Jump to content

User talk:Domenico.y/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Welcome

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Danger (talk) 23:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

January 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 10:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

iClothing

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Talk:iClothing's talk page.

Your message at Requests for feedback

 Hello Domenico.y. Replies have been posted to your message at Requests for feedback. Please acknowledge the feedback and ask for additional assistance if you need it. If you do not respond to the feedback, your message and the replies thereto will be archived in a few days. Thank you!  Obsidi♠n Soul 18:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time - click on this section's [edit] link and remove the section.

Being Born Again Couture Fashion Show - banners help

Hi there,

This is addressed to whoever wrote the big banners with the "may contain wording that merely promotes the subject", "a major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject" and "may contain inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text":

As per Bonadea's comments: "...put in the "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject" tag, what are their reasons for believing this - I don't like "hit and run" tagging - they need to open up a dialogue in the discussion page and express their concerns, otherwise the tag serves no purpose other than to deface the article. Can you please address this matter in their talk page as they appear to have added a few of these 4 banners, which suggests they know more about the topic than they're willing to contribute - which is a waste of time if they don't intend to give clearer feedback."

A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (August 2011) RESPONSE: I am very knowledgeable about this topic and hence am writing the wikipedia page for it. Short of one of the fashion designers or artists or models writing the page and giving it their "spin" and giving it their promotional point of view, I am writing the page from what I feel is an objective point of view and a very neutral point of view. Ma®©usBritish and Bonadea have helped me edit out all the things which are inappropriate and not to do with the article.

This article may contain wording that merely promotes the subject without imparting verifiable information. Please remove or replace such wording, unless you can cite independent sources that support the characterization. RESPONSE: I have referenced it properly and taken out all descriptive words. Ma®©usBritish and Bonadea have helped me. Please take out "This article may contain wording that merely promotes the subject without imparting verifiable information. Please remove or replace such wording, unless you can cite independent sources that support the characterization."

This article may contain inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text. Please help improve this article by checking for inaccuracies. (help, talk, get involved!) (August 2011) RESPONSE: I have cited all references properly and you can check - there is nothing that can be misinterpreted or misinformed. Ma®©usBritish and Bonadea have noted that there is little they can do considering that they have limited knowledge about fashion shows.

I would like to have these 3 banners removed please. When will they be removed?

Thank you.

Domenico.y (talk) Domenico.y

Domenico.y,
It looks like you need someone with more knowledge in fashion to review the article, and remove the clean-up banners, once satisfied that the article is neutral and notable. I could not find a WikiProject dedicated to "fashion", so the closest I have matched is Wikipedia:WikiProject Arts, given that fashion could be considered an art form. If you go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arts and leave a message on that talk page, explaining that you have created the Being Born Again Couture Fashion Show article, that you had it reviewed at RFF (Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 August 24#Being Born Again Couture Fashion Show), as they may look into it, if it falls within their project's scope. Perhaps there are some members there who will review the article and help you develop it further than those at RFF who gave it a read but don't know anything about it, as it would seem to be a more specialised interest. I cannot guarantee anything, but it's worth a try. Don't worry too much about the banners, though, it doesn't mean the article is "bad", just that it needs reviewing and possibly a bit more work to before it meets quality standards - I'm sure someone, somewhere on Wiki, will be able to guide you.
Regards, Ma®©usBritish [talk] 18:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks MarcusBritish. I posted about the Being Born Again Couture fashion show on the wall of the Arts, but no-one has gotten back to me. Can you suggest anything else which might help take those banners away please? I wrote a message to Boneada on teir talk page, but haven't heard back yet. Thank you. Domenico.y (talk) Domenico.y

Davina

Some tips on the draft:

