User talk:Revent

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Trout this user Were this user to act in a foolish, trollish, or dickish way, he is open to being slapped with a large trout.

WP:EPICFAIL

Contents

Thank you (have a kitten)![edit]

Kitten (06) by Ron.jpg

Just wanted to say thank you for the input on my user page - I'm a bit lost here (there's a pretty steep learning curve), so help from those more experienced than me is always welcome!

Gisou94 (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Kitten-stare.jpg

u r kewl. See also this, which is amongst the future of automated citation formatting in VE and part of the direction toward normalizing citations, eventually into wikidata. (dtm from IRC)

Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 23:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)



Copy pasting at Lake Superior National Estuarine Research Reserve[edit]

T'was me. You are up to speed on what is allowed. Please see the article talk. I am rather nervous about this and feel quite guilty, but think I've done it right. Many thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: The way you attributed it was perfectly fine, except that the use of things like {{{url|}}} in the actual article was breaking the template... I've made an edit to fix that, and it now all shows up properly. I'm guessing that you used substitution, or something, that mangled it.
Personally I prefer to put the attribution before the reflist, but that's really just a matter of a layout choice... I just think it 'looks better' visually. Reventtalk 01:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise will be along to revert shortly[edit]

Hi FYI. 95.153.112.50 (talk) 12:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

If or when he does come along, him and others should note that they explicitly do not have my permission to revert edits from my talk page without my request, no matter who made the edit or what excuse they want to use, unless it is something that is actually required to be removed by a policy such as BLP. Reventtalk 21:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

17:29:26, 15 August 2014 review of submission by Dsouzaronald[edit]


Dsouzaronald (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Dsouzaronald (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)Ronald This is my first submission. please tell me what's missing or point me to a guideline I need to follow

@Dsouzaronald: Hi. Sorry it was unclear, but the links in the red 'submission declined' (which are admittedly not obvious) actually explain the issue. In order to have a Wikipedia article, an organization must not merely exist, but be 'notable'... it must have been covered in multiple independent reliable sources, such as newspapers, magazines, books, or television news, and the article needs to use those sources. This is because a core content policy of Wikipedia is that information much not merely be correct, but must be verifiable by the readers from trustworthy sources that are independent of the subject.
Relevant links would be be guidance given in the "Your First Article" essay at WP:YFA, the "identifying reliable sources" guideline at WP:RS, and "referencing for beginners" at WP:REFBEGIN. You should note that it is stated in the reliable sources guideline that "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves...so long as...the article is not based primarily on such sources."
Also, you need to ensure that your draft article demonstrates that the organization meets the criteria for the notability of organizations given at WP:ORG, which in an of itself boils down to the existence of reliable, independent sources. Reventtalk 22:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

00:28:28, 16 August 2014 review of submission by Dcgreene88[edit]


Hi I recently submitted an article for review, about a production group "The Order". It was declined. The original submission about "The Order" was made in error by a friend. That one should be disposed of and not considered. This recent submission is accurate in small detail subject matter and sources. What would be the proper steps to ensure that this gets fixed so that this submission is published. Thanks in advance.

Dcgreene88 (talk) 00:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dcgreene88: It's inconvenient for the reviewers when a draft can't be moved to the appropriate name because there is another one in the way... not that this is a fault of yours. Since the other draft contains text that you reused, it needs to be attributed to the other user for copyright reasons, even though that account was blocked for the username issue. What needs to be done, really (in order to fix the edit history), is for you to cut-and-paste the 'content' (not the afc header, just the actual draft) from User:Dcgreene88/sandbox over the content in Draft:The Order, and then resubmit. The software will then only consider the things you actually changed to be the 'net' edit, attribute those changes to you, and attribute the other content to the other account. My declining your draft was much more a 'technical' thing than due to any assessment of the actual content submitted (your draft is 'technically' an unintentional copyright violation). Thanks. Reventtalk 02:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

05:07:10, 16 August 2014 review of submission by Edmundtee[edit]


Hello Revent,

Thank you for taking the time to review my first try at putting up a page. Also, thank you for the comments on the MightyCall draft.

My name is Edmund Tee and I am the VP of Comms at MightyCall.

I apologized for if I caused offense - my intention is not to promote the company, but to provide information on our company just like what our competitors have done on Wikipedia. What I did was studied what Grasshopper and RingCentral did, and emulated the tone and style they had. I figured if they were allowed to talk about their companies, we would to. I guess I missed something!

What can I do better?

1. Remove all reference to a rebranding? If so, done! 2. Remove product information? Here I referenced Grasshopper's product information, and followed suit. I can certainly remove our product information, but could you help me understand what Grasshopper did right, and what I did wrong? 3. Wait till we get more third party coverage to cite? If so, we'll try again in six months when we have grown up some more.

Thank you again for your time.

Edmund Tee Edmundtee (talk) 05:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Edmundtee:While I have not looked at those other specific articles, the 'generic' answer would be that they have probably written unacceptable articles without going through the review process that have not yet been noticed (we have over 4 million articles, and many fewer active editors). It is perfectly allowable to write about a subject you are connected with, as long as you disclose the conflict of interest, and especially if you disclose any paid connection with the subject.
As far as the specific article, Wikipedia articles are required to be written in a neutral, factual tone...you can't make statements that indicate the 'importance' or 'quality' of a subject without them being directly cited to a reliable, independent source that makes that exact statement. You can't say "MightyCall is an innovative company", for example, but you can say "According to Whosis, MightyCall is an innovative company", followed by a citation to the independent source that makes that statement.
The 'factual' information about the rebranding is itself fine... it's merely that we often see new articles written by companies as part of the advertising they engage in after a rebranding, and so the fact of it having just happened is a good indicator that the draft (or new article) was written by someone who is associated with the company. Again, this is allowed, as long as you disclose the fact. It so happens, also, that we see a lot of articles written about startup companies that are seeking investment funding written by people associated with the company, and, while I am not a lawyer, such statements without disclosure can actually have legal implications (at least in the US). So, disclosure is best all around.
Basic product information is allowable, as long as you are, again, neutral and factual, and do not provide specific pricing information.
It does seem, though, that you should probably wait to try to push the article live until there is more third party coverage. The draft as it stands would probably (though it might take a while to get noticed) be deleted as a article, as being about a company that is not notable. Once you have been 'taken note of' by third parties, however, then cite those sources and you won't need much work... the draft is not 'itself' particularly objectionable. FYI, draft articles are allowed to 'remain' until they have not been worked on for six months straight, so you will be able to update the draft over time with sources as they become available, and resubmit once you have enough to show that the company meets the requirements for notability given in WP:NCORP.
Just as a quick explanation, 'notability' in Wikipedia terms is not the same as the 'common' meaning... it largely is a measure of if there are enough independent sources about a subject that the article content can meet Wikipedia's content policies on the verifiability of information.
Thanks for your honest, and reasonable, response. It's unfortunately rare for companies that want an article to admit that they might not be, as you put it, 'grown up' enough for one. :) Reventtalk 05:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Just as a follow-up comment, I have now looked at the other articles mentioned, and they are, unusually, not bad at all. Sorry if my initial response came across as a bit cynical, but in most cases when people writing new articles about companies make statements such as yours, the articles they are looking at for comparison are appallingly bad. This is true enough that we have an entire page written about "do not try to use other articles to argue for the existence of yours" for the purpose of citing in such cases. In this case, though, you chose quite reasonable 'company stubs' to look at, and you should feel free to model yours after those (the sole exception being eVoice, where the list of 'features' should probably go away). I would simply say again that you should continue to update the draft article as you get media coverage, and once you have enough sources to show that MightyCall has been 'taken note of', feel free to resubmit the draft. We actually want content such as this, as long as the subject is notable and the content is not advertising, it's just very rare that the content submitted by companies about themselves meets those criteria, and the determination of some people to use Wikipedia as a free webhost for such content is sometimes frustrating. Reventtalk 05:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Vitruvian Barnstar Hires.png The Technical Barnstar
Your template work will help make all those Mexico TV lists so much better. Thanks for the advice and the templates! Raymie (tc) 08:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Copyvio needing attrib[edit]

