User_Talk:SuperHamster

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Welcome to SuperHamster's Talk Page

SuperHamster is Symbol support2 vote.svg Around
Userpage - Talkpage - Contribs - Email - Guestbook


Notices


Posting Here

Feel free to leave me a message here regarding anything Wikipedia-related. Questions, comments, suggestions, and requests for me to explain edits I've made are all welcome. I'm human, and I do make mistakes - please feel free to point out any that I've made.

If the matter is one that requires more privacy (or if it is just more convenient for you), you may always email me if you wish.


I will usually reply here unless you ask me otherwise.

New messages go at the bottom of the page.
Remember to sign using "~~~~"

Nuvola apps clock.png SuperHamster's local time is 11:02, July 29, 2014 ET (purge) Nuvola apps clock.png


Archives
Every archive contains 25 discussions.
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg

Replacement filing cabinet.svg Archive 1
Replacement filing cabinet.svg Archive 2
Replacement filing cabinet.svg Archive 3
Replacement filing cabinet.svg Archive 4
Replacement filing cabinet.svg Archive 5
Replacement filing cabinet.svg Archive 6
Replacement filing cabinet.svg Archive 7
Replacement filing cabinet.svg Archive 8
Replacement filing cabinet.svg Archive 9
Replacement filing cabinet.svg Archive 10
Replacement filing cabinet.svg Archive 11

DYK for David Hudson (pioneer)[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

A small cup of coffee.JPG Please delete the picture I uploaded RIGHT NOW! thank you DridsOBrien (talk) 21:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi @DridsOBrien: Thanks for the coffee, but unfortunately I can't delete pages since I'm not an administrator. You can request speedy deletion of pages that only you've substantially contributed to under speedy deletion G7 criteria. Just add {{db-g7}} to the files you wish to have deleted. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to STiki![edit]

Hello, SuperHamster, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Here are some pages which are a little more fun:

  • The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users!
  • Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes!

We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (talk) 04:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

STiki logo.png

Deleting Wikipedia[edit]

I think that the IP who asked that question is a troll. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Eh, maybe, maybe not. Probably just asking a fun question, and no harm is done in answering it. Best to assume good faith, and perhaps there are other users who would also be interested in the actual answer. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from April 2014[edit]

Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for April 2014, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement
Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe, 04:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Help![edit]

Hi I had submitted an afc called National centre For Excellence but for the past 2 consecutive attempts the problem was " Not reliable sources ". I have surfed the net for reliable source for my afc and i have listed all of the ones I got. Help please. link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/National_Centre_For_Excellence Thank you, Sincerely, Rahul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulmdinesh (talkcontribs) 10:46 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rahul - I notice you also left this message over at User:Timtrent's talk page. He's left you a great response there, one that I don't have much to add to. If you need help with anything more, feel free to ask me or reach out over at the Teahouse. Thanks! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 11:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the compliment,SH. I have done my best and also left an additional reviewer comment on the article. I hope, Rahul, you are able to make use of my thoughts. They are there to guide your path, both towards knowing what to do and also how to get help once you have come to the end of my advice. We truly want articles here, though it seems, sometimes, that we do not. If oyu can show this organisation to be notable we will accept it with pleasure. Fiddle Faddle 11:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Minor request[edit]

I'm not sure if you are aware that SIGAPP was changed and promoted to policy, but I would like to let you know that your current signature is in violation of the changes. Specifically, the <font> tags that you are using were deprecated in HTML 4.0 Transitional, invalid in 4.0 Strict, and are not part of HTML5 at all. As such, I suggest replacing:

<b>~<i><font color="#07517C">[[User:SuperHamster|Super]]</font></i><font color="#6FA23B">[[User:SuperHamster|Hamster]]</font></b> <small>[[User talk:SuperHamster|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/SuperHamster|Contribs]]</small>

with:

'''~''[[User:SuperHamster|<span style="color:#07517C">Super</span>]]''[[User:SuperHamster|<span style="color:#6FA23B">Hamster</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:SuperHamster|Talk]] [[Special:Contribs/SuperHamster|Contribs]]</small>

which will result in an appearance of: ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs compared to your existing of: ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs — Either way. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 11:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Ohh, I was not aware - that's a welcome change. I've updated my signature for the first time in years. Thanks for the heads up (and for providing me the code). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 11:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

A huge favour?[edit]

Hi SuperHamster, I have nominated "Work (Iggy Azalea song)" for C/E at the Guild's request page weeks ago, and the article is currently being reviewed for GA. I've noticed you're great with C/E, punctuation, grammar et al, and was wondering if you could perhaps skip some requests in the queue and do a C/E for "Work" pretty please? I know it's a lot to ask, but the GA reviewer has said the article needs a C/E and I don't want it to fail the nomination. Please let me know, I'd appreciate it so much!—CoolMarc 12:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