  1. Try not to use user-edited sites like LinkedIn. Also try not to use primary sources, i.e. sources which are controlled by, related to, or otherwise influenced by the subject herself (an example are websites of companies she owns). They are not considered reliable sources except for proving noncontroversial information. For information which may be contentious and have no other source but a primary source, it is better to remove it.
  2. Use piped links for links to articles inside Wikipedia. Instead of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sydney_Morning_Herald Sydney Morning Herald] use [[The Sydney Morning Herald|Sydney Morning Herald]] instead. Remove any underscores.
  3. Do not place external links (except references) in the body of the article itself. All links to sites outside Wikipedia must be placed at the bottom of the page under the subsection ==External links==, even then, they should only be links to sites directly related to the subject and must comply with the policies on neutrality (i.e. promotional links must be used with care, else it will be considered spamming, which is strictly forbidden in Wikipedia). Any other links which are not directly related should be removed or be transformed into references when appropriate.
  4. Use named references when using the same reference for more than one piece of information. This prevents a certain reference from being duplicated at the Reflist.
  5. Always place punctuations before <ref> tags. Doesn't matter if it's a comma, a period, a colon, or a closing parenthesis. They must always be before the ref tags.
  6. Avoid overusing direct quotes. They are not neutral.
  7. Do not refer to her as 'Davina' unless that is her trade name or the name she is best known under. I have replaced all instances of 'Davina' with 'Reichman'.
  8. Lastly and most importantly, you seem to be using several references incorrectly. To clarify, references are not links to homepages of the subject, they are links to articles and whatnot that talk about the specific information you are sourcing. For example, when talking about Reichman having worked for Akira Isogawa, you need to show a site that specifically states that she worked for Isogawa. i.e. tell the reader where you got the information so they may verify it. Simply linking Isogawa's homepage does not prove the information and is thus useless as a source. Please read Wikipedia:Citing sources and WP:42.

Cheers.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 03:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your helpful, insightful comments, Obsidian Soul. Who can help me on the Being Born Again Couture wiki page and deleting the banners? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being_Born_Again_Couture_Fashion_Show I have tired to contact Bonadea multiple amounts of times since the 13 August 2011, citing reasons why I am an expert in this topic and citing the reasons why my writing is correct, but they haven't responded yet. I posted the page to the arts wiki, but haven't got a response yet. Can you look through it and remove the banners please? Thank you. Domenico.y (talk) 04:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y

Hello again. First, realize that being closely connected to (or being an expert on) the subject is actually not an advantage when it comes to Wikipedia. We call that relationship a Conflict of Interest (please read the page). While they may still write about the subject, they must be very very careful when it comes to how they word an article. Whether unconsciously or not, a person with a conflict of interest will have a bias, and the articles they write will usually not be neutral. As a precaution, please ensure that the wording of the article complies with our Neutral Point-of-View Policy. Any kind promotional wording is strictly forbidden in Wikipedia. It must not be used for advertising as it devalues the work of the thousands of volunteers who maintain the site for free. It's very easy to spot if it is and some editors are quite merciless in removing them if found.
The tags are also for internal maintenance. They can not be removed until the issues have been fixed. It helps if you try and fix it yourself then show the article to other editors (e.g. at the Wikipedia:Help Desk) for evaluation. Only they can remove the tags once they've ascertained that the issues have been dealt with. I'm a bit busy at the moment, so I'm afraid I can't do more than give advice, heh.
I also noticed that you have a lot of licensing warnings. It may help to read this page: Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for ways to donate copyrighted material properly and stop them from being deleted. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 04:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Obsidian Soul! I will put those comments into action. Domenico.y (talk) 04:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y

MfD nomination of User:Domenico.y

User:Domenico.y, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Domenico.y and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Domenico.y during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Jasper Deng (talk) 04:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

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. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 08:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please do not refactor other user's talkpage comments as you did with this edit: [1] ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for letting me know ConcernedVancouverite. Have a great day. Domenico.y (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y

P.S. Do you know someone who is expert in fashion and art please? Thank you. Domenico.y (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y

I see you have already posted in WikiProject Arts asking for help. That would be the best spot I know of it ask for help. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Adam Schuck, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Adam Schuck for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Adam Schuck is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Schuck 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. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC) This is a message left for ConcernedVancouverite which they will not answer. I don't know why they can not answer on their talk page, as many moderators do.

