war is not always clean. That said, that was my view. I find the "editor hat- admin hat" a useful way of looking at it, so "last version except for clear breach issues" is a rule I'll follow if I'm successful.--SPhilbrickT13:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Seraphimblade, I know this is a strange request. I'm asking for your help to improve Timeline of the burrito because I know you are a responsible editor. I'm not looking for someone to support my attempts to improve this article. The article simply needs attention of more neutral parties prior to its merger with the main burrito article, as it is currently being protected by an individual that does not want to accept any changes. Please feel free to ignore this request if you are not interested. —fcsuper (How's That?, That's How!)(ExclusionisticImmediatist ) —16:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Elections are currently underway for our inaugural Guild coordinators. The voting period will run for 14 days: 00:01 UTC, Friday 1 December – 23:59 UTC, Tuesday 14 December. All GOCE members in good standing, as well as past participants of any of the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, are eligible to vote. There are six candidates vying for four positions. The candidate with the highest number of votes will become the Lead Coordinator, therefore, your vote really matters! Cast your vote today.
I was not sure where to put my question or comment, but you can remove it or put it somewhere else. I was checking up on the author Allen Carr and then followed up on his link to his major book (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Easy_Way_to_Stop_Smoking), and found out that you had it removed due to advertising or promotion. I do not know what the article did contain, but there should be some information on authors publications available. Authors like John Grisham have all their books (for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Appeal) as an additional link, I do not think does contain any advertising though. Was the old article only promotion, did it violate any copyrights or did it contain some valueable information which could have been usefull, like content review, publisher, sales etc.? Can I look somewhere at the old article which was removed, so it can eventually be corrected and some information added? I am also not for any kind of advertising on wikipedia (actually never saw any), but information to an authors books or any other public published material should be to some degree available. I do not have the necessary information on this book myself, but my mom did quit after reading his book. I was supposed to read it too, but never ended up touching it and now I can not find it anymore. This is actually the reason I ended up visiting the authors site here on wikipedia and found out that there is actually no information on his book available. Should I end up buying or finding the book again and finally reading it as well, I could add some information. I don't have free time to spare to write a review , but adding minor information like publisher, ISBN etc. would not be to time intensive. But before doing so I just want to ensure that the old article did just contain useless crap. Thanks a lot in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8limes (talk • contribs) 14:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
We have reached the end of the year, and what a year it has been! The Guild of Copy Editors was full of activity, and we achieved numerous important milestones in 2010. Read all about these in the Guild's 2010 Year-End Report.
Highlights
Membership grows to 503 editors
2,589 articles removed through four Backlog elimination drives
I'd like to discuss how best to use (or not use) the Digital Foundry references in the OnLive article. The Digital Foundry review of OnLive dominates the Reception part of the article, especially Post-Launch, to the point where it is the primary source for both technical and business assessment of OnLive. They are extremely negatively biased (in my research the most extremely negative I'm aware of), they resort to childish mockery of the technology, as can be seen in the Pre-Launch quotes, and by their own admission, their technical analysis was flawed, despite their statement that they used an expert in their initial analysis.
In my view, what is relevant to the article is the fact that such an extremely negative source that had considered the technology to be impossible and the demos to be a hoax, but after launch grudgingly acknowledged they had been wrong. This is an important part of the OnLive story: that many skeptics believed it couldn't work, but in fact it does work well enough for a sizable audience (for example, Vizio recently announced OnLive would be built into its TVs, clearly not something a major TV maker would do if it did not work).
But in my view, it is inappropriate to use Digital Foundry as a reference, let alone the primary reference, for a technical or business assessment of OnLive. Beyond their highly negative bias, their so-called experts were both completely wrong about the technology and communicated their opinions through childish mockery. There is no reason to believe their post-launch assessment is any more reliable than their pre-launch. And, they are a poor reference for business (e.g. market) assessment in any case. In short, they are not a credible technical or business source at all.
What I suggest is we limit Digital Foundry's contributions to making the point about how the most extreme critics had to acknowledge they were impressed when the product was released, and find alternative credible and more balanced references (there are hundreds of other articles out there) for the technical and business assessment of OnLive.
Or, we simply delete Digital Foundry from the article altogether, and use other references.
I never said that. I said that nothing displayed is copyrighted. For music, all that is there is a grey box, blue circle, and a triangle. For video, there is a preview clip. For images, a version of the image.
For music, I think the case could/should be made that (once justified within wikipedia) they can be used anywhere, because all they provide is a link to the music in an easier format to play it. The music doesn't play unless you click it. It is NO different that providing a wikilink. — BQZip01 —talk08:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
My thoughts, in short, are that I have no idea how you think that, and that you are quite wrong. The fact that the copyrighted material isn't immediately displayed doesn't mean it's not a use of it. Do you think, if you put copyrighted songs on your website, and then tried to claim you didn't because they didn't play until the user hit a play button, that would work? A "use" is the "making available" of a work, not the actual display of it. SeraphimbladeTalk to me16:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Valid question: Yes, if I kept it on my website's server, then it could be an improper use of a file. However, if, on the same website, I include a link to the music's owner's website which hosts the music, there is no violation. If I go one step further and add controls for the same music, it doesn't change the fact that I'm not hosting it, I am linking to it. Courts in multiple countries have ruled that this does NOT violate copyright law even if it makes thumbnail/previews of said copyright material to better facilitate use ([1]). In short, LINKING to something is not the same a USING something.
If "A 'use' is the 'making available' of a work, not the actual display of it" (which I don't see codified ANYWHERE in policy...I'm inclined to believe that is your personal interpretation; correct me if I am wrong), then any link to a copyrighted file on Wikipedia (to include wikilinks) is a violation as is the page that gives a preview of the image.
No, that's the interpretation that's always been used. Policy doesn't have to explicitly spell something out for it to be the case. If you use nonfree content on a page, you use it on that page. If you don't believe me, try putting a nonfree music clip on your user page, and let me know how that works out. I don't advocate obviously doing this, of course, but you know as well as I do that wouldn't fly on the grounds you're "linking" and not "using" it. So no, we're not going to splatter nonfree music clips all over the place on a hypertechnical interpretation. SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I think we are talking about different things here. I was initially talking about copyright law (which would pertain to the website analogy you asked about), not WP policy.
"that's the interpretation that's always been used" doesn't seem to be true as we wikilink to copyrighted images all the time and I do not believe that is a violation.
I'm not advocating "splattering nonfree music clips all over the place", but I am certainly advocating following the law and making sure our policies are clear so there aren't any ambiguities. Give me a few hours and I'll have a good example ready for you. Hopefully it will illustrate my point a little better. — BQZip01 —talk22:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh, if you're talking about copyright law, it probably makes little difference. If that's the case, I misunderstood you. However, our policies are much stricter than copyright law. SeraphimbladeTalk to me23:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
My basic point is that a sound file (or any other file for that matter) is not actually "included" on any WP page, only a link to it (the page size doesn't increase by the total bytes of the file, only by the bytes in the file's name). Pictorial and video clips each have a preview image for the link which is where we CAN run into issues (they may/may not show copyrighted images. Audio however, does not sport such an image and does not face the same challenges.
Making a Wikilink to a copyrighted image is not an issue, correct? If not, the only major difference between an audio file and an audio file link are the number of clicks required. Both link to the physical file to make the alteration on-screen.
As indicated by google searches and legal precedent, derivatives used by google for search results are NOT violations of copyright law. Likewise, neither are these.
I also agree that it is a matter of semantics and that current usage of copyrighted clips does not align with my point of view as to what we COULD do in the future to better facilitate information. Our rules are deliberately more restrictive (I know), but I think we are being too restrictive here and could alter our rules to correctly reflect these nuances without getting anywhere near copyright violations. — BQZip01 —talk21:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I got your back on this one. Also, thanks for posting "That's me." on your user page as I would have had trouble figuring out which of the two photos on that page really was the one of you (insert sarcastic tone here). (I'm sure I'm not the first one to make such a comment about your user page). : ) -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for blocking the edit warring IP that I reported ([2]). Unfortunately, he is now continuing the edit war from a slightly different IP ([3]). Is there anything that can be done about the IP range, or is requesting semi-protection for Taylor Rotunda and Barri Griffiths the best bet? Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
BTW, Seraphimblade, I'm not quite sure I understand your position. You seem to be saying you believe the images themselves are actually PD. So then why are you tagging them as disputed NFC, rather than just retagging them as PD? Fut.Perf.☼10:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not saying these are PD, that would solve the issue. I'm saying there are other PD images by this painter, so we can show his painting style without resorting to a massive gallery of nonfree images. Since we have free ones, we do not need the nonfree. SeraphimbladeTalk to me14:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah. But then what you wrote in the template ("Painting itself is PD, could be replaced by photographing original") sounded a bit different. But anyway, the remaining point is: are we actually sure the other ones are in fact PD when this one isn't? W. seemed to be arguing that the others may be mistagged. The 70 y.p.m.a. status is the same for all of them – but so is the pre-1923 status. The only possible difference that could make some of them free and others not would be if some of them remained unpublished until much later, but that's difficult to establish either way. I would personally tend to just say "PD-1923" and expect that nobody will raise a stink during the remaining ten months until the even safer PD-70 kicks in. But if we must in fact evaluate them under NFCC, there's also still the point that some significant critical comment in the secondary literature is in fact directed to this particular work and not just to a generic illustration of the style. Fut.Perf.☼18:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
If they're legitimately PD, or very likely so, there's no issue at all. It sounds like you know a good deal about it, so by all means, retag them if you think it's the case. If they're actually free, no issue at all. Unfortunately, I don't have time to check the PD status of every image W has uploaded, as there are a whole lot of replaceable (or actually replaced) ones, and he's already stated he's unwilling to do the cleanup himself. SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay then, I'll try and see how much I can sort out. At least here we are dealing with seriously encyclopedic content and not just the latest set of Digimons or sitcom episodes, which means my motivation for helping sort things out is a good deal higher than elsewhere. Fut.Perf.☼19:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm concerned about a spammy image at the Barbecue sauce article. I'd like a second opinion, and saw you at the Editors Assistant page. I remeber working with you on pther projects some years back when I was much more active. The image is a bottle of Hunts BBQ sauce, which really doesn't seem to further the article and is a bit misleading about authentic BBQ sauce fromthe region. It might be silly, but the deveil is in the details. Cheers! Kevin --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not honestly sure it's problematic. You could certainly change the caption if you feel the regional description is inaccurate, but Hunt's is a popular brand, and so I don't see the inclusion of an image of it as altogether problematic. The article could even have a section on mass market/prepackaged barbecue sauce and use it as an example there. (And good to see that name pop up again, welcome back!) SeraphimbladeTalk to me02:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll probably leave it alone as I don't work at that page, just doing some research on BBQ sauces. I've been working quietley in the dark corners of history articles and staying out of policy. I am very happy to see that policy has recieved more attention and I think that the Creep has disapated. What a great project! Kevin --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Seraphimblade: Great name by the way... I'm not sucking up, I just like the name... I can learn how to do this dry encyclopedia stuff... but pardon me while I beg. A totally objective person would not have the patience to work on this for hours, to just say "so and so lived and died and they may or may not have been worth the trouble to write this." Writing is a passion, even good dictionary journalism......but I will be glad to submit to a little brutal admonishment.
The postive slant was unintentional, so I'll go back and erase any unwittingly kind observations about Ms. Blackshear... if that would help, but was it weak notoriety? insufficient sources? Those things are not so easily rectified.
I read the Picasso article, and did not feel so wayward in the least. But there is PICASSO, and then everybody else. Still, there are phrases like "uncanny artistic talent," "passion and skill," "poverty, cold and desperation," which certainly border on permissible subjectivity, and cast an emotional light on the subject. I do not mean to argue... I am writing this to learn how to write an acceptable, dispassionate article for your passion: this free encyclopedia.
As far as the idea that somehow I cannot publish a blog that might conflict with Wikipedia, and I might not understand that all of this is free to anyone for any purpose; I would not have submitted this article, or write a blog regularly for that matter, if I was concerned about that. It was an innocent action, and these big red caution signs should be removed, as there has been no copyright infringement. Only the right hand not knowing what the left hand was doing. This is technological overkill. I know you guys are busy, haven't got time for all of this. The instructions said, "don't take it personally." And I don't. As a journalism teacher once said, "You don't own those words!"
So sock it to me. Should I pick another subject?
Thank you for your time and devotion to knowledge.
Well, I wouldn't have offered to help if I thought it were hopeless. :) And I certainly don't interpret you as arguing, I know it can be a bit to absorb at first. It's a different style than most of us are used to, and my first couple of tries got deleted too. It's not a thing to be ashamed of.
For the specific case here, I did notice you listed several sources, so if those have a good deal of information about her in them, an article certainly can be put together. A few things to keep in mind are that opinions are alright, so long as they come from a source rather than are the editor's. Generally, they're best attributed to that source—"X Major Art Journal stated that Doe is 'one of the greatest American artists, perhaps one of the best in the world.'." That way, it's not us saying it, we're just stating what was said. A direct quote isn't necessary, either. Paraphrasing is fine so long as attribution is intact and meaning isn't changed.
So, let's start here. What do the actual sources you list in the bibliography say about Blackshear, her life, and her work? That's where we'll want to focus on the article.
As to the copyright issue, I understand that can be frustrating, and I saw you were a little bit. Please keep in mind that it's not to say I or anyone else doesn't believe who you are. One side of the verification requirement is for the protection of copyright holders, but the other side of the coin is that it also protects Wikipedia. I hope you don't take it as an attack against you or an assertion that you're a liar, as that is by no means the intent. It's just that in matters with potential legal implications, one is wise to dot all the i's. SeraphimbladeTalk to me04:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Please be aware that use of (full) text and/or images from a commercial content provider are against policy unless it meets the very narrow usage laid out a the non-free content policy. The deletion discussion is based on a false assumption that they copyright was owned by a paper that had purchased the article from the Associated Press. The image needs to be speedied, unless you want to change policy - as I said, that discussion is *not* the place to discuss policy changes. Soundvisions1 (talk) 06:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
If the AP didn't renew copyright, then regardless of other considerations, the file is in the public domain. I realize it's still disputed whether that is the case, but speedy deletion is not the way to deal with legitimately-disputed issues. You're welcome to continue the discussion at the potentially unfree images discussion, and I hope it can be figured out there. No policy change needed at all. If the image really is PD, it doesn't matter where it came from. SeraphimbladeTalk to me06:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
...it doesn't matter where it came from - yes it does, again, the deletion discussion at hand is based on a correct nom, but the "discussion" is based on something false. I can see renewals for the New York Times and the Chicago Tribune, but I have not found one for this paper. says the uploader of the image/scan. And that starts the discussion on a single newspaper renewing a copyright for something that was not ever theirs to renew. I am *not* going to fall into a conversation that has nothing to do with the actual source - which is explicit in Wikipedia policy and guidelines to not be used as it is being used. Soundvisions1 (talk) 07:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Once again: I'm not saying you're wrong. The critical piece here is whether the obituary has fallen into the public domain because its copyright holder (be that AP or anyone else) failed to renew the copyright on it. If the copyright was renewed, you are absolutely right, it must go. If it wasn't renewed, the uploader is right, and it's now in the public domain. There is nothing in our policy about not using public domain material that was formerly owned by AP—public domain is public domain. If it's still owned by AP, and the copyright remains in force, we must remove the image. That's the critical deciding factor, and since both sides have legitimate reasoning, it's not a matter to be settled by speedy. It may well turn out you're right. If you are, it'll still be deleted in due course. It may also turn out the uploader is right, and we have a perfectly legitimate public domain image to use. Speedy deletion is for cases where legitimate debate doesn't exist. Why not go review copyright renewals and find out for sure? If you could find a copyright renewal for this, it'd settle the debate immediately—at that point, we'd clearly and unambiguously have to delete it. SeraphimbladeTalk to me07:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Article
Seraphimblade, my first ever run at posting a wiki article didn't go so well, as you have just deleted it as being unambiguous advertising or promotion (Auto Body World). This was not our intention. So, I guess I have some things to learn about making our article truly "objective." We want to start over. Can you give us some feedback on how to make the article stick?
