Welcome. To leave a message for me, please press the "new section" tab at the top of the page. Remember to sign your message with ~~~~.
I attempt to keep conversations in one location—so much easier to follow them in archives down the road!—), so I will likely respond to you here (if I've already been talking to you at your page I may continue to place my comments there, if it seems necessary for context). Please watchlist this page or check back for my reply. If I think it would be helpful to you, I will leave a note at your talk page letting you know that an answer is available.
If you have questions about a page I have deleted or a template message I have left on your user page, let me know civilly, and I will respond to you in the same way. I will not respond to a personal attack, except perhaps with another warning. Personal attacks are against Wikipedia policy, and those who issue them may be blocked. You may read more about my personal policies with regards to deletion here.
Hey I was hoping you could help sort out the situation between myself (Grant.Alpaugh (talk·contribs)), Kingjeff (talk·contribs), and Otav347 (talk·contribs) about the 2008 Major League Soccer season article, and all of the templates on that article, namely Template:2008 MLS standings - Eastern, Template:2008 MLS standings - Western, Template:2008 MLS standings - Overall, and Template:2008 MLS Scores, as well as 2008 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup qualification. The disagreement stems from the issue regarding the format of games as Home-Away or Away-Home and standings as W-D-L or W-L-T. I agree the disagreement is small, but it has caused quite the controversy. The discussion is mostly at Talk:2008 Major League Soccer season and Talk:2008 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup qualification, though the Open Cup conversation has been almost entirely copied to the MLS article's talk page. The discussion has also spilled over into our talk pages as well. While it would be nice if you could weigh in on the issue of the debate, I would mostly like your opinion about the tone of the discussion, mostly between myself and Kingjeff, as I believe many of his comments to constitute violations of WP:GOODFAITH and/or WP:NPA. At the beginning of the discussion Otav347 began to take the discussion down a personal tone, I called him on it, and he promptly apologized and has endeavored to keep things civil as much as possible from there on. Kingjeff, on the other hand, has made this debate much more personal, resulting, I believe from an edit to UEFA Champions League 2007-08 on April 15th or 16th in which he shrunk certain names of teams in the competition to a smaller font, which I reverted as vandalism, but he later explained was because on some resolutions the names were appearing in two lines, causing the bracket to deform. He made a comment on the talk page of another user I had been collaborating with at the time (PeeJay2K3 (talk·contribs)), I referred to it in my conversation with PeeJay, and Kingjeff accused me of following him around the WP. It was at this point that he collaborated with US - Jimmy Slade (talk·contribs) during his fit of vandalism to my userpages. I didn't think it was as big a deal then, but now almost a month later, he's begun attacking me again, making me out to be a coward on my talk page, accusing me of trying to own articles when I explicitly did the opposite, and generally defaming my character. I've repeatedly asked him to change the tone of his remarks and refrain from making not-so-thinly-veiled personal attacks. Most frivilously, he's brought allegations of sockpuppetry against me and everyone that voted along with me because my roommate reverted the templates in question at my request, similar to his request that Otav continue the edit war because he would be unable to do so for 22 more hours. I've been upfront about the fact that my roommate uses the same IP as I do as we're in an apartment and hooked up to the same connection. He didn't create an account, but he didn't need to to make the edit. He acted in good faith, as did I. I realize I've thrown a mountain of stuff at you, so if it takes you a day or two to respond, that's fine, but I would appreciate a response, especially as you dealt so well with the US - Jimmy Slade issue before. Thanks again, and have a great day. -- Grant.Alpaugh06:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. It certainly is a lot, but I'll be happy to help if I can. It's morning time in my part of the world. Since it seems complex, I'll set aside some time to look through it this afternoon. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've been reading through it all, and it is pretty messy. In terms of the content dispute, I'm afraid that I am absolutely the wrong person to chime in. I had no idea what W-D-L or W-L-T meant, and while I've figured it out, I think you'd probably be better off getting participation from people who already know such things and what conventions are used where. While I am an administrator, this gives my opinion on ordinary content disputes no extra weight, and my inexperience in the topic should reasonably give me somewhat less. If your efforts to reach consensus on the subject have stalemated, I believe you might want to consider neutrally requesting additional feedback at a relevant policy or (another) wikiproject. Be sure your request is neutral, though, to avoid giving the appearance of canvassing. Alternatively, you might consider "requests for comment", which may or may not invite additional input.
The sockpuppet case is almost certainly going to dissolve in regards to all but the IP address. The contribution history of the editors suggests no connection. You indicate that the IP is your roommate and that the reversion was done at your request. This may be a problem. Please see the definition of "meatpuppet", if you haven't read it before. You should not ask someone else to make edits that might seem designed to help you circumvent WP:3RR. (Not even if the other guy has done it, too.) Even if your roommate made those reverts without your request, the action would be problematic. In the section after that, "Roommates and sharing an IP address", people with the same IP are advised to act as though they are one individual when editing the same article. Given this edit, made at 00:08, 13 May 2008, it's obvious that you knew that further reversion of your own was a bad idea. I suspect, since your roommate made the first of his reversions at 00:14, 13 May 2008, that you were unaware of the nuances here and that his edits might be counted as a 4th revert against you. I do not know how those admins who address checkuser & sockpuppetry cases typically handle cases of what seem to be unintended meatpuppetry. I see that The Rambling Man has advised you to just wait that one out, but I'm not sure if he was aware that you are connected to the IP. You may want to ask his further feedback in light of that. If I were the editor in your situation, I would be inclined to explain what happened at the sockpuppetry and check user pages and make clear that I now understand that this is not recommended.
