User talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2016/November

Saya Takagi

Hi, I read your comment there and agree your remark is quite fair. The page history at 益戸育江 (Masudo, Ikue) (Saya Takagi's born name as her last stage name) suggests that until May 2015, edits were very slow and did not mention about her support for medical use of cannabis or political standpoint. Of course the recent arrest or her running for the House of Representatives would be a topic, and I guess the article would include at least Saya Takagi debuted in 1980 as a fashion model contracted with Oscar Promotion Co.ltd. till she quit in October 2012; has changed her stage name back to her born name Ikue Masudo since September 26, 2008. As a biography, she was most active as a supporting actor in 60+ TV drama/serials, and I remember her as the hero's ex in 39 episodes of Aibō (2002-2012). 5 road show films plus the one she debuted in 1983 as the heroin Saya, which she used for her stage name soon after. Authored four books (1997-2007). Would this be helpful? --Omotecho (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC) -- All above is per ja:益戸育江 with info on IMDb　--Omotecho (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the message Omotecho. I don't think we can use IMDb as a reference for a name change on English Wikipedia per WP:UGC, but we can use reliable sources even if they are in Japanese. The question is then whether a page move should be made from "Saya Takagi" to "Ikue Masudo" per WP:COMMONNAME. She's still being referred to as Takagi by Japanese media since that's the name she best known by. I think it's also also the name she ran under for the Upper House this past summer. The article can be expaned to include all the info you've mentioned above, but we will need a few sources (Japanese are fine). Anyway, it would probably be best to continue this disucsion on the article's talk page since that will make it easier for others to participate. If you can find a reliable sources for her early career/background, please post them there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Marchjuly, sure I would continue on there, and thank you for a crisp reply. --Omotecho (talk) 09:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Reply

Well I'm using the same thing you are and it's always appeared that way, so... — Yours truly, God's Godzilla 02:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@God's Godzilla: That may be the case, but even your signature to the above post does not contain a link to either your user page or your user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't know how to that for that reason I've just left it like that regardless, (okay)...? — God's Godzilla 04:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@God's Godzilla: As I posted on your user talk, it could simply be that the "Treat the above as wiki markup" has been checked by accident. You can check this (no pun intended) by going to your preferences page and scrolling down the "User profile" tab to the "Signature" section. If the box is checked, just uncheck, scroll down to the bottom of the page and click "save". If that was the problem, then that should fix things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Joelle Khoury article

Thanks marchjuly for your editing. Since you cleaned up the text, do you think the template on top of the page has to be deleted? And by whom? Thank you again Lebmusic (talk) 10:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The "unreviewed" tag will be removed when a page reviewer reviews the article. The "orphan" tag can be removed when the article is no longer an WP:ORPHAN. You can try to de-orphan the article yourself by following the instructions at WP:DE-ORPHAN or simply wait until someone eles does. Maintenance templates are just meant to let other editors know about a potential issue that needs checking; they should not be seen as some kind of "badge of shame". You can find out how they can be removed at Help:Maintenance template removal. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you again Marchjuly. Lebmusic (talk) 12:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Turkey national futsal team

Turkey national futsal team#FIFA Futsal World Cup Qualification - hi , i cant , please add source in this article, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turktelesiz (talk • contribs) 14:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

i add them in References, best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turktelesiz (talk • contribs) 14:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Turktelesiz. I'll take a look as see if I can help.

Please try and remember to sign your talk page posts in the future. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Tunberg's page -- I did not vote twice...

I'm asking about where the long argument I wrote yesterday and today (2X) is disappearing to. I've written it twice. Unfortunately I didn't save it to my computer. So I would appreciate it if you would remove your comment because it's inaccurate.2606:6000:618B:300:3C7C:D15:E961:6AF9 (talk) 04:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't log in before I wrote this.Cstwct (talk) 04:45, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll spend another hour tomorrow redoing what I've already done 2X, but I'll do it on my computer first so I don't lose it. This has been very difficult and frustrating. Not sure if everyone has to go through this. I don't know what the proper protocol is. I'm just learning and discovering where to put what. I didn't look at the deletion page as a voting page. I thought it was a communication page.Cstwct (talk) 04:58, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cstwct. As I posted on the AfD thread, you made two separate posts and stated "keep" each time. The is what a !vote looks like: Keep/Delete; So, you unintentionally !voted twice. Did you also by chance make this edit to the discussion as well? If you did, then that would be three !votes. Based upon your post above, it looks like you might be forgetting to log in when you edit. This is a mistake that happens more often than not, and is not a real big problem except when it happens in deletion discussions, etc. So, please try to be more careful. It also might be a good idea for you to take a look at WP:AFD#Contributing to AfD discussions to better familiarize yourself with the AfD process. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I made two comments on the page, not three. Yes, I put my comments in the wrong area; you helped me understand that. I don't know who all those numbers in the third post belong to. My userid, and even my computer location if I forget to sign in, gets noted; so it's very easy for Wikipedia to know which comments I left. The only times I've not signed in are when I've made small corrections to Tunberg's page, such as typos. It's been very difficult to create a page for an 80-year old artist, who is amazingly accomplished and has spent his life making beautiful work that people love. He's developed technological innovations in the field of marquetry that I haven't been able to write about because I'm spending my time trying to stop Wikipedia from deleting his page. I've fixed all of the issues (lack of cites and links to internal Wikipedia pages) and the matter was closed. Then it was reopened because someone said closing it might be contentious because of TwisterSwister (I read this somewhere). So unfair. I'm learning Wikipedia, but it's been the hard way. Thanks for listening.Cstwct (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Marchjuly, I found the page that talked about closing Tunberg's page might be contentious. You are the person who left the comment on Comatmebro's page and had the AfD reopened.Cstwct (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

The matter was not closed; the discussion was re-opened because it was improperly closed per WP:BADNAC. I posted on Comatmebro's talk page and advised him that his close was not in accordance with relevant policy; Whpq also posted with a similar comment. Deletion discussions are by their very nature contentious since one side tends to argue "delete" while the other argues "keep". It's the job of the adminstrator closing the discussion to read through everything and determine whether a consensus has been established either way. A non-administrator close is only acceptable under certain well-defined conditions, and this was not one of them. It's the community who will decide whether the article stays or goes, and once an article has been nominated for deletion the process needs to run its course.

As for the IP 2605:e000:6303:a500:ac68:6e8d:f045:54d6 post, I only brought it up just in case it might have been you. I also saw your latest post at the AfD discussion. There's no need for you to be shy about revising/deleting anything you've posted. Just carefully read through WP:REDACT and follow the instructions there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Message re WT's images

What would you like me to do? I took the photos and did the Photoshop artwork. Doesn't that make me the owner? Would you like me to send you the original tiff photos and working files? The only photo that I didn't take is Neoclassical Drawing Trap, which was taken in 1968 by Arty Zeller (a friend of WT's, who is now dead) and given to WT before it went to the Whitney. I did the artwork on the image. Would you like an affidavit from WT? Please advise how you would like me to proceed. I have been working diligently to learn Wikipedia and bring the page up to Wikipedia's standards. Btw, I now know what TwisterSwister's "book" remark was. He didn't bother to read the page or scroll to see WT's father's filmography. A question: Does everyone go through this? I built the AS page awhile back and never had this trouble. It was very simple, and a bot helped by cleaning up the refs. Quite frankly, I'm feeling persecuted.Cstwct (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

We should try to keep things in one location when discussing them on WIkipedia because it makes things easier to follow for others. If someone posts something on your talk page, then it's OK for you to respond there as explained in WP:TPG. So, I will respond to the above on you user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

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

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

COI standard should be fairly applied to all

Marchjuly, I originally left a very angry message, which I've removed. However, I'd like you to confirm that the Fortune 500 companies, and other large companies, such as LACMA, LA Times, NY Times, and Ford and Toyota, and even Wikipedia, have gone through the same scrutiny you are putting me through, and that they have had to go through the COI process and fill out proof of photo ownership forms as well. Their articles were clearly written by the companies themselves (or they paid to have them written) because no one else would have the historical knowledge, inside information, or photographs contained in these articles. If they have not, then why not? Thank you.Cstwct (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Please be careful when you use the word "harassment" because it is something taken quite seriously on Wikipedia and inappropriately accusing other editors of it is considered a personal attack. All the posts I made were in good faith, but if you feel that I or any other editors have been harassing you, please bring up the matter for discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. For reference, I did not splash any banners over the article, but actually spent some time cleaning up the article and trying to find online versions of some of the references listed. The Template:COI was added to the articles by an administrator named Diannaa because, by your own admission, you have a COI when it comes to those subjects. As for Wikipedia:Conflict of interest beiong applied fairly, if you feel some of other articles have been written in a manner that does not comply with relevant Wikipedia policies or guidelines because of COI editing, then (1) feel free to be be bold and edit out any non-neutral sounding content, or (2) tag the article with an appropriate maintenance template to let other editors know of your concerns or (3) bring the matter up for discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest noticeboard. I do suggest you leave a proper edit sum or article talk page post if you directly edit the article so that other editors understand why you made the edits.