To date, I can find only a very small number (maybe three or four) of companies in the collision repair industry with articles about them on Wikipedia (Service King, Boyd Group, etc). For a $100B+ (US) industry (with another $50-100B in verticals that support it), it seems to me that this is significant enough content area to support a network of articles. This particular company (Auto Body World), plays a significant role in the development of Lean Production methodologies throughout this industry. Anyway, was hoping you'd make a few comments about what we can do to meet the objectivity threshold. For example, the initial (small) article we posted contained only facts with references on almost every sentence. I'm trying to filter out if this is a 'quality of reference' issue, or more of a 'significance of the business' issue.
Also, I've noticed that while there is a relatively large body of work on the web describing the industry (its underlying economics, trends in technology and methodologies, major business players, etc) there are no wiki articles about the collision repair industry as whole. Does the prospect of getting a single (notable) company's article to stick depend on having articles in existence about the industry as a whole first?
Given that you're saying "our", I believe you need to have a look at our conflict of interest guidelines. As it's nearly impossible to maintain neutrality while writing about one's own business, one's employer, oneself, one's relative, etc., we strongly discourage (read: effectively disallow) editors with such a conflict from editing such articles. If the subject is notable, and these achievements of the company have been documented in detail by several reliable sources unaffiliated with it, someone will write the article eventually. If not, having an article wouldn't be appropriate until and unless that occurs. Article appropriateness is determined by source coverage, not market share.
It is a growing journal, with several articles emerging over the next few months which should hopefully provide further referencing. (As an aside, I thought only articles on people required mandatory referencing.)
It does reference a blog, although this is no different to a number of other entries which cite blogs as their references.
That's the problem. Neither the editor of the publication nor anyone else with a vested interest in it should have anything whatsoever to do with editing the article here. First, that is a conflict of interest, as I explained to you before on your other account (by the way, pick one, we do not allow abuse of multiple accounts). Secondly, the requirement for verifiability and sufficient sourcing is absolute (and references are required for everything, that requirement is just enforced especially strictly in articles on living people). We always write from sources, never personal knowledge. If you think sufficient sourcing might exist about this in a few months, we can sustain an article on it in a few months if that really does come to pass. But we can't now. SeraphimbladeTalk to me10:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Just to clarify something in return, the reason there's two accounts is because there's two of us. I interned at [untitled] for the inaugural issue, and suggested to the editor making a Wiki entry. We opened an account under his name, which I used to make the entry, (and he proofed, as I explained earlier). I then opened an account under mine because I realised it did look bad. Sorry for the confusion. (Not explaining any of this to change your mind in anything; just explaining why there's two accounts.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.67.23 (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
The previous text was very short, so I'll post it here:
Frankie & the Heartstrings (also written as Frankie and the Heartstrings) are an Indie rock band from Sunderland, who formed in 2008. They are currently signed to Wichita Records.
They are currently working on their debut album called Shots, Sex and Super Spaceships. Which is due to realise in 2011. The first single to be realised from Frankie & the Heartstrings is Hunger which will be available to buy and download on the 23rd of May 2010. SeraphimbladeTalk to me02:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
2 Editors Are Deleting My Citations In Violation of NPOV
The Pharaoh Pepi II Neferkare is associated with the collapse of the Old Kingdom and the beginning of the First Intermediate Period in Egypt. He has also been associated with the Ipuwer Papyrus, however an attempt is being made by those who have declared war on reality to censor this information and disassociate Pepi II Neferkare with the Ipuwer Papyrus and First Intermediate Period. Please help.76.216.196.209 (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Reverted your speedy template, because I don't see the consensus that you do at WP:NFCR. Suggest that if you want to go ahead deleting this, you take it to WP:IFD for wider consideration. Jheald (talk) 11:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
NFCR is clear-1 in 20,000 people have this condition. We consider a nonfree image replaceable even when a photo of only one in six billion people (one individual in the world) would replace it. 1 in 20,000 is clearly replaceable. Now leave it alone and let the closer decide. SeraphimbladeTalk to me11:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Speedy templates are for uncontroversial deletions -- not for deletions that are vehemently contested. The proper venue is IFD, not unthinking process-fulfilment by someone mindlessly "clearing the backlog".
1 in 20,000 is not "clearly replaceable", because it depends on the circumstances as to whether that replacement is actually reasonably achievable. As discussed at length at WP:NFCR, we're not just talking about snapping some celebrity at a public event here. What is most hard to replace about this image is the medically confirmed assurance that it does actually represent two people with CAIS. That is a big deal, and one that deserves consideration from the community via the proper due process. A proper IFD should also attract wider input; including, I would hope, some input from WP:MEDICINE.
Per WP:BRD and the standards for WP:CSD, I have removed this template. If you re-apply it again, I shall consider that edit-warring and report it as such. We have a venue and a process for contested deletion: that venue is WP:IFD. Jheald (talk) 12:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Requesting assitance in the article "Iranian Azeris"
Dear Seraphimblade
I have had a discussion in the article Iranian Azeris for a long time now. However I feel I am being rejected ground by the oposing Iranian view presented to me by Iranians. Recently I was able to present very reliable reports from UNHRC as well as both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. However these were not replied to in a weeks time so I took the initiative of editing the article. I was very astounded when a fellow editor, without a signle comment deleted the whole section I had created. He said "conduct changes with a discussion" however he failed to acknowlege the fact that there was a 20 paged discussion which he himself contributed to in the talk page. A discussion in which he did not reply to my last argument. After i explained this to him i reverted the page. Then an (Iranian) administrator came and said there is an edit war and I should not edit. He also deleted my section and said my sources were not reliable enough. However he did not feel the need to discuss as to why they were not reliable. Please help me out.
Thanks for the heads up and the compliment both! :) You do a great job yourself, I was glad to see your name come up at RfA when it did. I've responded to the issue at Darkness2005's talk page. And yes the absence is temporary. I've had an awful lot going on at my work (the one that pays the rent) and haven't really had time, but I'd expect to be around more once that settles down. SeraphimbladeTalk to me01:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
The Guild of Copy Editors – May 2011 Backlog Elimination Drive
The Guild of Copy Editors invite you to participate in the May 2011 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive began on May 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on May 31 at 23:59 (UTC). The goals of this backlog elimination drive are to eliminate as many articles as possible from the 2009 backlog and to reduce the overall backlog by 15%. ! NEW ! In an effort to encourage the final elimination of all 2009 articles, we will be tracking them on the leaderboard for this drive.
Awards and barnstars
A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants. Some are exclusive to GOCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page.
You are receiving a copy of this newsletter as you are a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, or have participated in one of our drives. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add you name here. Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 08:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I found your comments regarding maximal use at WT:NFC thought provoking. I hadn't really thought of it that way before. But, it makes a lot of sense. If you have 100 things in a set, and there are 100 non-free, irreplaceable images of that set, displaying all 100 in a Wikipedia article is the maximal use by definition. From that, is there any case where minimal use also equals maximal use? In theory, that's a possibility for small sets. For example, where the article is about an album and in terms of images (not song snippets) the maximal use is 1, minimal use (well, accepted under current en.wiki philosophy) is also 1. But, the larger a set gets, the less likely maximal=minimal.
Looking at this report, current #1, History of painting, has 42 images. It's maximal theoretical use is certainly at least on the order of 104. So, 42 is a small number compared to that maximal use. Of course, this could never be the only metric for determining minimal use. #9 on that list is Mountain Dew. There, maximal use is most likely somewhere under 100. It has 21 right now. So, just using this metric, there's a far greater chance that the latter example is exceeding minimal use requirements than the former example.
I'm not suggesting this provides a metric to draw conclusions, but rather that the concept of "maximal use" vs. "minimal use" can provide some light. Thanks for bringing up the idea! --Hammersoft (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
For an article on an album, I'd tend to say that maximal use would be the inclusion of full digital copies of every song from the album, plus scans of every page of the album cover and liner notes. Since the article subject is the album, we should consider the album as a whole when deciding what would constitute such a classification. An album cover is, overall, a pretty minimal part of an album when taken as a whole, so my objections really aren't as strong there. SeraphimbladeTalk to me05:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to drop you a note thanking you for your thoughts and inquiries regarding this incident. I was the person that originally added the information that 'damaged' the article. I just wanted to clarify that the original source I used was (because I made an error when putting it up) was questionable, and I did not discuss the addition before making the edit (though once it was reverted I did attempt to discuss without trying to re-add it, I'm not a fan of edit warring). The editor in question here came in afterward and was defending my original position after the fact, and I think that some of the details of the chronology may be getting confused in the discussion. I offered to surrender my reviewer rights, so I don't have a problem with mine being revoked, but I do have a problem with User:Wnt being sanctioned for simply offering an opinion after the fact. This strikes me as a case of an administrator unilaterilly using their authority to impose their view of how things should work on other editors based on opinion rather than policy. This was the primary issue I had when I filed an AN/I report on this [4] originally: not that the content had to be there, but that the process that was being used to remove it and sanction other editors was improper. If nothing else I'm glad this is getting discussed. Again, thank you. SeanNovack (talk) 14:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Im not sure if you remember me but a number of years ago you helped me with some Wikipedia issues I had. Anyhow a friend of mine created a page for the company Source Vagabond Systems and an editor deleted it. They turned to me for help but Im not sure what to do other than turn to you. Anyhow, I saw the page before it was deleted and they did it in a professional manner. Obviously they were aware of the issues in making a page for a company and I believe they created the page while adhering to the spirit of Wikipedia. Anyhow, this editor didn't see it the same way. Would you be able to have a look at the page and tell me what you think.
Best
Kelly97 (talk) 11:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Suggestion for WikiProject United States to support WikiProject Colorado
It was recently suggested that WikiProject Colorado, to which you are a member, may be inactive or semi-active and it might be beneficial to include it in the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States. After reviewing the project it appears that there haven't been much active discussion on the talk page in some time and the only content updates appear to be simple maintenance so being supported by a larger project might be beneficial. I have begun a discussion on the projects talk page to see how the members of the project feel about this suggestion. Another user has added the project to the WPUS template and I added it to the list of supported projects in the WPUS main project page but before I take any further action I wanted to contact each of the active members for their input. --Kumioko (talk) 23:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their September 2011 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy editing backlog. The drive will begin on September 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on September 30 at 23:59 (UTC). We will be tracking the number of 2010 articles in the backlog, as we want to copy edit as many of those as possible. Please consider copy editing an article that was tagged in 2010. Barnstars will be given to anyone who edits more than 4,000 words, with special awards for the top 5 in the categories "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". See you at the drive! – Your drive coordinators: Diannaa, Chaosdruid, The Utahraptor, Slon02, and SMasters.
I am responsible for the sort of content that appears about Centum Investment Co. Ltd however my attempts to correct the misinformation about Centum that is appearing on Wikipedia have constantly been frustrated.
Either allow me to edit the content or remove Centum Investment from Wikipedia. Please look at how we describe ourself as Centum http://centum.co.ke/about-us and compare to your description of Centum insinuating that we are a subsidiary of a government outfit!
Hello Seraphimblade! 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. Global message delivery 13:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their November 2011 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on November 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on November 30 at 23:59 (UTC). We will be tracking the number of 2010 articles (and specifically will be targeting the oldest three months), as we want to copy edit as many of these as possible. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 5 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Diannaa, Chaosdruid, The Utahraptor, Slon02, and SMasters.
The reason this article was deleted was because it did not assert the importance/significance of its subject, nor did it cite any substantive sources (just a few brief blurbs). Do you know of more substantive reliable sources that can be used for the article? SeraphimbladeTalk to me05:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
"Having It Almost" The Musical -- thank you for your response
Hello Seraphimblade, I respect the integrity you're enforcing here, and I get it. I'd like to re-edit the article with your feedback in mind. I can assure you that all attributions are genuine, and you'll be able to follow the links to the actual press on the show, should we get that far. Is it possible to have you look at the article and approve it before I post it again? Or is it a case of playing "editor roulette" and you just takes yer chances? I'd be happy to go back and forth with you until I get it right. Thanks again. Davelyrics (talk) 02:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
One more question: Does the article I sent exist anywhere that I may edit it? It didn't save to my computer. If it would be possible to retrieve it, that would be extremely helpful. Thanks again. Davelyrics (talk) 06:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
For responses to your questions, hopefully in order: I can place a copy of the article into a userspace "sandbox" for you, allowing you to edit it outside of mainspace. You can also start over if you prefer—that article would require a great deal of rewriting to become acceptable. Let me know which you'd prefer. If you'd like to edit it to make a neutral article with content sourced from reliable sources, that might be possible here. SeraphimbladeTalk to me20:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, please, let me attempt to work on it in the sandbox. That would be enormously helpful. Again, I'm happy to go back and forth as long as it takes. Thank you so much for your guidance. 24.182.36.189 (talk) 13:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi there -- re Having It All the Musical -- could you direct me how to get back to my article to edit it? Where is the sandbox for it? Is there a link? Thank you -- 24.182.36.189 (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Just a quick note. I had a rough lesson a few years ago when I made the mistake of trying to edit a page that mentioned my company (won't do THAT again :). Anyhow it has been a few years and I have been moved to edit again. This time it's a page on a drug that seemed biased to me compared to the other research I was doing.[5]. Anyway I have summoned up the courage to do some edits (gulp!) and would appreciate any help or guidance you have to offer as I go. I want to be very careful and conscientious. I actually have no real medical expertise but in checking the sources it seems that many of them have been very selective regarding the insights they have decided to bring into the article. Every positive statement about the drug is "balanced" with doubts and concerns, leaving an overall impression about the drug that seems extremely negative compared to descriptions from reputable sources like the NIH and NIMH which feel more balanced to me, especially for a drug that has been approved and actively prescribed for 40 years or so for ADHD. I have no idea of why someone would want to skew the article but I suppose there might be all kinds of possible reasons. Anyhow I am contacting you here for two reasons.