The question of civility here is by far the most challenging for me to address. There have definitely been instances of incivility, and the tone of your interactions remains hostile. I take it that the incident you referenced above, here, was the start of the personal antagonism between you. That was unfortunate. The vandalism guideline offers specific examples of what vandalism is and is not. Without evidence of bad faith, edits should not be presumed to be vandalism, as this is against WP:CIVIL in itself. This is why the first level of the vandalism warnings, {{uw-vand1}}, does not explicitly use the term. It is not used until evidence appears to confirm that edits were made maliciously.
Probably most editors who have addressed vandalism on recent change patrol have encountered instances where they've inadvertently labeled good faith edits as vandalism. On those instances where it happens, it's good to express the reason for your assumption, as you did here, but probably also helpful to apologize for not assuming good faith. It seems that this label must have made the other editor angry, and I fear that this and this only exacerbated that situation. It is more difficult to address incivility when it seems to have existed on both sides, even if you are interested in changing the tone of your interactions now, and so it may require more patience.
I have asked the user to please avoid personal comments about you as the dispute is resolved and the sock puppet allegations investigated. In spite of the nature of your dispute, I hope that he will respect that request. Given the factors here of your history with this editor, I would recommend waiting to take further action until the sock puppet case resolves. At that point, only if the problem persists, it might be good to seek input from neutral editors at "Wikiquette Alerts", which may resolve the situation short of |RCU. Meanwhile, again, you may wish to seek wider community input on the disputed issue, perhaps WP:RFC.
He says one thing then does a 180 when it suits him. I'm not the only one who has seen this. As far as the sock puppet case goes, the main issue is with the IP Address. The IP Address has only 4 edits in which all 4 were reverts which just happens to agree with Grant. As far as the other users are concerned, it's more of suspicion of Grant. I have had 2 users that have said that the IP Address reporting is ligitimate. Kingjeff (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The other issue with Grant
This issue is regarding Template:2008 MLS standings - Eastern, Template:2008 MLS standings - Western and Template:2008 MLS standings - Overall. I feel that it should be under the format of W-L-T should stand until the issue is resolved because Wikipedia:How to edit a page says "...Before engaging in a major edit, a user should consider discussing proposed changes on the article discussion/talk page..." and "A major edit should be reviewed to confirm that it is consensual to all concerned editors. Therefore, any change that affects the meaning of an article is major (not minor), even if the edit is a single word." We are onl discussing it now, after the fact. Grant feels that W-D-L should stand until the issue is solved. Kingjeff (talk) 01:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't change the meaning of the article. This is clearly an issue of style, rather than stubstance. It went uncontested for more than a month. In my view that constitutes an effective status quo. If someone had contested the change when I made it, then fine, but that's not what happened. During a content dispute, the article should remain as is, unless some overriding issue is in play like WP:BLP or similar. No issue exists in this case, so until consensus is reached, it stays as is. -- Grant.Alpaugh02:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But it didn't change the meaning of the article, which is what your above quotes say. I made a stylistic change, nobody said woop, and it stayed that way for a month when you started to contest it. Since it was stable for a month as W-D-L, I don't see how we can change it without a consensus to do so. -- Grant.Alpaugh02:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is a new sub-thread and now involves several people, I'll respond here. Kingjeff, I would like to point out that while people should consider and it is encouraged, it isn't required as per the policy at WP:Consensus. The initial change is not so much the problem at this point, it's that discussion has broken down and you (plural) seem to be either engaged in or on the verge of an edit war. :/ I noted that you, Kingjeff, have already brought up the matter for wider participation at the proper wikiproject, which is what I would have suggested doing. It seems that no clear consensus has emerged from that, though.
I understand that the big debate at this point is what version the page should be in as the dispute is settled. Ordinarily, it is the burden of the person who wants to change the status quo to provide evidence that consensus is for the change. The problem here is that neither of you can agree on which is the status quo. Kingjeff feels that the statusquo is what existed prior to the change a few months back. Grant feels that as the change was uncontested, it is the new status quo. The problem is that both of your perspectives could be perceived as correct by Wikipedia process. Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle talks about the fact that once a version is challenged, there is no consensus version.
I personally think that the best thing that you can do is focus less on which version is up on the page for now and instead seek wider feedback to permanently resolve the issue by inviting another related project or perhaps by initiating an WP:RFC. These are not always quick avenues for getting feedback, but I hope that on a sport's related topic you might find people more responsive. I've most often seen them used on more heated political topics, which people tend to shy away from as "no win" scenarios. --Moonriddengirl(talk)02:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to add that this probably it for me for now. It's nighttime in my part of the world, and I have to shut down. I'm already watching my typo count rise and my clarity fall! The point here is finding consensus—not necessarily something you like, but something you both can live with. In the case of the for-now version, there are many ways you could do this, including something as simple as agreeing to launch an Rfc and using the version selected by the first responder. This is, after all, a temporary situation until resolution can be achieved. If the pages continue to be embattled, you may also consider requesting page protection, at which point—if the request is granted—the matter will be arbitrarily settled, as the responding administrator will freeze the pages in whatever version they exist at that moment anyway. --Moonriddengirl(talk)03:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of Socking...
