Jump to content

User talk:Aaron Booth/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

about Aramis Knight...

I am much looking forward to Ender's Game (film) and only hope the filmakers follow the book closely, as it is one I remember quite fondly from years back, and expect that Aramis will definitely receive some fine coverage if his portrayal of Bean is decent. I wish to offer some advice on your article about Aramis. First, using IMDB as a citation is unacceptable, as it is not accepted as a reliable source... useful as it may be for hints to further research. For verifying his roles you should instead use sources accepted AS reliable in such cases. For instance, USA Today, Kansas City infoZine and Back Stage verify his first-ever feature film role as Jeremy in Rendition (film). Futon Critic verifies his guest starring as Sam in an episode of Lost (TV series). Deseret News verifies his role as Juan Sanchez in Crossing Over (film). These are the types of sources expected and required to be used as citations for proper verifiability... not IMDB. While IMDB is fine as an external link at the bottom of the article, we use it to help direct our seraches and not as a citation. Do searches which combine his name with the name of the production in which he had a role. Search google news[1] for recent coverage and google news archive[2] for older coverage. It's also quite useful to also to do google book searches for his name,[3] and so show he's been making it into the enduring record. Feel free to write me back if yo have questions. I'd be happy to help out. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I am going to be working on improving the article in the next few days. Feel free to help or continue to give suggestions during that time. Feedback is a much better way to get something fixed. It is very difficult to improve something when someone is just coming in and changing citation formats, the layout of the page, and deleting chunks of information, citations and etc. I have gotten mixed responses as to the article. One user said it was fine, and then another sees very little to be good about it. I would love help and feedback from anyone that I can get, since everyone seems to have a different take on this. Also as far as citing goes, if IMDB is not valid (it is by far a more reliable source than Wikipedia for a variety of reasons, particularly due to the process for editing or creating an entry, then wouldn't the most accurate and valid citation of a role or work in a movie being simply citing the movie itself? The actor playing the role in the film/TV program is clearly the ultimate reference to the actor playing the role. (If the actor is playing the role, then the actor is playing the role) Booth088 (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
The arguments about what parts of IMDB are reliable and what parts are not has gone on for a long time. As an actor myself,[4][5] I can attest to it being far more accurate and complete than are the actor pages of me at AllRovi and The New York Times... and yet those two latter are the ones considered "reliable". We will not solve the question here, but suffice it to say that because an actor's participation in film can be directly sourced to the film itself, we do not use IMDB to source those performances... and per common practices, if readers can verify for themselves that someone was in a project AND a claim the he was in a project is not controversial, then we generally do not cite every project listed in an actor's filmography.
I appreciate your changing the IMDB cites to MovieWeb... but in point of fact, The New York Times is a more respected source for such, even if it is sadly incomplete. However, such cites for the non-controversial list are unneccessary. Use them instead to source the text of the article. And a hint here... since he is getting more and more coverage in relationship to Ender's Game, you'd do well to dig through those sources to see which ones offer information about his background and life that can be used to build up in the article. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Booth088, I just finished my multi-round clean up passes at the article, including adding some additional sourcing (courtesy of Michael) which should give you an idea of what's needed/useful. It's still (imo) in desperate need of a source that is about him, versus just mentions of him in passing as a cast member. But so long as he doesn't have a massive growth spurt in the next month or two, there should be plenty of that coming down the line.
Regarding your statement, "IMDB… is by far a more reliable source than Wikipedia" — I couldn't agree more, as will most of the editors around here. There's a reason WP isn't allowed as a source on WP! Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 02:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't Do That Again