1. I have always remembered your kindness to me when I was new and felt attacked here. I wanted to let you know that this is the primary reason I decided to step up and do some editing when I perceived a bias and had concerns.
2. If you have time I would appreciate some light guidance as I proceed to edit this page. I am still new to editing and don't want to make mistakes, especially since I have zero expertise in this area, although I am not a completely disinterested party (This started because I want to evaluate the drug which was prescribed for my son).
Glad you decided to come around and do a bit of editing! Looking at the sources is, of course, the best way to edit an article. I also see you've been going over it on the talk page, which is generally a good idea as well.
That being said, I'm not sure the sentence the way it's worded is necessarily a good one for the lead paragraph, especially since one of the sources (source 1) explicitly contradicts it, and says users are more prone to cocaine addiction, and that if used in a similar manner to cocaine (snorting/injection) it is indeed just as addictive. Other sources seem to think it is not as much so. When there are conflicting sources like that, it's best to give the issue a more in-depth treatment in the body of the article, where the subject can be given treatment by summarizing either side without taking a particular one. If you can get your hands on the NIMH study that's frequently referenced by other sources, I think that would be very helpful indeed. I don't know offhand how reputable the journals published by source 3 are, but it is a for-profit and explicitly appeals to "marketers" on its website, so I'd tend to take it with a dose of salt. (Luckily, the worst effect of said salt dosage is a healthy sense of skepticism). The article is in pretty poor shape though, and could certainly use some copyediting for flow and tone. As it stands now, it really seems to jump all over the place. I'd work at fixing that first, and once it's in good order as far as its flow and organization goes, you'll often find it's much easier to find a good way to add in additional concepts. That's especially difficult on controversial subjects when you have dueling sources, of course, but since it's a subject that I'm sure you've checked into thoroughly due to your own circumstances, might be worth doing. SeraphimbladeTalk to me08:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! What you're suggesting (working on the overall flow) will entail much more significant edits than I was thinking of. Is there a set of guidelines for the general flow of an article about a drug? For example, should it start with a general description of its beneficial effects and possible abuses, or maybe its chemical composition? Or do you know how I might find a "well-written" drug article that I could use as a model? Thanks so much for your help! Dgray xplane (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Bupropion, better known as Wellbutrin, has achieved featured article status, so you may want to look at that as a model. You can also check the manual of style in general, though admittedly, it can be a bit dense reading. You also might want to ask for some help from WikiProject Chemistry and/or WikiProject Medicine, they probably have more experience with this type of article in particular than I do (and could help with both parts of it, the sections on the chemical as relates to its chemical properties, and as relates to its medical uses). SeraphimbladeTalk to me18:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the response on it. For the moment, I'll wait to hear back from the blocked editor on the open items—if he's not on and editing anyway, there's certainly no rush to get anything done. SeraphimbladeTalk to me16:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I am inquiring on a page that I just posted for the company "Insurance technologies". It was removed per speedy deletion. I am contesting it due to pages like StoneRiver, that are allowed to remain. I have read the guidelines and appreciate any advice on further conforming the article to better meet standards. At this point, I am not sure if I should resubmit the page since its missing now, go back and edit more and resubmit or other? It is not a marketing page, and just lists the significant achievments to qualify the page. please advise AdrianMKane (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Username change question
User:Wi-destination
Hi, thank you for your consideration and for providing me another chance to contribute Wikipedia. I have made a request, as guided by you, for new username. Please let me know what I should do next (I mean how and when can I start fresh with my new username?). Awaiting your response. Thanks once again and regards. Subhadeep A. Mitra — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wi-destination (talk • contribs) 07:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
A bureaucrat will notate the request once the name change has been done (or if it's not done for some reason, but the bot's already OK'd it, so I don't foresee that happening). You may edit normally while the request is pending, all the edits you make will automatically be moved to the new username. SeraphimbladeTalk to me15:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
EMTEE DELETED WITHOUT PROPER JUSTIFICATION AS QUOTES WERE BEING PLACED
User:Wi-destination
Fala querido na humildade eu peço para deixar a página em inglês do Emtee. Por favor do not delete his page place in my sandbox or help us Brazilians put it up to stay on a permanant bases my amigo. Obrigado cabeludo, fedediodo.
Let's be clear on several problems we had here. Firstly, you cited several "sources" that didn't even support what they were supposed to be sourcing. I'll chalk that up to inexperience this time, but please note that this is absolutely unacceptable—when you cite a source, it must back up what you're citing it for. In the future, that's cause for an immediate and indefinite block from editing. Secondly, you seem, from your comments, to seem to think that since this is a nice guy who works for a good cause, we should have an article about him. While I do not doubt that he is a nice guy who works for a good cause, we have only one question we ask to decide whether or not we should have an article about a subject—namely, has the subject been covered substantially in several reliable sources unaffiliated with and not having an interest in the subject? If the answer is no, we can't have the article for any reason. So prior to taking any action, please point me toward sources that cover Emtee in depth. Not a passing mention and not a mention of something else, but actually cover him. If those don't exist, no article is possible. Thirdly, don't dump a whole article on my talk page again. And finally, we do not offer article placement in exchange for money, and the fact that you seem to think so gives me the idea that you really don't understand the purpose of this project. SeraphimbladeTalk to me21:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok. I understand perfectly Mr. Seraphim Blade. I will not post the article in your page. First of all, be aware that I am a programmer at UnB. And I do understand fully the concept of WIKIPEDIA, as it is one of my favorite sources for reliable and correct information. Next, Mr. Marco Antonio vulgo EMTEE is not merely a cara legal or as you Americans or English ou Australians or Canadians would say a "nice guy". He has been in the Brazilian Hip Hop scene for several years and has proved himself over and over again AMIGO. Thirdly, if that is correto, THE SOURCES ARE COMPLETELY CORRECT and we will post more. Like videos from rede globo, of him in interviews too. He was awarded by GDF (Government of Distrito Federal) 2nd place in the POLLS for BEST BRAZILIAN HIP HOP DF CD of 2011. So, my amigo, either your portuguese is rusty or you do not want to aid us with this article. Which, is no problem. Thanks for the time Mr. Blade. stay well and no hard feelings matey. As for the contribution IT WAS IN NO SHAPE OR FORM AN ATTEMPT TO BRIBE the blades, just merely a gesture of our appreciation towards such an outstanding website and a tribute to the programmer Brandon Harris. Obrigado, novamente mano.
Sorry guys, I'm done with this one, and I don't appreciate being played for a fool with "sources" that don't even mention the article subject. Machine translation isn't that hard even if I don't speak Portuguese. Also, choose one account to edit from, sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry are both disallowed. Seek a deletion review if you think the deletion was wrong, you've just made my mind up firmly it was right if these are the best sources you can offer. SeraphimbladeTalk to me21:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Desculpa.. Sorry why, played a besta?? What are you professionally??? what do you do for your income? Not to get personal, but I am a Physics student at UnB (Universidade de BSB) if you are a fool than why DELETE DIRECTLY. Let Mr. Brandon Harris directly verify tghe sources amiguinho. PAZ. Obrigado. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinigue2 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure if we're failing to understand what "I'm done with this" means, but it seems so. You may seek a deletion review if you still believe this deletion to be incorrect. My decision stands and that is final (unless overturned by DRV of course), quit spamming my talk page with socks. Further edits to this page on this subject will be reverted. SeraphimbladeTalk to me00:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
There's no such thing as "approved", per se. It just means there was not consensus to delete the article. I do note that the original iteration of the article written by you had a strongly promotional tone, which is not acceptable. If you're affiliated with this company, we strongly discourage you from editing the article on it. SeraphimbladeTalk to me07:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I didn't really make the article promotional. I just gave Media coverage to ensure that the company is notable. However, later on being informed by one of your editors, I edited the article and made it completely neutral. You can also see that the changes (removal of the most of the part of media coverage) were done by me. I am not related to company at all. But do think that the company is notable after all, as I used its services a couple of months ago. Usmanwardag (talk) 07:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Glad to hear it! Citing reliable sources is certainly not itself a bad thing. Just make sure they're unaffiliated with the subject, and filter them down to a neutral tone—especially when it comes to companies, you'll find a lot of "best in class", "industry leader", and marketese junk like that, even in otherwise good sources. Just make sure the tone of the article itself stays neutral and you back it up with sources, and you're golden. Note, though, that it is the significant coverage by reliable sources, not your opinion (or mine, or anyone else's), that ultimately determines the company to be notable as we use the term here. SeraphimbladeTalk to me07:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I understand this. Do you still want me to add more reliable sources? Or the current version of the article is fine to stay on wikipedia?Usmanwardag (talk) 07:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Up to you, really. If you know of more sources, by all means, if not or you'd rather move on to a different article, someone else will work on it eventually. SeraphimbladeTalk to me14:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I just have a remark about this notification. Have you please some minutes to consider it?
I will take care of this warning and try not to emphasize the origin of sources. However you wrote that this editing restrictions were based on my comment here, but in this talkpage my comment was not solely based on the origin of the sources quoted in the article, but the comparison of the information provided by them and international source (such as RFERL). I mentioned the fact that those sources were from Azerbaijan, not because I think all Azerbaijani sources are not neutral (I follow myself many Azeri's on Twitter and read Azeri bloggers with much respect for the information they provide), but because those specific sources seemed to be not very neutral and accurate when compared with international sources with high credibility.
Maybe I overreacted a little bit (frankly, somehow I felt challenged by user Verman1 who labelled Armenian sources earlier "far from being neutral"), but my intention was good and my intention was to use the talkpage to reach a consensus acceptable for all parties. Since I was warned for edit-warring in 2009 (for more than 2 years now) I faithfully did my best to avoid edit-warring or being uncivil, so I honestly ask you to reconsider this new restriction. In any case, thank you for your time reading this. I wish you a nice Sunday-evening :) --vacio14:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
If what you say is correct, you've nothing to worry about from the restriction anyway. Please do keep in mind that the Armenia-Azerbaijan area can be a very contentious one, and that even if it was unintentional, implying that sources are unreliable because they are from one nation or the other could easily cause a discussion to degenerate or explode. The restriction does not keep you from questioning the reliability of a source, if for example it has later been discredited or called into serious question, or is unreliable to start with (blog/self-published, not fact checked/peer reviewed, etc.), but if that's the case, just say that rather than "It was from an X, and so is not reliable". The national origin of a source or its author is never relevant to its reliability, so it need never be mentioned. SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer and explanation. There is also an other side of the issue: because the information found in Armenian and Azerbaijani sources is often so different and conflicting (for instance on some historical issues), we sometimes prefer to use only or generally international ("non party") sources. In many cases this helped us, Armenian and Azerbaijani users, to reach a consensus, which would be otherwise almost impossible. This is apparently very tricky: such a well-intended proposal could be interpreted as denouncing a source based on its national origin. So I'll keep in mind what you said and I will be cautious in my words! :) --vacio18:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Opinion?
Hi. Since you're familiar with the subject matter, I figured I would turn to you for some advice. Do you think you can skim through the history page of this article and give me your opinion if four reverts in the past week constitute a case for filing a complaint at the revert-warring page? I'm loath to go through the rounds of filing a complaint, but this editor has a penchant for making rapid reverts on articles in this area. I'm really sure but I reckoned it wouldn't hurt to ask. Thanks. Regards, --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Apparently, User MarshallBagramyan could not find any flaws in my contributions over several hours today and is now complaining about 4 reverts within a week (?) Excuse me, but first, I'm not violating WP:3RR; second, I clearly explained why the information was removed and communicated on the talk page of the article, but the new suspicious casual user, re-adding the information and using a separate IP for reverts, has not felt it should be responded to; third, are you really the right person to complain about reverts when you do that on a frequent basis such as in Kars and Askeran clash articles? More importantly, though, you're just trying to retaliate for being mentioned in this sockpuppet report which might get you sanctioned if something is revealed. Seraphimblade, apologies for responding on your talk page, but I thought you should see this too since MarshallBagramyan is appealing to you with groundless claims. Thank you! Tuscumbia (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
The last time I tried the ArbCom, I had to re-list my complaint two times, to no avail. I guess I'll just add this to the archive. Thanks anyways. Regards, --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Elections are currently underway for our third tranche of Guild coordinators. The voting period will run for 14 days: 00:01 UTC, 16 December – 23:59 UTC, 31 December. All GOCE members, as well as past participants of any of the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, are eligible to vote. There are five candidates vying for four positions. Your vote really matters! Cast your vote today.
In regards to the File:Treblinka Cremation Pit.jpg image posted, among the others. This is a personal photo that is under my copyright from the company I work for. I'm not sure why this image was targeted, but if the "This photo may not be used for financial gain" comment was the reason, I have taken it down. All images donated under my username Folklore777 are proper licensed and accounted for. The comment for posted under the "attribution" was to deter anyone from unproperly using my photos on other sites without giving credit where credit is due.~Folklore777(talk) 02:47, 22 December, 2011 (UTC)
That was indeed the issue, and thank you for clearing it up. This is actually in regard to files on Wikimedia Commons. Commons only accepts images that are under a free license, which means, in short, that anyone may use and modify the image for any purpose, including commercial purposes. Free licenses may require author attribution and/or that derivative works remain under the same license. Licenses which forbid commercial use and/or modification, however, are not free licenses, and Commons will not accept those (Wikipedia won't accept them locally, either, except under a few exceptions). You can find more detail at the Commons license policy page, especially (from that page): "Media licensed under non-commercial only licenses also are not accepted" (emphasis in original). The notice in the required attribution, "This image may not be used for financial gain", essentially banned commercial use, and so rendered the content nonfree. Since they're your images, and you've chosen to remove that restriction, there's no further issue. The CC-BY-SA license still requires attribution, so no one else may use your images under that license without attributing them to you. I hope that clears up the reason, but feel free to ask if you still have any questions. SeraphimbladeTalk to me08:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for letting me know. I'm overly protective of the images I post I suppose. It was only out of fear for improper use. :)~ Folklore777 (talk) 03:19, 22 December, 2011 (UTC)
Hi Seraphimblade, you just removed talk page access of this user while I was in a dialogue with him regarding his unblock request. Would you mind reverting? This block will likely need to be dealt with by community consensus and it is hard to ascertain how we should !vote if we cannot converse. If he in any way abuses the talk page I will surely let you know, but he has been collegial in his responses thus far and I think he may have a chance of getting unblocked. NoformationTalk07:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I don't know if I'm optimistic but after reading the talk page, the fact that he agreed to stop doing things that he previously railed against is a good start. Worst comes to worst he fools us all and gets reblocked and then we know. Are you familiar with the user? Would you be willing to oversee his block request after I've asked him a couple questions? NoformationTalk07:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the user from previous incidents. I try to stay away from deciding on unblock requests where I am, since the point of that process is to get a fresh set of eyes on the situation (unless the unblock request is clearly invalid/disruptive). I do, of course, always review everything that led up to the block and has happened since it. That was a more daunting task in this case than most reviews, but I think it was pretty straightforward. One thing that very much concerns me is the fact that the use of "mod" was something the user was previously repeatedly advised is disruptive, and yet that was the first word they chose to use, and then started arguing about it yet again. I hope I'm wrong—they've made some good contributions as well, but if PoW is to go back to the old behaviors, the disruption would significantly outweigh that as it did before. What I would want to see before even considering an unblock, is that PoW understands not only that a few particular behaviors were inappropriate, but the more general causes that led to those, especially "I didn't hear that", battling, refusal to accept consensus when against them, and especially the generally contemptuous attitude and combative tone shown toward advice and requests from other editors. SeraphimbladeTalk to me07:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
The editor removed the image of the book cover because he saw no acceptable fair use rationale, which was true. I then added a rationale, and having done as requested, I then replaced the image. He then objected for a different reason, and I did not revert. I have been a professional writer for more than 50 years, so I am familiar with attribution of sources, quoting, rewrites, fair use, bibliographic notes, etc. Check again, and you'll see that I did have a reference to that book. (And I've since added a reference to another book.) For a vocalist as obscure as Adele Clark, few sources surfaced. Piers Baker, however, is an important contemporary cartoonist, so I found several sources. I'm not sure how these bots function, but I was rudely interrupted by a bot only 60 seconds (!) after I posted my first draft. I was still writing and adding references. The problem of writing such is that sometimes one stumbles across a redundant source, yet it might have four words of fresh information that can be added. I might be able to find even more about Baker to add. Pepso2 (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
There is no issue with using the book as a source, provided it meets the guidelines on reliability. The issue was the posting of the cover in the article. Since a simple text reference will suffice to attribute the source, the book cover, as a nonfree image, fails the nonfree content requirements. Specifically, it fails #1 (it is replaceable by text), and #8 (since the image is only tangentially related to the article, it is decorative). If you'd like to use the book as a source, use it, and cite it with a text reference. The guidelines on citing sources give guidance as to how to do this. SeraphimbladeTalk to me03:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I need your help!
