User talk:76.248.149.47

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 76.248.149.47 (talk) at 16:04, 21 October 2012 (→‎Jon Krosnick: add re: primary sources). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to Wikipedia!

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

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but many editors recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (76.248.149.47) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! Abductive (reasoning) 03:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank. What I could really use is some help with accounts determined to promote themselves, family or associates. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 03:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean you need another editor doing the same things as you, or that you need help with specific rules and/or tactics? Abductive (reasoning) 03:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More eyes, for starters, so as not to feel like I'm by myself with [1] and [2], for instance. Of course, the frustration is more general as well. Thanks for asking. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 04:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see that a User:Justice007 has stepped in and been improving Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi. It has been my experience that eventually bad actors and articles get what's coming to them. You would get more traction if you create an account. May I suggest picking a name at random, something harmless and positive-sounding? Abductive (reasoning) 04:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Justice007's contributions have been acknowledged. Thanks for your suggestion, but I know about traction--had a much decorated registered account. (Am subject of a Wiki biography, which nobody reads--beats me now why people go to such lengths to be featured.) Discerning users judge action and content, not usernames. Best, 76.248.149.47 (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checking out for a few hours.... 76.248.149.47 (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 76.248.149.47 (mind if I just call you "76."?) Thanks for your contributions and for your stubborn patience with the AccuQuote article. I encourage you to check out WikiProject Spam if you're interested in doing more about link spam in particular; individual spam cases are reported and discussed on the talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam. More general issues dealing with conflicts of interests and biased articles are discussed at the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. We can always use more help with either noticeboard! --A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS:[3]
Thank you. Cheers, 76.248.149.47 (talk) 02:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently an ongoing issue, not just with you. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Troubling is their reaction and rationalization, and barely coherent at that. This was an understatement [4]. Should the admin who allowed rollback for that account be contacted? 76.248.149.47 (talk) 00:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exposing Spam.

