User talk:RobertMfromLI/Archives/2011/August

use of the term "vandalism"

In this edit summary, you described the previous edit as "vandalism". You may wish to review WP:VANDALISM, which specifies that "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." In this case, the editor had removed material that had been flagged as not being supported by the source; it falls into the realm of what an editor might reasonably do in attempting to improve Wikipedia. The mere failure to include an edit summary does not make such an edit vandalism. "Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful." --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nat,

• On the edit summary: You are correct. And I was aware of that when I completed the action. I meant to "Revert AGF" but accidentally hit "Revert Vandal" - an action I do not know how to undue. My revert history should easily support this, as, sometimes to the point of idiocy (on my part), I tend to assume good faith. ;-)
• On the citation issue: I suspect a citation has (yet again) been removed - or am misremembering such being on a similar article. I hope to have an opportunity in the next few days to fix the citation issues in the article - including checking all the current ones with what they reference in the article. As the talk page indicates, at least one editor has been attempting to inappropriately, (and/or) accidentally, (and/or) intentionally, (and/or) due to incompetence insert various POVs by chopping quotes at a preferred point to create a misleading POV not supportable. (Those "and/or's" are indicative of me not knowing enough about the editor to know whether I should AGF or assume it's intentional - so, no accusation to that editor is intended by that list).

Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 21:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Good catch, Nat (the copyvio)!!! I suspect that whole section needs to be addressed. We went from really bad (copyvio) to still bad but not as bad (uncited). It's a start I guess. LoL! ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 21:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I went an undid your restoration, and to be clear it is not in protest of your removal, but after taking a careful look at the material that had been restored. Much of what was removed was copied directly from the article being cited, which, since it was not being presented as a quote, means there were copyvio/plagiarism issues. In addition, what was being quoted was speculation rather than fact (somebody's idea of what a situation was "probably" due to), and was being described as addressing a "current" situation when the cited source is four years old, a substantial time lag given the short history we're faced with. That's not to say what I put back was perfect, but the material that you restored was too problematic to stand there. If there is some better version from history, then yes, restore it. (And just to be clear, no, I was not the IP user whose edits you accidentally mislabeled.) I'm probably going to repost most of this on the talk page, but I wanted to be clear to you that I accept your explanation of the mislabeling. (You may want to rely on Undo rather than on Rollback in situations like this, because without a claim of vandalism, your edit could still use an edit summary.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle AGF Revert (at least as configured on my account) will allow a manual edit summary... so no worries there. And FULLY support that removal, as I already noted on the article's talk page. ;-) Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 21:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Nicely done

Mistuh Gambini, that is a lucid, intelligent, well-thought-out explanation. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C23:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Any time! ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, RobertMfromLI. You have new messages at C.Fred's talk page.
Message added 05:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Speedy deletion declined: ETC (Water)

Hello RobertMfromLI. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of ETC (Water), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 cannot be applied to products. Thank you. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Steve. Is there a better tag, or is it something that needs to be prodded? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 00:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it'll need PRODing or AfDing - for what it's worth, I agree that as it stands, the article should be deleted as it does not show that the product meets notability PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again! -R ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 00:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Office Products International (OPI)

Just a quick note to point out that A7 doesn't apply to articles about real-world, dead-tree magazines. It can apply to organizations and web content, but not to a physical periodical. Prod or AfD would be the best way to go here.

Thparkth (talk) 01:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah... thanks. As far as I saw, they are online only (as of now)[1], but I should have noted their first claimed pub date which predates common usage of the internet.

How about unambiguously promotional content closely paraphrased directly from here[2]? Thanks, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Their front page offers subscriptions to the hard copy publication. To be honest I don't see any unambiguously promotional content in the article as currently written - merely describing a product or service in neutral terms isn't usually considered promotional, at least not for speedy g11 purposes. I doubt it would survive an AfD... in fact I doubt the AfD would even run the full seven days, and I would !vote to delete myself, but the speedy deletion criteria are supposed to be interpreted very narrowly.