Can you take a look into this, this, this, and this for me? I'm pretty sure this is a direct attempt to manipulate polling and falsify consensus, which I never had my roommate do. All he did was keep the site from being changed before consensus was reached. This qualifies as sockpuppetry, and the IP account should be banned, and Kingjeff should be warned, no? It also strikes me as quite silly since the issue has already been resolved in his favor. -- Grant.Alpaugh20:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure there's a connection. The IP seems to be a shared IP account that has a history of editing that goes back to 2006 (see [1]). At a glance, I don't see any commonality in editing, and this IP is registered to a bank in Ohio. I can't tell where Kingjeff was from, but his spelling suggests the UK and his wikiproject involvement would seem to support that. Obviously, what happened here is that somebody copied the top name in the list and built a new identity and timestamp around it. Do you have reason to connect this with Kingjeff other than the fact that he had supported one outcome? As you say, it would have been a quite silly thing to do, given that the issue had already been resolved in his favor.
A checkuser would need to be done to determine that this is Kingjeff and would only be effective if he had logged in from that shared computer. The IP might be blocked for a brief time if there were a match, but IPs are not "banned" per se. Brief blocks are generally regarded as better, since IP blocks can hurt many individual. Kingjeff would possibly be warned or blocked for a short time, but he claims he's left Wikipedia anyway, User:Kingjeff. --Moonriddengirl(talk)00:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for looking into this for me. It just struck me as fishy, that's all. I didn't want to create a federal case out of it, which is why I brought it to you and another admin to look into before taking the next step. I appreciate the attention. Nice work as always. -- Grant.Alpaugh01:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Happy if I can help. :) I do have access to some information you may not, like some info on the IP. Anyway, I can't be sure it's not him, but without further development would probably let it go. It could be nothing more than an IP editor who wanted to "vote" under his own name but didn't know how. --Moonriddengirl(talk)01:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Moonriddengirl, I have had another go at the article on Ron Gatepain and would appreciate your comments as to weather it is now okay to submit.
Ron Gatepain – Writer and Lecturer
Ron Gatepain is a renowned architectural historian [1] [2] and construction educationalist. A Chartered Surveyor, Corporate Building Surveyor, Chartered Builder and Corporate Building Engineer, he is a visiting lecturer at the Bishop Grosseteste University College, Lincoln, England in Heritage Studies and has delivered courses as a visiting lecturer at the Nottingham Trent University and Loughborough University [3] [4] and numerous colleges and private training companies throughout the world [5]. He has also written and developed distance learning and webbed based training material for educational institutions and the British Army [6]. He appears on cruise ships as a guest speaker and subject expert in History and Architecture delivering talks on famous building of the world [7] [8].
Involved with numerous committees and with the setting of professional standards with regard to the planning and delivery of training for the Chartered Institute of Building, Institute of Highway Incorporated Engineers and the Association of Building Engineers [9][10].
Gatepain is a director of Gates MacBain Associates, a Construction Education and Training Company providing consultancy, education and training for the construction industry worldwide [11].
Military Service
Ron Gatepain served with the Royal Marines between 1965 – 1972 with 45 Commando in Aden, 41 Commando in the UK and Norway and on the Assault ship HMS Intrepid. He has also served with the Reserve forces in the Royal Auxiliary Air Force Regiment and the Territorial Army with the Royal Pioneer Corps and Royal Logistic Corps retiring as the Commanding Officer of 168 Pioneer Regiment in 2000 with the rank of Lieutenant Colonel [12]. He is currently a committee member of the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association.
Well, this is definitely better. I wish I could tell you clearly that it would pass muster, but I'm afraid I cannot certainly say. The article more clearly indicates what makes him notable, but most of the references still come from sites that have something to gain by promoting Mr. Gatepain. (This is promoting an event, this is promoting a seminar, this and this are promoting cruises. Wikipedia:Notability (academics), a notability guideline that may be useful here as Mr. Gatepain is a lecturer and historian, indicates as point #1 of possible notability criteria "The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources." Sources that serve to benefit by promotion of Mr. Gatepain would not likely be considered independent. The Scunthorpe Evening Telegraph remains your best source and so far the only one that I can confidently say supports notability.
Hmm. Let me try from a different angle. It's indicated in the bio that Mr. Gatepain has authored two books. Are there reviews of these books in any newspapers, magazines or industry journals that you know of?
One of the major problems you're running up against with this is that even if Mr. Gatepain is notable enough for inclusion by Wikipedia's standards, he may be challenged for inclusion. As that notability guideline says, "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources exist; see Wikipedia:Verifiability." If I were you, I would try to find a few more disinterested sources covering Mr. Gatepain before attempting to secure an article.
I am one of the regular volunteers at "the drawing board", which is where contributors may go to get feedback on article ideas before creating them, but if you'd like to also bring this up there, I will leave your question for one of the other volunteers to respond to. It's possible that one of the other regulars there can give you some different ideas for establishing and verifying notability here. --Moonriddengirl(talk)01:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!