Thank you for your comments relative to the changes I made to AccuQuote entry in Wikipedia. When I looked at the page, I was amazed that such a blatant advertisement was allowed to exist on wiki. So I Googled to learn more about AccuQuote and found the dozens of references to their generation of Spam. Wiki asked for links and contributions, so I added the correct, accurate and properly referenced comments. If AccuQuote insists on using wiki to advertise, then I will "fill in the blanks" and let our readers know more. The readers are smart enough to determine the truth. What is the specific objection to my addition to the wiki entry? Did I fail to source something? Did I state something that is not true? I am confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpamCop999 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're adding your opinion and original research to the article. The article is already tagged for reading like an advertisement. Your comments were not properly referenced--please read Wiki guidelines like WP:NPOV and WP:RELIABLE. I've explained the rest, I think. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 00:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your enthusiasm with respect to policing Wikipedia. However, you appear to be violating the Wikipedia Terms of Service. With all due respect, you are contradicting your own advice. On the one hand you state that I should use sourced documents that are reliable and I did. But on the other hand you write: "you're adding your opinion and original research to the article." Isn't original research encouraged? When I earned my doctorate, the whole process of writing a dissertation is to find research and then ADD TO IT by making connections with other research - resulting in original research. That is what I did in the present case with AccuQuote. One of those source links you removed is a court record. You do not consider a court document to be relevant? However, you allowed the following to remain: http://www.suzeorman.com/igsbase/igstemplate.cfm?SRC=MD012&SRCN=aoedetails&GnavID=84&SnavID=23&TnavID=&AreasofExpertiseID=51 This is simply a phone book listing. It is not, as the writer of the Wiki entry states, a "favorite" of Suze Orman. So, on the one hand, I cannot correct the information with well-sourced documents yet you allow the phone book to be a "reliable source" from which the AccuQuote company can make a claim to be Suze Orman's favorite. So which is it? I am trying to be a good Wiki citizen and I have read all of the rules. I see errors on a page and I went to correct them and my well-researched changes are denied in favor of self-serving, unsubstantiated claims by AccuQuote. I have earned bachelor's, master's and a doctorate degrees in accredited, US institutions of higher education. I know how to research. What you have in this Wiki entry is not accurate. I am trying to reflect the cultural understanding of AccuQuote; they are a Spam Factory. That is how our readers see AccuQuote. So I am just filling in the blanks. BTW - you removed the very links that Wiki asked us to create. Now there is no link to: Chicago, Wheeling, Byron Udell etc. How are you and I best serving the needs of the community? I am creating well-researched and sourced content, using court documents in one example, as a source. But the originator of this Wiki entry is using the phone book to claim that AccuQuote is one of Suze's favorites. The exact text of Suze's website is: "Get advice from Suze on all of your most important financial topics, plus links to Suze’s favorite web sites and tools." But that is located two clicks away from the cite that the Wiki entry makes. So either way you cut it, the cite is wrong. But it persists while my carefully researched and cited comments are removed. What is the priority? Allowing a business to advertise or creating meaningful content that will resonate with readers? I am not a competitor of AccuQuote and have no bias other than stating the truth. For that matter, I am not in the insurance or financial services. And if you removed content submitted from a different IP, that was not me. I only use this static IP and I didn't go to Starbucks to try to hide. That would be a Spammer's trick - as AccuQuote does regularly. I will not beat this to death (any more). There are many other Wiki entries that need attention. SpamCop999SpamCop999 (talk) 01:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Original research is discouraged, SpamCop. Read WP:NOR Tiderolls 01:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tide rolls, could you take a look at the article and weigh in on the suitability of the current 'recognition' section? I'm not averse to trimming it. SpamCop, there's no need to take little potshots about registered vs. IP accounts--I've edited here for years, and write in real life. The external links you added were, and I'm repeating this more than is necessary, not acceptable. Some were blogs, which are not reliable sources, but I don't think any met the guidelines. Nor do Wiki guidelines welcome court records. As for your research, it's clearly slanted with a POV; you're even using my talk page to vent about the company. Your interpretation of the 'cultural understanding' must be supported by reliable sources in order to be accepted--I Googled and couldn't find a published reliable source for critical content. If you find something feel free to add it, in a neutral context. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 01:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, 76.248. Sure, I could take a look. It appears to me that you have made an adequate case, though. Avoiding editorial comment leaves me free to act administratively should the need arise. Tiderolls 02:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated--do only what you're comfortable with. Thanks, 76.248.149.47 (talk) 02:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tide. Instead of my continuing to edit Wiki entries and then having the changes reverted, how about I propose changes to you (76.248.149.47) and then you can tell me if the entries are appropriate? Then I can save both of us a lot of time and we can preserve the intellectual property of WikiMedia. Tide, I am sorry if you inferred that I make a distinction between pseudonyms (e.g. SpamCop999) versus IP address. You can bet my actual name is not SpamCop999. So for someone to use an IP address is fine with me. Another note to 76.248.149.47, in retrospect, I may have made an entry under my IP by mistake. I realized that I may have forgotten to login to Wiki. If I understand correctly, that would then default to my IP. So it may be my bad. I ask that you preview my next changes to get me into the spirit of Wiki edits. Also, can you tell me how to navigate MyTalk? I cannot seem to make an entry in response to a comment without editing the page. I know that cannot be correct. Also I forgot to sign my first post - oops. Four tildes it is. SpamCop999 (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just hit the 'edit' tab at the top of your talk page and scroll down to make your entry. I've trimmed the 'recognition' section. Probably won't do much more now. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 02:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would further suggest that any discussion of the article development take place on the article's talk page. For the sake of visibility. Tiderolls 02:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Brief note for SpamCop999: I just read over your exchange with 76.248.149.47. He's stated our procedures and standards very clearly and correctly. I strongly encourage you to heed his comments on our editorial standards. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear A.B. thank you for contributing to the discussion. SpamCop999 (talk) 02:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear 76.248.149.47,