Cheers,

Thparkth (talk) 02:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Your RFA

Hey RobertMfromLI,

I'm sorry if this is overstepping my bounds but I have temporarily removed your RFA and I extremely strongly suggest you answer the questions before you transclude it. An unfilled out application would be judged rather harshly. Best of luck! jorgenev 03:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Yep. Much better to answer the questions first. Good luck! Black Kite (t) (c) 03:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (To jorgenev) Heck no, most definitely not overstepping anything at all. Thank you very much (as well as for the undo, which I've restored back to). I was not sure of that part, as I thought others would be easier able to find it and add more questions if transcluded. Thanks again, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

To both of you, much thanks! ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Posting of someone's personal information by 96.26.213.146

I don't know if you remember the deal with this IP editor, but you had to remove and request the redaction of some personal information he posted about someone. Shortly after that incident, he apparently repeated the violation on the talk page for his IP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:96.26.213.146 The two links from June 7th apparently contain the same information you removed. I'll let you determine if this needs to be dealt with. Thanks. 67.233.239.29 (talk) 05:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up... I will find an admin and get it dealt with asap. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 05:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Good luck!

Hi Robert!

I think that you're a good guy.

I'm very glad to recognize a fan of Thor who has been making Wikipedia a better resource!

Good luck at the RfA! (My oppose shall probably help you!)

Cheers,06:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC) (Senility struck  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC))

Hi Kiefer, much thanks! And again, thank you for pointing out the areas I erred in or need to expand. Especially that comment I left at AN/i. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 06:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Robert!

I think that it's great that you discuss things with editors, particularly with the kind and non-defensive tone you use, which could be a model for the rest of us.

I would suggest that most of the remarks, that are not essential and needed for the RfA page, would be better placed on the talk pages of editors. This is just because of RfA's traditions, many of which need changing, of course!

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kiefer, thanks for the tip. I think soon it will be a moot point, as I'm considering withdrawing soon. I don't want to waste any more of the community's time, and it seems unlikely I will pass this RfA. Either way, I'm not worried (see my note to SarekOfVulcan above). This was never about me "winning" and becoming an admin... it was always about doing what tasks the community, as represented by the people who came to my RfA, think I can best contribute. I'm fine with that not including being an admin. It simply means people think I can contribute to the community better in other areas.

Anyway, I was going to send you a message... guess I'll do it here. I saw your exchange with Swarm, and I didn't respond because I simply didnt want to speculate about your reasons, motives or lack thereof. Quite simply put, many editors think an admin or admin candidate doesn't need a ton of edits to be a good one - and equally as many think one does. Considering where I think my strengths are (and those of others in the community), I didn't see it as an issue - but I am not the community, so my opinion doesnt truly matter that much - especially in my own RfA. So, I can't find any fault in your comments on that aspect of my RfA. Which brings us to the rest. Besides not wanting to speculate on if you had any motives related to that ANi (much less what they are), the quite simple fact is my behavior was wrong and my comment should have been worded differently. If you look at the last oppose on my RfA, you will see there was a lot going on in my life at that time. I purposely chose not to involve myself on Wikipedia, because my mind was elsewhere. In that and the preceding months, I lost one friend to cancer, one to suicide (both from the STP2 crew and documented on our forums), an aunt I thought we'd lose to her battle with cancer, got stuck with jury duty during all of that mess and trying to plan a very ambitious STP2 shoot. When I briefly came back, it was with the hope and feeling that I was ready - obviously I was wrong - and limited my involvement on Wikipedia once again until I truly felt ready. And... this RfA is about me, not you. Even if you did have certain motivations for that comment being part of your oppose rationale, it still doesn't change the fact that I wrote things in the tone I did.

But again, even entirely removing that from the equation, you had another reason you opposed, namely my lack of a larger amount of content contribution, which, I can't see anyone faulting you on, even, if like me, they disagree with it being that important.

Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 08:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

PS: maybe 20 years ago or so, I usedta drink quite a bit of Rolling Rock or Coors Light... it's mostly coffee nowadays though (and occasionally tea). :-) ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 08:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Robert!

Thanks for the response. Well, I thought about suggesting a withdrawal, but then I thought that none of the opposes are strong. I would agree that a withdrawal is probably good, mainly because you are so attentive to the comments, and so you may find this even more stressful than others.

Nobody has said a bad word about you, which is quite exceptional. Everybody trusts your instincts and likes your character.