Could you please help me with this one if you get a chance? [1][2] Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: Looking now. Reventtalk 10:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
@Anna Frodesiak: Done,[3] though I put the wrong license version at first. That license is explicitly described as CC-BY compatible, so it's not a problem even though it's 'technically' under Crown copyright. :) Reventtalk 10:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
@Anna Frodesiak: Er, not done, derp, didn't actually read and didn't realize you had removed it. Putting it bck now that the attribution is in. :) Reventtalk 11:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, thank you, and thank you. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Nerilie Abram copyvio still present[edit]

IMHO the copyvio re Nerilie Abram and http://www.antarctica.gov.au/science/climate-processes-and-change/antarctic-palaeoclimate/aurora-basin/people-in-the-field/nerilie-abram-driller-and-ice-core-chemist is still present. I haven't attempted to mark the article because of the deleted revisions. Mark Hurd (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Markhurd:I saw the 'similarity' there also at the time, but since the content was somewhat rewritten I didn't actually tag that part... it's poorly sourced, as it's her own comments, and uses 'fragments' of sentences directly, but it is cited, and it's not the kind of 'blatant verbatim' copying that was present in the revdel'd material. Unfortunately, a lot of the "Wikibomb2014" content is questionable on the same grounds... I've gotten sidetracked, but I still intend to go through the whole list and specifically check every article (sigh).
You shouldn't feel 'blocked' by the deleted revisions, as they were due to (verbatim) copying from entirely different sources, but I think a better solution would be to just reword things slightly so as to avoid the issue instead of actually removing the content. Reventtalk 19:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

UE 900/900s[edit]

Hello, you have helped me in the past to copyedit Bose SoundLink Bluetooth Mobile Speaker II. Could you please help me again? I have written an article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dmatteng/sandbox. Since I'm a native Russian speaker I always make grammar and structural errors in English, though I'm constantly trying to improve. I have also tried my best to be NPOV, but if you see anything that should be changed in this regard, your advise would be much appreciated. (And you have also my full permission to change anything in my sandbox.) Dmatteng (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm, tbh, a bit backlogged at the moment, but will take a look when I have time. Reventtalk 04:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for a reply, and thank you in advance for your input. Dmatteng (talk) 17:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

hey[edit]

freenode seems to be down and I'm going the same way but please look at that userpsgae you had me draft, user readded some stuff ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  06:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm keeping an eye on their contributions, to see if they figure it out. Hopefully I can get it sorted before they get too confused. Reventtalk 06:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
@Salvidrim!: See the contributions of Axshah95, they figured it out, might want to re-zap the user page. Reventtalk 22:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Socks[edit]

The sock drawer is more than IPs:

Those are just the ones since August. This is a long term SPI obsessed fan. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: I am aware, I'm simply stating that I don't think "I-am-unwritten" is actually the same person as the others, because the IP behind that account was making edits to other unrelated articles (from their IP) as well as simply trying to add a photo of him and his second wife to her article during the time period that the others were socking. Also, the person behind "Nkapoor21" also came to IRC during that time period, and came across in a completely different manner (much more argumentative, for one thing). I think this is a case of two fans who attend the same university and know each other, and the sockmaster told the other about being in a 'war' on Wikipedia about him. Again, I could be wrong, I just think this (newer) editor is somewhat clueless about what is ok and what isn't, and I'm trying to 'salvage' them before they get escalated to the same level of drama. Reventtalk 05:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Luciano Darío Vietto[edit]

Hi. The page under User:Kushalchavan/sandbox was not meant to be a AfC and the page Luciano Vietto currently exists in mainspace. Any edits done in the sandbox was meant to improve the article under the editor's course work. Please remove all AfC tags and return the page to the sandbox to avoid a duplicate of an existing page. Thank you. LRD NO (talk) 00:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kushalchavan: @LRD NO: Fixed, it's back where it belongs and the AfC header is removed. Sorry for the misunderstanding, it popped up in the "AfC submissions in userspace" cleanup category, and the script did not indicate it was a version of an existing article because the pagename was 'sandbox' instead of 'Luciano Vietto'. I also changed the {{user sandbox}} to {{draft article}}, which doesn't have the 'submit' button. Reventtalk 00:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Cheers for the revert. LRD NO (talk) 00:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The L235 quarterly everything barnstar
Hi revent. Please accept the quarterly L235 "Everything Barnstar" for being helpful on IRC, doing tons of maintenance work, like clearing out Category:Pending AfC submissions in userspace, and for being, in general, a great person. Thank you, and congrats. Cheers, Thanks, L235-Talk Ping when replying 04:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for Article Creation feedback[edit]

Hello Revent, thanks for your feedback on my article. As a newbie who's still learning to "walk, talk & breathe" around here, you helped clarify a lot for me. I am now currently working on the improvements you suggested. (PS: Sure hope I posted this in the right place! Haha)

WrittenInHeart (talk) 21:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback[edit]

Revent, thanks for the feedback - I've updated my User Page now. Digitalandrew (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Digitalandrew: Thanks. It's always nice to see subject 'experts' that are willing to be honest. :) Reventtalk 16:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for feedback[edit]

Thanks for your comments on Evolution’s second law of thermodynamics fallacy. It is very helpful to have made clear the reasons for refusal. You are correct; the subject is covered in Entropy and life. The “open system” argument is given there to explain “Schrodinger’s paradox”. Lehninger’s argument “that the ‘order’ produced within cells… is more than compensated for by the ‘disorder’ they create…” (excess entropy) is also given to reconcile the second law and evolution. What is lacking is this new understanding, that the above arguments, while correct, are not sufficient to explain what they purport to do. This leads to an important misconception. That evolution is able to overcome the second law is worthy of full understanding. It is noteworthy that the author of the main reference and one of the references used for this submission are cited in Entropy and life. That there is only a single main reference can be attributed to the newness of the insight (February, 2014) and the information has not had time to be disseminated. Is not asking for more than a single peer reviewed journal reference a very high standard? LEBOLTZMANN2