I was hoping you could help me. You seem sweet, and you have helped me before. I research and write about WWII and have some images that I have posted in Wiki commons. One of those images is "File: Göth Feb 8, 1943.jpg" and is currently listed on the Amon Göth Wiki page. It seems to be an easy target for deletion. I want to give you a background on this image: I acquired this image from the daughter of the Military SS Officer that is in the photo. She gave me permission years ago to use the image for Holocaust educational purposes, and so I use it in my writing. The image was taken in 1943 by an unknown author that the subject Amon Göth paid during the war. No one knows who the author is. But it's from the family's archives, I can't see why there is such an issue. The person who is deleting it states it can't be used until 2014 because no one knows the author. Is there anyway to save the image from deletion or is it a lost cause? :( ~Folklore777 (talk) 22:36, 26 December, 2011 (UTC)
I think I see the problem there: The author is listed as "No specific author". (Get ready, copyright is a tangled mess sometimes. I'll untangle it here as best I can, with of course the caveat I'm not a copyright lawyer.) The "author" of a photograph is always the photographer, so it would be necessary to state who that is. The copyright is not owned by the person featured in the photograph, it is owned by the photographer (unless the photographer explicitly gave a copyright release assigning it to the subject, some photographers do that). If no one knows who took the photograph, that can get awfully tricky. What I would do is replace "No specific author" (that's not even possible, there always is a specific author, even if no one knows who it was), and replace that in the "Source" field with the information you've given me here (something like "Photographer unknown. Photo acquired by uploader with permission from subject's family in YYYY, originally taken in YYYY."). I think, based upon the Commons Hirtle Chart, that this image is in the public domain in both the US and Poland, and as such is acceptable if you provide the additional information. That's based upon the fact that the image has no copyright notice, so the applicable section is the "Works First Published Outside the U.S. by Foreign Nationals or U.S. Citizens Living Abroad. On Commons these cases also need to be free according to copyright terms in the country of publication. These terms are not part of this table." That states that works published between 1923 and 1977 without a copyright notice are in the public domain in the US, having failed to comply with required (at the time) US formalities. Since the image also failed to comply with Polish formalities required at that time, and as such never qualified for a Polish copyright, it appears to me that the image is in the public domain and is acceptable. There just needs to be a little more detail to demonstrate that this is actually the case. If any of that doesn't make sense, please feel free to ask for more clarification. SeraphimbladeTalk to me04:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I think it does... Maybe? :) I used the Polish copyright because Göth had the photo taken in Lublin, Poland so I wasn't sure what to use. I have used the photo on other sites I have written for in the past, so the image my be in other places, but I have the original. But if I put the "Photographer unknown. Photo acquired by uploader with permission from subject's family in YYYY, originally taken in YYYY." will that keep Martin from deleting it? And, can I show him this, he insisted there was nothing that could be done. I don't want him to continue to flag the photo. I'm worried. :( ~Folklore777 (talk) 23:38, 26 December, 2011 (UTC)
Honestly, this is a complex situation, and I can't guarantee you any given outcome. I've certainly had cases where someone on Commons knew some nuance of copyright law I was unaware of—it's a tangled mess at best, and becomes even worse when authorship is unknown. My advice is just what I'd do in your situation, while I don't know copyright law perfectly, I've worked with it here and elsewhere to know a decent bit about it, and Commons itself has some excellent resources on it as well (like the chart I linked to). Still, it never hurts to have as much detail as possible on the source, especially where actual authorship is unknown. SeraphimbladeTalk to me04:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry honey, I tried clicking on the Hirtle Chart, but it said it didn't exist. But is the image in the Public domain now? Or is it because I have used the image on other sites? I'm so sorry, all of this is confusing. I'm going to do what you said and hopefully that will work. ~Folklore777 (talk) 23:38, 26 December, 2011 (UTC)
I made the changes under the "File: Göth Feb 8, 1943.jpg" summary. Plus, I'm sure the Polish symbol wouldn't be the best fit, what license would be? You don't mind checking it out and seeing if I did it right, do you? :D~Folklore777 (talk) 00:35, 27 December, 2011 (UTC)
Looks alright to me. You should leave the Polish PD tag, but also add one for the US, something showing it's not copyrighted in the US due to the lack of a copyright notice. I believe the correct one here would be commons:template:PD-US-no-notice, or as {{PD-US-no-notice}} on the image page itself. SeraphimbladeTalk to me05:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
You are truly a sweetheart for helping me. You deserve a big cupcake Seraphimblade! ;)~Folklore777 (talk) 01:58, 27 December, 2011 (UTC)
We have reached the end of the year, and what a year it has been! The Guild of Copy Editors was full of activity, and we achieved numerous important milestones in 2011. Read all about these in the Guild's 2011 Year-End Report.
Highlights
Membership grows to 764 editors, an increase of 261
Report on coordinators' elections
Around 1,000 articles removed through six Backlog elimination drives
Make sure you have plenty of reliable source material on the subject. This page will give you an idea what types of sources we normally consider reliable. If the subject hasn't been covered extensively, (s)he probably isn't an appropriate subject for an article right now. Non-English and offline sources are fine, as long as they meet the reliability standards.
If you need to experiment with wiki markup, you can create a "sandbox" page for tests in your user space, i.e. at User:Drhernandezmx/sandbox.
If the artist or band members are alive, remember that anything you say about them that could be construed as negative or controversial must be sourced to a high-quality source and not given undue weight. All content should be sourced, but we take unsourced potentially negative material in a living person's biography especially seriously because of the potential of harm to someone.
Hi, I discussed some things on the talk page of personyze and an editor was talking to me about the changes but for a long time, he has not replied. Can you please check the matter for me? Usmanwardag (talk) 06:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Re: Krakatoa in media and popular culture
I will happily do the merge into Krakatoa, although I think you should *probably* have made it into a redirect and saved us all the trouble of extra work. Especially considering the material itself (but not the subject) is notable, it being properly referenced and all... The Steve 09:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I've restored history so that you can do the merge. Though, while I can't and won't mandate where the merge goes, might I suggest that Volcanoes in popular culture might be a better piece to write and include this there as, than the Krakatoa article? Krakatoa has little to no sourcing as to its relevance to pop culture, but volcanoes in general are frequently used that way. Warden provided a source that gave some treatment to the issue of volcanoes' use in popular media, and I strongly doubt it's the only one. SeraphimbladeTalk to me22:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Your rationale is at odds with WP:IPC and WP:ATD. Would you prefer to amend it (from "delete" to some variant of "merge"), or discuss at length at DRV? Your call. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 03:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Is there anyway that a company like Biosolar can let people know about its product? If Dupont can have a page to promote its products and company, why can't Biosolar, which has gotten all the certification and regulation to sell its product on the open market. My post clearly referenced all of this. Please provide me with more information on whether or not ALL posts about Biosolar will be deleted. If not, please provide guidance unless of course you want me to write many articles that you will to delete. I am willing to learn, but please give me a break. Thanks. --Pierredemaere (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
He hasn't really come up with any proposes topics/articles to work on, but my thought is that we can AGF now and unblock him - he sounds genuine enough. What do you think? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.
Notice of discretionary sanctions, sent to Sleuth21. With comments by Sleuth21
This note is to advise you that the arbitration committee has placed Homeopathy and articles related to it under discretionary sanctions. Under these sanctions, an uninvolved administrator may levy sanctions against any editor in the topic area if the editor "repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process". This notice serves as the warning required by the discretionary sanctions ruling.
Thank you Seraphimblade for this justified and understandable notification. I am, though, not exactly trembling in my boots and offer these comments:
I was fully aware that my calling another editor an 'a...h...' is unacceptable, not just on WP but anywhere. But in unusual situations unusual behaviour may ensue. I didn't realize that one reverse constitutes an edit war. But that's beside the point. What I'd like to know is this: did the chap who calls himself Guy (and some more letters) get a similar warning? No? Because he's got a nice-looking website? It’s all just hot air. What else does he have which I haven't? Chuzpa? Was he warned? Yes or No? If not, why not? His calling me a homeopath (in the derogatory sense he uses the word) is a greater insult than my calling him an a...h.... I am sufficiently trained in law to know that ‘’he's not punished, why am I?’’ is not a valid defense. Fuck valid defense. What I do know is that I am not a homeopath, never was, and never will be. But Guy is still an a...h... and will be for a long time: his self-reflective powers are zilch, exactly.
I am an occasional attendee of the London Sceptics' meeting - to see an a...h... like Guy calling himself a skeptic pains me and makes me re-think my position: 'rational humanist' is might be an option. But of course what I call myself is not influenced by what idiots like Guy think about me.
That Wikipedia has no procedure to protect well-meaning if erratic editors like myself from idiots like Guy will be a growing problem. It will eventually, well, not kill WP, but do tremendous harm. The loss of well-meaning, highly competent potential WP editors (like me) will, equally 'eventually', be unsustainable, and WP will become, for all contentious subjects, a mutual-congratulation-club. And this in spite of such tremendously humane, well reasoned (and with empathy), highly literate, dare I say, ‘wise', admin people like yourself (I studied you user / talk page in some detail) or some of the co-editors who started working on my (very, very slightly tongue in cheek) d(r)aft homeopathy lede. I find consolation in knowing that the latters’ egos will, I am sure, be robust enough to survive the tremendous shock (just to make sure: I am jesting!) of my leaving the homeopathy page for good.
What really worries me: Wikipedia is taken seriously by some readers. A page like the Homeopathy one is viewed by many people who think of giving up homeopathic quackery and use proper, effective, regular medicine. If they see the sometimes vicious anti-homeopathy rhetoric on the WP homeopathy page and the convoluted phrasing of ‘is claimed by supporters of this silly idea to treat condition which... (12 more qualifications)' they grow suspicious: why are they so vicious? What do they try to hide? This may seem to be surprising and irrational but it’s just sometimes human nature and natural suspiciousness. (Guys like Guy wwouldn't know about this) I wanted to neutralize this effect by using more relaxed phrasing, thus perhaps winning homeopathy sympathizers over to a more skeptical view. It is for that reason that I use e.g. a quote from a pro-Benveniste book at the top of my draft lede: very unusual but worth a try.
For the time being I will during all my talks on Wikipedia and Health mention that it is very good for starters, but suggest: However: the Introduction to the Homeopathy is misleading. WP: Health articles are usually much better.
Militant anti-homeopaths like Guy don’t help, quite the opposite. They are a danger to the community. They should be topic-banned permanently from WP:Homeopathy.
I do apologise for my non-native English, and more importantly, for my mixing English-English and American-English spelling, possibly in violation of WP:rule whatever, para whatever. There really is such a rule: Oh, the arrogance of English-speaking people(s): We not-so-blessed humans don't only have to speak English well, we have to master the spelling and pronunciation variations: Gaol is so spelt / spelled (not goal) and pronounced 'jail'? Give us a break!
Please ban me from WP altogether, for at least a month. Reinhard 'Dick' Wentz
Seramphimblade, can you do me a favour? My wife requests that I be banned from WP altogether for at least a month. I support that suggestion. (Personal attack removed) Can you set the process in motion, please? Reinhard Dick Wentz Sleuth21 (talk) 15:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Can you speed up this process? Acces from all IP numbers, incl. use of user page etc.? Anything connected with WP? For life, please. Thanks. Sleuth21 (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Saw the name on a noticeboard, went to look, saw this, and after checking a few things, was on my way to block.
So for anyone interested, endorse topic ban.
A good, yet restrained, decision. Kudos. - jc3720:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their March 2012 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on March 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on March 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goal for the drive will be to eliminate the remaining 2010 articles from the queue. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 5 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa, Stfg, and Coordinator emeritus SMasters. 19:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Just curious, my father retired from the Santa Monica Police Department, and i tried to look it up and it said you deleted it, was there just no info on it or what? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cguest1287 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Looking back, that was indeed one I deleted a couple years ago. The deleted page contained only categories, no content whatsoever, so it was deleted as a blank/no content page. I would imagine the Santa Monica PD is an organization you might be able to find enough reliable sources on to write an article—if you can, please feel free to write it! SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Dear User:Seraphimblade, am v sorry to disturb you, but I am a new and occasional editor/user and am not registered, but I try my best to help edit and improve articles of my interest, as conscientiously as possible. However, im having some problems with an article Karlal, relating to a Pakistani tribe of the Khyber Pukhtunkhwa area. I recently delted a long and in my opinion needless list of 'notable' names of people belonging to this tribe and left comments accordingly on the article talk page. However, the list was reverted a number of times and also, some ditors kept adding new names to it. I requested one user/editor to please discuss the matter amicably on the relevant talk page, assuming good faith as advised. But it seems to me that a number of people keep adding information to this page/article, on a random basis, and the whole process is sadly becoming rather tedious. I dont know what to do at this stage and (a) how to ersolve the dispute (if it may be termed that) about the names list and (b) how to safeguard the article/page from all sorts of random, unverified additions? I would be v grateful if you could kindly help out, thank you.