Hi ConcernedVancouverite, In addressing concerns, which I will fix up the referencing after I have done this: “Adam Schuck was recruited by Google Australia soon after graduating from the University of New South Wales” http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/166548/google_recruitment_process_revealed/ I cannot find a reference which states he was the first engineer at the Sydney Office of Google, but I will try to source it. having co-created Mapplets in 2007.[4][unreliable source?] http://www.webdu.com.au/speaker/adam-schuck--sydney-australia- webDU is the premier Antipodean Web Technology Conference, taking place 14-15 April 2011 in Sydney, Australia. This is the ninth year the conference will be held. I found another citation: http://www.google.com/events/io/2010/speakers.html - If Google says Schuck “co-created Mapplets in 2007”, then Schuck created Mapletts. “Drove” is what Schuck’s Linkendin profile says. Schuck "compelled and manoeuvred the technology to what is became", it means, not "created" the technology. Schuck received the Google EMG award (2nd highest award given at Google) for work on Google Maps API.[6][unreliable source?] I will try find a “more” reliable source, but I have first hand seen the EMG award on his desk at Google Sydney and Lars Rusmessan, creator of Google Maps and software developer at Google can confirm that. Schuck is the ACM Programming Competition World Finalist and South Pacific Champion, 2003 and 2004. [13][14][original research?] No, that citing is not original research at all. It is from the "ACM South Pacific" site - www.sppcontest.org. I found another reference stating the Schuck gave a presentation on GWT in 2008 and I will cite that - http://www.google.com/events/io/2009/sessions/GoogleWavePoweredByGWT.html Please read the previous discussion topics: I have posted the message to you on 24 September 2011 (UTC) at 01:33. In addition, DGG noted the deletion obsolete “DGG (talk | contribs) (3,494 bytes) (cofounded Google Wave is an assertion of importance. speedy declined)” at 06:15, 24 September 2011. Schuck is notable and worthy of wiki for co-founding Google Wave, co-founding Mappletts and co-founding Julpan which was acquired by Twitter. Thank you. Domenico.y (talk) 03:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y

It's not sourcing that's the problem, it's notability, since those sources, according to ConcernedVancoverite, don't give more than passing mention of Schuck. (PS - Wiki is not an abbrevation for Wikipedia. Founding Google Wave does not alone make an article for him warranted.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It is not my fault that Schuck keeps a low profile and if you had read the comments I had made, you will see that Schuck is noteable.ConcernedVancouverite should stick to politics, since that is what they claim to know most about and not be editing tech articles. I would like another opinion of this article. Jasper Deng also edits my wikipedia entries and flags them for deletion without assisting me.

I disagree with your comment - I don't consider him notable. You do not own any of the articles you make. I'm actually quite experienced in tech articles, so this is the area I work best in. But experience has nothing to do with who's correct and who's not on our discussions. My advice for you is to realize the implications of you having a conflict of interest, and using articles for creation instead of making any new articles directly.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
As noted in my two replies to you on my talk page, the best place to discuss content additions/changes to an article are on the article's talk page. Not on userspace talk pages. Putting your discussion there will allow other editors to benefit from your thoughts and avoid them having to click through to multiple userspace conversations which may be difficult to keep track of. I have responded to your concerns on the article's AFD discussion, where you are also participating. You may find it most fruitful to focus your energies there and avoid personal attacks while doing so as they do not help others focus on the content of your comments and instead may negatively dispose other's when reading your comments. Best of luck with your editing. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Davina Reichman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davina_Reichman I would like another editor to please review this, rather than ConcernedVancouverite or Jasper Deng. It is very frustrating to find "this article is flagged for deletion" on my talk page, when these editors know nothing about fashion, art or tech. ConcernedVancouverite flags all my articles for deletion, even articles they know nothing about. Thank you. Domenico.y (talk) 03:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y

If we are constantly asking that your articles be deleted, that should be a signal that you aren't doing something right.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Jasper is incorrect – deletion is a subjective process that requires consensus to reach a formal deletion decision. It is just as fair to say "perhaps you aren't nominating right" – there is no "right" argument, nor is Jasper's comment appropriate. What he should be saying is "if your articles are being constantly nominated, they do not appear to meet wiki standards and guidelines". In some cases this is not intentional on the behalf of the creator of articles, but due to a lack of or misunderstanding of the appropriate guidelines, such as notability, reliable sources, or what Wiki is not. Bear in mind, Domenico, you are within your right to !vote on articles for deletion, and request keep, stating your reasons – consensus is about quality not quantity – and even in cases where the deletes out-number keeps, there still may be strong reason to retain the article, due to a reasonable argument to do so. Domenico - read the pages linked earlier, including biography of living person and organisations. Editors do not need to "know about fashion" or any subject to nominate an article for deletion, it is referred to group discussion. Jasper, read don't bite the newbies – nominating new editor articles is one way some editors seek to quickly (and lazily) advance their position for RfA, personally I condemn such behaviour and believe you should always be helping inexperienced editors foremost, not tallying admin-style actions like some ranking WoW-player. Just a generic observation, however, so don't go citing NPA riff-raff; experienced editor !== good admin material. I'm not saying your nominations are wrong are right, but your attitude here is particularly condescending and unhelpful, and I'd hate to see you set loose with CSD. Ma®©usBritish [Talk][RFF] 18:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you MarcusBritish. Well said. It is a pity that some domineering editors with power can chastise and push around ordinary contributors. I think it a necessary to have "complaint" box about these types of behavior perhaps? Could you look into Adam Schuck http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Schuck, and comment on it's deletion please? I have re-written Being Born Again Couture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being_Born_Again_Couture_Fashion_Show on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Being_Born_Again_Couture_Fashion_Show and I am scared that Jasper Deng and ConcernedVancouverite have perhaps are "too biased" in the form that they have re-read comments and are "sick" if the article, as another editor noted. Perhaps Davina Reichman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davina_Reichman and comment? I would really like to get those articles correct before I move on. I really appreciate your time. Thank you very much. Domenico.y (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y

