User talk:Gwickwire/Archive November 2012 (1)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the archive of messages on User_talk:gwickwire on November 09, 2012.


CVUA

Hey, thanks for your note. I'm happy to spend some time helping you "brush up". Seeing that you already have rollback rights, I'm guessing you've proved yourself competent in fighting vandalism in the past. I'm guessing (solely from the WikiTexas and Austin infoboxes on your user page) that you're in Texas and the Central Time Zone. I live in Atlanta, but am traveling over the next couple of weeks. I'll still be able to check WP and answer any questions you may have each day, but did want to let you know that I won't be online constantly during that time.

My name is Steve and if you're ready to go... I'll set you up a CVUA page in my user space that we'll use to communicate rather than posting to each other's talk pages. Just give me the word and I'll set it up. Vertium When all is said and done 13:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Gwickwire. You have new messages at Vertium's talk page.
Message added 13:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jeffrey Ajluni Submission

Hello. I'm very confused as to why this submission was yet again declined. It is supported very well with "reliable" sources. Rather than just say that it isn't, please maake clear the SPECIFIC chnages and/or deleations that need to be made in order for it to acceptable. The frustartiong thing is the countless number of submissions that have no sources and virtually no references that are already on this site. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bucafan1359 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Did you happen to look at my specific page for if I declined your AFC? There I have suggestions about how to go about fixing your submission. I also have a specific way you must post on my talk page for an appeal to be looked at by me. One of those things is a link to the article, which I do not see. Please go to the page linked above and follow the instructions there. gwickwire | Leave a message 16:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Joost van der Vleuten

This page should not be speedily deleted because I emailed Joost van der Vleuten and he agreed to use his content. He told me he emailed permissions@wikimedia.org Ticket#2012101910014113 and got a reaction back from Robert Chen saying it was ok.

So I hope the content that has been deleted is still available somewhere, cause it was a lot of research work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donjuanez (talk • contribs) 12:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not the right person to ask about that. The deleting administrator can find the information and "userfy" it to a page in your userspace that won't be indexed by search engines, isn't part of the encyclopedia, etc. Jimfbleak can help you with that, as he was the administrator that deleted the page. Here's a link to his user talk page where you can request that the page be userfied. However, please realize that your request may be denied, as sometimes administrators do not feel comfortable userfying pages that are copyright infringement. If you did in fact email the permissions department, however, then make sure you mention that to Jimfbleak and he will more than likely be willing to userfy the page. Sorry for the trouble! gwickwire | Leave a message 16:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I've replied to Donjuanez if you are interested Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback-Section-I've decided

Hello, Gwickwire. You have new messages at RAIDENRULES123's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time.

DEIDRA C. (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.

Impromp2Music (talk) 23:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

DASH Industry Forum

I'm not sure what references you would like to see here. References that the DASH Industry Forum is established as stated (I just added a reference to an online news article for that) or something else? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by The mike luby (talk • contribs) 18:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

There needs to be a references section, and the references need to be formatted with <ref> tags. Then there needs to be {{reflist}} under the references heading. That way they show up correctly. Then I can go back and determine the validity of the sources. gwickwire | Leave a message 18:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Arundhati Roy - Sedition Charges - Edited

Hey, I have made it crisp and simple. This should be clear for the readers. Thnx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockthemind (talk • contribs) 18:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Arundhati Roy - Sedition Charges - Re - edited

I have re-edited the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockthemind (talk • contribs) 19:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Re-submission

Hello Gwickwire ~ I have taken the day to inquire from other article writers who cite offline sources such as news and books as to how to cite them as reliable sources within articles. Could you please take another look at my article and see if I am on the right track? I believe that I am ... as other members have agreed on various talk pages. You did say that once I had made these corrections you would review it again and approve it. Others have also taken up the torch and assisted me in editing the article ~ many edits are not mine, so I hope you will see if they also add to its improvement. Could you take the time and see? thank you ~ I appreciate it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Aaron_Robinson