39.54.120.233 (talk) 09:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Prof (retd) Asad U Khwaja, Pakistan
The Wikipedia Guild of Copy-Editors invites you to participate in the November 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive will begin on 1 November at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on 30 November at 23:59 (UTC). The goal for this drive is to reduce the backlog by 10% (approximately 500 articles). We hope to focus our efforts on the oldest three months (January, February, and March 2009) and the newest three months (September, October, and November 2010) of articles in the queue.
Sign-up has already begun at the November drive page, and will be open throughout the drive. If you have any questions or concerns, please leave a message on the drive's talk page.
A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants, some of which are exclusive to GOCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page.
De;eted. The biggest problem is that the most recent nomination was at "3nd nomination", not "3rd nomination" — I would have checked it if it had been linked by the G4 deletion template, but since it's not set up to look for AFDs called "(3nd nomination)", I had no idea that there was a third nomination. Nyttend (talk)
Topic ban not good enough. Total ban for life please
Reinhard 'Dick' Wentz
GOCE March drive newsletter
Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 backlog elimination drive update
GOCE March 2012 Backlog Elimination progress graphs
Participation:
We have had 58 people sign up for this drive so far, which compares favorably with our last drive, and 27 have copy-edited at least one article. If you have signed up but have not yet copy-edited any articles, please consider doing so. Every bit helps! If you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Join us!
Progress report:
Our target of completing the 2010 articles has almost been reached, with only 56 remaining of the 194 we had at the start of the drive. The last ones are always the most difficult, so thank you if you are able to help copy-edit any of the remaining articles. We have reduced the total backlog by 163 articles so far.
Special thanks:
Special thanks to Stfg, who has been going through the backlog and doing some preliminary vetting of the articles—removing copyright violations, doing initial clean-up, and nominating some for deletion. This work has helped make the drive a more pleasant experience for all our volunteers.
Thank you for not deleting Classical Anatolia. Frankly that's really scary to be accused of copywrite violation when somebody else copies one's work from Wikipedia. There should be some safeguards against that. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean there should be safeguards against? As far as keeping sites from copying from Wikipedia, if you're the author of the material, you could either talk to them nicely and let them know of the CC-BY-SA requirements, or threaten to enforce your rights—that particular site is not following the CC-BY-SA. Of course, if other sites do follow CC-BY-SA, they're by design allowed to copy the material, and all the particular site in question would have to do to keep it is to put up the appropriate attribution and license notices.
If you mean safeguards against erroneous deletion, we do have those—multiple layers, actually. In this case, the first layer prevented it. Even for a speedy, an admin must review the request. Asking "Who copied who here?" is something that (I hope!) we always ask when reviewing a speedy request for copyvio, especially for material that's been on Wikipedia for a long time. Since Wikipedia is designed to be copied, it's not unusual to find the site with the text is the one that did the copying and just failed to attribute it. If for any reason I would have come to the wrong conclusion and deleted it, I would've certainly reviewed once you objected, and if we still disagreed, you could ask a wider audience to double check at deletion review. In this case, I strongly doubt it would've gotten that far, though—I would've pretty quickly recognized that I was in error. "Deletion" doesn't actually kill the deleted material, it can be undeleted by any admin, so it's always possible to review and if necessary reverse a deletion after the fact. SeraphimbladeTalk to me15:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
For clarification I meant the latter. I think some people are a bit quick on the draw with speedy deletions, I did put a note on the Talk Page of the article, but I guess it was not read. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I think there are too many knee jerk reflexes. It would be interesting to see how many requests are declined. There is an onus on people who create pages to explain what they are doing and why, but also on people who think articles should be deleted to read the talk page and look at the history and do a little research. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Tom Mariano
Hi there and thank you for talking the time to let me come on your page. I wrote a very nice article on Tom Mariano and what i really don't understand is that why soomeone from the Gilded Lillys page would have my page deleted. I went in and edited Gilded Lillys and add Tom Mariano as his a part of the cast and was credited for his role. THen next thing i know my page of Tom Mariano was being deleted. I worked very hard on the page and i had news articles i had references on Tom Mariano and links of articles. Tom Mariano is a real person and i did this bio on because his is mvoing he way up. He is also is Rob Mariano first cousin and they both actors. I would like to see this un-deleted, Everything was fine up tell i edited the Gilded Lillys page to add Tom Mariano in the cast. Before that i had no problems here on wiki and my account and article of Tom Mariano was fine. Why didn't the editor of the Gilded Lillys page just messsage me and i ask that i dont add Tom Mariano to the cast list. If he or she did that there would never been a problem. Now i have lost all my hard work and if i need to prove anything about Tom Mariano i can. Again thank you for your time and i hope i put this in the right place.
Please go read the deletion reason again, and then read the G11 section of User:Seraphimblade/Deletion FAQ. None of what you've said is in any way relevant to why the article was deleted, which is because it was promotional and read like a CV. Please let me know if you still have questions after reading those. SeraphimbladeTalk to me17:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
What is a CV ? sorry i dont know, and secound i cant find were the reason was?? if you could plerase tell i will read it.I did read g11 and how is my differnt then Rob Mariano article or any other actors articles. All someone had to do is say something or things had to be changed. But just to deleted my article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadanoops (talk • contribs) 18:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
The whole article reads like a puff piece/"career highlights" reel for what everything I can find indicates is a rather minor actor. Some examples of promotional tone are that the whole thing is inappropriately personalized (references to "Tom" rather than "Mariano"), and the fact that his various careers are chronicled in-depth without any indication of their importance, and with totally disproportionate weight to reliable source coverage. The fact that there are no decent references, and I can't find any, also calls into question of whether he is notable to start with—it would appear the answer is no, I can't find anything near the amount of reference material required for an article.
Another issue I've just discovered is falsification of references within the article. Several of the reference links provided claim to reference People, but actually point to IMDb and a nonexistent page on "South Boston Online", respectively. If you are going to claim People as a source, the link you point to should start with "www.people.com", not something else. If you read the information on IMDb/South Boston Online, and it cited People as a source, your reference must indicate IMDb/South Boston Online, not People. The reference shows where you, personally, got the information. I will put this down for a beginner's mistake, but falsification of references is very serious and is considered grounds for an immediate and indefinite block from editing. Please ensure that all your future citations are labelled correctly, and indicate where you personally got the information you're putting into the article.
Ok i understand all that, and no i didn't falsification anything not that i know of and would like the chance to go back and fix the article the right way. May i ask to have that chance to fix it ??? Also i do have references, like the Boston Globe and so on. I would just like the chance to fix it or would it or would it be better for me to start over ??? Thanks again for all your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadanoops (talk • contribs) 18:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Before we get into that, could you please list the references you have available? That'll help determine if an article is appropriate at all, nothing I can find is anywhere near in-depth enough to justify an article. You may know of something I'm not finding though? SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi there - Tell me what kind of references you need and articles and ill get them for . If could make a list on what u need that would help. I know Mariano was in us magazine and as just in the Boston globe . I also have the South Boston Vol # and iusse # as will. So please if you could make a list I'll get what u need. Thanks again Sadanoops (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
O'Connor (band)
Hello Seraphimblade I answered your message at my talkpage and also added links to the article... Thanks a lot for your help and your time!! Ktulu789 (talk) 04:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Ktulu789
An Honest Question Regarding Nomination of Speedy Deletion:
Hi, I'm Jordan. I'm sure you're not a wretched, vengeful, malicious elitist e-nerd--I'm sure most of the admins on Wikipedia aren't. In spite of acknowledging that, I can't but feel quite angry with the way this great resource is run. Hence, I have an honest question that I'd truly appreciate being answered if you'd take the time: Why is almost every new article, edit, redirect, etc. these days being nominated for speedy deletion/revert? You agreed that my addition of "Recon (band)" was "not significant" (or something like that). It's not personal--I let that go a long time ago when I used to actually respect the administrative side of Wikipedia much more before being let down time and time again. What I want to know is whether you actually took the time to read the short article, or if you just agreed with its deletion, as an admin, to move things along? Was a good, significant, or noteworthy article in my opinion? Absolutely not--the point is that there is a far greater likelihood of something being perfected if there is something to perfect in the first place--hence Wikipedia. (I'm quite positive that we all believe that, so I hope I don't have hop on the PsychInfo database to back up that comment in my reference section, here. Haha) So, the situation is this: I, and a bunch of other people writing sub-par-articles, know full-well it's neither our best effort nor to the standards of Wikipedia, but take the time to do so simply for the sake of free knowledge and having that knowledge part of the world's largest encyclopedia. I didn't write the article thinking it was finished, good, or even completely accurate--having known beforehand that this very article would likely be the most written about the band on any website or blog, I simply hoped that someone with primary resources would see the article and completely revamp it. If you're asking why people are writing such articles, it's because there are those incapable of writing articles (for various reasons), those almost capable but unmotivated or too hesitant, those barely capable but motivated and ambitious enough to challenge themselves to do so, those completely capable and motivated, and those completely capable but unmotivated (for whatever reasons). I knew full-well before beginning the article that I fell somewhere in between the second and third possibility, but wanted to do so simply so there'd be a starting place. So, the question, refined, is this: Why delete something so harmless if it had legitimate references but lacked thoroughness? Why not just put a tag on it saying it needs more references and thoroughness like many articles have? I just don't get it and I really want to hear an actual admins perspective. I hope your'e not angered, annoyed, or confused by any of this--I honestly just want to hear it from source.
I certainly hope I'm none of those things! And don't worry about me being angry—I've received far less polite messages than that as the result of deleting things.
So, I hope I can help clear things up a bit. I did, of course, read the article (it would be rather difficult otherwise to determine if it's deletion-eligible or not!). While the article was "harmless", that's not all that's required. There are some subjects that aren't an appropriate topic for an article at all, and one category of such is articles on things that aren't demonstrably notable. Notability is demonstrated by, well, being noted—by independent, third-party, reliable sources covering the subject in question extensively. It looks here like we've got a band with only a single self-published record, and there was no indication in the article of anything that'd make such coverage likely. Now if such coverage actually exists, by all means, recreate the article and cite those sources. If it's very light or nonexistent, it's just not an appropriate subject here (maybe if the band's fortunes rise, it will be someday!). We don't delete articles just for being in bad shape, poorly written, what have you. It depends on the suitability of the subject for Wikipedia, bad articles can be cleaned up and fixed.
I certainly hope you take it as nothing personal against you. Most of us have had an article deleted at some point or another. It just means there wasn't quite enough source material to sustain the article at this time, it's in no way to say you're a poor editor or did bad work. If you have any followup questions, please do feel free to ask. SeraphimbladeTalk to me03:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
GOCE March drive wrap-up
Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 backlog elimination drive
GOCE March 2012 Backlog Elimination progress graph
Of the 70 people who signed up for this drive, 40 copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Special acknowledgement goes out to Lfstevens, who did over 200 articles, most of them in the last third of the drive, and topped all three leaderboard categories. You're a superstar! Stfg and others have been pre-checking the articles for quality and conformance to Wikipedia guidelines; some have been nominated for deletion or had some preliminary clean-up done to help make the copy-edit process more fun and appealing. Thanks to all who helped get those nasty last few articles out of the target months.
Progress report
During this drive we were successful in eliminating our target months—October, November, and December 2010—from the queue, and have now eliminated all the 2010 articles from our list. We were able to complete 500 articles this month! End-of-drive results and barnstar information can be found here.
When working on the backlog, please keep in mind that there are options other than copy-editing available; some articles may be candidates for deletion, or may not be suitable for copy-editing at this time for other reasons. The {{GOCEreviewed}} tag can be placed on any article you find to be totally uneditable, and you can nominate for deletion any that you discover to be copyright violations or completely unintelligible. If you need help deciding what to do, please contact any of the coordinators.
Thank you for participating in the March 2012 drive! All contributions are appreciated. Our next copy-edit drive will be in May.
Hello Seraphimblade. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.
Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.
Hey there :). You're being contacted because you're an edit filter manager, At the moment, we're developing Version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool, which you may or may not have heard about. If you haven't; for the first time, this will involve a free-text box where readers can submit comments :). Obviously, there's going to be junk, and we want to minimise that junk. To do so, we're working the Abuse Filter into the tool.
For this to work, we need people to write and maintain filters. I'd be very grateful if you could take a look at the discussion here and the attached docs, and comment and contribute! Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their May 2012 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on May 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on May 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goal for the drive will be to eliminate January, February, and March 2011 from the queue. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 5 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa, and Stfg.
Please see the above where you already received a response to this request. Continuing to make the request isn't going to get you a different answer. SeraphimbladeTalk to me05:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Seraphimblade. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
It may not be necessary, as it appears that our submission has been rejected unless we can get a rehearing. I'd still like to hear what you have to say, however, if you've got the time and don't mind the bother. Thanks either way and best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
The 1-year, free period begins once you enter the code.
If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
During the AfD I did some google search and trimmed the list severely to 4 verifiable entries, of local (wp-notable) musicians. Please restore the article to my namespace, so that I transfer this info to the studio article. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
There were actually two artists left on the list, the only two sourced ones. I would advise improving the Phase One Studios article in general first—at this point, I don't even really see how it's notable, given the lack of sourcing. If you really want the two artists and sources, though, let me know. SeraphimbladeTalk to me07:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I speedily deleted that article some time ago. It was more recently deleted as the result of an articles for deletion discussion, and that deletion was by Sandstein. That being said, I am generally willing to userfy deleted articles that are not attacks or copyvios upon a reasonable request. However, based upon your behavior here which is anything but reasonable, I am not particularly disposed to fulfill your request. Ask someone else if you like. SeraphimbladeTalk to me09:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I've spent 1 month fighting your admins! 1 ENTIRE MONTH OF MY LIFE JUST BEING NICE AND HONEST WITH YOUR ADMIN FRIENDS EXPECTING THEM TO HELP US! I'VE STAYED HOURS AND HOURS AND HOURS WRITING THEM AND LITERALLY RESPECTING ALL YOUR ADMINS and I log in first thing in the morning and find it was deleted by your name! how can you except me not to be angry? I'm a very reasonable person but right now im angry I no longer believe anybody on wikipedia because i've been nice to everyone and all you admins couldn't at least userfy it! I feel like I wasn't respected by that action, and now I'm really upset, but if it wasn't you that deleted it, then I will delete what I said. and I did not want to speak that way to you. I will go now and paste what I just said to Sandstein because I feel like I wasn't shown any respect for the deletion of page and not having it userfied at least like everyone suggested! Have a nice day. and thank you for your time.