@LEBOLTZMANN2: Your draft article, User:LEBOLTZMANN2/sandbox, is written more in the form of an essay than an encyclopedia article, and Wikipedia is not the place for that. Also, you cannot use other Wikipedia articles as references. To be useful to readers (to be in context) the information you want to convey should be added to the existing article. Having a new article will do noting to correct the 'misconception' you are referring to, and I suspect the same thing is probably mentioned in several other articles without being fully explained.
By the way, please don't think I'm trying to be difficult on grounds of not 'understanding'... that the fallacy you are writing about is based on a gross misunderstanding is fairly obvious to anyone with a decent understanding of physics. That the article you're using in a source is in The American Biology Teacher instead of a scientific journal, also, makes it pretty blatant that it's just an explanation, and not 'original reseaarch'. It's simply that this is a case where your goal would be better served by improving the discussion of the matter in other places instead of writing a new article.
@FireflySixtySeven:, since you had previously declined this also, any comments? Reventtalk 23:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

A Barnstar For You[edit]

Vitruvian Barnstar Hires.png The da Vinci Barnstar
For the wonderful help you provide with all that code that I don't understand and never will. Thank you so much! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Just seen this - thank you :)

Think I may have just sent you another message on the same topic because I missed this response but I will try out your suggestions now.

Thanks again

LexieHoskins (talk) 12:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


07:37:27, 26 August 2014 review of submission by LexieHoskins[edit]


The page got rejected because it already exists. I edited the existing page but the edits were rejected. Theroadislong suggested that I should draft the revised article before submitting and then ask him/her or another editor to proofread it. I thought using userspace drafts would be a way to do this but now the page has been rejected because it already exists.

Please could you look at the content I provided and tell me if it will be approved if I edit the existing 'Cambridge International Examinations' page?

Thank you

LexieHoskins (talk) 07:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, the actual 'submission' process you used is specifically for brand new articles, not to ask someone to look at your proposed changes. The best place to do that would be on the talk page of the article itself, though I am willing to reread it (and will). I can't speak for what other editors will think, though. Reventtalk 07:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
After reading... I don't think any of the changes that the text you want to make are objectionable, other than a bit of copy editing for missing spacing. The only thing that Theroadislong seems to have been objecting to was your using an external link in the text of the article (which is not done). I think your changes to the text are an improvement. Reventtalk 07:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
@LexisHoskins: Ok, I did some quick fixes to your version, if you want to apply them to the 'live' one by cut-pasting over it should be fine. I don't think anyone will specifically object to the text changes, and I also ran a couple of scripts to fix the reference formatting. Just don't wipe out the headers, as it still is all primary sources Face-smile.svg Reventtalk 08:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
You are true helper. Thanks for helping me at IRC. CutestPenguin (Talk) 13:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

01:45:25, 27 August 2014 review of submission by Dave H Franks[edit]


I am not "requesting a re-review"; I am asking for further guidance from the reviewer who declined my submission of "Sword-grip and Scabbard-grip" on 25th August 2014. I thought that my article, which defines a pair of terms, which are applicable in many martial arts, and explains their derivation, was of a similar format to the articles on martial terms like "Horse stance", "Pinch grip tie" and "Knifehand strike" which already exist on Wikipedia. What need I do to get my article accepted ? Dave H Franks (talk) 01:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dave H Franks: I find it a bit hard to explain, exactly, except that your draft is very heavy on illustrations that essentially show the same thing, in lots of variations. It comes across as less of an encyclopedia article than what you would expect to see in a text on martial arts, in that there is more an illustration of 'how' in the second half than a discussion of 'what'. Also, as I'm not a member of the martial arts project, I would suggest you enter into discussion with them. I'm going to ping @PRehse:, as the member of the project who responded there, and see if he can give a clearer explanation.... he had essentially given the same response that I did in my decline, and he might be able to give you a better explanation, or point at how you can improve it. Reventtalk 02:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
@Dave H Franks: My initial comment was that it was a minor point of a particular martial art. I understand the importance of grips, the ease of classification into basic types and, for example in my own particular art, how those basic grips can easily expand. However, wikipedia is not a how to manual and the basic feeling from reading your submission is that you were introducing a terminology rather than describing something that is applied universally. More to the point I have never heard of those grips named in that way and your article does not make it clear at all where (ie. which martial arts) those terms are typically used. Is this original reasearch? Something else wikipedia does not support. The Aikido article and it its daughter Aikido techniques article list a number of grabs/attacks which could be expanded on in its own article. My advice there would be to keep it general, understand the non-universal nature of the names (even within aikido much less the wider martial arts world) and cut-down on the size and numbers of the photos (download speed is also non-universal). I hope that helps. One more observation - a smaller initial article often has a better chance of getting through to be expanded later. This is because it is easier to see the core notability and it certainly avoids a whole lot of hard work going nowhere.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Thanks for your help and advice on the 2000 Yountville earthquake article that I created.

Request on 07:37:07, 29 August 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Jaryn Sattefield[edit]


What should i change on article

Jaryn Sattefield (talk) 07:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jaryn Sattefield: The speedy deletion nomination for User:Jaryn Sattefield is because you may not have a copy of a draft article on your user page. I also reviewed the copy you submitted, which has been moved to Draft:Jaryn Satterfield, and left comments there. To be more specific, though...
  • You may not include external links inside the text of wikipedia articles
  • You may have a official link or two in 'external links', you may not spam links to dozens of pages
  • You need to reference the given material to reliable sources that are independent of you, so that it is verifiable by readers
  • You must have a sufficent number of such citations to show that you are notable
Please refer to WP:TUTORIAL for help with formatting, and to WP:YFA for directions on how to write an article.
Also, it is highly preferred that you not try to write about yourself, and most attempts to do so end up deleted. Please read WP:YOURSELF. Additionally, it is best to actually intend to be a Wikipedia editor, and gain experience, before you try to write any new article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free web host. Reventtalk 07:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

10:02:47, 29 August 2014 review of submission by Cicimau[edit]


Cicimau (talk) 10:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Cicimau (talk) 10:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC){{Draft: Ivan_Smolović waithing for re-review, with a lot of new sources. I hope now you will see the quality of this article and approve that. Wikipedia have a lot of bad created robot articles with bad sources. My article Ivna Smolović for sure deserve approving. This is my last try and last request. This article is for sure better that million other approved requests. I hope you know that and please approve my article.}}

@Cicimau: I'm afraid you misunderstood my decline, though I will not re-review it, but leave it to someone else. The sourcing was fine, and better than a lot of other stub articles on football players.... the problem is that to meet the criteria he has to have actually appeared in a game for MFK Košice, either as a starter or a substitution. Merely being signed doesn't qualify. Once he has, and it's in the article, then it can be immediately accepted, and in fact would have been fine as it was, with only that fact added. Reventtalk 10:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

10:34:00, 29 August 2014 review of submission by NeilRedburn[edit]


