|
ACs edits at the asmahan article. Amongst them: this was removed "'Alia and the three children moved to Beirut, then to Haifa, Palestine and eventually immigrated to Egypt." and also in the marriage section he removed that she had "returned" to Syria to "relocated". Because he doesn't think she lived there. We have been over this before, the author uses the word "returned" at one point and "relocated" at another. He also removed that she had been "required" to sing. Dont know if you actually supported the removal of it. And also he added something to the first part of the early life section that I do not believe have anything to to with early life. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not know why he removed Beirut and Palestine, they were both referenced. Relocated or returned - either way -- because the reader will already understand that she lived there as a child. The "required to sing" was still being discussed, but as you know, I found it fairly meaningless anyway. And if you are talking about the "princely family" paragraph, not only is that meaningless to the biography, it appears to be an extreme fringe viewpoint. The Al-Taba'i book (which was written in 1965, only republished in 2009) was mostly discredited by Zuhur. Any other source lists Al-Atrash as Amir, Prince, Druze leader, etc. — CactusWriter | needles 20:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What discussion? shouldn't the discussion begin if someone wants to delete something from the article as he did in two places? And is it really necessary to discuss a clarification of where al-Qrayya is?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No. You have been warned too often for just this kind of thing -- quick reversions. You need to slow down. Grabbing my opinion off this talk page, pasting it onto the article talk page and then using that as an excuse to make your own reversions is poor form. Especially, when you deleted AC's paragraph because I said it was out of context or "meaningless", but replaced your own sentence even though I had also told you I considered it out of context. You need to use the talk page and allow for discussion or response. It might take days for a response. This isn't life or death surgery. Have some patience. — CactusWriter | needles 13:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you accept him deleting the sentence that I had added then? Why didn't you revert it when he deleted it? Discussion with him hasnt worked for half a year, so why would it now? Until now it has been his way or edit war.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like an answer to my post here above why you let him delete the sentence I had added. And what am I supposed to do now at the talkpage? Your post has been added there.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest you take it to WP:3O or WP:DRR. If you are interested in actual mediation, than you must be willing to accept third-party advice -- even when that opinion goes against your own wishes. You have previously had mediation from good editors who walked away after growing weary of constant arguing over minor issues - especially after giving an opinion. I fully relate to their experience. I also recommend that you find a mediator who understands Arabic since some of the references require it. I think you should refamiliarize yourself with the entire editing policy page starting with WP:IMPERFECT and Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. Good luck. — CactusWriter | needles 09:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How can you even suggest something like that when i have told you before that I asked for 3O and AC did not listen to him and we got another mediator that AC did not listen to? You have not answered me above and I want an answer. I'm serious. Why did you accept him deleting the sentences that I had added, yet you reverted my edits? Including an explanation for where Al-Qrayya is which is of no controversy at all? You said to me: "use the talk page and allow for discussion and response." Then why didnt you revert my edits AC had deleted and tell him to do the same? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After only two weeks, you have made an incredible 43 edits to my talk page. And I responded -- even though I told you that I did not have the time to mediate your editing. It's is a shame that you have found my advice to be of no use. My apologies, but enough is enough. It is time for me to drop this stick. Good luck. — CactusWriter | needles 14:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok dont mediate but don't tell me to go to the talkpage for adding two sentences while AC ads tons of texts and deleted and changed the things I added without going to the talkpage, without you doing anything. Just so you know AC added some stuff that you said was copyright violation before and put them in quotation marks: "Egypt was a planetary distance from the small villages of the Druze" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Number 44. Your welcome. — CactusWriter | needles 15:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to take a look at this text that AC has recently added: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omar_Sharif&diff=311065654&oldid=311027382 "Life outside of Egypt gave him glory, but a lot of loneliness and a lot of missing his own people and his own country" This is almost exact as the source: 06.10 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYD0LTKaFc4&feature=related --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll take a look when I have a moment. — CactusWriter | needles 08:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow. Great interview. Sharif is remarkable. As far as the entry, this was easily remedied with a slight edit and quotation marks. — CactusWriter | needles 11:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was asked by my boss, the founder/owner of Rat Pak Records to create a Rat Pak Records Wikipedia, however, the page has been deleted because of copywrite issues. I'm not sure what to do or how to go about asking for it to be "un-deleted". All the information I added to that page, came directly from the owner of Rat Pak Records and I simply copied and pasted it (rather than re-write it all) and added the information to the page. I tried to leave a message when this initially happened, but was confused on exactly what to do or what was required of me. Would you be able to help/assist me please? My boss would very much like to solve this issue.