If you feel you are being chastised for your contributions, there is WP:EAR and WP:ANI for more serious reports. Be careful not to use them lightly, if someone you are reporting is working within the Wiki guidelines your complaint can be quickly dismissed as petty and/or seeking revenge. Wiki is about communication and collaboration, and there are a lot of guidelines to absorb and remember. Some editors do do this to their advantage, and become powers unto themselves, yes. Remember, we are ALL volunteers, which makes us ALL equal - including admins - do not allow them to push you about, but do not resort to accusations and fighting. If in doubt, seek advice. Remember to assume good faith - many an admin is simply doing their job, patrolling and removing articles that violate wiki policy is a job too, just like a ticket warden. Consensus can be in your favour, IF you use it wisely. Don't rush headlong into conflicts and you'll come out unscathed. Ma®©usBritish [Talk][RFF] 19:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

I've noticed that your edit pattern is becoming disruptive, which is not good. Please adhere to the following policies:

  1. Wikipedia:Assume good faith - please do not assume that editors, especially experienced editors, nominate your articles for deletion "just for kicks". Assume that other editors are trying to help the encyclopedia in a good way. Do not try to discredit other editors on basis of their specialties on Wikipedia - Wikipedia is a collaborative community.
  2. Wikipedia:Canvassing - do not ask uninvolved editors to come support your view. While this is OK on a small scale, please do not do it to an extremer extent.
  3. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest - your neutrality on Wikipedia is being distorted by your conflict of interest, and you have not been listening to other editors' concerns about it.
  4. Wikipedia:Notability - please do not create articles that are about non-notable people or things.
  5. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a community - please discuss with other editors who do not agree with you. Please listen to what other editors have to offer to you, and put it to use.

I know you are relatively new to Wikipedia, and I hope you enjoy editing, but we have a few guidelines that you just happen to not be following. It would be very unfortunate if we had to block you from editing because of this.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing Warning

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. This warning is based upon edits such as these [2] and [3] ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Mate, you are clearly being unhelpful and borderline bullying, now. Since when does "I would really like to get those articles correct before I move on" constitute canvassing? If you can't maintain a NPOV, do not advocate your own POV. WP:AGF – read it, might do you some good. And do it before I report you for harassing newbies. Fair play, or don't play: hit and run tagging is sloppy adminship. Ma®©usBritish [Talk][RFF] 19:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
First off, I am not a "mate." So I would appreciate not being referred to as such. When he makes edits like these on my talk page after repeatedly being asked to take it to the article's talk page in question: [4]. I am not an admin, and not claiming to be one. Just like I am not a "mate." ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I posted in the wrong place, admitted to it and posted to the right place here *before* you posted this up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ged_UK#Posted_in_the_wrong_spot.2C_sorry. Domenico.y (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y