I'm sorry you're frustrated, but I strongly advise you cool down before you make any further postings. I strongly doubt Sandstein will be any more receptive to being repeatedly called an asshole than I would. Generally speaking, we advise people not to write about themselves—aside from the clear conflict of interest/promotional aspect, it's easy to become very emotionally invested when the article you've written is in fact about you. It just doesn't seem there's enough sourcing to sustain that article. SeraphimbladeTalk to me09:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry I came at you at the wrong way, but you've said you support me as a musician and you couldn't let my article remain on wikpedia just because of the rules, that is why I got shocked when it was under your name. I really apologize for my actions and I will take a break from wikipedia because it really caused me a frustrating month, but I will take your advice and let it be I do not like fighting and showing anger to anybody, so I won't write anybody else again, but I really was unbelievably shocked to find my page deleted and not userfied when everybody suggested that was the best action to make regarding my situation, But I guess I have nothing now here, and all my work went down the drain. After a month of hard work. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Big D Kuwaiti Rapper (talk • contribs) 09:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello, first of all I'm still relatively new to Wikipedia and am trying to figure everything out. I was helping another editor with this article and she had accidentally placed it as a template so I copied and pasted into an article. I do not believe that this is an advertisement for a company because we are simply telling about the school and its history. I did advise the editor that she needed more outside references and she is working on that. She is also taking pictures of the building and trying to get images from a special collections library. I tried to contest the deletion on the talk page but it was taken down before I could even see why my reasons were not viable. Do you think that this is just not a good topic or that it needed more outside references? The other editor and I will continue working on it until it meets Wikipedia's guidelines. Semccraw (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Not only businesses may be promoted. Our neutral point of view and policy on advertising prohibits a promotional tone in favor of anyone or anything, no matter how good a cause it may be. The following are examples of a totally unacceptable promotional tone:
"SIRLS’ Mission is two-fold. 1) To educate a diverse cadre of students who have the foundational knowledge and the competencies for developing, as their careers unfold, into formal and informal leaders in library and information environments and in the library and information professions. 2) To foster understanding of the creation, organization, management,access and use of knowledge and information resources in libraries and a multitude of settings and cultural communities."
"The School of Information Resources and Library Science at the University of Arizona emphasizes five main goals for their students and the program as a whole. These are: a quality Master's education for the Library and Information professions, creation of new knowledge in the library and information fields, diversity woven throughout the fabric of the SIRLS program, service, outreach and community, networked digital knowledge and information in a changing society, and continuum of education for library and information work."
"Knowledge River is a unique Tucson-based educational experience within the School of information Resources and Library Science focusing on educating information professionals who have experience with and sensitivity to Latino and Native American populations. Knowledge River also fosters understanding of library and information issues from the perspectives of Latino and Native Americans and advocates for culturally sensitive library and information services to these communities. Largely funded by a grant from the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), Knowledge River has become one of the most important graduate programs for training librarians and information professionals focusing on Latino and Native American cultural issues."
The entire article had this sort of promotional/boosterish tone, and was thus unsalvageable. Articles are expected to be in a neutral tone, boosterism is never alright. SeraphimbladeTalk to me04:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
If you have to explain it that much, it's unfortunately not at the level required for G3. Now that certainly doesn't mean the article should remain, and I take no position on that, but AfD is the proper venue for making a case such as the one you just made to me. If the hoax isn't clear and evident from reading the article alone, it's not blatant enough to speedy. You're certainly welcome to make that case at the AfD discussion, if you've not done so already. SeraphimbladeTalk to me15:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Just before I retire, I had a comment to your notification on my page. Thought this due as a courtesy. No need to reply, though. I accept the judgement. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm having trouble understanding what qualifies one article (Method Brewery) as not "notable" when other pages (like Duck Rabbit Brewery) are "notable" and allowed to exist. If they're both credible businesses in the counties they do business in, what determines their value on Wikipedia? Size of business? Are startups not as "notable"? Is Method Brewery less valid because what began as a club turned into a small startup?
Method Brewery is valid sole-proprietorship, in Wake County, NC. I think the concept of "notable" is largely discriminatory in this case.
It appears that the Duck Rabbit article may need to be deleted as well. That's why we don't use existence of other articles as evidence of notability. The only thing that can demonstrate notability is extensive coverage in third-party, unaffiliated reliable sources. If a subject hasn't been noted, it isn't appropriate for Wikipedia.
To a certain degree, I suppose that is discriminatory, and by intent. We are explicitly intended to be an encyclopedia, not to be a business directory or a list of all things in a given category, only the notable ones where we have extensive sourcing. There are a lot of subjects that are not acceptable for articles, due to a lack of sourcing or other reasons. Unless you can provide extensive sourcing covering the brewery, it is one of those subjects we cannot accept an article on. You may wish to consider some alternative sites instead. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to ask. SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I guess the confusion was where the "encyclopedia" stopped and business directory started. However, I didn't necessarily see it as a "directory," but more of general information about, well, everything. If I don't know what something is, I look on Wikipedia. Even for items that wouldn't necessarily be "encyclopedia" material. I think there's some blurry lines here still--and this direction for an online source for everything is a good direction IMO. I understand though. Thanks for clarifying. Heyoka04 (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Participation: Out of 49 people signed up for this drive so far, 26 have copy-edited at least one article. It's a smaller group than last drive, but we're making good progress. If you've signed up but haven't yet copy-edited any articles, please consider doing so. Every bit helps! If you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Join us!
Progress report: We're on track to meet our targets for the drive, largely due to the efforts of Lfstevens and the others on the leaderboard. Thanks to all. We have reduced our target group of articles—January, February, and March 2011—by over half, and it looks like we will achieve that goal. Good progress is being made on the overall backlog as well, with over 500 articles copy-edited during the drive so far. The total backlog currently sits at around 3200 articles.
Hall of Fame: GOCE coordinator Diannaa was awarded a spot in the GOCE Hall of Fame this month! She has copy-edited over 1567 articles during these drives, and surpassed the 1,000,000-word mark on May 5. On to the second million! – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa and Stfg
Sorry I don't mean to mess up your page with this, but I would like an article created and I'm wondering how. Wikipedia is so hard for me to understand. Can you help me? Please respond to (redacted). Thanks! I appreciate your time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.82.147.52 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 15 May 2012
(Thanks for moving it over from the user page Hu. :) ) The welcome page Hu pointed you to is a good resource, but if you have particular questions, I'm happy to help you too. If you leave a message on this page, rather than my user page, I'll get a notification that you left it. Just leave your reply right below this message. Don't worry about indenting it or the like, that can always come later. What subject would you like to see an article on? SeraphimbladeTalk to me04:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Regarding my request for deletion for the article List of islands in Kepulauan Seribu Regency which you have declined, I think you missed the point there. The point is that the article "List of islands in Kepulauan Seribu Regency" was copied directly from Kepulauan Seribu Regencyat the time when the article was not fully completed, and so there are many mistakes in the "List" article. This can potentially confuses readers and so I requested to delete that article because I don't want to give people the wrong information as well as to avoid redundancy. I understand the license and policy and everything. I am not claiming the article at all! I'm just concerned that people will collect information from the obviously incorrect article.
Nevertheless, I decided not to re-add the deletion request since I am the one who requested the deletion and had been declined by you anyway. I added few comments in the Talk Page of the "List" article. I think after all my explanations here, it's your decision now whether to delete the "List" article or keep it with the 'incorrect' consequences.--Rochelimit (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
We don't delete incorrect articles, we fix them. If there's an error, you are of course welcome to correct it or copy in your newer version. I don't like it or being in a poor state are not deletion criteria at all, let alone speedy deletion criteria. SeraphimbladeTalk to me16:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Obviously "I don't like it" is not the case here. It is about redundancy. Again I am not claiming anything nor not liking the list article, I'm just concerned about the copy. Do you think I should move the list that is there in Kepulauan Seribu Regency to List of islands in Kepulauan Seribu Regency? (which means that I reduce a lot of texts in Kepulauan Seribu Regency to be transferred to this article?) --Rochelimit (talk) 07:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
That's really up to you. You could nominate the list article for articles for deletion as redundant and unnecessary, you could move your most current list there, you could redirect it and see if anyone objects. It's not up to me what you should do. All I can tell you is that the situation is beyond the simple situations we allow to be determined by a single pair of eyes, and so I can't just speedily delete it. That doesn't mean deletion isn't appropriate, it just means it takes a full discussion if it is. SeraphimbladeTalk to me07:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Deletion of Mageia page
It's come to our attention at Mageia that the Wikipedia page covering our distro has been deleted. I've read through the discussion, but not having ever seen the now-deleted page, I'm not able to really tell whether I'd find the reasoning sound, or understand where the faults lay. Is it archived anywhere so it can be used for comparison?
I'd like to create a new Mageia page, with appropriate content and sources for Wikipedia; advice would be most welcome! Trishf42 (talk) 11:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
An article is never deleted due to its current state, and the article actually wasn't bad—it just lacked sufficient source coverage to sustain it. This is a case, though, where I suspect that will change at some point, or there may even be sources out there that the editors involved in the discussion were unable to find. If you think you have sufficient sourcing, I'd be happy to userfy the deleted article for you, please let me know if you would like that done. SeraphimbladeTalk to me13:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I'll take a look at it. Please do keep in mind, my opinion is in no way binding—I wasn't even involved in the discussion, I just read and closed it, so what I say is just my own thought. SeraphimbladeTalk to me06:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
So, my personal assessment:
Muktware seems to be a possibly, if not definitively, reliable source. They're certainly not one of the big ones that would more conclusively demonstrate notability with a full length article, but their article is in depth, by a named author, and at least a start. I'm not sure if they're professionally written or fact checked though, and their site doesn't make that clear. To be demonstrably reliable, that would need to be known and documented.
"Waybeta" isn't even close to reliable. It's written in broken and nearly unreadable prose by an anonymous author. A source that can't even be counted on to proofread certainly can't be counted on to thoroughly fact check. Anonymous authorship is also another strike against reliability. I would say that Waybeta is well into the unreliable range, and cannot demonstrate notability. For that matter, it probably shouldn't be used at all. I've seen personal blogs by teenagers better written than that. SeraphimbladeTalk to me06:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
You deleted my page on One Sonic Society. Why? Have you looked them up? Have you heard ANY of their music? Don't you think they should be on Wikipedia? Please explain.
I got a question, MUSICBIO clearly states under No. 6 "is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles." This means just having Jason Ingram notable songwriter and producer, Stu G notable guitarist and vocalist past member of Delirious? and Jon Thatcher also apart of the same band, which means the band is already notable just look at these 1, 2, 3, and 4, but I can go even further. The song "Forever Reign" charted on three charts, which I can provide you with 1, and I can get the other through Academic OneFile that charted at No. 25 on the Christian Adult Contemporary Songs Chart. So. this means under MUSICBIO that No. 2 is satisfied by the song charting. The chart below with prove No. 11 on MUSICBIO, but see on most stations it was added long ago, which means I cannot go back to get the plays or spins.HotHat (talk) 23:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, Delirious? was a very popular UK Christian rock band and had several top 40 hits there - discounting the chart positions, that alone makes it notable. 00:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I deleted the article under G4, as a recreation of a deleted article. I think you may have a decent case for it, but the admin who closed the original AfD is Tone. The concern at AfD had nothing to do with MUSICBIO, but rather adequate sourcing. If you think the sources you've found are reliable (I don't know enough about them to evaluate that), by all means, ping Tone or ask for input at deletion review. You may want to put together a userspace draft to use as an example. SeraphimbladeTalk to me00:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Jesus Freak Hideout is reliable at least, and the magazine source looks fine. #25 on Christian AC isn't much, but if the chart position is verifiable, that alone may seal the eal. I had a hard time finding any other sources, though. HotHat, I say take it to WP:REFUND or WP:DRV. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)00:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
G4 is for recreations that are "identical and unimproved." Do you have 3 solid sources? That counts as improvement. If I were you I'd skip the REFUND & DRV drama and just recreate the article, add the sources, and put a note on talk that the AFD rationale no longer applies, that it is notable, and it no longer qualifies under G4. – Lionel(talk)01:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
As far as I can tell by this source, they have not had one press release released about them, so this means that if you come across a story it was most likely written by that website.HotHat (talk) 04:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I am asking you to review my article here, and tell me if that is not a significant improvement from the others, which I cannot see them because I am not an admin. So, One Sonic Society under notability criteria seems to pass Nos. 1, 2, 6 and 11.HotHat (talk) 05:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I can only speak for myself, but I certainly would not G4 that one, as it now addresses the concerns at the previous AfD (lack of sourcing). Good work on it! SeraphimbladeTalk to me06:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Wesley Mouse's block
A decision on the unblock request would be appreciated as I don't think anyone else is going to come to look at it, and while the block only has about five hours left to run now, the result of an unblock appeal request is at least symbolic. Wes has responded to your question, and based on an e-mail I received from him in which he shows some frustration, a decision either way would better than nothing. CT Cooper ·talk15:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Seraphimblade and his threats
Please explain to me how my page on Robert S. Coleman, Jr. needs speedy deletion. Also, please don't threaten me with deletion. You know as well as I do that, if blocked, I'll just use a different IP address and create a different user and do what I will. I'm open to discussion that which you (and other editors) believe violates the terms and conditions of Wikipedia, but threats are unwelcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamananonymousindividual123 (talk • contribs) 04:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I created this page, and you deleted it this morning because "04:53, 29 May 2012 Seraphimblade (talk | contribs) deleted page Cinema Sleep (A7: Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)". I really do not understand why you feel this is not relevant enough for Wikipedia because I tried to be as neutral as possible, used several sources, and thought that I explained it fairly well. Can you explain to me what I can do to recreate this article and edit it in a different way? Also, I saw that there was a special "MyPage" thing that I can use; is there a way you can copy and paste the deleted article content so that it can be placed into the project box? Thank you. Thebuck093 (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Thebuck093
Having taken a look at the deleted article, there were no sources cited. There were a few links to Facebook, Youtube, and Itunes. Those are not sources. In order to establish notability, it is required that an article's subject has been covered in reasonable depth by high-quality, reliable sources unaffiliated with the subject. If Cinema Sleep has been covered in such a way, it's possible an article on them could work. If such coverage does not exist, we cannot accept an article on them, no matter how it is written. SeraphimbladeTalk to me20:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Participation: Out of 54 people who signed up this drive, 32 copy-edited at least one article. Last drive's superstar, Lfstevens, again stood out, topping the leader board in all three categories and copy-editing over 700 articles. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.
Progress report: We were once again successful in our primary goal—removing the oldest three months from the backlog—while removing 1166 articles from the queue, the second-most in our history. The total backlog currently sits at around 2600 articles, down from 8323 when we started out just over two years ago.
