User talk:Mrpresident80

July 2013

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint Francis Veterinary Center, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU! I'm still learning!!!! Mrpresident80 (talk) 01:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Signing your posts

You got a template above from FlatOut asking you to sign your posts. This is a personal note from me, asking you to sign all of your talk page posts, simply by typing ~~~~ at the end of each post, before you click "save". It is irritating for other editors to not know which editor is commenting. Thank you very much. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh man! THANK YOU! I'm still learning!!!! All new to me! Mrpresident80 (talk) 01:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should also read and understand conflict of interest at I suspect it applies to the articles you have been working on. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am hoping to write about the veterinary industry and some of the people and places that are advancing that industry. I might have done better to start with people who write books or invent new procedures, but i did think that perhaps the celebrity angle of this article it might interest wikipedia more than 'notable' veterinarians.

Mrpresident80, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Mrpresident80! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Hajatvrc (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Saint Francis Veterinary Center does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! Flat Out let's discuss it 10:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh man! Yet another thing I wasn't aware of, but thank you! All the input will help me get the hang of wikipedia! Mrpresident80 (talk) 03:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mrpresident80, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Flat Out let's discuss it 09:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENTS I only have this Wikipedia account. You can investigate to your heart's content. Can I ask why it is you've taken such an intense and hostile interest in me and the subjects I'm interested in writing about? Mrpresident80 (talk) 10:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My only interest is improving the encyclopedia. I have opened a sockpuppet investigation because 3 other editors who have made either no previous wp contribution, or contribution only to the article you created, are suddenly making supportive comments at the nomination for deletion discussion. That's a red flag for sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. I didn't nominate the article and I make no apologies for voting. As for the subject you're writing about, once its published anyone can edit it and my interest is improving the article. Flat Out let's discuss it 10:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Improving wp is totally respectable and improving the article is welcome. Note that I didn't write it, in fact I trimmed it significantly from where it started. I don't agree with you that it's not 'notable' in the wp sense, but i certainly respect the process here. But I'm not responsible for the other writers. And since you showed me about the 4 tildas signature, I always use it. What happens if you 4 tilda and you're not signed in? I have used a few public computers but I always put the 4 tildas. Mrpresident80 (talk) 11:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you edit while you aren't signed in, you end up the subject of a sockpuppet investigation because you now have comments at the deletion discussion under your name, and 2 I.P addresses, which makes it look like 3 opinions. If there are comments in that discussion that are yours, you should edit the I.P signatures out and put yours in. Flat Out let's discuss it 10:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, interesting. On it - I can probably clean up my thoughts as well to be more helpful. Also being the subject of a 'sockpuppet investigation' is ... fabulously titled. Mrpresident80 (talk) 11:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done, cleaned things up, organized a bit better, etc. Learning as I go here, and I do appreciate the guidance, flat out. Mrpresident80 (talk) 11:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you need to sign your posts here too. Flat Out let's discuss it 11:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite possible I'm beyond saving! Sorry! Mrpresident80 (talk) 11:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Senate Recognition

Just a heads up, if you can't source that sentence regarding the Certificate of Senate Recognition it will get deleted at some point. You can't have an unsourced claim like tat without a reliable source. Cheers Flat Out let's discuss it 14:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had a feeling about that - I'm really working hard on this! I know why the wikipedia rules are so strict, because if they weren't it wouldn't be such a brilliant resource. So all of this to me is a challenge to get right, not an effort to give up on. I'm not trying to be a pain - I am definitely tryign to source and do things right to meet the requirements. 14:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but you also can't use that image you just inserted, I can't delete it because of the 3 revert Rule, but it doesn't qualify for non-free use as the accreditation of the centre is referenced and not in dispute. Flat Out let's discuss it 14:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK I removed it. I thought maybe it would be useful. so many rules! Mrpresident80 (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the image rules are onerous and I don't even bother with an image unless I took the photo. In general just remember

everything needs to be able to verified by another editor, if they can't verify something you have written it shouldn't be there
keep wording neutral
most importantly; it is reliable sources that establish notability, not elaborate wording or famous people. Flat Out let's discuss it 14:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FLat Out you're killin' me Flat Out with the Senate recognition! why not leave it in with 'citation needed' in case someone else wishes to add? What are the rules on when to use 'citation needed' and when not to? Thanks :-)