@Coolmarc: Hey Mark - thanks for the kind words. I'd love to help you out, but just a note that I haven't done any previous work with music-related articles, and I have yet to do any copyediting on the GA-level, so this will be a new experience for me. I'll be happy to take a look and do what I can over the next day, though. I'm sure there are also GOCE-editors that are more experienced with this type of copy-editing if you do want to try and see if you can get another user's help too. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Ah, thank you so much for the trouble! You have no idea how much I appreciate it! Face-smile.svgCoolMarc 05:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
No problem, good luck! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

About the admin deleted my page[edit]

hi, I am ivan, PR from heilindasia. I created a page about my company as the bellow. However, admin deleted it for many time. Could you please let me know the problem and hot to edit it?

Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivanlai12 (talkcontribs) 07:05, 29 May 2014‎ (UTC)

[Article content removed; copyright violation] ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 07:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

@Ivanlai12: Hi there. Just from taking a quick look at the article's content, there are two major problems:
  • The article is copied and pasted from the official Heilind Asia website. This is considered a copyright violation, and isn't allowed. Text on Wikipedia is released under a free license, and copying and pasting content from other sources violates copyright and isn't encyclopedic.
  • The article is also entirely promotional, due in-part to being copied from the official website. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that aims to provide a neutral, non-promotional view on its subjects.
Also, being an editor associated with the company, you are considered to have a conflict of interest with the subject, and are strongly advised against editing or creating articles about the company. Editors who edit on behalf of their companies often do so with a bias, even if unintentional. Since I strongly advise against creating an article on the company, there are two options:
  • Create the article (from scratch, not copied and pasted) in your userspace, which will allow you to work on the article freely without it actually being "released" as an article. You could do this at User:Ivanlai12/Sandbox. Note again that the article cannot promote the company you work for. Once you think your article is acceptable to be released on Wikipedia, you can submit the page for review by using Template:AFC submission. Once you request a review of your page, an experience editor will come and either accept the article or decline it with reasoning. Note that this can be a long process, especially for an editor with a conflict of interest. Many articles will be declined multiple times before being successful.
  • You can submit the subject over at Wikipedia:Requested articles, to request other editors to create the article instead.
I definitely recommend reading the pages I linked to get more info on this before doing any more work. I also recommend taking a look at some of the other links posted in the welcome message at the top of your talk page, for guides on creating articles, reliable sourcing, Wikipedia's five pillars, and more. Note that article subjects on Wikipedia also need to meet our notability guidelines, or in other words, are "significant" enough to have an article. Might seem like a lot, but at this point it takes research before an article can be created from scratch. If you have any more questions, please ask. Thanks for reaching out about this! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 07:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Infoboxes[edit]

Hello I got a question! We have a wiki for our own club in handball! I have been trying to add infoboxes on a blank page to try see if i can get it to work but i dont... How do you add infoboxes? I was going to test make a blank team page where i put the info teamname, players (The amount) Biggest sucess, Trainer, assistant trainer, and a picture of the team! witch we will have on all our teampages in the end but it wont work. I have tried with many different templates but i can't get anytihng to work 213.112.226.165 (talk) 15:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)Fredrik

Hi Fredrik - I see you've asked and received help over at the help desk, so I'll leave it at that :) In summary of what has been said at the help desk, since the wiki you are discussing is a completely separate wiki from Wikipedia, you will have to construct the infoboxes at that wiki. Infoboxes on Wikipedia were created by regular editors like you and me, and are exclusive to this site. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

A quick thanks[edit]

Hi SuperHamster, just a quick note to say thank you for checking articles during the GOCE's May Drive. It's very much appreciated; thanks for your help. :-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 05:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, glad to help! I know we didn't manage to check as many articles as we'd like to have, but eh, maybe next drive ;) ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
I hope so; we nearly cleared all the April requests though, so it's been a good effort all around. ;-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

GOCE May 2014 barnstar[edit]

CleanupBarnstar.PNG The Cleanup Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to SuperHamster for copy editing articles totalling over 12,000 words in the Guild of Copy Editors' May 2014 backlog elimination drive. Thanks for participating! Diannaa (talk) 21:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Diannaa! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Help regarding the copyrighted information.[edit]

I submitted our article for reviewed but tagged as "copyrighted information". This is my case, I'm was their web admin/master of this organization and instruct me to create wikipedia page for them. How we can fix the "copyrighted information" since I'm posting behalf of them so logically its not a copyrighted information.

