User talk:Drm310/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

→

Bliss (image)

Hi Drm310,

I saw your comments about the Bliss image. I'm new to editing in Wikipedia obviously. After scanning the notes about referencing, I'm not sure what to do because I don't have any official documents that I was the designer who chose that image and named it. I worked on the Windows shell team years ago on XP and I only happen to think about this when a former co-worker recently told me someone from NPR was wanting to know who picked it and he remembered it was me. The wiki article assumes it was an engineer which back then is understandable because ux designers were not as, let's say, recognized for their work. I'll have to see if I have anything that makes me a reliable source but not sure what else I can do. If you have thoughts, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Jenshet (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jenshet: An online or printed reliable source that mentions you by name would merit your inclusion in the article. However, one's own unpublished personal knowledge and experience (referred to here as original research) is not permitted. I can only suggest search engines for online material... you would know better than me if there are any printed works that mention you. Best of luck with your search. --Drm310 (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Kenny Habul

Dear DRM310.

This is Kenny Habul.

I dont appreciate factual inaccuracies about my life on WIKI

I tried to correct that and enter accurate info, which i did personally yesterday.

Then it was all removed. Please let me know what you want me to do, but I will not allow this.

Thankyou.

You may contact me at anytime 704-6547075. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pauljones9005 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Pauljones9005: Hello Kenny. My response will include links to relevant policies and guidelines.

I removed the information from the article because it removed information that was properly sourced and replaced it with unsourced content. Wikipedia requires that all information in an article is verifiable by citing reliable sources. Unacceptable material includes one's own unpublished personal knowledge (referred to here as original research) or material citing self-published content (e.g. blogs, social media) as sources.

Wikipedia also highly discourages persons from editing articles about themselves. There are ways to deal with problems in an article about you. The most recommended way is to propose changes on the article's talk page (Talk:Kenny Habul) and allow other uninvolved editors to review, discuss and make the changes. In clear-cut cases of vandalism, libellous content or uncontroversial changes (e.g. marital status, current employer, place of birth, etc.), then it's OK to make changes yourself, but make note of them on the talk page.

Just also be aware that you do not own the article about you. Articles are built by consensus and no single editor (even if they are the article's subject) can dictate its content. The goal is to make a high-quality article, backed by high-quality third-party sources and written from a neutral point of view.

I do have a concern about the account you're using. It was used to create the article SunEnergy1, and the account name suggests that it is someone else who works for that company. Please be aware that Wikipedia accounts cannot be shared, and evidence of shared use can be grounds to block an account.

Finally, When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when. --Drm310 (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of DarkChapter2016

A tag has been placed on DarkChapter2016, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It is a redirect to an article talk page, image description page, image talk page, mediawiki page, mediawiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, or user talk page from the article space. (See section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Blockstack

Hi Drm310,

Thank you for your assistance with Blockstack. I have provided my full disclosure on the Talk page above the facts stated.

On a random side note.. I was raised in Regina as well. Haha. Went to O'Neill High School did my elementary at St. Gregory. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guylepage3 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Guylepage3: Small world, eh? I'm a Campbell Collegiate grad myself. :-)

Thanks for providing your disclosure, too. That will certainly show everyone that you're editing in good faith. Best of luck. --Drm310 (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Drm310: Haha, definitely a small world. :) I had a few close friends go to Campbell. Thanks again. --Guy Lepage (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence given to me by Guylepage3 on 16:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC) has been moved to my user page. --Drm310 (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

TRAVO Page Publishing

Hi DRM310! I work for the startup TRAVO and we would like to have a wikipedia page created. I have drafted one that is, I think, unbiased. Please let me know what edits I should make. Still new to wikipedia contributions so any help would be really appreciated!

Gabyu414 (talk) 01:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)Gabyu414

@Gabyu414: I have removed the article content you posted here, as a user talk page is not the appropriate place for it. If you need the text back, it can be obtained from this page's edit history.

I recommend that you use the Articles for Creation (AfC) process, where you can create a draft article to submit for review by other uninvolved editors. The advantages are that your draft article will be at less risk of deletion, and you will benefit from other editors' feedback for any needed improvements. There is typically a backlog of requests there, however, so it may take some time for your request to be reviewed.

