User talk:OlYeller21/archives 4

Machine to Machine Article

Hi OlYeller21, thanks for the information about Machine to Machine. However, we see many information about companies announcing this and that in this articles. We think a fair policy is to list them all, or none. In this case, we were suggesting a reference to Frost and Sullivan study, as well as a media event in Malaysia in September, and don't think it is relevant to call it advertising compared to the press announcements of the other one.

We notice also some links to website of companies directly, which was not the case in our proposed update. This Machine to Machine article is still very shallow, many new companies are going into this field nowadays, and the only information in this article seems to be the announcements written by the big telcos a few years back.

We would be keen to get your feedback on how to insert new players without being banned, thanks

Hi! First off, what you've done isn't all that bad, especially since you're trying to work it out now. Also, you're not in any danger of being banned or even blocked (a temporary ban) at this time.

As for the article, you're right that there should be no listings for companies in the article. Information is often added to the article about upstarts and it's hard to keep up with the additions. As for direct links to companies, those definitely shouldn't be there. The article is definitely used as an advertisement board and shouldn't. I'll do my best to clean it up. OlYeller^Talktome 14:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of 'Bahamas Locomotive Society'

Hello, I would like to ask you why you deleted my page 'Bahamas Loco Society'. I ask this because there is no false information on the page, almost all of the information was from my own memory, also its a real place and trust.

Regards, -Steven- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven4472 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I nominated it for deletion because the words that are "from your memory" came directly from a copyrighted source. They may have been your words but as Wikipedia was not given permission to use the text, it can't appear here. If you did write the text, you can find out how to donate the material at WP:DCM. OlYeller^Talktome 13:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Roberto Alonso

We have received a notice about the page regarding the Venezuelan political leader Roberto Alonso - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberto_Alonso - we have to say what follows

1. No, we do not have any relation with the subject 2. There are not enough Latin leaders posted in English 3. We feel that a person so important for the Venezuelan and Latin American contemporary history has to be published in Wikipedia 4. We have a list of subjects in line regarding Venezuelan and Latin American topics and leaders 5. We are an American foundation that promotes freedom in Latin American and the United States 6. We are not finished yet with Roberto Alonso, since there are a lot of references left to include, as you can see 7. We are Spanish-speaking journalist and we are having an American journalist to check the spelling and grammatical errors Please let us know if we can keep on working on this page, since - as you can see - we have invested, so far, a lot of hours. We have also check other pages of similar individuals (living politicians) and they are similar structured, however, should you feel that it can be improved, we will more-than-happy to count with your help.

Thanks very much,

Dr. Marcos Portier Fundademo fundademo@gmail.com

Note - Please, if you can, answer me to my email account — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guarimbero (talk • contribs) 19:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry that I didn't sign the note. I will send it once more and this time I will sign it properly:

Ok, my friend, it looks as though I haven't signed the right way and now I am receiving emails from a robot...!!! I will send the note, one more time and see if it is signed properly. Of course, I don't know if you, Ol Yeller 21, are human or a machine... but here it goes, anyway.

Dear friend, It is inconceivable that an individual like Roberto Alonso, has a 21-word page in Wikipedia. Just take a look at this: if you look the word “Guarimba” in Google, you will find out that it is mentioned in the Internet a little over 300 thousand times. Before 2004, it would probable was mentioned a dozen of times. You will find out that “guarimba” is closely related to Alonso, since he was its promoter; that is why he is called “The Father of The Guarimba”. If you look it up in YouTube, you will find hundreds of videos related to it. You will find Chavez talking about it on national television, threating everybody from his Vice President down to the Venezuelan chief of police, including his Defense Secretary, the Venezuela Attorney General, etc. You will see a video of Chavez explaining the Guarimba to President Cristina Kirchsner of Argentina. There are X amount of writings accusing Alonso of being the promoter of the biggest Venezuelan uprising during Chavez term, the so-called Guarimba uprising, from Feb 27 to Mar 7, 2004. We can furnish Wikipedia with hundreds of cites and references regarding Alonso and his Guarimba strategy. On the other hand, there are thousands of articles mentioning the capture of over 130 supposed Colombian paramilitaries in Alonso’s ranch, Daktari. If you look “Alonso, Daktari” in Google you will find them. Try looking up “Alonso, paramilitaries” and you will find articles in many languages, including Japanese and Chinese. Due to it, Venezuela broke diplomatic relations with Colombia and almost broke up with the United States. The Venezuelan government accused the CIA, the State Department and President Bush and President Uribe of being behind the Alonso Affair… and you can find X amount of cites and references about it. You will find many videos regarding this matter in the Internet. Alonso, himself, has published OVER 100 VIDEOS on the subjects, Guarimba-paramilitaries. Alonso has written over 1000 articles, must of them are published in the Internet and many newspapers in a number of languages. There is plenty of evidence that He was asked in extradition by the Venezuelan government. Alonso’s book, “Como se Perdio Venezuela” (How Venezuela was lost) was published entirely in the Internet for anyone to download freely. You can look the title in Google and you will find plenty of references. Alonso’s magazine, Revista Venezuela, has been entirely published in the Internet – www.mrr.name – and you can read in Spanish each and every article published in that magazine. Alonso has given many interviews that has been published in many websites and newspapers (many of them published in the Internet), like the Miami New Times, for example, and other European sites. There are hundreds of videos with his thoughts and proposals, which anyone can watch in YouTube and Google videos, listening and watching him “in person”. Many of his radios interviews are published in YouTube. Now. We have written a large-enough page about him, his family, life and work (both, as a politician and as a TV producer) which is supported by over 200 references. When we look up similar pages of politicians, we have found that the sources mentioned there are similar as the sources mentioned in Alonso’s page, which was taken off from Wikipedia today. For example, if you go to Luis Posada Carriles in Wikipedia, you will read a lot of information, based on FALSE references, which were not questioned by Wikipedia, which were taken as true facts. Just a simple example: as of today, no one knows how many people were killed in the Cuban DC8 which was brought down off the coast of Barbados, and in Wikipedia they give a specific number. By the way, the ONLY book written about that terrorist act was written by Alonso himself, and it was taken as evidence in Posada’s trial as how the truth might be manipulated. You can check each and every one of the references that we included in Alonso’s page in Wikipedia (the one that you took off your virtual encyclopedia) and you will find that they correspond with what was said and published. Some of the references that you found OK to support Posada’s page, has been used in Alonso’s page in Wikipedia, yet you didn’t approve them. We were thinking on writing pages about The Guarimba Uprising and strategy and publish them in Wikipedia, but we are not so sure that they will be allowed there, we don’t know why. Maybe the style and the structure are not so perfect to meet Wikipedia standard, but that doesn’t mean that they cannot be published and that the readers don’t have the right to know about them, just like the have the right to read about Alonso, other than the 21 words that you have published about him, in where the ONLY facts that you provide is his name, last name, his date of birth, his nationality, that he is an expatriate and is against Castro and Chavez. We believe that people have the right to know why he moved from his home land, Cuba, why he is expatriate and why he is against Castro and Chavez, don’t you think so too? For example, you took as OK the article written about him by the Miami New Times, but that 8-page article itself, contain a vast amount of information about him. If you used that article as a reference of when he was born, shouldn’t it be OK to use it for other references? If Wikipedia accepted Alonso’s birthday just because the Miami New Times published it on his long article, then you can accept the same source for the rest of the information that it is published there. For example, one of France’s most notorious contemporary writers, Gerard de Villiers, was inspired in the Alonso’s paramilitaries affair to write his novel “The beast must die”. It is not only mentioned in the Miami New Times article, but it is published in other places in the Internet… just to mention one example. Please, dear friend, advice us on how to write an informative page about Alonso, a Venezuelan contemporary leader that should be known to the English-speaking readers of Wikipedia, other than the 21-word page that you have published, in order to honor the truth. Thankyou very much, Dr. Marcos Portier Fundademo fundademo@gmail.com – Phone Number 904 955.5351 (Jacksonville, Florida) --Guarimbero 07:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC) Guarimbero 07:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC) Guarimbero 07:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC) Guarimbero 07:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC) Guarimbero 07:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC) Really, I don't know what I am doing. I think that I will give it up!

Thanks anyway — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guarimbero (talk • contribs) 07:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Guarimbero, first off, I'd like to thank you for coming to me with your concerns. I'll read through this today and respond as soon as I can. OlYeller^Talktome 14:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Guarimbero, your account has been blocked but if you come back, here's my response.

The problem is that you and your associates have come to Wikipedia with the goals that will mostly conflict with Wikipedia's goals. You state that "people have the right to know" which is fundamentally setting you up for problems. WP is an encyclopedia and not the place to advocate a cause or get the truth out. We can about verifiability and not getting the truth out. Furthermore, this is something that you obviously feel strongly about (admirably). That being the case, your sense of neutrality may be clouded by your feelings. This is by no means grounds for you to be restricted from editing anything; many of us edit articles of subjects we care about but it's a slippery slope and right or not, others will be more cautious of your bias and act accordingly.

If you want to edit a list of articles, I suggest creating a new account for each person in your group (separately). After that, you can create an article in your userspace (an area on Wikipedia but outside of the main pages of Wikipedia). After that, you can invite editors to come and assess the article and help you improve it. Once it's ready, the article can then be moved to mainspace. You can find a very detailed how-to here for creating some of your first articles.

If you have any questions, I'd be happy to help out. Just ask. OlYeller^Talktome 18:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyright question on sysnonym list

Hi OlYeller21, I left a note at User talk:JosePauloPereira. If you could respond there, I'd appreciate it! Thanks, Melchoir (talk) 17:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I responded over there. OlYeller^Talktome 18:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Help needed for a student class project

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination/SFSU Class Project and consider adding your name.

The scope of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination/SFSU Class Project is mainly concerned with new articles.

According to the teacher's instructions, this group of students may not create a lot of new articles, but may instead focus more on improving existing articles.

So, there may be little for us to do in the way the Wikipedia:WikiProject China/NNU Class Project required. The students may, however, still call on us for guidance in other areas. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Please assist me on my newly created pages

Old yeller, i do not appreciate you adding the templates to my pages when they are not justified. I will ask you yet again, please give me specific examples i can edit as to any reason why the templates are applied. These grounds are unjustified.

For example, you stateed the reasons for wikify template are: references need cleaning. I had the known wiki moderator Jeff G tidy up the references, and he is a seasoned wikipedia editor. please see the page history

You stated the reason for the Weasel words template is because of "success". The word success does not appear anywhere in the article

You have failed to give any reasons as to how the page is an advertisement. Please see chevelle, or evans blue, these pages have no templates, and have the same format, viable information and articles, sources, etc.

I am just trying to make the best pages possible, so could you please provide me with the info you seem to think justifies these templates, so i can edit/remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplebay (talk • contribs) 01:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I've told you three times now. Read through it and when you see a claim (which is fundamentally different than a fact), make sure there are refs with it or remove it completely. I'm not doing this anymore. OlYeller^Talktome 18:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Crackers

I've declined your speedy request as I don't think it's unambiguously promotional, and it's a cracker not a company. It looks like one of Anna's student project created it. These articles sometimes turn out to be more notable than they appear at first. Peridon (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I tagged it for G11 because of sentences like, "Xiting Cracker at first was only popular at town.Its nationwide popularity owed to a famous great figure,ZhangJian" that are all over the article. They're positive claims with no reference to back up that claim or even show who made the claim, if anyone. It may not "need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic" as WP:G11 states but I think that's arguable. As for the A7, I was mistaken in thinking that the cracker was a company name such as Band-Aid where the product is synonymous with the company. Even then, claims are made as I've even pointed out myself so it shouldn't have qualified for A7 anyway. Thanks for the heads up. OlYeller^Talktome 18:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Ambassadors

I've replied to some of you comments on this page, but the way I have formatted the replies, which seemed to be the best way to indicate which reply was to which of your statements, may have left it ambiguous as to who said what. Would you like to add your signature to each of your paragraphs, or would you mind if I did so? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You can do whatever looks right to you. I trust your judgement. OlYeller^Talktome 19:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what do you think the problem(s) is at this point? I haven't been able to keep up with all the applicable discussions which was why I replied in that section; I think a unified area for a discussion is needed.

From what I'm seeing, it looks like some people think that the IEP is more of a problem than an asset to WP. I also see others that seem to think there's some positive and negative prejudice being used when handling the articles (some articles and editors are handled very lightly while others are deleted or reprimanded for their contributions). Whenever I see something that I feel is problematic, I always try to think of a solution and this problem, if there is one, seems very difficult to solve. I also wonder if we're just experiencing growing pains that will eventually pass.

I'm interested in your view of the situation. I generally deal with new articles and copyright violations so my view is admittedly skewed. OlYeller^Talktome 19:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

Hello OlYeller21. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know however, regarding Cooking with Monkey, that tagging articles for speedy deletion moments after creation as lacking context (CSD A1), content (CSD A3) and articles created through the Article Wizard, is too fast. It's best to wait at least 10 - 15 minutes for more content to be added, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), and copyright violations (G12) should of course be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks. Στc. 19:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll wait longer. OlYeller^Talktome 19:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Data flow diagram

Hello OlYeller21, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Data flow diagram, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not an unambiguous copyright infringement, or there is other content to save. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Danger (talk) 03:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh gosh, I'm sorry. I forgot to uncheck the notify box. Many apologies. Danger (talk) 03:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

story Driven modelling

Hi
I haven't copied a single sentence in my article. i used only one research paper to write the article. so i had very less resources available to write the article. can you please revert the speedy deletion to "story driven modelling", Atulnk11 (talk) 05:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

regarding distributed artificial intelligence

hi, The data I added to the topic of distributed artificial intelligence as application in industries I thought was important and also it was not present on wikipedia . I used the pdf as source but the images and text is constructed by me and is not a copyright the categorisation provided by them was also most suitable so i kept it as it was.110808028 amol (talk) 07:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no doubt that the article can be improved in general and by you. The problem is that when you "constructed" the text, you didn't write it in your own words. I have copied the text you had added to the article into my userspace. This report shows the similarities between your text and the text written and copyrighted by the Industrial Technology Institute in 1994.

Is there something that you're not understanding? The text is obviously taken from this source and changed. Are you under the impression that it's OK to slightly change the text of others and use it as your own (and then donate it to the Wikimedia Foundation)? It's not OK. If you need help understanding this, I would be glad to help you. Ask any questions you have here. OlYeller^Talktome 13:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi,Can't we use headings used by article to explain the topic in our wiki article? If it can be used then I will definitely change the content and write it in my own words to meet Wikipedia requirements.Thank you.110808028 amol (talk) 05:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You did a lot more than use headings. The content should be in your own words, from scratch. Changing words in an already written text will not work. If I were you, I would start with an outline of sections that represent a portion of the subject you wish to write about. After that, starting with a blank page, write about that section in your own words.

I understand that copyright issues are different than plagarism issues and that working between the two can be difficult, especially if English isn't your primary language. Even so, continuing to violated copyright policies may lead to you being blocked from editing. I don't wish for this to sound like a threat but I can't hold you to a different standard than I would any other Wikipedia editor.

If you have any questions that you need answered, feel free to ask me here, ask your ambassadors, or ask your instructor. I would be more than happy to help you the best I can. OlYeller^Talktome 13:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Called User:Rogelio alvarez/Athletic Performance Development

A tag has been placed on Called User:Rogelio alvarez/Athletic Performance Development requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. OlYeller^Talktome 13:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

autobio

Old Yeller

As I am somewhat new to wikipedia, I am not fully familiar w all protocols. In any case, I see that you posted on my talk page "please dont write an article about yourself." Even if your statement were correct, is that the proper place to post it? thanks PS And if not, I would appreciate your removing it.

Mikesiris (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

If you're not Mike Siris, the account you are using will be blocked for a WP:REALNAME violation. If you are Mike Siris, you should head the warning I placed on your talk page. Yes, it isn't only the proper place, it's the only place for that post.

So my question to you is, are you Mike Siris? If not, please request a username change WP:CHU. If you don't respond soon, I'll be forced to report the account to WP:UAA where the appropriate action will be taken (an indefinite block as it already seems you're claiming to not be Mike Siris). OlYeller^Talktome 19:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Old Yeller

I am not sure I fully understand what you are saying. Yes, I am "mikesiris" and, not realizing WK protocols, I edited the footnotes in the Michael Siris article posted. What exactly are you driving at? And I dont appreciate your tone of voice.

Mikesiris (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC) PS "heed" is spelled "heed" as in to obey something. you wrote "head" in your post/talk. I dont want to get into an argument w you, btw. I believe I can make a contribution to wkpedia. And I also believe that your posting at the head of the article a COI warning was uncalled for. Assuming, as you wrote, that the person who posted the article knows me, can you point to anything in the article that is inaccurate or not properly documented?

Old Yeller

I appreciate the tone of the last email--much appreciated. As an attorney who spends his days (and sometimes nights) arguing with other attorneys, I don't need to add to my aggravation.

As to sockpuppetry, I looked it up and am not sure what you mean? Yes, I used my mikesiris account to edit some footnotes on the Michael Siris article that was posted. Is that what you mean? Are you saying that if there is a wiki article posted about me I am not allowed to edit it even if the article is entirely bogus????

Thanks

Mikesiris (talk) 20:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Old Yeller

And, yes, I am Mike Siris, in case that wasn't clear from my last email.

Would you be good enough to advise me regarding the wk hierarchy of editors. I gather you are in a position of authority of some sort?

Thanks

Mikesiris (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, we've cleared up the username issue (there isn't one) but there's obviously a close connection. I'd like to stress that while editing an article about yourself is highly discouraged, it's not prohibited. The policy surrounding this scenario can be found here and WP:COI. Sorry if the template I left on your talk page seems harsh or cold. We patrol a large number of new pages and without the template messages, it would be difficult to maintain any sort of quality in WP.

The IP I mentioned on your talk page has edited pages in line with you. In many cases, this means that a person is attempting to make it look like there is more than one person who shares their opinions. Again, I'm assuming the IP isn't you but, like I said, I wanted to make sure that you knew about the policy regarding what I would call suspicious and circumstantial evidence. It's a mistake that new people sometimes make.

As for the COI tag, it's basically alerting other editors that you're editing the article and that it needs to be checked for bias, accuracy, verifiability, etc. How about this, if you give me a day, I'll read through the article, clean up anything that may need it, and remove the tag. Outside of that, I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Starting out on WP can be difficult sometimes and I'd like to make it as painless for you as possible. OlYeller^Talktome 20:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Old Yeller

You cannot imagine how happy I am!!!! Such a nice message. You really made my day, turning a dreary one into a sunny one!

I must say wikipedia is very overwhelming but perhaps I can make some contributions. I wrote on demiruge's talk page (do you know him/her) about "breaking into wikipedia." i mentioned that, as an atty, i know many colleagues who deserve to be in wk but are not. it would be a simple enough matter for me to ask them if they want a wk page and, if so, to post one, disclosing that i know the person. i dont want to run afoul of the COI rules but it seems to me that it makes no sense to prohibit me from doing so. After all, it is only because I know these people that I might think about their canadicies for inclusion. i suppose--as to someone i didnt know--i might embark on the same enterprise but it stands to reason that one writes about what one knows? so do you think that would be a good way for me to break in?

again, thanks so much for your kind note!

21:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC) ps i can see this is, wk, could become very time consuming? and everyone is a volunteer? how does wk make money? ads? and where are all the corporate people?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikesiris (talk • contribs) 21:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again, Old Yeller. What did you think of my contributing to the wiki universe by doing profiles of attys I know (or dont know)? that would be relatively easy for me to do. I guess you might say, given the COI policy, that it would be better to do a profile of an atty I dont know who isnt included. I could easily enough do that if that is what you think would be preferable, although it the former would probably be easier (that is, profiles of people I know and whom I believe should be included). Mikesiris (talk) 21:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Old Yelller

Sorry to bother you but why isnt their reciprocity btwn talkpages? In other words, you say something on your talk page addressed to me but it doesnt go up on my talkpage? And vice versa ? I am confused. One of your editors suggested i read some articles--i printed out several--and presumbably some of this is explained (i will read them eventually) but if you have a quick answer, that would be appreciated. As i said, i can see how this can not only become addictive, but overwhelming

Mikesiris (talk) 21:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Old Yeller, excited to hear what you have to say. I am trying to keep up with my legal work but I am becoming somewhat engrossed by this wk thing. I can see how it could take over your life. 75.99.90.234 (talk) 14:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

old yeller

hi again, i am still literally swimming, trying to figure all this stuff out. i am posting on your talkpage and when you respond, if you do, the response gets posted on my talk page? sort of an internal wiki communication system--somewhat like facebook???

thanks

Mikesiris (talk) 22:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

anonymous (street meat)

I just wished to say that I appreciate the email from earlier. I'm having some computer problems -- someone hacked into my email account and has been sending spam to everyone impersonating "me" on my school dept. list, which is quite long. This is embarrassing and disturbing. Some people even reported my email account as spam. I later learned on the web that it's happening to many people and there appears to be some sort of evil crusade out there to do this. Well -- there you have it. Since I'm a D minus list celebrity, I'm a target. Thanx for your help and hope that we can be Wikipedia friends. If you don't hear from me, you know why, Regards, Mig (talk) 01:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

http://www.shortfilmcorner.com/sfcfilm/filmfiche2.Aspx?id=53539507

Also in places such as this:

http://www.sesiff.org/4th/program/en_noncomp.asp?category1=Bloody+Night&keyword=anonymous+%28street+meat%29&x=46&y=17

My computer problems persist, but I don't have time to deal with much of it. I had to buy a new computer and have barely looket at it. Thanx and kind regards --Mig (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Old yeller

Thanks to you and several other for the many helpful comments--I can see everyone is trying to help.

i wanted to respond to Ssilvers who left a long comment but somehow couldnt get to his talk page/user page (again, what exactly is the difference between the two as i didnt quite understand the analogy he gave about thinking of things as the "front" and "back" of a page of a book (front is the article and back is the poster's talk page?? and if so, what is difference between userpage and talkpage)).

Am i correct in assuming that what I am writing will be seen only by people who are monitoring your talkpage??? not those who are monitoring my talkpage? (and hence I should put this particular post up on my own talkpage??).

Someone wrote to me about "WK, the Musical", saying he would be at the "library" on Saturday to provide help. While I dont think I can make it, do you know the library to which he was referring? And is there any way for me to establish one on one contact with a WK editor who can help me, whether by direct email or phone (or even in person for a tutorial for which I would pay).

Thanks

75.99.90.234 (talk) 14:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Ol Yeller

I cannot say I am NOT frustrated. The method of communication is still very confusing to me. I wanted to put something on your talk page which i thought you said I could get to by typing (into search field?) "user:olyeller21."???? That didnt exactly work but somehow I think got to your talkpage--yes? And I am writing to you, yes?

Anyway, I will get the hang of this eventually. I can see that it is going to take some time. I really need someone to come in and work with me, one on one. I would be willing to pay for instruction.

Thanks

75.99.90.234 (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Your consistently civil, helpful and thoughtful posts in discussions, especially those with new users and editors in disagreement with you, have been a great inspiration to me. For this, I award you the Civility Barnstar. Thank you for your good work. wctaiwan (talk) 12:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I hope there isn't some guideline against duplicate barnstars. :) Sorry if this seems a bit arbitrary--I hit upon your one of your contributions during one of my lurking sessions and was impressed enough to start watching your talk page. Hope you don't mind. wctaiwan (talk) 12:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow, thank you. I've been reflecting on my wiki-self lately and trying to improve myself. It's really nice that it was noticed. Thanks so much. This is a great way to start a morning! OlYeller^Talktome 12:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Need help

Hi,

I am trying to create a Wiki entry for an innovation system that i believe is noteworthy of entry in the Wiki encyclopedia. However, I keep getting nominated for speedy deletion. Since am a new user, I am finding it v.difficult to navigate the coding for tags/references, etc. Can u help? pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!! I would like to become a more active user going forward but seems i cant even get the basics of my first entry right! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhavanam (talk • contribs) 16:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Bhavanam! I replied on your talk page. You can talk there from now on if you ever want to reach me. OlYeller^Talktome 16:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

AFD

I was trying to be conservative with speedy delete, to make sure I was giving the articles a fair shake. I can be more liberal with speedy delete tho if it helps out the other editors. If it is just "not notable" should that just go straight into speedy? If it should stay in xfd, then what do I say other than not notable. If they dont have google hits etc, then its pretty self explanitory imo. No offense on the advice, always looking for help from more experienced. 22:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaijin42 (talk • contribs)

I would check out WP:BEFORE. It goes through a list of things that can/should be checked before nominating an article for AfD. If I find no Google News or Google News Archive hits, I generally say that and link the searches in the AfD. I also find all the WP:N sub-guidelines (like WP:BIO, WP:ARTIST, WP:ATHLETE) and show why the subject doesn't satisfy any of those either.

To me, notability speedy deletes and notability PRODs are used when notability isn't claimed. Obviously, if something is just a straight advert or copyright violation, it gets speedied as well. I only take things to AfD when there's a claim like (John Smith is the greatest artist in the USA). At that point, the pendulum swings the other way and I do my best to prove notability and if I fail, I take it to AfD or !vote delete.

In short, if there isn't even a claim that would in itself satisfy WP:N or lead to something that would satisfy WP:N, it should be speedied to save AfD patrollers some time. If there's a claim, go through the list at WP:BEFORE and show your work in the AfD. OlYeller21^Talktome 22:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The Saylor Foundation

I've declined the G12 - http://www.saylor.org/about/ clearly shows a "CC-BY" at the bottom of the page. CC-BY is OK for use here. I've left the A7 for someone to check.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the note. I saw the copyright at the bottom of the page and missed the creative commons note just above it, somehow. I just restored the previous version so I'm going to take a look again to see if there's a claim of notability. Thanks again for the heads up. OlYeller21^Talktome 23:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, yes. I've missed a few in my time as well! We always expect other web sites to be copyright, there's so few with a compatible license.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Why my page was of " Association for democratic Reforms" was deleted

Why my page was of " Association for democratic Reforms" was deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by National election watch (talk • contribs) 05:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi! Here at Wikipedia, we have a guideline that we use to determine what will be included in the encyclopedia. The inclusion guidelines is called WP:NOTABILITY. It's large and designates several different ways that different subjects can be "notable" by the guideline's standards. The article you created did not have a claim of notability which means it qualifies for speedy deletion.

If you want some admittedly unsolicited advice, I would read through WP:GNG and WP:ORG as those would be some inclusion guideline that specifically apply to the organization you're creating an article for. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here and I'll do my best to answer them. OlYeller21^Talktome 12:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Miva Merchant

Another admin deleted and salted this while I slept, thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

editing article

Yes, the other text (history part) of the lawyers committee is not copyrighted but was compiled through research online, magazines, files, etc. However, the parts about the committees are from the organization's website and an email was sent to wikipedia confirming donated text. Thank you very much for your help! -leeindc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leeindc (talk • contribs) 19:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. They're very good at what they do and should be able to handle things quickly. My removal of the copyrighted text was all in one edit so it should be very easy for them to handle. OlYeller21^Talktome 20:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

On a side note, until there's proof of an OTRS ticket, the text needs to remain off of the page. OlYeller21^Talktome 20:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, OlYeller21. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 04:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

communicating

OlYeller21

Sorry, but i am still confused about communication among editors. you used an analogy of a book, its front page and back page. the front page is an article/entry, and the back of that page is a discussion about that article (and only that article)?

i gather i am on your "user" page, not your "talk" page? how do user and talk pages relate to analogy above

thanks

Mikesiris (talk) 11:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Mike. I understand how that can be confusing. To relate user pages to the analogy I used, my user page is just like an article so it also has its own talk page which is where we are now. I don't know about you but I'm a visual person. This grid may help.

The first column is referring to "spaces" which refers to the different areas of Wikipedia. The following two columns are examples to try and show how the book analogy relates to talk pages in different areas.

"Space"	Front page	Back page
Articles (also called "main space")	New York	Talk:New York
Users	User:OlYeller21	User_talk:OlYeller21
Wikipedia (policies, guidelines, Wikiprojects, etc.)	WP:NOTABILITY	Wikipedia_talk:Notability
Categories	Category:Attorneys general	Category_talk:Attorneys general
Help	Help:Contents	Help_talk:Contents

So, the talk pages should contain talk pages pertaining to whatever page it's the talk page of. An article's talk page contains discussions about the article and what may need improved. A user's talk page contains communications between editors. A "Wikipedia" page (such as a guideline like WP:NOTABILITY) will have a talk page where people discuss the guideline and how it should change, its applications, etc. Leaving a message on one talk page means that it won't appear anywhere else.

Does that help? OlYeller21^Talktome 13:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello OlYeller21! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 12:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

AfD

Hi. Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Sukhija. You'll be following this case any way. Thanks for the research you documented. Feel free to comment on the RfA in the normal way. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Just !voted. Thanks for the heads up. OlYeller21^Talktome 14:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Office Hours

Hey OlYeller21/archives 4! I'm just dropping you a message because you've commented on (or expressed an interest in) the Article Feedback Tool in the past. If you don't have any interest in it any more, ignore the rest of this message :).

If you do still have an interest or an opinion, good or bad, we're holding an office hours session tomorrow at 19:00 GMT/UTC in #wikimedia-office to discuss completely changing the system. In attendance will be myself, Howie Fung and Fabrice Florin. All perspectives, opinions and comments are welcome :).

I appreciate that not everyone can make it to that session - it's in work hours for most of North and South America, for example - so if you're interested in having another session at a more America-friendly time of day, leave me a message on my talkpage. I hope to see you there :). Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Okeyes. I'd really like to be involved. I think my background may provide some value to the process. I'll be at work but I'll do my best to try and be there. If I can't, will there be a transcript or minutes that I can read through and provide feedback if I think something large was missed? I don't want to pretend that my opinion is somehow more valuable than others but I'd like to help however I can. OlYeller21^Talktome 14:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, there'll be a set of logs available - I've jotted down a post-it reminder to give you a link and some contact addresses for providing feedback when everything is done. Like I said, I'm really quite enthusiastic about the idea of holding multiple sessions in different timezones, so if that would also appeal to you, just say so :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry you missed it; the logs can be found here. Do you work on the east coast? I've spoken to the staffers about holding something at a more EST/CST-friendly time, which they're pretty enthusiastic about. Thanks a bundle for your comments on the AFT talkpage; it's great to encounter users who "get" the motivations behind this :). The new version that's being developed can be found at WP:ATV5; I'd be really grateful if you could drop your reaction to the ideas, any suggestions to improve them or any ideas of your own on the talkpage there, which is where we're trying to centre development. Thanks again :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

COIN

Regarding WT:COIN#Attending_Admins, if something needs admin attention then drop me a note and I'll probably be able to deal with it within a few hours . Unfortunately COIN doesn't get that many admins visiting it. Thanks for the work you do there by the way - I don't have as much time as I'd like to much anymore! Cheers SmartSE (talk) 11:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Old Yeller21,

I'm reposting my arguments for not taking down my page, "Having It All The Musical" here -- I'm not sure if I've posted in the right place, and I'm hoping to cover my bases. I have great respect for what you're trying to do here, so I want to be helpful in attempting to make the article suitable for Wikipedia. I hope you will read and carefully consider my comments below regarding the noteworthiness of "Having It All The Musical." I believe you will find that the piece has risen to the level where it is deserving of a place among other entries regarding celebrated works of American Musical Theatre. Please let me know how I may further assist in making it more appropriate. Thank you for your time and consideration. Below is what I posted on the talk page:

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... 1. The article cites two negative reviews of Having It All The Musical. It provides the names of those critics, their publications, and links to their negative reviews, making them readily available. It also provides a link to a comprehensive roundup of reviews (not generated by the author or by Having It All the Musical) that demonstrate that these were the ONLY two negative commentaries available for the piece, when many more positive notices could have been cited in the bulk of the article and are not. In other words, if there had been a less "promotion-friendly" way to provide a balanced accounting of the critical response to the piece, it was not available. 2. "Having It All" The Musical, aside from its critical acclaim from the paper of record of Los Angeles, The Los Angeles Times, has now been further acclaimed by the Ovation Awards of Southern California -- which is, in the words if its own Wikipedia entry, "a Southern California award for excellence in theatre, established in 1989. They are given out by the Los Angeles Stage Alliance and are the only peer-judged theatre awards in Los Angeles. They have been called the "...highest-profile contest for local theatre..." by the Los Angeles Times. Each year, in November, the Ovation Awards draw national attention to the quality and quantity of professional theatre in Los Angeles." "Having It All" was nominated for seven 2011 Ovation Awards, including Best Book, Best Musical, and five acting awards, all for Best Actress and and one for Best Ensemble -- making it a noteworthy entry for followers of important and significant works of theatre. No other musical in its category achieved that number of nominations. 3. "Having It All" achieved a rare degree of followers and success during its commercial run in Los Angeles. Two extensions beyond an originally scheduled closure is an extremely rare occurrence for a musical, especially one of its intimate size, in Los Angeles. If the page can be edited somehow for approval, we would eagerly appreciate the opportunity rather than see it taken down. --Davelyrics (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Roger Boas article

My aoologies for the whitewashing. How would I undo these deletions? Is there a way you can rollback my edits so they appear in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JRcappel (talk • contribs) 21:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

can you rollback the edits that were deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerboas (talk • contribs) 21:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

No worries about the whitewashing. If that's the worst thing that happens here involving you, you're doing fantastically. I screwed up a lot as a new editor.

Unfortunately no, I can't reapply your edits. The content you removed has already been reapplied. If you would like to add new content, you can do it the same way you did before but please try to keep in mind that the article should be encyclopedic and any contentious information should be written neutrally with appropriate citations to reliable sources as references. As always, if you have any questions, feel free to ask here and I'll do my best to help. OlYeller21^Talktome 22:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

IEP clean up

Hi. If you are working on IEP clean up, for easy checking and follow up of students and their articles, please see:

IEP student and article lists and how to use them

If you are not working on this clean up, please pass this message along to anyone you know who is. Thanks, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you run the duplication detector tool check when you tagged User:Amitnakl? If you do and it proves positive I'll delete it right away. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there's a large section that's taken verbatim and the rest is slightly changed or throwing the duplicate detector off because of superscript changes. I'm worried about the article that the content has been introduced to as well (the one User:Amitnakli has been working on). OlYeller21^Talktome 14:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I also reverted the only other additions from the user made to Mechanical joint as a copyright violation (the same text). I haven't checked the article and I'm not sure if I'll get to today. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Nickie Lum Shapira

Hi. I'm just letting you know that I have declined the CSD which was also changed by another editor. G12:After checking the dup detector, there really is not much that is copied, and what is could be edited out. G11: Yes , it's very spammy, use of first name throughout, has no personal background, and reads like a potted CV. However, it does make some substantial claims to notability. I've BLPPRODed the article, tagged it for issues, and placed an explanation on its talk page. You might wish to use the dup detector to edit the minor copyvios out, but that's entirely up to you. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

How to do it?

Hi OlYeller21 i didn't understand much of what you said because i'm still on school and not in America but in Holland. So how do i make of change the verifications or the additional citations i don't know how to do it and i don't understand it:( i'm really sorry!

Also what are the notability guideline for biographies?

Jop — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoppieR (talk • contribs) 17:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey Jop. Don't worry. Wikipedia can be overwhelming at first so if that's how you're feeling, you're not alone. Adding references is easy to do. If you have a source that verifies some piece of information in the article, you can use <ref>REFERENCE</ref> where "REFERENCE" is replaced with something like a URL, newspaper title, or book title. The notability guidelines for biographies can be complicated. The easiest way to show notability is to show that Aaron Milo has received significant coverage (not just a mention) from independent and reliable sources (like CNN, BBC, New York times, etc.). That method is generally referred to as WP:GNG or the "General Notability Guideline". Other than that, as an actor there's WP:ENTERTAINER which has three additional criteria. If any of those are met, the subject (Aaron Milo) is then considered "notable" and can have an article on Wikipedia.

The strongest claim I'm seeing right now in the article is that Aaron will have the lead role in a comedy called Eating Out Drama Camp. I'm afraid to search for this comedy to see if it's a TV show, film, play, or something else so I can't tell if that can help to establish notability. Even if it does, I still don't think he would be considered notability with only that role although it may eventually bring him coverage that will satisfy WP:GNG that we talked about above.

Does that help? OlYeller21^Talktome 17:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Misharin

I've responded to your request on WT:RUSSIA regarding Misharin. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 12, 2011; 18:39 (UTC)

Clarence Greathouse

Hi, just responding to your query re. the Greathouse piece. I guess it was a misunderstanding on my part. I thought that since copyright had expired it was ok to lift whole sections (basically transfer things into Wikipedia where they'd be more accessible) of articles from such sources as Cyclopedia of American Biography, Smith's Classical Dictionary, etc. as long the original source was noted. Otherwise, what is the purpose of that small blurb that you can stick at the end saying "this article incorporates text from [...] which is no longer in copyright"? If one still has to do a formal citation and put exact quotes within " ", then it would seem to make such a blurb redundant. In any case, I can go back to the entry and change it so it is no longer taken word for word. Straitgate (talk) 04:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey! It was my mistake. I didn't know about the original source and you're correct, the copyright has expired. Luckily, we have a very active librarian, DGG, that caught my mistake.

If you ever need any help with anything around here, please let me know and I'll do my best to help you. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Priyanka Jain Entry

You tagged my last version of the Priyanka Jain entry for speedy deletion. I've since worked on it and added it to my sandbox. Could you look at it and tell me what else should be changed on it before I readd it to Wikipedia? Thank you!! User:jheditorials^Talktome02:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey! Sorry for the late reply. The new version looks decent. I can see how someone might argue that she doesn't meet notability requirements but personally, I think she does. I only mention that so that someone might eventually question the subject's notability.

As far as quality goes, it could use some expanding and would benefit greatly from additional sources. The infobox could also use expanding. Other than that, it looks good.

If you have any more questions or would like me to take a look at an article, just let me know. I'd be happy to help. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much! User:jheditorials^Talktome

Zogam

Thank you. When I deprodded the article two or three hours ago, I knew I would have to do something to clear up the article fairly soon but didn't have time just then. And when I got back to my computer and looked again, I found that you had already done a better job than I probably would have managed, and almost certainly in a fraction of the time that I would have taken. PWilkinson (talk) 17:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I had it on my watchlist from a long time ago, apparently. I probably caught some copyvios a while ago and asked Moonriddengirl to help out. I'm just glad we got it cleaned up. I also invited some other Wikiprojects to make improvements and hopefully get some references in the article.

Time to watch some football! Have a good weekend. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, OlYeller21. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Christian Michelides

Dear OlYeller21, I hope you can help. There are severel users like a fanclub of Christian Michelides who are trying to put in a not neutral point of view in the article. The german article is closed at this time, one of the accounts is currently blocked. There had been many edit wars and CU in german WP and now they start the theatre here in english. I had put a COI template there but one of the fans deleted it. Would you please have one eye on it? Sorry for my not proper English, I am from Austria. Thank you for your attention. --13:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC) --Robertsan (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I am hoping this user is able to understand german, because the closing of the german version was because of you and a lie by you robertsan, and a fan in paris???1st you have to check and when you can run ot other people, but every time the same with you - no checking, just accusations...--Das-Geheimnis-der-Sphinx (talk) 13:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

@Shpinx: Everyone can see your edits and the date when your account appeared. The Michelides fanclub always edits in the same themes and everything is related to Christian Michelides. --80.121.23.32 (talk) 13:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It is my fault, i thought he can mentoring me, because of the language and so i followed - uninvited and unwanted.--Das-Geheimnis-der-Sphinx (talk) 15:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Robertsan, it was you who brought this German and/or Austrian war into en:WP. The article was rated C by independent users and has high marks on objectivity (4.2). The Paris IP listed a lot of sources, and therefore I kindly ask you to stop with your intrigues. Stick to your German discussions and please do not accuse someone of being a fan or COI. Sphinx is pretty independent and changed an improper expression in the Spanish translation. --81.189.27.228 (talk) 19:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I ask that all conversations pertaining to the alleged conflict of interest be taken to the associated discussion section here at thhe conflict of interest noticeboard. Things are a little unclear at this point and I think it would be beneficial to everyone and Wikipedia if we have this conversation at a centralized location. Thank you. OlYeller21^Talktome 19:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Center for Justice and Peacebuilding entry

[Trying again, this time with a headline in the subject field :)] Ol Yeller 21: I think you have offered valuable insights about how the Center for Justice and Peacebuilding Wikipedia entry can be improved--an entry which originated with me. I will try to address them gradually, as time permits (I have a full-time job and can only do the Wikipedia stuff on the side), unless another person is able to do the fixes first--which would be fine with me. My first effort will be to address your comment about using "bare URLs for citations, which may be threatened by link rot." If I also locate and cite a paper-printed version of the information that I found posted on the Internet website (or URL)--something that a future researcher might be able to find in an actual physical library--will that address that "link rot" problem adequately? Thank you for being of assistance in improving the quality of this entry. I am new at Wikipedia stuff. Moorebridges (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Moorebridges. I'd love you help you improve the article. Your solution to the linkrot solution is perfect. "Bare links" often point to a news article on a website which can change at any time. Once it changes, it's almost impossible to verify the original information. The link rot issue is handled exactly as you have stated, by entering in more information so that, for instance, a news article can be pulled up at a library and the information verified. For instance, "Graduate Program Alumni” http://www.emu.edu/cjp/grad/alumni/" will be difficult to verify if that link ever goes bad. WP:CITE covers WP's citation guidelines and more specifically, WP:CITEHOW covers how to cite specific sources.