I recognize that you have a lot going on outside of Wikipedia. Just try to make sure that in the next 6 months you make only clean comments and decisions when you tag things for decisions or discuss something at ANI, and work on one article, and I believe that people will support you by acclamation.

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Stressful? No, it's been a very positive experience. And yes, I am quite pleased with the RfA so far (as my closing/withdrawal comment will indicate). There really is nothing about it to be upset or stressed over, and I am very thankful for all the thoughtful responses. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 08:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You know, Robert, I came here, rather nervously, to see whether you decided to retire after your RfA, and I was very happy to see you calling it a positive experience! Glad to know you're not giving up at all :) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Oh Great And Wise Fetchcomms! I hope you are having the most wonderful and fortuitous day! (I've been reading your talk page instructions... thanks much for the smile!). On a serious note though, no, I love it here! I don't plan on retiring any time soon (if ever). The RfA was truly a wonderful experience. I spent a lot of time reading and re-reading all of the comments, and my only regret, from how positive all the feedback and comments were, is that I wasted the community's time on it. And besides, I don't need the extra bit (never really planned on seeking it, for that matter), so I'm quite content doing what the community does trust me in doing while addressing the areas everyone pointed out I could improve in. Thanks very much for the note, and I'm sure you'll see me around on your talkpage sometime in the near future with yet another silly question or two. ;-) Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 16:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You're the first one to follow my "rules"! Cheers, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Your RfA

Hi Robert, just letting you know that I have procedurally closed you RfA, per your withdrawal. For whatever it may be worth, I think if you gain some more "experience" (i.e. increase your edit count) and return in ~6 months or so, you will be very likely to succeed on the second attempt (and I sincerely hope there is a second attempt). All the best, Jenks24 (talk) 11:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• I agree. Not everyone thinks that admins ought to be content editors, but I do, and plenty of others do as well. So get some of those. Create some articles (do you ever look at the redlinks from Articles for Creation, on top of the Recent changes page?). Reference some unverified BLPs. Get involved maybe with the GA process. That you can be diplomatic is already clear (not everyone agreed, but you can't win them all); it's time for editing experience which will give you the background to use the tools wisely. BTW, I'll respond to your message a bit later--things at the house are a bit disjointed--thank you for that. Take care, Drmies (talk) 12:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I was one of the supporters in your RfA, and I am very sorry that it didn't succeed. However, I hope you will learn learn from the comments, and please do come back later for another try. I really do think that most of the reasons for opposing were fairly weak, but clearly you need to address what other editors regard as reasons for opposing. For example, my own opinion is that the idea that only editors with an extensive history of article creation should be administrators is complete nonsense, but unfortunately that comes up time and again in RfAs, so create some articles before your next try. (Even I think that an administrator should have some experience of content creation: I just don't agree that it has to be a major part of the person's contribution.) I passed RfA having created only four articles, none of them very substantial, but once the issue has been raised in one RfA it is almost certain to receive attention in another one, so you may need a little more. However, content creation does not only mean creating new articles, and if you can show you have made substantial contributions to some existing articles that will count for a good deal. Also, do remember that there were slightly more supports than opposes. Although that was not enough for your RfA to succeed, it does show that there is a substantial of experienced editors, including administrators, who do think you are suitable for the job. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Hi James--I agree: extensive is not necessary, in my opinion, but some should be there. Which reminds me: your desysop is in the mail. I also noticed you have only 58,000 edits: a bit on the skimpy side, don't you think? ;) Best, Drmies (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jenks, Dmries and James! Thanks to all of you for the notes you left here. And yes, my edit count does need to improve it seems. Something I'm fine with... like I said, it's up to the community to decide what they deem best qualifications or requirements for their admins. I've actually been working on a few articles for WP:Film, albeit offline. I selected them because they are areas I've got a decent level of knowledge in (including to where I can turn to for cites, since I own or have read various of the work that explains them), and I'd love to collaborate on them, but alas, it's not a big area of interest (such as this one), hence much of the base work I'm doing offWiki for now. I hope to expand into other areas that more people are interested in to be in a more collaborative environment, so that too is something I'm looking deeply at. :-)

Jenks, not sure about the 6 month thing... I hadn't planned this go-round, and nearly refused (as noted above to Sarek). How many buttons I have doesn't affect me being able to contribute effectively, so it's never been a real concern. I suspect I'd wait for a nomination from someone who had concerns about my edit count before even thinking about considering it again.