Do NOT, under any circumstances, pull the stunt you just pulled on the KUMM and KUMD-FM pages. They are very much notable and anyone who has been around since 2010 should know our rules by now, especially those having to do with notability. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. As Always, thank you for dropping a note by on my talk page. Always appreciated. I would just like to begin by offering a couple courtesy reminders to you. Everyone needs a reminder now and then. Standard Procedure, WP:DGF
Specifically in regards to the article KUMM. The article has one source that is used to cite ownership of the station. There are no sources that are contained in the article, or the indication of the existence of any sources that support a claim of notability. Naturally, when there is an existence of significant coverage, the article does not need to cite all or any of them aside from when a reliable source is required. A good example of this would be WCCO (AM) (The article does have it's own set of issues. However, there is existence of such sources in easy to find places throughout the web without too much digging)
The Wikipedia policy for notability of a Radio Station is not merely the presence of an FCC license. Please see WP:BROADCAST.
Since these stations KUMM and KUMD-FM, are so noteable for "anyone," I would encourage you to improve the page.
Here are a few other , non-policy essays that may help here: WP:BARE, WP:DESCRIBE, WP:ENN, WP:ONESOURCE.Aaron Booth (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Did you actually read WP:BROADCAST? Cause it says just that. The FCC license gives the station notability. The station broadcasting makes it even that more notable. Plus, we have consensus on several different AfDs that show that radio station articles are inherently notable. Oh and since you like to link to things....give WP:BURDEN a read. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I am continuing this discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KUMM. -Aaron Booth (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Chatra Ramai Pandit Mahavidyalaya

Greetings! As a friendly reminder, BLP PRODs should only be used on unreferenced biographies of living people. The deletion proposal should not be used for universities, as you did at Chatra Ramai Pandit Mahavidyalaya. VQuakr (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep, my apologies, I accidentally added the incorrect tag. Thanks for catching that for me! -Aaron Booth (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

1970 or 1972?

Hey Aaron, I'm wondering about the first on-air date for KUMM, please see my thoughts on this at my talk page, if you have time. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Michael David Weiss

So what kind of "cleaning" are you thinking about on his page? This is almost the only information you can find about him on Internet. If you can find more than that you should add it to his page instead of adding random tags everywhere. ~ ForceMagic ~ (talk) 02:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I just went ahead and cleaned up a few of the issues I saw with the Michael David Weiss. Let me know if you have any other questions or concerns. Thanks! -Aaron Booth (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I disagree with the personality section removal. I do understand that some of the content of this section was a bit subjective, but you could have ripped off only a part of it since the other part was kind of a fact. Also, since the Safety syringe case was a real case that other lawyer worked on, removing this header would make in harder to spot in my opinion. ~ ForceMagic ~ (talk) 03:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
The header of the "Safety Syringe Case" could be replaced. Just with a standard header, instead of bold text. This will keep the formatting consistent. I will go ahead and do that.
Great thanks, I also moved the Death section to then end since the Other Mysterious GPO Deaths section is related to the Safety Syringe case. ~ ForceMagic ~ (talk) 04:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
As far as the personality section goes. You could try to re-write it, however every sentence in that section contained one or more weasel words. weasel words are beyond WP:Puffery. -Aaron Booth (talk) 03:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I've thought about re-writting this section, however, I found it hard because as you can read in the reference page it seems like a quote from someone who worked with him. Unfortunatly, there is no such thing as who really said that. I don't know if you have any other ideas about it, I could still try to re-write it without the weasel words. ~ ForceMagic ~ (talk) 04:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh and please be carefull when you cleanup the section. I just saw that one of the reference name was now missing. I had to add it back, it was from Puncuture the movie unofficial website. Also, you added a "Infobox person" which is great, but you forgot to mention the birth place while it was written in the first paragraph. Regards ~ ForceMagic ~ (talk) 04:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
It was not missing (the reference), I didn't include the full reference, only the "ref name", everywhere but it's first occurrence.
Look at the history of the modification, they were no more description of the reference in the bottom of the page. ~ ForceMagic ~ (talk) 04:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Also, I added a copy/paste tag to the article. After going back and looking at your source [[6]], I have now understood what you said about that is what the source said. Please refer to the Wikipedia policy on copying and pasting text from other sources. -Aaron Booth (talk) 04:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
The reference are there. I will read about that, by the way, next time read the full article and reference before adding anything to a page. Seems like you haven't read the page at all before adding the first cleanup tag. All of them could have been made in a single edit. ~ ForceMagic ~ (talk) 04:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Action regarding your previous requests

Dear Mr.Booth,
The article is now entirely re-written. I hope I won't see any of your tags on that page anymore otherwise I will consider them profanity and an act of sabotage. I strongly suggest you try to help the community by adding revelant information instead of posting tags everywhere without reading the entire article or the sources. Furthermore, from what I understood. A contribution is usually the act of editing a page in order to improve it. You can do it by adding or modifying missing/incorrect informations. I believe your help would be much more appreciated in the community if you took the time to make those changes happens instead of delegating them with "a tag". Good luck!