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks,

--Designthatrock (talk) 01:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

@Designthatrock: Hey there, and thanks for asking. I've got a few points to mention, but I'll begin with answering your question first, and then stating what I believe the best course of action is.
Wikipedia's text is licensed under a free license, specifically the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. There was no indication that the copied content was released by the company under a license compatible with Wikipedia's license, so we cannot accept it. See Wikipedia:Copy-paste for more information. If you wish to use the company's content on Wikipedia, it will need to be explicitly released under a compatible free license, which can either be made clear on the company's website where the content is sourced from, or permission can be sent from the company to Wikipedia through the OTRS process. You may be writing on the company's behalf, but the company needs to explicitly show that they have agreed to license their content accordingly. However, rarely is a good idea to copy content from other sources (even if the license is compatible), especially from companies, as the content is often promotional and/or not written in an encyclopedic tone. Chances are, the content you wish to include on Wikipedia is written in a promotional tone and would not be appropriate for an encyclopedia. And ultimately, it's generally better to have original content anyway, as there really isn't any good reason to copy-and-paste anything that could be re-written to better fit encyclopedic standards.
Going off of that, editing on behalf of an organization is frowned upon, because it often ends up in promotional content, intentional or not. You took the correct steps by going through the drafting process for review instead of directly making an article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for more information.
At this point, I'd advise that if you want to re-create the draft, you are free to do so, and do so with original content you write. Keep in mind Wikipedia's policies about being neutral and non-promotional, and also keep in mind our notability criteria for corporations and the proper sourcing that needs to be done. Having a conflict of interest, the article will be scrutinized if it sounds promotional. I know this is a lot to hit you with, but there's a lot to be handled when creating an article. I've left a welcome message on your talk page with some helpful links and advice. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask. Thanks! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Will you help me with knowing how to write my article Native Son (American Band)[edit]

I don't know how to phrase things, I am an English major and my usage of descriptive words are no different the the articles that I have seen on the Musician Pete Townshend of the Who or the artist (Prince).

I really don't understand why you have rejected the article...I use to work in the music industry for more than 20 years and use to be a radio announcer...

The things I am writing are from descriptions of these peoples work from their peers...

How is it suppose to read...I am simply in the beginning stages of working on this...it is going to take me more time to build each of the members profiles, which I intend to do, inclusive of each of these gentlemans works with EVERY recording artist they have worked with...THAT is why I FIRST put each of their PRIVATE wiki articles as reference links so what I have said...is verifiable if only by that...

Please let me know what I need to do...

poekneegurlPoekneegurl (talk) 04:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Poekneegurl - thanks for reaching out about this. When it comes to writing about the reputation and reception of a band, Wikipedia reports on what prominent sources and the general public have to say about it. From WP:SUBJECTIVE:
Wikipedia articles about art and other creative topics (e.g., musicians, actors, books, etc.) have a tendency to become effusive. This is out of place in an encyclopedia. Aesthetic opinions are diverse and subjective—we might not all agree about who the world's greatest soprano is. However, it is appropriate to note how an artist or a work has been received by prominent experts and the general public
Wikipedia isn't an authority to claim who is or isn't a great musician. Instead, Wikipedia's goal is to cover what notable sources say about it. For example, when you write that the band members "are heavy hitters in their own right, who are not only extraordinary musicians, but are lyricist, composers, producers and arrangers as well", who says that? When you say the band is "bringing pleasure to their many fans, music aficionados and connoisseurs worldwide", that's according to whom? If you simply want to say that the band members are still working, you can write "John Smith is still performing with a wide audience, with his latest work receiving X amount of downloads this year." Phrases like "bringing pleasure" and "music aficionados" are loaded when they are unsourced or not based on anything in particular.
For a nice example, take a look at Halo's critical reception section. All opinions on the piece are sourced to who said it. Note that both negative and positive reception should be included, if the subject has received prominent negative reception.
In addition, article claims should ideally be sourced with inline citations, so readers can immediately tell the source of information. If you have any more questions, please let me know. I know I hit you with a lot to take in, but I hope this all helps. Thanks! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Native Son (American Band) article[edit]

Thank you so much for your help and very detailed answer...the things that I list are basically from Youtube "talk" vids regarding the individuals by their peers in the industry that have used them in their concerts. So would it suffice if I said the "information came from say...George Duke on such and such a date and then refer the youtube vid? And since it came directly from his own mouth would that be considered "viable" are any of the youtube vids considered viable?? And with some of the others I have researched their backgrounds on the net, where, once again...there are things in print...I took a look at what you suggested, Halo, and I sort of understand what you mean. Thanks for that as well. I am not quite sure how to "attach" the reliable sources... you know, with the numbers after the information and the little "bubble pops up" :).

