User talk:Reddogsix

S e m i - R e t i r e d

Please put new entries at the BOTTOM OF THE PAGE

Proposed Deletion of Stephen Hegyes

I have added references from IMDB, from which you can see the extent of his movie production credits, which will be later detailed. I have removed the proposed deletion tag accordingly, which I hope is OK. Dreadarthur (talk) 01:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Nice... reddogsix (talk) 01:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Copyright Question

Hey, this is an FYI that I'm asking for user conduct help. I messaged you asking you not to tag photographs which comport with Wiki Policy as "copyright violations". I haven't seen a response, but I have seen more tagging. I don't think it's deliberately spam, but I don't know what else to do except ask for third party help. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cchessman (talk • contribs) 23:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are asking or are indicating I am doing that is in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. I have marked the images as copyright violations per WP:COPYVIO. You may want to review that article and WP:DCM. For more guidance. reddogsix (talk) 23:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that you lack a good-faith basis for marking the photos as "copyright violations" and asking you to stop, or in the alternative asking you to contact me before tagging them. Cchessman (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Based on what do you make the statement that I am not acting in good faith. All you need to do to resolve the issue is show the images are not a copyright violation. Show where the author has released the image under CC-BY-3.0 LICENSE.

I'll also suggest you talk to users directly before assuming that a user is not acting in good faith or opening a complaint against them. I am far from perfect, but I generally do not act in malice. reddogsix (talk) 23:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you're malicious or a bad person. I do take issue with continuing to tag legitimately uploaded photos as "copyright violations", after a request to stop. I guess that's why I'm asking for a third party, who can help mediate the discussion. I'm not under the impression the thing I filed is a "complaint", just a request for comment (like mediation or arbitration). The authorizations are generally private communications, and I'm honestly not sure where I would even post those. That's why I asked you to stop. Cchessman (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Private conversations are not valid authorizations to avoid copyright issues. The images have to be released for use in Wikipedia. I once again point you to WP:COPYVIO and WP:DCM. reddogsix (talk) 23:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I've looked over it - I'm not sure what part you're referencing that contradicts what I'm saying. Personal authorization is the definition of avoiding copyright issues. If you have permission to use something, then there's no copyright problem. What part of that is complicated? Cchessman (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Cchessman, to prove that the image is free, have the copyright owner send an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org verifying that the images are free. You should have them use Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. Make sure that they link to the image's file link on Wikipedia in their email. While the copyright owner gave you permission privately, there's no way the public can verify that they actually gave permission. If we could accept your image, then in the future anyone can upload any copyrighted work by falsely saying "they gave me permission to do it in private". Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Mz7 That seems hardly distinguishable. I could make an email account, send a message to the address above, and claim I owned the photograph. That would satisfy the requirements above, but is no less unverifiable than the screenshot (which, incidentally, shows university-specific email addresses which are substantially harder to forge and easier to verify than random G-Mail accounts).Cchessman (talk) 07:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Cchessman, before you answer anymore suggestions with a question, I strongly suggest you read the articles you are pointed to. The question you ask is addressed in the article Mx7 pointed you to - WP:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. Secondary, if you wish to contact Mz7, please do so on their talk page, not mine - if you wish to contact me, feel free to leave your message here. My best to you. reddogsix (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@Cchessman: I have replied at your talk page. Mz7 (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I am still working on the article

Hello, reddogsix. I am still working on my article, "The Angel Incident". please don't delete it. just give me time. --Wayoyo (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:FIRST. It will provide some guidelines on how to create an article. I would suggest you first create the article in your sandbox. That way if it is deleted you have a copy. My best to you. reddogsix (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Wayoyo, I have userfied the article to your userspace. You can now find it at User:Wayoyo/The Angel Incident. This action temporarily removes the article from public view so you can work on the article, and it decreases the risk of speedy deletion. When you are finished developing the article, you may either submit it for review by clicking the green button at that page or move it back to the mainspace. Reddogsix's suggestion of reading WP:FIRST is very good advice. Best, Mz7 (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Adam Asgher

hi my article on Adam Asgher still needs work and time, also hes quite famous and has worked for big companies such as gucci. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.115.17 (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Please indicate how the article meets the criteria in WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Ryan Dizon