Hi, I have tried to cleanup the tone of the recent post, and have removed the contacts (my bad). Other than that, it should now read as a descriptive history of The RHADC. I have a problem with "citing reliable sources". The challenge is, there aren't any! This information is culled from Club archives (on paper) and data that has been on The Club's website for many years. I don't know how to rectify this to your satisfaction. Could you please advise or give give guidence. NeilRedburn (talk) 10:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

NeilRedburn (talk) 10:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

@NeilRedburn: Paper resources, as long as they were published (old books, newspaper articles, etc.) are perfectly acceptable as sources, they merely need to be referenced. See {{cite book}} and {{cite magazine}}. The website can be used to a limited degree, for simple non-controversial details, but the article may not be 'primarily' based on self published sources. It is simply a core content policy of Wikipedia that information must be verifiable by readers from published sources, but they do not have to be online, and it doesn't have to be 'easy'. If someone would have to travel to Bermuda , go to the library, and look at newspaper articles from the late 1800's, that is perfectly acceptable, as long as the references are to published, reliable sources. Hope that helps.
See WP:CITINGSOURCES and WP:REFBEGIN for more details. Reventtalk 10:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Editing of page[edit]


Hello you recently blanked a page I created and reasoned that it was copyright infringement. Can I redo your blank and request that you view the article once again after i edit it. I understand why it was done and i will work with it as soon as possible, making it wikipedia worthy.

thank you for your help :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by StangerManor (talkcontribs) 16:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

@StangerManor: Instead of re-declining it I've just blanked the specific part, and retrieved the previous decline notice from the history (they need to be visible to later reviewers). Please don't revert a blanking for a copyvio, the text can't legally be visible in the current version. A better solution is to simply retrieve the 'usable' parts from the history, and re-paste them into the current version. Before this is accepted, an admin will have to do a 'revision deletion' on the versions that contain the copied text. Reventtalk 06:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
@Revent: much appreciated, thank you!.

Request on 10:59:44, 30 August 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Kravitza[edit]


Hello! You've recently reviewed the page I've created on Danish singer Nikolaj Grandjean (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Nikolaj_Grandjean&action=edit&redlink=1), and it was not accepted on grounds of copyrighted materials usage. Now the page is removed completely. Is there any way for me to know which info exactly was copyrighted? And can I rewrite it without that material, so it can be accepted? Thank you in advance! Kravitza (talk) 10:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kravitza: Now that it has been deleted I cannot see it again, no, only an administrator can. The simple answer, though, is that all text that you find other places on the web is copyrighted, and you cannot cut-paste it into Wikipedia articles. Yes, you can rewrite and resubmit the article, and you might be able to get a copy of the 'usable' material, if there was any, from the deleting administrator, user:FreeRangeFrog. Reventtalk 11:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Request on 23:59:34, 31 August 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Vannessacoats[edit]


August 2014 (UTC)

The response said that the document named Cretzel was not acceptable for various. However, it doesn't outlne what those reasons are, so it makes it difficult to address making edits that will be sufficient for the article to be accepted.

We would appreciate a prompt response. Please do not delete the draft in the sandbox so that we have a common working draft.

Thank you in advance for your prompt response,

Vannessa

Vannessacoats (talk) 23:59, 31

Wikipedia articles must show that the subject is notable, by including references to independent reliable sources that discuss the subject, such as newspaper or magazine articles, or books. In addition, the article must be based upon what is said in those sources, and referenced to them, so that the information is verifiable by readers. Please read WP:YFA for help with writing your first article. Reventtalk 04:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Karan Singh Grover[edit]

I am sorry I may have been out of line, the page is fine now, however I did see some edits which seemed a bit weird, there was removal of sourced and important information from his/her side hence I felt it was vandalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indian editor television (talkcontribs) 13:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

some vandalism has been done in the Karan Singh Grover personal life section, I was wondering if you could please have a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indian editor television (talkcontribs)

@Indian editor television: Thank you for pinging me, and please keep doing so if you want me to look... that article get messed with to a ridiculous degree. Unfortunately, I edit so many different articles for little things that my watchlist is unusable.
FYI, I reverted it back to the version that was protected, in order to remove the name of the person he allegedly had an affair with. Per the biographies of living persons policy, specifically WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, we cannot mention her by name.
BTW, in the future, you should sign your talk page messages with four tildes, i.e. ~~~~, so that people can tell who the message is from. Again, thanks. Reventtalk 08:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

thanks for being unbiased and rational, appreciate it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indian editor television (talkcontribs)

someone is again vandalising his page, can u please have a look! regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indian editor television (talkcontribs) 12:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Indian editor television: A difference of opinion over content is not vandalism, and you would be well advised to discuss the issue with @TheRedPenOfDoom: instead of engaging in edit warring on an article which is already under page protection. Reventtalk 13:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Indian editor television: Additionally, you should not tht you do not own the article—any change that you disagree with is not immediately vandalism. Vandalism is, explicitly, edits made in bad faith in an attempt to harm the encyclopedia. Calling TRPoD a vandal is way out of line, that's the last thing he is. Editors who act like they own articles, and call anyone who disagrees with them a vandal, usually end up getting blocked, and this is starting to look like the kind of thing that got the article protected to begin with. Reventtalk 13:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Indian editor television is the latest now-blocked sock of a loooong-term editor hell-bent on disruption of that article and several related ones. Pay him no mind. DMacks (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
@DMacks: I'm aware, I wrote that response (assuming good faith) but then I was the one that reported latest incarnation to SPI. Reventtalk 22:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Gotcha:) Thanks for helping unravel the latest sock. DMacks (talk) 01:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Request on 17:38:01, 2 September 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Marycjames[edit]


Hello re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Yuri_Goloubev I really hadn't meant to actively include copyrighted material. Please could you give me the couple of sentences you think are offending and I will re-write.

Thank you

marycjamesMarycjames (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Marycjames (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Marycjames: Hi. Yeah, the 'message' we have is copyright violation, but it's really more of a matter of some sentences just not being sufficiently rewritten... that's why I just noted it instead of actually flagging it for deletion. I can't actually repost them here, but you can see the matching text at this link. The names matching is fine, though it would be best to change the order of the lists (make them alphabetical, or just randomize them), but you can also see some of your phrasing also matches. I could tell, though, that it wasn't 'deliberate'...trust me, I know, I've scanned a lot of drafts.
Thanks for not getting offended or anything, by the way. It looks like you're definitely the kind of new person we need, as compared to all the 'conflict of interest' people that are way too common now. Reventtalk 17:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, this is helpful. I'll see what I can do to improve it. MarycjamesMarycjames (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I have edited and re-submitted it so thanks for your help Revent. MarycjamesMarycjames (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

UNEVOC: Copyright problem ?????[edit]

Hi ! Thanks for reviewing my article draft DRAFT:UNESCO-UNEVOC. I However firmly disagree about it being a "copyright violation". I have written this article myself, with my own words. Maybe a couple of sentences are similar to the page you have linked (here are the ones I could find: "The UNESCO-UNEVOC International Centre is one of the seven UNESCO institutes and Centres working in the field of education" or "The UNESCO-UNEVOC International Centre was established as a result of a decision taken by the UNESCO General Conference in 1999." or "he UNESCO-UNEVOC International Centre acts as part of the United Nations mandate to promote peace, justice, equity, poverty alleviation, and greater social cohesion") but it is just a couple of sentences and there are not thousand ways to say those important (and precise) information.... I'd really like some more explanation here.