Finally, Wikipedia's and Wikimedia Commons' policies regarding image copyrights have been explained to you a number of times by different editors both on Wikipedia and on Commons. Since you say you are the copyright holder of these files and you want to freely license them, all you need to do is send in a declaration of consent to OTRS. An OTRS volunteer will verify the email and amend the license as needed. The procedure is the same for anyone who uploads an image file as their "own work" when the image can be found online or when the copyright status is unclear. Wikipedia does not know who you are, so they require written verification that you are the copyright holder in order to protect your rights. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Marchjuly, I apologize. I woke up this morning to those banners and had a knee-jerk reaction. I know you're doing your job and that everything you've done is in good faith. I also know that you're trying to help. I saw your suggestions on WT's talk page after I wrote my angry email. I can't work on this today because I must work on something else, but I'll try to get you the forms you need in the next couple of days, and I'll work on improving the article throughout Thanksgiving weekend. There's much to read and understand before I do anything further. Can you quickly tell me how to get the COI banners off? I know I have to read articles on this, and I will, but they're so denigrating to WT and AS (or should I call them Bill and Dad?) that I'd like to get them off as quickly as possible. And I'll figure out how to let editors know when I edit, but that's another article I have to read and I can't right now. Again, thank you. I'm sure this has been trying for you, and I truly appreciate the help you've given me. CSCstwct (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi again Cstwct. It's important to remember that all Wikipedians are volunteers, who sometimes get busy. In most cases, there are no firm deadlines when it comes to Wikipedia matters, so trying to speed up the process like you did here is likely going to get some blowback from other editors who might start to see you being more here for you than Wikipedia. The best thing to do is just let that AfD run its course; it will eventually be closed one way or another based upon a consensus established by the community.

As for maintenance templates like "orphan" and "COI", etc., these are not intended to be badges of shame to try and embarrass the subject of articles or those who created the articles. They are intended for the benefit of the community as whole to let other editors know there is something about this particular article which may require some extra attention. Many of these templates add articles to special maintenance categories/pages which some editors work off categories trying to fix these errors. Tags such as these are typically removed when someone fixes the relevant problem as explained in Help:Maintenance template removal. However, COI templates are a little more complicated because the only way to remove a COI if for the COI editor to remove themselves from editing the article or for the COI editor to demonstrate they fully understand WP:COI and its implications. You can do this by following the instructions in Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, particularly WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement. The community will see this as a sign as you being sincere in wanting edit in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines, and the tags will eventually be removed by Diannaa or another editor when it's clear that your COI is no longer an issue. It may not happen tomorrow, but it will eventually happen. However, the clock will be reset it you remove the tag yourself, or ignore it and continue editing as before. This might not be what you wanted to here, but it is kind of how this thing works on Wikipedia. It might be a good idea to just leave the Tunberg and Shaheen articles be and let other editors take shots at improving them.

Many editors initially misunderstand what Wikipedia is all about. Wikipedia article are not written because a subject deserves to have an article; they are written because someone can establish the subject has received enough significant coverage in independent reliable sources to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Wikipedia is not really interested in what the subject has to say about him/her/itself or what someone connected to the subject has to say about him/her/it; Wikipedia is only interested in what reliable sources have to say about the subject and what content can be verified by examining these reliable sources. Try and remember that Wikipedia articles are not owned by the subjects they are written about or the editors who create/edit them, so the community as a whole has the ultimate editorial control over what content to leave in and what to take out. Wikipedia has lots of policies and guidelines and everyone, including experienced editors, may do something contrary to them every now and then. Editors are expected to make mistakes and articles are not expected to be perfect. When you are closely connected to a subject of an article, and other editors start editing in a manner which you might not understand or might not think is appropriate, it's very easy to get frustrated and assume the worst. However, it's important to realize that most editors are here because they want to be here. Each editor contributes to building Wikipedia in their own way and it's hoped that the total sum of this collaborative editing will improve the quality of the encyclopedia in the long run as a whole. So, focusing on a single article or genre of articles can sometimes limit an editor's ability to see the whole picture. You seem to have a lot of knowledge about various topics and there quite a number of WikiProjects who could benefit from this knowledge. Or, you can simply move from one random article to another and see if there are any improvements you can make. Wikipedia has over 5,000,0000 articles and more are being added each and every day, so there's lots of things to improve. Contributing to the encyclopedia in any of these ways will go a long way in showing others that you are here for Wikipedia and not just here for these two articles. I hope you view this post as being made in good faith and I also hope you and your family have a happy Thanksgiving. It's OK to take a short Wikibreak for the holiday weekend; Wikipedia will still be here next week. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Marchjuly, thank you for all the time and guidance you've given me. I didn't know that editors were volunteers. Thanks for sharing that with me. I'm sorry for trying to push this along, but it's been almost 2 weeks. Would you like me to delete my request that TS join the conversation? If this is going to take a long time, I'd rather temporarily delete the articles because the articles are now a liability to both WT and AS and may damage their reputations. The discussion on WT's talk page is visible to everyone and it's especially damaging because google has picked it up and he has collectors that google him all the time. The templates and discussion on his talk page could impact his ability to obtain commissions. Wikipedia may not see the templates as bad, but people visiting Wikipedia do. They cast doubt on the truthfulness of what they're reading. Please trust me on this; I'm a lay person who uses Wikipedia all the time. When I see one of those banners, it's like a red flag to me, especially since I don't see them often.

If I completely remove myself as a COI editor now, then COI will no longer be an issue, in which case would it be possible to remove the COI tag right away? Meanwhile, I can study the COI pages you've referred me to and keep in touch with you. When you feel comfortable with my editing again, then you'll let me know. How does that sound? But what about the orphan? Will someone fix that for me? The pages are Anne Hughes and David C. Martin. And I should get USC taken care of. But I won't touch the WT and AS articles again. I'm sorry I asked TS to comment, but I think it's irresponsible to recommend deletion and not check back to see what's going on. I would want to help someone succeed, the way you're helping me.

Please let me know if you think it's wise to temporarily delete WT's and AS's pages while this is all being sorted out.

Thank you.Cstwct (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

It is sometimes possible under certain conditions for the creator of an article (or page) to request that it be speedily deleted per WP:G7. However, I don't think this is one of those situations because (1) the deletion of the article is currently being discussed at AfD and (2) other editors have made some fairly significant contributions to the article. I also do not think it would be wise because it looks like the community consensus about the Tunberg article is going to be "keep" or "no consensus" (which by default is basically a "keep"). In many cases, articles nominated for deletion are actually improved during the AfD process so that are in much better shape coming out than going in. Once again, it's not really anyone's article in particular and the community only tends to blow up articles which are beyond hope. Moreover, there is no "temporary deletion" on Wikipedia, so there's no guarantee per WP:G4 that once deleted the article will be able to be re-created. One possible alternative would be to request that the article be returned to draft status or userfied; this is essentially a deletion request, but it does allow you and others to continue to work on improving the article for future reconsideration as an article. If you request that and the community agrees that is an acceptable option, you should probably submit the article via Wikipedia:Articles for creation next time around. Once again, the AfD is looking right now as if the article will be kept, so it might not be necessary for you to do this. COI editors are given a little more leeway by the community with respect to drafts because it is believed than any promotional sounding text, etc. will be removed during the review process; important policies, however, such as the use of copyrighted content and WP:BLP are still strictly enforced even when it comes to drafts.

As for the COI templates, my suggestion is to ask the same questions of Diannaa. She will not restore any copyrighted/promotional content she has removed from the articles, but she might be able to set out some conditions for you to follow to get the COI templates removed. Administrators are not here to punish editors, but the community has given them the right to watch over things and take steps to prevent damage to the project when necessary. Diannaa has been very helpful to me in the past and if you're upfront with her, she will be upfront with you. She is only concerned about doing what's best for the project as a whole; I'm pretty sure she is not interested in making an example out of you or any editor.

If you post something on a talk page, in a discussion, or on a noticeboard and nobody has responded yet, then you can simply WP:Self-revert. There will still be a record of the edit in the page's history, but for all intents and purposes it will be as if you never posted at all. Just make sure to leave an edit sum to briefly explain why you are self reverting. On the other hand, if you post something and somebody has already replied to it, then you shouldn't self-revert; you should instead follow the instructions in WP:REDACT.