I am proposing the following changes to the AccuQuote Wiki entry:
1. I am deleting the external link http://news.consumerreports.org/money/2009/04/term_life_insurance_premiums_increase.html because the link is broken.
2. I am deleting the following text because it is opinion not substantiated by any cites: "In 1994, Udell expanded his vision and was determined to provide the general public with an easy way to find quotes."
3. Delete reference #6 because the cite is ambiguous. The destination page extolls the virtue of Insure.com but only suggests the reader call AccuQuote to call for help. It remains ambiguous. (If I were reviewing a student's dissertation, I would probably point this one out and then let it slide. Ambiguity is common and the reader bears some responsibility to evaluate the facts.)
4. Delete external link http://finance.yahoo.com/news/pf_article_105450.html because the link is broken.
5. Delete external link http://www.usatoday.com/money/wealth/saving/msw113.htm because the link is broken.
6. Delete the text "This idea compelled Udell to form AccuQuote and provides the consumer simple ways to organize their life insurance records." because it is opinion not substantiated by cites.
7. Delete the text "which was focused mainly on helping wealthy individuals and families with their life insurance and estate planning needs." because it is opinion not backed up by cites. The cite made only references the business entity and that Byron Udell is doing business as AccuQuote.com There is nothing mentioned by Business Week regarding the wealthy individuals or the rest.
Am I OK to proceed? SpamCop999 (talk) 02:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear 76.248.149.47,
I noticed the following text on the Wiki entry for Bernie Madoff: "In March 2009, Madoff pleaded guilty to 11 federal felonies and admitted to turning his wealth management business into a massive Ponzi scheme that defrauded thousands of investors of billions of dollars. Madoff said he began the Ponzi scheme in the early 1990s." But there is no citation. We all know this to be fact and it is the cultural understanding of Bernie Madoff. But there is no source. Does the Wiki community want the correction? Or should we accept it because everyone "knows" it to be true? SpamCop999 (talk) 03:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One of the functions of an article "lead" is to summarize the article content. The statement you quote is supported by a source in the section Plea, sentencing and prison life. Tiderolls 03:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tide. Before reading my comment re: your statement on MyList, please remember that I am trying to learn the rules of the community. While I think it is fun to add to the community, I am not playing games. Please note: "The lead should normally contain no more than four paragraphs, be carefully sourced as appropriate, and be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view to invite a reading of the full article..." This is in the Wiki definition of "lead". So which should I do? Add the cites for the facts presented in the lead as the Wiki instructions indicate or rely upon widowed and orphaned cites before and after the fact stated? I think you know the answer. But I am not being coy. I read the rules but I am struggling with the tone and intent of the community. Please help me be a better Wikipedian.SpamCop999 (talk) 03:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not able to encapsulate four years of experience on this project into a handy-dandy guide to avoid the pitfalls of editing on Wikipedia. I can address specific instances, which I believe I have done. Have any of the points I've raised been unclear or ambiguous? I can certainly apply myself if given particulars. Tiderolls 03:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Tide, I sense a bit of sarcasm in your post. I specifically asked you to help me understand one issue, not recap your four years of editing on Wikipedia. I have an IQ of 186, I earned a BA, MBA and doctorate without receiving any grade lower than an A. I wrote, defended and published my dissertation in eight months, a record that stands today. But Wikipedia is asking me, and the rest of academe, to put away thousands of years of research standards to fit into a community of knowledge that I find very valuable. I am not married to the peer review research and writing standards that are most familiar. And I want to contribute. So stow the attitude and make a choice. Do you want to help or criticize? If your choice is to help then yes, give me the benefit of your knowledge. Ultimately we all benefit if we have a consistent Wiki. Have you directly answered my questions? Not all of them. I think you didn't try as hard as you tried to flame away. But specifically you did not answer: do I source facts contained in the lead or not? Did you answer that and I missed it? You originally said no I do not source and cite facts in the lead. But the Wiki definition of a lead says yes, I should. What is the convention? What are the community values and standards? This is what I cannot learn by reading rules. I need help from people like you if I am to learn how to be constructive in this community. Am I clear? Did I stutter? If you want to compare your SEC education at the Tide, please remember that there are institutions of higher education that do not place such a high value on sports. But I did go to graduate school at UCLA. And while it is ranked among the best in the world for my field, UCLA did manage to squeak by Alabama in the total number of national championships. Go figure? We earn Nobel Prizes and win in sports. I bet Alabama has just as good a record. Oh wait. No they don't. They can claim neither sports nor Nobel Prize victories.SpamCop999 (talk) 05:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to met ya, Doc, I'm a college drop out from Alabama. I did answer your question; the content was sourced in the article, the lead summarizes the article. My question to you, which you did not address, went to the clarity of my response. IMO, the point could not be simpler. Of course you can't learn convention by reading rules; that was my point in mentioning my term of participation. One has to balance rules and guidelines with the experience gained by interacting with other, more experienced editors. One more bit of advice; the employment of histrionics doesn't really advance one's position. Tiderolls 05:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A.B., thank you for your greeting and invitation above. I've been undoing vandalism and de-spamming here since, well, Hector was a pup. I'm very appreciative of both your and Tide roll's involvement in this discussion. SpamCop: given your academic experience, the distinctions between reliable and unacceptable sources, as well as the necessity for neutrality, oughtn't be a problem--I'm astounded that any undergraduate, let alone doctoral level program would have encouraged you to use blogs as research sources-- one hopes that "thousands of years of research standards" haven't left us with linkedin, fatwallet, and ripoffreport [5], or this bit of editorial flair [6]. So, even while assuming good faith, let's say I'm taking all this with a grain of salt. You'll notice that I've trimmed some of the fat from the article. This thread is closed, so please refer all future discussion on the article to its talk page; other editors are watching the article and will note the discussion there. Thanks and good luck. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 12:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Content Removal