~ ForceMagic ~ (talk) 07:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You may want to familiarize yourself with this page: WP:TEMP. And yes, I didn't realize at first that the problems present on the page were much deeper than initially observed. When I found, for example, the problem with the personality section, the problem would require the entire section to be re-written anyhow; therefore there was no reason to check for copy/paste. -Aaron Booth (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Anri Jokhadze

I still believe in the notability of this singer. Just look at the page view statistics and number of interwiki links (9). Moreover, he will take part in the Eurovision Song Contest (does it give some notability?)

My English is awful, as you see, that's why I can't add more information. Can you remove {{Article for deletion}} and add {{Notability}} again? I think it will better than now. Best regards, --U.Steele (talk) 06:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

File:James Lomas.jpg

I have received your message. Could you explain to me more about this file. As for the ownership/creator, I am the owner/creator, and I do have the full-sized/uncropped picture. If you find this picture published elsewhere, there is a probability that the person uploading it was taking this picture from Wikipedia as I can recall uploading this picture only on wikipedia, and possibly an old forum that is now defunct (which might be the source of the file you might see in other website - uploaded without my permission). As you can see I am no longer active in Wikipedia editing (I am busy), but I still read Wikipedia using my Username. It would be helpful to tell me what to do/what licencing labelling I must put. All of the pictures I uploaded are my own work. (However, if it will take a lot of my time, I will consider putting the picture for immediate deletion) Thank you. w.tanoto-soegiri (talk) 06:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


Hi, you will need to e-mail a release to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. The release should contain text such as this:

"I hereby affirm that CHOOSE ONE: [I, (name here) am] OR [(copyright holder's name)] is the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of [SPECIFY THE WORK HERE - describe the work to be released in detail, attach the work to the email, or give the URL of the work if online] I agree to STANDARD CHOICE; SEE BELOW FOR MORE INFORMATION ON TYPE OF LICENSE: [publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).] I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

[SENDER'S NAME AND DETAILS (to allow future verification of authenticity)]

[SENDER'S AUTHORITY (Are you the copyright-holder, director, appointed representative of, etc.)]

[DATE]"

-Aaron Booth (talk) 06:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Done, thanks. I sent the e-mail. However if it proven to be complicated or if I asked something that I do not want to do (i.e. provide the full-sized unresized/uncropped version as a proof, as I never give the raw version of my works to others), I will put it for speedy deletion. w.tanoto-soegiri (talk) 07:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Ahem.

Regarding your prodding the Stu Burnie article I had just created, a casual glance at the edit summary would have revealed that at the time you slapped the prod on it, the article had already had five edits, one of which already was the reliable source which WP:BLP requires. That being said, prodding a non-vandalism article eighteen minutes after creation is the sort of overzealous behavior that has damaged the encyclopedia's reputation, and would be unacceptable if aimed at a newbie, let alone at an editor with nearly 35,000 edits and 50 articles created under his belt, the author of the notability standards for ice hockey articles such as I was just creating. With fewer than 500 edits before this month, you will perhaps forgive me if I am concerned about your experience to perform new page patrolling, and will set this new article aside for a bit while I review your recent prods. Ravenswing 00:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there were no references at that time on [Stu Burnie]. Also please note the page, as you said, had been up for 18 minutes. " It's best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short" -Aaron Booth (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "Please watch language and attitude. Thanks. There were no references when the tag was added." Quite aside from that Resolute is a well-respected veteran administrator and editor (with nearly 40,000 edits) whose attitude needs no adjustment, perhaps you can turn your attention to this diff [7], the one up six minutes before your prod. Kindly turn your attention to the external link to hockeydb.com. That is what we call a reference to a reliable source, since hockeydb.com is the site of choice for Wikiproject editors for hockey statistics. WP:BLP requires reliable sources; it does not, by definition, require inline citations except where material is "challenged or likely to be challenged." Ravenswing 00:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    • One prod down so far; a song prodded [8] for failing WP:NSONGS, when that guideline explicitly states that nationally charting songs are probably notable - this one in particular hit Billboard's Top 40. Ravenswing 00:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for looking over my recent edits, a second eye is always helpful, as, of course, mistakes are always made. The WP:NSONGS also states: "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." -Aaron Booth (talk) 00:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, it does state that. Would you mind telling us what research you performed to verify that there is, in fact, no more verifiable material available or that the article is unlikely to grow beyond a stub, in the one minute between your nomination of the previous prod and your nomination of that song?