Finally, Wikipedia is not really a good way to try and further someone's career simply because anything added to an article can be undone a second later with a single click. Articles can also be vandalized at anytime for reasons that may have nothing to do with the subject at all. Just look take a look at the edit history of Whisk and you'll see lots of "joke vandalism" where somebody or some group is getting their kicks out of adding weird sexual content using this particular kitchen utensil to the article. Then, there are cases of "revenge vandalism" where "real-world enemies" of a subject, try to use the Wikipedia article to get back at the subject or to right some great wrong. These types of things may not ever apply to your husband or father's articles, but there's no real way to prevent it from happening in advance. Many individuals who create articles about things they are connected may mean well, but they find out too late about Wikipedia's law of unexpected consequences and that Wikipedia is in the real world. If you find that there is anything which clearly violates WP:BLP in any of these articles, then you are perfectly within your right to remove it per WP:COIADVICE. If you do, make sure to clearly to post an explanation on the article's talk page and clearly identify yourself. You can also file a report at WP:BLPN. Most editors will be more than happy to help you out in such situations. You can also WP:DE-ORPHAN the article yourself and remove the tag if you want since that is almost surely going to be seen as uncontroversial. Once again, just clearly explain the edit and who you are in the edit sum and if necessary on the article's talk page. If anyone reverts your edit, try to discuss things on the article's talk page and avoid edit warring. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Dianaa took out the quotes on AS's page... and more

Dianaa removed truthful, accurate, cited quotations from the AS article. These quotes were made by museums and professionals in AS's field. I'm shocked that Wikipedia would remove truthful, cited quotations and whitewash an article.Cstwct (talk) 04:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

And she removed the text and photos, which are from the AS website, that belong to me. I wrote that text and own those photos. She ruined the article. I've asked her to restore the material she claims is a copyright infringement (I'm infringing against myself -- whoever would've thought). I told Dianaa that I'm the owner and that I'm working through COI with you. If I were an editor, I'd never assume something as important as copyright infringement. She should've sent me a short note about this before destroying the article. Marchjuly, I can't cope with all this. It's making me so upset and sick. My intentions were pure. I set forth the truth. There isn't one inaccurate statement in either WT's or AS's articles. I own all the material (except for Elvis). I don't understand all this. Seeing the destruction of the AS article reduced me to tears. I don't want to do this anymore. Everything is ruined.Cstwct (talk) 04:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Diannaa removed that content because it was necessary for her to do per Wikipedia's policy of using copyright material. Wikipedia content is freely licensed so that anyone anywhere can re-use the content without fear of violating anyone's copyright, regardless of whether that copyright has to do with an image or text. Unless the content on the website where the material is taken from is clearly licensed in a manner compatible with relevant Wikipedia policy, the content will be removed. As I've tried to explain before, this is done to protect the rights of the copyrighted holders. I can quickly create an account using the user name John Doe, create an article about John Doe, copy and paste content from John Doe's website into the article, and then claim I own the copyright on that content. The choice is either to completely take me at my word and risk whatever consequences that may entail or remove the content and request verification that I am who I say I am. When it comes to copyrighted content, administrators have been asked by the community to remove anything whose copyright status is unclear which might potentially cause problems for the project. This content can always be re-instated at a later date if it turns out to have been removed in error, but the administrator has to act to protect Wikipedia and the rights of the copyright holder. Like images, if you want to release the content on your website under a free license then you can add a Wikipedia-compatible Creative Commons license to your website or you can follow the instructions in WP:DONATETEXT. It's acceptable for an editor to use short quotes from a website, etc. when it is properly cited and attributed per MOS:QUOTE, but large blocks of text almost never allowed for copyright and plagiarism concerns as explained in Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources. I am sorry if this has further upset you, but I feel it proper action by an administrator according to Wikipedia policy. If you disagree, then you can request assistance at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations or at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Marchjuly, what should I do. I can't stop crying, I'm so upset.Cstwct (talk) 05:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

You can try discussing things with Diannaa on her talk page and ask for her advice on how to show you hold the copyright on the content she removed. Once again, she's not out to get you, but her responsibility is to protect Wikipedia and the rights of copyright holders. You can also assume good faith that Diannaa was not trying to "ruin" the article, but once again was just doing what the Wikipedia community has asked her to do. Please don't take this personally, but editor#1 claiming that editor#2 has "ruined" an article is kind of an indication that editor#1 might be more here for themselves than here for Wikipedia. Any edit that is undone can be un-undone, any file that is deleted can be un-deleted, and any content that has been removed can be un-removed as long as there is a strong policy-based reason for doing so. The way to resolve this is through discussion. Sometimes when I'm feeling Wiki-stressed I go take the dog for a walk and try to put myself in the other editors shoes to be better understand their position. I also try to remember WP:CANDOR and WP:COOL. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

About Joelle Khoury article

Hello Marchjuly, 1. Could you please tell why I don't get the article "Joelle Khoury" on wikipedia by just putting: Joelle Khoury wikipedia on the internet browser? 2. Why the templete "Orphan" is still on the top of the page? the related articles are more than numerous in the text. Thank you very much for your help and your availability. Lebmusic. Lebmusic (talk) 09:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Lebmusic. I am sorry but I do not know the answer to Q1. Wikipedia does not really have any control over what shows up in various search engines like Google or Yahoo!; it could be something that simply is different for each person doing the search or it could have something to do with some way the search engine searches for things. This might be a question that someone at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions or at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing can better answer. As for Q2, an article is an orphan when it has no incoming links from other articles, not when it has no outgoing links to other articles; in other words, an article can have lots of "blue links", but still be an orphan because there are no other articles linking to it. You can find out some general information on how to de-orphan an article at WP:DE-ORPHAN. I hope this information helps. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

About Joelle Khoury article 2

Thank you Marchjuly for your help. Indeed, it was not very clear for me on how to de-orphan an article. I thought clicking on "Joelle Khoury" encountered in the mentioned articles "Lebanese composers", "Lebanese pianists", "women composers", etc..., was enough to begin with. I will so consider again this issue.

As for the review template, I though that the corrections you made some days ago could stand for a reviewing (namely that you told me I had to wait for a reviewer, I think, in a former letter). One other point in this issue : this article has been declined in his first version a little less than one month ago as a draft, for a question of notability. Since then, I worked hard on it and put it in the article space after lot of modifications. Was I to ask to review again the draft before transfer it ? Otherwise, can I now ask for a new reviewer, knowing that it's currently in the created page space? Thank you again for your prompt replies and availability. Lebmusic

Lebmusic (talk) 15:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi again Lebmusic. De-orphaning can sometimes be easy to do and sometimes a bit trickier to do. Basically, all that needs to be done is to add Khoury's name to another article which is techinically really quite simple; the hard part is making sure that adding her name is contextually relevant to the article so that the edit does not end up being reverted by another editor. Good candidates for de-orphaning tend to be stand-alone list articles (e.g., "List of ....") or embedded lists within other articles because basically you just add the name to the appropriate section of the article and you're done. It can be tricky, however, because sometimes the editors of these articles have established certain specific criteria for inclusion as way of preventing the additions of names which do not really belong on the list. Sometimes the inclusion criteria is something really basic like the person being added just needs their own stand-alone article; other times, a citation to an independent reliable source needs to be also provided in addition to the person having their own stand-alone article. So, if you find an article where you want to add Khoury's name, look carefully at the article's talk page (and any talk page archives) and at the other entries in the article or list. If there's discussion on the talk page, make sure to follow the local consensus; if all the other entries in the list have citations to reliable sources, make sure to add an appropriate citation when Khoury's name. If there does not appear to be one common criteria, then you can be bold and add her name or you can start a discussion about adding Khoury's name to the list. If nobody reverts you or responds to your post after a few days, then things are probably OK. If someone reverts you or wants to discuss things, then follow WP:BRD.

Any article can be nominated for deletion at anytime by any editor. These nominations are supposed to be done in good faith and in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines, but there's no real way to prevent another editor from doing so. Deletion only tends to happen when there is no evidence that the subject of the article satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Since you opted out of the AfC process (which is only recommended but not required) and directly added the draft to the article namespace yourself (which is OK to do, but not typically recommended for new editors), there's always a greater risk of deletion because AfC reviewers typically only approve articles whose Wikipedia notability is pretty solid. If you're really worried about this, you can ask an administrator to return the article to draft status so that you can continue to work on it. Or, you can keep trying to find better sources which further establish Khoury's notability. These sources only need to be WP:PUBLISHED and reliable and significant in nature. They don't have to be online or in English. Looking at the article, there are quite a few sources cited, but many of these are offline; so it's hard to verify that they provide significant coverage. Try and remember that when it comes to notability, it is the quality, not the quantity, of the sources that matter, so, one or two really solid reliable sources about Khoury showing she has received significant coverage is much better than lots of little trivial coverage types of sources. Why don't you try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lebanon, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arab world or even Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women about her and just be honest about what you did and what your concerns are? Editors in WikiProjects tend to know where specific sources can be found and which specific guidelines need to be satisfied. Of course, there's always a chance someone will notice an article the more you ask about it and decide to nominate the article for deletion, but there's just as much of a chance the more editors will notice the article and figure out ways to improve it. Sorry, it I cannot offer any more specific advise to you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Re: SpiderG

Hi Marchjuly -- on a quick scan, the new version looks to be a subset of the older one, lacking a section and some "references" but containing no new information. Another admin appears to have deleted it while I was offline. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 09:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for double checking. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Incoming links to WT

