Hi. Thanks for catching my obvious copy & paste typo. It was supposed to be the name of a school, but I can't remember which one now. I naturally would not consider deleting, moving, or redirecting an article such as Elementary schools ;) --Kudpung (talk) 05:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I've expanded and referenced the article, trying to include sources demonstrating notability and giving a balanced view. I would appreciate your thoughts. Cullen328 (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
G12. Unambiguous copyright infringement.
Text pages that contain copyrighted material with no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a free license, where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving. Only if the history is unsalvageably corrupted should it be deleted in its entirety; earlier versions without infringement should be retained. For equivocal cases (such as where there is a dubious assertion of permission, or where free-content edits overlie the infringement), please consult Wikipedia:Copyright violations.
Remember to check that the suspected source of the seemingly unambiguous copyright violation is not in fact free content, such as a Wikipedia mirror, and to notify the page's creator when tagging a page for deletion under this criterion; the template ==Speedy deletion nomination of [[:{{{1}}}]]==
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on [[:{{{1}}}]] requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by [[:{{{1}}}|visiting the page]] and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. is available for this. For images and media, see the equivalent criterion in the "Files" section below, which has more specific instructions.
{{db-g12}}, {{db-copyvio}}
Sorry but I do not know how to proceed. Genbukan branched from Bujinkan a while ago. But all articles regarding Genbukan and Soke Shoto Tanemura seem to be deleted quite readily while Bujinkan seems to be protected from this veiled vandalism.
As I see it, claims of notability and verification and copyrights are similar in both cases but Wikipedia editors are prone to delete all Genbukan content but not Bujinkan.
Is this an adverstisment campain or an Encyclopedia?
If there are 2 branches with similar obscure or dubious claims... Shouldn't they be treated the same?
Please review historic deletions of Genbukan, GWNF, KJJR, Soke Shoto Tanemura, vs. Bujinkan and Masaaki Hatsumi: I think the wiki is being used for adverstisement purposes of one over the other.
I've inserted blockquote tags to try and make it a bit clearer what you're saying. It might take me a day or so to work out exactly what you're saying and come up with a sensible reply. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "Genbukan branched from Bujinkan a while ago" I guess you are suggesting that Bujinkan is a martial art tradition or school, and Genbukan was one that developed from it or was influenced by it.
Now, you say that "claims of notability and verification and copyrights are similar in both cases" but this appears not to be the case.
First of all, the articles that were deleted or userfied, and why;
The deletion log for Genbukan shows "16:22, 15 March 2011 VernoWhitney (talk | contribs) deleted "Genbukan" (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: http://www.kohakudojo.co.uk/Genbukan.htm)". That means someone copied some or all of the content of that article from the website listed. That's a copyright infringement, it rightfully gets deleted. If an article about Bujinjan consisted entirely of similar copyright infringements, then it too would get deleted. There are no double standards here.
The same deletion log shows that a PROD tag was present on an earlier version of the same article for seven days with no objections therefore that version was deleted. Someone removing the PROD tag constitutes an objection. Once there has been an objection, the PROD tag should not be re-added (as you seem to want to do with Bujinjan-related articles), instead the article should be taken to a deletion discussion. There are no double standards here.
The same deletion log shows that the deleting admin moved that earlier version to User:MiskaVuorio/Genbukan at the request of an editor, presumably so that it could be worked on with a view to eventually resubmitting it as a proper article. Cursory examination of User:MiskaVuorio/Genbukan shows that all of its references are to the organisation's own website; this makes it very clear why it is not currently suitable to be a Wikipedia article in the mainspace. If significant coverage in independent reliable sources can be found, there would be nothing to stop it becoming an article again.
The deletion log for Shoto Tanemura shows that it was deleted following a deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shōtō Tanemura in which it was noted "can't find any independent sources to support notability". If there is not significant coverage in independent reliable sources to prove notability, then the article does not meet WP:GNG and that is why it was deleted.