New page patrolling is not a race, and no one is handing out prizes for the most scalps obtained within a time frame. If you do not have the time to make even the most cursory attempts at investigation, you ought not be prodding articles.

(Two down, by the way; you CSDed a multiply-referenced article about a bishop, claiming that no assertion of importance was made.) Ravenswing 00:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

And more ... I just noticed a prod you'd made earlier today, ostensibly for lack of referencing, that was removed when another editor pointed out that there were seven inline citations at the time you added that prod. Or there's the AfD you filed within the last day on a Eurovision competitor for lack of notability. For pity's sake, mistakes do happen, but this is just carelessness. Please stop. Ravenswing 00:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If you can, please post which article these were, I would like to be able to go back to the article you are referring to and see the mistake myself. Thanks. -Aaron Booth (talk) 00:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of James Draper (settler)

Hello, I ask that you rein in your bot, or program it with new instructions. It was highly offensive to work for many hours on an article and wake up the next morning to find this. Your bot has some serious issues, because (1) the article's subject is not a living person; he died in 1697; and (2) the deletion tag suggested there were no sources, but there is a reliable source, and the article has references throughout. Wikipedia has been losing editors over the past few years, and no matter how awful an article is, there should never be case where an article is marked for deletion on day 1 of its existence. This is BLATANTLY OFFENSIVE. I'm a veteran writer, so I'll get over it, but a newbie might say to hell with wikipedia. Please fix your bot, and I suggest some more gentle and helpful approaches be used for articles that don't live up to wikipedia's standards. Feel free to respond here; I've put this page on my watch list.Sarnold17 (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I assure you that it will not happen again. I just went back to look at the previous edit before the article was tagged. And yes you are correct on both accounts. -Aaron Booth (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

New member

Hello. I am a new member of Wikipedia's registered user community.

--MaxAMSC (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Well hello! You can feel free to drop me a message here on my talk page if you have any questions! Happy editing! -Aaron Booth (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Primary Source

Hello, you tagged the article When The Night Falls... Do You Hear (Me)? with "primary source". According to Wikipedia, "primary source" refers to ' ... close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, ...". However there are "reliable, published secondary sources" on the article.

Could you enlighten me on the rationale on your tagging? ♠♠ BanëJ ♠♠ (Talk) 07:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually looking back, that was my mistake. I intended to tag it for references, however must have accidentally checked the wrong tag box. I have gone back to fix the page. -Aaron Booth (talk) 17:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Valhallavegen

Hello, my name is Valhallavegen. Did I really 'vandalize'?? I dont think so. I think not all arguments in the article about Estonia are the most objective. Article shows Estonia as super successful country and economical, social and ethical problems which exist in Estonian society are not talked. I do not support creating such a Potyomkin village.I am a free citizen of Estonia and EU who concerns about his country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valhallavegen (talk • contribs) 23:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Familiarizing yourself with a few of Wikipedia's policies will help you understand the issues: WP:POV, WP:RELIABLESOURCES, WP:VERIFY, and WP:ORIGINAL. If you are unsure about an edit or need help, you can post on the Article's Talk page and another editor will help you out. -Aaron Booth (talk) 23:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Gothamist

To Aaron Booth,

Why are you reversing my edits to the "Sean Delonas" wikipedia page?

The Gothamist reference is from: http://gothamist.com/2012/02/25/racist_ny_post_cartoon_portrays_inn.php The CAIR reference is from: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150609965434442

The story also appeared on SALON, the BLAZE, AL JAZEERA, etc.