On a side note, I reassessed the article and I don't think it's written like an advertisement. It has some essay-type language but that's not a large problem. With wording like, "MCC and its supporters were discussing ways to be even more “energetic in showing mercy and love toward enemies as well as toward all mankind.”", I think there's still some essay type writing in the article.

Overall, the linkrot issue might be the largest issue and hardest to address. If you ever need any help, please don't hesitate to ask me. I'd be happy to help however I can. OlYeller21^Talktome 18:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

An editor, BGUMM, modified the opening paragraph that I had posted, stripping it down to the basics, and deleted a listing of faculty members, and maybe made a few other changes that are less obvious. But, in reading what BGUMM did--which suits me fine--I believe that s/he has definitively tilted the entry away from sounding like a "personal essay." If you agree with this view, would you be willing to remove the tag that you put up to that effect? Of course, the other two tags should be left in place, since I have not had time to fix the linkrot issue and to address the matter of further "Wikifying" the entry, and I don't see that anyone else has stepped up to this task. When I get back to working on this entry, I may be back in touch with you about how to Wikify the entry. (Of course, if you wish to go ahead and give me tips now, that would be fine too!)Moorebridges (talk) 03:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi again, Moorebridges. I just got back from a business trip and have some things to take care of but I'll address you questions sometimes today. OlYeller21^Talktome 14:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of interest: User Xday edits to Theadore Beale article?

Hi -

I see you left a note for this user on their page. They have been warned before about possible conflict of interest in editing that page. Now they have reverted a bunch of edits and clean-up I made just a couple of days ago without any discussion on the talk page, re-inserting unsupported information and removing a tremendous amount of information on the subject's editorial writing and books.

Can you help? I'm an inexperienced editor and try to document what I do carefully; it bugs me to see this kind of possible edit warring break out with someone who won't discuss it and who clearly has a conflict of interest. I'm not sure whether I should escalate it to Wikipedia:ANI ? It doesn't seem right for dispute resolution because XDay doesn't contribute anything to the talk page of the article, just makes huge revisions and reverts and marks them as minor. Thanks. 76.218.68.67 (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I started the conversation up again at WP:COIN for what is now conversation #3 about this editor. Hopefully we can get some more editors involved to address any issues the article has. OlYeller21^Talktome 19:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you - I'm having trouble finding the new entry at WP:COIN but I appreciate that someone experienced has an eye on it. I'm holding off on further editing of the article for now as it's pointless to do editing that he'll just revert.76.218.68.67 (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Ya, it's sort of disheartening that it's been reported by different people three times but the problem persists. We'll get it worked out this time. OlYeller21^Talktome 21:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I see it there now. I hope it gets worked out. He's now made one entry on the article's talk page but it's... not so helpful.76.218.68.67 (talk) 13:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

ETA: I think he's just deleted the entire article while I was looking through the recent entries on the talk page. And marked it a minor edit as usual. 76.218.68.67 (talk) 13:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hall Green United

OlYeller21 - If copying and pasting is not permitted from our own website infringes on copyright laws then please just delete the wikipedia page. I don't understand the guidelines on giving you permission to use text from our website and I'm literally confused by everything. It would all appear to be more hassle than it's worth. Please just delete the page and when I have time I will re-create it using different words and sentences if thats what it takes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbybarks (talk • contribs) 19:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey. I left a message on your talk page. OlYeller21^Talktome 19:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi OlYeller, I'm coming to you for help as you assited me alot last time out. I recreated a page on Hall Green United (after we agreed for it to be deleted on 8th November). This time I used my own words and sentences as previously it was copied and pasted from another website, infringing on copyrights. Anyhow, it was deleted again, from one of your colleagues on 10th November. This time for a different reason, which has confused me. I have messaged the User who deleted it to find out why it was deleted, but they haven't responded to me. Can you assist please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbybarks (talk • contribs) 07:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Bobbybarks. It looks like he (the admin) deleted it because he felt that there "wasn't a claim of notability". That phrase is used a lot here. "Notability" is a term redefined by Wikipedia that is the guideline for what qualifies a subject (like a team, actor, book, etc.) for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The whole guideline is huge but the specific areas of the guideline that would apply to Hall Green United would be WP:GNG, WP:ORG, or WP:NFOOTBALL (or more specifically if it's in one of the leagues listed here). There may be more but those are the major ones. As the article was deleted, I can't see what it says but simply being a football club won't qualify it for inclusion unless it's in a league listed here, has been the subject of "significant coverage from independent and [[WP:RS|reliable sources" which usually means had news articles written about it. If you have a copy of the article, you can create it in your userpace (see User:Bobbybarks/Hall Green United) and we can work on it there. If you don't have a copy of it, we can ask the admin who deleted it to userfy it for you.

I can't make any promises about the article being kept on WP but I'd be happy to help you as best I can. Just let me know here.

I've been busier the last week than normal and this week is getting worse. If I don't reply quickly, it's not because I'm ignoring you. Just a heads up. OlYeller21^Talktome 22:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

nice find

RE: "Nick Brunson is the web-admin for Scentura. Adding COI tag until the content can be assessed and cleaned up if warranted" nice find! Great job! Keep it up! Calendar2 (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! OlYeller21^Talktome 22:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Livi Michael

Hey i have removed the essay like personal references from the article on Livi Michael . Can you delete the template from page or i can do it myself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by English1112Project (talk • contribs) 23:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The essay like sections are still in the article. Sentences like, "She is blessed with two sons, Paul and Ben;one from each marriage." That information may be relevant to the article but it's not exactly the kind of tone that you would find in an encyclopedia.

Simply stating that you've solved the issue isn't going to ensure that the problem is solved. If you'd like to improve the article and Wikipedia as best you can, discussing the issues that you and other editors have with the article (or any article for that matter) will probably be the best way to go. I suggest using the talk page of the article to discuss the issues.

Also, I'm not saying that you have done this but just in case you aren't aware, we have a guideline here at Wikipedia called WP:SOCK and it basically says that using multiple accounts to create the illusion of greater support for a position is not allowed. This means that signing out of an account and making an edit to avoid warnings can lead to a block. I only bring this up because there's an IP editor who showed up to make their first and second edits ever to WP to support your opinion. Again, this may be a total coincidence but if it's not, I wanted to make you aware of the possible consequences.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss the article further, please don't hesitate to contact me. OlYeller21^Talktome 22:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey i did edit the page and changed the essay like sentences which i found might be the reason fro your template and then only i removed the template , if you have a way of tracking back the edit history you can see the changes i made, but i understand there may be still problems with the article that need to be resolved, i am doing this as a project work for credit in a course thats why i have a timeline by which i need all your issues to be resolved, i am trying my best to resolve your issue about the article, but can you please keep track of it and remove your template by yourself when you are satisfied so that i don't have to remove it by myself. So please do keep regular track of article and remove the template when satisfied. The problem with putting it on discussion page is that it might take a very long time, even your reply came two days after i edited the article , is there a way to get a quicker feedback on the editing i do to see if the problem has been fixed? I very much appreciate your feedback , can you tell me about the parts that you find personal reflection or essay type. so that i can improve on them. And i apologise for removing your template without your consent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by English1112Project (talk • contribs) 01:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello , I have made the changes, just see if your okay with them and remove the template? — Preceding unsigned comment added by English1112Project (talk • contribs) 03:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey! I'll check over the article today. The real issue is that your teacher has setup an assignment for you that's incompatible with the way things work on WP. Because Wikipedia doesn't change its policies and guidelines for the cause of a class, your teacher has put undue stress upon you. I would be willing to speak with your teacher and make this clear to them. I can do so easily if they have an account on Wikipedia.

Regardless of all that, I understand your position and am willing to do whatever I can to help you in the fastest way possible. Let's do whatever we can to get it done today. OlYeller21^Talktome 15:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding, but i think we are all good now, i am pretty sure my instructor understands your policies. Nevertheless, wikipedia's acceptance is more important than anything else. So we can keep on editing this article according to wikipedia's style and guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.55.181.50 (talk) 06:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Brasil News

Good useful edit summary - weird that the Duplicator Report didn't work though!  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Ya, I think it has something to do with the "See more..." thing on Facebook. It's probably some sort of framing thing but I admittedly have little experience when it comes to web design. OlYeller21^Talktome 15:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Grandma's Gifts

Hi, I moved the pages from your userspace into the article space – is that what you wanted? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 11:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks IIMH. I had asked a friend to look over the article before I moved it to mainspace so I was going to wait a short period before moving the article so that they could assess the article. Any confusion was my fault. Thanks for the help! OlYeller21^Talktome 12:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Articles need multiple sources

Re. [1]

Please see my reply, here. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  05:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll comment over there. OlYeller21^Talktome 14:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I was not at all offended; I just wanted to make sure that you were aware of the scale of the problem; that user has created over 85,000 articles - most of which are similarly stubs with few refs. Here are a few random examples; Yukarıulucak, Beypazarı, Tchalinga, Žemoji Gervė, Taube (river), Novi Bračin, Der Dicke, Lavegahau, Hendre, Llangedwyn, Heckmann Island, Arkell Cirque, Šanov (Rakovník District), Quảng Hợp, Amgachhi, Araibeki, Villeneuve-les-Cerfs, Montamel, Sa’ngain, eVendi Arena, Wesley Harris, Pegon (24°23"N 95°33"E), Alhentennawatta.

Tens of thousands of 'em. And continues to do so. And I've no idea if anything can/should be done about it, because apparently we don't delete geo-place articles.  Chzz  ►  16:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Holy smokes. 85k?! Have the users' actions been questioned in the past? It seems like people would be thoroughly concerned about this pattern regardless of the notability concerns. OlYeller21^Talktome 19:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, several times - e.g. AN#Dr. Blofeld mass creation, and this month ANI#useless stubs created by User:Dr. Blofeld. And lots more, in various places. Note, I'm in no way trying to be judgemental, it's just a genuine concern over the articles, not the person.  Chzz  ►  09:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Understandable. I don't believe that articles creation says much if anything about an editor's character but based on being such an outlier, I'm was sure that plenty of people had taken note if not tried to stop him, rightfully or not. As an associate likes to say, the nail that sticks out gets hammered down.

The way I see it, we're doing something that's either not covered in WP:N or not easily concluded, based on the interpretations. I think we either need to make it more clear or determine that the stubs don't satisfy an inclusion guideline (whatever is done with them is irrelevant to the actual problem). It seems the perceived complication is causing a lot of issues and my previous sentence is the simplest way that I can describe it. It sounds like a change to WP:N has failed multiple times and the feelings on geographic locations (amongst other categories) is that notability simply can't be determined in a short period of time. It's an uphill battle either way. I'll check out the conversation today but it seems like there's a lot of work to be done before a movement is started. OlYeller21^Talktome 13:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey. Not sure if you're aware of this conversation at the village pump. It's either directly because of the WP:N conversation or points out that there more people that feel that this is an issue. OlYeller21^Talktome 14:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that one; I just not sure anything will be achieved here; I'm pretty much giving up trying to fight this specific battle - ie, long-term editors making thousands of stubs based on 1 or 0 ultra-brief mentions. The actual problem seems, that we seem to treat geo-places (and schools) as somehow 'special' - exempt from A7 and effectively exempt from WP:GNG. I am all in favour of caution when deleting poorly-sourced articles, if they have a chance. But I strongly feel it is inappropriate for an experienced editor to create vast numbers of new articles that do not meet GNG. I suppose I could nominate thousands of them for AfD - and possibly we'd find sources for lots of them. But...I'm kinda giving up bothering with this particular gripe, because I think if I keep harping on about it, that'll just reflect badly on me. I took a stab at explaining it, as clearly as I could, on the WT:N page - but despite showing an article based upon a single word and number, the thread seems to have drifted into the usual meta-conversation and babble, so I doubt any progress can be made. Sorry, that sounds a bit disingenuous, but the constant battles over things like this that I think are just clear common sense...annoy me.  Chzz  ►  20:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Understandable. I agree that they fail WP:GNG and I'm not 100% clear on the counterargument. It seems that until there's a consensus regarding the notability of such subjects, a clear solution cannot be formed.

It's like school notability, as you pointed out. It drives me bonkers that people point to a failed guideline proposal and/or an essay to counter WP:N but it's gone so long with the regular mary-go-round arguments that it's becoming such a large problem that people generally shy away. I think you would need a large group of editors who agree on a pre-determined method of discussion to solve the problems and frankly, I'm not really sure I have the drive to do that right now. It sounds like you either and I don't blame you in the slightest.

In my life, I've had issues in the past with not being able to stop trying to solve a problem and I think this is a case where I need to remind myself that I have other obligations to focus on. I may try to tackle this later. When I do come back to this issue, I can let you know if you'd like. OlYeller21^Talktome 20:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Doug Lynch (academic)‎

Thanks for removing the COI. After all the recent fixes, none of us seemed to notice that it was still there. The Haz _talk 02:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Glad I could help. OlYeller21^Talktome 13:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Pune pilot analysis plan

Hi! As you were very active in discussions about the India Education Program's Pune pilot, I wanted to draw your attention to Wikipedia:India_Education_Program/Analysis, a page that documents our analysis plan for the next few months. I encourage you to join the discussion if you have any thoughts. -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Minor edit?

You sent me a message saying some of my edits marked as minor are not minor, but you didn't say which ones. I read your blurb on the distinction between minor and.... the ones that are not minor, and I still don't get it. If I see "This annual event is held each year," and I edit that to remove the redundancy, is it minor or otherwise? NOTE: I do not have a plan to perform this type of edit. I merely give it as an example, since it would involve removing a word (content) and your article says that cannot be minor.

I have noticed that many articles about China have obvious governmental opinions and party propaganda, but if I edit those (whether marked minor or not) to remove these blatant boasts, they are quickly reverted precisely as they were with no message sent to me. Have you no rule about this type of strong-arm tactic that ignores the feedback channels entirely?

OK, let me see if the 4 ~ will add my user name. Wikievil666 (talk) 10:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Brownbrokers

I think the article looks pretty decent now. It can surely be improved more, but if you don't have any objections, I might go ahead and remove the COI. Cheers A13ean (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that would be good. I keep meaning to give it a through assessment but work is keeping me very busy recently. I skimmed the article after every time a large number of edits were made in one sitting and never saw anything that was a big issue besides some external links which have been removed. I'm confident in your skills and support whatever decision you come to. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperKombat (3rd nomination)

Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperKombat (2nd nomination), you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperKombat (3rd nomination). Cunard (talk) 06:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The Bear Necessities

I am new to Wikipedia and want to work on this page: The Bear Necessities. I'm not sure where to post for help!

I have several questions about this article. I want to work on it to get the issues resolved/the information confirmed. On notability, I believe the group's page is notable because of the connection to Masi Oka. Masi Oka has spoken about his connection to the group in interviews and in publication. I believe before this article was created, the group was referenced on Masi Oka's wikipedia page and there was an incorrect link to the song The Bear Necessities, not the group. This page seems to be important in order to provide the background for this famous actor. I have reworked some of the language as well. I am unsure from here how to make it more neutral/seem less like an advertisement. Do you have suggestions?

Carrie Carrielwilson (talk) 02:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Self Promotion by Rogerfgay

Hi,

You seem to be an expert on the subject of what constitutes unacceptable self-promotion on Wikipedia, so I thought I would come to you for advice before I decide whether to post this issue on the COI Noticeboard. Roger F. Gay is actively trying to promote himself on Wikipedia, as shown in these diffs:

diff1

diff2

diff3. Note that this edit began an edit war. I won't bother posting all the ensuing diffs, but there were many.

Mr. Gay does not seem like a bad fellow. I think his motivations are all for the good. However, he is clearly trying to self-promote, for whatever reason. Is this matter worthy of escalating to the sysops? Or should we just work it out on the effected pages. Thanks! Ebikeguy (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, sorry for the delay. My mid-November to early January makes it hard to respond promptly.

I don't know if I'm an expert but I do spend a lot of time at WP:COIN. In my experience, the situation you ran into is fairly common. Someone feels passionately for something they're involved in (which is great) and they want to do more to tell people how great something is. Unfortunately, as you're aware, that someone conflicts with the goals of WP. I'm glad you feel that his motivations are in good faith; that's a conclusion a lot of people don't jump to and instead, want to tie them to a tree (block them from editing).

I'll check the situation out but I would go ahead and submit a report at WP:COIN. Reports there almost never end with any kind of admin action in response to editing. People's accounts are often indefinitely blocked for username violations but that's really more of a hiccup than a real issue. The best thing that COIN does is that it brings attention to the issue and a lot of the editors who hang around COIN are good at dealing with an editor in a way that helps them understand the problem but doesn't chase them away from Wikipedia.

I'll watch for the report over there and start looking through the situation so that I can take some sort of action. Thanks for asking around about what to do. That was very helpful. OlYeller21^Talktome 18:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I AM EQUAL article

Once upon a time (about 3 mos ago), you were kind enough to give me some suggestions and help me a bit with an article I was creating for the I AM EQUAL Photo Documentary. Although I got distracted for a bit, I would love for you to take a look and tell me if it's now ready to publish. I'm sure you know how to find an article...but here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Steinway1701/I_Am_Equal_(photo_documentary) for the page. I would love for you to give me your feedback on the page (in the TALK section) and any help you can give to get it published to the public. Thanks Steinway1701^Talk | 08:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Marcela Valladolid

Hi. You made an Article for creation page, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Marcela Valladolid (2010-06-05), but it was never actually submitted for a review.

I have submitted it just now, so you should get feedback soon. Cheers!  Chzz  ►  23:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey. Looks like the mix up was that the submitter made the submission on the project page and not the talk page. I started the talk page to mention the copyright violation and did not create the article. OlYeller21^Talktome 02:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. However, the reviewer felt that a few things need to be fixed before it is accepted. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article.)

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Marcela Valladolid.
• To edit the submission, you can use the edit button at the top of the article, near the search bar
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Help desk or the reviewer's talk page. Alternatively you can ask a reviewer questions via live help

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:13, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I never submitted an article to AfC. OlYeller21^Talktome 03:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, no problem. For some reason, on the first version of that talk page, it looks like you created it and that it had a 'submission' [2]. It's probably just some oddity; doesn't matter. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  06:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for users to put the AfC on the project page instead of the talk page as intended. I spotted the copyright violation on the project page and created the talk page with a note about the copyright violation. Simply reading the note or looking at the project page instead of just looking at the page history would have made this obvious. It also would have save you time, me time, Kevin Rutherford time, resulted in a copyright violation being removed, and helped a new user understand the issue with adding copyrighted text to Wikipedia. OlYeller21^Talktome 15:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Back

I've been away which is probably obvious if you normally interact with me on-Wiki. Christmas is a busy time for me on top of the usual busyness of Christmas time. I'm focusing mostly on WP:COIN at this point but I'll get back to page patrolling and looking at WP:IEP and any progress it has made. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

University of Wales

Hi OIYeller21,

I apologise that it is only now that I am getting in touch with you - I'm still getting to grips with Wikipedia Editing.

You mention in your previous emails to me that I may be considered biased and am therefore not able to edit the page University of Wales page, despite there being some objectively glaring errors in the article. For instance, the article refers to the University of Wales as being "effectively abolished", yet this is factually inaccurate. The article continually refers to the University of Wales in the past tense. To clarify: the University of Wales is, and will remain to be, the University of Wales until it has merged with the University of Wales Trinity St David and Swansea Metropolitan University in September, at the time of which it will align itself under UWTSD's Royal Charter instead of its own. Please see an article below from Times Higher Education which reiterated the fact that we are in fact still a University. I would appreciate it if you could make this amendment at the nearest time of your convenience. We have had hundreds of emails from students still studying towards University of Wales degrees who have read the Wikipedia entry for the University and have expressed great alarm at its content. Naturally, they're biggest concern is that they will no longer be able to continue their studies owing to the erroneous wikipedia references to the University's "abolishment"

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=418612&c=2v  

I do hope that you can make the necessary changes and look forward to hearing from you very soon.