Hi, I recently edited the content on The Call wiki for accuracy, and it was taken down. Can you please replace?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCall wiki (talk • contribs) 17:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no. Perhaps you read the warnings I left at your talk page. What eventually happens when apparent conflict of interest accounts persistently attempt to censor articles, without discussion or explanation, is that the accounts are blocked and the articles protected for as long as an administrator deems appropriate. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that there was an explanation required. Where should I leave this? What is the procedure? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCall wiki (talk • contribs) 17:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the article's talk page to discuss changes. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 2012

Hello, I'm GoShow. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions to Thomas Weinandy because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. GoShow (...............) 14:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Responded here [7]. Please take the time to review edits before using rollback, and issuing inappropriate warnings. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I agree with yours, its the last IP who was disruptive with other edits, "good" catch, and please remember to make a note on the edit summary--GoShow (...............) 20:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you agree. I confess I don't know what other IP you're referring to, nor does it matter. And I did use the edit summary [8]. Couldn't be clearer. Cheers, 76.248.149.47 (talk) 23:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
GoShow, I strongly disagree with your issuing this IP a warning template above. I also have concerns about your use of rollback. From looking at all your now-deleted comments on your user talk page, I gather I'm not alone in this. Please be more careful going into the future.
Thanks, --A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A. B., keep this up and I'll invite you to the next virtual ale-tasting seminar with Drmies [9]. Methinks it might be time to reconsider the user's access to rollback. Very best, 76.248.149.47 (talk) 08:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't apply among you or the other user, if your stalking me, I'm applying to others from last contributions and don't think all users have been considered under the law policy as well Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, although , Welcome!---74.34.71.66 (talk)

Voilà

A simple solution. Thanks. Tiderolls 01:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yet this was subsequently necessary [10]. User is edit warring--if a block isn't justified I'll request page protection. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 01:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks again [11]. Cheers, 76.248.149.47 (talk) 01:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In my early days I ran very close to the edge of two blocks for edit warring. I know how these individuals feel. It is a simple thing to avoid. Hell, if I did it, anyone can. Thanks for your help, 76.248 Tiderolls 01:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC) Please register, or re-register, or reclaim your old account. I detest addressing folks using numbers. (Even though I count THX 1138 as one of my favorite movies.)[reply]
In my early days I misused the 'undo' to several times revert a poor edit by an administrator--the source for a trivial claim derived from an article said administrator wrote and published. I could have been blocked, but fellow editors came to my defense, and cooler heads prevailed. And for the moment I stubbornly stick with my number....you're welcome to invent a pseudonym. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 01:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
THX was stubborn as well. Unless you find it offensive, I'll call you THX. See ya 'round Tiderolls 02:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC) How is THX different from random numbers? I don't have the foggiest; one day I'll try to figure it out.[reply]
I've been called far worse. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 02:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
HA! Tiderolls 02:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Barnicle

I am a fan of the WP:BRD cycle, so I thought I'd use it here. The information you added to this article was certainly not written from a neutral point of view, so I reverted it. I'd be happy to discuss it on this talk page if that is all right...Go Phightins! (talk) 03:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree--in fact, I began the discussion along those lines at both the article talk page and BLP noticeboard. But what doesn't work is the account edit-warring and removing everything without engaging in discussion. I've requested page protection in hopes that other editors will use the opportunity to clean it up. Thanks, 76.248.149.47
OK, protection until consensus can be reached may be for the best...Go Phightins! (talk) 03:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I confess that I didn't enjoy restoring the content, and can't argue with your removing it. The WP:BRD cycle is fine, but the two main combatants have been pretty well content just to revert one another, and have little interest in discussion. I think it'll require a sentence-by-sentence breakdown of tone and sources. 76.248.149.47

"his is your last warning. The next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. "

Hey fellow editor. I see you added a message that warned me about adding unsourced material. I have been consistently adding citations to the material that I add. I also verify that the citations are sufficiently objective. Please review my edits before throwing out these kind of warnings!

Thanks, Trees — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treeees (talk • contribs) 03:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They've been reviewed, and my rationale has been explained. 76.248.149.47

A pie for you!

Here is a pie for your work in keeping spam and vandalism off of Wikipedia. Keep up the good work! Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 00:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. I don't bat 1.000, but on Wikipedia there's no shortage of opportunities to play Whack-a-Mole. 76.248.149.47

A cheeseburger for you!