One of the other guys who let me know what I needed to do...also told me I was "emotionally" invested in the article...I kinda am, from what I have heard through the grapevine....one of the guys is having a hard time in his life and kinda unstable right now...so I was really attempting to do this, I guess in a way...to give some hope and let them see what others think, in the industry about them...

Is it also ok to quote some of the fans...like the news interviews folks to create intrest??

Thank you again SuperHamster (I use to have one when I was a kid) lol... appreciate your help..and if you'd be kind enough to school me on how to do those little number references I would be very grateful...

Have a great evening... Jess — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poekneegurl (talkcontribs) 01:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi again Poekneegurl - here are a few points in reply to your answer:
  • YouTube videos are typically not used for reliable sources; see WP:YOUTUBE. Most videos on YouTube are copyright violations and cannot be used. If the video is officially updated by the copyright owner (i.e. a documentary from National Geographic's official channel), then that can be acceptable. However...
  • Reception should follow Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. In basic terms, Wikipedia reports what the media reports, and gives a balanced representation that is representative of the media. In this case, YouTube videos probably aren't the best source. What are these "talk" videos you mention? What you'd want are news article, official reviews, magazine entries, etc. from reputable sources that cover the band. This includes both positive and negative reviews.
  • Being emotionally invested in the article, it will be hard to properly edit from a neutral point of view. Going through the articles for creation process is the proper process, though, since other editors will have to review your edits before they go live, so nice job with that. Just remember that we're going for an objective coverage of the subject.
  • For in-line citations, Wikipedia:Inline_citation and Help:Footnotes would be good places to start.
  • Quoting is fine, just take a look at WP:QUOTE for advice and specifics. Again, however, note what you're quoting - is the quotation from a significant figure, coming from a reliable source?
I recommend reading the linked articles for more details. Feel free to ask more questions, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Twitter account edit[edit]

Hi!

I am trying to do some edits on Wikipedia for a class project. You just commented back on my verified twitter account edit and said it read like an essay (which I am trying to fix! it's finals week so I am used to writing essays). But also you said my sources aren't reliable, should I use sources from online newspapers? And lastly, I am trying to edit the Twitter Wikipedia page, I am not trying to make a Wiki page solely for verified accounts, where should I add that when I am sending in my sandbox edit?

Thanks!! Dprotzeller (talk) 01:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey Dprotzeller! Bleh, finals week...
In regards to sourcing, the priority is independent, reliable sources, which does mean things like newspaper articles, news stories, magazine articles, etc. WikiHow, for example, would not be considered reliable due to it also being a wiki, editable by anyone. The JustGo article also isn't too reliable of a source, seeing that it is freelance work that serves more as a how-to guide than a reputable article on the subject.
In terms of writing, it's not bad - I'd trim back on the list of people, as that's a rather indiscriminate list. I'd also remove the unsourced bit about being able to verify your Twitter account through illicit means; it's unsourced, and doesn't sound too true to me.
Since you are attempting to write an addition to an existing article, there are a lot fewer loops to jump through compared to creating an article. The Articles for Creation process is technically only for new articles, but I have seen editors put through submissions to edit existing articles. I don't recommend it, however, especially for smaller additions.
Instead, I recommend continuing to work in your sandbox, but when you are ready to submit, try one of the following (whichever works best for you):
  • Bring up the edit over at Talk:Twitter, and see what other edits have to say.
  • You could also go to the Wikipedia Teahouse and ask for a quick review. Sometimes you might not get any luck, but editors there are often willing to help out as much as they can.
  • I'm also always willing to provide input, so feel free to come back here!
Let me know if you have any more questions! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Armagard Rejection[edit]

Is it possible to request that a Wikipedia peer writes this article for Armagard, because no matter how much I edit it according to the 'rules' those rules cannot be met, probably because I work for the company. Despite trying to implement the same 'tone' used by Hewlett Packard & Coca Cola, I find the article constantly refused. Because we only receive generic responses, could a more specific answer be given re: the problems. It would help us here greatly.

Thanks for your time & efforts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armagard (talkcontribs) 14:40 10 June 10 2014 (UTC)

Hi there - sorry to have your draft rejected! For specifics behind why your submission was rejected, I recommend reading up on pages linked to from the notes I wrote on the page. Naturally, yes, writing about your own company will lead to an article promotional in tone, even if unintended.
As for requesting someone else to create the page, you can do so over at Wikipedia:Requested articles. If the subject is found to be notable, an editor should hopefully get to it in eventually. Let me know if you have any more questions. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 16:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

MAB Community Services Rejection Question[edit]

Hello, I've been trying to create the MAB Community Services Wikipedia page and I understand that I need third-party reliable sources, however in the references I added third party websites mentioning MAB, including search engines and website posts about the organization, however they aren't present within the information from MAB so I didn't cite them within the Wikipedia post only in the references.