Marchjuly, I found three incoming Wikipedia links to Bill: Anne Hughes, David C. Martin, and the USC Alumni page at Category:University of Southern California alumni (he was already on this page). I don't want to put the [[ ]] around Bill's name in the Hughes and Martin articles until the deletion matter is cleared up. Now that the article isn't an orphan, can you please remove the template? And can we remove the orphan language from his talk page. I'd like to keep everything as clean as possible. Thank you.Cstwct (talk) 20:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I posted something at Talk:William Tunberg (artist)#Orphan status, so please take a look at it and add any comments or questions you might have about this there, OK? Also, article talk pages are considered to be "community" pages where the content of the relevant article is discussed. Although I can sympathize with you when you post I'd like to keep everything as clean as possible, but that's not really what article talk pages are about. Article talk pages are intended to be a reference/guide for future editors, and discussions like this are almost never removed without a very strong-policy based reason (e.g., WP:BLP or WP:COPYVIO issues). De-orphaning an article is an important part of improving articles and there is nothing which has been written which should be seen as an attempt to discredit you or your husband. The section heading name might be able to be tweaked a bit per WP:TPG#Section headings, but removing the comments altogether would not be appropriate in my opinion because the information contained therein may actually be helpful to other edtiors. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I deorphaned the WT article. Marchjuly, I know all of this dialog is saved by Wikipedia behind the scenes. If I can't delete old discussions that have resolved problems, then I'll do my best not to discuss sensitive matters directly on the talk page. I will go back and edit my comments to take out anything personal I've said. Wikipedia has a history of everything I've written and all the edits I've made, so I'm confident I'm not changing its records. I don't think the general public needs to know about all of the problems we've been trying to work out in the past several weeks.Cstwct (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Cstwct: I would be very careful and would not advise that you do that. If there's personal information such as phone numbers or email addresses, etc. that you would like removed, then it would be best to ask at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. They will be able to not only remove the content from the talk page proper, but also from the the page's edit history so that only administrators and others with special access can see it. If, however, it is just something discussing the article (problems, improvements or whatever) on an article talk page, another user's talk page or a noticeboard, etc. and your post has been replied to then you should not remove it. This is because the entire context of the discussion may be lost if you remove one part of it. If you want to change/retract anything follow the instructions in WP:REDACT instead. Now, if you want to remove comments from your user talk page, then you may do so except in certain specific cases as explained in WP:BLANKING. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Marchjuly, I've already changed the WT talk page, but I only removed a few words that were personal. I also filled out an edit sum. I didn't do anything major. I don't want to remove it from Wikipedia's back end. It's not my intent to destroy info or blank something. I took out words like "wonderful" and "negative" and made things third person to keep comments as professional and neutral as possible. Please tell me this is OK. Now that I know the world can see these comments, I won't leave personal messages or my feelings on an article's talk page again. I know that our conversations are protected from the public, so I feel more comfortable discussing issues with you on our talk pages.Cstwct (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

First one general comment, OK? Please try to use indentation when you posts on talk pages, noticeboards, etc. It makes it easier for others to follow the discussion. Not such a bit deal here since it's just you and I discussing things and I can clean things up; however, on article talk pages or in other discussions (like AfD discussions), etc. where there are multiple editors posting comments, it can really make things easier to understand. In some cases, you may get a bit of reminder from another editor participating in the discussion if you continuously fail to indent. — Marchjuly 23:32, 23 November 2016‎ (UTC+9) — continues after insertion below

Understood.Cstwct (talk) 01:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Now about your edits. I saw what you did, and that's kind of OK, but it would be better for you just to strike-through the content you want to remove instead and then add a little note explaining why after the time stamp of your edit as explained in WP:REDACT. The reason is that even removing a single word like you did can sometimes change the meaning of any post made by another editor in response. Of course, it's still there to be seen in the edit history, but not everybody reading the discussion with know enough to scan the edit history for such changes. Simple example: You post "This is not a reliable source" and I reply "Yes, I agree with you". You then go back after the fact and remove the word "not" from your post so that the discussion now appears as "This is a reliable source" and "Yes, I agree with you." Removing that single word completely changes the meaning of everything. However, if you go back a change your post to "This is not a reliable source" with an adjusted time stamp, then others will be able to clearly see that you changed your post and my response was to your original post. This is perhaps an extreme example and not really exactly the same as what you did, but hopefully you can see how changing things after the fact can really lead to some serous problems and is something you really really need to be careful about doing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Great analogy. Thank you.Cstwct (talk) 01:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Please immediately delete the WT and AS articles

I've discussed this with my husband and we both feel that what Wikipedia is doing to us is having a negative impact on us emotionally.

The templates being attached to our pages will destroy WT's and AS's reputations. I know you think otherwise, but you are wrong on this point.

WT is still working and he needs his commissions. He's in the middle of negotiating one now and he cannot lose it because of the negative commentary that comes up on Wikipedia when his name is googled.

Dianaa destroyed AS's site, without giving me any warning, or the ability to fix issues she objected to, or the ability to prove the information is accurate and the text and photos were not a copyright infringement. This is outrageous. An editor stated that the article should've said that AS.com was donating the text. Why didn't Dianaa start a dialog about this with me before destroying the article? Destruction of AS's article is more than I can bear. There was nothing wrong with it. It was a beautiful article, until it was picked to death by an overzealous editor.

We've seen pages on Wikipedia that are clearly COI and they don't have templates. We've been in the arts our entire lives, and we know a lot of artists. We see artists' Wikipedia pages with false information all the time, yet we see no templates. Our pages contain the truth, with original text and owned photos, yet we've been harassed. I know you don't like that word, but it's the truth. We've been unjustly targeted.

Because of this, and because we don't feel Wikipedia applies its rigorous standards fairly to all, we don't feel comfortable being associated with Wikipedia in any way. Please remove our pages. I'll never forget this horrendous experience. I intend to tell everyone I know what happened and why Alfred Shaheen is no longer on Wikipedia. I'll explain to everyone how badly we were treated when we tried to create simple, truthful, informative, and visually exciting articles.

Marchjuly, I know you've tried to help. Bill and I would like to thank you from the bottom of our hearts for everything you've done to assist us.

CS & WTCstwct (talk) 06:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Cstwct: While I am sympathetic to your situation, you have not been targeted. I can't stop you from feeling that way, but that is the truth of the matter. There are 5,000,000 articles on Wikipedia and many more added each day. There are only so many volunteers, which means that many problematic articles go un-noticed for years before someone catches them. The fact that other similar articles exist is not a justification for ignoring problems when they are found in one particular article. As I posted earlier, if you notice a problem article you can (1) try and fix it yourself or (2) post something at a noticeboard to let others know.

In addition, I cannot just delete the article outright as you request for a couple of reasons: (1) I am not an administrator and only administrators can delete articles; (2) I am not the creator of the article so I cannot request that it be speedily deleted per WP:G7; and (3) other editors have edited the article and it is being currently discussed at AfD, which may result in the community deciding to keep it. As I've tried to explain above, individual editors or the subjects of articles do not have any ownership rights over article content and it is the community which ultimately decides what stays and what goes. Even if you want the article deleted, it's quite possible that one of the other editors will argue that it should remain because your husband is considered to satisfy the notability guidelines for a stand-alone article. If someone other than yourself who is completely unconnected to you or your husband decided to create this article, you could not simply have it deleted without a strong-policy based reason.

Here are somethings you can try, however: (1) Add Template:db-g7 to the top of the page. Don't remove any of the other templates etc. just copy-and-paste {{db-g7}} to the top of the article's page and leave an edit sum that you are requesting speedy deletion as the author of the article per WP:G7; or (2) Post a similar message (no template, just a message) at the AfD discussion stating that as the author you would like the article deleted. Explain the situation (without blaming anyone) as just say you'd like the community to respect your wishes. Then, you have to just wait and see what others say. Similarly if you want the files you uploaded to Commons also deleted then (1) you can do nothing and they will eventually be deleted in a few days by an administrator for lacking proper permission, or (2) you can add {{SD|G7}} to the top of each file's page.

Finally, you've got to be careful with the kind of comments you make about other editors. One of Wikipedia's 5 pillars is WP:CIVIL and even when we're upset and feeling like we're being treated badly, we have to try and avoid anything that might be considered a personal attack. An administrator doing what the community expects him or her to do might not be popular with some, but they were not made administrators to win popularity contests. The community has little tolerance for unsupported personal attacks against other editors, and those who continue such attacks often find their accounts blocked from editing. It's best to hit the "Show preview" button and makes sure what you're posting is really worth posting because once you hit "Save page" it's pretty much there forever. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Marchjuly, I woke up feeling a little better and I'm going to try this again. I put the notification on AS.com that I'm donating text to Wikipedia. (I never saw that requirement before, although it's been said it was sent to me 3X -- too many rules to absorb at once I guess.) I asked Dianaa to restore the AS article to the way it was and then rewrite it, but to read the AS website to learn about him before rewriting. I also told her I felt she went overboard by striking not just some, but all of the quotes. I asked her to put some back in. My opinion of Dianaa's editing was not a personal attack. I expressed an opinion that she did not use moderation in her editing. Everyone's opinion should be respected.

I asked a question that wasn't answered, so please advise: If I commit to you that I will not further edit the WT and AS articles until you tell me it's OK, will you take the templates off now? I mentioned I would study the materials you sent me and demonstrate to you that I can edit without COI. I realize WT's page, as originally written, was substandard. It has now been corrected and properly cited. Who could have corrected it if it wasn't a COI editor? There is nothing biased in WT's article. The information is accurate and cited. And there was nothing biased in Shaheen's article either. Will I ever be able to edit these again without getting a template?