Thanks for reverting vandalism on the article Jeff Schneider. Keep up the good work! Mediran talk|contribs 02:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pies, cheeseburgers--I'll be a virtual walking *!#% pudding pop. Thank you! 76.248.149.47

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: LA Podfest

Hello 76.248.149.47, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on LA Podfest to a proposed deletion tag. The speedy deletion criteria are extremely narrow to protect the encyclopedia, and do not fit the page in question. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know the criteria, and understand your action. It had already been prodded once, and if the template is removed again I'll ask someone--perhaps you--to nominate it for AFD. The outcome looks inevitable, and my hope was to see it speedied rather than enter that long process. Thanks, 76.248.149.47 (talk) 21:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 04:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 2012

(Warning removed)

  • Really, I give up. For the better part of a half hour I've been removing expansive copyright violations, which another editor has discussed at the article talk page. I've requested page protection and user blocks, and I receive this. Civility fails me, so rather than take the bait I'll request input from another administrator. Thanks heaps. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 13:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have a point, THX, but your phrasing is bit on the snippy side. Tiderolls 14:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure I'm snippy. It's aggravating to go through repeated and prolonged reversion of copyright infringement and get this sort of smack. Happy to be proved wrong, and learn that this wasn't a copyright violation. Otherwise, well.... cheers to you, Tide, and thanks for checking in. I've had it for now. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. I was thrown off by the lack of edit summaries, I think, and also because it's hard to tell if Moriarty's most recent reversion actually included copyright violations (it looks like it might well do, but I can't find the source). You were quite right that the warning was unwarranted though. My apologies again. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accepted with gratitude. Yes, I realize that my edit summaries were unsatisfactory, and was counting on the peripheral discussions to provide context. And granted, Moriarty's belated edit summary was welcome, though not terribly clarifying, and by that point Elvis had left the building. Or some such. Cheers. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gone fishing

Offline and out of patience. But still capable of summoning a grand self-righteousness. (I intended the edit summary to read 'add', and never mind what I accidentally typed in). 76.248.149.47 (talk) 14:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked Moriarty.L for 48 hours for persistent copyright infringement. Thanks for calling attention to this, and thanks for your patience, which you needed a lot of. Please feel free to contact me if the problem continues after the block expires. You may like to consider creating an account. Although it shouldn't make any difference, many editors are likely to take more notice of what you say if you edit from an account. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, JamesBWatson. I'm very well versed on the registered/IP issue. Suffice to say--and a few of you have read this far too many times--I have lots of experience in both veins, accrued honors as an editor, am subject of a Wiki bio, etc. Aside from the desire for greater anonymity, there's a perhaps perverse philosophical reason for preferring an IP account. For the many years I taught in a college, the institution's founder implored me to become a department chair, and in essence to exert greater influence on the school's direction. For numerous reasons I declined, as I did here when admins offered to nominate me as a sysop. I work better in this capacity. In contrast to my experiences in academia, one of the things I appreciate about Wikipedia is that most administrators are blind to distinctions between rankings, between IPs and registered accounts. Actually that's a rare quality in all walks of life. The level of transparency and effort to be even-handed, especially considering that folks are doing this as volunteers, is something close to remarkable. Thanks again and cheers, 76.248.149.47 (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, there are exceptions [12]. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments on your experience are very interesting. As for the "exceptions", well, in a website where anyone can edit you will get all sorts. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lifes Rich Pageant. Cheers, 76.248.149.47 (talk) 09:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clive David Smith

Thanks for getting in touch with me. I had seen the tag and agree that there wasn't much specifically about him in the article so I'm adding a few more references now and hopefully a bit more content - then maybe we can reassess it. If need be the article could be changed to be an article about the Bluebottle (assuming there isn't one) and include details about various crew members over the years. Clive Smith died only a few years later (1961) when he shot himself as a result of messy divorce so there may not be a lot more information available. I'll also try to find out who "Uffa Fox" is in the middle of the article and what source she comes from, etc. I'll be in touch in a few days. Thanks again for letting me know. Best Regards, Snowysusan (talk) 16:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. My take is that your good work notwithstanding, this one is an unlikely rescue. The references for the boat appear much stronger than those for Smith--I don't think he meets notability requirements, and though of passing interest, his friendship with the duke doesn't confer notability. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
Kudos for your very polite and level-headed responses to being incorrectly warned recently. Additionally, your contributions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phillip Nelson have been a model of collegiality. Thanks for being here. JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! I didn't even realize this [13] or your sock investigation were transpiring at the same time. I have been involved in carbon copies of this sort of AFD business before, the promotional puff piece, the AFD drama, the accusations of grudges, conspiracy, and legal threats. Won't tell you how they ended, so as not to influence the direction of this. Cheers, 76.248.149.47 (talk) 03:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For your tireless reverts at Winogradsky column. Keep up the good work! SassyLilNugget (talk) 17:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Sassy! Cheers, 76.248.149.47 (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thanks again. Drmies (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And the same to you. Very best. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now be a pal and soothe this baby for me, will ya? Drmies (talk) 19:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Talk about multitasking. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 19:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Favorite edit summary of the day

[14].