Secondly, the articles that have not yet been deleted or userfied:
The article Bujinkan, although something of a mess and needing more and better references, cites several independent published sources to back up some of its content (along with some non-independent sources). This is presumably why no-one has yet started a deletion discussion for this article, but there is nothing to stop you from doing so if you think that it's warranted.
Masaaki Hatsumi has something like half a dozen independent published sources (some of them looking reliable) backing up parts of its content. Again, this is presumably why no-one has yet started a deletion discussion for this article, but there is nothing to stop you from doing so if you think that it's warranted.
As you can hopefully see from the above, it is not the case that there is any "veiled vandalism" going on. The two branches may indeed have "similar obscure or dubious claims", however their Wikipedia articles had differing issues that were dealt with according to Wikipedia policy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to notability and independent sources in Tanemura and Hatsumi's pages I would disagree regarding independent sources. In the older Tanemura article there were sources that were at least as independent as Hatsumi's, if they are independent at all, for either of them. Most of the claims made are, after all, claims of knowledge received directly from master to student without independent bodies that would verify, since this is Ninpo tradition. I know that they claim that, in Tanemura's and Genbukan cases "all" of the references were to the organization's own web site, although I crearly remember different dojo's and magazines been referenced there. But when I tried to check on the old article it was not avaiable for rechecking. What I do remember was that in the page it was claimed that Tanemura claims more high ranks that the editor thought believable, but I would not think this to be a reason for deletion. But again I could not verify sources since the whole article was deleted by the time I got a chance to review. I would think that, if there are two branches to this Bujinkan Genbukan ninpo traditions both should have their space and one should not be deleted for not having verifiable sources while the other is allowed to remain while it has the same issues.
Maybe I'm not "wiki savvy" as to know how to review the Tanemura/Genbukan articles so I can verify them since they have been deleted.--Crio de la Paz (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
i.e. I just rechecked: I while ago Genbukan did appear in Wikipedia Ninpo article. Now the article seems to be a Bujinkan article about what that school considers Ninpo to be ...
--Crio de la Paz (talk) 04:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey: they even have there own category now! good for them. Great free advertisment.
--Crio de la Paz (talk) 05:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for bothering you so much: now I'm getting the hang of these. I reverted one of the pages and you were right: They are not sourcing to anything else! I will work on it on the following days, sorry for being such a pain, I think I'm getting the hang of how to "wiki" a little bit more now...
I thought I did see other sources in an older Genbukan article at another time but maybe it was elsewhere. I will try and source it up with "independent" sources as much as I can...
--Crio de la Paz (talk) 05:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's possible that both schools and both related individuals are notable enough for Wikipedia articles; equally perhaps neither and none of them are. However, it's more constructive to try to create a sufficiently well referenced article on Genbukan and Tanemura, rather than trying to ensure consistency by trying to get the Hatsumi and Bujinkan articles deleted. (If there's another deletion discussion, avoid using the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument as well.) You might find useful information at Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts or Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan, or seek feedback and assistance on their talk pages. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As was stated above and he was accussed of only 2 weeks ago he does have this pattern. Pls assist in investigating user Ravpapa. --Billybruns (talk) 02:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Interior, that is one very shiny and very highly valued barnstar! There was some very slight unintentional irony in BillyBrun's choice of who he directed some of his final contributions to, but to quote some TV program... "that's not for here" :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, just wanted to pop in and let you know I've responded to your new section in Talk:Michael McGinn about NPOV issues as I'm not sure if you've watchlisted it. I know that you started the section on behalf of an IP editor on a noticeboard so I'm wondering if you're planning on working on the issue with me or were just attempting to facilitate discussion. Either way, please let me know so I can help fix the issues and/or remove the tag. Thanks in advance. TomPointTwo (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do have it watchlisted and I do intend to contribute to the discussion. On the other hand, you're correct in that I probably won't be able to spend a significant amount of time in improving the article directly - it is a very big topic and I had never even heard of the guy before today. I will try to find some time over the next few days to outline what I think the problems are, from an outsider's point of view. It may well be one of those people who is controversial enough that anyone who really knows about the topic area will find it difficult to write neutrally, but anyone who doesn't know the topic area will find it difficult to write on it at all. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update. I'll leave the tag up, hopefully we can revisit it shortly. If you find yourself with too many other things going on in the short term though please let me know so I can move forward. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to keep bugging but...a lot is going with the subject and I would really like to continue working. I made a few additions to the article since we last talked and I was wondering if you'd be charitable enough to take a look and tell me what you think. Having a couple NPOV complaints against an article I've essentially authored makes me want someone totally uninvolved take a look. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Our friend is back
Do you think we can semiprotect Ronn Torossian and 5W Public Relations from anonymous editors? Our chum has completely reverted the two articles to their original puff status. I have never asked for protection and am unsure how to go about it. Thanks, --Ravpapa (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Hi,
My edits were removed and I have to clarify that a lot of the information you are posting is wrong:
"In February 2011 the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) presented a case to investigate an accusation from the Ministry of Health following complaints by Brunei's Ministry of Health's (MOHB) regarding complaints of overcharging a member of Brunei's royal family in 2007."