Please know ahead of time that your company will have to pass Wikipedia's notability criteria for companies for it to be considered worthy of inclusion. It looks like you have a couple of good third-party references, but the AfC reviewers may want more to be satisfied.

You did the right thing by disclosing to me your employment with Travo, but the disclosure should be repeated elsewhere. In accordance with the paid contribution disclosure policy, I advise you to do the following:

Place the {{paid}} template on your userpage (User:Gabyu414)
Place the {{connected contributor (paid)}} template on the talk page of the draft article

This will demonstrate to other editors that you're editing in good faith and not trying to promote your company.

Best of luck, and let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. --Drm310 (talk) 05:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

James Webb III

Hello. Please Note:

JAMES WEBB III IS A REAL BSU BASKETBALL PLAYER. PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHED LINK IN JAMES WEBB III. HE IS MOST LIKELY A FUTURE NBA PLAYER. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobbCilek (talk • contribs) 15:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@RobbCilek: Whether he is real or not isn't the issue - the issue is that he isn't notable. Just because someone exists doesn't mean they are notable. Sports figures must meet notability criteria as outlined in Wikipedia:Notability (sports), with specific criteria for college athletes.

Also, I see you have re-created the page and used the edit summary "Created page. DO NOT DELETE". This is a sign of ownership behaviour, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. No editor owns a page, or has the right to tell other editors acting in good faith what they can or can't do to a page. Articles are built by consensus in accordance with Wikipedia policies. --Drm310 (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

He is the best player for BSU and a possible NBA player. Sounds notable to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobbCilek (talk • contribs) 22:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@RobbCilek: If you want to plead your case for this article's retention, please do it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Webb III. Nothing you say here will affect the discussion there or the actions that result from it. --Drm310 (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Much-appreciated diplomacy (from a random bystander)

Thank you, from the standpoint of an uninvolved third-party editorial observer, for your firm but kind diplomacy in dealing with the "Freddrow" producer. Because of my real-life job I sometimes have to slap myself on the wrist and back away from folks' misunderstandings of copyright law as it intersects with Wikipedia policies/procedures (I don't want to create an attorney-client relationship in even a far-fetched way) and I have genuinely been concerned (at an undoubtedly unnecessary level) about her confusion and misapprehensions. I just wanted you to know, going into the weekend, that, in my view, you handled that really gently and appropriately. Take care! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@Julietdeltalima: Thank you, I appreciate the kind words. I know that I often rely on canned templates to explain policies, but this particular user seemed genuinely upset and confused, so a more personal approach was needed. Hopefully she will take the time to review the policies I outlined - and resist the temptation to directly create a mainspace article on her own. Have a great weekend! --Drm310 (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, she really did need that, and as a U.S. copyright lawyer IRL, I just couldn't ethically be the person to do it, as badly as I wanted to. Thanks again. Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

your comment on Speedy deletion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Carrier_Air_Conditioner_move_to_Mexico

do you see that? that guy is trying to call me out for harassment because I had used the criteria for speedy deletion a few other times. This is laughable. Winterysteppe (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Winterysteppe: Are you certain he was referring to you? I saw you PROD'd earlier, but it was User:AusLondonder who put the speedy tag on. Maybe his comment was aimed at them? --Drm310 (talk) 18:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Drm310: Yeah i think it was aimed at him. I had PROD'd it but i didn't see the Speedy deletion proposal. so yeah. the whole article was facepalmWinterysteppe (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yens Pedersen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bill Hutchinson. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest related to kmc-subset137

Hello Drm310, as the page is totally new and the subject clearly relates to some work I've done, how is the proper way to add such a page ? There is a "COI" in the fact I'm the project leader of that OpenSource software project, however the page only cited "facts" about the project. Can you help me in better understand how to do this properly ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zullinux (talk • contribs) 10:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Zullinux: Hello, and thanks for your message. A good place to start is to disclose your connection to this project on both your userpage (User:Zullinux) and the article talk page (Talk:Kmc-Subset137). Being transparent about your association will give other editors confidence that you're editing in good faith, and not simply promoting your project. Also if you have any kind of financial stake in the project, directly or indirectly, you will have to disclose it under Wikipedia's policies on paid editing.