Many thanks and kind regards. Tbarrett26 (talk) 10:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I stopped reading when you mentioned that my emails said that your connection prohibits you from editing. I've never sent you any emails and I would never say that a close connection prohibits you from editing because it doesn't. Please start over. I don't take those claims lightly. OlYeller21^Talktome 14:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

To clarify

These are the messages I'm referring to:

Welcome!

Hello, Tbarrett26, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (Tbarrett26 (talk) 14:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! OlYeller21Talktome 14:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] October 2011

Hello Tbarrett26. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article University of Wales, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1.editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2.participating in deletion discussions about articles related to you, your organization or its competitors; and
3.linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. OlYeller21Talktome 14:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] November 2011

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to University of Wales, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. OlYeller21Talktome 16:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Removing sourced information is not acceptable. Please participate in the discussion on the talk page. OlYeller21Talktome 16:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC) 

[edit] University of Wales

Hi. I see that you attempted to remove referenced information from the article again. Is there something that you're not understanding about the removal and why it's not OK? If you continue, his behavior will lead to you being blocked from editing. Please consider this your third warning.

If you feel that the article is incorrect, please discuss this with others on the talk page of the article. If you have any other questions, I'd be happy to help answer them. OlYeller21Talktome 13:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You may or may not call these emails (semantic quibble), but they are certainly messages nonetheless.

I fail to grasp why you are taking such a hostile attitude to such a reasonable request. I ask again that you take heed of my previous email which basically asks you to acknowledge that the University DOES exist and to therefore remove any reference to the contrary, particularly passages written about the University in the past tense. This is an issue which is causing many of our students and alumni a lot of distress. I'd be happy to talk to you over the phone about this if need be as I feel that the tone of voice gets lost through email.

This still seems to be about the content of the article. Using the article's talk page would be a good next step. I think you'll also see there that there's already a discussion regarding your concern.

To sum up the problem quickly, there have been editors who wish to show "the truth"/"the facts" but can't provide a reference from a reliable source that backs up their claims. Wikipedia covers what is verifiable and not what its editors consider "the truth" (although, they almost always overlap).

If you want to information removed, you're going to have to provide a reference, as has been mentioned on your talk page numerous times. Again, if you feel that the article is incorrect, please discuss this with others on the talk page of the article. OlYeller21^Talktome 16:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

PaulBarner

Dear O1Yeller21,

The reason the templates were removed were because of the fact they were already removed by members/editors of Wikipedia. The only one that was kept was the 'orphan' template, that one I just now accidentally removed I JUST saw, my bad! I meant to only delete the other 2. After a new edit recently, shortening the piece, removing links and adding valid new ones, the other templates reappeared which didn't make any sense because ya'll already reviewed the edits and figured it was ok to remove them yourselves. At one point ya'll removed the templates and only left the 'orphan' one. Which I thought was fair. Only to see the templates reappear after making the piece even shorter than it was! That's why I deleted the templates earlier on.

Could you, remove the 'intricate detail' and 'additional citations' templates again as they were before? The orphan one was a valid one as the article continues to grow but the others were, like I said already removed by Wikipedia editors themselves.

Thank You!

P.S. By the way, for every edit I make, I type a quick summary of what I changed. Which is 'proof' so to speak about the work I've actually done on a piece. I don't know if ya'll read that but isn't that supposed to be the bridge between a writer and an editor and cause for dialogue? I don't want to remove templates in the future and get a warning for a rule I DID follow but was overlooked by an editor you know? Thanx!

PaulBarner (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey! This is a bit frustrating as you've been warned about this in the past several times so please forgive me if I seem stiff about this.

Looking through the history, the tags have not been removed by other editors; only you. If you feel that someone else did remove them, please provide a diff (a link to the edit change). I'll go through each tag, one by one to explain why they're there.

• Orphan - The article has less than 3 articles linking to it. Very easy.
• Improve References - The article has LOTS of claims that are unreferenced. This is very simple. Each claim needs to have a reference from a reliable source. This issue has most definitely not been addressed. If I had to name a percentage of completion, I'd say it's at about 20%. The biography section is enormous and doesn't have a single reference for the essay-like story told.
• Excessive/Intricate Detail - There's still an incredible amount of detail in the article that's both unreferenced and unnecessary. Sentences like, "His friend, producer/songwriter Joveek Murphy just signed a publishing deal with Warner/Chappell music and was interested in creating something totally new and they started recording songs together." don't even need to be in the article. There's no indication that his friend is important to this article.
• Puffery - Reading through the article again, I've added this tag. Sentences like, "track was featured on popular sites like 22tracks.com and Ajanaku.com and gained a modest cult following." is considered puffery. There's no reference that it was featured. Furthermore and more importantly, who says those websites are popular? There would need to be references for that and even if there are any, it's not exactly a claim that needs to be made in this article.

If you want to remove the tags, please discuss the changes you've made on the talk page of the article. OlYeller21^Talktome 00:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I found the edit where someone removed them. It was an edit made by someone who was removing tags from all of the articles that I tagged. The account is a vandalism only WP:SPA. OlYeller21^Talktome 00:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey,

I made some changes and added the comments on the talk page of the El Rod article. How long before someone will go over them? PaulBarner (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey O1Yeller21,

Can you please take a peek at the comments I made on the talk page of the El Rod article, since your the one who mainly critiqued it. It's regarding removal from some of the templates on the article.

Thank you.

PaulBarner (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if your getting all this, but I left some notes on your talk page Hope you'll respond soon... PaulBarner (talk) 11:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

NNU Class Project - Winter 2012

Please consider adding your name at: Wikipedia:School and university projects/NNU Class Project/Winter 2012

Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Victor Stabin

Hello, I just got a message regarding removing templates from the Victor Stabin page. I resolved all of the issues that those templates outlined-an effort that took over an hour. I do not understand why my edits were removed and the templates put back. I thought the idea was to have a better version of the page. I reviewed the Duplication Detector's report and fixed all of the copy and pasted sections so that they were original. I cannot understand what I did wrong or why this information was removed. 72.70.201.93 (talk) 20:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Changing a few words still constitutes plagiarism. Don't remove the templates again until the issue has been addressed. OlYeller21^Talktome 20:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I dont understand what you would like me to do. I did not just change a few words a rephrased sentences, removed material and edited the page so that it conveyed the same information without copying the original articles. I dont think it is necessary for you to be so short, frankly you seem annoyed, with me. I am trying to improve the page and asking you for help. Tell me what I can do and I will do it, dont just yell at me for being naive. 72.70.201.93 (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

No one was yelling at you. We'll get it worked out.

Here is the edit were you changed a few words. Changing "creating" to "painting" and "given" to "told he had". In the same edit, you removed the templates but the duplicate detector still shows the similarities. If you're interested in reading more about Wikipedia's policy on copyright violations, you can find more information at WP:COPYVIO.

The best way to handle the text is to simply delete it all and rewrite it in your own words. Like you would for a research paper, study the information from others, take notes, write the text, and add in citations to the websites you used.

Lastly, do you control PaulLouisM and ArtAppreciator? I'm not saying that you do or are intending to mislead anyone but I wanted to make you aware of a policy at Wikipedia called WP:SOCK. The policy basically says, "Do not use multiple accounts to mislead, deceive, or disrupt; to create the illusion of greater support for a position; to stir up controversy; or to circumvent a block, ban, or sanction". I only bring this up because doing so is is considered a serious breach of community trust and would likely to lead to a block of all affected accounts, and a ban of the user. OlYeller21^Talktome 16:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

El Rod

Hey O1 Yeller, the issues with the El Rod page seem to be resolved by a few other editors. Can the templates be removed now? Hope you'll respond soon!

PaulBarner (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage engagement strategy released

Hey guys!

I'm dropping you a note because you filled out the New Page Patrol survey, and indicated you'd be interested in being contacted about follow-up work. This is to notify you that we've finally released both the initial documentation about the project and also the engagement strategy, which sets out how we plan to work with the community on this. Please give both a read, and leave any comments or suggestions you have on the talkpage, on my talkpage, or in my inbox - okeyeswikimedia.org.

It's awesome to finally get to start work on this! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Status

I'm around but not as active as I have been. Between WP:COIN and WP:IEP, I really burned myself out. I just don't have the drive that I used to. To try and get that back while making sure that the pages I watch are OK, I'm taking a break but I'll be checking my watchlist (and therefore, talkpage) once or twice a day until I don't feel like this is a chore. OlYeller21^Talktome 06:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm cautiously coming back from my Wikibreak. I don't think I'll be getting into anything big right now but I'm going to be creating a few articles and doing my best at WP:COIN. OlYeller21^Talktome 21:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject invite

Hi there, Ol Yeller. I believe our paths have crossed occasionally before at COI/N, and I'd like to invite you to participate in a WikiProject you may find interesting. It's called WikiProject Cooperation, and the idea is to provide a safe harbor for COI editors to make requests and propose changes. So it is similar to COI/N, but less about catching unsuspecting COI violators and more about assisting those who know enough to ask for help. It's had some good early momentum and new members joining at a steady rate, but it could always use more. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 15:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I glanced at this while on break but decided to let it go at the time. I'll take a look again soon. I think there's definitely a need for this sort of group in conjunction with WP:COIN. Thanks for the heads up. OlYeller21^Talktome 21:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Your name is mentioned in passing here about Scentura:

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#topic_ban_of_single_purpose_account_on_pyramid_sales_scheme

Thank you again for finding that connection. Calendar2 (talk) 11:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks for the heads up. OlYeller21^Talktome 21:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

its IamKitten, tell me what is so wrong please

you wrote me to stop reposting my description of Kyle Johnson, I would like to know what rules I am breaking. it is ALl true and even he can verify it if needed to prove I am not slandering him or anything? It just keeps getting taken down and no one will explain why or what I need to change about it. He is a video producer, if foot balls stars can have bios on here, I don't see what video producers and DJs can't have one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamKitten (talk • contribs) 23:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I have explained the issue on your talk page. There is no indication that the subject of the article is notable per WP:N. OlYeller21^Talktome 23:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

What do you need to make it notible? should I like it to his profiles online? i am new to this I was writing his little bio as a surprise for him. if wiki wont let him verify it what should I do? I can link it if that helps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamKitten (talk • contribs) 23:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

First off, the information there isn't encyclopedic. I'm not even going to get into the portion about spanking. He would need to have received coverage from "independent and reliable sources" like newspapers. If CNN and Fox news have done stories on him, then he's notable. If he's been listed in a school newspaper or no newspaper at all, he's not notable. OlYeller21^Talktome 23:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I am Spartacus.

No, I'm not. I'm Hengistmate (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC). What would you like to know? RSVP.

I was just looking at the talk page of someone has who mentioned at WP:COIN and noticed that you had the only edit on that talk page. It stood out in a large situation but could have meant nothing, as it seems to. When I investigate, I try to get a look at the big picture and thought you might be part of that picture.

So basically, nothing to see here, Sparticus. :-) OlYeller21^Talktome 23:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, young fellow. I might call upon your conciliation services at some point. Got a couple of people on my back. A different picture. All the best, Hengistmate (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll do my best to help. OlYeller21^Talktome 16:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Makuhari International School

Please consider this: (cur | prev) 21:30, 2 March 2012‎ OlYeller21 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (1,157 bytes) (+8)‎ . . (Addice COI tag. The user Edwin Edpalina works as the music teacher for American International School. The American and Makuhari International Schools are part of the same organizationBold text.) (undo)

Edwin Edpalina USED to work for American International School in Hong Kong, CHINA until Feb 2012 - and NOW had transferred to Makuhari International School in Chiba, Japan. The 2 organizations are two separate entities and in fact in 2 different countries/territories. They can't be part of the SAME ORGANIZATION: American International School Hong Kong is privately-owned while Makuhari International School is government-run international school. ThanksEdwin Edpalina (talk) 23:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC) ________________________

Hi, I would like to request acceptance of my first WIKI entry: Makuhari International School. I recently moved to Japan last month (from the American International School Hong Kong) and accepted a job as Music Teacher & Media Coordinator for this newly established government-run international school. It is my task to document activities and promote the school on the internet and to contribute to WIKIPEDIA was my first assignment . I've seen other international schools featured here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_international_schools - so I wish our wish our school would be included on this listings, as well. Whatever entries I'll contribute are all provided by the school and are available as a public document at the school's official website: http://www.mis.ed.jp/index.html As a not-for-profit school supported Chiba Prefectural Government. I will try my very best to be as neutral as I could be, the same way as other schools are featuring themselves on the above listings. I would appreciate very much your kind consideration. Thank you very much, Edwin Edpalina Email: e.edpalina@teachers.mis.ed.jp Edwin Edpalina (talk) 13:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not really up to me at this point. There's a discussion currently going on about the deletion of the article. At this point, notability isn't established which is essential for articles on Wikipedia. There's also an issue with editing an article with which you have a close connection. The corresponding guideline can be found at WP:COI. If you wish to discuss the deletion of the article, I suggest doing so at the deletion discussion. I should mention though, that because other articles exist won't be a reason to keep the article. OlYeller21^Talktome 15:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andrewlees

You made an incorrect statement on this page and I politely pointed out the evidence that it was incorrect. Your comment I would appreciate it if you would correct your error and your tone in response to me pointing it out. seems unrelated both to the facts of the matter and to the SPI in question. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss the SPI, please do so there. Otherwise, I'm not exactly sure what you want from me here. My first response wasn't even directed at you. I think you may be taking this personally for no reason. OlYeller21^Talktome 21:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I will certainly discuss the SPI there. Whether or not you like my tone iss quite irrelevant to the SPI in question. A comment about my tone appears to me to be personal. I don't understand why you view this as "an act of good faith". Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

It may not be but it's relevant to WP:CIVIL. I'm not going to try and get you to change the way you speak to others. It would be an olive branch of sorts in response to jumping on someone for a fact that they pointed out about another editor. I think you're beating around the bush that you made a mistake. If you weren't, this would be a non-issue and you would have issued the notice. OlYeller21^Talktome 21:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I have to say that I simply don't understand this. It certainly does not seem worth the time and trouble to unpick it all now. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that's been clear from the start. In giving a seemingly sarcastic response like "- really?" in the midst of your admitted confusion, I simply asked that you correct yourself and another error but that seems like it was too large of a task to ask for. OlYeller21^Talktome 21:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

MARIANA NICOLESCO & RADU VARIA

Dear user, Officially responsible with the biographies of soprano Mariana Nicolesco and art historian Radu Varia, I can assure you that every single line is simply based on facts, every single word in the items about them are correct, the quotes are rigorously verified and complying with Wikipedia’s content policies. Your intervention has no object in this case. Yet, there are other items about opera singers and art historians on Wikipedia, containing not only many more information, but largely, appreciations of all kind, which did not retain your attention. With many thanks, yours, Dr. Stephan Poen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Stephan Poen (talk • contribs) 14:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to start out by saying hello and thanking you for coming to me with your concerns. I have a few of my own and I'll share them with you here.

First off, I've been around Wikipedia for a long time and I don't know all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines completely. To say that you do with your little experience is very unlikely. I'd like for you to keep an open mind regarding the text because there's a good chance that you have missed something.

Secondly, your admitted close connection constitutes a WP:COI. This means that, while you are allowed to edit the article, you should be aware that your connection can easily cause issues and it already seems that it may have.

Third: You do not WP:OWN the article. You're not the owner, manager, or head editor of the article meaning that you do not, in any way, hold editorial control over the content of the article.

Fourth: While I would never call you a liar, we cannot simply take your word that the information found in the article is fact. While we most likely won't remove information unless it's problematic (shows aWP:POV, is an WP:ADVERT, is defamatory and violated WP:BLP, or falls into the criteria at WP:NOT), it needs to be verified (see WP:V). Given your connection, this can be easily done with an official statement/publication made by or in conjunction with the the subjects of the article.

Fifth: We have an essay here at Wikipedia called WP:OTHERSTUFF. It explains that each article is written in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines independently from what else goes on here. More specifically, that there are "other items about opera singers and art historians on Wikipedia" simple doesn't matter. At all.

Sixth: I don't read Romanian but I used Google Translate to translate this edit of yours. In it, there's a sentence that seems to say, "your attitude evidently might contain interpretations that can be brought to the attention of competent bodies that supervise national values and the image of Romania"... "[by restoring my text], you can avoid unwanted interpretations that can be the subject of appeals to competent bodies that supervise the dignity, rights and freedoms of citizens". In my opinion, this constitutes a legal threat. Per WP:NLT, this is ground for an immediate and indefinite block of you and your account. You need to address this immediately. Was this a legal threat? If so, do you redact your statement? If you do not, I will seek a block of your account.

Seventh: Telling me that my "intervention has no object in this case" is patently false as it already seems obvious that your ignorance of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines along with your close connection to the subjects of the articles, has been problematic.

Lastly, there's no reason that we can not work together with Biruitorul to make great encyclopedic articles that also cover the information that wish to have covered but telling/commanding others isn't going to help. Let's work together, shall we? OlYeller21^Talktome 15:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

For the record, let me just say that I've gone through some reliable sources and written a decent article, properly cited and everything, on Mariana Nicolesco. There's always room for improvement, but it's concise, covers the salient facts of her life, and spares us what was there before. Dr. Poen, if you're reading this, I strongly recommend you start making any improvements by using this latest text as a basis, and the same with Radu Varia. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Biruitorul.

Dear User, I do not have any doubts you know for long time Wikipedia rules and, personally, I tried also to do my best in the same sense. For me it is not a matter of a close connection or not with what you call “the subjects”, but a close connection with a serious documentation regarding their careers and biographies. Who then should right an article about a subject or another if not somebody close enough to the matter? Frankly, it is difficult to understand your position when you tell me that I don’t have any rights on my own research since “you simply cannot take my word that the information found in the article is fact”. Then, who has the rights? You say that I am not “the owner, manager or head editor of the article and that I hold no editorial control over the content of my article”. Then, who does? And, in the same time, you feel free to intervene in the items, while you do not have the information needed, you reduce them to an inacceptable and totally incomplete versions, full of mistakes! Is that correct? However, a statement concerning my responsibility for the biographies we are talking about will never be a problem. How should I do it? There is no any threat at all in my message to “Biruitorul”, simply the passionate respect for the personalities mentioned in the two items. So, let’s work together, tell me point by point, on my texts, what and how we could eventually improve them. Best regards, - Dr. Stephan Poen ^Talk 21:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll respond to each question/statement I see in your post, here.

• "I tried also to do my best" - Thank you. That's all I ask for of new editors along with that they attempt to read and understand policies and guidelines presented to them that they are in violation of.

• "For me it is not a matter of a close connection or not with what you call “the subjects”, but a close connection with a serious documentation regarding their careers and biographies." - I'm a bit confused by this claim. In this edit, you claims to be an "official representative of Mariana Nicolesco and Radu Varia for their image on Wikipedia." So which is it? Those aren't compatible claims. Are you an official representative or simply a researcher? Is there confusion due to translation?
• "Who then should right an article about a subject or another if not somebody close enough to the matter?" - There's a difference between being knowledgeable about a subject and having a personal or business relationship with a subject. A person can be both but having a close connection constitutes a conflict of interest. We have a guideline about editing with a conflict of interest called WP:COI. Regardless of that, the issue was that the article contained a very large amount of unreferenced information. This happens often but when someone took issue with that fact, which they are allowed to do per WP:V and WP:BLP, you attempted to block them. The burden of verification and referencing lies with the editor who makes the claim.
• "it is difficult to understand your position when you tell me that I don’t have any rights on my own research" & "who has the rights" - The text found on Wikipedia is not research done by its editors. This is specifically covered by WP:OR. Editors of Wikipedia share the claims made by reliable sources (see WP:RS) such as newspapers and scientific journals. So your research is considered "original" to Wikipedia unless you cite a work of your that has been published elsewhere. You may be a reliable source of information but that information has to be verifiable and its origin can't be Wikipedia.
• "who does [hold editorial control over the content of my article]" - Looking past the issue that you're still calling it "my" article to answer your question, Wikipedia owns the article and therefor its editors own it. As anyone can be an editor, everyone owns it. You have a say in what goes into the article just like Biruitorul and I do. Editors of Wikipedia have set guidelines and policies such as WP:BLP, WP:OR, WP:V, etc. that controls the content of all articles. By following those policies and guidelines, we're involving all editors by consensus.
• "you do not have the information needed, you reduce them to an inacceptable and totally incomplete versions, full of mistakes!" - What information is "needed"? What information in the article is incorrect?
• However, a statement concerning my responsibility for the biographies we are talking about will never be a problem" - I'm sorry but I don't understand this statement.