- There was in fact no complaint made by any party. The case began when Professor Saktu intervened on the private business transaction between Dr.Lim and The Brunei Government when the MOHB asked for a discount. They were advised not to pay by Professor Saktu, whereby constituting an interjection into private enterprise activities without prompting. Professor Saktu has since left his office (silently) and the Singapore media has not reported on this fact due to media bias.
"The bill for 7 months of breast cancer treatment or Pangiran Anak Hajah Damit, the cousin of the Brunei Sultan and sister of the Queen, came up to $USD 20 million (SGD$26 million) due to alleged significant markups.[8][9][10] On 28th March, 2011, Lim requested the intervention of Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Singapore) stop the investigation by the SMC, as "she would need to disclose details of the royal family of Brunei which could impact the relationship between the two countries"."
- this is a gross oversimplification of what happened and is misleading. Clearly your postings are based almost entirely on the articles written in Straitstimes, which has proven to be highly biased and only showing information cast against Dr.Lim, and almost nothing from her defense.
" Lim's counsel told the hearing that the medical bills had not been marked up.[11]"
- Lim's counsel has PROVEN in court documents and evidence that bills had not been marked up. The inclusions I made also show that there were in fact no charges or allegations of markups, and the entire issue of markups were added in court in order to sensationalize the case. Isn't that worth adding into the article??
You are sourcing articles which are all completely biased against Dr.Lim, AND removed any articles which I posted which explained the situation in a balanced light? I have to suspect that there is a motivation to post negative articles even though now there are articles which prove Dr.Lim has been the victim after all. The wikipedia article is helping in victimizing Dr.Lim and ruining her reputation based on unproven allegations. Is that the purpose of Wikipedia?
Why remove the other articles I posted? Is there a way I can pass this up to a higher authority because I feel you are intent on posting negative not balanced views on this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegurukl83 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message. I have to emphasise that I have only ever edited the article today, which was principally to revert your changes because I felt that, overall, they were inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. So for example, your changes included an editorial comment that explained your point of view on why the media and/or the public's views and responses to the allegations are unfair.
However, if I advertently removed sourced material that could be used to better balance the article, then I should not have done so.
A good place to raise concerns like this is at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, where I believe you already posted a few weeks ago, as a result of which the article was substantially revised at the time. I am going to check whether the article has since then been significantly altered from that revised version, as well as checking the edit I removed in greater detail to see whether there might be sourced information from it that might be possible to include to improve the balance of the article.
One of the problems here is that Wikipedia only reports on what "reliable sources" have already said; if the sources (that is, the media, including print and press) are all portraying the case unfairly then sadly that is all the information we can really use. However, as far as possible, Wikipedia attempts to write conservatively and considerately about living people - there is more information about this in the biographies of living persons policy.