Impromp2Music (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Ajluni

I have reviewed it 100 times. I have been trying to give credit to Mr. Ajluni's career. Everything is done as required. The article is clear, credible and accurate. Every word of the article is supported by credible references as defined by Wikipedia. If you can't support your decline with VERY SPECIFIC examples of what is wrong rather than convienant and vague references to "uncreduble sources" than please do your job responsibly and approve the article. Being accurate is one thing, being unreasonable is another. Please approve this article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bucafan1359 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Gwickwire. You have new messages at Go Phightins!'s talk page.
Message added 21:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Go Phightins! 21:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Reply

Thank you for your insight, yes I meant for editing. But thank you for the other options relating to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brybry1999 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

AfC declined (continued)

The AfC declined page list a mutlitude of examples, therefore I am uncertain which you are rferring to. Still, I removed two of the edits you requested (linkedin and webmart); however, I don't agree with you that "The Sports Business Journal" and "The Sports Business Daily" are not credible sources. You must not be aware that these publications are the most esteemed and respected media sources if the sports industry. They are the most credible sources to site for such an article. Hopefully we may now proceed and publish. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bucafan1359 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I do thank you for removing the social network and forum posts as references. Now, to the topic of the Sports Business Journal. On first glance, they looked like unreliable sources. But, I did go ahead and go look at them afterward, earlier today, and I will allow them in the article. However, please try to cite the online version if possible. Currently, the citations point to mobile versions of the website, and a full online version would be better. Also, all of the citations are duplicated at the end. I think this is because you have a {{reflist}} template at the bottom, and then added the references manually at the bottom as a bullet list. I will take care of this for you. Other than that, please check the Wikipedia page on link rot and how to fix it. Once you take care of the bare links, there's only one more step. See if you could split the information up into sections. Some sections may be "personal life", "pro career", "early life", etc. If you can't do this due to lack of information, that's okay. I can still approve the article and other editors and yourself can work on it at a later time. Thanks for being so patient with us here! gwickwire | Leave a message 02:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your assistance. I am really not very skilled at this and the link rot page is very confusing to me. I don't really understand what it is saying to do. It is very complicated. As far as your request to break out the information into sections, aside from where he went to school, it really all speaks to his career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bucafan1359 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Okay that's totally fine, in regards to sections, I completely understand. On the links, what it asks you to do is make sure you put information in the citation other than the link. If you click at the top of the edit window on "cite", then under "templates" click what you are citing, it comes up with a box for you to put in information on what you want to cite, and then makes the citation. Make sure you delete the old citation first, and then put your cursor where you want the software to insert it. That way, if the link changes, people can still find the page based on the website it was on (like this userpage is on wikipedia.org), the title of the page (for example User:Bucafan1359 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), and the author (if there is one). Fill in as much of the information as you can. It may take a little searching. Again, thanks for your patience! gwickwire | Leave a message 03:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
When you say "links" are you referring to the numbers that reference the footnotes? Also, what are you referring to when you say "citation"? I guess I'm not following what I am supposed to do here. The numbers point to article links. Are you saying I need to somewhere explain what the article is saying? Isn't that covered off in the body of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bucafan1359 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, when I said links I meant the footnotes. Citations are the references you use to source your article. The websites, in other words. You need to follow my instructions above to make the website show up with the information. Go in the article edit window to a place where you have a website, copy it, then open the citation helper (instructions above), and follow the instructions. This will place a long long citation in your article, but that's what we require here at Wikipedia. I will go do one for you right now. gwickwire | Leave a message 03:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't believe I am doing it correctly. Whomever wrote this program assumed everyone enerting data went to Harvard. I will do my best. Otherwise, I give up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bucafan1359 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Update - I do give up. Now I am just losing all the links I worked hard to find. This was just supposed to be a simple, honest addition to your site. If this is all required it should either be easy to understand, or someone should do it for us. Thanks for trying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bucafan1359 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
If you'd like, I can go back later and fix them myself. I do appreciate your work on this. I'll go back and find any links that got removed accidentally, and I'll go in and format them correctly, and then approve the article. Is this okay? gwickwire | Leave a message 14:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you very much. Will it just be posted once completed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bucafan1359 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, once I get around to it I will make sure there still aren't any huge issues with it and I'll accept it. gwickwire | Leave a message 17:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


Hello. Just checking the status of this entry.