I'd like to address the deletion issue. I struck the language asking for a speedy determination because you advised me not to push. However, I feel it's completely irresponsible for an editor, whether a volunteer or not, to nominate a delete, and then disappear. Why is it necessary to wait for TS to show up when there's no telling when that will be? Letting that negative (and, yes, it's negative) commentary sit on WT's article indefinitely is wrong. When an editor has nominated to delete an article, this is serious, and it should be handled as expeditiously as possible. I would like to know what Wikipedia's intentions are since TS is semi-retired and, in his own words, not very active. There surely is a time limit in situations like this. It's been two weeks and he hasn't been back to the conversation. I'd like to make this comment on Bill's deletion page, but I won't if you advise against it. Is it possible to get an administrator involved to resolve this? I'm not sure what the protocol is here, but the longer this negative commentary sits on his article, the more likely it will be seen by his clients and injure his reputation.

Thank you, Marchjuly, for your continued support and guidance.Cstwct (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I thought I answered your COI template question already, but if not then here is my opinion: You should discuss this with Diannaa since she is the editor who added the template. She did the clean up and if she feels the content is now sufficiently neutral in tone, etc. then she will remove the template. I can remove and another editor may remove it, but it's best to discuss things with Diannaa. Just explain you were not aware of WP:COI and that you now have a better understanding of what types of things the Wikipedia community expects of COI editors. As I said before, she's only acting in good faith in the interests of Wikipedia.

Regarding the deletion process, I understand what you're saying, but you should try to not think so much in terms of "fair" and "unfair" because that's not really what Wikipedia is about. The community will decide one way or another in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. Sometimes a consensus takes time to be estalished, sometimes it happens quite quickly. All that can be done is to let the process run its course. Sorry if that sounds cold, but I don't know any better way to put it. AfD discussions are normally allowed to run seven days. Some discussions are closed more quickly when the consensus is obvious and others may take a little more time when it is believed further discussion is needed. This AfD has already been relisted once by an administrator to generate more discussion, and I doubt it will be relisted again. Right now, it looks like the close will be "keep" or "no consensus", but that is just speculation. It shouldn't drag on much longer. If you want more details on how these types of discussions are closed, please look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions

You can make a comment on any talk page you want as long as you remember to stick to commenting on content and not other editors, and try to base anything you say on relevant Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Remember to keep cool and you should be fine. You should also try to remember (and please don't take this the wrong way) that Wikipedia is not really here to promote anyone to their clients or ensure that anyone's reputation remains untarnished. If you try to make that kind of argument anywhere on Wikipedia, you should expect quite a bit of flak from other editors.

It appears that you have resolved the copyright matter over the Shaheen website which is a good thing. However, I don't think simply copying and pasting what is written on that website is a wise thing to do. Even though it would probably not be considered plagiarism since you wrote the original content, you still have your COI with the article. There is also a difference between the purpose of a personal website about Shaheen and a Wikipedia article written about Shaheen and some of the content on the former may be considered to promotional sounding to be appropriate for Wikiepdia. It might also contain some extraneous details which are not needed for a Wikipedia article per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Wikipedia expects editors to write article content in their own words in accordance with its policies and guidelines. The website about your dad is something you have final editorial control over, so you can always ensure that it remains the way you want it. You don't have anything close to that kind of control with respect to the Wikipedia article written about him and anything you add can be un-added with a single click. If you feel there is something libelous or derogatory in the article, then you can remove it yourself as long as you explain why in an edit sum and on the article's talk page. If you notice a simple spelling or formatting error that you can fix, then fix it and leave an appropriate edit sum. If you don't like the article and feel it should be rewritten to include certain content, don't do it yourself. Add a Template:Request edit to the article's talk page and describe the change you would like to be made. Another editor will eventually review the request and decide if the change is appropriate per relevant policies and guidelines. Follow each step in WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement and see what happens. A word to the wise, read Wikipedia:Simple COI request because it's important to follow the steps correctly. If you just request "Please completely rewrite the entire article because so and so ruined it and I don't like it at all because I know my father better than anyone else", your request will be denied without any thought at all. However, if you write "Please change sentence A to sentence B and add a citation to this website" or "Please add this quote with a supporting citation to this article", the reviewing editor will look closely at the request and see if it is appropriate. Also, there's no limit on the number of times you can make a request, so it's probably not a good idea to overwhelm the reviewing editor. Make a request, wait to it's responded to and then make another request if you want. Too many at one time or too much content in a single request will make the reviewers job harder than it has to be.

I hope I got to all your questions. - Marchjuly (talk) 11:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thank you.Cstwct (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

About Joelle Khoury article 3

Hello Marchjuly! I didn't have the opportunity to reply promptly to your letter. Thank you so much for being accurate, objective and very helpful for the topics I asked for. For the de-orphanage, I indeed tried to add the name on stand alone and embedded lists. The name is actually kept with no problems on it (about 5 or six stand alone lists till now). As for the notability, I will consider again your advice. Otherwise, could you advice on how do we add pictures? I already tried and the photo didn't download. I know it must be an original one. I knew lately I had to propose the photo for Wikicomons first (right?). How to do it? Thank you for your suggestions and your time. Lebmusic. Lebmusic (talk) 09:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Lebmusic. Not sure if I can do a better job explaining how the basics of uploading image files than WP:UPIMAGE or WP:IUP, so try reading those pages if you haven't already done so. You might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. As for Wikimedia Commons, c:Commons:FAQ or c:Commons:First steps might help answer some of your questions about uploading files to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:54, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Just discovered this! Thank you for everything.

Cstwct (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. Have a nice Thanksgiving! -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the Gallery. Looks pretty terrific!Cstwct (talk) 03:09, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Just showed WT. He loves it and thanks you!Cstwct (talk) 14:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Adding cites to AS article & escalating WT's deletion

Another warning (surprise), this time on the AS article to cite the museum exhibits. Diannaa said I can go in and add cites: "It's okay for you to fix typos and add citations to these articles." I'll do this now. It's shocking how the AS and WT articles are being targeted. My brother saw the WT article and called and asked if I'd seen the warning at the top. I told him the whole story -- about the humiliating ordeal I've been put through for weeks over the WT and AS articles. WT's deletion warning has been up there for 17 days. I think you mentioned the average is 7 days. It's probably best to escalate the matter now before one of WT's collectors sees it. Please let me know how to bring this matter to an administrator's attention. This needs to be resolved now.Cstwct (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I've probably said this before, but I don't agree that these articles are being targeted; please don't post that kind of thing here anymore because there's nothing I can do about it. You would be best to assume good faith and ask whomever adds a template to an artile to explain why or request assistance per Wikipedia:Simple COI request. It's also unfortunate that you disaprove of the way the articles currenlty are, but, as I've also explained before, neither the subjects of articles nor their creators/edits have any ownership over the content in these articles Moreover, Wikipedia's purpose is not to ensure the article is the way your or your family wants it to be; it's puspose is just to ensure that the article content is in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. If you feel there is something in libelous/defamatory in these articles that clearly violates WP:BLP, then remove it yourself and then let others know at WP:BLPN so that your edits can be reviewed and the editor who added the content can be dealt with appropriately. If you feel there is something that needs to be permantly removed from the article's edit history for such reasons, then please ask for assistance from WP:OVERSIGHT. If you would like an administrator to review the ongoing AfD, then please ask for assistance at WP:AN. If you want to know the community's position on COI editing, please refer to Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. That's the best information I can give about this kind of thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Marchjuly. I truly appreciate all the help you've given me -- it's been substantial. And you've taught me so much about Wikipedia. I don't know how I can ever repay your kindness, generosity, and most of all your patience. I know I'm emotional and sometimes I let my emotions get the best of me. But I've been through a lot with Wikipedia these last few weeks. A lot of it was deserved, but some of it I feel was a bit over the top. I'll ask an administrator to step in and review WT's article so we can finally get this settled. Please let me know if there is additional information you need for WT's article and I will provide it to you.Cstwct (talk) 02:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Marchjuly, thank you very much. I've asked for intervention. Keep your fingers crossed.

Cstwct (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Question re bots

Marchjuly, I just redacted my responses on my user talk page because you mentioned in one post that bots pick up the information. Does strikethrough prevent the bots from picking up the info? If so, how do we prevent the conversations from showing up in a google search? I've always been a privacy fanatic and this concerns me. Can I use the redacted form that was used on my personal information? For privacy purposes, can the WT and AS names be redacted everywhere, even in posts not made by me? You can tell what we're talking about without the names. Exactly what pages do bots have access to? Thank you.Cstwct (talk) 14:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm very worried about privacy. I checked the internet and googled and yes some of these pages came up. What can we do?Cstwct (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I think you might be confusing me with someone else because I don't remember mentioning anything about bots picking up information. There are bots that some Wikipedia editors have created to perform various housekeeping and other mundance edits on Wikipedia, but these have all been approved specifically for use on Wikipedia. Perhaps you are referring to stuff like Internet security#Threats? These kinds of things aren't controlled by Wikipedia, and are created by people who are looking for vulnerabilites and personal information across the Internet to exploit such things. These people target the entire Internet as a whole, not only Wikipedia.