You can't leave something that can't be verified when it isn't a well-known fact, especially when it is there to attribute notability to the subject. I did an exhaustive search and came up with zilch, so it goes. P.S: My mother says I'm cool ^{[citation needed]} Flat Out let's discuss it 23:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I get it. When I sit back and think about it, I do understand it. This is why wikipedia is a great resource. I just never had any clue it was THIS involved! PS I think your mom is quite a reliable source; I believe that you are cool. Mrpresident80 (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

flat out what's the rule on sourcing to youtube videos? Such as if someone delivered a speech and it's on youtube, or if some other kind of info is available on a video but not in print somewhere? Mrpresident80 (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube itself is an unreliable source, as it is self edited without fact checking. However, you can sometimes use TV news video that is posted on YouTube, as TV news is considered reliable. However, there are copyright issues with that as well. So, if you are talking about a TV news clip that is specifically licensed for free distribution on YouTube, with a license that is compatible with our licensing (CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and GFDL), then and only then is the answer yes you can. Gtwfan52 (talk) 01:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On notability

Hi! You seem to have a mistaken impression , a not uncommon one for newcomers to Wikipedia to have, on what notability is. With all the arguments you have advanced at the AfD for Saint Francis Veterinary Center‎, none have been on point to notability. Not one. Notability has nothing to do with your, my or anyone's subjective opinion on how important a particular subject might be. At Wikipedia, notability is the name for our standard for inclusion in the encyclopedia. It is fairly objective, with just a little bit of wiggle room built in.

The term notability derives from the fact that Wikipedia, like all encyclopedias (print and internet), is a tertiary source. We don't publish original research and we don't report on others original research. We report on what reliable sources have said, in detail, about a particular subject. In other words, if no-one has "made note" of it, we don't publish articles about it; hence the term "notability".

The standard that applies to businesses, WP:CORP, requires that reliable secondary sources from a widespread area have talked about the business in question, in depth and substantially. The only secondary sourcing you have shown is newspaper and TV reports from Metro Philly about the ballplayer's involvement in the clinic; all on the one day event that is the grand opening. As the editor who moved your article to mainspace from AfC is a teenager from Singapore, I am betting that he didn't realize that Metro Philly is largely in New Jersey and interpreted sourcing from two different states as widespread. Even though, as you claim, the ballplayer's involvement makes the clinic somehow unique, that doesn't make it notable. Regional (that would be minimally outside of Metro Philly, at a bare minimum) coverage of the clinic, beyond the one-time event of the grand opening of the thing that the ballplayer is involved with, would be required, at a minimum. If the clinic is as "ground-breaking" and "cutting-edge" (two phrases never to use in a Wikipedia article, BTW) as you claim, wouldn't it stand to reason that there would exist some coverage in a respected journal on veterinary medicine? There isn't any. Giving you the benefit of the doubt here, it is minimally too soon for an article on the clinic. I have searched English Wikipedia. There are less than 20 veterinary medicine clinics in it worldwide, and the vast majority of those are chain operations with clinics nationwide. Even veterinary clinics associated with major schools are in the encyclopedia only as redirects back to the school.

You may argue that because human medicine hospitals are more or less automatically notable, vet hospitals should be too. That argument would be fallacious, as substantial regulation nationwide is in place for human hospitals, mandating them to provide service without consideration of people's ability to pay etc. There exist no similar regulation for animal hospitals. This makes hospitals more of a public utility than a private business. As a matter of fact, there isn't even a recognized definition of what constitutes an "Animal Hospital". Most private practice vets will board animals when necessary for their care. If we were talking about humans, that would make them a hospital. Gtwfan52 (talk) 00:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most helpful thing anyone's sent my way so far in this process, THANK YOU! Mrpresident80 (talk) 01:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I only got involved in this because it ticked me off that the article got promoted out of AfC, truth be told. Not at you, mind you. I am a teahouse host and work with the editor's retention project. It bothers me that you are now stuck in a fairly advanced Wikipedia process (AfD) when you should have been helped more at a newcomer's project, AfC. Someone should have told you "too soon" a long time ago. For that, I apologize. You seem very enthused about editing Wikipedia and that makes me smile. You may wish to consider adoption, which is our one on one mentoring program. The AfD on St. Francis has run a week now and it most likely will soon be closed. I would post to the AfD discussion that you would like the article "refunded" to your userspace so you can work on it when more sources come available. Good luck and happy editing. If I can be of any help, don't hesitate to leave me a message on my talk page. Gtwfan52 (talk) 01:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Truly appreciated. If it's deleted, is it deleted forever? or can it be brought through AfD when more sources develop? And yes, I have a few other topics I want to start on that I think could be fun and valuable, but I dont' want to make the same mistakes on them. So I'm going to watch how this one shapes up and finishes, and take what I"ve learned to the new topics. Which I hope are more clearly objective and informative. Mrpresident80 (talk) 02:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:AAHA Referral Logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:AAHA Referral Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]