In the meantime, I've got a lot to learn... but then again, if you ask me ten years from now, I'll still say "I've got a lot to learn" - there's always more to learn, especially since so much of it (when collaborating) will always be an ongoing experience based in learning everyone's perspectives and opinions. There's a lot of "everyones" here. ;-)

Thanks again to all of you!! Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 16:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• This reminds me, Robert--some of the best fun I've had is looking at new articles that don't yet meet a bunch of guidelines and such, and helping the editor turn them into DYKs. Very gratifying for both parties. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

(to Dmries) I'm starting with baby steps, such as with the Ryan Laird article, just helping along... I've never been big on credit, so I'm solely pointing Cahuber in the right direction so he gains the experience, and hadn't planned on jumping in unless he got stuck. Oh, and as for your edit summary, my page is always open to everyone... sure as heck isn't like I haven't bugged you with a bunch of questions whenever I've gotten stuck or needed someone else's insights (or emails even) - to which you've always been gracious with your responses. :-) Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 17:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Robert. I'm happy to see how genuinely gracious you've been about all of this. I have to admit to feeling none too happy with myself over opposing you for, in effect, being a nice guy. I really meant it when I said I have a lot of respect for you and enjoy working with you, so I hope that we will continue to work together plenty of times in the future. Best wishes, --Tryptofish (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi Tryptofish! There's nothing at all to feel bad about. I'm not perfect, and I fully expected my imperfections to be brought up on RfA. Heck, it's hard to improve without such feedback... it'd actually be nice if there were some other mechanism to gain that type of scrutiny available for any editor. In that respect, I've been following Worm's ideas about the pre-RfA stuff and think it's a wonderful idea that can hopefully be expanded for any editor. And of course we'll continue to work together on stuff! Yours, like so many of the rest of the comments, was thoughtfully and kindly written and provided a lot of constructive criticism, and for that you (and everyone else) have my thanks! Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 17:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey Robert. Sorry it didn't work out. It was a long shot with your relatively lower edit count, but you should be heartened by the amount of support you got. I do hope you'll give it another try someday. You seem like you'd be an ideal admin. Best regards, Swarm ^{u | t} 17:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Swarm! I'm most definitely heartened. I don't think I've seen any RfA with so many opposes that have been so kind and so thoughtful! As for trying again sometime, perhaps... but it's not something I was really seeking this time. Perhaps, at whatever future date, if one of those who opposed deems I'm ready to be re-nominated, I'll consider it; but in the meantime, I've got a lot of tips on how I can become a better editor, regardless of whether I ever become an admin. Thanks again for your comments and !vote! Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 17:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You are 100% right about one thing. It is perfectly possible to be an excellent contributor without being an administrator: it is just a different type of contribution, but not a lower or lesser type. There are many truly first class contributors who would not be good admins, because their strengths lie in other areas. My opinion is that you have strengths which would be helpful to you as an admin, but it's entirely up to you whether you want to make another try at moving into that area, or just continue making contributions in other areas. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Just ask me, not an admin :P. But seriously, Robert, follow the advice above and in the comments at RfA, and next time around I will surely support. Also, erratic editing is just a thing some people have, others like me care about other things, so don't try to please everyone (not even me) but really evaluate why you want to be an admin, and then work that passion in every aspect of that why you can as a regular editor. You will still get opposes, but being able to clearly state "this is what I am about" does wonders to to turn the tides.--Cerejota (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cerejota! Don't worry, I've taken all the comments to heart. It's hard not to (even if I were that type of person) when they were so well thought out and raised good points. As for why I want to be an admin, I don't necessarily want to. There are areas in which I think I could be a decent help (clearing out the backlogs and such), as they are extensions of the things I already do (heh, or things I contribute to creating - like the backlogs). So, if it's offered, and I am at the right place in my edit history and such, I'd probably accept the nomination... but in the meantime I'm happy contributing in other ways. :-)