Do I need to cite them in the post for them to count? I just don't know what else I should do to make the post express its notability when I've already added outside references and that seems to be the main problem.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mabcommunity (talkcontribs) 16:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

@Development at Mabcommunity: Hey there. Regarding the sources outside of MAB, they are still only basic directory listings of the company, many of which come from MAB itself. These sources aren't considered to have much depth or significance to them. Organizations need to meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability in order to be listed, which means that the organization requires more extensive coverage outside of basic directory listings - things like news and magazine articles, interviews, etc. You've got a good start, but more coverage is still needed.
In terms of citing, inline citations are typically preferred but not required, except in specific cases such as quotations or challengeable statements. As long as what is written in the article is verifiable through the sources, it's fine. I know this is all very general info I gave you, so let me know if you have any more questions! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


Miss Multiverse page deleted[edit]

Greetings Kevin, you have a very nice wikipedia page and profile... congrats!!!

I have a frustrating issue here... I have created the page Miss Multiverse, it was deleted once before about a year ago, i don´t understand why if it has all the right references, no use of promotion, just facts, there are even winners of miss universe that have participated in Miss Multiverse whom have profiles on wikipedia... and its still deleted as if this beauty pageant does not exist.

There are many smaller beauty pageants listed on wikipedia, we are just not able to comprehend why this is happening, it almost feels as if enthusiasts or supporters of other pageants are deleting this one, it takes time to learn how to use wikipedia and frustrating to see someone just come and delete it.

I will appreciate your help enormously, if you would kindly take a look and figure out a solution.

Best regards,

Jose Cuello (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey Jose Cuello - thanks for the compliment! Sorry to hear about the trouble.
As it stands, your article is doing all right, with some concerns. The biggest reason behind editors taking issue with the article are concerns about its notability - everything may be true and factual, but subjects require extensive coverage in independent, reliable sources to be considered significant enough to have a Wikipedia article. Whether or not the subject is notable is something a deletion discussion would determine, if the page is ever put up for deletion (as was done once before in September 2013 as you mentioned, though the discussion had a weak consensus).
As for other smaller beauty pageants having articles, they either have more coverage and sources available, or they also lack notability. Each article is analyzed independently for notability; see WP:OTHERSTUFF for more info.
In the end, I wouldn't sweat it :) There's no shady anti-Multiverse business going on. If the article is ever put up for deletion, that's when notability concerns will be dealt with. Let me know if you have any more questions, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 17:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

duplicate photo uploaded[edit]

You notified me that I inadvertently uploaded two identical photos. I am not sure how to correct that, could you help me? Thank you. Docia49 (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey Docia49 - if you meant to upload another picture, you can just upload it on top of it. Scroll to the bottom of the page, and under the "File history" section, you should see a link that says "Upload a new version of this file".
Otherwise, if you wish to have the file deleted, you can slap an F1 speedy deletion tag on it. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 16:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Kathleen Andrews[edit]

Good Morning SuperHamster,

I recently submitted an article about Kathleen Andrews, Edmonton Alberta's very first female city bus driver. You declined the article suggesting (This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability). Im not sure if I understand correctly as I have never submitted a article to Wikipedia, but does that mean you want more 3rd party articles or confirmation that she really was the First female bus driver for Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Thank you for your help!

Lisa Andrews — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skylaa (talkcontribs) 13:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

@Skylaa: Hey there Lisa - your former point is correct. There's no doubt about the factuality of the article, but rather, whether or not the article's subject meets our notability guidelines of being covered in multiple published sources. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask. Thanks! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 15:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Please remove incorrectly-placed "speedy" tag from File:Bliss magazine final issue July 2014.jpg[edit]

Hi,

You placed a "speedy" tag on File:Bliss magazine final issue July 2014.jpg despite the fact it had already been marked with the correct "fair use" information by that point.

The file was very (and I mean *very*) briefly labelled as an "own work" before the "fair use" info was placed on top of it as- quite bluntly- it's simpler and involves less pointless jumping through hoops.

I would remove the "speedy" template myself, but strictly speaking I shouldn't as it's my upload, and I've no intention of giving some over-officious editor an excuse to whine about that.

Can you please remove this, thank you.