Why are you reversing my edits,

Sincerely, Rizzo1313 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rizzo1313 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The use of Facebook always throws up a red flag. Regardless, Facebook or any Social Media link does not count as a reliable source (WP:SOCIALMEDIA). If the information is available somewhere else, then use that, more reliable, source. -Aaron Booth (talk) 05:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Kudankulam

Hi Aaron, You have reverted my edit on "Kudankulam". Please let me know why. Take a look at the talk page of that article. If you do, you would know the bias that was involved in the earlier version. Nashtam (talk) 06:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Aaron, Having received the "last warning" before being banned by sathishmls (he refuses to engage in a civil discussion on the article's talk page), am left with no option but to raise this issue on the Wikipedia Neutrality Noticeboard. Have also informed sathishmls and Castroby as they would be interested. Am informing you since you did the last revertal although you many not be as interested as the others. Thanks for your help in resolving this matter. 07:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nashtam (talk • contribs)

Hi Aaron, Before banning me, it would be greatly appreciated if you could explain your concerns on the article's talk page like I have been requesting for the last 4 days. Thanks. Nashtam (talk) 06:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Filming Help

(Sorry for that unconstructive edit, i won't repeat that mistake again) Hi there, I am currently making an online film with a few other Youtuber's that will be viewed by millions of people on Youtube, one of the scenes consists of an actor on a laptop, on wikipedia looking up a character on Wikipedia, (not a real person), is there a way I can make a wikipedia page for this person, without getting it deleted for not being a real person, for the filming scene (I will delete it after filming, around 24-48 hours).

Thank-You (Maskedfx (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC))

The best option for you would be to create a user sub page, and write the article there. It shouldn't be deleted from there like it would be in the main article space. For information on creating a user sub page you can go here. -Aaron Booth (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

User:XHolmes

I've noticed that you tagged several of User:XHolmes' image uploads. FYI, I've found several of those pictures on Flickr (eg, this one of Schurz High School), uploaded by one BruleLaker. I don't know if they're the same person. Zagalejo^^^ 05:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not, and I'm going to do what I can to get them off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.69.115 (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Luke Brugnara

I'm sorry for deleting the notifications at the top of the "luke brugnara" artical. I just wanted to let you know it was an accident and not intental.--Joshualeverburg1 (talk) 01:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


Louis Ferreira Page

Hello there, I have spent considerable time adding many references to the Louis Ferreira Page. Almost every title and name on this page now has a reference, yet you added the citation request back in (I do understand about IMDb and will no longer add references for it). My question to you is: how many more references do I have to add to the page for this request to be removed and stay removed? An estimate or number would be appreciated. Thanks! Bczogalla (talk) 03:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Alright, the issue as I see it is that the majority of the content, particularly his credits and his awards (winning Best Actor Award, and being nominated for the Gemini Award). There is a good start with referencing in there. I would recommend that you take a look at these two sources that you could include in the article that would provide adequate citations for many of his credits referred to in the article. Movie Web and TV Guide. -Aaron Booth (talk) 04:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Just for clarification: TV Guide is considered a reliable source? It hasn't been updated in 3 years and hasn't processed the name change either. A search for "Louis Ferreira" on TV Guide turns up only one credit, which is clearly not right. So I'm really confused now. Also, please do let me know how many more references I have to add for the citation request to be removed and stay removed. I will add the Movie Web references as requested. Thank you very much! Bczogalla (talk) 04:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

  • If you could cite the two awards I mentioned, and then use Movie Web, and/or TV Guide to cite at least his major credits (ie. major leading roles or roles in major films/TV Shows), the article would be fine citation wise.
And yes TV Guide is considered a reliable source. It also has dozens of his credits. make sure that you clicked the link for his TV GUIDE credits page that I provided. -Aaron Booth (talk) 04:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello again, I believe I have added all the references you required, plus several extra ones. There are of course many more, but the text will get pretty hard to read and will probably get flagged for too many references and links if I add more. May I now remove the citation request, or would you like to do it yourself? Thanks again for your help, I appreciate your input. Bczogalla (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Help with setting up the license

Hi! I added a picture on the article, Balika Vadhu, but I could not find an this license, and that is: "This image is a screenshot of a copyrighted television program or station ID. As such, the copyright for it is most likely owned by the company or corporation that produced it. It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots 