Your last message above said you would take care of the final changes. I don't know how to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bucafan1359 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

My bad... been swamped

Hi, got swamped with a work project and have been putting in 14-16 hour days on this. I will get you feedback on your academy page within the next 48 hours. My apologies! Vertium When all is said and done 17:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Nope, nope totally fine! That's one of the reasons I still wanted you after you said you'd be swamped, because I personally don't have tons of time to devote to this. Haha. So, yeah, whenever it's convinient for you is fine with me! Unless I do something so bad that you feel the need to tell me immediately. Other than that, I've just been Huggling and looking through some old RfA's and helping with AfC and edit requests some. Thanks again! gwickwire | Leave a message 17:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Ginza Rba

Hello Gwickwire, you wrote me about deleting some edits in the site of "Ginza rba". It was not a mistake when I did it, but simply to avoide feeding false information about the english translation of Ginza Rabba by Prof. Dr. Alsaadi. There is a person who tries to insert incorrect information and personal comments about this translation in order to make people purchase his own translation. This person lives in Australia and he also tried to make a campaign for his book on Mandaean yahoo-groups etc. by attacking Mandaean persons, especially Prof. Dr. Alsaadi and his team blaming them to be "participated by a work which was originally commissioned by Saddam Hussein". All this kind of propaganda about other works eventhough his own work is actually not a translation of the origin in Mandaic (I can send you proofs if required) as he claims here in Wikipedia. In my opinion, such behaviour does not comply with the standards of wikipedia and the aim of publishing correct information, not for personally use of advertising.

Sincerely,

Sam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drabsha1 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Attempting to Edit...

Good morning,

First of all, let me set the stage by saying that I know NOTHING about computers. Please HELP ME...like you are talking to a child.

That being said, I am a paramedic in Ottawa, ON Canada and was asked by my chief to clean up our Wiki page "Ottawa Paramedic Service". There was originally one orange caution bar along the top of the page stating that it required additional citations and needed to be wikified. In my attempt to rid us of the caution bar I dilligently set about "Wikifying" our page by creating Wikilinks to other wikipages to define some of our language. I believed that I was doing what was asked of us, but then a second caution bar appeared stating that our page now reads like an advertisment. I don't think that I have pushed any sort of agenda or propaganda...how do I get rid of this????

Thank you so much! --Gillian.cross (talk) 13:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Knowledge translation

Hi Gwick, just letting you know that I posted a question on the articles for publication page.PublicanHealth (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

SwiftKey article decline

Hi. My submission for SwiftKey was just declined for reading like an advertisement. Will you please elaborate? I used the Swype page as a guide for how to create the SwiftKey page (as both are a third party keyboard for Android it seemed reasonable). I do not see how my submission is so different compared to the Swype page with regard to content. I kept all of the information factual. I started from it's beginning and explained its evolution. The only thing I see that could possibly be interpreted as advertising is listing the awards SwiftKey has won. Please let me know what needs to be adjusted (or removed if necessary) so the page may be published. Thanks in advance for your response.

EDIT: I guess the other major difference from the Swype page is the description of the evolution of the 3 versions of SwiftKey. I feel like this is no different than describing the updates to the Android operating system such as describing ICS or Jelly Bean in the Android version history. I'm just trying to explain my thought process because I really don't understand why it has been declined. Again, thanks in advance for your input. G what (talk) 00:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Lorimerlite page

Hello, you mentioned that by releasing information on wikipedia I give up rights to intellectual property, however this is only true if the information is released before the filing date of a patent application; as far as I know. If this is truly the case could you please direct me to exactly where this is stated? Melissa Bennett (talk) 06:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Copy-written material is very different in nature from patented material, both refer to different kinds of intellectual property. I have read up further on the matter, and I think you'll find that my previous assertion stands. I'm not intending this to come across as flippant, I'm just continuing our interesting debate. Melissa Bennett (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:BMW N54

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:BMW N54. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 03:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

OH I ALMOST DIED!