The approach to articles about open-source software seems a bit vague, and I'll admit that it's not my area of expertise. My best advice is to review the essay Wikipedia:Notability (software) and adhere as closely as possible to what's mentioned in it. I'd also keep in mind that Wikipedia is meant as a general reference and intended for a general audience. Technical minutiae about the software would likely not be retained, per WP:NOTMANUAL.

I hope this small amount of feedback has been useful. Best of luck to you. --Drm310 (talk) 16:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

A:Welcome

Hello Drm310 First of all, thank you very much for the message. Yes, I understand that you think the article would not be neutral. When I first uploaded the page on german, the version was edited approximately 30 times. I do not think that these different people, which contributed to my article, do have a conflict in interest. After that, I made the translation of the article in different languages, which I want to and will upload. Even this edited version can be continuously be redrafted by the whole community. I just wanted to set the ball rolling. Unfortunately some contributions have been undone. Is there a possibility to re-upload my article? I can guarantee to you that I am the only person using this account. Also I have requested a user name change. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me. With the best regards, LAZI

@LAZI: Thanks for your message. I'll address a couple of points you raised here.

If you are an employee of Ronal, or are paid to represent them, you must disclose this information on the talk page of the affected article and on your userpage. The exact steps are explained at WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE. We advise editors who have a personal or professional connection to a subject not to edit the article directly, but instead offer suggestions on the talk page. More detail about this is available in Wikipedia's plain and simple conflict of interest guide.

Secondly, Wikipedia articles are edited continuously, and may be significantly altered over time from their original form. No one owns article content and no single editor can insist that it remain at a version he or she prefers. Article content is arrived at by consensus in accordance with Wikipedia policies. If you dispute some of the changes that have been made to your original article, discuss them on the article talk page. --Drm310 (talk) 14:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I believe you are misrepresenting WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE. Simply being an employee of the company does not require a disclosure. The policy you've linked to refers to them paying you to edit the article, which is a much higher bar. Sparr (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I see now that there's a requirement for disclosure for non-paid editors. You should probably link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Declaring_an_interest instead? Sparr (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Sparr: I may have been slightly off-target if a paid relationship wasn't firmly established. --Drm310 (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

COI notices on very old edits

On https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:204.107.141.240&redirect=no today you posted a message about a possible conflict of interest. In the contribution history for that IP I see the last edit made to the page in question was 17 months ago. I do not expect that such very-delayed messages are an effective way to communicate this policy. Sparr (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Sparr: I disagree. Accounts can have long gaps in their edit history and then reawaken, as your own demonstrates. Without notifying them, they could resume their old editing habits, oblivious to their past wrongdoings. I'd rather warn a stale account than ignore one that's just hibernating. --Drm310 (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Drm310: My objection was not related to the staleness of the account, but the staleness of the edit itself. Even if the account had been active during the intervening time, sending a notice 17 months after an objectionable edit would not be especially useful.Sparr (talk) 11:25, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lyell Gustin has been accepted

Lyell Gustin, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Bradv 04:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

St. David's society

Not sure what or how any of your objections apply. It seems highly unlikely that posters to wiki will have no interest or relation to organizations and groups that they are posting about. Wikipedia is a cornucopia of political postings with very little accuracy on a wide variety of subjects. To edit for "copyright" is of course understandable and appreciated, but the other issues-- such has having a connection to a group you are writing about is in fact nonsensical. In both journalistic and scholarly writing, the experts are ALWAYS connected at least in a tangential way. To say they are not in Wikipedia is more than laughable, it discredits Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Griffcats (talk • contribs) 17:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Griffcats: It is reasonable to assume that having a connection to a subject you write about can (note that I didn't say will) impair your ability to judge its notability, write objectively about it, and rely on information from third-party sources. That's why we discourage (but not prohibit) editors from writing about connected subjects. If you want to object to the conflict of interest guidelines on principle, you're welcome to dispute them at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest.

Subject-matter experts are more than welcome here, but they are not exempted from fundamental Wikipedia policies such as no original research and verifiability along with guidelines such as reliable sources.