And the canvassing continues....Domenico, it is not an issue of when you posted it (although it was after I had removed it from my talk page), it is the fact that you did post it. It is not appropriate to attempt to draw in every non-related editor I interact with about other articles into commenting on your question (particularly if you think they would share your view). ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't care if you're a mate or Popeye the Sailorman, you're clearly lacking means to be amicable and your behaviour is unwarranted. It is obvious to anyone that Domenico's first language may not be English and that he is having difficulty explaining himself. Something you are persistently taking advantage of in very bad faith to the point of wiki-lawyering. You are making an exhibition of his contribs and forcing the issue, rather than being patient and explaining things in detail. You are acting disgracefully. So here's a warning to you - once more and I will involve an admin without haste. Your posts here are disruptive, whilst Domenico is looking for someone to advise him on correcting any problems with his articles to avoid deletion, you are tainting his good faith with pure and unnecessary bull shit. Canvassing is used to swing votes and consensus, not seek aid. Don't manipulate the guidelines. I will not sit back and watch you persist in further attacks. Capiche? Ma®©usBritish [Talk][RFF] 22:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Marcus - From my perspective it is not so obvious that Domenico's first language is not English - in fact it appears that his first language may be Australian English. I am not clear where you would draw the ESL conclusion from. But that is irrelevant in any case, as it is clear to me that Domenico has edited in what appears to be a conflicted manner that appears to promote certain individuals beyond appropriate Wikipedia article contributions. It is also clear to me that when I have tagged such articles, as is normal behaviour while doing quality control work on Wikipedia, that I have been attacked for doing so. It is also clear to me that when I have repeatedly suggested in response to postings on my talk page that it would be more appropriate to post on the article talk pages so that all interested editors can benefit from the comments that I have been ignored. It is also clear to me that Domenico has solicited numerous additional editors to a !vote on an AfD when it appears to him that they will share his views - even editors that have had nothing to do with the article in question. If you feel the need to draw in admins to look at the issue, by all means go ahead. I encourage you to do so if you feel the need to. I have no direct interest in the articles in question, other than general quality control interests in keeping Wikipedia free of content that does not measure up to Wikipedia's notability standards, and I have been acting in good faith in my quality control efforts while attempting to remain civil in the face of true hostility. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 23:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Living in the UK I see many versions of European English, and other forms of English, and "Domenico" is an Italian name, afaik. He may confirm his own nationality if he wishes, but his English appears somewhat "off" in places to me, whereas Aussies use near-native British and/or American English. Regardless, Wiki is not "work" and you are by no means restricted to only follow one path of duty - infact you should make it your duty to be less aggressive in tagging articles and then casting accusations such as some I have read above. Like Jasper, I suspect you too are trying to "fast track" your way to admin by tagging as many articles AfD, CSD, socks, vandals and such a day, without actually taking time to consider the value of the contribs you are challenging. This ain't the Western Front or WoW and you aren't mowing down faceless opponents - and your defence is rather empty. If an editor is making repeated mistakes what effing good does it do them to repeatedly tag their articles without fully explaining the mistakes they are making? WP:BITE WP:HUMAN And midst typing this, Domenico has posted on my talkpage that his first language is not English. So there you go.. wake up call. Act on it, don't abuse it. I fail to see "good faith" when it is not supported with acts of good faith - nominating articles for AfD/CSD is an empty procedure if you are failing to support the editors. Wiki itself is just a bunch of servers storing data that can be changed, you don't win prizes for nominating as many crap articles as you can a day. You might gain more respect if you work with editors and support their personal expectancies - I don't see your userpages brimming with barnstars and thanks after 2 years.. wonder why? Seems to me you pick and choose which guidelines you want to follow, whilst treating contribs as a bunch of bytes rather than time and effort - in your own words: "I have no direct interest in the articles in question", paraphrased. The only hostility has been yours by filling Domenico's talk page with accusational remarks, rather than supportive ones. Warnings can often wear thin, and a referee you keeps "blowing his whistle" may soon choke on it. Ma®©usBritish [Talk][RFF] 23:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Marcus - Wikipedia requires many different types of contributions to continue to be a useful resource. One of those is quality control to avoid having material added that detracts from the overall quality. That is the type of work I choose to volunteer my time to participate in. Quite frankly it is none of your business how I choose to spend my time. It appears from your statements that you may find different aspects of participating in Wikipedia as rewarding. I personally enjoy quality control. I have no desire to become an admin, and do my work on Wikipedia solely for the good of maintaining the quality of the greater project. I would appreciate if you would not make assumptions about my motives or attempt to apply your own arbitrary criteria to my personal motivations. While it is clear from your comments that you do not place as much value on keeping Wikipedia clear of cruft, that is your choice - one that you are free to make. I have made mine, and would hope that you would respect that there are more than one type of contribution or style that are needed for the project as a whole. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, one of those resources is WP:RFF where I have done a huge number of reviews, which eases the patrol process and also makes sure many of the articles created in userspace are up to standards before they hit mainspace, and I come across a great number that are promotional, advertising, self-interest related spam and such, which you likely never see because I work hard to give the contributor as much support as I can, in a brief time - bear in mind there are now over 10mil Wikipedians, are for the past few weeks I have virtually been the only RFF reviewer, and have worked through many fresh articles, including a couple by this chap, Domenico: Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 August 24#Being Born Again Couture Fashion Show and Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 August 22#User:Davina.R - as you will see, I gave a lot of remarks and guidance, but also made it clear that I am in no way familiar with "fashion", and even gave links to a WikiProject where he might gain further support. If you believe in Wiki, then you will believe it is a "team effort" and that sometimes it helps to "pass the buck" - you give what aid you can and then forward an editor to someone in an area where there might be better support. The aim of Wiki is to build articles, not destroy them. So you will see my annoyance that this buck was passed and then dropped, because editors are unfairly attaching Domenico's contribs rather than extending support.
@Domenico - if you are having difficulty in working on an article you feel is notable, but have trouble citing reliable sources to the satisfaction of a few disgruntled editors, please see WP:RESCUE who treat all articles in good faith and help editors strengthen sources where deletion is pending. Sometimes there is going to be too little in the way of reliable sources, but there some editors who lack the patience to offer their help or friendship.
@CV - keep up the good work, where it counts most - spam - but must be a lonely outlook, nominating stuff for deletion all the time and being hated for it. "Ticket warden syndrome" might be an occupational hazard of the role, however.
Ma®©usBritish [Talk][RFF] 00:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Marcus - I'm glad you have found ways you feel help the overall quality of the project, and encourage you to continue contributing in any way you can to help the quality of the project. Best of luck with your editing! ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Rescuing an article from deletion