Often issues can be resolved through editing, discussion, and asking for help at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard as mentioned above, but it can take some time and issues don't tend to get resolved straight away. However, "if you are not satisfied with the response of editors and admins to a concern about biographical material about living persons, you can ask the Foundation's team of volunteers for help" - further details are at this link. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Demiurge1000, you have been so helpful to me showing me around learning, teaching me how this place works. WP needs more people like you helping out new users. If it wasn't for you I probably would have gotten booted out for not following some random policy I had never heard of. Again thanks for everything you have done, @ d \/\/ | | |Talk20:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello you told me I was making "silly things" to Area 51 article. I also have no idea what "Pepper and Kad" has to do about it. I wanted to get rid of the coordinates, because that may not be legal. I am not complaing but, I did not try to make the article harmed. I just don't want anyone who is not supposed to be there go there, and maybe attack Area 51. I just do not want the person who wrote it to be arrested or go to court for placing the location of a military secret base. Also explain what "Pepper and Kad" has to do about a military base. Pepper and Kad is an animation not a place to go, the creator of the series would not want anyone thinking that their place is Area 51 in Disguise, because Pepper and Kad is not made at Area 51. Please respond. Sorry if I was rude. Thomasbum98 (talk) 20:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Thomasbum98[reply]
Also, please explain what Pepper and Kad has to do about Area 51. Please explain the silly things wrote too. I could have had someone log into my account and write that. I only deleted the location, but it is probably not legal to post the location. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasbum98 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're right, probably Pepper and Kad doesn't have much to do with Area 51. However, I suggest that deciding what is legal, is probably best left to lawyers. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Frost Beckner full article text deletion
Thank you for taking the time and offering your guidance in publishing the most accurate biographical entry on Mr. Beckner. As I have been working in a vacuum on this, the suggestions and commentary I've now received as to what is and is not appropriate for this submission are very helpful.
It was never my intention to initiate a "puff piece" for the WP editorial community to help contribute to, but I can see now how in trying to create a narrative flow, some of my wording would have been viewed as advertisement and/or promotion. This was in error and the suggestions of you and the other editors are ultimately of great value to helping me and the WP community produce the best possible entry on the subject. There have been many minor edits by other users, but the deletion of the bulk of the text certainly came as shock. I had assumed someone was trying to vandalize the article, especially in light of the inappropriate entry, and my discussion about it, that ultimately brought the article to the attention of the WP administrators.
With your permission and guidance, I would like to post smaller elements of my original text in the talk section of the page for discussion, keeping in mind that the salient facts of Beckner's biography, sourced and cited, should only be the simple and succinct biographical incidences of his career. While I believe much of the source-based factual data is of interest in understanding and illuminating Mr. Beckner's career, I will be conscious to avoid putting forth my own characterizations and conclusions. Please advise. Thank you. Dwwinter (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your message. I can see how this has developed - it's easy to unintentionally write with a non-neutral tone when you have a connection with the subject, and of course also as you say, you haven't had the benefit of much outside input from other people into the article. Posting suggestions on the talk page is the ideal way to proceed with this, so yes that would be great. One problem is if there is still a shortage of independent editors who actually have time to reorganise that material back into the article itself. On a positive note, both the article itself and the talk page have now been temporarily semi-protected because of some unregistered users edit-warring on them (both to reinstate your "version" of the article and to remove the comment you made on the talk page, which seems an odd combination), so we should be interrupted less by problematic edits now. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello
Hello Demiurge1000,
Could you please take a look at this for me. I am new to Wikipedia (my signature says otherwise because I stole it) and I just want to make sure that I make no oopsies. mauchoeagle20:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, having looked at it, I would guess the site (suite101) is blacklisted because of its very limited editorial control (basically just about anyone can sign up to be an editor there.) So it's not really a reliable source of the sort that we'd want to use for a Wikipedia article. Is there a more reliable source that you could use for that instead? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fiberanalysis reference is a more reliable source and it has that information in it so I can just take that reference out. mauchoeagle20:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect! It's a good idea to have a look around for other sources too, though, otherwise the article will end up being a bit too short, or people might question the notability of the topic. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, that would not be a good source. See WP:BLOGS for the main reason why, and WP:FRINGE for some more. I'm going to ask a police forensics expert if he can suggest a better approach to finding sources for this kind of thing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Demiurge1000 pinged me because forensics is vaguely my field and he thought I might be able to assist with sources. TruTV doesn't immediately look like a source to dismiss; on the other hand it's not necessarily the best in the world. Ideally we need scholarly works (or at least peer reviewed / reliably published books) on the subject. I always find Google Scholar and Google Books are prime places to find references; try here or here. Google Books is handy because they often let you preview pertinent parts of books (usually enough to make use of the source). The problem with scholarly stuff is that it is usually behind a paywall - if you have an Athens membership then that usually gets access to some of the documents. If you don't then make a list of sources and I will be happy to get copies of them for you. I also have other sources where I can get some of the law enforcement bulletins/handbooks & stuff; I'll have a dig through my library and see if I can find something useful. I have to dash right now (bed time) but if you have a look at those links - and if you need access to some of those references let me know :) I'll try and take another look tomorrow --Errant(chat!)21:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome
Welcome!
Hello, Demiurge1000, 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:
And no this is not superfluous. Everyone needs to know they are welcomed every once in a while. We hope you stay Demiurge I could really use your continued help around here, and thanks for all you've done already. Thanks, @ d \/\/ | | |Talk00:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeoman Editor (or Grognard Extraordinaire)
Hey Demiurge1000 it has come to my attention that you are no longer a Grognard but a Yeoman Editor (or Grognard Extraordinaire). I though I would let you change it on your page but I felt you should know, we wouldn't want you being shorted now would we :) @ d \/\/ | | |Talk00:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Oh... Sorry I forgot there was a time restraint to. You've done enough work here but apparently you haven't wasted* enough time here yet. @ d \/\/ | | |Talk00:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] *Disclaimer:Editing WP is NOT a waste of time. Although to get the service badge you could just not do anything for a couple of months and still get it...
Hi, Demiurge1000. I see you tidied up a bit after our banned user. I was in a rush to get off to work but now that I have had more time to review the policy, it states that we are to revert all edits by banned users, both good and bad, so as they cannot game the system and get a reputation for doing good work whilst banned and thus have leverage in any future unban request. Thanks for helping to prevent damage to Wikipedia by continuing to watch this problematic group of articles. Regards, --Diannaa(Talk)18:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Joe, yes the "thank you for your efforts to lighten up Wikipedia, but..." template is one of my favourites (and I actually know people that have received it for their edits, which is quite scary really). I like seeing vandalism non-constructive edits that are slightly more imaginative or humorous than the norm, in fact I had a vague suspicion at the back of my mind that the problematic IP in this case was the same person as the much less salubrious edits made to the same article by a different IP previously. So they are improving :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Francis A. Dales
On 9 April 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Francis A. Dales, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that cadet Francis A. Dales began Operation Pedestal on an American merchant ship, continued on a British destroyer, and ended it on an American tanker requisitioned and manned by a British crew? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
If you did not see, I might have done that article. See my explanation on admin board. Sorry if I contaminated that article with crummy edits. I did not mean too. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually "SysOp" is exactly the correct term, used interchangably with 'admin' - the user right, in Mediawiki, is called that - e.g. [3]. Chzz ► 01:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think it's better to pick one term, and stick with it. Pretending that some people are "more important" because they have some bit or other, is silly. If it's relevant to the circumstance, then fine. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) "Sysop" is and has always been an acceptable interchangeable term with "admin". I'm not sure where you get the impression that the two are different in Wikipedia context. And you of all people should know better than to edit another editor's comment. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clarity is important - I don't accept "sysop" as being usefully an interchangeable term - let's get things right, not just "right because we feel like it". Looking at the page quite recently, the questioned material has been removed entirely - so I don't think I'm wrong to have questioned it. An over-reaction somewhere? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter if you, personally agree with the term. It's a fact. And it is not appropriate to edit comments of other users even if they're wrong, unless they're nasty.