Ubcule (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, Ubcule (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
@Ubcule: Yes check.svg Done, sorry for the confusion, though I don't appreciate snarky remarks like this. Uploading a file with incorrect licensing and then having it tagged shouldn't be a surprise; it doesn't make sense to do so, and it doesn't make the lives of new file patrollers easier. We get dozens of copyvios like this uploaded daily.
In the future, instead of uploading a file with incorrect licensing and then fixing it afterwards, I recommend preparing the information template and fair use rationale beforehand, and then uploading it through Special:Upload - this avoids the annoying hoops that you and I both hate. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks for pointing that out. I must admit that despite having been on Wikipedia for some time I wasn't aware of that (most file uploads I make are to Commons, I only occasionally upload "fair uses" here); or more likely, I'd forgotten where it was, searched for it, and assumed the Wizard was its replacement.  :-/ All the best, Ubcule (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Sure - you can actually see the list of all alternative upload methods at the bottom of the upload wizard. Cheers, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cecil Gray (American football) 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:
  • from Norfolk Catholic High School (present day [[Bishop Sullivan Catholic High School]])) in Norfolk, Virginia in 1986.{{fact}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Fixed ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 17:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

07:53:15, 29 June 2014 review of submission by Enderugby[edit]


Enderugby (talk) 07:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC) Dear Wikipedia I under no serum stances copied and pasted off Facebook and I am offended that you accuse me off that please take away the tab saying that my page user:Enderugby has issues take them away please

Hi Enderugby - first things first, I'm not a representative of Wikipedia or anything. I'm an individual editor, just like you. As for the deletion your userpage, I'm not the one that reviewed and tagged it. Regardless, the tagging was correct; please refer to the talk messages left on your talk page, and read up on the relevant policies. Once you've done that, feel free to ask any specific questions. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Why you declined[edit]

i'm Owner of my organisation and want to add my article and i have right to write article on my organisation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flameshaxor (talkcontribs) 03:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Flameshaxor - seeing that the content came from the subject's official website, we cannot accept it as it is not knowingly released under a free license compatible with Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Copyright violations for more information. If you do own the content you are posting, you would need to explicitly release the content under a free license and show proof (either on the website, or through our OTRS process) However, the content you copied wouldn't be acceptable for Wikipedia anyway. It isn't appropriately worded for an encyclopedia, and is promotional.
In addition, subjects need to be notable to have an article. This means coverage in a variety of independent and reliable sources. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask. Thanks. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

Just so you know, the false defamatory statements I made on Daniel Kahl's page were not false defamatory statements about Daniel Kahl. If you wish to know why I vandalized the page, please read further. I have a friend named Daniel Krol, and he and I like to insult each other as a joke. I just used Daniel Kahl's article to make false defamatory statements about Daniel Krol because I knew that if I tried creating an article about Daniel Krol, it would never get approved with its obvious false defamatory content and would never be on wikipedia, so I thought it would be better to use another article to write about Daniel Krol. I apologize for abusing the power to edit, even though I always find abusing such power to be rather amusing. If vandalism has consequences that I am not aware of, please make me aware. Sincerely, Mcleod Allen Mueller-Hill — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C541:CC60:5C8D:9AA2:A1FD:64DB (talk) 06:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mcleod - thanks for the message. That's nice and all, but think about it: you're vandalizing an encyclopedia that millions of users (which most likely includes you) use as a daily source of information, and because of that, you're damaging the work that's been done and wasting the time of the many who are trying to improve it, me included. It's not easy helping an encyclopedia, especially when it's getting hit by vandalism on a minutely basis. If you'd like to know of any other consequences, just know that the biggest one is damaging a site that millions come to for information. I seriously suggest you look to more constructive things to pass your time with, especially if your idea of amusement is silly edits to an encyclopedia. Trust me, they'll get reverted anyway. I do appreciate your second thoughts and apology. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear Super Hamster, I would like to thank you for your polite and quick response to my message. It's true, I do frequently use your encyclopedia as a source of information, especially when I'm looking for plots of fictional media. Just so you know, I spend plenty of time doing stuff besides wiki vandalism. I spent most of today reading a Sherlock Holmes novel by Arthur Conan Doyle.

