User talk:Drm310: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 04:01, 6 September 2012

Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.

This is Drm310's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Archives

Archive 1, Archive 2

COI templates

Hi Drm. If I could make a request, when you add a COI template to the user talk page of an editor who hasn't edited recently (one or two weeks) could you make sure to remove the Category:Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues, either with HotCat or by editing the template message? This is a tracking category and it makes more work for admins–and by admins I mean me–to look through the contributions of users who aren't actually editing. Thanks! Danger ^{High voltage!} 19:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Atmore, Alabama

Thanks for synthesizing the tags to the Atmore, Alabama site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.22.136 (talk) 06:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

USACK

Any questions regarding the validity of the data included in this article can be directed to ATTN: Joe Jacobi, CEO USACK National Office (Oklahoma City Office) 725 South Lincoln Blvd. Oklahoma City, OK 73129 Phone: : 405-552-4040 ext. 4504 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usack-okc (talk • contribs) 03:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you add defamatory content to Wikipedia again, as you did at USACK, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usack-okc (talk • contribs) 05:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we select this for arbitration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usack-okc (talk • contribs) 05:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to your last suggestion. Open to discussion and even input on how to improve the article as well as other articles in wikipedia regarding our athletes from anybody. The reason the article is as it is is because no one has had any input in 2 years that the article has been online. More than happy to have an outside source contribute in a positive manner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usack-okc (talk • contribs) 05:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you'd be surprised. I actually called the number the USER was posting and its actually the USACK in Oklahoma City. They thinks its funny actually. You two were actually telling the actual people that they were illegal copyrighting their own information from their webpage. Yes I agree their choice of name sucked and the should have designated a single person but do me a favor before you accuse someone of copyright violation verify it first....you just made the rest of the wikipedia community look like idiots guys — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.78.92 (talk) 05:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to have to side with the organization on this onee guys. Major violation of good faith on your side. Should have when to arbitration...then to try and cover up your screwup DRM and have a froend do an IP block. Man not trying to name call but man you are a disgrace to yourself when you bend the rjles and then lie about it. Do me a favor before you do any more "instruction" to another useR....READ THESE ARTICLES truth honor integrity

                                          Dr. SAMUEL TIDWELL
                                           PROFESSOR OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING
                                           MIT
                                            CAMBRIDGE, MA.  USA  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.72.15 (talk) 07:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The two of you are seriously confused. I didn't secretly contact an admin to have the original user blocked. It's not my fault that the editing habits of the user attracted the attention of an admin. Accusing me of bad faith without evidence to support it is just a personal attack. Regardless, the block against the user was correct as per Company/group names. Even now they still have the opportunity to change their username, but so far, have failed to do so.

The USACK website clearly states at the bottom of its pages "© 2012 United States Olympic Committee. All rights reserved." That makes the material copyrighted. The addition of copyrighted material, even by persons from the organization in question, must be done in accordance with the rules at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. That wasn't done, and that's why the maintenance template was put up.

I have some suggested reading as well: Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. --Drm310 (talk) 13:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Silly boy. The USACK is part of the USOC. Come on now youre joking right....you did know that all the USAS sports programs are under them didnt you. Where did you think all their funding came from. Why else do you think all that money came from. All international competiors that represent the USA and receive federal funding have to be members of the USOC. Each governing sport body has a member on the board of directors. In essence the only real power they have is they actually certify the various sport bodies and its athletes for competition including medical and drug testing. The only copywrite power the organization has is over the USOC logo. The USACK logo and its propietary symbols are owned by it alone. Again if you would actually do research before saying anything things would look a whole lot better......its not the fact you screwed up that is the problem...it th fact that you insist that everyone else is wrong. It took me a whole 5 minutes to find the above information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.72.20 (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Important news notice. After doing further checking with the US Patent office....guess who owns all things relaring to the USACK..........why its the......USACK.......say it aint so Joe....say it aint so....thats just can be right...surely that cant be right....now I advise you thats just what the USAPO websites searchable index says...I mean. .... I mean just because the US goverment says its true doesnt always mean its true....HAHA.........

Again all I ask is before anyone accuses anyone else on wikepedia.......verify stuff...