I have spent hours on this article, gathering approx. 20 sources and writing it in a neutral point of view. I find quite unfair to see it blancked and speedy deleted like that(having the risk to lose all my work if I was not on wikipedia for a couple of days) if the "copyright" problem is just about 2-3 sentences in the whole article... So please, come back to me and tell me exactly what you are talking about with "copyright violation" so I can fix it. RegardsKaptainIgloo (talk) 06:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@KaptainIgloo: I've unmarked it for speedy deletion, so that you can fix it. The link to the specific comparison is here. The article needs to be blanked so that it is not copied by mirror sites while it still contains copyrighted material... you can take the text from the old version linked in the history, edit the specific parts so they are different, and then paste it into a edit window for the current article to retrieve your material. Afterward, at some point the old revisions (only) that contain the material will need to be deleted from the history.
Normally, when a page is deleted, you can request a copy of it at WP:REFUND... an administrator can restore it without the problem material. Nothing on Wikipedia is ever really 'deleted', doing so just hides it from view.
You are right that it is only a couple of sentences, but they still must be either rewritten or specifically quoted to the source, for legal reasons. Sorry to upset you, this wasn't an accusation, it's just a technical thing that, due to the way Wikipedia works (such as the availability of database dumps that contain page histories) the revisions that contain the material need to be deleted. Reventtalk 07:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your quick answer. Sorry for getting upset, I didn't know about WP:REFUND (and I kinda panicked). I'll fix the draft today or tomorrow and come back to you then ! Regards, KaptainIgloo (talk) 10:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
@KaptainIgloo: Hi. I chatted with an admin and got the matter sorted...the problem text is out, and the previous versions nuked. There are hidden comments marking where I removed text, just rewrite those parts in your own words and everything will be fine. The text is attributed to you in the edit summary, if you look at the history of the draft. Reventtalk 09:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks A LOT for your help (I feel now even stupider for getting upset at the first place è_é). I am working on those copyright issues. Thank you again and see you ! KaptainIgloo (talk) 16:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Request on 09:40:22, 3 September 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by CD33[edit]


Hi, my Draft: zenon Software was deleted because of copyright infringement with http://www.ovguide.com/zenon-software-9202a8c04000641f8000000016b37dec#. The fact is that the text we wrote for Wikipedia is unique, written by a COPA-DATA specialist. The source you are quoting has copied our text, not vice-versa. If we get the webmaster of OVGuide to delete the text, will you admit it to Wikipedia? Will we have to write it once again? Thank you! CD33 (talk) 09:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@CD33: The content can be restored, and used, but it has to be specifically released to Wikipedia under under the appropriate license. You should refer to Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for information about how to license the content to Wikipedia, and then contact the deleting administrator, RHaworth (talk · contribs) to have the page undeleted. That being done, it is perfectly allowable for OVGuide to also use the text. Reventtalk 09:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Request on 10:07:25, 3 September 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Rduhayon[edit]


Hi, I have submitted a draft article on my company (Accedo.tv) yesterday. All facts were substantiated with external articles or press releases, but apparently one of the sentence or link (about the acquisition of the US company CloverLeaf Digital LLC) was seen as "G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement". What was the infringement? And how can I restore and update my draft (to resubmit the article for review)? Thanks, rduhayon Rduhayon (talk) 10:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@Rduhayon: I can't actually see the text now that it has been deleted, but the text matched http://www.fiercecable.com/press-releases/accedo-acquires-cloverleaf-strengthens-tv-app-solutions
The entire lead section was basically verbatim from the "About Accedo" section at the bottom of that press release. The draft would have been unacceptable anyhow (as I remember) because it was quite promotional in tone, but you might be able to get a copy of the rest of it from the deleting administrator, RHaworth (talk · contribs).
Also, if you are writing about 'your company', then you need to disclose that conflict of interest on your user page. Reventtalk 10:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Request on 13:44:55, 3 September 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Sudhirsraval[edit]


I had submitted the content at the page with name "Sudhir S Raval".

The review was negative with the reason of copyright infringement. I have pasted the reply below.

"09:37, 3 September 2014 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page Draft:Sudhir S Raval (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://sudhirsraval.com/)"

But, the person "Sudhir S Raval" as discussed in wikipedia page is same as the person with URL http://sudhirsraval.com. I am not doing any copyright breach. I am creating the page for the person who is having the persona bio-website at sudhirsraval.com.

I am developer of the the site at www.sudhirsraval.com.

Do I need to cite or provide reference to the website www.sudhirsraval.com

Pl. suggest as to what should I do so that I can re-submit.

Sudhirsraval (talk) 13:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@Sudhirsraval: Since the text has previously been published, it cannot be posted to Wikipedia without being specifically licensed by the copyright holder. To do so, the owner of the material will need to follow the directions at WP:CONSENT, and you can then contact the deleting administrator, RHaworth (talk · contribs), to have the page undeleted. Reventtalk 13:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • But preferably, kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks you are notable and writes about you here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Request on 16:01:25, 3 September 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Falcons84[edit]


Hi there! I noticed you declined my page on Partners for Mental Health due to copyrighted info. Could you kindly let me know what the copyright info was so I can remove/adapt it? Thank you. Falcons84 (talk) 16:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Falcons84 (talk) 16:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I can no longer see the page since it has been deleted, but the copyrighted text came from http://www.partnersformh.ca/about-us/who-we-are/
All text on that page is copyrighted, and cannot be used without an explicit license to Wikipedia from the owner. If you have a copy of the page, you should be able to tell what matches, and rewrite it before creating a new draft. Please do not post copyrighted text to Wikipedia, even if you intend to immediately rewrite it. Thanks. Reventtalk 16:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
@Revent:Thanks for the quick reply! I have submitted the page again with adapted copy - Partners for Mental Health. Would love it if you could take a look since you'd reviewed the original page already. Falcons84 (talk) 16:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Request on 21:19:11, 3 September 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Marc.bratcher[edit]


Hello. My article "Hallsville, North Carolina" was flagged for an "ambiguous copyright infringement" and was deleted before I could make changes and resubmit it. I spent a deal of time writing the said article and was unaware that this would occur. The source provided as evidence for the copyright violation contained information that was public domain, so I do not think that there was in actuality a copyright violation. However, if you could restore the draft for me to edit, I will be happy to rephrase the information in a manner that does not raise any red flags. Thanks. Marc.bratcher (talk) 21:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@Marc.bratcher: I think you misunderstand, in that while US federal government publications are in the public domain, those of local governments are not, unless it is specifically stated. You had about half a paragraph of material from the Duplin County Register of Deeds that can't be used.
That being said, the large majority of the draft is fins. While I'm not an admin and can't actually undelete it, I'll ping @Nick: about having the draft restored for you. ‹The template Strikethrough is being considered for deletion.› 

You'll need to make an edit specifically deleting the material that was a problem (which was several sentences about James Sprunt) so that the revisions that included the material can be deleted, and then rewrite it so it's not a direct copy. It should be back in a moment.

