User talk:Ngoesseringer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

George Komsky[edit]

Actually lots of problems.

  • Just changing the odd word doesn't make it any less of a copyright violation, a close paraphrase stills violates the original copyright. Although the page was tagged by a bot, I'm content that it was a close paraphrase of copyright text. The lack of wikilinks is a clear indicator that it's not your own work.
  • You did not provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. It is now Wikipedia policy that biographical articles about living people must have independent verifiable references, or they will be deleted.
  • It was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. Examples of unsourced claims presented as fact include: world-renowned... was mesmerized by the beauty... immortalized... the great... much sought after... celebrated... lead soloist... internationally acclaimed and so on
  • You have an obvious conflict of interest when it comes to editing articles about this subject. Thank you for declaring your interest. If, after reading the information about notability linked above, you still believe that your client is notable enough for a Wikipedia article (and that there is significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources), you could, if you wish, post a request at Wikipedia:Requested articles for the article to be created. See also Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest.

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

You don't have to go through requested articles, it's just an option. The fact that the article has been deleted once doesn't affect recreation. Titles can be blocked from recreation, but that's not the case here. If you do recreate, best not to post links to YouTube etc videos, they aren't counted as reliable sources, and will be deleted because of concerns about copyright infringements. Make sure your sources fit the definition above (Not self-editable like Facebook or blogs). Just bear in mind that it's an encyclopaedia article, not a fanpage. If you want to have another go, you could write a draft here and let me know when you are ready, but that's up to you. Good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I've moved the text to your sandbox, I'll comment there Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
If you make the changes I've suggested, let me know and I'll have another look. Let me know if you need help, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I made these changes, mainly minor fixes such as only linking to a Wikipedia article once, no space between punctuation and ref. To add an image, go to Commons and follow the upload image link. This is a copyright minefield. If an image has been published other than with an explicit public domain licence, it will be deleted. Effectively, you need an unpublished image to which you own the copyright, or to release a published image following this complicated procedure. When you are ready to publish, use the "move" button, don't copy and paste. No guarantees (there are 900+ other admins), but it looks much better, good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Just a couple of things you need to do
  • Add categories to the article (see Botti's article at the bottom if you're not sure what I mean), format is [[Category:categoryname]]
  • Similarly, add categories to the image page on Commons
  • It reads as if the October gig is to support the winery, I assume that isn't the case, but that's not clear
  • I have no idea on the Google stuff, except that the new page will eventually replace the old
Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I've deleted your sandbox, but you should realise that Google isn't instantaneous. The two deleted pages will show for some time, but eventually they will go Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Same way, see the end of this image page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I've activated the category. The image link you gave me is the Wikipedia transclusion of the Commons image. It can't be deleted unless the Commons image is deleted. If you want the commons image deleted, I'm not an admin there, you would need to add the tag {{speedydelete|Uploader request}} to do that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Who knows? I don't think that it will be speedy deleted, but it could always be sent to a deletion discussion on notability grounds Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I've restored the coi tag since it's clearly correct. It doesn't otherwise affect the article, but you shouldn't remove it yourself. Any "fans" editing the page will have to abide by the same rules; if an edit is unsourced or non-neutral it will be removed. I did say the Youtube stuff was vulnerable, and although you might not like the new edits, they are all justifiable. For an article like this, sourcing ot good references is paramount.Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm Theroadislong. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Seth Riggs, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

George Komsky[edit]

The AfD has to run its course until a consensus is reached, the only exception is if the article is speedy deleted. You are, of course, entitled to comment and vote to "Keep" if you wish. I've commented, but not voted since I've indicated that there could be notability issues. If you do comment, try to justify how the article is notable, don't get drawn into personalities Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, the people who have commented so far are not admins, anyone can participate. The only admin requirement is to close the AfD when a consensus is reached Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I can't understand why you can't contact Redpenofdoom here, works for me. That user isn't an admin, but he has gone through the references and removed those that he considers not to be sufficiently reliable. If you disagree, you should discuss with him. Make use of your opportunity to contest the deletion at the AfD, as the main editor you have every right to state your views and vote to keep. Note that "keep" votes from new editors (like Mike Soyf) with no or few edits elsewhere are likely to be ignored unless they can be seen to have contributed to the article prior to the Afd Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


Hello, Ngoesseringer, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Content requires reliable sources[edit]

Please do not restore content without providing reliably published third party sources to support any claims. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

re [1], it is NOT "your page". see WP:OWN.
and as it says at the top of every edit box "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone" (emph added) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
If you intend to "clean it up" you should start from the current cleaner version because everything I removed for not having appropriate sourcing will be removed again. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I have 2 options for you. 1) add the {under construction} template before you start major re-work (only use 2 braces on each side and it will display a message notifying other editors) or 2) request that the article be moved to your userspace WP:SANDBOX rather than live article space and you can have lots of time to try and get it ready for prime time. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Doom pen, thanks for your options. You are obviously much better versed in the ins and outs of wikipedia then I, so I will look into taking the necessary steps when the time comes.. But I commend you on your knowledge of the rules, it must be a point of pride to know so much about so important a process. Ngoesseringer (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013[edit]

Your recent editing history at George Komsky shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Ngoesseringer. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article George Komsky, you should consider our guidance on Conflicts of interest and take a look at the Plain and simple conflict of interest guide.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

  • Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
  • Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
  • Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
  • Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content 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. I suggest you use the talk page to make any suggested improvements. Theroadislong (talk) 09:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I have been open about who I am, not hidden it in any way. I have tried to be honest and only add true facts to the page. Editors above have rigorously taken down many very true and actual facts on account of the sources not being the LA Times or a major newspaper. But that's not my problem. I have nothing to hide and there is no COI Ngoesseringer (talk) 09:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


I did say you needed to discuss the changes with the other editor, just reversing them gets you into a problematic situation. You can see any earlier version by clicking on the history tab. Even if I felt that the other editor's actions merited a block, I would not do it myself because my involvement with the article compromises me in taking such an action. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

You are not helping yourself with your comments to RPOD, he shouldn't have described something as "crap", but your responses are at least equally uncivil, and reinforce the perception amongst the other reviewers that you are trying to claim ownership of the article. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
You will need to wait until the afd is over. If it is then deleted, I could recreate in your sandbox, but bear in mind that you would still have to satisfy reviewers once you move it back to article space again Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry about the tags, if the article survives Afd, we can sort it out then. I think the tone of this afd has been unnecessarily belligerent, and the fact that you have a conflict of interest doesn't justify that. You will appreciate that I have to be careful here since I'm clearly not an uninvolved admin. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to George Komsky, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing. Theroadislong (talk) 09:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe all of those have been resolved, but in any case I have not touched anything after the notice and will not be. Ngoesseringer (talk) 09:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

No need for this notice. There will be no more edits from my end whatsoever, no warring. You can end the discussion. Ngoesseringer (talk) 08:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Sock warning[edit]

Hello, Ngoesseringer, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please remember to disclose these connections. This becomes an automatic ban if you are using socks to sway consensus in the AFD. Coffeepusher (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I read your message. And I have no idea where you get off making such an accusation. I am not doing anything of the sort. I am connected to the subject of the article, but I am trying my best to correct any mistakes that were made. I wish all of you weren't acting as if you were ganging up. Btw, do you know the other editors? re they friends of yours?Ngoesseringer (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I do understand that this is really frustrating for you. Please understand that the reason actually "having" a wikipedia article is a sign that an artist has some notability is because of what you are going through right now. Wikipedia actually has an evaluative process that determines what is noteworthy, so if an artist has an article it is because the article has survived this process. So we are not "ganging up" on you and the article, it has just come to our attention that an article, written by the PR agent of an artist, has come to the encyclopedia and that its inclusion is questionable. You aren't the first PR agent we have encountered, every PR firm has at one time or another tried to create a wikipedia article about someone who isn't notable. This is what separates a wikipedia article from a myspace or facebook account.
secondly, the reason why I "get off making such an accusation" is because there are several accounts making really suspicious edits. I have seen many people use multiple accounts and there are some tell tale signs that you wouldn't have thought of when editing. For example this is not an edit that a first time account would make. It is actually written in your voice (check the sentence structure, word choice etc.. Now perhaps I am being a little too suspicious except there are many more examples of suspicious edits that started once you were informed that more people needed to be writing the article for it to avoid scrutiny. I am assuming good faith in that if you did use multiple accounts you were unaware of the policy, but now you know. We know they were at least meatpuppet accounts, possibly sock accounts because we have seen many many people try to sway consensus over the years and they all make the same types of mistakes in hiding their identity. I'm going to place a copy of this discussion on your page. Good luck on the AFD.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
so right now you aren't in any actual trouble, but if it appears that you are abusively using multiple accounts in an attempt to sway consensus we do have ways to check to see if accounts were used from the same set of computers. If you aren't doing anything then there is nothing to fear, if you are then all your access will be banned.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I have a full time job coffeepush, and I really don't have the time to do what you're talking about. You can spend your time in what ever way you wish, but I'm through wasting mine. What's left on the article are facts and and are backed up by sources, I understand that the afd deletion process takes a week so lets see it through. But I will no longer be involved in ANY way, period. Ngoesseringer (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
yes, your full time job is to promote your clients, which you probably thought you could do through editing their Wikipedia article. However, your clients in seeing what type of publicity such actions bring may have second thoughts about your judgment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Response to request on my talk page[edit]

Calling crappy sources "crappy" is not "abusive", it is To call a spade a spade. Saying that when sources write about themselves, we cannot assume them to be neutral because they have an inherent conflict of interest is not "abusive", it is standard policy that we apply to all sources. And I never called anybody a "nobody", I said that charities publishing content about their fundraising events have an inherent conflict of interest in making it seem as if their supporters are a SOMEBODY rather than NOBODY which as a PR agent, you obviously know is true not abusive.

However, if you wish to stand up somewhere and claim otherwise, the place to do claim "abusive" behavior would be at WP:ANI, however, given the above, and your own statements , you may wish to reconsider taking your accusations of "abusive" behavior more public, because you may not be happy with the results. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

What is abusive, however, is calling other editors "so ignorant, it's almost laughable", claiming they are "clearly biased", and accusing them of "aggressiveness and nastiness". Statements of that sort fall under Wikipedia's policy of No personal attacks, and as such are a sanctionable offence. I recognise that you are frustrated with the current situation, but if you do not moderate your comments in future, you are in danger of being blocked from editing. Yunshui  12:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

George Komsky[edit]

my reply here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:GeorgeKomskyHollywood2.jpg[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:GeorgeKomskyHollywood2.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

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 "Click here to 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)