User talk:Ludasaphire

January 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Josh and the Empty Pockets has been reverted.

Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \bmyspace\.com (links: http://www.myspace.com/joshandtheemptypockets).

If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 03:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, even if you're only a bot (whatever that is!). In any event, you're a respectful and helpful bot, and your apology is accepted. I looked up the guidelines and under WP:External links#What_should_be_linked, a link to a social networking site may be included when it is the official website for a business, organization, or person. So, I put the info box back and included the external link to the band's myspace site, since it appears to me to be the band's official web site. There's also a www.joshsolomon.com website, but that is just an "under construction" page with a link to the myspace site. There's also a www.emptypockets.com site, but that goes directly to the myspace site. So, I'm assuming the myspace site is the band's official web site. If there is a special rule that applies to musical groups with respect to social networking, I couldn't find it. My apologies if I missed something. OK, now I think I'm supposed to sign this. Hopefully I'm getting this right. --Ludasaphire (talk) 06:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Cartel (record distributor)

WTF? Why was that deleted? Would you happen to have a wl to the deletion debate?

Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 11:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy Dingley! Don't mean to be too excited, but I'm very new to this, and you're the first real person with whom I'm commenting. Let me see if I can help...

It looks like The Cartel (record distributor) was proposed for deletion by User:Aitias late last year. Then, since there was no objection for over five days, User:Aitias went ahead and deleted the page. Therefore, there was no debate. I have no idea why it was deleted but given what I'm learning, my guess is that there was no references given or something like that. In any event, it's very easy for you to start the discussion process. You might start by looking at a general note that User:Aitias left here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aitias/deleted. As you can see, just like me -- albeit on a much more modest scale since I was just cleaning up some internal links to deleted pages -- User:Aitias was just serving the Wikipedia community by cleaning up some pages that might have needed some work. Since nobody was watching them to either explain why they shouldn't be deleted or clean them up (adding References, or what not) he went ahead an deleted them.

Good luck! And let me know if you do start the deletion debate. I'd be happy to read both sides and chime in.--Ludasaphire (talk) 13:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's now a new article at The Cartel (record distributor). I think there's about 2 lines left from the old one. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Andy Dingley, you really did a great job. I found it interesting and well researched. You'll note that I went in and chimed in to "Keep" the article. I also indicated that one sentence should either have a Reference or be modified so as not to conclude that they were "effective" and so on, since to me that's not a neutral point of view. Of course, I'm new to this, so maybe that's perfectly fine. In any event, it looks like you saved the article. Nice job!

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.
I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!
Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Since you've run into them already, I'll explain bots as well: bots, short for "robots," are automated programs that do many tasks, such as guarding for vandalism, watching for plagiarism, and even making new article stubs (very short articles needing expansion). If you have trouble with a bot, your best bet is to speak with that bot's owner, and most if not all bots leave contact information in their messages.

I'm very new to Wikipedia so before tackling a big project -- I want to re-create Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal (a law firm I worked at when in law school) -- I decided to just create a new page on a band I know in Chicago, Josh and the Empty Pockets and then make some modest updates to get the hang of this. I haven't gotten any feedback, but then I saw in the log for this page, I notice that you "marked Josh and the Empty Pockets patrolled". What does that mean, and did I do something wrong? Thanks!--Ludasaphire (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Marked Patrolled" just means that another editor, usually someone who goes through dozens if not hundreds of "new pages" in a sitting, checked out your page, either didn't see any problems or tagged it appropriately for cleanup (or deletion in the case of vandalism), and marked it "patrolled" so other editors could skip over it while doing new page patrol themselves. You didn't do anything wrong! Although, from the looks of your law firm page, you might want to have a look at at the article regarding Neutral Point of View, as the page has been tagged that it reads like an advertisement. Make sure you have a read through the above linked articles, too, as they'll help you a lot (I still refer to them pretty regularly myself!)

Again, welcome! --HamatoKameko (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks HamatoKameko. I appreciate the feedback and tips.--Ludasaphire (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal

Hi. Other than "putting things right", is there anything else I should do about a vandal? I see that in the law firm Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal someone added about the firm's chair that he was a dushbag.