Not trying to embarss you DRM..you were at least tryng to work out a solution — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.72.18 (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note — For anyone wishing to discuss the article in question, I strongly suggest using the article's talk page. An editor who acts, in good faith, to remove or bring notice to possible copyright violations on Wikipedia is 100% percent in the right as far as our policies and guidelines are concerned. Furthermore, this user is not alone in their concerns, and a thread has been raised on the article's talk page. If you disagree with this, then you should raise your concerns on there—not here—as continued action here will in no way affect the discussion there (nor the actions taken as a result of it). Thank you for your understanding. --slakr^\ talk / 17:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links in article 'Bob Pringle'

Hi. The article 'Bob Pringle' has some dead links that could not be repaired automatically. Can you help fix them?

Dead: http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/Province+taps+Pringle+children+advocate/3774558/story.html

You added this in November 2010.
The bot checked The Wayback Machine and WebCite but couldn't find a suitable replacement.

Dead: http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/Pringle+resigning+city+councillor+2010+says+children+advocate+position/3785446/story.html

You added this in November 2010.
The bot checked The Wayback Machine and WebCite but couldn't find a suitable replacement.

Dead: http://www.newstalk650.com/story/20110101/45115

You added this in January 2011.
This copy from the archives might be good.

These links are marked with {{Dead link}} in the article. Please take a look at that article and fix what you can. Thank you!

PS- you can opt-out of these notifications by adding {{Bots|deny=BlevintronBot}} to your user page or user talk page. BlevintronBot (talk) 00:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Backwindow

Your copyright issue with Backwindow's page happens to be from a website that belongs to Backwindow itself. Maybe check that the next time, that would be useful? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.246.167.190 (talk) 22:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the article's talk page for discussion of the issues there, where other editors may contribute. Any concerns raised here will not affect the discussion there, nor any actions taken as a result. Also, please sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your statement, so that you can be identified as the author of a particular comment. Thanks. --Drm310 (talk) 03:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) - it doesn't matter that it's the company's website, use in Wikipedia still requires a formal copyright release. Just being an employee of the company doesn't mean they have the authority to release its copyright material under Wikipedia's CC-BY-SA license, which allows any reader to copy, modify and re-use for any purpose including commercial. JohnCD (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio tagging

Hi. Thanks for tagging Jon Olson, but where the whole article text is copied like that, the tag to use is {{db-copyvio}} for speedy deletion, rather than {{copypaste}}. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Westport Innovations

Thanks for your message, but can you tell me what you're referring to when you say that I copied and pasted text directly? You deleted my entire article without even making sure that you were correct in your accusation that I 'copied and pasted' content - which I did not. I wrote the entire article, and had it checked by the VP of Communications at Westport Innovations for accuracy, and quoted external sources rather than Westport's home page simply to comply with the rules. Thanks. Wprt (talk) 17:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Left my reply on the article talk page. I see there is now an OTRS ticket so I will let that process run its course. --Drm310 (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International Trade Centre

Last Friday you gave Mathew.chacko (talk · contribs) a coi warning. Today I discovered it was virtually all copied from the official website, so gave him a copyvio warning. Dougweller (talk) 09:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest

Did you send me a CoI note on my wall through an automated process, for my information, or because you actually feel that I had created a CoI on Travis McCrea? if you look at the revision history, you will see that all I did was added citations on claims that were already made (which also means that I feel that the conflict of interest tag on the article is illfitting, and makes it seem like I am making content changes).

Anyway, thanks for your clearification ☠ Travis "TeamColtra" McCrea ☠ - (T)(C) 16:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

follow up

a few things, while my name sounds like a joint account... if you look online, teamcoltra is simply my handle (@teamcoltra and fb.me/teamcoltra socially, teamcoltra on IRC, teamcoltra on messengers, etc).

You mentioned that my references were self-authored but I ensured none of my references were written by me. That was a big requirement for me to ensure that I didn't put any reference in that wasn't made by someone else to prevent bias.