Hi Ma®©usBritish or whoever else,

I read the wikipedia page "Article Rescue Squadron" and I do think it needs rescuing from deletion.

After I edited Being Born Again Couture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being_Born_Again_Couture_Fashion_Show from what in my opinion is a neural point of view on "00:59, 25 September 2011 Domenico.y (talk | contribs) (empty) (Domenico.y deleted this article to give it a fresh start) (undo)", do I put this tags on the top of the article created:

{{rescue}} {{Rescue|page=Adam Schuck}}

Thank you. Domenico.y (talk) 00:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y

See Template:Rescue
If an article has been tagged for deletion (the Afd tag) and you feel it meets the guidelines for rescue then add {{Rescue}} below the AFD tag as shown in the example below
As part of this tag's use please comment at the deletion discussion on why this item should be rescued and how that could happen. Your input should constructively lead the way for other editors to understand how this item can be improved to meet Wikipedia's policies and benefit our readers
Ma®©usBritish [Talk][RFF] 01:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I have put in the tag correctly and have given reasons. Domenico.y (talk) 01:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y

Okay, just wait and see if they can help or not.. that's all you can do - if they can't, they can't, and that's that, all you can say is at least you tried.
Please also try to avoid quoting myself, and others, when making points in discussions, it makes other editors feel uncomfortable if you pose a point of view with a select consensus of comments from other areas of wiki, and eliminates all neutrality that you need to start with in order to gain people's trust and confidence in your own good faith rather, than someone else's opinion of it. If editors feel you are "forum shopping" then they don't tend to act in your favour. If it usually best to link to diff edits if you need support your comments, than quote directly. e.g. "Another editor believes I am believes I am being bullied: [5]" rather than giving a name, quotes and details. It lets editors form their own opinion than rely solely on yours, and will come across as more informative than "tell tale", if that makes sense.
Cheers, Ma®©usBritish [Talk][RFF] 02:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I have fixed it up. I do apologise. Thank you for editing. Domenico.y (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)Domenico.y

What happens after 7 days if there is not a consensus on AdamSchuck and Being Born Again Couture Fashion Show? I have asked the admin to "rescue" both the articles and giving reasons which state cases, but there appears to be no admin available for comment?

Another person, I can't find the reference to reference it to you, said that he was "too biased" before to comment and now he comments on the article's deletion saying "delete" - surely that is not appropriate?

Also, there are plenty of instances where articles have no references, are edited by one sole user and that user has 'disappeared' and are not notable but they continue to be on wikipedia from 2008. Surely this is not allowed?