Nick, the draft is Draft:Hallsville, North Carolina. Reventtalk 21:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
@Marc.bratcher: Ok, your draft has been restored, and the copyrighted material removed, and the previous revisions deleted. You also had copyrighted content from http://moh.ncdcr.gov/exhibits/civilwar/about_section8.html , which has a copyright notice to the North Carolina Museum of history at the bottom. You can use this 'content', but the actual text needs to be rewritten in your own works to be legal unless a website has an explicit notice that the text is either in the public domain or freely licensed.
Sorry for the drama, and thanks for contributing...the actualt 'article' looks good, it seems like it was simply a misunderstanding. Reventtalk 22:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
@Revent: @Nick: Thanks for your help guys. The copyright issues have been fixed. The page I resubmitted and that is currently in my sandbox, however, is "Wikipedia:Hallsville, North Carolina". As my original submission was reviewed within a day or two, I was just hoping that this resubmission does not get overlooked. Thanks again.

Request on 07:53:02, 4 September 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Sarahchallis[edit]

Hi Revent, I had 2x articles rejected - draft:Icarus (EU Project) and draft:Innovteg. Please could you let me know where I can see some comments or a reason why?

Also, where can I find the article? I'd like to re-submit it after I have made the changes.

Thankyou for your time and help with this, Sarah, Sarahchallis (talk) 07:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@Sarahchallis: Hi. Sorry, unfortunately the 'comments' went away along with the drafts. They were both deleted for containing copyrighted material, as can be seen at here and here. You can request that they be undeleted, but any material that was directly copied from other websites that isn't explicitly in the public domain or under a free license can't be directly used. If you want, I will see about getting them back for you with the problem material removed... I'm not actually an administrator, so it might take a bit to round one up. Reventtalk 08:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
@RHaworth: Can you take a look at these and see if there is anything not a copyvio worth restoring? If so, I'll take care of cleaning the infringing text out and getting the previous version revdel'd if you want me to. I don't remember offhand exactly how much text wasn't copied. Reventtalk 09:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • It is tragick (because my money is going into them) but "Seventh Framework" in an article seems to be equivalent to saying "this project is not notable" - see this list. Sarah, please declare your interest - do you work in the Seventh Framework office? I will be happy to email you copies of your articles - read this. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, no I do not work for the Seventh Framework Programme, I work for one of the companies involved in both of the projects. For Innovteg, the copyrighted text was from the website that I wrote, so I guess I was only copyrighting myself! How can I show that it is in the public domain? For Icarus (EU Proejct), I've not seen that text before, I don't know where it came from. The information is in the 'public domain' though, so if I can prove this, can it be approved?Sarahchallis (talk) 09:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

  • (I include Powerdriver in the list of your creations.) Thank you for declaring your COI and kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks these projects are notable and writes about them here. Regarding the Innovteg page to place it in the public domain, simply change the "© InnovTEG" at the bottom of the page to "the text of this website is public domain". Incidentally the design of that page is appalling - forcing me to view it in a wider window than normal. Please bear in mind that some people have narrower screens than yours or use narrower windows out of preference. The deletion log for draft:Icarus (EU Project) tells you whence that was copied. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks RHaworth for the advice, I can change that on the webpage. Can the articles be restored? The design of the webpage has nothing to do with the article in question so let's keep that off this discussion please.Sarahchallis (talk) 08:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Admin[edit]

Revent, I suspect that you are one of those who explicitly does not want to become a Wikipedia janitor (the new title I am proposing for admins) but if you decided to apply, I would be happy to support you. — RHaworth (talk · contribs)

@RHaworth:(laughs) I seem to be getting a lot of that lately. To be honest, I've actually been pondering it more lately, after comments from a couple of admins I respect. My issue with it, really, isn't that the tools wouldn't be very convenient, but that there are areas of adminship I really have no interest in. Wikipedia janitor sounds much better.
I've said for a long time that I would never RfA, but it really does have far more to do with knowing what they typically turn into, and what a lot of people's 'criteria' are, than anything else. I'm not really, at all, a 'content creator'... I can write, and have helped people rewriting things, but I've never sat down and created an article from scratch, and never pushed an article to GA. I know the 'policies' involved quite well, it's just something that's really hard for me to actually sit down and 'do' for personal reasons.
One thing that I have said for a long time, however, is that I really felt the best RfA nom would be a couple of admins saying "I'm tired of this guy pestering me to use my buttons for obvious things," and it seems like I'm approaching that point, so maybe I really should do it. I just am not crazy about feeling like I would have to spend a couple of months focused on 'setting up' for one. Reventtalk 10:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission for the 114th Infantry Regiment (United States)[edit]

Revent, thank you for you comments.

In the draft for the article on the 114th Infantry Regiment (United States), I originally included a note under References saying "This article incorporates public domain material from websites or documents of the United States Army Center of Military History." I've now added a more specific source to the Lineage and Honors section. The source document is in the public domain and was acquired from the US Army Center of Military History. Thank you --Kate. 70.192.73.182 (talk) 15:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@70.192.73.182: Thank you. I thought from the language it looked specifically like it came from an official unit history, I just couldn't find any copy other than that other place it had been posted. This should avoid any copyright issues. Reventtalk 15:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Request on 16:57:44, 4 September 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Imainfp[edit]


I would like to clarify that Sydney Finkelstein, the subject of this listing, is the same Sydney Finkelstein who maintains http://faculty.tuck.dartmouth.edu/sydney-finkelstein/about-sydney-finkelstein/ and the social media sites linked to this entry. He is a well-known teacher, researcher and speaker. I hope this clarifies the copyright issue. Please let me know if it is possible edit and publish this page. Thanks. Imainfp (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Imainfp (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@Imainfp: The text on that webpage is copyrighted, and unless an explicit declaration is made, on that page, that the text is either in the public domain, or licensed under a WP:Compatible license. We cannot, legally, host text that has been copied from elsewhere. I agree that he is notable, as deserves an article... any holder of a 'named chair' at a university is automatically presumed notable. I suggest you get a copy of the deleted draft from the deleting administrator (I see you alos contacted him), rewrite it, and then recreate the draft. One the copyright issue is taken care of, there should be no problem with getting it published. Reventtalk 12:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

10:45:26, 5 September 2014 review of submission by Garminio[edit]


Hi Revent

Thank you for taking the time to review my first draft, this is my first article on wikipedia! I believe that I have added some independent sources that should show notability, and I have re-submitted the article but it has not been reviewed. Is this because it needs more sources? I was also wondering if it would be appropriate to add sources in other languages for an article like this one? I am sorry for all these questions, but having some feedback would really help me to improve the article and have some guidelines for my next ones!