Hey Gwick!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's me RAIDENRULES123! I'm sooo sorry that I changed my account. I forgot my password, then it expired! Oh thank god that i found you! DEIDRA C. (talk) 22:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

My page was deleted

Hi Qwickwire

First off thank you for your time. My name is Amanda Seales and I am writing because my Wikipedia page was recently delated and I'm not quite sure why. My page was originally started by someone else as I am a television personality on VH1 & MTV, etc. However there was a notation at the top of the page that said it needed more citation and it was contradictory (it was also incorrect in some instances.) I took upon myself to correct the errors and added factual, unbiased, information that simply made the article more informative and to my surprise is has recently been deleted. Would you be able to provide me with any information on why it was and if it is possible to be reinstated how to go about making that happen?

Thank you again amanda — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aseales4276 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey, and sorry it took me a while to reply. I have absolutely no clue why your page was deleted, as I was not the deleting admin. If you go to the page now, there should be a message that says "a page of this title was previously deleted". Look below that and look for the admin's name there. Ask them to userfy the page for you if you want. Sorry! gwickwire | Leave a message 22:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

What to do?

Hi Gwickwire ... I am so sad. The article that you approved after all of my hard work (and others), was just destroyed and completely re-constructed by a very aggressive reviewer ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Robinson_%28composer%29 ~ I can't believe it. I understand contributors will go in and fix problems and also update information, but this reviewer completely took out, re-arranged, and stripped my article of what was most important in getting you to improve it. As it stands now, they took out all book references that actually proved my subject "notable" and has placed "citation needed" all through the article ~ the same article that actually previously proved what was already stated ... but since it's all been erased, the reviewer has actually made the entire article a mess. Could you please take a look at it? She even re-stated that my subject was an "author" when the title says: (composer) ~ she states that he is known for the book ... which is completely untrue. Would you have even approved it if I had submitted it in this form? I'm so saddened by what has happened ... Impromp2Music (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... I think the problem was that you had a lot of book references. Don't feel bad. I'll go take a look at it when I have more of a chance. gwickwire | Leave a message 22:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Fork bomb discussion about original research

Hi, you said to contact you if there wasn't meaningful discussion after a week. It's been a good two weeks now, and nothing new has surfaced (see here). What should the next step be? Thanks. — cdwn 12:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll go take a look, thanks for the reminder. gwickwire | Leave a message 22:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Check out your academy page

Awesome job! I've commented on your "challenging ones", and if there's any question remaining, I'm happy to talk it out. Talk soon! Vertium When all is said and done 01:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies! gwickwire | Leave a message 22:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Comparisons of life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Comparisons of life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 04:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. The discussion on its continued use concluded with consensus in favour of its removal, without prejudice against future reinstatement based on consensual discussion. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Wifione Message 04:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

how to delete an image

File: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Upper_BoxTilt.jpg

Had trouble with persmisions. Replaced with image on Wikimedia Commons that has proper titling (and wanted to have all my images there.)

thanks, Plarkin50 (talk) 09:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It looks like someone has already tagged it with a permissions issue, so there's nothing you need to do. It will be deleted after a few days, when a commons administrator gets around to it. Thanks! gwickwire | Leave a message 19:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Eric Dill

Hello Gwickwire,

I have just posted more evidence on the webpage of Eric Dill. Could you please tell me whether there are enough or I need to give more evidences?

I look forward to receiving your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwdimov (talk • contribs) 15:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I see no real improvement on the edit request. Please realize that sometimes, there's something that another editor or I may agree with, but is against policy, so we cannot add it. If you can add a reliable source to the request, please reopen the request. Also, go ahead and please reply at the request, not here, that way our conversation (you, me, and the other editors) stays there. Thanks. gwickwire | Leave a message 20:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

did you get my edit request i posted on union city California talk page Balmoralgirl2 (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thanks

update to your request on Union city Government

i respond to your request also to note Carol Dutra-Vernaci has been name new mayor of Union city and should be added .Balmoralgirl2 (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Jeffrey Ajluni

Hello. In your last message you mentioned you would post the submission once you made chnages to the provided reference list. Was this done? I don't see it listed/ Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bucafan1359 (talk • contribs) 07:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I left you a note at the very bottom of your submission. I formatted one of the references, but I have to leave it up to you to do the rest. After that's fixed I'll take another look. gwickwire | Leave a message 13:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gwickwire/Archive_November_2012_(1)&oldid=1148699508"