Domenico.y (talk) 08:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y

Admins don't do everything immediately - they have to wait out the AfD week. If there is no consensus it's normally kept - so really it you have 2 in 3 chances - delete, vs keep and no consensus.
How is it not appropriate for someone to have a biased opinon? You have a huge bias too.. because you wrote them.
In reality, you shouldn't reply to comments made in the AfD too much, it can be counter-productive. You should be waiting for the outcome and just let it run its natural course. A lot of people who do AfD don't want to engage in debates too heavily.
It is the Rescue team who determine if they can help, and the Admin who reviews the AfD looks to see their opinion and weighs it up as part of the consensus. Consensus is about the opinion of comments made, not votes - even in cases where more people say "delete" an article may still be kept.
There's no such thing as "what is not allowed" on Wiki - we have guidelines, not rules. The policies are flexible to a point, and if an article has been around for 3 years, there must be a reason. As I said, Admins don't do everything - there aren't that many of them - hence why AfD's can be nominated by anyone, not just Admins - they don't own Wiki, they just have more options to help manage it.
You have to have a veru good understanding of wiki guidelines before you start nominating AfDs, though. AfD should be the last resort, as there are many cleanup tags which should be used first. If you start tagging a lot of articles for the wrong reasons, it can bog things down and prove disruptive, and you can get blocked even if your intentions are good. So don't do it for silly things like "no refs" when there are "needs refs" tags - AfD is for crap like spam, advertising, non-notable articles, etc where there is a solid reason behind the nomination.
Ma®©usBritish [Talk][RFF] 12:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Now I understand. Domenico.y (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y

COI Tags

Hi Domenico, I wanted to let you know that I have removed the Conflict of Interest tag you placed here [6] as I see no evidence of such a conflict. I have added a BLP sources tag to the article as it does not appear to be well sourced. You may want to review the conflict of interest guidelines at WP:COI, and if after reviewing that you still feel there is a conflict of interest on that article, please explain your rationale on the article's talk page. Thank you. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC) P.S. I have done the same on these articles as well: Hugh_Evans_(humanitarian) and Global_Poverty_Project following your edits here [7] and [8]. Please review those WP:COI guidelines prior to applying COI tags on numerous articles. Thank you. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Plus one

I've also re-tagged Make Poverty History Concert – [9] – as there is no evidence of puffery, COI, or peacocking - nor should it be tagged for a cite check - it doesn't have any citations to question, just external links. Retagged as lacking references. Very doubtful that the event lacks notability considering the line-up includes Bono - he's not a small-time musician, but only reliable sources can establish notability. As I said earlier, don't tag or nominate articles for AfD unless you've read the guidelines first, understand them, and can reason why you need to tag an article, as incorrect tagging is not constructive, and editors may challenge you if they don't agree with the tag. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish [Talk][RFF] 17:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


Ok, thanks re: Make Poverty History Concert - are you saying that there doesn't need to be references in the article? I thought that the criterion for wikipedia is to have a "reliably sourced encyclopedia"? Please explain: does one article not need references while another does? Thanks.

Ok, please look here: Talk:Hugh_Evans_(humanitarian) The article's aim is to "produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia".

1) There are 4 references, but only 1 reference stands true (Citations in the text on the page).

  • So.. there are 61,770,191 articles on Wiki - how do you expect 48,206,695 registered users and 839 admins to track them all daily? Citations aren't for complaining about - you can either fix them or you tag the article, contact the creator in some cases, open discussion on the talk page, refer to {{cleanup}} or nominate for AfD if there's sufficient reason. The options are endless. Ma®©usBritish [Talk][RFF]

2) I note that Ausstory2000 and 131.111.196.202 are the 'main' editors of this article as well and their accounts have gone.

3) Peacocking "...where he came to understand that bringing opportunity and hope to the community could only be achieved through a spirit of partnership" - what does that mean exactly? I would have said "partnered". Thanks.