I want the wiki page deleted. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cakelikemichael (talk • contribs) 21:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

You do have that option. Once an article is started in Wikipedia you do not own the content. The article has been edited by others as well.reddogsix (talk) 22:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)*

I started the page, is it okay to ask to delete a page I started? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cakelikemichael (talk • contribs) 22:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of LooneyDeals.com

Why are you deleting LooneyDeals.com page .. it is a ecommerce just like many other ecommerce companies with wikipedia pages? Its competitors like hayneedle and wayfair and overstock.com have wiki pages. There is no reason for it to be deleted!!

I am not deleting it, I have only nominated for deletion. The article fails to establish notability. The articles you have discussed have independent, verifiable references. reddogsix (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

How is it not verifiable references?? Goto looneydeals.com it is clearly an ecommerce site! Im not sure why you are taking time out of your day to exclude legitimate registered businesses from wiki?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.156.210 (talk) 03:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Where is the independence in the references?reddogsix (talk) 03:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Raz Nadav

Hello reddog6, I need your help because I do not understand the logic behind the rules and the principles of Wikipedia, regarding the deletion of the article Raz Nadav.

I suggust you look at it a little differently. Start with WP:FIRST and tell me know you believe the article meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. Thanks... reddogsix (talk) 13:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

...REMOVED ARTICLE TEXT...

Oubre

Why did you delete my Kelly Oubre page its areal person, and a great athlete that is going to kansas. Just why did you do that.Redsfan21 (talk) 12:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I did not delete the article, I only nominated it for deletion - an independent ADMIN removed it because it failed to meet Wikipedia notability guidelines.

Canceling Deletion of Infeeds

hello sir, i'm still getting more resources about Infeeds but i'm sure too that now that article has many references and right syntax if not please let me know but cancel the deletion process as its linked in other articles too... Can you please help me understand more about making it clean and reliable. Thanks !!

Kelly Oubre

Is there any way they can ecxept it i have worked really hard on it and there deserves to be a wiki page for him. Redsfan21 (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

PROD removals

Hi,

When another editor removes a PROD tag, even if they are an involved editor (and even if they have been in some way annoying), you should NOT replace it. I noticed you did replace -- through reversion -- the tag on the article Red Scale of Elements, as well as Suzanna Reeves. PROD is designed to work by unanimous consent, and even involved editors are allowed to remove the tag for ANY reason, or without stating a reason. When a PROD tag is removed, simply take the matter to AfD. Thanks, Xoloz (talk) 20:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

By the way, you've retired?!? I know the feeling of Wiki-fatigue, but I for one would be very sad to see you go! Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 20:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Yup, it is time. I am just cleaning up a few things and will move into the sunset. Thanks and my best to you, reddogsix (talk) 21:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Deleted African American Fashion Designers

RE: 05:05, 15 April 2014 Hahc21 (talk | contribs) deleted page African American Fashion Designers (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://jenniferlshelton.com/tag/african-american-history-month/page/2/)

I have recreated the page African American Fashion Designers to make sure that unambiguous copyright infringement is eliminated. This article is in my own words with citations. Is it OK to post the updated article? PHDiva55 (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)PHDiva55

Yes, as long as it meets Wikipedia criteria for inclusion it will remain. Good luck. reddogsix (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Heaven Sent Gaming

@Reddogsix: thank you for your concerns on the Heaven Sent Gaming article. They have been addressed. I will remove the nomination for speedy delete. But you may also address you concerns on the Heaven Sent Gaming talk page. LuigiToeness (talk) 03:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The article's AfD will be a distraction, there is a discussion about the topic's notability on its article talk page. @Reddogsix: Thank you for your time. I think a Template:Notability notice would be more apt than an AfD. I too take some issue with the article, but the prior AfD was a mess, and there's no indication this will be any different. This needs to be discussed in a more civil manner. I have voted for an Speedy Keep for this reason, an AfD will get nothing done in this case, just more roundabout. Withdrawing the nomination and contributing your rationale on the talk page would be much more productive. XiuBouLin (talk) 09:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I was just about to create this article, what was wrong with it? DocterCox (talk) 02:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Is that all you do is delete other people's work?