Thank you,
~~Cheekypeek~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheekypeek (talk • contribs) 19:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Replying in CactusWriter's absence: Since we do not verify user identities upon account creation, any claim of permission needs to be verified externally. This is done by following the procedures highlighted at WP:PERMISSION. Please note that Wikipedia cannot leave disputed content up for display until permission is obtained per the above means.
- Further, to save you some additional hassle beyond the copyright issues, please note that it is in general a very bad idea to write about topics you are directly connected with, such as the company you work for. This constitutes a clear conflict of interest, and I'd advise you to familiarize yourself with WP:COI before attempting to create the article on your employer. Last but not least, please be aware that Wikipedia strives to be an encyclopedia, and will not let itself be used as a vehicle for promotion. Any topic deemed worthy of an article should be covered by multiple, non trivial independent third-party reliable sources and written in a neutral tone.
- The exact requirements are explained in this essay about writing your first Wikipedia article, which I recommend you also familiarize yourself.
- Best, MLauba (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, MLauba, for the assist here. Cheekypeek, all the links and advice offered by MLauba should help you solve any issues. Good luck. — CactusWriter | needles 08:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The August 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CactusWriter,
Yes, I know it sounds crazy but I got unblocked. I asked an Admin on the IRC if can please edit again. I was just wondering if you could adopt me. Also, Congrats on the adminship. Rowdy the Ant (talk) 01:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, Rowdy the Ant. Thanks and welcome back!. I don't think it's crazy. I'm afraid I have my hands full these days and don't have the time to devote to an adoptee. But it is great that you are seeking one out.
- Here are a couple of suggestions that I hope will help. I think it is good idea for an adoptee to find an adopter who lives close to their own time zone (in your case, in the United States or Canada). That way, they are more likely to be online at the same time as you when you need to ask a question. You can look through the list of editors willing to adopt at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area/Adopters and see if anyone strikes you as a good match. You might want to find an editor with a similar area of interest as you. As I recall, you were interested in Toon Disney, Veggietales and other cartoons. I took a quick look through the Adopters list and thought one of these editors might be a good choice: User:Figureskatingfan, User:Tiggerjay, User:McDoobAU93, User:Jayron32, User:Ktr101. Take a look at their user pages and see if they might.
- Then drop a note onto their talk page and ask them just like you asked me. (Remember to ask only one at a time). Also tell them a little bit about the topics or Wikipedia area that you are interested in. If they have any questions about your block, you can always refer them to me. Good luck with the editing. Let me know when you have found an adopter. Cheers. — CactusWriter | needles 07:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll take a look at the adoption people you suggested. Sorry about the image problem, I really didn't know. Rowdy the Ant (talk) 14:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. There is a lot to learn -- I'm still learning all the time. Just remember to ask if you are uncertain. Good luck with with the adoption. — CactusWriter | needles 14:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cactus, as expected, SD is edit warring again. He's adding "of Syrian descent" categories to prominent Egyptians' biographies, e.g., Tamer Hosny, Soad Hosny, Anwar Wagdi, etc., as you said, just because they have a relative who was Syrian. Admin Sancho had stated on Omar Sharif's Talk page that going from both his parents were Syrian or Lebanese to "he was of Syrian descent" would be an unacceptable leap in WP. Please take action as necessary. I suggest you ban him from editing articles of Egyptians; he's insitigating edit wars where he does not belong. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 13:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- None of this is so life-or-death critical that either of you should be instantaneously reverting one another. Post a separate request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Egypt asking for input and wait for a consensus from the editors. — CactusWriter | needles 14:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What is "life-or-death critical" on WP? So strange you blocked me in a second without even a warning and you always have your kid gloves on with SD! --Arab Cowboy (talk) 11:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree. What SD is doing is unreasonable. If he still doesn't understand what was being discussed before (Admin Sancho had stated on Omar Sharif's Talk page that going from both his parents were Syrian or Lebanese to "he was of Syrian descent" would be an unacceptable leap in WP) and abide by it, then he should be banned from editing articles as his inputs are rather confusing and sometimes misleading. Nefer Tweety (talk) 04:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey!!! I am Egytian and he is Syrian. I do not mind being banned from "Syrian" articles, while Supreme Deliciousness gets banned from "Egyptian" articles. SD's agenda, slapping "Syrian" into Egyptian (and many other) articles, is very antagonizing to Egyptian (and other) sensibilities and is the instigator of all edit wars. I do not mess with Syrian articles and he should not come anywhere near Egyptian articles. Simple. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 10:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is ridiculous to allow this war to go on. SD should be banned from editing Egyptian articles. Nefer Tweety (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you have serious concerns, you should file a report at WP:RFC or WP:ANEW. — CactusWriter | needles 06:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted two but probably for the wrong reasons (what should I do about them? [1]. I see I used the same F11 that MBisbanz did, but it looks wrong. Still left is File:Warwakstoned.JPG - I think it's pretty obvious these should be deleted but can't find the guidelines that make this clear. The editor is offline at the moment but if she doesn't stop... Dougweller (talk) 15:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually asked Stifle about something like a couple of weeks ago. From what I read, the rules for images don't work the same way as text. In that there is not a lot of actual speedy deletion -- meaning automatic. They are tagged and then allowed to wait for 7 days. If uploaded again, the same procedure ensues. So as far as the picture goes, I would think that retagging is the only solution at the moment. But the text "about being stoned" is a different matter. That's a BLP violation if not sourced to independent RS. I think that needs to be removed now and the uploader warned about BLP vios. — CactusWriter | needles 15:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That only applies to certain deletion reasons, see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion - eg clear copyright violations can be deleted immediately. I think there's a problem here -- eg a hoax image defaming a real person, I wouldn't hesitate to delete it. I also think somewhere there's something about images of people. Of course, there is always WP:IAR. Dougweller (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. Doug asked my feedback. I think the policy here would be WP:BLP: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.... This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages." I see two options for the remaining image, which makes unsourced allegations about a living individual (certainly intentional, as supported by [2]): we can move it to a neutral name or we can pull the plug. Since I'm just offering feedback, I'll leave it to Doug to figure out which is more appropriate. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec)You're right that there are some "instant" criteria for deletions files -- but the majority fall in a gray zone, even more so than text articles. But that file is a BLP problem (I think the line you are looking for is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Images). I think it should be deleted as an unsourced attack. — CactusWriter | needles 17:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Mrg. Sorry about the ec. I agree with you. — CactusWriter | needles 17:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus is a beautiful thing. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Doug, I hope you don't mind, but I went ahead and deleted this as a CSD G10 Wikipedia:Attack page -- especially in light of the uploader's previous warnings for adding defamatory material to that article. (I recalled you were in that big much-ado-about-nothing with the deleting images and blocking recently. So if there is any flak about this, I'll take it.) — CactusWriter | needles 18:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Great, thanks. I am having real problems with your talk page, by the way. At times there are no 'edit' links, and just now there are edit links but the page is too wide
with no scroll bar. It may just be Chrome, which is what I'm using. Thanks also to you, Mrg. Dougweller (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, there is a scroll bar. It's too wide in IE as well but fine in Firefox. Dougweller (talk) 18:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, no. Of course, I use Firefox, so I have never noticed. But you're right. I just checked in IE and it appears the rounded cornering must be a strange markup. I wonder if this has been going on since I created the page -- I'm surprised no one has mentioned it before. Hmm, I'll have to fix this. Thanks for letting me know. — CactusWriter | needles 18:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm on Firefox, too. Hence, it looks fine to me. Good luck! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course! All the cool people use Firefox. But yours is fine IE, too. Eh, I'll just delete the mark-up for now and steal yours tomorrow. — CactusWriter | needles 19:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, thanks. I use Firefox for everything else, but as I often have 100-150 tabs open in Firefox, it won't cope with Wikipedia too, so I use Chrome for Wikipedia editing. Maybe I should be using Opera 10. :-) Dougweller (talk) 19:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When AC wanted to remove the category's from the articles you told him to go to WP Egypt and seek consensus for its removal, not only did he ask the "wrong" question, if there is support for its stay (instead of support for its removal) but he got no consensus for its removal and went right ahead and deleted the category's. Do something.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Egypt has settled the issue for the Atrash articles. It appears there is no consensus yet about the category and content on the other articles -- either for or against inclusion. One editor suggested seeking outside input. (By the way, I don't think either of you has asked the correct question yet, since the real dispute is about at what point can a person be considered "of national descent" or "of national origin" and at what point it is irrelevant.) If you have serious concerns about content, use WP:RFC to find input. If you have a problem with reversions, than WP:ANEW is the place to file a report. — CactusWriter | needles 08:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When I wanted to remove the category's he had added at the Atrah article I had to get consensus for its removal. He didn't need anything for the adding of them. If I hadn't gotten consensus they wouldn't have been removed. WP Egypt themselves removed them. Now when its the other way around, I have to get consensus for the adding of category's, and he deletes them from the article although the only two people that have answered support the adding of the category for at least two of the articles.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- By your own analysis, than you are guilty for this and this reversion since opinion was against it (and, oddly enough, you invoked my name when I previously told you I didn't think it belonged). You can't have it both ways -- hearing only opinions with which you agree and arguing against all others. I won't support one side when both act in like manner. — CactusWriter | needles 09:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean by invoked your name? The two that have answered support the adding of the category in two of the articles, yet you are letting AC remove it, imagine if it was the other way around and there was support for the category at the Atrash article and I removed it, what would you have done?