   * for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents
   * on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, might be copyright infringement. For more information, see Wikipedia: Non-free content. To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia: Non-free use rationale guideline, as well as the source of the work and copyright information. "

I can't find this license, so I need your help. Can you set this license? Thank you in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djole 555 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

  • By doing a bit of research, I believe that the initial red flag is this subsection on that website's terms and conditions:
"c. Copyrights. All copyrights in and to the Service (including the compilation of content, postings, links to other Internet resources, and descriptions of those resources), and software, are owned by the Company andor its licensors. THE USE OF ANY PART OF THE SERVICE, EXCEPT FOR USE OF THE SERVICE AS PERMITTED IN THESE TERMS OF SERVICE, IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED AND INFRINGES ON THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS OF OTHERS AND MAY SUBJECT YOU TO CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES, INCLUDING POSSIBLE MONETARY DAMAGES, FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT." (Section 11, Subsection c.)
The file also seems not to be a "television screenshot." Also: "Images must generally be of low resolution. The rule of thumb for raster images is no more than 300 pixels in width or height, which ensures that the image's resolution is less than 0.1 megapixels. If you are using an image of higher resolution, please explain why. If the image is 0.1 megapixels or less, just put "Yes"."
This file does not seem to, at this time at least, meet the requirements for appropriate non-free use on Wikipedia. I have tagged the file page appropriately, so someone will be along to review the file and determine whether the file is a)we are able to use it on wikipedia or not (if not it will be deleted at that time) and b)if we can use it, what it should be tagged as. -Aaron Booth (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

As the article's AfC reviewer, could you take another glance at this one for copyvio? Most of the second half of the article turned out to be lifted from here.[9] (I didn't catch it on my first pass either, since the first section was well-referenced enough to lull me into false security.) I think I've gotten all of it now, but if you'd take a glance too, I'd appreciate it. Cheers! Khazar2 (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I just took another look at the article, the link you gave me, and I took a couple lines from each section into Google, and didn't find anything. Looks like you did a great job with the clean up! Thanks! -Aaron Booth (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for double-checking me and your work at AfC. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dr. Anthony D. Andre

Oops, sorry bout that. Didn't see your template when I opened the page. FWIW, it should be an easy review (not a independent source about the guy in there). Nolelover Talk·Contribs 03:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Peter Brazaitis

Could you please provide more specifics about how I might improve my article on Peter Brazaitis, which was reviewed and denied submission by you on 3/19? You have indicated that the entry reads like an essay rather than an encyclopedia article. Could you please point to specific instances of this, so that I may try to fix the problems? Mmtlib (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)mmtlib

I just went back to take another look at the AFC submission. I did a bit of clean up as far as fixing some tone, breaking the article into sections, fixing a bit of formatting, adding and infobox, and adding a few Wikilinks. The article is starting to look better. At the moment it would benefit by a few more citations, there may be a few to be found via Google Scholar. Also, for all books referenced as well as the books in the bibliography list: provide the The International Standard Book Number (ISBN). If possible list the 13 digit ISBN. -Aaron Booth (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/If_You%27d_Only_Believe Referring to your comment: Comment: The article name is already the home of the article titled "2300 Jackson Street". Cannot approve article. Aaron Booth (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2012

The article name links to "2300 Jackson Street" in error. How can that be undone?

the 2300 Jackson street artist would have to be moved, I am at rehearsal right now, but I will take a look at it in a few hours once I get home. -Aaron Booth (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Done