Mcleod Allen Mueller-Hill — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C541:CC60:5C8D:9AA2:A1FD:64DB (talk) 06:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Luxo Jr. revert[edit]

When a film is long enough that seconds are a imperceptible percentage of its running time, I agree with you. When a film is short enough that seconds are a noticeable percentage of its run time, I don't. - Denimadept (talk) 16:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@Denimadept: Sure - I don't have a preference between 00:02:12 or 2 minutes or 2 minutes 12 seconds, take your pick. I've seen all three used on short-film articles. All I'm saying is that 2:12 by itself isn't clear, which is why I reverted Niamh's edit. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 16:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
...thought I do suggest "2 minutes 12 seconds" more than anything, if mentioning seconds is vital. It seems standard to spell out minutes for movies < an hour. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 17:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
That's a good compromise, given the links you left in the revert comment. Thanks. - Denimadept (talk) 17:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good, thanks! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 17:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from May 2014[edit]

Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for May 2014, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement
Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe, 16:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Reverted Conservapedia edit[edit]

Hi, I saw you reverted my edit on Conservapedia, saying it was slanderous and that the sources weren't reliable. One was a primary source, and the other was a secondary source. While I have been a victim of this over the years, I was not intending any bad faith statements towards Conservapedia, just stating cited facts. I don't really care about the revert, but I do care about your allegations of slander. Why? -bleak_fire_ (talk) 02:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

@Bleakfire: Huh, very amusing. Not in the slightest did I even imply slander, which ironically makes your accusations false. Here is my edit summary:
Reverted good faith edits by Bleakfire (talk): Sources provided are not reliable and the analysis is original research. (TW)
I'm curious as how you derived slander from that; I'd like to emphasize the part about good faith. I'm well aware of Conservapedia's history, and as far as I know, what you added to the article was indeed factually correct. But any analysis dervied from the Conservapedia leaks is original research, and RationalWiki itself isn't a reliable source, being both a very biased source and a wiki (which are generally regarded as not acceptable). The content you added to the article needs to be covered and attributed to a reliable source, especially considering the good article status of the article. These are issues that have been hit on several times in the past on article's talk page. Let me know if you need any more explanation or still think your edit fits. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
You said my edits were done in bad faith, doesn't that imply slander? -bleak_fire_ (talk) 03:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
So you said I was acting in good faith? I thought you were saying I was violating Wikipedia's rules on good faith. -bleak_fire_ (talk) 03:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I see where you got confused - yep, I was saying you were acting in good faith. I "Reverted good faith edits by Bleakfire", and then provided my rational for the reversion. Apologies if that wasn't clear. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
OK good, sorry about that. I was a little disappointed when I was an unfortunate victim of the blocks (despite being repeatedly told they had unblocked me), but I don't want the wrong people to see something and misinterpret it, when it comes to the Internet you never know who'll stab you in the back this week. -bleak_fire_ (talk) 03:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Heh, sure, no problem - definitely understandable. Luckily most people here aren't looking to stab ;) Cheers, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

02:53:41, 7 July 2014 review of submission by Lorenzo Guzman[edit]


Hi, good day to you. Thank you for your fast review on the article that I've submitted. Few questions that I need to ask: first the article talks about "The Green Book" thus, information regarding the said company is the main focus, it might sound to be like an advertisement but it is not. All information written was to introduce The Green Book, its description, history, business and the like. Second, is it because there are few external references used? Please advise on what to do best without modifying majority of the content because that is the way I wanted the reader to learn about The Green Book.

Thank you and best regards. Lorenzo Guzman (talk) 02:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

@Lorenzo Guzman: Hey there, thanks for reaching out. Are you associated with The Green Book by chance? If so, you'd have a conflict of interest with the subject, which might be why what you wrote doesn't seem promotional - though it is. Unsubstantiated statements such as "it constantly met and satisfied the procurement needs of wide range of industries and interests" and "The Green Book has become a trusted name for establishing business contacts" are wholly promotional. Statements like these need to be sourced, and/or attributed to the origin. For example, according to whom is The Green Book a trusted name? Is this a widely-held view, or the view of single entity? A lot of the page needs to be re-written and better sourced to be encyclopedic.
Looking at the sources provided, it also looks like the majority of them come from The Green Book itself, or a directory listing. Statements on Wikipedia need to be sourced to independent and reliable sources that verify information within the article, preferably through in-line citations. These sources are also needed to prove the subject's notability, which is the measure of an article's noteworthiness based on its coverage in independent and reliable sources. Only subjects that have received significant coverage should have their own articles.
I know this is a lot to hit you with, but feel free to ask for any clarifications. I've also left a welcome message on your talk page with useful links that you might find helpful. Thanks! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

13:34:29, 7 July 2014 review of submission by John Stroject[edit]


Hi there,
We are requesting re-review as the article is a description of Huawei new eLTE technology (enterprise LTE). This new technology has many characteristics which are unique to Huawei company. Please see the details in the article. The first deployment has been made in Madagascar country, and to be deployed in other African countries soon.

Kindly help review and comment. Thanks.