Chris Carlin removed link - Appropriate edits by affiliated parties

Hello 76.248.149.47,

I received your message about the external link that was removed from Chris Carlin's page.

Clearly I am new to Wikipedia edits and I want to make sure I am following all the guidelines.

I read your message in which you explained that I, as a party affiliated with Chris Carlin, need to consider your guidance on conflicts of interest.

It seems the particular guideline that concerns me is: "Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam)."

I intended to identify and link to my company as we represent Chris. The phrase "in other articles," in the sentence about avoiding linking to company websites, confuses me. Does it mean I should not link to my company's website in the article about Chris? Put another way, does "Other articles" refer in this case to Chris Carlin's Wikipedia page?

Also, I'd like you to explain the proper way that it can be indicated that Headline Media represents Chris. If you look at Ricky Rubio's page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricky_Rubio) it seems the following piece is similar to the one I attempted to post on Chris Carlin's page.

From Rubio's page: Rubio's agent is Dan Fegan.[25]

Words "Dan Fegan" link to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Fegan And citation to: Interbasket.net Rubio declares. http://www.interbasket.net/news/2036/2009/04/ricky-rubio-declares-for-2009-nba-draft/

I appreciate your guidance.

Noam NoamFishmanHMM (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noam, Aside for WP:COI and WP:SPAM, the issue is that your agency's notability must first be established before it can be added to Wikipedia articles. Apparently Dan Fegan has met WP:NOTABILITY guidelines, is the subject of an article here, and may be linked to other relevant articles. The general advice is to first write an acceptably sourced article, per WP:RELIABLE, about Headline Media Management. However, you're discouraged from doing that for obvious reasons, and a perfunctory Google search [15] doesn't reveal reliable objective sources to support the endeavor. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 15:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All make sense 76.248.149.47. Thank you for the information.

I think you say that I would be discouraged from writing an acceptably sourced article about Headline Media because I am an employee of the company.

And also that due to a lack of reliable objective sources on the internet it does not appear that an article about Headline Media could be substantiated.

I'm wondering if you can clarify.

It seems to me, and I'm new to this so I may be way off, that if there are reliable sources supporting the authenticity and factuality of a particle topic/article, it does not matter who writes the article. If the facts and evidence support the content, the author simply is compiling the facts and therefore the affiliations of the author are irrelevant.

Regarding Headline Media specifically, what sort of objective sources are needed to support our existence? I assume printed or posted news articles in reputable publications are acceptable. But I also assume that profiles of companies or people who have not had media coverage still can be verified and posted.

Thanks again for your clarifications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoamFishmanHMM (talk • contribs) 16:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, If the facts and evidence support the content, the author simply is compiling the facts and therefore the affiliations of the author are irrelevant, but in practice conflict of interest usually gets in the way. WP:SPA refers to the all too common phenomena of users who come here for one reason only: to write about themselves, their friends, or their companies--I've seen hundreds, lo thousands of such accounts, often public relations people who are prodded by their superiors to shine up the company's Wikipedia presence. Regarding companies, WP:ORG is helpful in describing guidelines. And again, WP:RELIABLE ought to fill in the blanks on sourcing requirements. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 17:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well I think I know where I fall into this. I work for Headline Media and, while I would love to edit and add to the encyclopedia on a grander scale (My interests include international basketball, elementary and middle school education, peace building in conflict areas), with this Wikipedia profile I am interested in making sure Headline Media's clients' pages are up to date, accurate, and reflect information that I feel is relevant about them.

From that perspective I think I might fall into the "Single Purpose Account" category, if so, so be it and I will respect the policies and guidelines. I have no interest in disrupting as Wikipedia has been a great resource and source of fun, reference, and clarification for me throughout my life.

But, as an encyclopedia, facts still are of primary importance and maintaining accurate information within the profile of a public figure and media personality (who a wide audience are engaged with on a frequent basis) seems helpful to many.