Diannaa did remove some personal contact information from a couple of your edits with something called a revision delete, but if you feel there's other personal information that you would like removed then please take a look at WP:OVERSIGHT. The community has empowered oversighters with the ability to remove content even from article edit histories, so that even administrators cannot view it. These only do this, however, under certain very specific conditions. A internet searches, I'm pretty sure there's not much Wikipedia can do about that. User pages and talk pages are said to not show up in such searches because they are not indexed per Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing; however, if you specifically search for "User:Marchjuly" or "User talk:Marchjuly", you might get a hit. This might have something to do what your own Internet use/search patterns, so if you're regularly accessing a certain website, then there's probably a record of it in your browser's search history or browser's cache. So, when you search for the subject the first thing that comes up are Wikipedia pages, but for someone else the result may be completely different. This might a question better suited for Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing. The editors answering questions there know much more about these kinds of things than I do, and probably can give you better information. As for striking things out, I am not sure how that affects search engine results, but you can ask that as well.

As for redacting the names from other posts, I'm not sure why that would be necessary unless someone else has written something which is in violation of WP:BLP or WP:TPO. There are Wikipedia articles about these two individuals and discussing them in the context of their repsective articles is completely in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You can ask about this at WP:OVERSIGHT, but I don't think they will just remove the names without a realy good policy-based reason. Wikipedia is not censored and if these name mentions are part of legitimate discussions on article content, then I'm not sure why they should be removed. You should read WP:BLPCOMPLAIN and consider asking for assistance at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard or contacting the Wikimedia Foundation directly if you have serious concerns about the impact these articles might be having. You've got to try and remember that the permission of the subject of an article is not required for such an article to be written, and articles written in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines tend to be kept and improved upon by the Wikipedia community. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

1. Diannaa mentioned the bots in a discussion with you when she redacted my email and phone number. The impact of that discussion didn't sink in until today. I tested searches and saw user talk pages come up in google. Wikipedia should place a privacy warning at the top of all user talk and other discussion pages to be careful about using names and personal information because the conversation might be seen by a non-Wikipedia bot, which might then pick up the page and display the contents (and personal names and info) on the internet. This is critical for newcomers. How would users, especially new users, know this? All Wikipedia seems to care about are notices that protect Wikipedia, not notices that protect its users.

Your statement: "Perhaps you are referring to stuff like Internet security#Threats? These kinds of things aren't controlled by Wikipedia, and are created by people who are looking for vulnerabilities and personal information across the Internet to exploit such things. These people target the entire Internet as a whole, not only Wikipedia."

Yes, this is my point. These talk pages are vulnerable and there should be a disclosure at the top of each page warning users about this -- a big warning, above all the COIs and massive amounts of warnings that benefit only Wikipedia; and the warning should advise users that the information they enter into the page could possibly be picked up by a non-Wikipedia bot and exposed by a search engine. Writing in the user talk pages gave me a sense of security and privacy away from the eyes of bots and search engines. Possibly having these discussions come up in a search of our names threatens me and my family, and causes us tremendous stress, fear and anxiety.

2. I would like the names of my family, my website, and myself struck from all posts and conversations to, from, and about me. I am not asking that you blank or remove the history. It doesn't matter whether the names are whited out or replaced with initials. I request that I do the work because I don't feel Wikipedia will do a good job. I feel the only way to protect my family and me is to neutralize the names in the posts.

3. I reviewed WP:OVERSIGHT and it doesn't look promising. This never would've happened had I not been excessively hounded by Wikipedia editors using subjective standards to judge every statement and movement I made. After what I've been through, I have no faith in Wikipedia's oversight process, and I have no faith in any reassurances that Wikipedia might give that the pages are secure. I deserved a warning that these pages are subject to prying bot eyes, especially when you saw me using my real name and giving you other personal information.

4. Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing. I will ask them about the bots and if strikeout prevents the bots from picking up names, but the only thing that will make me and my family feel safe will be to white out our names, or replace names with initials, on all talk and other pages, in posts and conversations to, from, and about the article subjects and me.

Finally, I'd like to point out that the majority of your articles come from COIs (family, friends, acquaintances, and companies writing in-house). Without COIs, Wikipedia wouldn't exist.Cstwct (talk) 03:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not sure how to reply to some of these comments. I am not going to go around editing the talk page posts of other editors because that's something I feel I cannot do and I cannot guarantee that even if I did they would not be quickly reverted by another editor. If you have serious concerns about you and your family's privacy, then either WP:OVERSIGHT or WP:BLPN is your best bet for assistance. As for warnings or the lack thereof on Wikipedia talk pages, there is a link to the Wikimedia's foundation Terms of Use found right above the "Save change" button on every page. There are also pages like Wikipedia:About, Wikipedia:FAQ and more general information about the project on Wikipedia:Main. There are also links to various general information pages on Special:CreateAccount where those interested in signing up for an account can find more detailed information and links to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy, Wikipedia:General disclaimer and other pages found at the bottom of every Wikipedia page. In addtion, there is more specific information on each of Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines found on their respective Wikiepdia pages. The information is there and is fairly accessible, but some people just prefer to jump in and start editing without fully understanding what Wikipedia is about. It's unfortunate your Wikipedia experience has not been pleasant, and maybe you should share your experiences and concerns with those that operate the project. I'm not sure what more I can do to try and help you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:37, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I will edit my own posts to minimize the damage. The warnings you are referring to are not sufficient because they are not visible warnings. They're buried in the bowels of Wikipedia.Cstwct (talk) 13:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Please do not use given names in your posts. Please use WT, AS or CS. Thank you.Cstwct (talk) 14:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I will use article names if the discussion is regarding a specific article or about the subject of an article. I will use your username when addressing you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'd appreciate it if the references could be kept as generic as possible by using only last names. Hopefully all this will stop soon. I still have to finish the AS site. I think that will be difficult since editor revisions are so backlogged. Can I be an editor that does COI revisions (not my articles of course)? I'd really like to help other nonpaid family COIs. I'm a good writer and have empathy for what they've been through. I'm also getting the hang of neutrality. And it would help me get to know WP formatting, terms and rules.Cstwct (talk) 15:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Marchjuly, I'm back at the margin because the indents are becoming too deep.

To avoid the bots, Diannaa suggested putting a "no index" code at the top of the user talk pages. She put it on hers and suggested I put it on mine. I copied/pasted the code from the top of her edit page and put it in the same spot on the cstwct, WT and AS talk pages. (I can't type the code here because every time I do it doesn't show up. It appears it has to be placed in a special spot.) Would you mind putting it at the top of your talk page?

Is there a chance the WT deletion issue will be resolved shortly? ST isn't going to change his opinion. His recent post wasn't an argument in favor of deleting; actually, it didn't make much sense, and he didn't appear to be engaged or interested. There is only ST's delete and several keeps. I've answered your citation questions. What other info can I obtain for you?

Another question: When do these pages get archived? I noticed there are archived pages in the upper-right hand corner.

The bots problem should pretty well be resolved with this new code. Once we resolve the WT deletion issue, the problems will be over. I have to edit AS, but that will take time. I looked at my edit request on WT talk and since editors are backlogged 168 edits, I don't anticipate I can finish WT anytime soon either. I've abandoned plans to develop the article further.

I'm sorry for taking up so much of your time. I appreciate everything you've taught me (you've taught me so much!).

Thank you.Cstwct (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Just noticed that my putting the No Index code on the top of WT's edit talk page without signing (yes I edit summed) left -- guess what? -- a warning that I didn't sign. I subsequently signed underneath the No Index code but it didn't take the warning away. And I don't want my signature there because it might interfere with the No Index code. How should I handle this? Thank you.Cstwct (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I believe that "no index" is disabled by default for articles and enabled by default on BLP article talk pages, user pages, user talk pages, etc. as explained in WP:NOINDEX. So, I am not sure if adding/removing it makes any difference to such pages. I am not going to put it on my talk page because I think it's fine as it currently is. If you're still concerned about this, then perhaps you should ask about this at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) since that can explain it better than I.

As I've explained previously, AfD discussions are supposed to be allowed to run 7 days, but sometimes are closed earlier or later than that depending upon the nature of the discussion. An administrator will eventually review it and determine whether a consensus has been reached or the discussion should be relisted. If you want, you can ask for an administrator to review the discussion and close it if approproriate by posting a request at WP:AN. If you make such a request, you should make it clear that you created the article and that you have a COI with respect to it to avoid any one questioning your motives. You should also be aware that it is unlikely that the administrator is going to change the names in that discussion to intials per you request unless there administrator feels there is a strong-policy based reason for doing so. Once the discussion is closed it will eventually be archived in the AfD archives and the closing administrator will and Template:Old AfD to the article's talk page.