I think the best way to move on from here is to userfy the articles that you created which basically means putting them in your user area so that they can be worked on. I have taken the liberty of doing this here and here. I will place templates on the article in locations where I think improvement is needed. We can then discuss problematic areas of the articles on their respective talk pages. OlYeller21^Talktome 16:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I worked the entire article based on your suggestions. Waiting for your answer, best regards, Dr. Stephan Poen ^Talk 02.50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Please examine the version prepared on my work page. I wait four your confirmation. Best regards, Dr. Stephan Poen ^Talk 19,30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm probably not going to be able to take a good look at it until Sunday but it looks like you've made some good progress. I'll get back with you when I've had a chance to take a look. You can also invite others to comment by posting a message at related Wikiproject. Here is a directory of Wikiprojects. OlYeller21^Talktome 20:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:AN/I thread here

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Shirt58 (talk) 02:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I'm not overly involved with the situations there but I have left my two cents. Thanks again for the notification. OlYeller21^Talktome 03:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

MARIANA NICOLESCO & RADU VARIA

I worked the entire article for Radu Varia too and, waiting for your answer, thank you in advance with best regards, Dr. Stephan Poen ^Talk 04,08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Let me update you on where we are now. I've done some further expansion on the article so that at this point, it includes more or less what Dr. Poen's draft does. (Well, not every last detail, but the relevant information.) Dr. Poen insists that his draft and none other be accepted. I disagree, not out of attachment to my own work, but because it's plainly more in tune with the Manual of Style. I'd appreciate any input to help solve this impasse. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your positive comments on my item on Mariana Nicolesco. User “Biruitorul” insists on his item which, even after taking some information from my text, is compressed and amalgamate, with many ambiguities, inaccuracies, gaps, omissions. The same user, “Biruitorul”, gave us as an example the item on Kathleen Ferrier, which in fact contains a large systematisation in chapters and under chapters, with 120 notes, including plenty of details: cities, places and events related to her career, and not only a few words of truncated information, as the same “Biruitorul” does in Mariana Nicolesco’s case. What is the purpose of such reductions in this kind of confusing manner and in fact in a total contradiction even with the example of the Kathleen Ferrier item, given by the named “Biruitorul”? Mariana Nicolesco sang not only in a few “major European houses”, but in major opera houses around the world. Does “Biruitorul” have the right to eliminate the theatres from the US, South America, Japan? Does he have the right to eliminate the prestigious festivals in which she appeared? It is inacceptable as well to eliminate the personalities with which she collaborated over the years, which are some of the major figures of our time. At la Scala, as it can be seen on the site of their Archives, Mariana Nicolesco appears in 7 new productions, and not in only 3 as unfairly “Biruitorul” wants, not counting the concerts and recitals. It is true that Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, meaning that every user, like us, can contribute, adding to improve the information. But in any case not to create distortions of the profiles presented, by cutting arbitrarily relevant information, well documented, with adequate links as requested by Wikipedia’s rules. At this point I wish we can close this collaboration with mutual respect and put on the Wikipedia page my item about Mariana Nicolesco (with the discography by “Biruitorul”), as well as the article about Radu Varia. Best regards, Dr. Stephan Poen ^Talk 20,11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey. I haven't read all of the messages yet but I'll read through both articles and all of the messages here tomorrow. I'm about to have dinner with my family so I won't have time to do it now. Have a great rest of the weekend. OlYeller21^Talktome 21:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

As you think about this situation, allow me to attract your attention to this comment from the author of 56 featured articles: Dr. Poen's text "is pure promotional material and has no place in an encyclopedia". - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

El Rod Orphan

I read the link gave me about an orphan article and I thought I added a good link. I'm remotely new to Wikipedia so I'm still trying to figure stuff out. No need to get all hostile, sarcastic and angry at me. I added the link mentioning,"I'm not sure if I should place the link here". So what qualifies as a proper link then? The link I added had a Wikipedia link in its article and I thought THAT qualified as a proper link. And should I now ask you first if I make ANY edit to avoid warnings? Or should I leave you a note saying I adjusted something? Cause if that's the case I will do that. You could've just put the tag back up and send me a message saying "hey, I saw that you added a link but it doesn't qualify". I just ask that the deletion tag be removed and a small explanation of what was wrong with the link I added. I must be honest I don't quite get all the rules about de-orphaning even after reading the 'orphan' entry but I found a link that had a direct link to El Rod's Wiki page and I thought that was a good link. I followed all the rules in the orphan entry. It's not like I did it maliciously or intentionally....PaulBarner (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in.

I will fix all of the references, I did learn how to do it corectly as in the first reference but now I need to fix all of the others , ant there are quite a few..it will take a few days since I have to do this when I have time available.

Thanks and I am happy I have someone to ask someone to consult if I have questions..

Robert — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xtr rossi (talk • contribs) 21:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

the purpose of newpage patrolling

is to remove obviously unacceptable articles and mark others for correction. It can be done wrong in two directions: when articles are marked for deletion which shouldn't be, and when articles that are absolutely unacceptable are not marked for deletion. In several cases, you failed to notice what was obvious copyvio, such as the articles on several accountants that were marked improperly by someone else for deletion as A7, but which in fact had been copied completely from the article listed as the external link. For example, there was Henry Rand Hatfield, copied verbatim from http://fisher.osu.edu/departments/accounting-and-mis/the-accounting-hall-of-fame/membership-in-hall/henry-rand-hatfield As you of course know, removing copyvio is one of the really essential things here about which we must be very vigilant.

In the other direction you improperly marked a speedy A7 on Timothy Messer-Kruse. The material presented may or may have seemed to show notability , but they were enough to indicate possible importance, and and an indication of importance is all that is necessary. In his particular case, had you read the article carefully, you should have realized that his criticism of Wikipedia would not have been noticed (or indeed published) had in not in fact been a notable historian with many books to his credit. I looked for them on the official university bio cited there, and added them. (GScholar or worldCat would have done as well to find them). More needs to be added--I didn't start in on most of the reviews of his books, and his peer reviewed articles.

NPP is not mechanical. Spotting some things may seem mechanical, and in fact many that can be unambiguously specified are taken care of mechanically by our WP:edit filters . At least the following is necessary in patrolling: a quick check of google, and a check of any listed online sources that would be likely places for copyvio.

I appreciate that you have been finding errors in other peoples' patrolling--doing this is important, and I have followed up all such recent articles you have noticed. Now aim for greater accuracy yourself. Now, I make mistakes also, and so does everyone else. Improving one's work is a continuous process. No one can afford to be complacent that they do everything right. DGG ( talk ) 00:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

What are the several cases? I really don't think this is true. I'd appreciate some evidence with such an accusation. You can go through my CSDlog if you'd like.

I wish I could look at the Henry Rand Hatfield article history. I'm usually very good at spotting copy/pastes and feel that, given the way that the text is written on the copied Fisher College page, I would have definitely caught it. When I copied text from the article and pasted it into Google to search for a copyvio, I may have messed the first letter of the copied line, I guess. That seems to totally throw off Google.

The Timothy Messer-Kruse is a matter of opinion. I saw no claim of importance. You and I have danced around this issue before and I don't think it's a secret that you judge claims of importance differently than other NPPs. There's nothing wrong with that in my opinion but stating your opinion as fact isn't going to influence me as much as engaging in a conversation with me.

I appreciate that you want me to get better at what I do here. I want this, frankly, probably more than you do. I'm always looking to improve myself. If you care to see it, I have a lengthy analysis of my actions on WP on have been trying to improve some major points. I have also asked for and received analysis from three admins which I regard very highly.

When I asked you for advice on what I should do, you explained something to the user that had already been explained to them (by both of us), ignoring my question completely. Perhaps in the future, answering the question asked of you would be more beneficial to the users you encounter? Not only has the problem not been solved, at the time of writing this, they've been warned three more times since you explained the issue to them.

Ultimately, I think you know very little about my editing history. Even if you pointed out 10 articles that I mistagged, that wouldn't really explain my overall editing habits with regards to patrolling. I asked for your opinion because your opinion is often different than mine and I value opinions different than mine very highly. I may be mistaken but it feels like I asked for your opinion, you ignored the question, the problem hasn't been solved, and you've simply come to vaguely point out my shortcomings. Am I mistaken?

I worry about my response because now I feel like you're going to go through my entire edit history and find any problem you can to point out here. The last time I pointed out a problem to you, that's what happened, to a smaller degree. I'm worried that now that I've done anything but agree with you, I may bring an even of your attention to any mistake I've ever made. I've avoided being nominated for RfA, even when asked if I would like to be nominated by Kudpung, for this very reason. OlYeller21^Talktome 15:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

response

I never take it amiss when people question what I have said to them; if they have doubts, I owe them a fuller explanation. But if someone asks me anything at my page, I try to deal with the total situation, in awareness that about 400 active people watch that page, that answers need to be given very carefully, and some are better given elsewhere. My responses are what I think is needed, which is not always what was hoped for or expected, & regular posters there realize this. And when I see a complaint of A about B, I look at A and B; anyone here who has learned from experience does likewise.

You asked for advice on how to deal with a situation. You seem to have expected me to advise you how to take action yourself; I answered in such a way that I thought would make it clear this was something I thought you should not deal with yourself. That's because the actual situation is the most difficult of anything here: someone is engaging in stubbornly wrong actions. I approach this carefully, with a tentative posting at first, and see what happens. I've seen what happened, and you can see for yourself how I'm proceeding. It will take a week or two to play out, & I am more concerned about long range effects than in just stopping him, though I certainly will do that. I saw that various established admins have been deleting some of the wrongly tagged articles--one at least of them is an admin who has persistently deleted on the basis of what they think should not be in Wikipedia, and thinks it right to do so; they think CSD should read: speedydelete all nonnotable articles or anything that has a tint of promotionalism, and intend to continue acting as if it were the case. I need to approach this very carefully; I've put off what I think is the necessary action for a long time,because I know I can't fix everything wrong here, and I need to choose carefully to retain any effectiveness. Before I start, I need to consider what I will do if they successfully defy me. I'm playing a long term line here: I expect to be here for many years, & thus cannot afford to accumulate enemies beyond the inevitable.

But I know you at least have the good sense not to confuse discussing possible errors with being enemies. DGG ( talk ) 00:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, DGG. I feel much better after reading that. At the time, it felt like I had asked for help and it had backfired.

I feel like I've seen admins delete incorrectly tagged pages as well and I'm never sure what to do about it. As I'm not an administrator, that's a battle I generally shy away from. I often find they're linked to promotional or perceived promotional editing which is why I spend a lot of time at WP:COIN. I feel like people don't always get a fare shake because of the possibility of a problem or because of a misunderstanding a new user.

I saw your response on his talk page and saw that it was removed. I think your response to them was clear. Hopefully the problem will be solved in a way that everyone walks away feeling like they can still help the encyclopedia.

I'll make sure I'm more careful about finding a claim of importance as well as taking more care with finding copyright violations. I most certainly don't want to be your enemy and not because I'm afraid to be but because I value your work on Wikipedia and your opinions. My response involved a bit of emotion and I hope I didn't offend you. OlYeller21^Talktome 00:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, in the future, because your talk page has so many eyes on it, I'll make sure to ask for your opinion on touchy situations on my talk page and invite you here to leave a response if that's OK with you. OlYeller21^Talktome 00:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

As you can see from my RfA, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DGG, I asked to be an admin in the first place to look at articles that might have been wrongly deleted, and to delete those things I came across along the way that needed to be. As it turns out, most of what I do here has been in deleting, in helping others delete properly, and in trying to teach new editors how to avoid having their articles deleted. The number I have been able to rescue is relatively low--maybe 5% of what I've removed. The flood of promotionalism is taking a toll on everything positive.

My advice in dealing with apparently wrong deletions is to make sure that the article not merely was a wrongful use of the rules, but a sustainable article. You can always ask the deleting admin to email a copy-- they should be asked first, rather than me, but of course I will do it if needed. In principle Deletion Review should restore if the process was wrong, but many people there will nonetheless not !vote to overturn unless there's also clear hope of an article. So it's a little quixotic to do the work if there isn't actually going to be a positive contribution to the encyclopedia. (There is also a point in going to deletion review to rebuke a admin, but this should be saved for the worst errors or really important principles; to avoid it looking like I'm being too zealous, I myself tend to wait until someone else has noticed.) But if the article is actually usable, don't be concerned over who it was who deleted it, you will get support. Ask them first, but it isn't worth an argument on their talk p. beyond the second response.But ask always, even if you know the response will be negative. The prudent rule of thumb in dealing with a new patroller tagging poorly is to make sure he's much less experienced than you, Myself, I do not protest unless there are multiple errors. DGG ( talk ) 02:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

El Rod Orphan

Didn't get a response to this. So I'll post it again:

I read the link gave me about an orphan article and I thought I added a good link. I'm remotely new to Wikipedia so I'm still trying to figure stuff out. No need to get all hostile, sarcastic and angry at me. I added the link mentioning,"I'm not sure if I should place the link here". So what qualifies as a proper link then? The link I added had a Wikipedia link in its article and I thought THAT qualified as a proper link. And should I now ask you first if I make ANY edit to avoid warnings? Or should I leave you a note saying I adjusted something? Cause if that's the case I will do that. You could've just put the tag back up and send me a message saying "hey, I saw that you added a link but it doesn't qualify". I just ask that the deletion tag be removed and a small explanation of what was wrong with the link I added. I must be honest I don't quite get all the rules about de-orphaning even after reading the 'orphan' entry but I found a link that had a direct link to El Rod's Wiki page and I thought that was a good link. I followed all the rules in the orphan entry. It's not like I did it maliciously or intentionally.... PaulBarner (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Paul, I have never assumed that you've intentionally or maliciously done anything. My problem with you is that I've pointed these issues out to you several times. You didn't read WP:ORPHAN or you would have seen, at the very top of the page, that and orphan is an article that has few to no articles linking TO IT. That doesn't mean that adding a link to a website makes it not an orphan (like the link you added only in the edit summary when you removed the orphan tag, claiming it was no longer an orphan). In the next edit, you took an internal link (a link between Wikipedia pages) that was going FROM the El Rod article to another article, and removed the link. You never even added a link to the article at any time. Here is the edit where you removed a link.

The deletion template will not be removed. I didn't even place it there. Read the template. It explains exactly what's going on. This, again, is the problem that I have with your editing. Things have been explained to you clearly, several times, but you continue to try and remove any templates from the article and resist the changes that other editors suggest or make to the article.

The deletion discussion is ongoing and currently, other editors feel that El Rod is not notable meaning that the article will be deleted. Again, I had nothing to do with this. I never even gave my opinion in the deletion discussion.

I'm not "all hostile, sarcastic, and angry". I've never been any of those things towards you. I'm simply tired. I've spent a great deal of time trying to help you I'm consistently shown that my help is falling on deaf ears. I even took a break from editing Wikipedia because of the amount of time I've spent trying to help you in futility. I'm sorry but I can't do it anymore. OlYeller21^Talktome 16:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The article has been deleted. I suggest spending your time editing other articles on Wikipedia so that you can get a handle on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hopefully by that time, El Rod will be clearly notable and you can recreate the article with your improved skills. OlYeller21^Talktome 16:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

University of Wales

Yeah, I like the original research the IP added. "NOTHING'S HAPPENING BECAUSE I SAY SO!" Think it's worth asking for semi-protection?

Annoying thing is, I don't doubt that, given proper sources, the article could be substantially improved, and this might well improve how the University is portrayed. But just asserting that all the press reports are lies doesn't work to that end. 86.** IP (talk) 14:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I've considered asking for protection but in the past but it seems like the changes come rarely. It seems to have picked up lately. Perhaps if we can find more references and determine the current state of the university, people will be less likely to attempt to whitewash. I think if we do more research and find that nothing has changed, we'll probably be forced to ask for semi-protection unless we want to revert whitewashing once a week. OlYeller21^Talktome 14:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Quite. I'll do a news search after lunch. 86.** IP (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, slowed up a bit by the ongoing Expewikiwriter situation. 86.** IP (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Reverts

Please be careful with your reverts. In this edit to Hyme House, it was correct to replace the wikify tag; it was not correct to change a valid link back to a link to a disambiguation page. LadyofShalott 22:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Will do. OlYeller21^Talktome 16:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Chip's Challenge

Thank you for you help with the page. Allack (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. If I can every help you with someone, just let me know. OlYeller21^Talktome 15:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you please have a look at the Chip's Challenge page, as it has now been edited by several people and me to hopefully make it factual rather than opinion based. Thanks Allack (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Allack. I'll take a look at it soon. It may be best to wait until the AfD closes to spend much more time no the article itself. If I was going to work on the article right now, I'd just work to find independent, reliable, and significant coverage of the subject to convince the more stubborn AfD participants. OlYeller21^Talktome 16:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Google Chrome

Adding new lines in edits...I've been hit by this since switching from FF - by previewing at least it becomes visible. I haven't narrowed it down, but this has to be a known bug by now? Widefox (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

You're the first person I know to have the issue besides me. I'm not even sure who I'd report the bug to. Maybe we can find more Wikipedians with the issue and report the bug in mass. OlYeller21^Talktome 16:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Kevin Ross

The material I removed was indeed supported, but it was essentially irrelevant detail that added little to the article. I still feel it reads much cleaner with the deletions.

I didn't attempt to determine its importance. It's generally good practice to make a note in the edit summary as to why you believe it's justified to removed sourced content. Making a note on the talk page is also helpful if you think it will lead to a larger discussion. Your other edits were good and feel free to revert me if you'd like but I strongly suggest making a note in the edit summary when you do. OlYeller21^Talktome 04:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

inquiry on editing

Dear OlYeller21,

I read your suggested on the COIN about offering to update sites for free when the clients have paid for that service previously. Would you be willing to improve the Wikipedia article on Theosophy either for free or for pay? I am not positive that I would hire you or anyone. This is a general inquiry.

Yours,

Factseducado — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factseducado (talk • contribs) 01:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd most certainly be willing to help you and i'll do it for free. The only thing I should mention is that while I'll do my best to help you, my main goal is to improve the encyclopedia. OlYeller21^Talktome 02:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Kid Ink

Hello OlYeller21. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Kid Ink, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: not g11 worthy enough for me. will tidy up instead. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 16:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Smartse. OlYeller21^Talktome 16:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Evan Jordan's edits

Why were Evan Jordan's edits identified as Vandalism? Looks like simple copy-editing to me.

Check the warning on left on their talk page. Removal of maintenance templates with no explanation and without addressing them is considered vandalism. Please remember to sign your posts with 4 tildes (~). OlYeller21^Talktome 16:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Upsetting the paid editing market

Interesting comment you made on COIN about "work for free may be the best way to upset the paid editing market". Are you thinking of some type of WikiProject? As in, a place folks can point to and say "If you're thinking about paying for Wikipedia-related services, first check out WikiProject XYZ - they charge $0.00" Interesting, but a big ol' WP:BOOMERANG if the customer service isn't up to par. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 10:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You know, I hadn't put a great deal of thought into it when I made that comment. I just tried to think of ways to upset/fix that situation and the idea came out.

You bring up some great points about the reality of such an undertaking. On one hand, it may bring in companies that expect something that we aren't equipped to give or that goes against our policies and guidelines. Either way, there's a great chance for an upset company. On the other hand, we'd certainly bring in several companies, to one location, that want something that we'd like to give them. I'm not saying that WP:COIN, WP:Requested articles, or {{edit request}} have failed by any means but putting up a flag that says, "hey! come do that over here!" may be helpful.

It might also bring new editors simply from the attention it receives. We could always use more editors.