Thanks for taking the time out to respond to my message. Am glad that the delete tag has now been removed and article restored. Am trying to collect more material before posting it on wiki at which point your help may be needed. Thanks again for the very helpful points on how to seek help with editing. Take care Bonhomie1 (talk) 05:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Moonriddengirl, I appreciate your response and suggestions and am quite happy relying on your opinion. I will see what I can do re other sources. Regards 831squad 831squad (talk) 09:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes, indeed, they are possible. :) I've had a few. Articles are often tagged far too soon for A1 or A3 concerns. :/ CSD policy recommends against deleting articles too soon if they appear to be incomplete, but particularly zealous new taggers don't always seem aware of that. Anyway, I'm happy if I was able to help prevent you having a bad day. I hope any reviewing admin would have done the same. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)00:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Co-occurrence network article by newby Johnfravolda
Thanks for guiding me in the world of wikipedia contribution.
I have attempted to strengthen the "co-occurrence network" page through the addition of references and links to web pages that employ the concept in presenting information.
There are some things that you may be able to advise me on that I realize now may further improve the discussion of this and related topics on Wikipedia.
The topic of "co-occurrence networks" can be considered a subtopic of "Literature Networks". Another subtopic under this heading would be "co-citation networks". Since both co-occurrence and co-citation networks are very similar concepts, they are probably best discussed together under the umbrella of literature networks.
So my question then is: is it possible to get the terms "literature network", "co-occurrence network" and "co-citation network" all to point to the same page?
I'm happy to help if I can, although you are definitely working out of my field. :) When we want to get terms pointing to specific pages, we create "redirect" page. You start them the same as any article, but their contents consist of:
#REDIRECT [[target page title]]
I'm not quite clear from the above if you're considering moving co-occurrence network to literature networks, although it sounds like you may be. Steps for that are at Help:Move. Let me know if you need assistance with it or if I can help in any other way. --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again! I have done the major changes I plan on the co-occurrence network page. In that regard, I was wondering when the "tag" might be removed ("This article or section is in the middle of an expansion or major revamping."). Although I do plan to add figures and consolidate information about co-citation and literature networks in general, the page as it stands now has many references to primary work and describes a concept that helps support other wikipedia articles. Does it not merit the removal of the tag now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnfravolda (talk • contribs) 18:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. The tag was placed there as a convenience for you to keep others from deleting the article before you had reached the point where it was ready to stand. I'll go ahead and remove it, but for future reference when that tag is there to represent your labor, you're free to remove it any time. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Each of the above entries offer some sort of advertisement about what these companies do, why can't I be granted the same consideration?
-Tom Shawgo
21:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)21:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)21:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The basic reasons why some articles are allowed to remain while others are deleted are set out here. Primarily it boils down to the fact that Wikipedia is large, and sometimes problems are discovered in one article but not immediately detected in another. Sometimes there are additional factors to be considered that may make one article a candidate for deletion by one process and another not.
In terms of the articles you mention, I see that E-Loan has been tagged for promotional text; I'm really a bit surprised that it hasn't yet been addressed. It does have some neutrally presented information in it, however, and WP:CSD#G11 is for articles that would need to be completely rewritten to become encyclopedic. There are, of course, other considerations with some of those you list. Apple Inc. is a neutrally presented article with many references to verify notability and attribute claims. (Similarly, see this.)
If you would like to establish an article on this company, please read over the guideline on promotion and the notability guideline on companies. The rule of thumb there is noting whether the company has received significant or widespread coverage in secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the company (excluding company PR releases and information solely available on the company website—these sources may be used for additional information after notability has been established by secondary sources). All material must be attributable and presented neutrally.
You are obsolutly right about me being a bit confused, im sorry to have wasted your time. Im trying to achieve something unique in music and i hadnt explained that a tall well in previous desription.
Now having read the criteria i am unsure if we do qualify. Im gonna tell you what we all about and see if you think we maybe are some sort of wierd sub section. if we are not then that is totally cool.
For ten years me a three school friends have worked hard at becoming an indiependant outfit that relies only its guile and own recource to record, tour, sell merchandise and raise money privatly (ie outside the normal of what bands usually aspire to do. IE get signed to a major, get an advance, go on a support tour and become famous. We have always wanted to do it differently. Noel Gallagher from Oasis was kind enough to let us use his large studio to make an album ourselves (he hasnt let any band our size use it) and we were asked by various big bands and big names to come play on tour etc with them.
We put together a new bizz model for how to achieve all the goals Majors do but with a much more favourable leaning towards the artist. It worked and we got backing to set up and more importantly have total artistic control over WE MAKE THINGS records. We are the guini pigs in a sense i guess but we do intend to further sign other bands etc.
We have had loads of great press and solid radio since releasing our 1st Single here in UK and altho it didnt chart (because we simply dont have the mustle behind us) the second single looks good and the album set for release in June has already got an offer from one of the biggest labels in Japan. we are set to do three main festivals this year Glastonbury, Bestival and Secret Garden party.
As i said before i totally realise why putting us in might open the flood gates but with XFM playlists and major support tours both iminent and already under our belts i thought i would at least write this opus for your perusal.