As to the sporadicness... I addressed that above to Kiefer, and it will hopefully be a once in a lifetime string of crazy events. I hadn't thought to address it as it was occurring, and I did realize when the RfA started that it might hurt, but I decided against putting up an explanation at that point (and waited till I was in the middle of declining the nom). It just didn't seem right at that time, and I was afraid it would come off as an excuse. So, the good thing there is, with luck, I won't run into such a weird and difficult string of circumstances IRL again. Thanks very much for your comments at RfA and here! Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 21:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• I actually think that an unsuccessful RFA can be a strengthening experience. 'What doesn't kill you', right... Stay strong RobertMfromLI! I'll hope to see you around. jorgenev

(to Jorgenev) It most definitely is!! I kind of wish everyone's RfA could go so smoothly and with such great comments.

And don't worry, I'm not going anywhere. :-) As a matter of fact, I just helped my ex-adoptee get his third GA[3]!!! My help was very minor (just copy-edited one problematic section), but it's something I really enjoy doing. (And I'm damn proud of him and my other ex-adoptees) ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 21:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Nice. Speaking of AAU, how did you found your adoptees Robert? I've been kind of looking to get involved with AAU but all the entries in Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user are ancient. :( jorgenev 01:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

One was AN/I, two found and approached me, the one who I helped their mentor a bit with (who helped me out as well) was also AN/I, and the rest I found on that page. Another one I found via helping the foundation... or WMF contacted me for help after I'd found him (cant remember which order). Irony of it; the ones people thought would be the most problematic and should be blocked turned out to be amazing contributors. This place is a mess of guidelines and policies... sometimes that helping hand is better than slapping their hand, I guess. For some, I guess it can be daunting trying to jump in to the fray here.

There are a few new ones... User:Alpert1, User:Mluker94 (three weeks), User:Pascal yuiop (three weeks or so), User:SuperNewToWiki (about a week).

Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you busy?

Heyy... so I was wondering if your really busy right now to c/e one small section for me. Thanks in advance, AJona1992 (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hiya! Nope, I have some time... ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Yay lolz well I'm glad you can help me out. Techno Cumbia was just reviewed and I was wondering if you can c/e the "Composition" section for me. Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Will do... I'm on chat if you want to find me there. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! :) just signed on. AJona1992 (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Requests for Adminship

I see nobody's running at the moment -- can I con... err, talk you into giving it a shot this time, or still not yet? :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

If it helps, and you think Sarek's nomination might be contentious (no offence Sarek, but I suspect people might oppose simply because you're the nominator), I'd be willing to co-nominate. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 04:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I thank you both for your support (and no, I've got nothing against SoV being nominator or co-nominator). I would ask that you all give me a few days to consider? I'm wondering if I'd be more useful not being an admin, especially since I have a tendency to wander into disputes in trying to fix things. I kinda want to ask 2 or 3 others their opinion, but also do not want it to seem like I am trolling for support for an RfA, so, give me a few days, if you would. Thanks again! Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 04:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Certainly, there's no rush. I've noticed that when you wander into disputes, they tend to calm down -- as opposed to... err... other admins. :-) And I'm sure the closing bureaucrat will know how much weight to give to opposes that are solely for the reason that I was involved. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi to both of you. I've given it some thought, and I graciously accept your co-nominations. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 22:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Good to know. :-) I'll get to work.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey Rob, currently away from a computer and editing through my phone. I see Sarek's written a nice nom, so I've just gone ahead and supported. If you want, I can change it to a co-nom later, or I'm similarly happy to leave my comments just in the support column. Best of luck, StrPby (talk) 05:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Much thanks for the support, and I definitely would not turn down a co-nom. Thanks again, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 05:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

What about me? – Lionel ^(talk) 01:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Mark Midei