Two examples of where I can be helpful: 1. In reviewing Chris Carlin's page I noticed that his birth date was entered in a format inconsistent with birth dates of other profiles. Specifically, as it was entered, Carlin's age (40 years old) would not have adjusted as time went on. I adjusted it so I think his page now is more accurate. 2. If a journalist were to research Carlin, or, using a better example, Bruce Pearl (A controversial figure in college basketball. Also a Headline Media client. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Pearl) and want to interview him for a story; the journalist would not have any direction as to how to contact Pearl or any context as to what Pearl's current pursuits are (They are broadcasting, not coaching). Referencing Headline Media would give that direction to the journalist. Or, even more importantly in a down economy, if a potential employer might want to reach Pearl, the employer would have no reference without the Headline Media information.(And now that I look at it, Pearl's page is not up to date is it does not mention that he will cover college basketball games for ESPN this season. http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/8215573/former-coaches-bruce-pearl-seth-greenberg-joining-espn)

As for verification for Headline Media. Michael Glantz and Lou Oppenheim are two partners at Headline and are well established agents.

I think these links reliably would support that: Oppenheim in Sports Business Journal: http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2012/01/16/Media/TV-Talent.aspx

Glantz in Broadcasting and Cable magazine: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/107145-The_Man_Behind_the_Headliners.php

Again, I have no interest to "promote" our clients via Wikipedia. But I am interested in making sure their profiles are as accurate as the available reliable resources provide.

I appreciate that I am taking up your time on this and I do not want to seem like a pain or someone making a stink.

It seems to me that my edits can add to the encyclopedia in a constructive and objective way and the information I add might be interesting and relevant to others.

Thanks again for your direction.

Noam — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoamFishmanHMM (talk • contribs) 20:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I think it's fair to say that Wikipedia is intended to be an intellectual resource rather than a directory--in other words, it's not here to serve as a conduit for business, in this case joining potential employers and employees, nor for improving the internet footprint of your company. There are plenty of websites for that purpose. However, I couldn't encourage you more enthusiastically to contribute to the topics you mentioned, always supporting your edits with reliable sources and a WP:NPOV. Best, 76.248.149.47 (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then I know how I fit in here. When I see places to contribute in various areas, I will contribute and of course with reliable sources.

Yet, I hope I am not prevented or my edits are not removed from changes or additions I make to the profiles of figures that I come across and who might be my company's clients. That is, I hope the contributions I make that are deemed relevant and substantiated are not removed simply because an affiliated party (me) made the changes.

Specifically: I would love to write the page for Jamie Bestwick. ESPN describes him as "the best BMX vert rider ever" (http://espn.go.com/action/athlete/_/id/630/jamie-bestwick) and he has won multiple titles in major events in his sport.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Games_XV http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=jamie+bestwick&go=Go

Have a good weekend and thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoamFishmanHMM (talk • contribs) 22:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
Thanks for watching out for Wikipedia! FurrySings (talk) 02:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. Not so much diligent as a pain in the ass. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 08:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work here, by the way [16]. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 08:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You should get a barnstar for being the most barnstarred IP editor. Maybe we should bent the rules and make you the first IP administrator. Have a great day, Drmies (talk) 12:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Drmies. One day I'll just collect all the barnstars I've received at various IPs and add them to the old registered account....though I haven't kept track of all the IPs, so the evidence of my vanity has disappeared into the internet ether, as is appropriate. I'd make a terrible administrator, or a decent one if I only played to my narrow strengths. Better to quit this damn addiction. As for my odd hours, one day a week I commute an obscene distance to teach in the big city, but I enjoy it. The rest of the week it's a blur of mallomars and scotch, curled up on the bed with my gal and our dogs, filthy from digging up the lawn for rodents. The dogs, not me. Never mind. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking. Do you have access to JSTOR or some such database? Or are you perchance a subscriber to Spiritus? Drmies (talk) 02:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. Mostly I get by using my collection, private libraries, and Google books for research. From there I'm free to ad lib with my own takes on the subject, NPOV be damned. But if you've got a suggestion I'm listening. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 03:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a couple of years ago they published a very readable article on Saint Elisabeth, pictures and all. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For the RC patrolling and rollbacks on Ricco151515's contribs. Dэя-Бøяg 00:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much; I'm flattered. This barnstar madness must end, though not quite yet. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi

Due to ongoing IP issues with this article (possibly socks of User:Rafi ul haq) I've semi protected it for a couple of months. This means that, as an IP editor, you unfortunately get get caught in the crossfire and also can't edit the article. I'm just posting this to let you know that I'd be happy to execute any edit requests you have for the page; drop me a line on my talkpage if you want to make any changes there. Thanks for your work on the article. Yunshui 雲‍水 05:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Terrific--an appropriate action for this article. Thank you for helping out, and for the courtesy of your note. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 05:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Theatre Royal Stratford East

