User talk:Rexweiner1

Hello, Rexweiner1! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! XLinkBot (talk) 22:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

July 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Gene Vincent has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \bmyspace\.com (links: http://www.myspace.com/bebopalulaplay/).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 22:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

DAX (software program), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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!

APerson241 (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Patrick Macdonald-King, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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!

Jamesx12345 (talk) 22:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sample Digital concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sample Digital, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sample Digital

Hello Rexweiner1. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Sample Digital".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sample Digital}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Todos Santos Writers Workshop

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Draft:Todos Santos Writers Workshop, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.todossantoswritersworkshop.com/.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Draft:Todos Santos Writers Workshop (August 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! The submission has not been accepted because it included copyrighted information, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

The existing submission may be deleted at any time. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.

If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

--gdfusion (talk|contrib) 00:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Patrick Macdonald-King

The article Patrick Macdonald-King has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Sources do not establish notability per WP:BIO. Random quotes from Variety etc. do not constitute in-depth coverage. Award to software product not inherited.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Brianhe (talk) 00:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Be Bop A Lula (play)

The article Be Bop A Lula (play) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Since 2009, entire article remains sourced to IMDB, which is not a reliable source.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Brianhe (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest, disclosure required

Hello, Rexweiner1. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Be Bop A Lula (play) , you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

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.
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. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

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. — Brianhe (talk) 00:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rex, I just reviewed your edits, and they are 100% conflicted. It is essential that you respond to the notice above. Please know that editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right, and editors who violate the Terms of Use and our policies and guidelines lose their editing privileges, in whole or in part. Editors with a COI can be part of the Wikipedia community, but you must disclose your conflicts and discuss things. Everything here is built on discussion and consensus-building, and we love experts and want to retain them.... but editors who blow off community norms (like responding on Talk pages) get thrown out of here. So please reply, and please start working with us to manage your conflicts. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rex would you please reply here - do you see how you have conflicts of interest for the articles you have edited? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog - I see the error of my ways on several submissions and will seek out uninvolved parties to re-submit on these subjects in conformance with Wiki rules and style. For Patrick MacDonald King whose career I observed as a journalist for Variety, and whose contributions to entertainment technology were significant enough for his company (DAX) to awarded an Emmy, I will revise the article in way that I hope will be acceptable. Thanks for your patience! Rexweiner1 (talk) 23:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hooray! Thanks so much for talking back. Whew. Some conflicted editors just flip the bird to the community and things get ugly. You do have a ton of great experience and I do hope you learn how this place works and stick around. Can we talk a bit about managing your COI here? There are some set things you can do, to make things work better and I would like to tell you about them... OK? Jytdog (talk) 00:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog - sure, that would be great. What's the best way to communicate? Rexweiner1 (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think User:Jytdog will come reply here shortly. — Brianhe (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brianhe - any chance I could get some assistance from you?Rexweiner1 (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sorry i got distracted by other things and this slipped through the cracks. Where were we? Let's see...ok, the basic COI management process in Wikipedia involves two steps - disclosing relevant relationships, and peer review. So, you are editing here under your real name. You were the author of a play you wrote about, and that is a clear COI. Your linkedin profile says that you have a consulting relationship with DAX, of which Patrick MacDonald King is the CEO. That also constitutes a COI here in WP. Does that make sense? I'll pause there to hear your response (I won't let such a long time go by this time, sorry!) Jytdog (talk) 22:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still listening as well. Brianhe (talk) 23:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, guys! I'm primarily interested in my articles on DAX and Patrick Macdonald-King. I am no longer employed by DAX since their acquisition by Prime Focus Technologies (they seem to have some issues with their own article) over a year ago. However, I feel responsible for my articles on those two subjects and would like to submit them correctly, if only to understand the process as well as to make sure that these subjects are covered for future researchers. I have gone ahead and done an edit on DAX which I think stands up. I would like to do the same on Patrick Macdonald-King using additional third party references--articles and interviews that have recently appeared in industry magazines--if that is permissible? Rexweiner1 (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Almost everything is permissable, but we just need to work out the COI issues. So I understand that you/Mediatek had DAX as a client (Mediatek's website cites that relatiationship prominently) and you did the PR around the acquisition. Are you willing to accept that in WP you have a COI with regard to DAX and Patrick MacDonald King? If so. the way forward is clear, and I can describe that to you... Jytdog (talk) 00:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can accept that and assume it will be noted somehow in the article. Can you show me examples of how that is done in other articles?Rexweiner1 (talk) 16:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brianhe?Jytdog?Rexweiner1 (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Damn it, time slipped by again, sorry. You can see examples of editors with a COI suggesting content on the article talk page, and others responding, by clicking on any of the links on this page: . Let me know if you don't find what you need there! Jytdog (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed a disclosure on my user page regarding articles on DAX and Patrick MacDonald-King, that I hope will allow my submissions to be accepted. I am unable to create an internal Wiki link to the DAX page, however (note says the page does not exist), and it seems you have deleted the article on Patrick MacDonald-King. Can the first problem be fixed and a revised article on Patrick MacDonald-King be re-instated or freshly created?Rexweiner1 (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you want to do is go to Wikipedia:Articles for creation and click the big blue "create article" button to create an article on the individual. The requests for changes to DAX can be filed at Talk:DAX (application). Make sure to include {{request edit}} on the latter to get someone's attention. — Brianhe (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rex, so here is the big picture on editing with a COI in Wikipedia, with full transparency.

Management of COI in Wikipedia has two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. The disclosure should go on the relevant article Talk page (which I already did for you), and on your user page, which you have now done.

The peer review" piece may seem a bit strange to you at first, but if you think about it, it will make sense. In Wikipedia, editors can immediately publish their work, with no intervening publisher or standard peer review -- you can just create an article click save, and viola there is a new article, and you can go into any article, make changes, click save, and done. No intermediary.

What we ask editors who have a COI to do, is a) if you create an article, submit it through the WP:AFC process so it can be reviewed before it publishes (which Brianhe just described). b) And if you want to change content in an existing article on a topic where you have a COI (for instance, on the article about Dax), we ask editors with a COI to propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement, instead of doing it directly themselves. You can do make the edit request easily - and provide notice to the community of your request - by using the "edit request" function as described in the conflict of interest guideline. I made that easy for you by adding a section to the beige box at the top of the Talk page at Dax - there is a link at "click here" in that section -- if you click that, the Wikipedia software will automatically format a section in which you can make your request. That is the full story - I hope that makes sense. Jytdog (talk) 21:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rex - I thought that you agreed to not edit the article directly, but today you made a bunch of edits directly. What's up? Thanks Jytdog (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oy, sorry, late in the day and I missed your "big picture" note. Can I still go through the process you described?Rexweiner1 (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! Editors with a COI are part of the community; we just ask them to follow the COI guideline. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]