Finally, I do not have the ability to give you any special editing permissions. Some of these permissions are given automatically when certain thresholds are passed, others are granted by the community per request if certain conditions are satisfied. FWIW, if you find an article that you think you can improve in any way, then you can be bold and improve it. If you're reverted, try and follow WP:BRD and engage in discussion. Don't edit war no matter how right you think you are unless you are specifically doing so for the reasons given in WP:3RRNO. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I told the administrator that I'm WT's wife. It doesn't matter so much about changing the names to initials. I feel more secure now that I know the coding is at the top of the page and hopefully these pages will be archived soon. But just fyi, the bots do break through because I've seen these pages come up in searches. I'll review the editing section you mention. I'd really like to help family COIs somehow.Cstwct (talk) 12:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Kamalikachanda

Sockpuppets also benefit from WP:AGF and WP:BITE. --Marvellous Spider-Man 13:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your post is supposed to be about. Can you be more specific? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

About Joelle Khoury article 4

Hello Marchjuly. Thanking you again for your help, I would like to know if the following references (categories and articles) from another related articles to de-orphan the text (Joelle Khoury) are currently enough: Lebanese pianists, Lebanese composers, Lebanese emigrants to the United States, Women in classical music, Female opera composers, Female classical composers, Opera in Arabic. Namely that other articles have fewer references and are not templated as orphans. So if the article is no more an orphan, who has the authority to delete the orphan template? Same thing for the review template… I’m really sorry to bother you again for these issues and appreciate all the support and all the accurate and objective replies you gave. Lebmusic. Lebmusic (talk) 10:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Since an orphan is an article which has no incoming links from other articles, only a single incoming link from another article is needed to de-orphan it; however, the more incoming links you can create, the better. The orphan template can be removed by any editor who de-orphans the article as explained in Help:Maintenance template removal. The review template will be removed by the editor who reviews the article. You can ask at Wikipedia:Peer review for an editor to review the article, or ask at a place like Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions or Wikipedia:Help desk to see if someone there wants to review the article for you. A list of all new page reviewers can be found at Special:ListUsers/patroller, so you can also just post a message on one of those editor's user talk pages and ask them to review the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

WT - AfD discussion

Marchjuly, I'm very upset that the entire conversation pertaining to delete is on the user talk page. I thought you mentioned this would be archived and hidden from public view. How do I obtain privacy with the delete issue? It's one thing to say the discussion occurred and the result was keep. It's another to broadcast the entire discussion to the public. I'm shocked and saddened that after all this trouble, I may have to delete the page, because I will not subject WT to this humiliation. How should we handle? Can't we archive the conversation somewhere away from public view?Cstwct (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Marchjuly, I deleted some comments I previously made. One was a citation question that Modernist explained to me. I understand his logic, so this is no longer relevant. Thank you.Cstwct (talk) 22:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

A record of every AfD which is closed as a "keep" or "no consensus" is added to the relevant article's talk page in the form of Template:Old AfD. I mentioned this above in one of my replies to your question about bots, but maybe you missed it. This is to let other editors know that the article has been previously nominated for discussion at AfD and links to the relevant discussion where they can see the details. Any page on Wikipedia, archived or otherwise, can be seen by the public so there's not much I can help you with there. Can you provide a link to the specific user talk page you are referring to in your post for clarification? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Can you please move the AfD discussion from the top of the page to the middle of the other notices so it's not the first thing the public sees? Yes the public gets to see everything, but the worst things shouldn't be the first things they see. What's wrong with putting discussions like this a few links away. Editors can easily see the conversations without exposing them to the public. Quite frankly, I think the whole process of exposing conversations like this to the public is dehumanizing and demeaning, and potentially damaging to the living person the article is about. Registered users should be the only people who have access to internal Wikipedia conversations like AfDs. BTW, what are the benefits of registering and signing in? Privacy certainly isn't one of them. When I first clicked in on my mobile (on a mobile!) and saw the WT AfD discussion, I burst into tears. But then I've been in tears a lot this past month. Here's the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Moses_(artist). What about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tori_Richard. Who's Alicekim53? Aren't you curious as to how she got such detailed historical info, the references, and photos to start the page? It was all done at once in the sandbox. Looks like a COI to me.Cstwct (talk) 04:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Was able to move the AfD discussion to the middle of the banners myself. It's less noticeable. Thx.Cstwct (talk) 04:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The template was in the correct location (see Wikipedia:Talk page layout) and put there by KrakatoaKatie, the administrator who closed the discussion, so it did not need to be moved. The template was returned to its correct location by JJMC89. It's OK to make these mistakes the first time since you weren't aware of the relevant guidelines, but please don't move it again, OK? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Cstwct, leave it alone now. The layout of the talk pages has been hammered out over many years. The talk page for the above link is where to go to propose changes to that consensus. You've been around since 2009, and you're well aware that deletion discussions happen, and that they're linked for reference so an article isn't unnecessarily nominated over and over again. The article's been kept, so drop the stick and let's all move on to productive things. Katie^talk 10:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Katie, I may have registered in 2009, but if you look at my activity, you'll note I haven't been active and that I've only created one simple page in addition to WT's. Because of inactivity, I wasn't exposed to WP's policies. So, no, I wasn't aware of the delete process, and I wasn't aware of talk pages, and I wasn't aware of discussion linking, and I wasn't aware of the complete lack of privacy -- that every issue, everything you say or do, every conversation or discussion ever held, is broadcast worldwide to the general public. I don't agree with this policy. It's unnecessary, emotionally distressing to those involved, and potentially harmful if the subject of the article is a living person. I strongly feel that only registered users should be able to see these discussions. Katie, thank you for nominating to keep the article. I'm very appreciative that you stepped in quickly with your support. I won't move the AfD discussion again, and I intend to adhere to WP's policies. However, I have the right to disagree with policies that I think are over the top, and I'll never forget what I've been put through, and will continue to be put through, because I told WP that I'm related to WT and AS. I've been honest and forthright in my dealings with WP. I've candidly expressed my sincere feelings, which I now regret, knowing that the world can see them.Cstwct (talk) 14:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

COI template doesn't state COI contributions have been reviewed and OK'd for neutrality

Why doesn't the COI template state that COI contributions are reviewed and OK'd for neutrality? I think this statement is appropriate. As written, all the template does is cast a stigma on the COI editor. It doesn't give a balanced view of the COI's contributions. Thank you.Cstwct (talk) 19:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't really feel the template casts a stigma on COI editors, but that might be because our perspectives on COI editing seem to be different. You can propose changes to the template's wording at Template talk:COI if you like to see if others agree with you. The template is permanently protected per WP:TEMP-P so it can only be edited directly by administrators or template editors. If you establish a consensus for the changes you propose, then someone will make the change. However, the template is for a guideline that applies community-wide and has been long established, so changing the wording of it is probably something that will require some serious discussion first. It might be a good idea to try and get as much feedback as you can by using Template:Please see to post a notice at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) since more editors probably watch that particular page than the template's page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

WT closed as keep & other matters

Marchjuly, this never would have happened if it hadn't been for your help. Thank you. I have a few questions I hope you can answer.

1. The edit requests noted on the WT talk page keep going up. How do I know where WT is on the list and how long it will take before the edits are done? How does the edit request list work? There is a cite that needs to be resolved (and it can be by simply rearranging text and deleting the paragraph that needs the citation), a section needs to be deleted (would love to develop but can't edit), and photo(s) to upload. Can I add photos and not touch the text? I was thinking of adding another sculpture that shows how he can bend veneer over half-rounds, and possibly two chairs (his specialty). Don't want to add too much, but want to include pieces mentioned in the article. I'd love your advice on what you think is appropriate for the gallery.
2. I'd like to archive my talk page because it contains discussions that are no longer relevant. I've read the instructions but I'm fearful of making a mistake. The article about archiving also says the page can be blanked (not preferred but allowed). Blanking is my preferred method. Is it OK to blank everything but keep the shortcuts to rules handy? Don't want to blank without your permission.
3. I'd love to read about the Wikipedia rules on my mobile, but I can't find where this is located on the phone. The mobile goes to the home page and featured article, but I don't see a tree on the left-hand side. I click the little box in the upper left hand corner, but it doesn't contain a link to the rules. Is there a special bookmark I can put on my phone that will take me to all the rules & regs of Wikipedia so I can learn what to do/not do?
4. Wikipedia has categorized AS primarily as a businessman. I don't think this is the right category for him. Is there a list to choose from and can this be changed?

Finally, you've put so much energy into the WT and AS articles that you must be tired of dealing with them by now. If so, please let me know and I will work with a different editor. But I really prefer to work with you. Thank you.Cstwct (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I added citations to the WT article per Wikipedia request, conformed the movies and TV series to the citations, and deleted the WP note.Cstwct (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I really didn't do anything with respect to that AfD other than provide some links to pages which might be relevant. All credit, if any, should be given to the Wikipedia community. FWIW, try not to hold any ill will towards the editor who nominated the article for deletion; it's all part of the process and editors are only trying to do what they think is best for the project.

I do not consider myself to be any specific article's or any specific editor's designated editor. I try to help out when I can, but don't consider myself to be the final say on all things Wikipedia. Anything I can do, some other editor can just as easily do and most likely can probably do better. So, please read WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement and follow the steps listed there. All editors are volunteers, so sometimes it takes time for edit requests to be answered. Relying on a single editor is sort of like putting all of your eggs in one basket. There are many editors out there who like helping others and some places you can go for assistance are the Wikipedia Teahouse or the talk pages of the WikiProjects listed at the top of article talk pages.

Adding/removing categories can be tricky and like everything else can be undone by another editor. You can find out more about them at Wikipedia:Categorization. There are tons of categories so finding the right ones to add can be more difficult than it seems. Sometimes it helps to look at other similar articles and see if any of the categories used in them seem appropriate.

You can find out more about archiving talk pages at Help:Archiving a talk page. If you want help setting things up so that the page is archived automatically, try asking at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) or the Teahouse.