I'd recommend that you use the Articles for Creation process. It lets you create a draft article that's at less risk for deletion. Other uninvolved editors will review your work and provide feedback before it is published to the main article space. --Drm310 (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Recalling Drafts?

Hi User:Drm310 - I'm considering removing a draft I've been working on and perhaps starting fresh in a couple months, or giving someone else from the community a go. If a draft has already been submitted for review, can it be recalled? Thanks Kathryn Cartini (talk) 21:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

@Kathryn Cartini: That's a good question! I wasn't able to find any definitive answer. There is a project to resuscitate abandoned drafts (Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts), but I haven't heard of anything for users who want to give them up willingly.

For now, I would just leave it alone. I had a draft of my own that gestated for years, as I intermittently worked on it and then let it ferment. If a volunteer notices you haven't worked on it for a while, I'm sure they'll check in and see if you're still interested in pursuing it. --Drm310 (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Drm310 - Great advice as always. If I just let it sit, can anyone across the www. pick it up and edit. I'm almost thinking it would be best to give some a fresh start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathryn Cartini (talk • contribs) 22:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

@Kathryn Cartini: I'm pretty sure that drafts are not indexed, so no one could just stumble across it from a search outside of Wikipedia. Perhaps someone at Wikipedia:Help desk might have some ideas on how to turn it over to other interested editors. --Drm310 (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Drm310 - Thank you! I'll reach out to them. Enjoy the day! Kathryn Cartini (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Article on Kaydo

Dear Drm310,

I understand that writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged, but I know i must keep it neutral and informative. Also, i know how to follow all the rules or referencing and things of that sort.

If it is still not possible, could i possibly get someone other than myself to write the article, while still maintaining all the standards required? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KaydoOfficial (talk • contribs) 10:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@KaydoOfficial: You are correct in that writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged, but not disallowed outright. You could get someone else to write about you, but if they have a personal or professional relationship with you, then they would be subjected to Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines as well.

The underlying problem for you is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and is therefore selective about the topics it includes. Topics must be considered notable to be worthy of inclusion. There are specific criteria for musicians, and at this time you do not meet them. In order to be considered notable, you will first have to do something noteworthy that gets you written up in multiple reliable third-party sources. Until then, it's too soon. Unfortunately Wikipedia is mistaken by some to be just another form of social media, which it isn't. You can't use Wikipedia to gain notability; you get to have an article only if you are already notable.

I'm sorry this message could not be more favourable. Best of luck with your career - maybe someday you will become notable enough to merit inclusion. --Drm310 (talk) 11:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I actually was not trying to gain notability, but rather providing an informative page for any fans, but thanks a lot for clarifying, and I will make sure to make it notable soon - Just one last question, when making an article, and while you are editing it, is it already being submitted ? because i never even submitted mine and it got reviewed and deleted after i barely even continued it.KaydoOfficial (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@KaydoOfficial: Draft articles aren't automatically submitted when you save them. There's a "submit" or "resubmit" button at the top that will send it for review. Your draft article still exists at Draft:Kaydo - as you can see at the top, it was declined for acceptance into the main article space because of the notability issues I mentioned earlier.

The draft article will remain for some time. How long isn't exactly clear to me, though. At some point it might be tagged as an abandoned draft, if it hasn't been edited for a considerable period of time. I believe that you would be notified if that were to happen. --Drm310 (talk) 01:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Norwegian

Hi Drm310, If i have to add a reference of Norwegian newspaper, what is the abbreviated word for Norwegian I should use, is it "no" or anything else? Regards--Jogibaba (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jogibaba: If you're using a citation template like {{cite web}}, the parameter |language=no will produce in the text "(in Norwegian)" in the resulting reference. --Drm310 (talk) 18:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot--Jogibaba (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Användare:Hannessjoblom/sandlåda

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Ooops. Edit conflict. I mistakenly tagged the redirect page left after you moved the original page. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: No worries, I figured that's what happened! :-) --Drm310 (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Aaryan Zaveri for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aaryan Zaveri 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/Aaryan Zaveri 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. for (;;) (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks you.

Thanks you very much. I really gain a lot of knowledge reading your guidelines.