I'm a little fed up with the way I get treated when I try to contribute in here. Is it really that difficult to do a little research rather than just making assumptions and marking something for deletion? I haven't been in here in quite a while because I didn't like the way I was treated before. Thought I would come back and make a little of the progress I had originally intended to, and right away I'm being discouraged. So, is volunteer work in such high supply and low demand here that it must be chased away? Is that the idea?

I don't even know how to respond to that stuff, and there are NO INSTRUCTIONS SUFFICIENT WHEN IT HAPPENS to figure that out! Leaving a person hunting all over the place to find SOME WAY to say SOMETHING to SOMEONE and at this point.... I've pretty much had it! TechnoZeus (talk) 00:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• Whoah there. I understand that you're upset, but your comments come across as very hostile. The problem here is that the page has several issues. First off, the page is written in a fairly promotional manner. Phrases such as "easy to learn" are ultimately considered to be a matter of personal opinion. What may be easy for some is not easy for all and phrases like that are almost always used when someone is trying to promote something, whether it's a language or what have you. Secondly and most importantly, I can't see where you've added any reliable sources to show notability. No one is doubting that the language exists, rather whether or not the language is ultimately notable enough for an entry on Wikipedia. It can take a long time- sometimes dozens of years- for something to pass notability guidelines. Sometimes things never pass notability guidelines. This doesn't mean that the language isn't important to you or to anyone that wants to learn it, but it does mean that it doesn't pass WP:GNG. We can't keep an article unless it passes our notability guidelines. Threatening to leave if you don't get your way is not a good way to try to solve the problems that the Esper article currently faces. Rather than coming on here and getting angry, a better way to go about this is to ask what is wrong with the page and what you can do to potentially help keep the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Canceling Deletion of KATFYR

Hello! I've added resources for KATFYR. I hope the page now complies with the Wikipedia guidelines and its deletion will be cancelled. Thank you for your time! (XcentryK (talk) 00:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC))

You do realize...

that you were "suckered", don't you? I refer to the article Vomit Fist where you were "convinced" to removed the CSD tag from that article based on a comment left on the talk page. I wouldn't have done that, but instead left a COI notice on their talk page because they are definitely an involved party with that article, and also Glamarus.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 00:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to PROD or AfD it. reddogsix (talk) 01:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking AFD after I do some research on the group first. PROD's are too easy to get rid of, anyway.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 01:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. reddogsix (talk) 01:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Glamarus and Vomit Fist are now at AFD. I have also filed a notice at COIN, as well as placed a COI notice on User:Dyli's talk page, if you were interested.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 01:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: G Force Pakistan (Group)

Hello Reddogsix. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of G Force Pakistan (Group), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims coverage in reliable sources. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Margie Pitts Hames

Hello Reddogsix. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Margie Pitts Hames, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Matthew Pierce

Hello RedDogSix, I am working (with editor TechCoast) on a project chronicling people and companies who are impacting the Los Angeles tech scene Silicon Beach including Jason Nazar, Paige Craig, David Siemer, Siemer Ventures, Media Camp, Mucker Labs and others are investing in what is now a top 5 VC environment in the world. The O Labs and Matthew Pierce articles are based largely on press releases, interviews, interesting portfolio companies, and a notable sports background similar to many other athletes who have been included in Wikipedia. O Labs is a fairly large joint venture between a top 100 law firm and a top 5 talent/literary agency (and a software design company) - all fairly big deals in LA/entertainment/tech. If you could let us know what additional materials you'd like to see in this article, and in articles going forward (so we don't continue to write deletion-worthy articles), we would appreciate it. Alternatively, we could focus on companies rather than individuals? OriginateX (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)OriginateX

Thanks for your message. The basic criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia is the establishment of notability. Keep in mind this is not "real-world" notability, but Wikipedia defined notability. Wikipedia notability is established by providing independent references that are both non-trivial and verifiable. The type of resource needs to be taken into consideration as well. The article has to be support by secondary references and cannot rely primarily on primary sources.