I do not think they should be called "SysOp" - nor "admin" - I think they should be called "janitor" or something. But that is not the point.
Thanks for putting the article on the Sams Wiki, I might go to that website instead, or just move onto a blog or something. I just can't think of good things to write about. Thank you! Thomasbum98 (talk) 00:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Thomasbum98[reply]
If looking for a topic, I think every ship listed on List of largest container ships would be notable, most of them don't already have articles, and Google News should find independent third-party sources about the bigger ones. But of course, writing about cargo ships is not everyone's idea of fun :)
I'm not sure how long articles stay on Sams Wiki, since quite a few people seem to have the ability to delete articles there. So Wikia might be better. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Now seeing it for the first time, I discover that it's actually just an arrangement of simple geometric shapes and text in a standard font - what an anti-climax! :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In light of multiple available sources and the continued expansion and improvement of the article, I would ask that you consider a withdrawal and close of your nomination. Thank you, Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.18:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From User_talk:Judae1 - I would say thank you, but I am also unsure of what this referred to. I read the citation page, but still don't know what I wrote. Can you link me to an edit and the change?
Much appreciated. --Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Feel free - if I can add something of value I will certainly try.
--Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 01:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to know what you believe to be improper about the Wildes article. If my knowing him is your only concern, you have a right to that opinion. Yet, Wikipedia policy is clear that I exercise caution and adhere to strict guidelines, but does not say that I may not do it. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. So more than just making a broad-brush declaration, I'd appreciate something more specific so to engage in a useful and real conversation/debate about it.
Thank you.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Center for Rural Entrepreneurial Studies until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Thryduulf (talk) 14:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, your additions to Caning are appreciated. I just wondered if they wouldn't go better in School corporal punishment, since the aspects being discussed are not really intrinsic to the implement itself. Indeed, if we were going by the implement, material about prefects punishing younger boys in UK schools would belong also under Slippering (punishment) which in some schools was more common than caning. When I in consultation with some other editors created School corporal punishment and the other "corporal punishment" articles in that series (judicial, home, etc.), it was with the intention that what one might call the "sociological" aspects of the subject that are not implement-specific would go into the new series of articles, leaving the implement-based ones (caning, slippering, birching, flogging, etc.) for more technical details about their administration. I could envisage a dedicated subsection in School corporal punishment covering administration by senior students, including your new material. Any thoughts? -- Alarics (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, this entire topic area, despite being of considerable cultural, sociological, psychological, and educational significance, has consistently poor coverage because of its interlinked problems:
There is a serious lack of scholarly sources, in some cases even basic information.
There is an enthusiasm by certain interest groups to push non-encyclopedic material into the articles.
There is a corresponding backlash aiming to reduce or remove coverage of the topic area, due to associating it with the interest groups.
There is a reluctance amongst most editors to get involved in improving the articles.
Parts of the topic area remain divisive and controversial, which amongst other things, skews what little modern coverage there is into pieces addressing the same few repetitive issues.
There was a recent AfD of Rulering (punishment) (a very poor article anyway) that hinted at a couple of these. The article had not been created to establish separate coverage of punishment with that implement; instead, bizarrely, it had been created in order to remove mention of such punishment out of the Ruler article! Even more bizarrely, one of the reasons given for deletion was that punishment involving being hit with a ruler is caning, even though a cane is not involved.