I created Mark Midei. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 23:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Nice start! Perhaps it's time to work on formatting, layout and sections. Looking at articles on other doctors might be helpful in that respect. Now, the next question would be, what makes him notable? His success with using stents or his issues? I honestly think his stent stuff is more notable... there are a LOT of businessmen (which he seemed to be as much of as he was a doctor) who commit fraudulent, illegal and/or questionable acts... YMMV though. That might be something to take up with WP:BLPN. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 00:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. FWIW I think he passes the historical doc test on 1 and 3 but the questionable acts seem to dominate coverage in more mainstream sources like newspapers. Jesanj (talk) 00:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's how I evaluate such. I'm not saying this is the best or only way (or perhaps even the right way - but I think I've got the proper interpretation on how we're to decide such)... simply the way I use. Which is the most transient? In his case, his questionable acts are. Those, like many things of such nature are "incidents of the now" and will be forgotten by the mainstream media quickly - especially as someone else walks down that same road. On the other hand, new or improve medical procedures are things that stick around a bit longer. Thus, that's why I'd weigh his medical stuff as the more notable item. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Resilient Barnstar
		For your excellent reaction to your RFA and the tact to your opposers you showed when withdrawing. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ryan! Much thanks for the barnstar, but truly, it is those who opposed with such grace and kindness who deserve it. Thanks again! Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Re your message

Thanks. That was nice of you. Regarding your edit summary, I probably seem calmer than I actually am. Jakew (talk) 07:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

AfD Xurmo

Hi Robert,

Thanks for your article recommendations for lung cancer. As far as the Xurmo Tech article is concerned, the sources will come. The firm has been operating in a stealth mode for a long time as you can see from one of the mentioned articles too. Hence, the lack of sources. But if the one month I sought is given am sure the sources will be there. However, I still don't see the point why this is being debated so much when I can show you atleast 10 similar articles without a single reference or citation except its own website. I have not received any explanation for that even though I have pointed out those pages multiple times. I need your help. But am not sure how you can help in this situation

Sandeep999 (talk) 10:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sandeep. I'll try to answer a few of your questions here. First, "other articles" is never a good defense, and it will virtually always backfire... but I think you're noticing that. Especially in your case, where you've got a noted COI with TURF/Xurmo - it makes it look vindictive. If it were me, I'd stay away from competitor articles entirely.

Let me give you an example of how stringently I avoid anything that looks like COI on my part. I am part of the Star Trek Phase 2 team. Not just am I a producer, but I run all our internet properties, and for the last 3-4 years am the person who's either written or copy-edited all the articles about us as well as the person who posts them all. I'm also the first point of contact for questions (and usually the person who responds to all incoming questions, as checking out our "Contact" page will show). So, it's kinda funny, most of what's on the article page is, one way or another, referenced to something I wrote and/or copy edited and/or sent to an external reviewer. Yet, I don't do content contribution on that article. Ironic, huh? But, it's the right thing for me to do. Heck, the couple corrections I did to the article were changes to match what information I know I'd released, even though it was accurate information. The problem is none of the sources (errr... me in one fashion or another) ever said such things. On Wikipedia, the content must match the sources - so I changed it, even though I knew better. Because, it's not what I know: it's what's attributable to a reliable source. And in my capacity as a Wikipedia editor, I am not a reliable source even for my own project. If I am cited elsewhere in my capacity as one of the show's producers, it's different, and I am - but then, such content addition still wont come from me. I'll let others who are uninvolved make the additions.

Which brings us to the notability stuff. The guidelines are pretty specific. Notability must be attributable to secondary reliable sources. Just as had to be done with the STP2 stuff (the page almost got deleted a few years ago until people realized the project had been written up numerous times in many big publications, such as the NY Times, Wired and elsewhere). So, there's nothing personal about it when people wish Xurmo/TURF deleted. You've got no secondary sources (at least when I last looked) that prove notability. Some of the other articles you've mentioned do at least have some claim of notability in secondary sources - even if that claim is somewhat tenuous in some.

Now, the problem you've "created" for yourself: in tagging competitors' articles and some of your previous comments, you've created the situation I indicated on the AfD page. That's not just my opinion. It's a summary of multiple editors' opinions - which is also why bringing up "other articles" again and again will continue to backfire; it's never a reason at all - and in your case, besides it not being a valid reason, it makes it seem like your motives are suspect. I'm sure it's just frustration that's caused these issues, and no true ill intent; but you've got to remember, it's the perceptions you create that your actions will be judged by. No one here really knows you (or usually even each other). All we have to judge you, me or anyone else here by are the perceptions our actions create - not by the intent people cannot know because they can't see into our heads.

So... to resolve this issue, here's what you need to do.