Thanks for any guidance.--Ludasaphire (talk) 00:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :) As for vandals, it's a good idea to give the appropriate warning on their talk page, both for the person vandalizing, as well as to help other editors to know if the person they're warning has been warned recently. Enough warnings in a given span of time can lead to said user being banned. -HamatoKameko (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Yusuf_Islam_and_David_Spero.JPG

Thank you for uploading File:Yusuf_Islam_and_David_Spero.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. feydey (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Yusuf_Islam_and_David_Spero.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:Yusuf_Islam_and_David_Spero.JPG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. feydey (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:David_Spero_with_his_father.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:David_Spero_with_his_father.JPG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. feydey (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:David_Spero_M105.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:David_Spero_M105.JPG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. feydey (talk) 22:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Question about deletion of image files

Hello, Ludasaphire. You have new messages at Fastily's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

==thank you== Meanfrank (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest Notice

Wikipedia's Law of Unintended Consequences

If you write in Wikipedia about yourself, your group, your company, or your pet idea, once the article is created, you have no right to control its content, and no right to delete it outside our normal channels. Content is not deleted just because somebody doesn't like it. Any editor may add material to or remove material from the article within the terms of our content policies. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want included in an article, it will probably find its way there eventually. More than one user has created an article only to find himself presented in a poor light long-term by other editors. If you engage in an edit war in an attempt to obtain a version of your liking you may have your editing access removed, perhaps permanently.

In addition, if your article is found not to be worthy of inclusion in the first place, it will be deleted, as per our deletion policies. Therefore, don't create promotional or other articles lightly, especially on subjects you care about.

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Josh and the Empty Pockets, David Spero and Solomon curve]], you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you.Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your notice Soundvisions1. I've tried very hard to write only in a neutral tone and have made it a rule with every single statement I make to try to cite reliable, third-party published sources. Am I so off, in your judgment, that I'm editing tendentiously? If so, I'll definitely step back. I honestly thought that the articles were written in a way that Wikipedia readers would be interested in consulting them as a reference. I'm truly sorry if I've missed that mark. If your concern stems from my attempt to use pictures in the David Spero article, I can explain that in researching for the article, I came across in some articles what I thought were very interesting pictures, some from the '50s and '70s, and tried to track them down. A journalist I contacted put me in touch with Mr. Spero (whom I had never met and didn't know). He pointed me to his personal collection and I thought I found a great source to use, only to learn that just because you "own" a picture, doesn't mean you have rights to the copyright. So, I'm in the process of trying to track down the appropriate copyright owner for permission. I certainly didn't intend any harm; I just thought the pictures added a lot to the article. Now that I know, I can avoid that particular mistake in the future. Thanks, again, Soundvisions1. Any additional insight into your concern about my editing would be appreciated. Regards, Ludasaphire (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike many of these cases the issue is not that any of the articles you have created are on non-notable subjects but the fact you may be close to the subjects. Beyond the possible COI issues it appears you are here as an SPA. The easiest thing to do is just be 100% honest and say if you are either the subject of any of the articles, are related to anybody in the articles, or work with/for anybody who is the subject of the articles. If you are this does not mean these articles will be deleted, it just means you need to step back and find other means to place so much information about related topics. You also need to be upfront if you are using more than one account and editing from more than one location - home, work, on the road, a studio, a club or the like.

As for the images relating to David Spero, my concern is that the OTRS was issued without doing full research. Many people have "private collections" of images, but they do not hold the copyright on them. Many artists have photographs of themselves taken by various people and many of them are on personal websites and social networking sites but that does not mean the subject owns those images either. So in this case, the PD licenses on some of the images I do not believe are correct and may be copyright violations.

But first thing first - are you in any way involved with any of the subjects of your articles? Remember that not being 100% up front now may affect your ability to edit here if it comes into question at a later date. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I truly appreciate the education. Had I read the bit about close relationships before starting to contribute, I would have noted that upfront as you have now with the box at the top of two of my articles. By the way, you might want to add the box to Solomon curve since I’m also related to the subject of that article. On the other hand, I have no relationship with David Spero who I just learned about right before I started to research and write that article.