Coodinator election: The six-month term for our third tranche of Guild coordinators will be expiring at the end of June. We will be accepting nominations for the fourth tranche of coordinators, who will also serve a six-month term. Nominations will open starting on June 5. For complete information, please have a look at the election page. – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa, and Stfg
Yes. It stated that he was "pretty well known" and that he was an "artist", both of which are irrelevant to determining notability. Only extensive coverage of a subject by reliable sources establishes notability, by having been actually noted. Do you know of such sources? If you do, I'd be happy to help evaluate them and see if a rewrite is possible. If such coverage does not exist, he wouldn't be an appropriate subject for an article, and we're especially strict on sourcing requirements in regards to the biography of a living person. The article as it stood seemed to be almost a memorial, which, while certainly a touching story, is not what this project is for. SeraphimbladeTalk to me14:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'm still pretty new to wikipedia things, I'm from Wikia where things are quite different - my apologies for any troubles; anyhow, I've found a few things that (hopefully) can be counted as reliable sources. (Pardon if they're random, I'm still slightly confused on wither i should get sources on him or about the things written in the article, nevertheless here's some proof that he exists - here, here & here. KATANAGOD (talk) 05:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
We've all been new once. :) And most of us have had an article deleted here or there, so don't take it personally by any means. As far as your sources, I'm afraid I'm not seeing it there. We have some guidelines available for what makes a reliable source, and this just doesn't happen to meet them:
Respawn Entertainment is a primary source (his employer). To demonstrate notability, a source must be unaffiliated with the subject. A subject's employer is pretty clearly closely related to the subject.
Linkedin is a source presumably written by the subject himself, so is ineligible for the same reason.
The third source did not work. However, Giantbomb says it is "user-editable". We cannot take anonymously editable sources as a reference, because they do not provide the verifiability that a static source does.
When I go to look for more, I just don't find any suitable ones. I'm afraid, unless you know of some better sources I can't find, that he would not be an appropriate subject for an encyclopedia article. It does seem you've quite a bit of interest in video games though, why not ask the Wikiproject on video games for some pointers to stuff that might need some work? SeraphimbladeTalk to me07:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Alright, Thanks for your time and sorry if i wasted it; I'll look into the video game project, maybe I'll find something I'm useful with - Cheers! KATANAGOD (talk) 05:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the notes on Raditaz - the original page was definitely "Unambiguously Promotional." Too bad the other user working on it didn't finish parts up (I was too busy with my own work.) Will put it back up when the page is worthy but may need a couple of days. I work min 12 hours a day in my "real" job, please give me a little more time to get it right. I'm new to Wikipedia.
--Iksnatp (talk) 06:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
We had a ec -- I was in the process of rewriting it a little and declineing the speedy when you just deleted it. Since normal editing can fix it, please restore--& prod if you like to keep it tagged until I can get to it tomorrow. (I know I have the ability to do so myself, but I want to ask you first.) DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
(To DGG) If you think you can salvage it, by all means. It's undeleted now. (To Webhas) You didn't delete it, I did. The article was a puff/booster piece. DGG thinks it's fixable, though, so I've undeleted it at his request. Please keep in mind that articles must always be neutral in tone. SeraphimbladeTalk to me04:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Can you explain where neutrality in tone lacks? Which information is not-factual? Where does this entry differ from other schools listed on WikiPedia? Independent Prep Schools
It takes time to get references in place.
Many organisations rate the uniqueness of Haileybury Almaty with televised visits by the president of Kazakhstan; statements from Kazakhstan Minister of State and Education indicating that Haileybury Almaty is the leading school in Kazakhstan?
Advice was followed from RHaworth.
What advice can you give to fix this entry?
Webhas (talk) 06:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
At a quick glance...
"...oldest and most prestigious boarding schools..." According to whom?
"The design of the school reflects the ambition and vision of Haileybury in the UK with modern architecture, open spaces and use of natural light with a transparent roof covering most of the building." Right out of a marketing brochure.
"Throughout the year there are many opportunities to visit the mountains. Skiing is offered as an extra-curricular activity in winter." More marketing. Tangentially relevant at best, not really encyclopedic.
"The school aims, via the provision of facilities, resources and teaching in academic, creative and performing subjects of a standard comparable with independent schools in the UK, plus the time for all pupils to develop true fluency in English, to provide its pupils with the opportunity to access the best of university education in Kazakhstan, the UK, USA and the rest of the world." According to whom?
"On Monday 14th May the Secretary of State Mr Mukhtar Kul-Mukhammed and the Minister of Education of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Mr Zhumagulov Bakhytzhan Tursynovich visited." We don't use titles like "Mr.," but again, marketing material generally does. We would refer to them as "Mukhtar Kul-Mukhammed," etc.
All that stuff is right out of a glossy brochure, and is in no way neutral in tone. As to taking time to get the sources, we should be writing from sources, not writing out of one's head and then trying later to find a source that backs it up. If it takes time to find sources, find them first, then once they are in hand, write from them, based only on what they actually say. That will ensure we don't write from personal knowledge or impressions, only actual verifiable published material. SeraphimbladeTalk to me06:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice - this sounds fixable to me - if you let me.
1) In top 100 Independent's league table
Founded in 1862 - [[8]]
2) Design: - see external links and photographs; happy to re-phrase
3) Aims - member of COBIS - benchmark Cambridge IGCSE, AQA and Edexel exam boards
4) Facilities - could do with re-phrasing
5) Not my entry; could do user edit
Webhas (talk) 07:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I did not mean literally that you had taken the entries from a brochure (that would be plagiarism unless cited, in addition to the rest, and could also be copyright infringement). Rather, I meant that the text could appear in a glossy brochure or marketing material, which would indicate that it is boosterish, rather than neutral, in tone. SeraphimbladeTalk to me13:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't catch your reply earlier. Everything removed is still in the page history, so if you think you can reword it better and source the assertions properly, please do. For that much content, you may also find it easier to do it in a userspace draft, copying it over when ready. Let me know if you'd like to do it that way and need any help setting it up. SeraphimbladeTalk to me22:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
recma deletion
If you had spent just a minute on inspection of "what links here" and some googling, you'd probably have found that RECMA is indeed one of the organizations that most media companies refer to. RECMA's reports indicate a company's impact and standing. I can only wonder how it is that quite a lot of media companies may remain here and the one institution that they use for reference is deleted. This is a pronounced imbalance that cannot be explained safe for inconsideration. Mark you: I am not employed by any of the aforementioned firms, nor am I involved in the media business. -- Kku 08:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback on the PIF wiki page. I didn't realize a sandbox mode existed for the site - may I have the article contents back so I may continue to improve the quality of the article? I'm interning with the Pittsburgh Irish Festival and have been working on this project very sporadically. Thanks! WCollins1130 — Preceding unsigned comment added by WCollins1130 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I am afraid that I cannot. The content of the article was directly copied and pasted from [9]. We cannot accept text copied from other sources, unless it is under a free license and suitably attributed to its source. We cannot restore material that violates copyright even to userspace. If you wish, however, you could work on a completely new draft of the article in a userspace draft here. Please be aware, though, that we cannot accept material copy and pasted from other sources (except for very short, properly marked and attributed quotations, or freely-licensed and properly attributed material). If you wish to write the article, it should be sourced to multiple reliable sources independent of the article's subject. If such sourcing doesn't exist, we couldn't accept an article on it at all. Please let me know if you need any further explanation on that or anything else. SeraphimbladeTalk to me22:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
As you can see on an earlier section on Gazifikator's talk page I have informed him of a book chapter I will send him. I intend to both discuss the content of that book and the content of the Nikolai Bayev article on Gazificator's talk page and I expect Gazifikator to respond. From the resulting conversation I will incorporate whatever content into the Nikolai Bayev that I feel is suitable. What are you going to do about it? Meowy15:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
That would ultimately be decided at AE, but I would myself consider that to clearly violate the topic ban ("...including but not limited to discussion of such articles on any page.") It does look like Bayev was involved in that geographic area, and "construed broadly" means just that. A topic ban means that the editor's conduct in the area was not acceptable, and that they are to stay out of it entirely for the duration of the ban. I would strongly advise you not to encourage him to violate the ban. If Gazifikator feels the ban was applied erroneously, there is an appeals process, but until and unless such an appeal were to succeed, he can be blocked for violating the ban in any way. SeraphimbladeTalk to me15:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
What is your source for this wording: "including but not limited to discussion of such articles on any page"? That wording even implies a ban on off-Wikipedia contact (What else can the "not limited to" mean). I'm not going to be limited in my pursuit of knowledge by the actions of wikipedia adminstrators. Sanctions are not meant to be punitive, they are meant to be beneficial. I can see no logic in expanding a block on editing Wikipedia articles that fall undertheremit of AA2 into a block on any discussion whatsoever about any subject connected (in whatever remote way) to Armenia on editor's talk pages. If you can ammend the sanction wording to make it apply just to edits to articles and their talk pages, I strongly suggest you should. Meowy15:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
What I said was what I meant. Obviously, I can't control off-wiki discussion in any way. "Including but not limited to" is a general construct, meaning "Just because I provided examples of some things it means doesn't indicate those are the only things it means." As to what a topic ban means, please see the below from its page:
“
The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia. Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic. For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", they are not only forbidden to edit the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather, such as:
weather-related articles such as Wind and Rain, including their talk pages;
weather-related project pages, such as WikiProject Meteorology;
weather-related parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with weather: the section entitled "Climate" in the article New York, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is not;
discussions or suggestions about weather-related topics anywhere on Wikipedia (including edit summaries), for instance a deletion discussion concerning an article about a meteorologist.
”
(emphasis added)
I think that makes quite clear that a topic ban would encompass user talk page discussion about an article. If you want to discuss it off-wiki, I can't stop you from doing that. SeraphimbladeTalk to me16:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
No, I'm afraid that would not be. A topic ban is a ban on editing or discussing a topic, and it means to stay away from the topic area in general, not just specific articles. You certainly are welcome to pursue it further, as you stated, if you still disagree, though I am unclear on why Gazifikator cannot file an appeal on his own behalf if filing one is desired. It is not a violation of the topic ban to file an appeal or ask for clarification/reconsideration on the sanction, and he wouldn't be sanctioned for that. SeraphimbladeTalk to me16:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't know Gazifikator's opinion on the matter, but I'll suggest he makes an appeal and, depending on the result, then a reconsideration for that particular part of the sanction. The remit of AA2 is so broad that it does not compare to the "weather" example. Imagine banning someone against mentioning anything to do with America, Canada, Mexico, Russia and any of the other countries bordering the Atlantic or Pacific, or any of the inhabitants of those countries, anything at all to do with English literature, and anything at all written in English, that is the equivalent of AA2 if that first "A" stood for America rather than Armenia. Meowy16:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
He is certainly welcome to do that. In terms of the scope of sanctions on ARBAA2 in general, you could also request a clarification from ArbCom about that, if you wanted to. I do appreciate that you took the time to clarify a grey area before diving in, I'd very much prefer not to see any more trips to AE over this. SeraphimbladeTalk to me17:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
The Vanishing Spring Light deleted entry
The entry for the documentary film "The Vanishing Spring Light" was not meant in any moment as an advertising tool. As you can read in the entry, it explains the process of production and its relevance within the academic and film production milieu, which makes a case for having a wiki entry, as part of the ongoing process of production of knowledge. I do realize it was missing citations, quotations and such. It was a work in progress. If you could please indicate to me how to properly format the entry I will appreciate. Thanks for your time.
Ok.., I've spend some time on the guidelines and such and now I'm more aware of the process involved for creating an entry. Unfortunately, as I didn't know, I didn't save my entry in the sandbox. Could you send me my deleted entry, so I can modify it..??, also, could you provide me with explanations as to why my entry was deleted..??. Just name few examples, I don't expect to borrow much time from your busy life. Thanks..!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arroyuky (talk • contribs) 15:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately this entry cannot be restored anywhere because significant portions of it were copy-pasted directly from IMDb. This violates our policy on copyright, and we do not allow copyright violations anywhere on Wikipedia, including userspace sandboxes. Articles must be written entirely in your own words, except that you may use short quotations or excerpts from copyrighted and nonfree sources, if and only if you attribute them properly to their source. Even text under a free license or in the public domain may not be copied without proper attribution, this is plagiarism and also violates many free license terms. Under no circumstances may an unattributed copy-paste or very close paraphrase be used.
As to the spam/advertising, here are some examples:
"The Vanishing Spring Light is a film about a family's love and loss, obligation and attachment, guilt, transformation and destiny." This is not a film poster, that's pure marketese, and is also a personal opinion unless attributed. Also, plot summaries should not be "teasers", they should summarize (summarize, however, not recreate blow-by-blow) the entire plot, including the ending/conclusion of the story.
"The Vanishing Spring Light is a multi-award wining feature documentary..." Pure marketese.
"...the most awarded and prestigious film produced by the Mel Hoppenheim School of Cinema at Concordia University, as it has earned the following prestigious awards: IDFA 2011 AWARD FOR FIRST APPEARANCE, the JORIS IVENS AWARD and the FUNDING AWARD BY THE ASIAN CINEMA FUND at the 16th Busan International Film Festival." Right out of a glossy brochure.
" However, this documentary proves that the underrated category of "student film", can also stand for significant and relevant work." What reliable source said that? We can't just put editorials in articles, we just reflect what sources had to say.
"...as they partly shot that street for their award-wining short documentary "In the Way to the Sea", in which Tao Gu was director and Xun Yu "Fish" was director of photography." Yet more "award-winning". That's a marketese term, we don't slap "award-winning" on everything that's won an award.
If you'd like to create an appropriate article, firstly, the film would need to pass our notability guidelines. That would mean that multiple reliable sourcesnot having any interest in or relation to the film or filmmaker have covered the film to a reasonable degree of depth. If that's not the case, we cannot accept an article on the film at all. If such sourcing does exist, make sure that you restrict your writing to what the sources have to say, and do not insert personal knowledge, opinions, or commentary, and that the tone is neutral. If you'd like to write it in a sandbox first and ask for a review, you certainly can do that, and let me know if you have any questions. SeraphimbladeTalk to me16:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia Help Survey
Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.