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Terry W. Ervin II

Refering to "The article really does not establish notability either" Could you please explam what this means? I'm sorry if I did something wrong I'm new at this Wikipedia and it's kind of confusing for me. I would love for anyone's help please. HTcreager (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Well the first thing to do would be to try to add inline citations to the article of reliable third party sources that show significant coverage of the individual and his works. Notability stems from this. (although, just because something has a hundred sources in Google scholar doesn't necessarily mean that it is "notable") This section might be of use to you for as a point of reference: WP:AUTHOR -Aaron Booth (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, where would I put this WP:AUTHOR at exactly? And those are the only resorced that I've found. He isn't exactly famous but his book is getting there.:: HTcreager (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
  • WP:AUTHOR is meant to be a guide as far as what is considered notable for creative professionals on Wikipedia. Notability does not necessarily mean fame. However, when speculating as far how a book might be received in the future remember that Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball.
Also, information in the body of the article must be cited with inline references. Otherwise it is difficult to tell where the information is coming from. -Aaron Booth (talk) 17:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay I got the citing thing, I need to add that to the body right? Also I know it's not a crystal ball and I'm not that smart but I'm trying my best. Also I'm asking for lots of help so I hope to eventuallly get this right. Thank you for you help. Once I fix that would I resubmit it or what would I do next? HTcreager (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes add it to the body, when you are in the edit box there is a very handy tool at the top of the window, click "cite" on the top right, then on the left you will see a drop down box that says templates, this will bring up a window where you can add all of the information needed and create a correctly formatted citation for you. it will place the citation where ever you click on the text before you go to the drop down template box.

You can just continue submitting the article whenever you feel that it is ready, and it will be reviewed by either my self or another editor with AFC. -Aaron Booth (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay I went thru some stuff but I'm not quite sure if it's what you ment. Also I tryed citing the reffernce website and it dissapeared from view. HTcreager (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
My thought right now for you would be to submit it again for review, and this time I won't review it and let another reviewer take a look and we can get a second opinion now. Sound good?
Thank for yor help. I clicked the re-submit button. HTcreager (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

How Can I make it Work?

I have not used a talk page before so I hope I am not botching anything.

You commented on my page for review (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Pierre_Desir) that not enough has been cited. Is there any way to site an interview that I had with the person? This individual is a traveling professor at my university and for an unrelated project allowed me to interview him. I don't believe that I am outside of the wikipedia guidelines, he is not a friend of mine that I just wanted to throw up there, he is a legitimate addition to the wiki database.

Thanks for your time! Meg.Cravens (talk) 01:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

There technically is a way to cite an interview, however it is frowned upon. And a conflict of interest such as being connected with someone personally or professionally does not in itself disqualify you from writing or editing an article about that person. And generally if you are upfront and disclose that you have a conflict of interest, editors on Wikipedia will be much more willing to help you, and you will benefit from more assumption of good faith, in that you are being honest and are trying to do the right thing on here.
Actually many of the articles that I have authored from scratch on Wikipedia are of very good friends of mine. One even being my best friend that I have known for quite some time. I have these conflicts all listed on my user page for anyone to see. And that does not disqualify me from writing or editing them, and no article of mine has ever been deleted. So as long as you keep in mind that you want to be neutral and write as an uninterested individual would, you will be just fine.
Try looking at places like JSTOR, EBSCO, Google scholar, and Google news for sources. Also, ask the professor, he would probably have ideas of third party sources that have mentioned him, or other ideas. -Aaron Booth (talk) 03:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Congitivist learning theory

Thank you for reviewing my submission of "Cognitivism (Learning Theory)." I believe that I have picked up the required edits and hope to see the article posted soon so that there will be a more in-depth review of that very important information. Once the page is published, I hope someone else has time to add information on current applications and research. Stmullin (talk) 03:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

List of Cricket Batsmen by Number of International Centuries Scored

I have added two more references, but this is a statistical compilation, quoting a reference for each and every data is not only very tedious, but also not useful. Each and every number is verifiable in the page of the individual player also.

I think it is a useful list, with the recent 100 centuries by Sachin Tendulkar, everyone is keen about this numbers, considering the ease with which each individual number can be verified from other wikipedia pages itself, and the fact that this compilation is not available anywhere else in the internet, request you not to disapprove the same.skvignesh (talk)

Generally on Wikipedia we require inline citations. And Wikipedia does not count as a source, and can't be referred to as one to justify content of, or the existence of an article. (WP:CIRCULAR) I am going to let a different AFC volunteer review the article this time around so we can get another opinion on it. -Aaron Booth (talk) 04:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Done

Review Article for Createion (Total Customer Value Management)

Narenderwp (talk) 05:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC) Dear Aaron Booth, Thanks for your valuable comment on my article.But -Total Customer Value Management is a new management practice -It goes beyond Customer Value Management -And please tell me where advertisement is..

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aaron_Booth/Archive_1&oldid=1189645120"