So, as you say, first things first: Although I’m not “the band's manager or a band member's spouse” I am related to one of the band members of Josh and the Empty Pockets. I’m also related to the subject of Solomon curve. [EDIT: In fact, I decided to go ahead and add the notice to the Solomon curve article both because I should have done that or something similar when I wrote it, and to save you the trouble.]

My intent is definitely not to be an SPA nor to promote anyone or anything. But I can see how it appears to you that that’s what I’m doing.

I feel like I should explain: I love Wikipedia and wanted to learn how to contribute. Early on I was somewhat discouraged learning all that went into contributing to or creating an article. So, to get started, I chose something that I found easy and fun to do research about since I was a fan. Although I’m related, it didn’t occur to me at the time that that would preclude me from writing the article. Looking at it now, it seems that, in fact, I’m not strictly forbidden but I need to exercise great caution. “Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias.” As I said, even without being familiar with the COI issue, I tried very hard -- bending over backwards, I thought -- to adhere to Wikipedia’s core content policies. Still, if you’ve detected bias, I’ll take your word for it and stop contributing to those two articles.

But to be clear, I am not the subject of any of the articles. Also, I don’t work for or with anybody or anything related to any of the subject articles. I don’t live with any of them. No one asked me to write them or even knew I was working on them until I published them. But since the criteria is being related, then I have a COI that I should have disclosed before now.

In terms of the images, I’ve been learning a lot about copyright that I didn’t know. You say that I didn’t do “full research.” When I added them, it felt like I was doing the research of Sherlock Holmes. But I realize now that you’re right. In fact, I don’t know who the copyright holders are even though Mr. Spero insisted that he was the copyright holder, I don’t think he understands US law on this. Can’t blame him as I didn’t either until I messed this up. Well, now I know -- counter intuitively to me at least -- that whomever snaps a picture owns the copyright of the image even if the picture is taken with someone else’s camera at someone else’s request, unless otherwise agreed or under an employee/employer relationship (I think I’ve got that right?). In any event, I might try a little bit further to see if I can find the photographer/copyright holder of one or more of the photos before giving up. But, as with the possible COI and SPA issues that you point out, my intent was to contribute positively to Wikipedia.

Finally, although I contribute and edit from a bunch of places, I only have one login, so I assume that’s not an issue. My wife tried to contribute for a short time, but found the process too much trouble so gave up.

Again, thanks for your clear and detailed explanation. Ludasaphire (talk) 02:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

← Just following up. You still need an OTRS for File:Spero in Ante Up Studio B.jpg as you did not take the photo. Other than that things are looking good. Thanks for your help and understanding with all of this. Soundvisions1 (talk)

Thanks for the reminder, Soundvisions1, and for the education. I was so focused on some of the harder approvals I forgot to nail this one down. I'll try to get that done in the next week or so. Ludasaphire (talk) 02:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Soundvisions1, I got the person who took the photo -- File:Spero in Ante Up Studio B.jpg -- to send an email to permissions@wikimedia.org. I think that's the last of these issues I need to resovle, but let me know if I forgot anything. I won't be editing any of these pages anymore other than, perhaps, making suggestions from time to time on the talk pages and allowing other editors add, or not, as they see appropriate. All the best, Ludasaphire (talk) 06:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thumbs up! If everyone was as understanding as you with such issues it would be a groovy thing. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Hello, Ludasaphire. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

And a couple of questions at talk:Solomon curve. East of Borschov 07:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

Hello, Ludasaphire. You have new messages at Levdr1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Ludasaphire. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikimedia Stories Project

Aloha!

My name is Victor Grigas, I’m a storyteller at the Wikimedia Foundation in San Francisco working on collecting unique and interesting stories from Wikipedians that can be used to compel donations for the 2011 fundraiser.

I found your user name on this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_in_Chicago

If you are interested in participating, and would like to schedule a telephone or Skype interview with me, please send me an email (vgrigas@wikimedia.org) along with any questions you may have.

Thanks for your time!

Victor, User:Victorgrigas Victor Grigas (talk) 22:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS If you know of anyone with whom I should speak please let me know :)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:David Spero 1990.png

The file File:David Spero 1990.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]