Can you think of any alternatives to a WikiProject? I'll stew on it a bit today. OlYeller21^Talktome 16:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I stewed on it a bit, too. One valuable idea might be to clean up and monitor the Requested articles Biz & Org list. There's 1400+ "leads" there, all awaiting a notability review. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 19:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

You might be interested in the new WikiProject Requested articles, where folks are getting together to clean up and improve the Requested articles system. Also check out the clean up work so far on Requested articles: Companies. Cheers -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 19:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

From my perspective, if companies want to contribute quality content in subjects they have a vested interest in (including themselves) in a transparent and ethical manner - that's fantastic. Wikipedia should love that. The primary issues are the quality of the content and the transparency and ethics of the manner in which it is provided to the volunteer community. The only reason content marketing is controversial on Wikipedia is because it's openly editable, enabling COIs to post poor content, edit-war and censor content. If we take that away by following the bright line, the controversy is gone and we're just offering content. My two cents as another paid editor with an obviously bias point of view. In any case, it would be neat for a team to setup a pro bono "paid editing" business, especially if it's focused on non-profits and other areas that couldn't afford to hire someone to help. I would participate. User:King4057 17:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I need help for setting up my page

Thank-you for the message it has changed the way I see Wikipedia and I am sincerely sorry for my reactions to your deletion. But I need help setting up Congersbury SkatePark I have set up 6 pages but each time they have been deleted 5 of them for proper reasons. Please make a page for me the information for the page is below.

Residents say the area desperately needs Skatepark facilities and if suitable green space cannot be found it will be ‘a crying shame’.

The parish council is backing up the group of proactive parents and children in the fight for a Skatepark. The mission is being campaigned by mother-of-two, Jo White.

The 39-year-old mother said her oldest child young Charlie White, aged 11, who is a BMX rider as well as having a loving passion for scooters, sometimes lugs his own portable ramps around the village but these are not as good and are heavy to move around.

Jo, of Southside in Congresbury, said: “There is a huge interest in building a Skatepark in the village and it would be used by hundreds of kinds in the village and locally.

These are a couple of quotes from local villagers

“Yatton, Wrington, Churchill and Cheddar all have Skateparks and the government is constantly encouraging us to get the children outside and exercise so it really would be fantastic to have one in our village.”

“It would mean the children could use it in their own village instead of having to travel to other villages. It would be a crying shame if they couldn’t find the right spot/area as Congresbury has so much land-it would be very disappointing.”

Jo, who is a lab technician, and Congresbury Parish Council, has created a working party made up of councillor, schoolchildren and parents.

A feasibility study will now take place in a bit to find suitable locations and possible areas include the Millennium green and the king George IV playing fields as well as an area next to the ball-court.

RESOURCES Website: http://congresburyskateparkofficial.webs.com/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CongresburySkateParkOfficial

Twiter: https://twitter.com/#!/CongresburySkat/followers or https://twitter.com/#!/CongreSkatepark Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congresbury_Skatepark

Article By: The-Weston-Mercury/Jake Mason Edited By: Jake Mason

© CongresburySkatePark /June 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakemason0 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Jake, you may want start by determining if the subject is suitable for Wikipedia. To meet Wikipedia's criteria, there must be significant media coverage, books, or scholarly works that are independent of the subject to draw content from. "Incidental" coverage and materials published by the article subject generally don't count. We need really meaty articles written by independent journalists to create articles from - sources that Wikipedians trust to be impartial and accurate. If you feel it meets WP:CORP (the criteria for new articles on organizations), you could submit a proposed article through articles for creation. Hope this helps. User:King4057 17:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

White light interferometry

Hello OlYeller21,

You requested the speedy deletion of the page "White light interferometry" because of copyright reasons (if i understood it correctly). Which copyright did i violate? Is it possible that the source i probably copied is also from me meaning that the copyright i violated is of my own? Where can i find the deleted article if i want to publish it again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karaya2-1 (talk • contribs) 06:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I've been asked the same question after deleting it - I will explain on my talk page. SmartSE (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Smartse. OlYeller21^Talktome 13:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Nation Towers

Hello, ya I used the tool to clean up the reference that was there and am currently working on including the external links into the article as a reference. Next time I will just wait till I am done with the page before removing tags. ThanksEncycloCritique (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to clean up pages. WP can use all the help it can get. It's probably a good idea to wait to remove improvement templates until the issue(s) have been addressed. For the case of bare links, the most important thing is that the reference be described on WP. The internet changes so much that having a link is dangerous in that there's no way to tell what that page contained at the time it was used as a reference. It may even be gone in a short period of time.

Again, thanks for editing. I hope you enjoy your time here. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, I just finished the work I was doing on it. I will definitely refrain from removing tags until I am finished. I turned two of those ex links into cited references so will remove them from the external links section. have a great day, EncycloCritique (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

CSD Warning

Thank you for notifying me of my misuse of {{delete|}}. You would do well, however, not to use the word "warning", with others, as it is threatening, and can provoke non-intended and non-constructive responses. BLEAKGH (ᚷᚲᛇᛚᛒ) 18:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a warning. You can be blocked or banned from editing Wikipedia for doing what you did. What would you have me call it?

Also, has telling people what "would do them well" ever actually helped a situation? Ever? OlYeller21^Talktome 18:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Why yes, yes it has. Also, the reason for blocking a person from Wikipedia for doing that is what? It seems senseless. BLEAKGH (ᚷᚲᛇᛚᛒ) 18:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't participate in the making of that policy but tens if not hundreds of other WP editors did. Perhaps that's a discussion for the talk page of the policy? OlYeller21^Talktome 18:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Yet you have failed to provide either a link to the policy or at least the name of it. I've never even heard of such a policy before. BLEAKGH (ᚷᚲᛇᛚᛒ) 18:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I did provide it: WP:CSD. Did you come up with another word for "warning" that doesn't offend your sensibilities? OlYeller21^Talktome 18:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I was simply following the creteris for the delete template, which as it seems has been replaced by a "db" template. I was unaware of this change, and will make the bureaucracy happy by my compliancy as necessary. Good-bye. BLEAKGH (ᚷᚲᛇᛚᛒ) 18:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

"Not notable" isn't and has never been a criteria for speedy deletion. Regardless, using templates correctly is all I care about. Thank you. OlYeller21^Talktome 18:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, OlYeller21. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Hi there, can you email me a copy of the Girls in Tech which you deleted? I kept the copy in the sand box but its not there!

Thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorilla m3lion (talk • contribs) 03:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I never got an email from you but it doesn't really matter as long as there wasn't something else you wanted to say. Both articles were deleted because they were a copyright violation. I'm going from memory but I believe that portions of the text in the article were taken directly from or slightly changed from copyrighted sources (I think I remember finding two then tagging the article for deletion). Because of that, it can't be restored on Wikipedia. You can ask Discospinster, the person who deleted the article, to email you a copy but it's at their discretion. OlYeller21^Talktome 12:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Prod tag on Gunnel André page

You removed the Prod tag I placed on this page, and I was just hoping for some clarification. It appears the only references added are articles written by the subject of the article (i.e. his bibliography.) Is that enough to satisfy the Prod requirements for BLP? JoelWhy?(talk) 14:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. Per WP:BLPPROD, "The process requires that the article contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.), which support any statements made about the person in the biography." A source written by the subject can still be considered a reliable source and there were several external links in the article that can be used as references once the code is changed. You may want to read over the policy as some portions, specifically this instance, can be a little confusing at first. OlYeller21^Talktome 14:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks Yeller. JoelWhy?(talk) 14:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you help me again...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ligos/sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ligos (talk • contribs) 16:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ligos. The text that was used on the page was from this source, as I'm sure you know. The website owner owns the original text found on the website unless they specifically give permission others to use it. If you have the power to give that permission, you can find out how to do that here. After the process is completed, the article you created can be reinstated by the deleting administrator, Smartse (talk · contribs). OlYeller21^Talktome 16:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I extended an olive branch, though my branches are sometimes cut with an axe... User:King4057 22:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Alexander Cornell du Houx

Thank you for your help. I have left a note on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alexander_Cornell_du_Houx#Recommending_removal_of_Alex_Cornell_du_Houx.27s_Wikipedia_page. Not sure you want me to take up space repeating it here. --Paul Paul Cornell du Houx (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Vacation

I'm on vacation until the 7th. I'll get back with you as soon as possible. OlYeller21^Talktome 13:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Harry Sutcliffe

Hello. I'm afraid Harry Sutcliffe, which you proposed for deletion via WP:PROD, was recreated following a previous PROD deletion and therefore isn't eligible to be deleted again in the same way. Feel free to take it to WP:AfD if you still believe the article should be deleted. Cheers, Whouk (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

FindTheBest on COI Noticeboard

Hello and thank you for your note on FindTheBest on the COI Noticeboard. I appreciate your review of the article on your comments. I am a little new to Wikipedia (call me a newbie) and I'm not exactly sure how to use the "Notability Template" you posted in your comment. Can you briefly explain how and where I should use it. Thanks again for your help! Evan (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem. The {{notability}} template is meant to alert editors that the subject of the article may not be notable. Heavy emphasis on the "may" part. "Notable" with regards to Wikipedia is defined by WP:NOTABILITY which is a guideline that we use to determine what will and in some cases, what won't be included in the encyclopedia. For your company WP:GNG and WP:CORP are the portions to pay attention to. The template just tells other editors that the notability of the subject needs closer attention.

I patrol newly created pages and mark them with improvement templates and/or mark them for a deletion review on a regular basis so I've learned to look for certain signs in new articles. This is just a way of looking for patterns, not a judgement. In your article, it has several references and not all of them are independent which is totally fine but it means that those specific articles can't be used to establish notability per WP:GNG. Many of the sources listed aren't major news organizations. The ones that do pop out are WSJ and Forbes. I opened both and can see that the Forbes article is "significant coverage from an independent and reliable source" meaning that it can be used to establish notability per WP:GNG. The WSJ article, in my opinion, isn't significant coverage and cannot be used the establish notability. There are several other references there and I'm guessing that at least one can be used to establish notability (WP:GNG states that you need "multiple" for it to be considered notable) so I would just mark it so that someone else who spends their time assessing references can make the determination. I do this because if I stop to assess every reference, I'd never get through very many new articles and our backlog of new articles that need reviewing would be even bigger.

So in short, the notability template would bring someone to the article (in theory) to assess the references and make a determination about the subject's notability and take the appropriate actions. You don't have to apply it if you feel certain that it has received significant coverage from multiple independent and reliable sources, at least one of which is not local/regional. If that's the case, it satisfies WP:GNG and WP:CORP and people will have a hard time arguing with you.

That make sense? Sorry for the long response. OlYeller21^Talktome 18:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, this makes sense. Thanks for your comprehensive explanation. I will go through the references and remove the non-notable ones. I would like to point out though that TechCrunch, VentureBeat, and Mashable are popular news sources in the tech, internet and startup world and attract millions of readers every month. All three of the sites have a PageRank of 8, indicating that they have a high domain authority. In comparison, The Seattle Times has a PageRank of 6; The Dallas Morning News, The Oregonian and The Chicago Sun-Times have PageRanks of 7, and The Wallstreet Journal, USA Today, and The Los Angeles Times have PageRanks of 8. The only newspaper to have a PageRank of 9 is the New York Times. (Wikipedia is also a 9)

Therefore, I would like to argue that TechCrunch, VentureBeat and Mashable are reliable sources for an article on an internet site. While researching other startups for my article, I noticed that Quora, Kayak.com, Zillow, Klouy, AirBnb, Turntable.FM, Hipmunk, Prezi etc. also have multiple references from TechCrunch, VentureBeat and Mashable.

Two more questions, where do I add the {notable} template? To the talk page of the article? Or in the reference section?

Also, what is the next step for me? Do I add the template and wait until someone moves the article to the main space, or do I add it to the mainspace after it's been reviewed?

Again, thanks for your help, it's been greatly appreciated!!! Evan (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

You don't need to remove any sources. Sources can be great for things other than establishing notability. I read TechCrunch daily and know of Mashable but not of VentureBeat but that's basically why I chose to let others assess notability in such cases. There are editors who devote all their time to assessing sources and notability and they're really good at it. So there's a couple things a source needs to be usable for establishing notability but there are even more reasons to keep them than just for notability.

The {{notable}} template is generally added to the top of the page.

I'm glad I could help. It's great to be able to help new editors learn more about WP. OlYeller21^Talktome 19:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll chime in on VentureBeat, being intimately familiar. They're a big deal for anyone in the Silicon Valley tech startup scene. VentureBeat crushes quite a few household names in the Techmeme leaderboard. It was started by a former SJ Merc journalist. Should be a quality source. User:King4057 04:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

That's certainly pertinent information. I think the article could definitely go without the template. The template may help the article a bit, assuming it works as intended, but ultimately, it's not required.

I think the best thing to do at this point is to move it to mainspace and see what happens. I'm 90% sure no one would mark it for any sort of speedy deletion and any other issues could be addressed by either Evanthomas1 or me. I'd say do it now but in about two hours, I'll be leaving on vacation and won't be regularly checking my watchlist until probably 7/7. OlYeller21^Talktome 16:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

As a frequent COI contributor myself, I won't touch it in article-space, but I think it looks like a good stub that meets notability. I've been enjoying as of late crawling Talk pages and finding small problems I can solve. I didn't even notice initially this was a COI conversation. ;-) User:King4057 22:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Olyeller21, I hope you had a nice vacation. Now that you are back, can we move the FindTheBest article to the mainspace? Please let me know how to proceed. Thanks, Evan (talk) 14:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The article has been moved to the mainspace here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FindTheBest Evan (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

COI Guideline

I've been really busy writing an op-ed for the Signpost, contributing to a new COI essay, looking at duplicating the AfC process for request edits (though that may be beyond my technical abilities) and having some pretty lengthy conversations with users interested in the subject of COI, where I feel we're all learning from each other and finding good compromises.

At the end of the day though, the COI guideline is the front and center quarterback and the RfC was unproductive. I actually thought the guideline was fine, until I started hearing all the questions from PR people and realized just how confusing it is. I thought I would poke around and see if we can round up a posse to go through it line-by-line and just improve/clarify (not drastically change, but just improve). I'd be happy to help out as a sort of representative of the dark side. Maybe I am shooting for the moon here in thinking we can organize and mobilize? ;-) Posting a similar message with folks that are active on the COI guideline Talk page. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 23:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm very interested in this issue. I general participate on COIN with the feeling that companies, representatives, interested employees, etc. are often bit very hard when they come to Wikipedia. I believe those users can be highly valuable to Wikipedia if they're given some guidance (assuming they actually want to play by the rules). I try very hard to help them understand the complex system of policies and guidelines here and feel that I see the same misunderstandings pop up with relative frequency. If you're familiar with a Pareto analysis, you'll know that the issue most likely lies on our end.

I think that if we can really get something moving, we'll get a lot more attention which may not be a great thing. The misunderstandings surrounding WP:COI doesn't lie only with new or non-editors. WP:COIN is often littered with reports based on a misunderstanding of WP:COI. I think we'd have to show statistically that this isn't a problem that all noticeboards have but it's at least a way that we can show some actual data regarding he apparent misunderstanding of the guideline by editors. In the end, the biggest issue may lie with the idea that people who come here from a company, obviously have a close connection and a conflict of interest, are inherently bad-doers. On one hand, I like that a volunteer community cherishes what we have so dearly that they're willing to defend it but as you point out in EthicalWiki, these companies can help us if we can learn how to play nice together.

After reading through all of your blog, I thought you might be interested in this case. It's been a year so I don't remember all the details but it's an example where a company owned by NBC attempted to create a network of articles to promote Mountain Dew by promoting events that it sponsors. It included socking, copyvios, NPOV editing, and not a single discussion with editors who were attempting to contact them. It resulted in 19 articles, 2 categories, 2 templates, and 4 files being deleted. I reached out to the company on and off Wiki but never received a reply. I mention it because it's the biggest COI nightmare I've seen at COIN and because there's a permanent record, it could eventually go from a failed attempt to promote to bad PR for some very large companies. It's the best recorded example I have or have seen as to why companies should be transparent and work with editors besides maybe your example with Bell Pottinger.

I've already babbled enough here but this is something I'm really interested in. I generally look at systems and wonder where they'll be in the future and I worry that WP's future may not be so bright due to declining editor population and the increasing size of the internet. I attempted to help with some education programs which I thought would bring in students and professors as new editors but that really blew up in editors faces. Bringing in more editors to combat POV editing, spam, copyright violations, and the creation of articles for non-notable subjects isn't easy so maybe we can come from another angle and either make policies and guidelines easier for the laymen to understand and/or make policies and guidelines more commonly understood and accepted by PR agents. WP is way too powerful and important to let it decay.

I'm in. I don't know who else you've spoken with but Uzma Gamal is an editor I would definitely contact. I can't say that I know he'll be interested but he's active at WP:COIN and obviously has a good understanding of the guideline. Atama is also great and has made the most edits to COIN. Let me know where to be and I'll be there. Smartse is very good, too. OlYeller21^Talktome 04:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Cool. I left notes for Atama and Uzma, but not for SmartSE, because he previously told me he wasn't into the policies and guidelines end of things. Ryan Vesey wants to help and WhatamIdoing seems cautiously on-board. WhatamIdoing suggested we just take it one baby step at a time picking small problems or start by adding something. I think if we can at least come to agreement that it needs improvement and support a sustained Talk page effort, we could make progress. It would be better if we could get a veteran editor that is familiar with every phrase to sort of lead the effort. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 12:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

If you'd like a hand, count me in. I'm not convinced that the guideline needs drastic change, but I think it's possible to make some incremental improvements... bobrayner (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we both have the same idea and probably something more or less agreeable by most anyone. Clearer language, more clear boundaries, make the difference between policy and advice more obvious, clean up contradictions, etc. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 16:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: {{who}}

I copied and pasted it from a speedily deleted article way back when cause I thought it was funny. Then me and others started adding all sorts of {{cn}} and stuff to it. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

It definitely is funny. I enjoyed it after I realized you weren't some kook trying to inform people about how terrible Wikipedia is... on Wikipedia. OlYeller21^Talktome 18:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Whitewashing???

I've started a discussion at Talk:The Voter Participation Center, but I'm very curious to hear the reasoning that went into your edit summary, so I thought I would ask you directly. To refresh your memory, you reverted most of a new paragraph of material I had just added to The Voter Participation Center with the comment that it "feels a lot like whitewashing". I find this rather odd, since I had added material that is unflattering to the subject of the article. Quite the opposite of "whitewashing", in fact. Could you enlighten me? Belchfire (talk) 07:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

link rot

I noticed that you tagged a few articles as suffering from link rot. It would only take a bit of extra time to fix the link rot your self. If you check-out User:Dispenser/Reflinks you may use the bookmarklet or add code to your account. It usually deals with 95% of the issues. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll check it out. I usually try not to correct much as it takes time away from patrolling the month long backlog of new pages that need patrolled but that tool sounds like it would barely slow me down at all. Thanks for the tip. OlYeller21^Talktome 04:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Uh... that is awesome. Thanks again. OlYeller21^Talktome 04:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio tag DayZ

I have removed the copyvio tag on DayZ article. The article you linked as a copy/paste was written the same day as you added the tag. The content of the article has been built up over time, over the last month. You can see this by checking the article history. The author of the article you linked (http://www.slimgamer.com/8682/but-what-is-dayz/) has copied from Wikipedia, not the other way around. Canwin87 (talk) 08:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

George Dewhurst (cricketer)

I noticed that today you requested a histmerg on this article. Based on WP:COPYWITHIN and specifically here, this was not necessary at all by my reading. And my watchlist is now a disaster area, with page moves, renames, deletions and recreations for several other articles which were on the sandbox page which you requested a merge of. No great problem or hardship, as everything seems to be back to normal now, I just wondered why you considered this necessary? Cheers. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

If you read through WP:COPYWITHIN, you'll see it's all about copying content from one article to another. It's with regards to content becoming forked so that we have contradictory information on Wikipedia. It goes on to mention userpage copy/paste is OK if it's from mainspace to userspace, not the other way around. It ends with this section which discusses the case here. This is also why this was created. It's also why this warning template was created that I chose not to hit an established editor with.

I'm sorry if your watchlist was a disaster; that may be something you want to bring up with the admin who merged the histories.