Yung miraboi mark (talk) 09:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

@Yung miraboi mark: You're welcome. I know that Wikipedia can be confusing with the many policies and guidelines. Hopefully you will not be discouraged, even if your initial efforts have some problems. --Drm310 (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Della Ferrera

Thanks for the message. Della Ferrera is not my company and I have no affiliations with this company. It is now based in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sempire (talk • contribs) 17:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sempire: OK, I appreciate the clarification. Thank you. --Drm310 (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Adam Kern

In response to your post -

1 - The information is taken from my personal website which is not copywritten. The biography is my own writing.

2 - I may not be notable enough to you, but I'm listed in an article for the movie Mamarosh as a cast member, with a hyperlink that says there's no article about me, so I added my information.

3 - The material that I included is completely fact based and verifiable, and is written with a neutral tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamckern (talk • contribs) 19:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Adamckern: While I appreciate your efforts to write factually and neutrally, there are reasons why your submission will likely not escape deletion.

Users writing their own biographies is inherently problematic. I will refer you to Wikipedia:Autobiography for a more detailed explanation of why this type of editing is highly discouraged.
Your own website can be considered a valid primary source of information, but it alone isn't enough to establish your notability. Third-party sources, with established reputations for fact-checking and editorial oversight, are required for this.
Your website does not explicitly state that the content is public domain, or that it is compatibly licensed with Wikipedia. The absence of a copyright notice does not mean that a work may be freely used, even if you say so here. You would need to follow the steps at WP:DCM to establish that you are its owner and that you're agreeing to release it for reuse.
Many articles contain red links, pointing to non-existent articles (placed by a well-intentioned editor who likely was going to create an article). However, it doesn't mean those articles will or even should be written.

If you honestly believe that you are notable enough and meet Wikipedia's criteria for biographies of living persons, then I recommend you try the Articles for Creation process instead. This will enable you to create a draft article, outside of the main article space, which can then be reviewed by uninvolved editors. This will protect it from immediate deletion and also let you get feedback from more experienced users. Good luck. --Drm310 (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion to Michael M. Scott

The article I have attempted to post to Wikipedia regarding contributions made to the body of work published regarding the JFK assassination, I beleive is significant. The book I instigated with the help of Washington Post journalist Jeff Morley titled OUR MAN IN MEXICO has been cited as one of the most important of the 2000 plus books written on the subject. Please advise as to how I cane accepted under the Wikipedia rules for publishing.Mscott842 (talk) 06:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mscott842: Wikipedia has a broad consensus that autobiographies are strongly discouraged. It is assumed - correctly in most cases - that contributors are incapable of being objective judges of their own notability. User-generated content from social media and the IMDb will be disqualified as sources to establish notability, as will any unpublished personal knowledge (referred to on Wikipedia as original research). The benchmark for a topic's inclusion in Wikipedia is that other people, writing for reliable third-party sources from a disinterested point of view, found it worthy of attention.

If you truly believe that you are worthy of inclusion, then you should use the Articles for Creation process. This will allow you to create a draft article at less risk of deletion. Then other uninvolved editors can review your draft article and suggest revisions if it does not meet Wikipedia's standards. I hope that helps - good luck. --Drm310 (talk) 06:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Ayazahmed1987/sandbox

Hello Drm310, I've deleted the sandbox mentioned in the header that you tagged under WP:G7. Thanks for tagging it. As I understand the G7 policy, it does not apply to the userspace, so I instead deleted it under WP:U5. Best, Airplaneman ✈ 15:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, I can see why you tagged as G7 (maybe similar to this reasoning). Cheers, Airplaneman ✈ 16:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

XBRL US

Hi Drm310 - thanks for your help with the XBRL US entry. I appreciate your feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidtauriello (talk • contribs) 02:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Inspired Media Entertainment

Thanks alot for reviewing the information contributed to Inspired Media Entertainment an article I worked on extensibly. It was much appreciate and I will try to work with other contributors better to get more in depth sourcing and details on the issues surrounding this business and subject as reliable 3rd party sources became available. Alicb (talk) 18:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

@Alicb: I didn't do any work on this article. Did you mean to leave this message for someone else? --Drm310 (talk) 19:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