Cheers Garminio (talk) 10:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@Garminio: Sources in languages other than English are perfectly acceptable, in fact, you'll probably need to use them. Sources don't have to be in English, or online, they merely have to be published in a form that is available to the public. Information has to be verifiable, but does not have to be 'easy' to verify... if I would have to go to some library in Italy to look at an 80 year old book, that is still an acceptable source. For this subject, I would expect the best sources to be in Italian.
As far as not having been re-reviewed yet, unfortunately the review queue is quite large. We're working on it, but it might take a few weeks. Reventtalk 12:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you very much! I will make sure to add them in he meantime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garminio (talkcontribs) 15:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Request on 13:32:55, 5 September 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Marcosvr[edit]


Hello, I recently received a copyright infringement notice for User:Marcosvr/ProMetic A new business listing for Prometic. I am not sure what information you think has been sourced incorrectly to fix it? If it is the whole article or anything within the article I can get a Prometic employee to validate allowance.

Your help very much appreciated and thank you

Marcosvr (talk) 13:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@Marcosvr: FYI, that draft was moved to Draft:ProMetic Life Sciences. Since I'm not an admin, I can't actually look at the deleted draft, but the copyright violation was a press release... as I remember, the 'description of the company' was taken directly from there. Even if a section of text is copyrighted by the subject of the article, it still cannot legally be reused unless it has been released to the public domain or under a WP:Compatible license. You can get a copy of the draft from the administrator who deleted it and resubmit it once the issue has been fixed. Reventtalk 13:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Request on 20:22:45, 6 September 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Bslirx[edit]


Hi, This is Bslirx here. Can you please explain why have you deleted this article on Ajay Srinivasan since i had quoted genuine sources in the reference section. There are other articles of similar nature on banking heads in India on Wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chanda_Kochhar). All the sources of information are genuine and from the office of Mr Srinivasan himself. Previously when i had submitted this article, there was no copyright issue, can you please explain how it came up now. Any more info to improve my article would be great

Bslirx (talk) 20:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The answer to why the issue had not come up before is simply that the previous reviewers either did not check or did not notice. I actually did not delete the draft, I'm not an administrator and cannot do so. What I did do is notice the copyright violation and flag the text for an administrator to review. Your draft was largely copied from his official company biography at http://abfsg.com/Pages/our-people.html You cannot reuse text from elsewhere on Wikipedia, it is a copyright violation and would be illegal for us to host it. Articles must be based on, and referenced to, what has been written about the subject in reliable independent sources, not copied from elsewhere with sources thrown in to show notability. If you wish, you can ask the administrator who deleted it for a copy of the draft, in order to retrieve the sources, and you are perfectly welcome to submit a new draft that consists of material you wrote. Reventtalk 20:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kevin Sorbo[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Kevin Sorbo. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Amalthea (technical summit) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [Category:Technical festivals in India]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Resubmission of "Draft:Hallsville, North Carolina"[edit]

Revent, several days ago my draft Hallsville, North Carolina was rejected for copyright issues. They have been fixed. The page I resubmitted and that is currently in my sandbox, however, is "Wikipedia:Hallsville, North Carolina". As my original submission was reviewed within a day, I was just hoping that this resubmission does not get overlooked. Thanks again.

Best Regards,

marc.bratcher — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marc.bratcher (talkcontribs) 12:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Marc.bratcher: Hi. I'm talking to an admin and getting it sorted (the duplicates). Please don't edit the draft for a few minutes, until I let you know it's ok. Reventtalk 12:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Marc.bratcher: Sorry that took so long, got sidetracked by drama. There is now only one copy of your draft, it lives at Draft:Hallsville, North Carolina, and is currently pending review. Without actually formally reviewing it (I rarely do that, as I'm constantly busy trying to help AfC in other ways) it looks to me like there is nothing to prevent it from being accepted. Reventtalk 14:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Youtube copyright violations[edit]

I'll make this simple: there is no indication that "Yon-Ce" has permission to publish material from Entertainment Tonight on YouTube. If you restore that link again, you will be blocked from editing until you agree to stop.—Kww(talk) 18:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kww:Restore it again? I restored it once, after it had been removed as an 'unreliable source', because the citation was to the Entertainment Tonight interview, not to YouTube. I also fixed the citation to show that it was to Entertainment Tonight, not YouTube, and that the removal as an 'unreliable source' was silly. That was before anyone had made any claim about it that had anything to do with copyright. I removed the {{copyright violation}} template, yes, because it was blatantly the wrong template, given that it refers to the text it is next to, which is from a CC-BY-SA source that is attributed in the article. The YouTube link is, like I said at the AfD, only a CONVENIENCE LINK and not the source for the material, and I did not add, or readd, it after the 'copyright' claim was made. You're 'warning me' for what, exactly? For not guessing that someone was going to make a spurious copyvio claim later? Or for removing a template flagging text for a copyright violation when that text is from a CC-BY-SA source that is attributed in the article?
Regardless, you are patently not an uninvolved administrator, and thus have no damn business warning me about anything. What's more, you didn't remove the supposed 'link to copyrighted material', you removed sourced content that was cited to an Entertainment Tonight interview, and you did so under false pretenses. If your problem is with the CONVENIENCE LINK then remove the damn link, not sourced content. Reventtalk 18:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
This edit was enough. You posted the link, and you were responsible for ensuring that the source you linked to had rights to publish the material.—Kww(talk) 19:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Kww:You should, then, make sure to warn the other two people who posted the same link, and maybe warn the admin who reviewed the article while you are at it. Again, I didn't repost the link after anyone raised any copyright objections to it, and had no intention of doing so, so your warning me about it is silly. I also note that you're totally ignoring my objection to the fact that you removed content sourced to a television interview, and the citation to that television interview, and that you did so under false pretenses while a participant in an AfD on the article. You are by far not an uninvolved admin, and is is inappropriate for anyone, admin or not, to removed content cited to a reliable source (the television interview, regardless of the YouTube link) while advocating the deletion of an article. It's also inappropriate for you to be threatening to take any admin action when you are an involved administrator.Reventtalk 19:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Drop it Revent, you reverted my removal of the copyvio link not once, but twice, next time just reformatting the link to EW. This WP:IDHT that you have been going on is plain silly. Especially sticking up for a wikia link who's challenged sources are laughable, especially its CC-BY-SA claim. The {{copyright violation}} was correctly placed alongside the link, because the link is a copyvio. And the section has original research whether you like it or not. A wikia is not a reliable source even if that is released to CC-BY-SA, and neither is interpretation of someone's tweet. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 19:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @IndianBio:Honestly, I didn't even catch on to that the particular link was in the material you had tried to delete earlier. That revert was because you had tried to delete the entire article without discussion once by converting it to a redirect, then nominated it and tried to delete a quarter of the article again, which would bias the outcome of the AfD.
Your comments about a 'wikia link' make little sense, as the Wikia article is not being used as a source, and the only link to it is in the attribution... the text came from Wikia, yes, and was submitted to AfC, but a [search] shows that the text on Wikia was not copied from anywhere else, and this check was done before the article was moved to mainspace. People who write on Wikia are licensing their text under CC-BY-SA, just like on Wikipedia, and it is perfectly acceptable to use text that is licensed under CC-BY-SA as long as it is attributed.
Noone, not Wikia or me, is claiming that the video on YouTube is under CC-BY-SA. I happen to think the segment published there is short enough to be legal under fair use, but that's really irrelevant. Even without the convenience link, a television interview with a person saying something is a reliable source for them saying that. You describe it as me 'reformatting the link', but it was really just fixing the citation to show that the actual source was the television interview, and that it was not cited to an 'unreliable source' as you previously claimed.
As far as the template, you need to read the directions for those templates, which are here, FYI. You didn't put a template next to the link tagging the link, you put a template next to the sentence tagging the sentence. I even noted that in my edit summary, if you bothered to read it. You could have easily fixed it, but instead you decided to readd the wrong tag again and complain. Meh.
Either way, I'm done. I didn't write the article anyhow, and I'm not especially attached to it, and never haver been. My participation in this largely stemmed from the fact that you started out by trying to ignore any kind of process and delete the article arbitrarily, wrote an AfD nom that claimed the title was OR (which it's blatantly not, when it was trivial to find 15 RS that use the name), tried to delete a quarter of the article after you nominated it, tried to claim that NALBUMS overrides GNG when it does not, and then tried to claim that you were entitled to ignore WP:BEFORE simply because you didn't like the article as it stood. You were pretty obviously, IMO, repeatedly ignoring half of what I said and making up new objections out of thin air. Whatever. I have better, more productive things to do than to argue with you. Reventtalk 20:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you![edit]