- There is no consensus against adding of it at the soad article, one is against it.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, your arguing just proves my point. Take it to WP:RFC. — CactusWriter | needles 10:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Admin Sancho has set the rule on this matter. He stated: "SD, avoid original research. Even the leap from "Sharif's parents were Lebanese", to "Sharif is of Lebanese descent" is going too far in an article about a living person." --Arab Cowboy (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to say something: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Asmahan --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the notification. I'll take a look, but I believe an arb case it is bit over the top for a content dispute between two editors. — CactusWriter | needles 08:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Its not a content dispute, he has changed sections that has previously been agreed during mediation so they go against what was agreed upon and what the sources say.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cactus, your count is wrong. I've been blocked 4 times only, not 5 as you claim, one of which is older than 3 months, another was reverted by Xeno for its triviality, another was a clear abuse of admin authority by Tan for contradicting him in a discussion in which he was involved (two more senior admins called his action "wrong" and "foolish", respectively, and another, which I did not dispute was a biased block by yourself. I recall at least 2 occasions when SD has been blocked, not just once, maybe one was before he registered a username. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Arab Cowboy, seriously, your comment here only does a disservice to yourself. Please read WP:GAME. None of your actions which resulted in 5 blocks (yes, I can count) in 3 months (May 26 - Aug 23) was trivial. At this point, I urge you to stop arguing. Instead, take time to reflect on the reasons for the warnings and blocks and to understand the consequences of your own actions, so that you might convince the members of ArbCom that you are willing to act responsibly within the community. There is no need to respond here. It appears the ArbCom will accept SD's case, so you will have opportunity to discuss your history there. — CactusWriter | needles 08:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, it seems that it is I who cannot count. But I was correct about the dates. I already reflect on my actions. I know that I am hot headed, and I know when I deserved the blocks and I did not dispute those blocks when I deserved them, such as yours, Graeme's and CIreland's. But Tan's was clearly a case of self-service by an admin. Yours was deserved on my part, but it was biased. I am still of the opinion that SD deserved an equal block at the time - he was "equally culpable" and "has been" (present perfect tense) the instigator of all edit wars. I have offered a topic ban for both of us and you have not accepted this offer. He should not come anywhere near Egyptian articles and the same goes to me for Syrian articles. What more reflection on my action do you expect from me? Because of your block and Tan's (together with all the bickering that goes on at AN/I), and your inaction to implement a topic ban to save us all this mess, I have come to conclude that WP is not a fair place. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Both you and SD clearly overestimate the position of administrator. We are not authorities. Administrators are just like any other editor except, because of some added experience, we are entrusted by the community with a couple of extra tools for cleaning up messes and enforcing policy. That is all. You also misunderstand the topic ban. It is not a neat separation between Egyptian and Syrian articles because that still leaves all the Egyptian/Syrian articles under dispute - and would entail more bickering about whether an article is Egyptian or Syrian. A topic ban from me would also be article specific - meaning neither of you could ever edit any of the articles on which your are currently in dispute. Period. In my opinion, in consideration of the history on both your parts, I very much doubted either of you would have accepted that from a lone administrator. Which would have resulted in more arguing, more blocks, more ANI cases and probably indefinite blocks. I doubt that is what you wanted. I know I didn't want subject the community to an even bigger mess like that. So stop blaming me, stop blaming Tan, stop blaming everyone else -- you and SD have created this entire mess on your own. You both were given ample advice, opportunity and resources to resolve it. You failed. Now the Arbitration Committee on behalf of the entire WP community will need to decide how best to clean it up. — CactusWriter | needles 15:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've spent the past six weeks overhauling the hip hop dance article and now that I've finished I posted it for peer review here. I decide to invite you because you're member of the guild of copy editors. I know hip-hop dance (the history of) has nothing to do with Danish films/people but you're a copy editor with a good command of the English language. I figured that was a good enough reason to invite you. I would appreciate your feedback. Be forewarned that this is a long article. Not including refs/external links, templates, and categories it's 7 pages printed. If you accept my invitation to review you may want to print it first and make your edits that way. I found it easier to read and to correct when I did this. Although long, it makes for a good read during a lunch break, a bus ride, or pure boredom. I learned a lot myself while rewriting this article. Consider this one of those articles you can "wander into relating to [your] experiences as a..." wikipedia administrator. If you like to learn, this could be an incentive for you. Gbern3 (talk) 18:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, Gbern3. Thanks for the invitation. I do enjoy learning knew subjects. It certainly does appear to be an impressive bit of work that you have done. I haven't had much time to spare lately -- but if I do get a chance in the next few days, I will take a look. Cheers. — CactusWriter | needles 19:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Due to ongoing issues here, I have G6ed the article with a wholly new version written and researched by me. If this deletion of text you wrote isn't uncontroversial, please, by all means restore the history. The new writing, I think, is necessary to put an end to this dispute. I moved the article because the term seems more widely used. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that is a fine solution. Your rewrite is beautiful. The original title always worked for me. It was Dbachman who made the title change because he was worried about synth issues, if I recall -- although I can't quite remember his reasoning. Thanks for dealing with the whole hullabaloo. These kinds of conflicts with people fighting for some personal fame or acknowledgment of their existence through WP always leave me somewhat sad. One of the reasons I don't do as much Afd notability work anymore. Anyway, well done -- until, of course, the sequel: The Return Of.... Yikes!. — CactusWriter | needles 15:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Happy to help. Whatever happens from here, there are absolutely zero concerns about plagiarism. :) Continued efforts to include this link can only be perceived as promotion, and I will trot it off to COIN. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm honoured, CactusWriter! Thank you very much for your kind words and Barnstar. I might be able rewrite the article as I have 2,3 good books on Sri Dalada Maligawa. I have seen your many tireless copyright violation cleanups. So keep up the good work and kind regards! --Chanaka L (talk) 10:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you find the time to rewrite the article, than that would be great. Good luck. — CactusWriter | needles 15:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, hmwith☮ 18:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Postponed
Due to User:Arab Cowboy's vacation, he requested that the case be postponed until October 9. Does that work for you? hmwith☮ 15:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly, hmwith. That's no problem. Thanks for the note. — CactusWriter | needles 15:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, ignore that last request. I've discussed this with other active users in the case, and postponing it will not work for everyone. The arbs will not make a decision until the user returns, but the case can resume normally otherwise. Thanks for your cooperation, hmwith☮ 00:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Got it. — CactusWriter | needles 05:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. There's one left outstanding at [[Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 September 10]: Bowcliffe Hall. I've left my perspective at the copyvio page but would appreciate a second set of eyes. I am already dealing with matters of close paraphrasing with an ongoing large-scale investigation. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done — CactusWriter | needles 12:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The September 2009 project coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators from a pool of candidates to serve for the next six months; members can still nominate themselves if interested. Please vote here by September 28! This message has been sent as you are registered as an active member of the project. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, no problem. Your rewrite was much better than mine though. :-) Theleftorium 12:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I think your version was probably fine as it stood. I only reduced it a bit. I mean, after all, there are only a few ways that we can write the exact same few facts. — CactusWriter | needles 12:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You popped a copyvio tag on this article, I redid it at the subpage (I was hoping someone else at WPEQ had the time to fix it, but no one did, so I did up a quick version) See if it works and let me know if it doesn't. Thanks. Montanabw(talk) 06:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for stepping in and taking on the rewrite of this article. The issues appear to be addressed. I've replaced the original copyvio page with your version. — CactusWriter | needles 08:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Any time, glad to help. Montanabw(talk) 03:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My name is Davone Tines and I work for the American Repertory Theater. I am trying to get an article on Wikipedia for one of the ART's collaborators Randy Weiner. My first attempt at an article included an accidental copyright infringement. I did not intend for the infringement to occor and would like to submit an article on Mr. Weiner that does not pose any problems. I am new to editing Wikipedia and would greatly appreciate your help. Below is the text I would like to include in a new article about Randy Weiner that was provided to me by him. Any feedback or help you could provide in making the article a stable part of Wikipedia would be greatly appreciated. 173.13.91.94 (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Davone Tines[reply]
Hello-
I realize that the copy I recently sent you contains a copy and paste from the site you pointed out on the talk page. I am working to edit the text so that it does not include that copy. Would it be alright if I submitted the new copy to you before I try to post it? I don't know if this is outside of Wikipedia protocol, but it would be extremely helpful to email with you directly as I am not so versed in how these talk pages work. My email is dtines@gmail.com - Again, thank you for any help you can provide.