@Drm310: Ah, OK. I think I might have mixed up a different person. Sorry for the confusion! Alicb (talk) 20:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Pappumaalu

Hi Drm310,

I have made the Pappu Maalu article based on the information provided by them to me. This is solely associated to the brand and not used for any personal gains. Kindly advice further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TanviGokani (talk • contribs) 14:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@TanviGokani: Just because they want a Wikipedia page doesn't mean they get to have one. Wikipedia articles must be about subjects that are notable - in other words, that have attracted enough attention from the world at large that are worthy of inclusion. An assertion of notability cannot come from the subject itself; anyone can claim to be notable, but that doesn't make it so.

Notability is established by providing references to multiple reliable sources that are written by third parties. The subject's own Facebook page or other social media posts won't count to establishing their notability.

If they provided you with the same text as is posted on their Facebook page, then they were wrong to do so. Wikipedia doesn't allow copyrighted material - the only way for that material could be used is if they followed the steps at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. This is a process to verify the identity of the copyright holder and obtain their explicit consent for the release of the content as freely distributable.

It sounds like they want to use Wikipedia to get publicity. Please advise them that Wikipedia is not for advertising and is also not social media.

Also, it sounds like you are creating the article at their request. If you are working for them, that would be considered a conflict of interest. If you are being paid for your work, you are required to declare your relationship with them per Wikipedia's rules on paid editing. Even if you aren't being compensated, you should disclose any connection you have to them as a sign of good faith. You can learn more about this in Wikipedia's plain and simple conflict of interest guide. --Drm310 (talk) 15:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

User:BarbaraDD

Hi Drm310. I'm confused about the outcome for User:BarbaraDD. This is a single-purpose account existing for the sole purpose of promoting Severud Associates, this editor's employer. This person has been warned not to continue their problematic editing, yet is continuing to make edits about her employer. WP:COI states that "if the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked". Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: I don't know that there is a final outcome yet - I jumped into this one a little late in the game. My only involvement so far has been to see that she makes the proper WP:PAID disclosures. I haven't taken the time to examine the contents of her edits and see if/how they've been problematic. --Drm310 (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I suggested that this editor not edit articles related to her employer until this is settled. Would you agree with that? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: I agree that would be a sensible course of action until there's consensus on what she should and shouldn't do.

Here's my $0.02: if she wants to add the firm to the infobox of a building where the structural engineer field exists, no problem. If she wants to edit the Severud Associates page to include a (short) list of major projects, that should be alright if it's sourced. If there is significant coverage about them on a particular project from third-party sources, then I'd say it's OK.

What I see as problematic is mentioning the firm in the body of an article of a building without providing a third-party source. Engineering firms generally aren't as high-profile as architects, and don't get the same amount or depth of press coverage. Inserting them into an article with only a primary source seems to me like trying to generate publicity and prestige. --Drm310 (talk) 19:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Eco-Pesa article

Hi could you have a look at the eco-Pesa article? I have added sources, and would like to take off the banner if you think it is OK. --Nattes à chat (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

@Nattes à chat: I will try to look at it soon. I'm about to go on vacation, so I will be unavailable for about a week or so. --Drm310 (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! --Nattes à chat (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Vrunda Gadesha

This Twinkle message is amusing, [1] as I only 'created' the page as a redirect as a result of moving it to the creators user page. 220 of ^Borg 15:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

You're right... the tools are great but not 100% accurate all the time. --Drm310 (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I was going to get the redirect deleted, think I'll do that in the future to prevent this happening. :-/ 220 of ^Borg 16:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi

Sure we will limit the use of this page to one representative for Jazette. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JermaineJazette (talk • contribs) 15:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@JermaineJazette: Thank you. I see that another user has left a notice on your talk page concerning Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. Please review them, and in particular those pertinent to paid editing. --Drm310 (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Kable v Dpp