Thanks for stemming the flood. Same offer applies as above, though probably unnecessary as I have only semi-protected for 24 hours, though I will watch it and extend that if they start again. I have also reverted the article to the version before all the COI editing began, and given Stratfordeast (talk) a long explanation of copyrights, COI, NPOV and promotion, and a request to make any suggestions on the talk page. I will now post at WP:COI/N and WP:WikiProject Theatre to get some more eyes on it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are some problems with sources and tone in the bio sections you restored, which is why I didn't revert to that version. Still a lot more acceptable than the alternative. Thank you very much. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A cupcake for you!

Nice work here on Wikipedia! ZappaOMati 02:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Zappa. Love cupcakes. Wonder if they serve them in prison for those who've questioned others' notability. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 02:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John J. Ensminger

In editing John J. Ensminger's page I am failing to understand what is meant by a citation by a realiable secondary source. When I look at other pages it seems that they have the same sort of citations that are on the Ensminger page. In addition, how many citations do you want? Also, are you saying that the number of articles written by Ensminger is immaterial so I should not continue to add more? King.parker3 (talk) 04:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, King.parker3. I've relocated your post to the bottom of this page, its proper place. Should 76.248.149.47 feel my action to be intrusive, I'll accept any chastisement they deem necessary. However, I fail to comprehend how you thought the best course of action would be to place a message in the middle of another post. Be that as it may, if you would check out WP:Identifying reliable sources and WP:No original research you will find that primary sources "are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." This set of circumstances, in most instances, inhibits the source's ability to be objective. The other questions in your post can be addressed by reading the linked pages in the welcome message on your user talk. Tiderolls 08:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Tide rolls. Your corrections and comments are always welcome here. King.parker3, these issues have been explained at your talk page and in other conversations, so it's probably not necessary to repeat that WP:NOTABILITY, WP:PRIMARY, and WP:COI are concerns. But I will. Specific to the biography, which you've worked on for several weeks, I don't believe there's a single cite, let alone the multiple sources required, which satisfies the first and most important notability guideline for biographies at WP:BIO: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Articles written by Mr. Ensminger are primary sources, and don't establish notability. Finally, the edit history [17], including the addition to other articles of external links with which Mr. Ensminger is associated, suggests a single purpose account with the intent of promoting the subject, per WP:SPA, and WP:COI. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 15:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have included more than one citation to Mr. Ensminger's published articles and books that I believe are independent of the subject. I have to assume that by subject you mean Mr. Ensminger. For instance, the last citation by Jan Shubert who cites his definition of service dog is by a person who is independent of Ensminger and the several citations about his article on the therapeutic significance of the civil commitment hearing are by persons who are independent of Ensminger and one of them, Mr. Wexler, has a biography in Wikipedia. As I mention, Mr. Wexler quotes the entire Ensminger, Liguori article in his book. If these are not citations of the type you are looking for then I do indeed completely fail to understand what it is that you mean by a reliable, independant source. King.parker3 (talk) 04:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)King.parker3 (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The cites of Shubert and Wexler have value; they and other independent sources may might meet the guidelines of WP:PROF, the first of which states The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. The article states Today there are over 70 references to that article which have expanded on the original idea to become known as the area of therapeutic jurisprudence. It would be more valuable to include references to some of those sources, rather than references to Mr. Ensminger's articles, for it is those that would help to establish his notability. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Krosnick

Hello! Thank you for pointing out the problems with the Jon Krosnick page. I am new to wikipedia and really appreciate your advice. I see that a lot of the PPRG and SIPP information was removed. Is it possible to include more information about the programs? I'm not sure what was wrong with the information. Also, I have a few text documents that I would like to license so they are free to be used and edited however would be appropriate, is it possible to do that? Do you think there might be a more experienced Wikipedia editor that could help edit the page and find additional content? I'm not really sure how to proceed. Can I only use information from news articles? Thanks so much, I really appreciate you taking the time to help me. PPRGKrosnick PPRGkrosnick (talk) 00:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You'll notice that Churn and Change has done much work to improve the article [18]--above and beyond the call, so to speak. I think it's really advisable that you not re-add anything about programs with which you're affiliated, per WP:COI. They also don't appear to represent major aspects of the subject's biography, and the content you added about them relied only on primary sources, which is why I trimmed them so as to conform with guidelines at WP:PRIMARY and WP:UNDUE. Thank you, 76.248.149.47 (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:76.248.149.47&oldid=519038323"