Was this investigation that resulted in a block backed up by any evidence in the form of IP addresses? Meowy20:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
See [11]. Obviously, Tiptoety cannot and will not disclose the exact technical evidence found, because this would violate the privacy policy. But generally speaking, if a checkuser marks a correlation confirmed, it means there was indisputable evidence that the two accounts were operated by the same person. SeraphimbladeTalk to me09:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
It is just that find it unlikely that an editor would be so stupid as to create an account the same day as he is blocked, and immediately recommence editing exactly the same article in exactly the same way. Is there any such thing as indisputable evidence? This seems to be an easy way of getting rid of editors. First identify target editor to be topic banned. Get the target editor topic banned. Create a sockpuppet account that same day. Use that account to make edits in the same articles and with the same editing aims that the topic banned editor had made. Use those edits to get the target blocked completely. Except for the final coup de grâce, all the Gazificator sockpuppet investigations were instigated by Antique Rose, who was prompted to pursue the matter by Branschwedt [[12]] and Andriabenia [[13]], two of the 65 known sockpuppet accounts of Satt2 and thus made by an individual well versed in setting up fake accounts and gaming the system. Meowy21:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
If the checkuser confirmation were not present, I would've considered the possibility of a joe job as well. But the chances that someone who doesn't know Gazifikator could convincingly falsify the technical details of his Internet connection and machine are slim, to say the least. It is also not the first time Gazifikator has used a sock. If you really think Tiptoety made an error, you can take the matter up with the audit subcommittee or ArbCom, who can review the technical evidence in detail, but I find that quite unlikely. SeraphimbladeTalk to me22:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Herbolzheim
Hello you have just rejected my AIV report stating his offensive edits are not vandalism. But how are they not? He has gone on another user's talk page and written a blatant personal attack against me making some very serious allegations which are not true. Is there anywhere else you could advise me to take this matter? Thanks Christian1985 (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I would like to inquire as to your justification in deleting the Magna Mundi article. Unless it was drastically changed from just a week ago when I last looked, I see no reason that it would be deleted as advertising. While the game has been cancelled as of yesterday, that does not warrant removing the page and certainly not under "Unambiguous advertising or promotion" or anything G11 criteria for speedy deletion warrants. AnjwalkerTalk03:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
The entire page is essentially a glossy brochure, a short (and pretty positive) description of the game, followed by a massive laundry list of Great FeaturesTM. There might be a suitable article to be written about it, if there are enough reliable sources that cover the game (or would-have-been game), but that one was nowhere near it. That was true from the very first article creation up to the last incarnation before tagging. It might've been fan editing rather than advertising, but unfortunately, at the end of the day, the two are indistinguishable and both result in a puff piece. SeraphimbladeTalk to me04:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their July 2012 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on July 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on July 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to eliminate the articles tagged in April, May and June 2011 from the queue and to complete all requests placed before the end of June. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 6 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", "Number of articles of over 5,000 words", "Number of articles tagged in April–June 2011", and "Longest article". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa and Stfg.
Hey Seraphimblade. Thank you for closing WP:AE#Igny. Could you add your signature in the closure box (or somewhere convenient) so your name is visible? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Seraphimblade, I noticed you closed the AE case and updated the ARBEE page. However, I see that you haven't updated the new names of ex-EEML members as other admins suggested. I am wondering what your decision (not to update the names) was based on. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I've no objection to it, just haven't gotten around to digging through the histories. That's not really a sanction so much as just a recordkeeping thing, so I didn't figure there was a need for a "ruling" per se on it. SeraphimbladeTalk to me16:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
If this is not a sanction, such things should be done by Arbcom clerks who know the system. For example, there is no need in duplicating records that have been already made in appropriate cases [14]. My very best wishes (talk) 17:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Good point. Since you seem to be familiar with that, can you please address to the clerk and ask them to update your, Nug's, Estlandia's, as well as the names of other ex-EEML users who continue to be active in the EE area?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I know of nothing saying that, and it seems pretty standard housekeeping to me, but I suppose a clarification could be requested from ArbCom on it. SeraphimbladeTalk to me17:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I fully agree with your description of the situation. BTW, upon meditation, I came to a conclusion that the decision about UUNC was made based on insufficient evidences. I presented my arguments on T. Canens talk page. Could you please have a look and comment on that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm willing to hear an appeal if UUNC wants to make one, but I would like to hear from him directly if there's to be one made. It's not a violation of the topic ban for him to appeal it. SeraphimbladeTalk to me04:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion, whereas you correctly summarised the opinion of the admins who analyzed this case, the admins themselves made obvious mistake (which I attribute to general complexity of this case). I am almost certain that this newbie is offended by this decision, and I will not be surprised if he will disappear from Wikipedia forever. However, I believe this "miscarriage of justice" sets a bad precedent and should be fixed in any event. If the admins are not willing to return to this issue on their own initiative, I am ready to appeal on behalf of UUNC.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Seraphimblade, while you are correct in stating there was consensus for topic banning UUNC, that cannot be said for topic banning Sander Säde. Looking at the admin discussion DQ was ambivalent, stating Sander may need to be blocked but was willing to let it go. AGK chimes with an opinion "in enforcing an arbitration decision, we rarely make copious assumptions of good faith" which is at odds with my own experience of AE and the leniency given in previous civility cases when the person apologises. But in any case AGK did not offer anything specific. T. Canens says he is disinclined to block and John Carter agrees. EdJohnston suggests a 3-month topic ban. So unlike Igny and UUNC where all four admins agree that an indef ban is in order, in the case of Sander three were ambivalent while only one suggests a specific sanction. Hardly consensus.
As the sanctioning admin, it is at your discretion to revise any sanction. Three months is way too long, particularly since his comment wasn't aimed at anyone in particular but rather successfully designed to get another editor to cool down, and he made clear that his comment was not aimed at any particular person and even apologised for good measure.
Given that most of Sander's edits are related to reverting vandalism (checkout his contribution history), and thus would be exempted from such a topic ban in any case, the whole thing rather pointless. Sanctions are meant to be preventive, not punitive, it is not as if he has been brought before AE multiple times for civility, that was the first time and he already apologised and the only person who could have been offended accepted that apology even though they were not offended, so I just don't get what this topic ban is suppose to prevent. He wasn't even the focus of the AE report, just basically collateral damage.
Nug, on your request, I've taken another look at over the discussion. As far as that comment, while it's not aimed at any particular person, it's pretty clearly aimed at a particular group of people. Saying "Oh look, that bunch of morons is at it again," when it's pretty clear who I'm talking about, isn't that much different than making the same nasty remark to a single person.
I think the fact that Sander apologized was taken into consideration (else there might have been more discussion of an immediate block to prevent further inflammatory remarks). However, as AGK said, AE is generally the point where AGF has been exhausted, ArbCom has already had to lay down sanctions because of persistent and severe misconduct, and a bright line has been drawn that any more misconduct will lead to being sanctioned, even if such would under other circumstances be shrugged off as an isolated incident.
You are correct that there was certainly no consensus to block Sander, but there are significant differences between a block and a topic ban. Sander would only be blocked for a violation of the topic ban, and if no violations occur, will not be blocked for that reason at all. He is welcome to continue editing in unrelated areas during the ban, and to return with appropriate caution to the Eastern Europe area once it expires.
As to consensus of the discussing administrators, here is why I read the consensus as I did.
DQ stated that a block was probably called for, but that he may be willing to forego sanctions on this occasion. He also, however, stated that he was unsure of his position and was open to others reconsidering. He did not find that there wasn't a breach, only that we might ignore the one that had occurred.
AGK then commented, and while not stating flat out that he disagreed that no sanctions should be applied, stated that AGF isn't as much a consideration at AE. This is the relevant piece from the header there, that supports what he says: "Enforcement is not "dispute resolution". ArbCom decisions are the last stop of dispute resolution. ArbCom has already decided that the actions and behaviors in the remedies are not constructive to our purpose of building an encyclopedia and has ruled they should not recur. The question here is whether or not that prohibition was breached." AGK is not saying we shouldn't assume good faith, just that unlike in other cases, where we might be inclined to shrug off isolated instances of bad behavior, AE by definition applies to areas that are so volatile ArbCom has had to step in and draw clear boundaries. My read on this is that he is stating that if a breach was made, he is in favor of some type of sanction, even if an apology was later made, and that the apology would be considered only as a mitigating factor rather than to get anyone totally off the hook. (Note: While AGK is an arbitrator, he neither stated nor indicated that his statement was an official one on behalf of the entire ArbCom, and I therefore read his comment as just one from an uninvolved admin.)
T. Canens also expresses that he is disinclined to block Sander, but that he is open to other types of sanctions being applied.
John Carter stated "I tend to agree with T. Canens above on pretty much all his points."
EdJohnston then made the suggestion as to what specific form the sanctions against Sander should take. By this point, there was broad support that Sander had breached the restrictions and was subject to sanctions, even though no one had proposed a particular one yet. Ed's proposal did not attract any opposition or dissent from those who had previously proposed that some type of sanction was likely, nor did anyone else comment in opposition.
After reading the discussion again, I stand by my read of the discussion, and that there was consensus that Sander breached the restrictions and that sanctions were appropriate. Sander was, given the mitigating circumstances, sanctioned less harshly than the others involved (a time limited ban rather than indefinite), so I think those circumstances were properly taken into account by the admins deciding on the results.
Finally, the fact that Sander was not the original focus of the thread does not affect the outcome. AE examines the behavior of everyone involved in the incident, and it is not uncommon for findings to be made that several editors have violated restrictions. SeraphimbladeTalk to me15:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Regrettably, I have to agree. Although Sander Sade apologized, he brought his apologies just to me, so I have no moral right to appeal his sanctions in general (as I planned to do initially). Whereas I do not find the sanctions reasonable, taking into account that they are relatively mild, I'll probably abstain from appealing.
BTW, I, nevertheless, would like to know your opinion on UUNC: if the admins are not intended to return to this question on their own initiative, can I appeal on behalf of UUNC?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Seraphimblade made a good summary of the admin views, in my opinion. UUNC (talk·contribs) might have gotten a lesser sanction if he'd given a better explanation for how he arrived in the discussion. A brand new editor who shows up with guns blazing in a hotly disputed area usually gets limited tolerance. I don't think we should accept a third-party request for review. If UUNC wants to appeal, it's up to him personally. If he feels like making contributions to Wikipedia in other areas, he could build up a record that might justify lifting the sanction. EdJohnston (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Do you imply policy prohibits new accounts to join talk page discussions even when no RfCs or votes are open? Do you realize that whole evidence about UUNC is built on his own statement "I was invited to comment"? Whereas I agree that the first instance of disruptive behaviour by UUNC would warrant sanctions against him, I do not see even a single example of UUNC's disruptive activity. In that sense, it would be more correct to say that that user joined my behaviour, not Igny's (I am not talking about his position, which seems to be, or initially was, somewhat different; I am talking about his behaviour). In connection to that, do you see any problem with my behaviour, and, if not, then why UUNC was sanctioned for the same behaviour?
Why would UUNC know about EEML if he is legitimately a brand-new editor who just has interests in this topic area? Surely EEML is ancient history for most people. UUNC should avoid dropping hints that he is a sock. 18:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Frankly speaking, I more care about the procedure than about UUNC. As you can see, I also expressed a concern about sanctions against Sander Sade, although he definitely belongs to the opposite camp. Regarding UUNC, I, along with Igny, would not be surprised to learn that he was someone's sock, however, as my analysis demonstrated, he is unlikely a sock of some of present or past participants of this dispute. If you have an idea whose sock he might be, I would be grateful if you started SPI. I don't want my username to be compromised as a result of my actions in support of a sockpuppet.
Biophys suggested that UUNC can be someone from Russian Wikipedia who decided to create a new account here, so he could be quite familiar with EEML. In addition, the story about EEML is widely known outside Wikipedia, so it is not necessary to be a WP user to become familiar with it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
PS. Frankly speaking, I myself am surprised that UUNC ignored my request to explain who concretely invited him. I agree that that would help to resolve a situation, but, taking into account that UUNC committed no violation of our policy, I don't think we have a right to insist on disclosing of the information UUNC is not willing to share. BTW, do you think it make sense to invite him to comment on this discussion?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
PPS. Ed, I've just realized that you seem to overlook the fact that I explained about Miacek/Estlandia in my 19 June post [15]. UUNC mentioned EEML on 22st of June. I believe two days is a sufficient time to make independent research based on the clues found in my post. In addition, Igny explained me about Estlandia even earlier, and I am pretty sure UUNC was reading Igny's talk page. All of that demonstrates that you need to read all of that more carefully. I fully realise that my posts are too wordy, and I apologize for inconvenience, however, I believe, my posts contain important information admins should take into account.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Paul, you're most welcome to ask him to comment on the discussion, and that's why I stated I'd prefer to hear from him and have held off on a final determination pending that. The only piece of information we are missing is his statement. However, I will say that in the absence of any clarification, he made a statement that could easily indicate meatpuppeting, he has refused to clarify that when it became problematic, and policy pretty clearly states that editors indistinguishable from another may receive the same sanctions as the other, whether sock or meatpuppets. Unless he can give an awfully convincing alternate explanation for what's going on here, I'm inclined to stick with the consensus at the discussion that it is exactly what it looks like. SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Seraphimblade, I'll ask him to comment, but, in the case if he will remain silent (again, I will not be surprised to learn that he simply quit Wikipedia after getting so unfair treatment), I still would like to appeal on his behalf.
You correctly noted that "policy pretty clearly states that editors indistinguishable from another may receive the same sanctions as the other", however, in actuality the behaviour of UUNC was pretty distinguishable from Igny's behaviour in the most important aspect: UUNC never edit warred. Since the main reason of sanctions against Igny were his reverts, why had UUNC been sanctioned? I would go even further, UUNC's behaviour was indistinguisheable from my behaviour (extensive comments on the talk page, comments on noticeboards, comments on the AE page). Why UUNC was sanctioned and I was not?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Canvassing and meat puppetry are serious issues, because the recruitment of like minded participants distorts any discussion and brings unfair advantage to one side, it was the raison d'etre of the original WP:EEML case. The fact that you are so persistent in pursuing this demonstrates the powerful allure that such support brings to one's editorial position. --Nug (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Canvassing is primarily a violation by a person who has been engaged in canvassing, not by those who are canvassed. Re meatpuppetry, again, a user who has been invited to comment, joined a discussion and expressed his own opinion is hardly a meatpuppet. With regard to my humble person, could you please comment on contributions, not on a contributor? Not only this your notion is offensive, it is simply false: I defended Sander Sade also, however, since the sanctions imposed on Sander Sade are milder, and his treatment was less unfair, I don't want waste my time in his case.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Despite your repeated requests[16] UUNC has ignored these requests to identify who canvassed him and where. But it is clear that UUNC is not a new user, knowing how to link topics from other language wikis[17] is not something a newbie would know how to do, so obviously UUNC is a SOCK account of some existing user. --Nug (talk) 20:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Again, the example of user:The Last Angry Man demonstrates that the user whose behaviour had striking similarity with indefinitely blocked sockpuppeter appeared to be non-connected with him. Do not throw accusations in sockpuppetry if you have no rock solid arguments.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Can IP addresses be checked against users topic banned from the space or blocked? I wouldn't want to turn this into a fishing expedition regarding active editors. I wouldn't include Igny on that list, that case is closed. VєсrumЬа ►TALK01:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
@Vecrumba. Since I had no idea what "fishing expedition" was, I checked WP:SOCK. Apparently, what you propose is exactly what is called "fishing expedition" ("the use of CheckUser for a given user account without good cause specific to that user account") — and it is prohibited. If you have any idea on who can be a UUNC's possible sockmaster, provide your arguments, otherwise stop it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
(indent reset) Folks, checkusers will not tell you what IP address is associated with a given account. They may make a quiet block if they discover an IP address that's being frequently abused, but they won't tell you why or who it's for. It would be a severe violation of the privacy policy if they did otherwise. SeraphimbladeTalk to me02:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