Future suggestions will be made on my talk page. Thanks for your help (re Travis McCrea) ☠ Travis "TeamColtra" McCrea ☠ - (T)(C) 09:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting addition editor review of article Pretty Diff

Hello Drm310,

You recently cited my article Pretty Diff for conflict of interest and I do agree with your assessment. I have edited the article to remove content that cannot be verified by articles and included citations from third parties. Please examine the article again to determine if the article is still lacking the sufficient neutrality. I welcome any suggestions you may have to make the article less biased. It seems it is difficult to substantiate claims about open source software since most substantiation is performed by examining the code directly. I have noticed that similar and related articles are incredibly short and provide few sources which may indicate these types of articles are generally challenging to substantiate without speaking to the code of the subject directly.

Would it be inappropriate to cite artifacts of code to substantiate operation of the application represented from the article so long as features and intended means of operation are not represented?

Thank you for the review so far — Preceding unsigned comment added by Austincheney (talk • contribs) 22:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert at reviewing articles regarding software, so I can only suggest reading the essays regarding the notability of software here and here. As a general rule, it's not advisable for the person who develops a product (open source or otherwise) to write an article about it, as it would be construed as promotional intent.

As well, in case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button

or

located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. --Drm310 (talk) 04:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:King-George-map.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:King-George-map.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk•edits) 02:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editing done in Chitkara University website

Dear Sir,

The changes that have been made are informational and have been done by Chitkara University itself. The past content was not accurate and quite outdated. We are in the process of changing the entire Chitkara University text, links, images as requited by the governing body. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChitkaraU (talk • contribs) 07:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Drm310,

Kindly note that I have access and permission to the copyrighted material and there is little direct copying of content from anywhere.Inadvertent deletions are causing extreme inconvenience in wikipedia content upadtion. You are requested to discuss before sudden actions please.all material are informational. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.71.23.206 (talk) 11:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but your denial of copyright violation is not supported by the evidence. I have referred this to the conflict of interest noticeboard if you wish to attempt an explanation. --Drm310 (talk) 17:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Missouri Gas Energy

Sir,

I wish to take issue with the warnings and editing issues I have been sent. First, let me say that yes, I do have a close relationship with the company, as I am employed there. However, what we have posted in no way conflicts with the Wikipedia rules and in large part, has been independently researched.

What we are attempting to do is make our history and current activities known to those who may be interested for whatever reason, especially for research. Believe it or not, there are many who are interested in the history of utility service throughout the nation and their current activities. You say we lack a source. I would submit to you that the book, "Cities of Light and Heat" is a well published source that can back up many of the facts we have presented, but not all.

When publishing a company's history, there are not always published sources to fall back on. Therefore, one must rely upon the company itself to provide those facts. Are we not a credible source of our own history?

Second, it is essential that Wikipedia readers know and understand our CURRENT business operations. This includes our energy efficiency initiatives, which are not designed to draw us new business, as we are a REGULATED UTLITY BY THE STATE OF MISSOURI. Perhaps it would be wise to parse which states have deregulated utilities and which do not. That means we have a defined area in which we can do business an cannot breach those boundaries. Moreover, our energy efficiency programs are designed to save CURRENT CUSTOMERS money, and in no way promotes our business. Quite the contrary, we are giving money away in order to save customers money and save energy!! Is that in any way beneficial to our business by encouraging our customers to use less of our service? Is that a detriment to society? I could see it if we were promoting a mobile phone service or such, but this is not the case. Moreover, this is a dominant current business issue for us and all other utilities in the country, and as such, should be a relevant fact about our business and the utility business as a whole.

I know there are many other avenues we can promote this fact and we have done so. However, this is not a sales pitch. This is a statement of fact and is widely shared by most other utilities in the nation, whether natural gas or otherwise. We are not advocating the use of natural gas over other fuels. We are simply stating facts about our business operations. If you think that this in some way influences or biases your readers, then I would ask that you show me how, because every other utility in the nation has the same programs. If we were to publish that natural gas is more efficient and affordable, which is true, I could see your point, but this is not the case and that is not what we have submitted.

I understand and respect Wikipedia's integrity and dedication to facts that are cited and verifiable, and I strongly support this position. However, in this case, I wonder if in that quest, there are not some crucial facts that are omitted due that zeal. Does this do readers any service?

I therefore respectfully ask, that you reconsider our submission, as I can in no way see how this can be justified as "advertising."

Most Sincerely,

Jason Fulp