Hi. No time wasted. :) By confirming to me that the {{hangon}} template was unclear, you showed me that I needed to try to fix it. You're not the only person to have ever placed the "hangon" tag on your talk page. That's our mistake, not yours. (I presume that's what you're talking about. The article had already been deleted by another administrator when I responded to your "hangon", so the article itself took no time at all. My response to your note certainly wasn't a waste of time; I'm happy to help if I can. Anyway....)
In terms of notability, the exciting words there are "loads of great press". If that's the case, then your band meets the guidelines under criterion #1: "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." (You should probably re-read WP:MUSIC to see the footnoted exclusions there.) Can you assemble enough examples of that to demonstrate that you meet that criterion? As I mentioned on your talk page, college newspapers would probably not be helpful here, but city newspapers would help. Something to consider is depth and breadth of coverage. Listings of playdates would not help, but reviews would—especially if you have them from different regions you've toured. (You might qualify under criterion #11, too, "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network." It can be hard to demonstrate that one, though.) Whether or not the sources you have meet the depth and breadth standards can be a little difficult to determine. Sometimes if a band is borderline, their article will wind up in a deletion debate for other Wikipedians to consider whether or not the coverage qualifies. Again, more is better. More from different places is better still. :)
There is a problem, though, with your writing the article yourself. Our conflict of interest guideline strongly discourages this, since it can be hard for those involved with ventures to write neutrally and to avoid "original research", that is, information you may know to be true but not be able to prove. It's recommended that you instead propose the article at "requested articles" or seek assistance at the talk page of a related article or WikiProject. Neither of these are necessarily fast processes, but if you have solid sources that will definitely help. The quickest way to proceed there is probably to write the article in user space (if you choose to do that and have trouble figuring out how, please feel free to let me know, and I'll be hapyp to help). Once the article is written and sourced, it will be much easier to ask someone from, say, WikiProject Musicians to have a look at it to make sure it's okay. If they agree that it is and that there's no conflict, it can then be moved to article space.
Whether your band currently meets notability guidelines or not, it sounds from what you say as though it's about to. Congratulations to you, and I'm glad that your integrity is paying off. :) If you decide that you don't meet guidelines at the moment, more than likely the conflict will not matter for long. Music fans tend to be enthusiastic participants at Wikipedia, and I suspect that somebody will create the article for you. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks so much for this. i think im gonna leave it to someone else and your words are lovely. maybe you come catch a show sometime. biggest best Wemakethings (talk) 09:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tiptoety
"Brooke shields herself from the brutal reality that is her life by finding solace in meaningless material goods and the never-ending pursuit of more and more wealth. But, little does she know, all the beachside condominiums and all-night free-for-all's cannot ease the ever-growing pain she feels at the end of each pointless and purposeless day, a pain that will never be satisfied by her decadence, a pain that will remain until the day she dies."[2] --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the source for the award? This user has been consistently adding misinformation to articles, so I don't trust his statement that he won an award. Where he does add references, they don't say what he says they do, especially re people's ethnic backgrounds. Harry the Dog WOOF15:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's at IMDb. But even if it weren't, unless it is a blatant hoax, it is not a candidate for speedy deletion. Speedy deletion is for clear cases only. --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that IMDb is not a reliable source. Won't take it to AfD as you and another editor think it should stay if it can be improved, and that's OK by me. Harry the Dog WOOF15:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:AllKillerNoFiller.jpg}
Thank you for uploading Image:AllKillerNoFiller.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:
That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.
Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.
I appear to have a fairly tenuous grasp on what qualifies as CSD A7. Do you have any advice of how to determine whether someone or something is notable? If you want to see what I've been doing, you can look at my patrol log. J.delanoygabsadds15:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just adding that I am looking through your contribs and forming a reply, but my internet activity is blipping in and out. I don't think it'll take much longer, unless I have to keep rebooting my modem! --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it. I am asking you to do me a favor (i.e. help me). If I was angry at you for taking a while using your time to help me, that would be unbelievably selfish almost beyond reason. J.delanoygabsadds17:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here goes. I'm sure you already know some of this, but I'm trying to be thorough. :D
To escape speedy, an article does not need to prove notability or even necessarily assert notability as Wikipedia defines it. It only needs to include information that suggests that its subject could be notable. If an article suggests there is something unique or important about its subject, it's probably not an A7 candidate. Similarly, if deletion of an article on the subject ("schools" as the explicit example) is likely to be controversial, it's not an A7 candidate even if it doesn't suggest that it's important. Also, A7 only applies to people (individually or grouped, as in bands, clubs or companies) and web content. It does not apply to sub-categories of those, like books, software, albums, products, etc. There does seem to be a bit of a gray area around web content. Personally, I would apply it, say, to a youtube video even though I could not technically apply it to, say, a VCR tape. Is it fair that "Billy Hates Vampires is a youtube video made by Billy Sniggs, age 12, and Bobbi Jo Hardey, age 10" is speediable while "Billy Hates Vampires is a VCR video made by...." isnt? Probably not. There've been efforts to add products to WP:CSD#A7. If we can find good wording for it, I'm all for that, especially when it comes to non-notable products released by non-notable individuals. Makes no sense to me that even if the band is speedied, its garage tape needs to be PRODded or AfDed. But, currently, that's the way consensus goes on the issue.