I spent quite some time thinking about trying to improve some of these articles, but always being reluctant because of the issues above, and also because I struggled to see what information should go where in the sea of conflicting emphases. The separate article for sociological aspects of School corporal punishment makes sense, but it has to a very large extent become a place to describe which countries or areas have and have not banned corporal punishment, or when they did so; and to focus on current practice (and current controversy) for those countries that have not done so. Equally, there is a lack of balance in the scope of the "implement" articles. In terms of coverage in sources, the cane vastly overshadows all other implements except arguably the paddle; the birch was popular too long ago for there to be much coverage of it, the slipper lacks coverage because of not being taken seriously, the tawse was numerically speaking little used. The majority of modern sources discussing caning in schools now do so in a historical context; the majority of modern sources discussing paddling in schools (and judicial caning) still do so in a controversy/abolition debate context.
Unlike the birch and slipper, the cane spent well over a hundred years as a key aspect of Western education, with cultural nuances as a result. But despite all this, for years the Wikipedia article about it hasn't even made clear when it was abolished in the British schools where it was most commonly and most famously used, namely private schools (right now the article says it was in use in secondary schools only "until 1987" which is just plain wrong), and until I fixed it today, had unsourced waffle about the end of prefectorial use of the cane that was contradicted by the sources.
I think this reflects some of the topic area issues that I mention above. What I'm trying to do at the moment is to get some sort of basic overview of the usage of caning beyond the idea that we know it became popular in the 19th century and we know the dates it was banned in UK schools. I think the people entitled to administer it (headmaster only, or teachers only, or prefects) is relevant to this, as are the offences for which it was deemed appropriate and the frequency of use (available but never used, available but used less than once a year, used only for serious offences like stealing, used for poor academic performance, used for dress code violations, used for poor sporting performance, used for "team spirit" offences like not clapping loudly enough, used repeatedly for trivial offences as part of a "tradition" of doing so; I have more sources that talk about it being used once per day for every 1000 pupils, or at the other extreme, in the 1980s no less, prior agreement of a group of teachers to arrange to cane one boy from a class in each lesson for a full day by "finding" infractions.) This variety of circumstances ranges from some that the majority of the public would still support today, to others that even the most ardent of back-to-basics advocates would condemn as abuse. Swap caning for slippering (or a ruler across the knuckles), and the position might change; the significance would be different.
Right now, the additions are rather tending towards a wall of better-referenced text that really needs some more sub-headings and other structure. (It's also risking falling into the country-by-country approach that has given the School corporal punishment article too much structure to be readable.) Turning this into a coherent narrative will be a struggle - does one do it by century, by type of school, by country, by the group administering the punishments, by severity of punishment, etc.
I'm not sure that these details do belong in the School corporal punishment article, although I agree that there needs to be some mention there. Also I don't want to encourage any sort of feeling that School corporal punishment is "the serious article" and the others are just sub-articles that can mostly just be guarded from cruft while leaving them in their current partly-unsourced and inadequate state.
You are right that the material about prefects' powers has crossover with articles like slippering (punishment), but equally, it's just as relevant in the currently-wildly-undersized section in prefect, and probably also some of it in a theoretically required "British Public Schools" article that is not just a redirect to "Independent school (United Kingdom)". It would then also be difficult to give proper coverage of the tradition of prefect-administered beatings in the same section as explaining the much more restrained modern responsibilities of prefects, without risking a wild misrepresentation of one or the other just by juxtaposition.