Hi friend, I happened to find this page on 16/10/ 2016 links disrupted by a user called find bruce. All I did was atempt to make the links work again. When clicking a link the link would refer to possible corrupt file and ask the user to secure link. Please see edit by find bruce. Or talk to me about my attempt to mearely correct the links. Drm310 please talk? No attempt was made ie conflict of interest by this user. Sloppy as it was to fix it i didnt know how to correct the changes made so I reverted to the way the pages and links were previously. Gkable (talk) 11:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Gkable: I stumbled across it when I read through Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. As there is an active discussion their regarding this article and your involvement in it, I thought that placing the {{coi}} template on the page was appropriate. --Drm310 (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

~~ Yes but I have been totaly missrepresented.There are allot of negative things said about my case on this page however l have not interfeared with that. At some stage I have added more facts and corrected some too as a wiki member. The Kable Doctrine is visited by every law student in Australia I chose to stop vandalism and keep references and links working and updated thats all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkable (talk • contribs) 19:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

~~I have addressed and answered the conflict of interest notice board as follows: Yes but I have been totaly missrepresented.There are allot of negative and wrong things said about my case on this page however l have not interfeared with that. At some stage I have added more facts and corrected some too as a wiki member. A fact is a fact not bias. The Kable Doctrine is visited by every law student in Australia I chose to stop vandalism and keep references and links working and updated thats all.

Subsequently I happened to find this page on 16/10/ 2016 links disrupted by a user called Find Bruce. All I did was atempt to make the links work again. When clicking a link the link would refer to possible corrupt file and ask the user to secure link. Please see edit by Find bruce. Or talk to me about my attempt to mearely correct the links. Drm310 please talk?

Typically vandals who dont like the truth attack the page often now 17/10/2016 Smartse removed the external links that have been there for over 5 years? How do those external links overshadow wikipedia?

And then why do I get attacked by two admins now that I talked? Why did an admin remove the vandalised links I talked about. What kind of bulliing is that? Admins should also be accountable and could appreciate help in tackling vandalism? Why isnt that important smartse and dm310? How come niether of them addressed the real problem I came there to fix, a link bug put there by find bruce? They have just gone along with the vandalism. So why didnt they look at what that person did to cause the edit? Or did they send in the clown first?

What did they remove? External link Getting Justice Wrong. The Law according to Gregory Kable opening speech he gave at the First National Conference of Community Based Criminal Justice Activists. The Conference was hosted by Justice Action.

Anyone can look it up but why not from here? This is a civil rights issue why not wiki?

The edits I made are not in conflict of interest of the article. But in conflict of interest of numerous attacks of vandalism and updating broken links and bugs not fixed by admin. Gkable (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:THE REAL EXPRESS

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User talk:THE REAL EXPRESS, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

User group: New Page Reviewr

Hello Drm310.

Based on the patrols you made of new pages during a qualifying period in 2016, your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed.

New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Drm310. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

New 10,000 Challenge for Canada

Hi, Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/The 10,000 Challenge is up and running based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge for the UK which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. If you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Canada like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1600 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for Canada but fuelled by a contest such as The North America Destubathon to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. I would like some support from Canadian wikipedians here to get the Challenge off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile! Cheers. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter

Hello Drm310,

Breaking the back of the backlog

We now have 819 New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action.

If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.

Second set of eyes

Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.

Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote

With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation.

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .

Taurenidus

I'm using id of taurenidus, I am not taurenidus. Sir , can u please tell me to cite sources to qualify his nobility. Taurenidus 11:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taurenidus (talk • contribs)

@Taurenidus: I see that you have been blocked for using multiple accounts, also known as sock puppetry. Please read Wikipedia's policy on sock puppetry and use one and only one account in the future.

Now as to your above statement - you must show that this person is notable enough by providing references to reliable sources where he has already received significant coverage. These sources cannot be written by him, or by others on his behalf, as that would be a conflict of interest.

If this person is notable, then your account name is a problem. You cannot use the name of a notable person as your account name if you are not him. Wikipedia routinely blocks these accounts to prevent damaging impersonation. --Drm310 (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Ruben Landon Dante

thank you for your reply, I will update this person in my own words or request him online to please make a page,

thank you DRM310 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TradingWizards (talk • contribs) 19:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@TradingWizards: Please do not tell this person to create an article about himself. Wikipedia strongly advises people against creating articles about themselves, per the content guidelines at Wikipedia:Autobiography. --Drm310 (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)