I wasn't here when it was created, but as I understand it, A7 was devised to help deal with articles like "John Smith lives in Pomona", "My new band is super cool" and "Harold's Hardware is a store on East and Main in Podunkville." We get so much of this kind of stuff that it was determined that having it hang around for PROD or AfD was a waste of time & resources. The limitations were placed to help make sure that we don't get overzealous in deleting this kind of thing, since sometimes John Smith of Pomona could be very important. :) If his article says "John Smith is a famous architect from Pomona", it may not verify notability, but it does suggest that there might be enough there to warrant further investigation. If further investigation doesn't turn up anything, then a PROD or AfD may be appropriate. Typically I go PROD if I'm pretty sure that my investigation was conclusive. If I think somebody else may come up with more, I go AfD. (For example, I would not necessarily PROD an article of borderline notability on somebody from another country if I do not have access to good sources for that country. I'd either start by asking for feedback from the relevant wikiproject or, if pretty sure, list at AfD and notify the relevant wikiproject.)
Looking at some of your specifics, let's take the article on Paul M. English as an example. It claims he is the founder of a website that has apparently received significant attention. It's not unreasonable that he might have achieved notability in that capacity. He's probably not a good A7 candidate. I might be inclined to propose a merger of the bio to the website article, but I see there are one or two other possible assertions of significance there. I'd probably tag it for clean-up if I had encountered it. (I did just now, actually. As a general rule of thumb, I don't place more than three tags on an article. If it's a real mess, I will sometimes use {{articleissues}}.)
Looking at Cactus Jack (band), it is difficult to determine notability because the band is Serbian. It does suggest, though, that the band may be notable in the listing of five albums. Something like that probably warrants wider review.
Looking at Sayang dbsk malaysia, it seems that a number of people agreed with your assessment of the article as an A7 there. Can't say for sure why Iridescent decided to AfD it instead. If I had encountered that tagged A7, I would have agreed and deleted it.
You didn't ask about this, but I would like to make a point about WP:CSD#A1 and WP:CSD#A3. One common issue I see with new page patrollers (which, by the way, I used to be before I got the tools to work the other end) is a tendency to mark articles for deletion as "no context" or "no content" almost immediately after the page is created. I notice that you tagged Andrew Paquette that way a minute after its creation on May 18th. Please hold off with these tags until the creators have a little bit of a chance to add material. WP:CSD notes that creators sometimes work in stages, and we don't want to bite new content contributors by scaring the living daylights out of them a minute or two into their first efforts. They do tend to be puzzled and alarmed, sometimes offended, by deletion tags. I got a got a note from a creator about that very issue just a couple of days ago. I know that on new page patrol, you get into a routine, but it's a very good idea just to keep questionable pages of that sort open in a tab and pop back in on them a little later to see if development is ongoing.
You didn't ask about this, either, but I would like to suggest you re-read WP:CSD#G1. This is an often misapplied tag. You put it on the article Zott a few days ago, but G1 indicates that "This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes." It was deleted by WP:CSD#G3, which would have been the proper tag for hoaxes and fictional material, though this one turned out to actually be cruft of some kind. Evidently its up for merger now.
Anyway, I hope that this is helpful. I've actually noticed your recent tags and been impressed by them. You may be working out some of the finer points, but you seem pretty much on top of things as they go. :) I'm glad that you notify creators. That is so important for so many reasons (just to name two, it (a) helps creators figure out what happened to their articles and (b) helps creators figure out how not to create inappropriate articles in the future; I could name more), and yet so many new page patrollers neglect it.
My pleasure. :) I'm always glad to talk to somebody else who values the project. I give Wikipedia a lot of my time, and I approve of others who do, too. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick question, I tagged Benmatthews90 under G6, as it was obviously made by a new user who didn't under understand how userpages worked. What would you have tagged it as? (I mean, if you wouldn't just delete it... :P ) J.delanoygabsadds17:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would usually move a page like that to userspace and then tag the redirect for deletion with WP:CSD#R2. Then I'd leave a note letting the creator know what I'd done at his talk page. (That's essential, I think, if you delete the redirect.) There's a template for that purpose, {{nn-userfy}}. I probably wouldn't have used that template on that specific page case, though, since it isn't exactly an autobiography. :) A personal note would be better in that case. I think given how little information it had the way you handled it is fine. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
J.delanoygabsadds has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
this article was created by USER:David Lewis Paget, since when do we accept it that people write about themself in the main space on wikipedia? nobody is allowed to do so, why should we handle this user different? makes no sense to me. 79.233.109.158 (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest strongly discourage such editing, but do not explicitly disallow it. Such articles may be deleted after deletion discussion, but even blatant conflict is not in itself a speedy criterion, although it certainly may contribute to an article's being perceived as promotion and speediable by WP:CSD#G11. In any case, it has no relevance in determining a WP:CSD#G12. Nevertheless, this editor has been advised of conflict of interest guidelines on his talk page, here. --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. There was a deletion debate about Danny Welbeck at which it was decided that the individual does not yet meet notability guidelines. You can see that debate here. I deleted the version of the article created at Danny Welbeck on 18 May as a recreation of an article that had been deleted following a deletion discussion. In order to start an article deleted following a deletion discussion, the new version must address the concerns that led to deletion in the first place. I also noted that in that version, the language was promotional, which violates our neutrality guidelines. Since that time, I see that you have again created the article at Danny welbeck. It was deleted on May 20 by User:Number 57 for the same reason. --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
is a translation still a copyright violation?