Dtines (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Davone Tines[reply]
- Hi, Dtines. I understand how the various policies and inner workings of Wikipedia can be daunting -- there is a steep learning curve. It takes some time to learn your way around -- I'm still learning everyday. So don't worry about the early missteps. It happens to us all.
- And, yes, the text that you placed here again contained copy pasting. Wikipedia doesn't allow copyright infringing text on any of its pages, including these talk pages and user pages. So I have deleted it from my page.
- I will be happy to take a look at a new draft. Here's a link for you to create a draft article: User:Dtines/Randy Weiner. That page is in your personal user space, which allows you to work on a draft before it comes under the scrutiny of other editors. Go ahead and write a new article there and I'll review it for you. Here's a few tips: Write it from scratch without any copying from sources. Just use your own words. (It doesn't matter if the language isn't perfect. We all need collaboration on that -- that's the principle of WP). Keep it tight, simple and factual -- meaning encyclopedic. For example, the Diane Paulus article. Since it seems to me that Weiner and Paulus are on the same level of notability, you may wish to use her article as a guide. Reference the information to national newspapers or magazines (the NY Times, Observer, Boston Globe, Playbill, etc. should do fine. If there are scholarly journals, than even better). Of course, it is always a fine idea to follow the style of a good WP article, like Harold Pinter, which is a peer-reviewed WP:GA article.
- By the way, the Wikipedia:Article_wizard_2.0 can be a great help when creating a first article. When you have a draft, let me know. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. Good luck. — CactusWriter | needles 10:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello- I've put a new draft up at User:Dtines/Randy Weiner with references. Please let me know if this will work as an article. Thanks for your help! Dtines (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've replied on your talk page. — CactusWriter | needles 20:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello- I can't thank you enough for putting together an article for me! I have filled in one of the references needed, but is it alright to post an article with "citation needed" tags in it? If so I'd like to post the article soon, but continue to look for the needed references. Thank you so much for your incredible help!
Dtines (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I went back and rewrote the text to eliminate the citation needed tags. It is okay to have some text with citation needed tags, as long as you understand that any editor will be permitted to delete the text in question at any time -- especially in the case of biographies of living people. The copyright violations have been eliminated, so I've now moved the article into the mainspace. (By the way, I needed to delete the version you just created from a copy-paste of the Temp page -- copy-pasting from a temp page can also violate WP copyright policy if the page history doesn't give credit to everyone who contributed text to the article.) I'm glad that I could help. Good luck with the article. — CactusWriter | needles 08:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your rewrite. I had in fact translated the French website info and not Wiki France which I commonly utilise.I stuck the translation into a file of wiki articles without the correct source and assumed this was Wiki France.Many thanks for fixing the article
Many thanks. My mistake I forgot the source. There is indeed no French Wiki page but since I kept the file in my translations folder I assumed there was. Many thanks again. Robert aka Notafly (talk) 14:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your welcome, Robert. I am glad that I could help. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter | needles 09:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Sir. I know that that may be infringement. I have rewritten everything. Sir, could you please check Talk:Michael Lobo/Temp. Thankyou Sir, Slumdog102 (talk) 10:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. I'll be happy to check it over. I'll take a look at it later today. — CactusWriter | needles 10:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for rewriting the text to eliminate the copyright infringement. I made some additional changes to remove the redundant sentences as well as the promotional tone and attribute text to the subject's claims. I've moved the article into the mainspace. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter | needles 08:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the instruction. Please check out the note on Talk:Empress Vampire (film). --Garbolia (talk) 01:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Garbolia --Garbolia (talk) 01:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for supplying that link. I've removed the copyvio template from the plot summary. Please note that although text in a press release may be permitted for use, it still must to conform with WP neutral point-of-view and non-promotional guidelines. In the case of writing about film, the guidelines at WP:MOSFILM will help. Good luck. — CactusWriter | needles 06:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the understanding and suggestion. I think I've removed and re-edited some of the text from the release to become wiki article format and rules. The edit on wikipedia was not exact the same as the release, but I will work on it later to be better to follow wikipedia rules. I may consult with you on more details later if possible. Thanks again. ---Garbolia (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