Items such as lists or press releases are not non-trivial or independent and interviews are considered to be primary. If you can provide this level of coverage for the individuals that would be great; however, I do not see that type of coverage for the current articles. You might have better luck with the companies - companies typically get coverage before the individuals that run them unless the individual already has a track record of creating new companies. Best of luck reddogsix (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response reddogsix. I have now included references to past entrepreneurial success, including how his first company was sold to TruePosition in 2011 which was covered by Reuters and others.

Just to clarify though, I thought that sources like Variety (magazine), The Hollywood Reporter, Los Angeles Times, Deadline.com and Stanford athletic department would be considered secondary sources, along with NCAA, and USA Swimming records of athletic events. (For the record, we borrowed templates from Jessica Jackley and John Moffet (swimmer) to make Pierce's article thinking that they were in a similar vein.)

Multiple large news agencies covered the O Labs and Versus launches (and his previous companies), interviewed Pierce, printed his photo along with a variety of different quotes from him and also provided coverage on the event from their perspective, both in-print and online(the Hollywood Reporter focusing on ICM Partners involvement, while the LA business journal covered more on LA involvement and other partners, for example.) These aren't fly-by-night blogs re-printing press releases, they're sources with millions of readers both in-print and online. We both thought that these, coupled with other primary sources like press releases, company blogs from Originate and Manatt, and multiple prior interviews from TechZulu, ReyhaniLaw, and Silicon Beach would meet the notability, independent, and non-trivial thresholds (as they did for people like Matthew Rabinowitz or even Matt_Pierce_(ice_hockey)). If LA Times and Variety don't count as viable secondary sources, I would like to get a better sense of what does. We're both first-time editors, but there are a lot of interesting and notable people in the LA tech scene and we'd like to avoid being marked for deletion both now and in the future if possible. For example, on this article we could remove many of the lists, interviews, and primary sources and still be left with Reuters, LA Times, Variety, etc. Your advice is appreciated. TechCoast (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)TechCoast

-- UPDATE: I have gone back through and removed many of the primary references, lists, and press releases, leaving the new Reuters article, LA Times, Variety, and a few others. I believe that these clarify Pierce as "notable" by wikipedia standards. I am happy to make additional edits to maintain this article. TechCoast (talk) 00:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)TechCoast

I have looked at the references you refer to. The Reuters "article" is a press release, the LATimes article is trivial coverage, it is really more about the company, and I do not see the Variety article. The Hollywood Reporter article is the only one that comes close, but it is really trivial coverage. BTW - I encourage you enter your vote! in the AfD. If you need help with the format, see [[1]]. Thanks...reddogsix (talk) 01:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I did not think it was a key part of a business biography, but it may be notable that Pierce dated Chelsea Clinton. [[2]], [[3]], [[4]] As I say, this fact doesn't really play a role in our biographies of Silicon Beach investors/entrepreneurs, but it seems like it could cover "notable" and "secondary sources." I would be interested to hear your thoughts on if it should be included. TechCoast (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)TechCoast

It is still just trivial coverage of a small piece of his life. reddogsix (talk) 17:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I feel like it's possible that you've decided that there is no news yet printed from any source that would satisfy the notability threshold. For me, the Chelsea-Pierce articles are clearly about him, clearly not press releases, and taken in conjunction with all the other mentions, in all other publications, paint an interesting picture of someone worthy of inclusion. You clearly do not share that belief, although I like to think that if he came up again with additional notable information, that you would change your mind. I voted on the AfD page, and while I am no closer to understanding why Matthew Pierce is less notable than Matt Pierce (ice hockey) and many others who have been included on Wikipedia with less, I will continue to write up articles on notable figures and companies in Silicon Beach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TechCoast (talk • contribs) 19:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Please don't presume to read my mind about what I have or have not decided in advance. The burden of proof is yours to show the article should be included in Wikipedia. I do not believe you have done so. Since I am only reviewing this article, I cannot comment on the other articles you mentioned. If you feel they do not meet the burden of notability, feel free to nominate them for deletion. reddogsix (talk)

I didn't mean to offend. You set a high bar. It's good. It makes the site better. I just need to have better material next time, which I will because of this conversation. Thank you for helping a new editor. TechCoast (talk) 00:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)TechCoast

S e m i - R e t i r e d