Question
While I was writing this, NawlinWiki deleted the page :P Anyways..... This article even sayssaid that its source iswas this webpage, which is written in Chinese. I don't know a single word in Chinese, so I translated the page using Google Translator. The translated version, while obviously somewhat clunky, easily provesproved that the page iswas a direct translation (and copy/paste). Should I taghave tagged the page as a copyright violation? J.delanoygabsadds15:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Back to question 1. That's a tricky one in terms of Wiki policy, as I don't know that it's clearly spelled out anywhere. In terms of US law, a translation is considered a derivative work, and only the original copyright holder has the right to make derivative works. It's sort of indirectly addressed at Wikipedia:Translation. I've scanned the help archives to see if this has been addressed, and I don't see that it has. If I encountered this myself, I would replace the content with {{subst:copyvio | url=insert URL here}}. When I placed it on "today's section" of the copyright problem page, as the template instructs, I would note the special circumstances. Then I'd head over to Wikipedia talk:Translation and ask there, as those volunteers should be up on the Wiki approach to such things. If I didn't get an answer, I would next hit up Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, a translation is still a copyright violation. Similarly, if you take some copyrighted English text and change the words so that it's using different English words but still has essentially the same sentences saying the same things, I think it's still a copyright violation. It has to be rewritten to have a different structure. That's just my opinion; I'm not a copyright expert. :-) Coppertwig (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are derivative works necessarily copyright violations if the original work would be a copyright violation? I don't know much about the definition of "derivative work". If you summarize something, is that a derivative work? But it should be acceptable on Wikipedia – that's what we do, we summarize things. :-) Coppertwig (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Offer
Also, to change the subject completely, I was looking through your "frequently used templates" page and I saw that you had a couple of paragraphs that you obviously copy/paste to user talk pages. Would you like me to make them into subpages that you can subst? I have a few pages myself, and I think that my subst-ing is pretty good, good enough that you wouldn't be able to tell that I subst-ed. Here is an example: I produced this by typing {{subst:User:J.delanoy/vandals|++}}
Hello Moonriddengirl.
I noticed that you revert a good amount of vandalism. Thank you for helping keep Wikipedia the best encyclopedia in the world!
However, I have noticed that you do not always leave warnings on the vandals talk pages. You should always leave an appropriate warning after reverting vandalism. (The full list of talk page warnings may be found here, along with some suggestions and guidelines for using them.)
Be sure to leave the correct level of warning, and if the vandal has been warned four times recently, (Check the vandal's talk page history. Some vandals remove warnings from their talk pages.) report the vandal by going to this page and following the instructions.
Thank you again, and may the vandals fail... J.delanoygabsadds15:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I'm working on your original question, but will interrupt to answer this one. :) I do have a number of "personalized" templates. A user named ArielGold taught me how to make basic textual ones. Not very techie, so they aren't very complicated. :D If you're good with that kind of thing and are volunteering to help, what I really need is to figure out why this one only sometimes works. It doesn't work with every URL, and I don't know why. It didn't work on this page, for instance, and so I had to go back in and add it manually. Do you have any clue about that? --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I tested it in the sandbox with a Wikipedia page that does not exist and a webpage that most assuredly does not exist :). (at least, not now.......must...resist...typing..."free domain hosting"...in...Google.....) It worked fine. The only thing I can think of is, are you sure you typed "http://" into the second parameter? Because, when I previewed it before saving, it wouldn't work without it. (The documentation said it wouldn't work, so, of course I tried it.....) J.delanoygabsadds15:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure. I tested it again with that same page in my sandbox and got the same result. Before substituting it in, I did a "nowiki" version above which I cut and pasted. That shows exactly what I put into the template parameters. I can't rule out user error, since it's almost always my user error when I run into these malfunctions, but I'm not sure what the user error might be. :) (The documentation was written by Ariel, who coded that one for me. She's been offwiki for a long time, and she couldn't figure that one out, either.) --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I was off doing "work" work. :D For future reference, no, I don't mind. If you can help me figure that out, I'd appreciate it. I've been living with it sometimes working but not always since Ariel first coded it for me. If you can't figure out, that's okay, too; I appreciate your trying. :) I've been thinking lately that I needed to find somebody who knows stuff to help out with it. --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, MoonG. This might help with that url problem. Note here where it says something about a "url glitch". I don't fully understand, but I think it means that if you put in a url as an unnamed parameter, i.e. if you use a template like this {{templatename|param1}} then some url's with special characters won't work, but if you use it like this {{templatename|url=param1}} then it will work; alternatively you can do it like this {{templatename|1=param1}} which means the same as putting in an unnamed parameter as the first parameter, but I think will work with the url. You can try it and see. I hope this helps. Happy-melon probably understands this better than I do. :-) Coppertwig (talk) 16:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! You understand it better than I do. You seem to be saying that if the template is coded to have "url=http://blahblah" then it might work. Or, if the template is coded to have "1=http://blahblah" then it might work. But if I just drop in the URL it might not because of special characters? --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is what I'm saying, though I'm not sure whether that's correct or not – you'd have to try it. I'm on a different computer where I can only get one window and stuff and besides I don't really have time to edit