Don't know much about mobile viewing of Wikipedia. Maybe the information you need is in Help:Mobile access. I think there's a special version made for phones, etc., but you can scroll all the way down and click on "Desktop" version as well. You probably can bookmark any Wikipedia page, just like you would bookmark any webpage you want to go back to later. Wikipedia:FAQ index lists all the Wikipedia FAQ pages in one place, so may you can use this to find more specific pages about a specific topic.

I commented at User talk:Diannaa#Tunberg photos about image use, so please read that post.

Hope I got to all your questions. Finally, it looks like you might have forgotten to log in again when you edit the Tunberg article's talk page. No biggie, but try and remember to log in because it makes it clear that you are the one doing the editing and not another editor who might just be screwing around. Also, in a weird way, editing from an IP actually reveals more about you that editing from your regular account since an IP address can be "looked up" so to speak. See the essay Wikipedia:Wikipedia is anonymous for a little more detail on this. Another essay that you might find interesting is Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly. Yes, I forgot to log in when I made a change to the talk page. I did it so fast I didn't realize it until after I hit Save Changes. Again, thanks for all of your help. I'll look at archiving again and do what the article says. I've become a shadow cat and I'm afraid to do anything without asking because I'm worried I'll do something wrong. I think we're on an even keel now, though. Just need to get one photo undeleted and two sections deleted. My feeling now is that less is more. Thank you.Cstwct (talk) 02:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The photo being used in the infobox has been undeleted and tagged with "OTRS pending". There's nothing really else that you need to do. Commons OTRS will take care of the rest. Don't worry about making mistakes. Neither Wikipedia articles nor Wikipedia editors are expected to be perfect. If fact, much of Wikipedia editing is "fixing" the mistakes made by others and having others "fix" your mistakes. Nobody should give you a hard time as long as your mistakes are made in good faith and your willing to discuss things as needed. Also, instead of thinking about deleting sections, perhaps think of ways to better incorporate the content within those sections into other parts of the article. Sometimes articles are actually improved by summarizing extraneous content instead of completely removing it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly. I looked at the logs and noticed you've done a lot of cleanup work. Thank you. The image and Early Life info reads much better now.

* Re deleting sections, the paragraph that talks about use of his drawing skills in sculpture isn't really accurate. I think that when the surrounding text was taken out (too promotional), it might've taken the concept out of context. He uses his drawing skills in cutting marquetry, and the result is then laminated onto 3-D forms. So I think it's better just to have that paragraph deleted.

* Re the Marquetry section, I think it would be nice to integrate some of the language into the main article, especially the history, but I don't want to go through the problems a revision will pose. I think it's best to delete it. I noticed the OTRS noticeboard is backlogged 108 days and the last time I looked there were 169 edit requests, so there's no telling when my existing edit request will be addressed. I can experiment with the Marquetry section language in the sandbox, ask for an editor to review it, then put in another edit request (or add it to the existing request if the request isn't closed).

* Re the AS site, can I work in the sandbox and ask for an editor to review and put the reviewed language in an edit request? A lot of garment industry history was removed and the article is pretty terrible now. Re the image, my contacts at Presley Enterprises are gone, except for one, who is not in licensing but in advertising. I've been advised that licensing has been outsourced and is no longer in-house. Presley Enterprises gave me an OK to use the Elvis image in the Bishop exhibit, magazines, newspapers, etc. when licensing was in-house. My contact has been out of town for the holidays and gets back today. Hopefully, I'll have this issue addressed shortly. I don't care if the picture is removed from Wikipedia. But if it is, the language referring to it should be removed also.

Not sure why I can't get the bulleted or numbered list to work with indented material. I love formatting. Is there something special I should do? Thank you.Cstwct (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

If there is something inaccurate in the article that is not a serious BLP violation or a simple spelling/formatting fix, then you probably should use the "request edit" template. The editors who answer these requests are volunteers just like you and I, so it's best to try and keep the requests a concise as possible and avoid asking too many things at the same time. Try to keep it one request per template. Requests which are worded like "Please change this sentence (exact current article content) to this sentence (exact proposed article content) for this reason (policy/guideline based is preferred) as supported by this reliable source (a link to something online is preferred, but it does not have to be formatted as a citation)" tend to work best because they allow the editor reviewing the request to quickly see what is being requested and whether it complies with relevant policies and guidelines. You can see some of the reasons that such requests are typically declined at Template:Request edit/Instructions; if the request is too vague or contains too many things, the chances of it being declined increase. Diannaa has answered parts one and two of the request you made on the article's talk page. Maybe you should remove parts 3 and 4, and then ask them as a separate request each. Ask whichever of the two is more pressing first, wait until it's been answered/declined and then ask the other one. There's not much anyone can do about the request backlog, but maybe trying step 2 or step 3 in WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement will get you a quicker response. You can also try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California/Los Angeles task force to see if a member of one of those WikiProject can help you out. As for experimenting in you sandbox, go for it. Your COI should not be an issue when you are working in your sandbox and things should be fine as long as the content you does not violate any major policies/guidelines per WP:UPNOT or WP:UP#OWN.

I'm not sure if Shaheen site is supposed to be "Shaheen cite" or "Shaheen article", but everything I wrote above probably applies to that article as well. As for the Elvis image, I think you might be referring to File:Elvisbluehawaiisoundtrack.jpg. That particular file is licensed as non-free cover art which means that each use of it is subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy (NFCC). This is a pretty restrictive policy that applies only to non-free content. This particular file's non-free use is being discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 November 21#File:Elvisbluehawaiisoundtrack.jpg: WP:FFD is where file related matters are discussed on Wikipedia. In general, this type of usage of album cover art is almost never considered acceptable per the aforementioned NFCC, but you're welcome to participate in the discussion if you like. FWIW, the file is highly unlikely to be deleted all together; it's only probably going to be removed from the Shaheen article. The sentence in the lede links to Blue Hawaii (Elvis Presley album) where anyone whose interested will still be able to see the shirt that Elvis wore for the album cover. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll change my edit requests for WT. I received an email from my contact at Graceland. The licensing was "sold" to another company. Never heard of selling licensing before. She gave me the new contact info but I'm not going to pursue. I don't care about the photo. When it's removed, however, I'll go in and take the reference to the photo out because the reference will constitute a "typo". It's obvious nothing will get fixed timely. Why can't an editor review COI proposed changes and OK them and let the COI fix, instead of leaving inaccurate and incomplete material on Wikipedia for extended periods of time? I thought the whole idea was accuracy. FWIW, I had to look up what FWIW means. Thx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cstwct (talk • contribs) 03:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC) Cstwct (talk) 04:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Separated my request edits. Hope this doesn't put my requests at the back of the line.Cstwct (talk) 04:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

If you would like to make suggestions about improving a particular policy or guideline, then typically the best place to do so would be on the talk page of said policy/guideline: WT:COI is the talk page for WP:COI. Policies are established through community consensus and community consensus can change over time, so there's nothing wrong with making a good faith suggestion or trying to establish a new consensus. You can also post your concerns at the more general Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and you might get a quicker response.

Removing or adding article content is not a "typo" so such an edit sum would be misleading. If there is something that is clearly libelous or defamatory in the Shaheen article, then you can remove it per WP:BLP; just make sure you clearly explain why in your edit sum and on the article's talk page (and also probably WP:BLPN to play it safe). If you just prefer that the statement not be there, then it would be better for you to follow Wikipedia:Simple COI request. The sentence about the shirt is supported by a citation, regardless of whether the non-free file is used or not. The link provided for the source shows the same image. However, if you want to challenge the reliability of the source (i.e.., what it claims is completely wrong), then it would be best to ask for assistance at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Removing statements which are supported by citations can be tricky and the reason for doing should be strongly based in policy. Such a thing is almost always never considered to be non-controversial or minor and often leads to a quick revert by another editor. So, I suggest you be pretty careful in doing such a thing with respect to any article, not just these particular two. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I know it's not necessary yet, but it's such a cool formatting template, I had to use it just once. Thanks for your suggestions. I'll visit the talk pages for COI and Village Pump. I don't anticipate the COI request edits to be addressed anytime soon, as so I'll drop the stick (love that phrase). However, I'd like to pursue the policy of exposing internal (and what should be private) discussions to the general public. That stick I'll never drop. Can you suggest where to go for that discussion? Thx.Cstwct (talk) 14:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Pretty much every page on Wikipedia has a corresponding talk page which is the place to discuss "improvements" to the page. In this particular case, the relevant policy is probably close to WP:PRIVACY and WP:BLPPRIVACY, so perhaps those talk pages might be an appropriate place to post your concerns. Both of the relevant talk pages have extensive archives, so it might a good idea to search them to see if there has been previous discussion(s) about this kind of thing. From personal experience, it can be a little embarrassing when the first response to your post is "This has been previously discussed on this archived page and this consensus was established", so it helps to do a little background checking before trying to propose a policy change. Some other places to post your concerns might be at WP:VP/P or WP:BLPN: these are more general pages, but more editors probably follow them. BTW (by the way), there's no need to start multiple discussions about the same subject on multiple pages because this might be seen as forum shopping. The best thing to do is pick one and then use a template like Template:Please see to post notices other pages which might be relevant. You need to sort of be careful when you do this because Wikipedia has a guideline regarding canvassing, but as long as you keep things short and neutral, you should be OK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)