Lastly, I added the {{sections}} template because the article (at this point) needed sections per WP:MOS. It's great besides that. Per your edit summary, "Not sure why this was necessary, or why it couldn't have been done by the tagging chap, but hey ho", I didn't correct the error because I was patrolling the month long backlog of new pages that need checked. If I stopped to make every edit that I see that's needed, I wouldn't get through 1/10th of the number of pages I do. I tag articles with improvement templates so that I can move on to what I consider a much larger issue that needs addressing unless the issue with the article needs immediate attention (BLP-PROD, Speedy deletion, copyvios, etc.). OlYeller21^Talktome 17:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

As I say, no great problem about this, and I apologise if I'm a bit snappy but as I say, my watchlist is a mess. I think we may see this rather differently, and I know that what I did with Dewhurst is extremely common, including among many FAC regulars. The specific section you quote from this, and describe as "the situation here" states: "the licensing violation can be repaired...". But there is no licensing violation as I wrote all the material and therefore the copyright situation is absolutely fine, based on the sections I linked to above. I repeat, it is common practice to write in userpages and then copy to an article; I suspect many people share my interpretation. That is not to say that this is the correct view, and I accept I may be entirely wrong, but I remain unconvinced it was necessary. But it isn't an issue for me as such, I'm just trying to clarify it all in my own mind, and I apologise for the slightly sarcastic edit summary on Dewhurst's article. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Test

My edits aren't saving which is incredibly frustrating. OlYeller21^Talktome 14:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Apparently edits save here but not in some other places. OlYeller21^Talktome 14:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

WinClon

The links you added in your PROD tag caused the template's layout to expand awkwardly, messing up the page a little. You might want to remove the links and place them on the talk page instead, to avoid that.  dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 01:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Feedback

A moment of your time... I've been hanging out on the COI board more and more, and occasionally getting a little bold - as you spend a lot of time on the board, would you mind having a look over my shoulder things like Noticeboard#Ivan_Massow.2FUser:LisaThorne and let me know if you would have done anything differently? (Obviously the same applies to any of my edits on the COI board but I fear that might be putting you to too much trouble... ) Fayedizard (talk) 19:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I did notice you in the LisaThorne incident/report.

It's really easy to see COI editors as a problem. Some seem to think that their goals are a perversion of the good nature that Wikipedia is founded on and bite COI editors as if they're attacking WP. In my opinion, that's very unfortunate as COI editors can be the most knowledgable person about a subject. I also find that most COI editors don't wish to subvert WP's goals but don't understand all of our policies and guidelines but who does when they're new? So in that case, it could have easily gone south, very quickly but instead, we (WP, not me) were able to start a conversation with Lisa Thorne and from what I see on the talk page, it looks like you and a few other editors are working on the content with her.

Keeping an open mind and assuming good faith really do wonders here and this edit tells me that you understand that. I haven't read through every talk page discussion you've had but another action I noticed that you took was this where you called the university. I've never done that but I applaud you taking the initiative to reach out and discuss something with people who may not understand the issues. I noticed both of those actions independently. Had I noticed they were from the same person, I probably would have left you a note on your talk page. I feel that it's a tragedy to think that someone did something well and not tell them.

If you're looking for any advice, I can give some but I still don't consider myself an expert. One would be to approach cases with the assumption that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. It's really rare that I find situations where admin actions such as blocks or topic bans need to be taken. Another would be to simply ask users about their connection. We sometimes forget how easy it can be to discover a close connection just by asking. Lastly, be thorough. I often find that a COI editor isn't only editing one page and often, there isn't just one editor/account. People who report at COIN often do because they don't have time to investigate or just don't want to meaning that their report will almost always be missing information. Recording that info can be useful and in the process, help you uncover other problematic editors, edits, and article that need attention. My last-last suggestion (just thought of it) is to do your best to stay out of content disputes. It's rare but occasionally determining whether or not there's a COI is based on the outcome of a content dispute which can inherently skew the content dispute itself. It's a big tornado of fighting and I do my best to determine if there's a close connection and if the user is applying a reasonable interpretation of our guidelines and policies then send them to NPOVN or BLPN to get the assistance of editors who specialize in content disputes.

As for things I'd do differently, I don't really see anything glaring and I checked all your COIN edits back to the end of May. Asking questions in these cases is always useful and you seem to do that. If you want to improve your skill, when a new report is posted, see if you can find information that the reporting editor didn't include. Talking to editors who are accused of a COI can help you see the common issues that new editors face as well.

Does that cover things well? I'm apparently very long-winded lately. Sorry for the long post. OlYeller21^Talktome 19:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that detailed answer - it means a lot :) In any case, even if you don't consider yourself an expert this suggests that you're the go-to person. That's for keeping an eye out, and If you catch me doing something you would have done differently, then don't hesitate to let me know :)

minor clarification on IVT

Can you change this reply so it appears to be aimed at our friend Lperez2029, not at me? Thanks. tedder (talk) 03:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. Very sorry for the confusion. I should have been more clear. OlYeller21^Talktome 03:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, no worries. My text here is lacking in any discernable tone, so I hope you didn't take it negatively or anything- I just have trouble with ambiguity . tedder (talk) 03:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Intelligent vehicle technologies

This one has piqued my interest, and I've added it to my watchlist. Just thought I'd let you know. More eyes, and all that. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Depending on how he responds, I think we have two options: nominate him for a topic ban due to WP:COI and WP:OWN or build a consensus on the talk page which he will most certainly reject which will cause an edit war and his escalating blocks per WP:3RR. Hopefully we can turn things around but given that I'm seeing years of behavioral issues on Wikipedia, I'm not exactly confident that he'll see the errors of his ways. At least not from discussion alone. OlYeller21^Talktome 13:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

PR COI

I think we're making progress on that one sentence in the COI guideline. I made a proposal for the revised that could be close[3]. I'm in over my head, because I don't know how consensus for such a change is truly established.

I was curious why your tone changed very suddenly from our prior conversation about the COI guideline to your comment on my Talk page. Just curious for perspective. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 03:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I think there must have been a misunderstanding. I had simply never seen any sort of data collected from people with COIs who edit Wikipedia and found the numbers interesting. I couldn't decide if the number of people felt that their time on WP was a waste, was high or low. Zero percent seemed best, assuming they actually want to try and work within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I was just asking what you thought was an ideal and reasonable percentage.

I'll check out the discussion and help as best I can. Sorry for the misunderstanding. 15:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Aww ok. I thought you were being sarcastic, but you're referring to not wanting COIs to edit their own articles.

I publish data as well here and here. Check out the comment by Katie Roberts here and you start to get some perspective on how PR feels about Wikipedia. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 20:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I just wrote a response and it disappeared upon saving... How frustrating.

The article I mentioned was interesting to me because it showed what I consider to be the dissatisfied customers. Obviously they're not customers but you get the idea. I want COI editors to feel that transparency is the best policy, regardless of whether or not they edit the article they have a COI with or stick to talk pages. I also want editors to know that COI editors can be very valuable to Wikipedia (COI editors tend to be bitten often). While it would be great if every customer was satisfied, that's not plausible but the lower the number (less dissatisfied customers) the better, assuming all of WP's policies and guidelines are met.

I had read through your blog a while back. I have another question for you. In the "Our Experience" section of the EthicalWiki tab, you mention that, "EthicalWiki has over four years of experience in helping companies contribute quality content to Wikipedia". I was curious as to what kind of help you provide. I've found that there are a few companies that run for-profit seminars to train people "in Wikipedia" and "how to be an Admin", both in 7 hour seminars (which is laughable) but not much else as far as training goes. Do you think that providing a training and consulting through a for-profit company would be inherently unethical? OlYeller21^Talktome 20:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The short answer is I haven't necessarily figured it out yet. If I do training and they use those skills to undermine Wikipedia, I may be morally and legally responsible. On the other hand, the Web is filled with PR agencies offering "three quick tips" for Wikipedia editing. You say seven hours is laughable, but the typical PR person's attention span for Wikipedia is closer to 30 minutes. I have a lot of concerns about training that have been validated by real-life experiences. I think it's an effective approach for small companies with simple articles and GLAM projects, but not for major brands with complex reputations.

My approach at the moment is to focus training and education on ethics, rather than "how to write a Wikipedia article." Part of the idea here is to forge a productive path for PR people to help improve articles that doesn't set the unrealistic expectation of them investing huge amounts of time into learning how to be a good Wikipedian.

But you shouldn't take my air of confidence too seriously. I've only been doing Wikipedia as EthicalWiki for under a year. Prior edits were at PR agencies as 5% of my job. I like to think that Wikipedians and I are learning at the same time from each other. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 23:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

BTW - I have a meeting next week regarding Wikipedia training, so I'm interested in your perspective. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 00:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

My friends and associates see my time spent on Wikipedia as a neat hobby, a skill that they can exploit for their own gain, or a complete waste of time. Many of them come up with ill-informed ideas regarding how I can make money on my time spent here. Paid editing isn't something that I think is damnable but it's not something that I particularly wish to do. Recently, I had a chat with a friend and much like other chats, he thought I should start a paid editing company. I explained to him why it wasn't something I was willing to do and he responded by saying that he had no idea how complicated Wikipedia is and understood why I wouldn't start said company. This realization lead him to suggest that I start a training company and I honestly can't think of how that would be an issue like paid editing. I still don't think I'll ever do that as I enjoy teaching others for free, but it's an interesting concept. I can't think of a policy our guideline that would apply to paid teaching but regardless of money, it could still be dangerous.

I hadn't thought about the danger until you brought it up. In my COIN investigations, I always worry about how much damage someone well versed in WP can do. Most of the time, I catch COIs because someone outs themselves in one way or another. If they didn't out themselves, my job would be much harder. If I were to train people, they may use that knowledge to become some master of spamming, socking, and block evading that is basically impossible to get rid of. Such people already exist on WP but generally they're driven by some sort of anger instead of profit and they're vandalizing, not spamming or whitewashing.

I'll have to think about it more but ultimately, if a person's goal is to subvert our policies and guidelines for their own gain, whether or not they're trained by someone who understands Wikipedia is probably trivial. I'm not really sold on that idea but I see it like a bank. A bank can be robbed and there's not a whole lot that can be done about it in the short term but banks limit the amounts in tellers' drawers to limit the possible loss. According to the Pareto principle, 80% of the effects come from 20% of the cause. When more than 80% of WP users don't understand how it works, the fault is probably our own. Simplifying policies in guidelines is one answer, in my opinion, while educating users is another answer. Educating users may educate a problem user to abuse WP but I think that overall, it will be a net positive and simplifying our guidelines and policies can help limit possible loss.

If I were to teach, I'd probably use a bit of scare tactics to show a person/company how much bad press they can receive by trying to secretly promote their company on WP.

Sorry for the long reply. This is something I often think about so I'm sort of in stream-of-consciousness mode. OlYeller21^Talktome 01:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm actually more comfortable doing the work myself than teaching others. I do think that someone with my skill-set on the dark side can do a lot of damage. My guess is paid editors that specialize in censorship already exist, as we've already seen somewhat elaborate schemes to wash down controversy successfully. But I'm not worried so much about something so extreme.

My thinking is more about training paid editors that will spam Wikipedia with promotional articles with enough sources to skate by. From my perspective, policies and guidelines are really a small part of the gig. It's more about pushing companies to do things they're uncomfortable with - transparency, genuine neutrality, disclosing negative information when it exists, avoiding gaming the system and pushing things through corporate cycles, educating each stakeholder on why the article is the way it is.

For example, say the Wikipedia Council (I'm making this up) ranks me as a paid editor and my rank fluctuates every week. I might wait until the right week and put on the article that I'm #1, even though the next week I'm #6. I encourage the client not to game the system and just pick a middle-ish week. It's the whole point of COI that companies have different objectives than Wikipedia, so they want to know how much they can get away with. They need a guardian of ethics to prevent them from interpreting policies and guidelines to their advantage.

I wouldn't check off training as unethical (like I said, I still haven't figured it out), but I've seen the argument a few times that someone is not responsible if the edits don't come from their username. I don't agree that you shouldn't worry about ethics, just because you're not making the edits yourself. In fact, my experience has been the opposite.

But why not do the work yourself? The paid editing scene needs more editors that genuinely care about doing right by Wikipedia. I think that's a lot of what it takes is just genuinely having your heart in the right place. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 03:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I've toyed around with the idea. I think I'm mostly worried that I may spoil what I enjoy about Wikipedia. Ultimately, I think I can be of more help to Wikipedia by patrolling new pages and working at WP:COIN than creating an article but sometimes I think my experience here needs to be more well rounded. I've never created a GA or FA and have never created an article that's feature on DYK.

I'm going to stew on the concept of getting paid to edit, advise, and/or educate for a few days. OlYeller21^Talktome 03:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I just had a long chat with a friend who thought I should do extensive COI Wikipedia workshops for PR agencies. I was sort of getting convinced of it. My thinking is:

• 1 hour seminars for basic things I think most PR agencies should do (factual corrections, providing sources, etc.)
• Multi-day workshops (if any PR agency is willing to make that commitment) for PR firms that want to do what I do
• All participants have to sign my statement of ethics

He felt I was being over-controlling and fretting over being responsible for less ethical behavior, when in actuality training recipients will do better than without my training. I have to accept that some of them will do right, others will do wrong, but the overall influence should still be an improvement for both parties. I still think my training will be focused on ethics, not "how to edit Wikipedia" but it was some good food for thought. Thought I would let you know. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 05:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Public vs. private school names

I don't see any difference. First, public schools have a lot to gain by promoting themselves as they can always be enticing people to move into the district they serve (at least in the US), and some indeed even have competitive entrance examinations. Second, a name that is the same as that of the institution the article the user is editing is about makes it hard for other users to assume good faith on that user's part, regardless of the edits. Daniel Case (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense. I'll report them both in the future. OlYeller21^Talktome 18:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Rrajan12321

Dear OlYeller21, I would like for you to consider the "Matthew Asinari" article. I am currently writing it. However, there are several issues with the article. Other editors claim that my writing is biased and written like an advertisement. However, I don't feel this is the case and fail to see anything in it that explicitly promotes the subject of the article. Could you please be so kind as to give it a look and point me to any sentences that you feel may be responsible for the issue. Additionally, it states that the article is an orphan article. Does wikipedia oppose to making references to the article in other articles to which the subject is involved? Best, Rrajan12321 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrajan12321 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello! I'd be happy to help. I'm busy for the next few hours but I'll take a look at it today or tomorrow and give you a list of things that can be done to get the article in-line with our policies and guidelines so that the improvement templates can be removed. OlYeller21^Talktome 21:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rrajan12321. I took a look at the article and made a few tweaks. It looks like a lot of the promotional material was removed since the addition of the advert template. I removed a few more vague claim and removed the template.

The "orphan" template is in reference to no other articles linking to the Matthew Asinari article. This template isn't very problematic and can be removed when at least one (but preferably three) articles link to the Matthew Asinari article with internal links (the double bracket around a word or phrase that takes you to another WP article). I wouldn't worry about this template at the moment as it looks like no other articles mention Matthew meaning that you might have to do some work to create content in other articles with the sole purpose of mentioning Matthew. With my experience, I suggest not doing that but I'll see if I can help you with that.

Another template is the notability template. For a subject to be included in the encyclopedia, they must be considered "notable". Notable is defined at WP:N and doesn't indicate importance or fame. Specifically, the easiest way for a person to be considered notable is for them to have been the subject of significant coverage (not just a mention) from independent (not press releases or personal websites) and reliable sources (newspapers, widely distributed books, etc.). As it stands, it doesn't look like the references in the article show any news coverage that can be considered significant coverage from independent and reliable sources. There are other inclusion guidelines like WP:BIO that can be used but it may be a long-shot. If you can find articles about Mr. Ansinari, I can help you add them to the article to help establish notability and the template can then be removed.

Lastly, the COI template. We don't have to discuss it here but it is believed that you have a close connection to the subject of the article which results in a conflict of interest. This may mean that the text of the article is skewed but as I see no problem with the text as it stands, I removed the COI template.

Does that help explain the issues? Do you have any questions at this point? OlYeller21^Talktome 02:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

As I look deeper, I see articles like this where Asinari has been chosen as a judge for an award so prestigious that the awards were presented by the President of Taiwan. This and that while he was CEO, his firm was the first ever western advertising firm to win the Asian Agency of the Year Award, makes me think that he is notable per WP:ANYBIO. I'm going to remove the notability template. OlYeller21^Talktome 02:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I need to head to bed. I think that's the best we're going to do for now. Let me know if you have any questions. OlYeller21^Talktome 03:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

OlYeller21: I appreciate your sincere effort to further the improvement of the "Matthew Asinari" article. I feel that this has given me good insight into the wikipedia editing process.

Dear OlYeller21,

I have discovered a link to the subject on the subject's family's article on the Italian wikipedia. I would like to know whether this will qualify for the removal of the COI template. best,

Rrajan12321 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrajan12321 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it does not. It must be intra-English-Wiki or internal links within English Wikipedia. I'll a look around and see if I can find an article to put a link in. OlYeller21^Talktome 14:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. I linked him as a notable alumni of Columbus and Boston University. OlYeller21^Talktome 15:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

OlYeller21,

Many thanks for helping me work on this article. I'd like to know how I can be of help with regards to making wikipedia better and I feel that this has been a good first step in that direction.

Best,

Rrajan12321 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrajan12321 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Purge function

Regarding comments at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Volume! AfD discussion, the red link appearing in the AfD template is almost always corrected (from my experience) by simply purging the page. This clears the page's server cache and updates the link as a functional blue-link. For more information, see Wikipedia:Purge. Happy editing! Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Letter to PR agencies/departments

Want to work with me on it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:King4057/letter&pe=1&

User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 15:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Busy

I'm very busy at work which means that I'm spending 12-14 hours a day at work and am unable to edit. Besides that, I drive to and from work or sleep (hopefully not at the same time). I'll comment here when the fire I'm fighting is suppressed and I can return to normal editing. I'll still be checking this page and reverting blatantly bad edits made to article on my watchlist. OlYeller21^Talktome 19:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

YOU HAVE A NOTIFICATION

At my Userpage.BiologyArtist (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Michelle Jenneke

I would recommend a more appropriate photograph for the Michelle Jenneke page. Perhaps one of her hurdling. Horwendil (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't put the photo there. If you think it should be changed, perhaps you could do it? Regardless of your opinions of the photo, the comment you made was inappropriate. OlYeller21^Talktome 18:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The comment suits the photo, someone put that up as cheesecake, and it's irritating. When I try posting photos, they are generally removed for copyright. I am not sure how to deal with that, but I can figure it out. Horwendil (talk) 14:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I try to assume good faith in people but you're probably right. I fully support it being replaced with something more appropriate. Finding an image that's not copyrighted is going to be difficult. Perhaps, you can prove that the photo used is copyrighted and I can help you get it deleted. OlYeller21^Talktome 14:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. Thank you. Horwendil (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Sherrod Brown

Hey there, thanks for helping roll back the nonconstructive edits that are being made to Sherrod Brown. I am going to restore to the last stable version and request page protection. If in so doing I accidentally roll back any of your edits, please let me know and I'll remedy. Just want to make sure nothing gets missed. Thx! Arbor8 (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I find this case rather alarming. This user with 50-some edits obviously had an understanding of some of our policies and guidelines. They're also accusing others of being confrontational whenever challeneged. Recently, they've started to state that references don't mention the subject of the article when they, in fact do, in order to remove content. This may be the tip of an iceberg. I'd like to see more of their actions before starting a discussion with them. OlYeller21^Talktome 20:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussing on talk has pretty much gotten me nowhere. Requested page protection on Sherrod Brown and added a final warning to Talk. Going to keep an eye on Martin Heinrich and Josh Mandel as well. Arbor8 (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

My COI-nose was itching but I'm convinced now that this editor is editing in good faith. I'm starting a discussion on the talk page so that we can work out the issues presented by the other used (just forgot the name) and come to an amicable solution. OlYeller21^Talktome 20:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You're a more charitable person than I am, then. The edits to Sherrod Brown and Mandel, while somewhat odd, could be good faith. But the edits to Martin Heinrich are a lot harder to justify, in my opinion. Regardless, glad to have a robust discussion on article Talk. Arbor8 (talk) 20:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

COI accusation

Hi, my editing activity is currently under discussion at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Issue is related to the Michael Servetus article and its Talk page. I have exposed my defense arguments but still no feedback from neutral users, and I would prefer the issue to be fairly settled and resolved. I have seen that you are an active and neutral participant in COI discussions and your opinion may be very helpful in discerning this (for me) perplexing situation that is bordering on harassment. Thanks. --Jdemarcos (talk) 04:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Clean up after me...?

I've got R._J._Williams on my watchlist following a previous COI thread and reworded a recent adverty addition - IP keeps putting it back but I think I've lost all credibility because I keep typoing 'young hollywood' with 'planet hollywood' - would you mind having a quick look? (you may have to watch the short video which is the source for the content) - Sorry... Fayedizard (talk) 14:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Reverting all my edits?