right now or I would try it for you. But to use the 1= you don't have to recode the template: just put in "1=" (or "2=" for the second parameter etc.) when using the template. In other words, "1=" defines the first parameter in the same way that putting in a first unnamed parameter defines it. Good luck! :-) Coppertwig (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll wait and see how things work out for J.delanoy, who is obviously much more savvy at this than I am. :D If whatever he's trying doesn't work, I'll try to implement your suggestion. I can always restore the half-working version I have now if I mess it up. --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, now that I think of it, it might be better to move it to my subpage (all credit to you, of course), since I know of at least one other admin who uses it. Would you mind if I put it in that spot? --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Third note: actually, maybe you could just copy it into that spot and overwrite the existing contents, if you don't mind my hosting it. And now I'll shut up and wait for you to reply. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Once I noticed it was your sandbox, I thought copy might work better. :) I won't delete your sandbox, no fear, but if I do, at least I can also restore it. Thanks for your help! --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, maybe you don't need to know this now that J.delanoy has found a solution for you, but I figured out what the problem is: it's when there's an equals sign in the url. You see, {{templatename|pagename|beginningending}} will assign "pagename" as the value of parameter "1" and "beginningending" as the value of parameter "2". {{templatename|1=pagename|2=beginningending}} will do exactly the same. But suppose your url is "beginning=ending". Then you try {{templatename|pagename|beginning=ending}} but what this does it is assigns the value "ending" to the parameter "beginning", and doesn't assign anything to parameter "2". You can easily solve this by putting "2=" just before the url: {{templatename|pagename|2=beginning=ending}}. Then it will assign "beginning=ending" to parameter "2". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! Clever. :) I'll go with the volunteered efforts of J.delanoy, but if I need to template something with a URL again, I'll try to remember this issue. I almost wrote "remember this issue" but had to stop myself with a self-deprecating laugh. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)22:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I try to remember to always say "try to remember" rather than "remember": if one doesn't remember that, one is really in trouble!!! By the way, I think I knew the thing about the equals signs a few weeks ago but had to figure it out from scratch again as if I'd never known it. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the shiny!
No problem at all. :) I've been meaning to try to learn more about intricate template syntax, but I never had a reason to before. Thanks for letting me experiment with your template! :D J.delanoygabsadds19:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said at your userpage, thank you. :) I've got a little collection of self templates that I use, but that one is probably the most important. It is a requirement when deleting G12 candidates that users be told about copyright policy. When speedy taggers do not place the warning templates on user pages, the admin has to let them know. The official warning presumes the article has not yet been deleted, which seems inaccurate and a bit odd. That template is a big help to me. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what to make of it. I'm not heartened by her ignoring my post to her talk page and blanking the page. It almost feels like a real but non notable subject that she's trying to build a set of articles about. Could not find anything on Google that would allow me to verify any of it. In fact, the internal links don't hold up at all, either. It looks to me like vandalism/hoax. I went ahead and speedy tagged the userpage feeling it was an attempt to evade a speedy deletion, but that was probably stretching CSD beyond the limit. The connection between the names "Cassidy" and "Kassandra Livingston" seems more than coincidental. I think we can afford to wait a while to see if Verifiability develops or if MFD is the answer. Cheers, 22:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey!
Can i have your help? please? i will NEVER ignore your messages again.
I Want to make my character pages without creating hoaxes. HELP!
Hi, Cassidy. Thank you for coming over to discuss this. The issue here isn't that you must not ignore my messages, but that we do need to be sure that you're working within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. :) Wikipedia is a volunteer-created encyclopedia. It is a serious project, and our goal is to create a valuable research resource. Wikipedia allows anyone to contribute, because we believe that everyone has something to offer. But we do need to make sure that everyone who contributes understands what we're trying to achieve and helps us work towards that.
One of the things that Wikipedia does not publish is "original thought". We do publish articles on actual television shows and sometimes their characters (not always though; we try to make sure that the characters are "notable" enough in the real world that our readers will want to read about them). In this case, it seems pretty clear that the TV show you're describing is not a real TV show, given that I can't find any information about it anywhere else on the web and it involves some people who are pretty busy right now because of their recent and ongoing involvement with American Idol. It sounds like a very creative idea, but unless you can prove that it's a real show, I'm afraid that Wikipedia is probably not a good place for it at all. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, P.S.: the note above about you was left here by an administrator called Dlohcierekim, who left you a note about an hour before I did. We have been trying to figure out what you might be doing with these articles and what should be done about your user page. User pages are meant to help Wikipedia's contributors work together to build the encyclopedia, and aren't really meant to be a host of unrelated content. You can read more about what user pages are for here. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Cassidy. I'm sorry, but that wouldn't be proof that such a show exists and that these people have been involved with it. There's no mention of it in Carly Smithson's IMDb profile, here. The only google results for "David Cook" and "Growing Up Cook" are to your Wikipedia pages, here. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOT A TV SHOW!!!
Its not a tv show, its a written series... if i can their fan mail addresses then i can tell them about the series.