  • "Partnered" is a more commercial term, that sentence is more about co-operative work. Peacocking is not evident in that sentence, or the article at all. Peacocking is about using terms that might seem to inflate, over-exaggerate or glorify something non-neutrally, and needs good command of English to do subtly. WP:PEACOCK Ma®©usBritish [Talk][RFF]

Domenico.y (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y


Thank you - I didn't know that. I am a bit scared to edit articles now for peacocking because I don't quite understand English nuances. But thank you :) Domenico.y (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Domecino.y

Well if you've learned English in terms of nouns, verbs and adjectives, peacock words are usually adjectives that make a sentence less neutral, eg:
  • "Hitler was a nasty dictator."
  • "Paul McCartney is a brilliant singer."
  • "Microsoft built a new amazing OS, Windows 7, after the terrible Vista OS disappointed consumers."
When you take out the underlined peacock words, and cite the sentences to reliable sources you get a neutral point of view - even if all 3 are probably "true" to the majority of people in the world, Wiki does not allow peacock words because they can make an article appear to favour or disrupt a page. But by using references and citations you can prove Hitler was a dick, Macca rules, Win 7 is great, without using such words, but careful phrases, like "Windows Vista received mostly negative reviews, whilst Windows 7 was positively reviewed" plus refs, equals a truthful sentence, neutral because it presents a "global" POV, not the editors, despite favouring 7 over Vista. But the trap, also, is not to over-reference or over-cite, as it can appear to editors that the article is advocating a POV rather than using neutral sources.
Hope that helps, Ma®©usBritish [Talk][RFF] 20:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Plus one

Thanks MarcusBritish for your understanding. I will make sure in future that I understand why we need to tag an article. Domenico.y (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Domenico.y for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Jasper Deng (talk) 23:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

iClothing image

I noticed you uploaded a file that's been tagged for a copyright-related deletion, and also that you're open to advice on how to keep content online. If you are a representative of iClothing with authority to grant the license, or if a release can be obtained, the image proposed for deletion might be kept. The release should be done at Commons, and could be a pretty easy thing. That doesn't guarantee anything as to English Wikipedia, but it does put an image of an objectively novel innovation into the public domain. And on a related note, pleasepleaseplease consider moving your user page to a subdirectory like User:Domenico.y/draft-1. I'd enjoy changing my vote here. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 02:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I know you've already moved pages before, but per the convo at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Domenico.y, I thought I'd offer some help in case you find it useful. To move your user page to User:Domenico.y/draft-1, open it in a new window and find the down arrow beside the search box in the upper right. Choose "move," and choose "User:Domenico.y/draft-1" as your destination, but don't move the associated talk page. You don't have to give a reason, especially in your own space, but it's good practice to leave an edit summary. Hope you'll consider the move! JFHJr (㊟) 03:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Davina Reichman At Australian Fashon Week.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Davina Reichman At Australian Fashon Week.jpg, which you've sourced to Davina Reichman claimed - but uploaded by Domenico.y?. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

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

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 04:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Another note: if you are a spokesperson or representative of the subject, you may have authority to donate this image to the public domain. Otherwise, you might contact the rights holder and request that person or group e-mail Commons with permission to include this in the public domain. Either way, you should make your case at Commons, not here at English Wikipedia. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 04:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, it is done Domenico.y (talk) 05:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y

File permission problem with File:Adam-Schuck-Profile.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Adam-Schuck-Profile.jpg, which you've sourced to Author = Adam Schuck but uploaded by Domenico.y?. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

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

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 04:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate note: if you are a spokesperson or representative of the subject, you may have authority to donate this image to the public domain. Otherwise, you might contact the rights holder and request that person or group e-mail Commons with permission to include this in the public domain. Either way, you should make your case at Commons, not here at English Wikipedia. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 04:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

User page

Based on your edit here [10] I took the liberty of moving your user page to your user subpage User:Domenico.y/iClothing and have reverted your edit to show the original content. Nil Einne (talk) 05:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Nil. Now if you could assist me with the 2 articles I have been editing, that would be great. I am so exhausted. Domenico.y (talk) 05:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y

Sorry but I'm not sure there's much I can do in those cases. BTW to repeat what I said in WP:ANI you can remove most messages here on your talk page if you wish although I strongly recommend your archive them instead. There are some outstanding issues like problems with image tagging, while you are free to remove those messages, the images will be deleted if you don't resolve the issues. I have tried to provide some assitance at File:Davina-Reichman-at-one-of-her-fashion-shows-in-Waldorf-Astoria.jpg but as I mentioned below, there is confusing info you need to resolve yourself. Nil Einne (talk) 06:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Domenico.y/Archive_1&oldid=1151005943"