• Don't worry about the article getting deleted or not. Chances are it will be deleted if things keep going the direction they are.
• Ask for it to be userfied again if that happens.
• Study the guidelines on notability and figure how they apply to Xurmo and/or TURF.
• Wait until you find/get those secondary reliable sources to prove notability.
• Update the article, and then get other editors to rip it apart and rebuild it.
• Once they think it's ready, as someone else to move it to article space. Don't jump the gun on this one, and don't go edit happy on the article - let others who cannot be seen as having a COI do the fixing.

I suspect that if you follow that path, the article will eventually end up in article space to stay... just not today or tomorrow. Let me know if I can help out. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 17:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not actually sure it should be userfied. Such documents continue to show up on google. If Sandeep wishes to preserve the text, he can do that off-wiki. If it is userfied, I will nominate it for deletion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

A userfied article should have {{userspace draft}} on it, which also __NOINDEX__'s the article. So, no, it doesn't show up in Google (or any other search engine that reads our robots.txt, which is all the important ones). Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

) It is sad that unemployment rates are rising.

122.172.250.46 (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

RfA discussions

I would just like to make you aware that there are some RfA discussions at User talk:Jimbo Wales Jimbo Wales' talk page. You have been mentioned. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Much thanks Ryan, will check it out. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words there... :-) Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, RobertMfromLI. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship.
Message added 11:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Question

Hello my name is Frank “Onno” Braun and I have a question. I’m fairly new to Wikipedia and came across your page. I would like to upload some images of my second cousin, Eva Braun, but don’t know how to go by it with all the tagging stuff. I uploaded some already (on her family) but they were from my own from my family photo albums. I don’t have any of Eva Braun that is not already in the public domain. The other ones that I uploaded are not in the public domain and were my own taken by my mother, Helga. I did upload some of Eva but they got deleted because of the tagging. If you can help my out then go leave me a message on my talk page and we can make plans. --Frankonno (talk) 19:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Frank, here are some questions... you can respond below, and I will help you as best I can.

• When were the images taken?
• Are the images yours to license or put in the public domain, or does your mother still hold claim to them?
• Were the images published anywhere else? (eg: newspaper, magazine, website, etc)
• Assuming you are the owner of the images (and all rights attached to them), are you willing to license them using one of the compatible Wikipedia licenses or release them into the public domain?
• While donating images to the project is commendable, are you aware of our guidelines on conflicts of interests and how they might apply to any edits, uploads or article changes you undertake?

Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 00:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi I uploaded a new picture up close and is now the main photo on Eva Braun. The photo is in the public domain. --Frankonno (talk) 12:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi again! First, remember you can indent your messages so the conversation flows better. Simply put one more colon (:) in front of each paragraph than the preceeding message. So, in your response below, put :: before each paragraph. If things are really indented, you can simply put {{od}} before your first paragraph and then no colons before each additional paragraph - that will bring the comments back to the left margin with a line drawn over to them.

Now... on the the image at hand...

• You need creator information whenever possible (which you've indicated you have).
• There is an ambiguity in the information there. Caption says "in her 20's" - but PD is 1923 and earlier. "in her 20's" indicates 1932 at the earliest. So, it cannot be PD by when the photo was taken. That alone is grounds for deletion.
• The only way around that is if you own all rights to the image and if you are willing to release it into the public domain or license it under a compatible license. That will require a few more steps for you to do so, I suspect.

Let me know about these details, and I can point you onto the right path. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 00:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello I know when the US took Germany they found many photos own them now. They put most of them in the public domain, which includes this one. --Frankonno (talk) 00:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

PD-1923 is not a valid public domain claim, then. There needs to be some proof indicating this is a picture that the US Govt took and put into the public domain, in which case, the licensing needs to be changed to that. Personal knowledge or personal assumptions that it has been placed in the public domain are not proof of such, which is what Wikipedia needs. Currently, the licensing is incorrect, and the file will probably very soon be speedily deleted. On that note, for now, I've switched her article back to the previous image until this is resolved. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 00:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Side note, the licensing tag isn't the issue - the lack of proof of why it's in the public domain even though it was taken after 1923 is the issue which makes the licensing seem "incorrect" or invalid. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 00:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay I'll work on it.--Frankonno (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)