Gaufre biscuit.jpg Thanks Revent for going back and taking a look at my page. Your help is very much appreciated! Falcons84 (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Request on 08:35:59, 9 September 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by 170.148.198.156[edit]


Hi Timtrent, this is regarding the article I submited for Tim Hailes that you rejected due to copyright information. I believe that the article was similar to his biography on Alderman Hailes webpage. I work for Tim Hailes and wrote both articles so no copyright has been breached please could you review your decision on this submission. Kind regards Sally.

170.148.198.156 (talk) 08:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

(pinging @Timtrent:, whom you mentioned) @170.148.198.156: We cannot legally allow the reposting of material from copyrighted sources without a specific legal release. Please see WP:DONATETEXT. Merely a statement here that you are the original author is not legally sufficient. Reventtalk 10:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Request on 14:13:19, 9 September 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Swherton[edit]


Hi this is regarding the article for Alderman Tim Hailes, I have been talking to Timtrent. I have now sent the 'Declaration of consent' including the emails addresses that are on Alderman hailes website to permissions and am instured to post this remark on the talk page:

{{OTRS pending}}

Please advice on what happens now.

Kind regards Sally Swherton (talk) 14:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Swherton: You need to have the administrator who deleted the draft, @RHaworth:, who I am pinging, undelete the draft, Draft:Time Hailes, and them post that notice on the talk page for the draft at Draft_talk:Tim Hailes. You should note, however, that you will still need to comply with other Wikipedia policies; specifically, you need to also declare your conflict of interest (that you are an employee of his) on the talk page of the draft article, and you will need to provide reliable, independent sources about him to show that he is notable and so that the given information is verifiable. Reventtalk 17:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


Pellet Heating[edit]

Hi Revent, thank you for taking the time to review the "pellet heating" user page! I worked hard on the update and it now got moved to the Draft section from another user. I am not sure who is responsible for removing your Review comment or if I still have to do something. Would be great if you could check quickly. Thanks a lot! Draft:Pellet_heating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Pellet_heating Geneva2106 (talk) 11:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Geneva2106: I just cleaned your draft (to put the banner at the top), and it is pending review, but I guess I didn't explain myself well. This topic, while distinct from Pellet stove (which exists), somewhat overlaps, (there is a lot of duplicated content about how the work, really) in a way... your topic is 'bigger' versions of the same thing, but you don't show any sources other than people selling them to show that they are ever discussed as a separate thing from 'pellet stoves', which already mentions both furnaces and boilers. I think it would make more sense to expand upon boilers and furnaces as types of stoves, and merge the descriptions of how they work, or to add some sources that are not from people selling them (like magazine or newspaper articles) the talk about them as something separate from the more 'general' idea. Hope that makes sense. Reventtalk 03:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
About the draft getting moved, it's considered 'standard' to move drafts to the "Draft" location once they are submitted....it's largely so that if they don't get lost...if the author never comes back, eventually people go through the 'stale' ones and look for things that can be salvaged. Face-smile.svg. Reventtalk 03:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! The problem is, that the pellet stove is just one little part of different versions of pellet heatings and a stove ist not a boiler. The information about pellet heating, does not really fit in the pellet stove section since a stove is only standing in a room and the heating is a huge system in the cellar that has different parts. I started in the stove section to explain furnaces and boilers and asked what to do and was told to start a different topic. I already cleaned up that part again, since it didnt belong there. The German section about these things is huge. Concerning the sources, you are right, it is almost impossible to find 100% neutral sources, since the technology is quite new in the english speaking world. The book from Stefan Doring should work though, right? I really think that it would be important to differentiate between heating systeme and stove but if you say it's better to incorporate the details into the stove than I could do that, but it's just one little part of the different pellet heating systems so not really right and as I said I was told to do so...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pellet_stove — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geneva2106 (talkcontribs) 08:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Request on 12:44:29, 11 September 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by LexieHoskins[edit]


Cambridge International Examinations

I tried to make revisions to the existing page but they were rejected. I was then advised by Theroadislong that I should draft the new page first and ask an editor to proofread it.

Having done this, I was then told that the submission was declined because the article already exists.

Can someone please have a look at the following and let me know that if I now make changes to the existing page that they will be approved?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LexieHoskins/sandbox/Cambridge_International_Examinations

Thanks in advance for your help

LexieHoskins (talk) 12:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC) LexieHoskins (talk) 12:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@LexieHoskins: Sorry for the confusion...I think what was meant was to 'draft' the changes in a sandbox, and then talk about them on the article talk page. The 'submission' process you used, specifically, is "Articles for Creation", which is only for new articles. Articles for Creation is about "will this 'new' topic get deleted if I pass it", basically, not for changes to existing content.
The way you are trying to go about changing the article is just 'wrong' in Wikipedia terms. You are completely overwriting the existing article, including removing a reference for the name change (which belongs, definitely), the old logo, and removing the improvement tags and such others have added, without fixing the issues. You can't just overwrite an article, you need to make edits to change the existing article. Also, because you have a COI, you shouldn't be editing the article directly..you should just propose changes.
Most of what you are trying to fix looks fine to me, as far as the text, but the article is still based on only primary sources, and needs major work, which doesn't get done if you overwrite the maintenance tags.
What you need to do is mention your draft on Talk:Cambridge International Examinations and talk about the changes that you want to make. It's considered inappropriate (see WP:PSCOI) for people connected to a company to edit the article about it directly, instead you should propose changes publicly. Reventtalk 18:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Richard Negrin[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Richard Negrin. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #125[edit]

The Signpost: 10 September 2014[edit]