John Stroject (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

@John Stroject: Hi John! I've re-reviewed your draft. In addition to what is written in the red box, I've added an additional comment below that (right before the start of the article) that elaborates on my review and provides a few suggestions. Feel free to ask any questions.
Also, quick question for you: did you take the pictures you uploaded for the draft? If not, do you hold the copyrights to the photos? They appear to be from various other sources (such as this one), which there may be a copyright issues with. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

14:44:15, 8 July 2014 response by John Stroject[edit]

Hi there ~SuperHamster ,
Thank you very much by all your valuable inputs. Actually, John is a colleague of mine and he is handling the communication part of all our events. I am Project Manager at Huawei Technologies Madagascar, and my name is Jaypaul ([email redacted]). You can see 1 of my pictures in the article and also in the URL you mentioned above.
Note: all pictures have been taken by our own photographer and the ones you see in the above URL have been taken by Minister's photographer.
As the first Huawei office to have deployed 4G eLTE in Sub-Sahara region, we feel important to communicate this through Wikipedia (very popular informative website in here). As per your recommendations and also as Huawei employee, we want to talk mainly about this 4G eLTE technology. Examples of deployment in Europe have already been covered by other colleagues, but this one where National Police changed their network name to 4G eLTE is the first one to exist in this region.
I believe this is more of an encyclopedic article rather than normal news broadcast, due to eLTE being proprietary to Huawei Technologies. John will input more independent references today, and he will refine the article as well. We will surely need your help to advise for any changes to be made.
Grateful if you could help us out with this publication buddy.
Thank you very much for all your good inputs.
Jay — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Stroject (talkcontribs) 12:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

01:34:02, 8 July 2014 review of submission by Nova1021[edit]


Sorry for any confusion, but I realize now that I didn't include enough information in my previous post. I am a representative of the filmmakers behind the film Thank You A Lot (Clearing a Comma, LLC). At their request, I submitted the press packet (containing the content in question, which they created) to permissions-en@wikimedia.org on July 2nd to be published under Creative Commons Attribution. From the information provided to me on wikipedia, it is my understanding that there is no copyright violation. Please correct me if I am mistaken. Thanks!--Nova1021 (talk) 01:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Nova1021 (talk) 01:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@Nova1021: Hey there, sorry for missing your original reply on the draft's talk page! Thanks for the clarification.
Most of the time, it's far easier and quicker to write article content from scratch (and I'd normally suggest you do so). However, since an OTRS ticket has already been submitted for this, we can run along with it. This is the first time I'm going through this process, so bear with me :)
The way the OTRS process works is that once permission is received via email (which hopefully contained a mention of the article the content would be used in), an OTRS volunteer confirms it and tags the page with the ticket number corresponding to the email. Since an OTRS volunteer hasn't done anything with the draft yet, I recommend doing the following:
  • Place {{OTRS pending}} on the draft's talk page. This will attract the attention of an OTRS volunteer, who will then check to see if the proper permission has been granted via email. Since you state that you sent the email instead of what I presume is the actual copyright holder, I'm not sure if that's adequate, but we'll see.
  • If the email is found but there's a problem with it, the OTRS volunteer will replace the tag with Template:OTRS received. Otherwise, if everything is fine, the volunteer will mark the talk page with a ticket number and we'll be good to go.
  • At this point, if not done already by the OTRS volunteer, you can place Template:ArticleOTRS at the top of the 'References' section, providing both the source and the OTRS ticket number. This properly attributes the text.
  • I'd also add a footnote to the end of the synopsis, stating its source. This will avoid plagiarism issues and makes clear what exactly was taken from the press packet.
Let me know if you have any questions! Hopefully what I wrote isn't too convoluted. Once this is taken care of, I'd be happy to re-review the article, which looks pretty good to go from a quick glance! Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
@SuperHamster:Thank you so much for all of your help. I decided to rewrite the synopsis and have resubmitted the article.--Nova1021 (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
@Nova1021: No problem - definitely the easier option, thanks. I've gone ahead and accepted the article, well done! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 16:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thanks for the help understanding regarding the signatures, and being so patient! All the best, Matty.007 18:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
No problem! Thanks! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Rollback & admin rights[edit]

Hi SuperHamster, do you have rollback or administrator rights on Wikipedia because the vandal edits are undone by you reverted them. Aside that I revert some vandal edits what they did vandalized an article I undid them. --Allen talk 19:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi @AllenHAcNguyen: I do indeed have the rollback tool, though that is certainly not required to undo vandalism. Could you please elaborate on the particular edit or editor who is vandalizing? I'm not really sure what you're referring to right now. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of David Hudson (pioneer)[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article David Hudson (pioneer) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zanimum -- Zanimum (talk) 20:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)