As all of this hopefully gives an idea, the right place and way to cover this is a whole series of difficult decisions... I don't think it's just a question of sociological questions in one place and the exact details of permitted clothing, number of whacks, thickness of implement, position of recipient etc, in another. (In fact I remain convinced that the oft-seen commitment to lengthy discussion of "nursery" versus junior versus senior versus "reformatory" canes, etc, is in fact undue weight related to cruft.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly enough, only just today I read (or maybe re-read) Wikipedia:TPG which recommends keeping talk page messages under 100 words. Ha! No hurry on the response, but I'm certainly very interested in your thoughts. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)That is a ludicrous suggestion...I'm tempted to go edit that guideline as it conforms to neither common practice nor to common sense. talk page posts should be concise, but how long that will be depends entirely on the subject matter being addressed. <---That's 44 words right there; what if this were a real issue?Qwyrxian (talk) 02:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that part of the guideline may be more aimed at article talkpages rather than user talkpages. Now my ramblings above would admittedly be a bit over the ideal length for an article talkpage, but in practice that's about the length that most people do actually write on article talkpages when they're discussing something seriously; if there's an issue with an article that includes several aspects or examples, and each of the aspects is potentially disputed, one inevitably needs a fair bit of text to discuss them all, and breaking them into sub-sections just for the sake of it is silly. 250 words might be a better target to "aim at" for readability, but even then there are many situations where that's nowhere near enough. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Graduate School of Design at Ewha Womans University
Thanks, that works just as well to deal with the copyvio (full reply below) although if the deletionist rage overtakes me I might go and AfD it later :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gradate School of Design
Thanks for the detailed explanation; if I had understood this when I reviewed it, I would have deleted it. Since you'd not specified that the article had text from several different pages, I understood the template to say that everything was taken from the same page, and I knew that the URL you gave me didn't have the intro text. You may be interested in the article's present state; Ruhrfisch has cut it down to a stub and moved it to Graduate School of Design at Ewha Womans University. Nyttend (talk) 02:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah the website is a little bit clever, the URL you see is still the front page even after you click to go to one of the sub-pages. (It's also set up so that you can't copy-paste the text from the website - which is both ironic and rather dumb, do they not understand how search engines work?) This is probably why the automated tool didn't find any apparent copyvio, although actually it's not infallible even without those obstacles. For future ones like this I'll probably post a full explanation where twinkle just asks for the URL.
I'm fine with it being stubbified rather than deleted - it deals with the copyvio issue so we are covered. There's no time to check and rework every single article when doing WP:NPP though, as there are hundreds with issues. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I made a Wikia account, I emailed the creator of Pepper and Kad, and I share the account with him. We called it Animationpedia which we copy and pasted the Pepper and Kad onto it. Thanks for the message, even though it was a while ago I decided to try wiki. Have a nice day! Thomasbum98 (talk) 02:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Thomasbum98[reply]
Also please be aware of this ... best to do what Wikipe-tan says, as she can get quite mean sometimes :)
I hope you're still going to try and do some work on Wikipedia articles sometime too. It probably needs to be an article that already exists, though, so that you know it's notable. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It has to be notable on Wikia too? Also yes I will still make Wikipedia articles, I found a perfect article to make, but someone made it just before I did. There is a Wikipedia get-together in London? That seems nice. Floppy (The creator of Pepper and Kad) and I will do all we can do to make sure Animationpedia does not have any vandalism, the main goal for Animationpedia is for animators to write about their animations on there, even though they can be the most popular, or the least popular. Have a nice day!Thomasbum98 (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Thomasbum98[reply]
Re: Advice
Hi Demiurge,
Thanks for your advice and help. It would be great if you could find some stuff. I already have made a copy of the article onto my userspace.
I don't know if you have followed what has been happening to do with me (I don't mean to be horrible or only thinking about myself, its just some people often do), but if you did do you think I'll get out of all this mess without any problems? '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 09:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you will need to be punished very severely :)
No, actually I think things will be fine if you take things calmly and change your approach to things. A certain other rather similar user with very similar interests had much more serious problems but is now unblocked and benefitting from mentoring.
I have applied to Worm That Turned for adoption and have been accepted. I think its a good idea, but the only thing I'm not sure about is what they actually do? Would you mind explaining that, please? '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 10:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A quick explanation is that there are lessons (to read) and then short sets of questions (to answer). The lessons come one at once so you can take it in easy stages. But also at the same time, there is discussion about what your aims are, what problems there might be with editing or arguments with other users or whatever, and how to deal with them. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I hhave just been ask by the user you mentioned (who also got banned) to help him out with his page. Thanks for you help. I'm going off to find you some kind of suitable Barnstar!'''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 10:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
C & F Agent (clearing and forwarding agent): Refer Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994 (of India) - Section - 65. Clause - 25 - Definition of Clearing and forwarding agent.