Most of the changes I made were not even remotely controversial. Even Arbor8 looked and only objected to one paragraph on "Controversial remarks". That is just not acceptable behavior. I have reverted your undo. If you do another revert I will go to ANI. I will take the issue of "Controversial remarks" to the talk page as there seems to be much more room for reasonable disagreement. Organthief1949 (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Take it to ANI. I've invited you to use the talk page several times but you have refused. OlYeller21^Talktome 16:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I was unaware of any requirement to have every edit I make approved on the talk page. Deleting all of my changes without offering any specific objections seems very inappropriate. It seems like you are just manufacturing conflict.Organthief1949 (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Manufacturing conflict? Were you not aware that I was the only person that stepped in when others were suggesting that you be banned from editing the page? I assumed good faith and came to you to discuss your blatantly false reasoning for making edits and assumed they were mistakes, which I still assume they were.

Again, had you used the talk page months ago, this wouldn't even be an issue. Please use the talk page of the article so that we may move beyond this issue.

On a side note, I'll be busy for the rest of the day and won't be able to immediately address the talk page but I would like to say that there's no reason to be speedy about this. I'm sure that we can agree that slowing down and discussing the issues is the best thing for everyone involved. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I am more than happy to address specific criticism that you have and will happily give in when I realize I am wrong or when consensus goes against me. But reverting edits that you don't even seem to have any specific objection to, just because they come from me, is not appropriate and I won't stand for it. Organthief1949 (talk) 17:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Then don't. Go to ANI. The issues were outlined on the talk page months ago and didn't participate. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

On a side note, I think this may be of help to you: WP:CYCLE. Others have reverted you and invited you to discuss but you haven't. That's the basis for my reverts. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I am more than happy to discuss any specific objections you have to my last edit that are based on the merits of the edit itself.Organthief1949 (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

As explained previously, your edits are too quick and too drastic for a BLP and they can't be assessed quickly enough.

As I mentioned before, I'm going to be busy from about 10 minutes from now until at least 5 hours later and I don't plan on spending my weekend defending the biography of a living person that I don't even particularly care for.

Use the talk page to explain each edit you wish you make. There couldn't be more than five points and luckily for you, you can use your diffs as an example for what you plan to do.

Please cease any conversation about this topic on my talk page and take it to the talk page of the article where it will be constructive. I don't need anymore email notifications before I walk into a long video conference with ten people with which I don't share a common language. OlYeller21^Talktome 18:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you have not stated any objection to my last edit based on the edit itself. It seems we have nothing more to discuss. As for your meeting and e-mail alerts, those are your problems.Organthief1949 (talk) 19:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

This ended as I expected it would. OlYeller21^Talktome 15:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012

Hey, I removed some of the content from the header of the page because I was planning on filling out the "history" segment of Chelsea Wolfe's page, which hasn't been added yet. You can put it back, I'll work on it in my sandbox. Also, I'm relatively new to editing wiki in general, I've actually never left an edit summary before, but I'll be sure to leave one on future edits. Sorry for the confusion.

/JenxDance

Hey. No worries. Thanks for taking the time to improve the article! OlYeller21^Talktome 15:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Frukwan

to who it may concern you have 10 days to delete Frukwan page and redirect ip to Frukwans officals page,,you are in gross negligence of copyright infringement for unauthorized use of property

thank you secured party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.16.220.32 (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Or what? What makes you feel that you can make such a demand? Who are you? OlYeller21^Talktome 15:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frukwan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 01:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

TB

Hello, OlYeller21. You have new messages at Blackknight12's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ol yeller, i havent been on wiki in a while but i can see why i gave up when i was on it before. it is extremly complicated w no easy help desk or way to communicate. i still am totally confused as to how to use it. isnt there a way i could actually talk to someone about it? my email is msiris@solomonsiris.com and my phone is 516 506 8841. thanks, mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikesiris (talk • contribs) 14:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Your recent AIV report

Thanks for your report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism about Gylatshalit. The editing is certainly problematic, but not really vandalism. Technically, as you suggest, the correct thing for me to do would be to tell you to take it to ANI, but my own view is that ANI reports very often result in a lot of hot air and fruitless arguing with little action, so I tend to avoid it like the plague. (It's not always like that: sometimes an ANI report results in prompt and useful action, but the failure rate is ridiculously high.) I have posted a level 3 warning to the user's talk page. If the problem continues, you can of course take it to ANI if you like, but you are also welcome to contact me on my talk page for help. Unfortunately, I am not optimistic about the chance of the user's taking note of our messages. He/she has made a total of 6311 edits, of which precisely four have been talk page posts (or eight if you count corrections to formatting errors in those four, such as this edit). (The toolserver edit counter counts 23 non-deleted talk page edits, but most of those are moves of article talk pages, not contributions to them.) However, there is always a chance that an editor will take note of messages and change their approach. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not a newsletter

This is just a tribute.

Anyway. You're getting this note because you've participated in discussion and/or asked for updates to either the Article Feedback Tool or Page Curation. This isn't about either of those things, I'm afraid ;p. We've recently started working on yet another project: Echo, a notifications system to augment the watchlist. There's not much information at the moment, because we're still working out the scope and the concepts, but if you're interested in further updates you can sign up here.

In addition, we'll be holding an office hours session at 21:00 UTC on Wednesday, 14 November in #wikimedia-office - hope to see you all there :). I appreciate it's an annoying time for non-Europeans: if you're interested in chatting about the project but can't make it, give me a shout and I can set up another session if there's enough interest in one particular timezone or a skype call if there isn't. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

AFT5 newsletter

Hey all :). A couple of quick updates (one small, one large)

First, we're continuing to work on some ways to increase the quality of feedback and make it easier to eliminate and deal with non-useful feedback: hopefully I'll have more news for you on this soon :).

Second, we're looking at ways to increase the actual number of users patrolling and take off some of the workload from you lot. Part of this is increasing the prominence of the feedback page, which we're going to try to do with a link at the top of each article to the relevant page. This should be deployed on Tuesday (touch wood!) and we'll be closely monitoring what happens. Let me know if you have any questions or issues :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

AFT5 office hours

Hey all :). Just a quick note to say we'll be holding office hours in #wikimedia-office at 21:30 UTC this Thursday (the 29th) to show everyone the additional tools we're thinking of working on. All attendence and feedback is appreciated :). Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

For the record

I am aware of the meaning of the A1 criterion. I realize that it might have been a slightly odd one to choose on Dr. Christopher Hills Phytoene‎, but I literally had no clue what it meant - is it about a chemical or a person? That's about as "no context" as you can get. And I figured that if someone else saw it, and felt confident in one interpretation of what the page was trying to say, then they'd tag it with whatever criterion it would meet under that interpretation. Which is exactly what you did. Sorry. I figured it was a page that was going to get deleted no matter what, so why not go with the criterion that most accurately reflected my perception? — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 16:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess it seemed obvious to me that the article was about both a doctor and a drug that he created. Had the doctor or drug been notable, the article could have been changed to represent the doctor or drug which an article for the other subject could have been created, if it were notable. Neither made a claim of importance which is why I tagged it with A7 (even though a drug can't qualify for A7). In any case, both are identifiable so I don't see how it qualifies for A1. While it may seem (and may be) a waste of time for me to clarify when the article seems like an obvious candidate for speedy deletion, I try not to assume that deletions are a sure thing. I've seen admins and non-admins patrol and address only the listed speedy deletion criteria and ignore the article's need for speedy deletion otherwise. I simply felt that I was covering the bases and declining A1 because I was and am able to rather easily identify the subject(s) of the article.

You're doing good work so please don't be discouraged by me. At the end of the day, we all win. OlYeller21^Talktome 16:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Maqbool Salmaan

It seems you tagged the article for copyright violation. I don't see any violation except that most of the information in the given article has been included in the wiki article too. A few wordings are same (not exactly) but the article as a whole is not a copy-paste. It also includes a lot of information taken from other sources which have been properly sourced too. 112.79.40.178 (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I never said the whole article was copy/pasted. If it was, I would have tagged it for deletion. It's obvious that some text was copy/pasted/altered-slightly and attribution wouldn't excuse that. Here are examples. I bolded the duplicate text.

Example 1

• WP: "maqbool struggled for over a year to get a role in a film it was during the wait that director a k saajan came
• Source: "maqbool struggled for over a year to get a role in a film it was during the wait that a k saajan came"

Example 2

• WP: "k saajan came up with movie but due to some technical reasons the project failed to take off saajan approached him again with asuravithu s script and"
• Source: "k saajan came up with movie but due to some technical reasons the project failed to take off saajan approached me again with asuravithu's script and"

Example 3

• WP: "in a film it was during the wait that director a k saajan came up with a movie but due to some technical reasons the project"
• Source: "in a film it was during the wait that a k saajan came up with the movie but due to some technical reasons the project"

Even if this were a fluke, it's still a copyright violation. Even if it's attributed, it's still a copyright violation. Are you suggesting otherwise? OlYeller21^Talktome 19:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, OlYeller21. You have new messages at Talk:Eknath.
Message added 12:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Regarding copyright violation concerns Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Prince Louis

Fair enough, restored and redeleted as a hoax. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hi OIYeller21. I just wanted to say thanks for your help. I'm really shooting in the dark on Wiki and trying to learn as I go, and your adjustment to my post improved it in the way I was trying to (but failing to!) Thanks again :-) - The Quintessential Gambini TheQuintessentialGambini (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

DJ Hollygrove

Trying to get a clear explanation as to why this DJ who is on itunes and other major reliable sourcing info is not being allow wikipedia access? MacBookbro1 (talk) 00:02, 17 Dec 2012 (UTC)

Subjects found on Wikipedia must be considered "notable" by Wikipedia's notability guidelines (see WP:N). Specifically, this subject could use WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and WP:ARTIST to establish notability. The article is now deleted but from what I can remember, it claimed something rather outrageous like one million sales of an unnamed album. There was no reference for this and it seems incredibly unlikely as he has no music on iTunes at all. It also cited him being on iTunes with a reference that shows that he has his own app. I could have my own app but that doesn't satisfy any notability guideline. He also has no coverage from independent and reliable news sources from what I could find and I didn't see any in the article (Googles News search, Google News Archive search).

Long story short, if you want this article to make it into mainspace, you'll probably need to initiate a deletion review here. The page was created and deleted several times to the point where DJ Hollygrove was locked to prevent creation. If you need help with that, I'd be willing to help but before that happens, I really suggest reading over WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and WP:ARTIST so that you can make an argument as to why the article should be reinstated. Does that help? OlYeller21^Talktome 06:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation newsletter

Delivered 00:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC) by EdwardsBot. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter, please remove your name from the spamlist.

Mary Byrne

Hi OlYeller. As I am a prolific Talk page stalker (hopefully not to the extent of being rude) I came across your note to DGG and put my two cents in the AfD discussion. Hopefully my ideas was helpful. Cheers! CorporateM (Talk) 19:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Buzkashi boys copyright

Were any subsequent edits made to the original page after I created it? Also, Which section of the original article were copied "verbatim" from the official website? I did not even use the website as a source except for the names of cast and crew members. I added the plot summary from memory after viewing the film, and the production information was a few words from a speech the film's director gave after the screening I attended. Ive always thought "verbatim" meant word-for-word exact quotations and the only one I intentionally added was a line from the film. Any others would have been unintentional and one coincidence. I have been editing Wikipedia for over 8 years and am very familiar with the rules here. My boss is the copyright liaison at a large university and I know more than enough about copyright and am far too compliant with it to knowingly break any rules. Wikipedia:AGF#Good_faith_and_copyright --T1980 (talk) 14:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, if the roles were switched here, would you want to keep explaining to someone why you did what you did after being accused of some sort of coercion?

I'm volunteering here and I don't feel that my time and effort are worth replying to you about this - again. I felt that it was a copyright violation. DGG felt that it was a copyright violation. I don't care if your boss, dad, or wife is the President of the World Championship League of Copyrights. I never said you intentionally broke any rules. I also never said you don't know what you're doing after 8 years. Even though you apparently don't know that WP:DRV would be the only place to take this issue at this point and that you placed a {{hangon}} tag on an article that wasn't up for speedy deletion, I don't fault you. I'm just trying to help you. No one here is familiar and well versed in every single policy and guideline and no one should expect others to be.

It seems clear to me that you're taking this far too personally. The accusations over "trumping up" a way to delete your page, citing your boss's experience, and coming to someone who can not (not will not) help you, tells me that this issues may be more about your feelings than what's best for Wikipedia. Take a step back. Your work still exists in a deleted form. Go to DRV and ask someone there to review the text. Better yet, take a little time to flesh out the article using as many sources as you can. I'm sorry to be so blunt with you but I'm not going to do this dance when there is no outcome where I can help you outside of helping you to flesh out the current page. I only have so much time and effort to give here.

If you would like help with something, besides rehashing and attempting to convince me that you were right and I was wrong (and DGG was wrong), let me know. OlYeller21^Talktome 15:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The subsequent copyrighted text added after I recreated the article which you cited on my talk page was added by a Canadian IP address. I've never even been to Canada. If the back log of the deleted version does have subsequent edits, perhaps this person did what I was being blamed for. I apologize if I seemed rude but I was in shock over what happened. I could only assume that I was being blamed for something done by another person, and looks like this may be a possibilty now.--T1980 (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't assume that you were the IP. It's not at all surprising that the article would receive attention from more than one person right now. I just wanted to let you know in case that was you.

As for someone else having added text that was a copyright infringement, while I won't say that wasn't the case, if it was, DGG or I probably would have just reverted to your version as as it wouldn't have qualified for G12. That may still be the case. It's not crazy to think that two people would have made a mistake, even if it's not likely.

I tried to spend some time on the article and add as much information as I could to establish notability and fill out any information I could without seeing the movie or reading synopses (I don't want to spoil it as I plan on watching it). How's it look? Was anything I added incorrect? Some of the references were difficult to find as there aren't many secondary sources yet. I suspect that will change very soon as new sources feel the need to supply coverage for films that don't have multimillion dollar advertising budgets. 21:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

UNLOntology

Hello, Unfortunately I do not have any backup of the deleted article : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=UNL_Ontology&action=edit&redlink=1 Can you please kindly help to recover the article so that I can fix the copyright issue and rewrote those parts. Kmanwar 06:20, 10 January 2013 (JST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmanwar(talk • contribs)

Hello! I would but I'm not an administrator. The person who deleted the article might be able to do that for you. They may not, though, as it was a copyright violation. They may suggest that you start from scratch to avoid paraphrasing. OlYeller21^Talktome 21:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources

With respect, I don't see how you could possibly call the genuinewitty blog a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources. The source is 1) questionable 2) self-published. See in particular "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons". Please explain why the entry in question qualifies as an exception to "never"? 71.19.174.142 (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm less concerned about the blog/reference than you are. The information brought up is easily verifiable. Mentioning that one is "Pulitzer nominated" is rather idiotic. It means nothing other than that someone took the time to nominate that person. It doesn't mean they were a finalist or winner - something actually worth noting. This is specifically covered on the Pulitzer website.

Whether this is something anyone actually cares about is a different story. Even if the blog was a reliable source, I'm not sure that one source covering something merits a mention in the article. For instance, I can probably find a source that thinks that Barack Obama is a Daywalker and kills vampires but that doesn't mean it merits mentioning in the article.

In the future, please discuss this on the talk page instead of reverting and leaving angry edit summaries or taking to another person's talk page. The discussion belongs on the talk page of the article. OlYeller21^Talktome 00:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Unless it's been published in a reliable source it's original research and doesn't belong here. Also, I'm sorry but this is a BLP issue and BLP violations are to be reverted immediately - they don't remain pending the outcome of a discussion. See WP:BLP. 71.19.174.142 (talk) 02:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I didn't realize this was so difficult for you to understand. I jumped a few steps ahead so maybe I need to backtrack.

The information is verifiable. Anyone can verify that she was never a nominated finalist at Pulitzer's website. The question has been if anyone cares. This isn't a BLP issue because whether or not the information is true wasn't being called into question (I guess maybe it was by you because you didn't do a single bit of research about the claim). It wasn't a libel issue which is what BLP is attempting to avoid. The issue was determining whether or not we should give the information any weight (if anyone cares outside of a single blog writer). Had you participated in any of the talk page discussion as I told you to participate in several times, you may have known this.

Is that clear enough for you? Yes, it's idiotic that she claims to be nominated for a Pulitzer. Maybe next week I'll nominate myself and get a tattoo about how great I am because of it. No, there's no reason to think that anyone cares with the exception of a blog writer and you, a person who can't seem to use a talk page.

Please do not use my talk page anymore for this discussion. Use the article's talk page and stop wasting my time here. OlYeller21^Talktome 02:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Stuff??

OlYeller21, can you please let me know why you're deleting changes I made to Thomas Worthington High School Page? Can we talk? Jenibynes (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure! I found that the text was taken verbatim from another source. I can find it again if needed. This is a WP:COPYVIO and required removal. At any rate, the article shouldn't be going into that much detail about alumni. It's an article about TWHS, not those people mentioned. If they're notable, they can be covered in their own article. The TWHS articles shouldn't include much more than their name, that they won the award, and a sentence or two about them. OlYeller21^Talktome 00:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, here's the deal... the Worthington City Schools website no longer lists these accomplishments/descriptions which is where they were originally. These are distinguished alumni from Worthington High School which also no longer exists. I'm sure that most people who come to THIS site are TWHS or WHS grads and would like to see the information. While it is copied from another website, the copyright does not belong to that website. There IS NO copyright on this information. I was on the board that wrote these statements and that board is now disbanded. I spent HOURS editing that page to have you go in and delete everything. I helped author and edit these statements about the alumni. Jenibynes (talk) 00:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

That it doesn't list a copyright doesn't mean that it's not copyrighted. The owner would need to specifically state that it may be used by others and to be clear, you yourself are not the owner, that board is, and that's assuming that you really were a board member (we can't just take people's word for it, no offense intended). That board, or a representative of it could give WP permission to use the text via WP:DCM but at any rate, it doesn't matter. It was unattributed WP:PLAGIARISM and that much information about those people doesn't belong in an article about a school for the same reason that Al Pacino's biography isn't found in the Scarface article. It's the whole reason we have separate articles. If those people are notable and warrant their own article, then the copyright issue can be addressed there.

Is this making sense? OlYeller21^Talktome 00:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Allow me to continue to edit. Please don't delete. I will clean it up. Just don't delete my work until it's done! PLEASE. You can look up Jeni Bynes (me) and see that I'm a member of MANY of the alumni things that go on in Worthington. I was asked to be on this committee and then when Worthington decided to do away with the award, we disbanded. I understand that ALL of this information doesn't belong here, but I am the author of much of it. I give my permission for its use. This is me! Jenibynes (talk) 01:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, you would have to give permission via WP:DCM. Anyone can claim to be anyone else here - in fact, I'm Jeni Bynes... Obviously not.

Edit all you like but please note that changing the text slightly is still not acceptable, if that was a plan. Also, there will never be more than a few sentences about each person in that article. I'm not sure why you would want that. Hopefully you don't. Do you?

Lastly, if you want to work on something, you can always do it in your "sandbox", here. OlYeller21^Talktome 01:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Gotcha. Working on fixing stuff. Hang in there with me. :) Jenibynes (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you help me get the Worthington City Schools Distinguished Alumni page down? Jenibynes (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Centenarians

When I heard your complaint about an editor with an 'unhealthy' or overemotional interest in centenarians and supercentenarians, the case of a now-banned user came to mind. Now I'm not at all suggesting or implying that these are one and the same, but I just want to draw your attention to it, in case it may be relevant. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 02:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

AFT5 newsletter

Hey all; another newsletter.

• If you're not already aware, a Request for Comment on the future of the Article Feedback Tool on the English-language Wikipedia is open; any and all comments, regardless of opinion and perspective, are welcome.
• Our final round of hand-coding is complete, and the results can be found here; thanks to everyone who took part!
• We've made test deployments to the German and French-language projects; if you are aware of any other projects that might like to test out or use the tool, please let me know :).
• Developers continue to work on the upgraded version of the feedback page that was discussed during our last office hours session, with a prototype ready for you to play around with in a few weeks.

That's all for now! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Why did you undo the changes?

Hello this page was restored: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2013_January_28 I explained the changes that I made here: User_talk:Spartaz#Updated_FolderSize_Page. This was a merged article with the latest additions by User:Spartaz Allancass (talk) 21:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned on your talk page immediately after I reverted your addition, you clearly have a conflict of interest here. I reverted your edit instead of marking the page indicating that an editor working on the page has a conflict of interest. Also, several additions aren't needed and are down right advertorial, such as the section on free editions. Totally unneeded. If you wish to discuss this issue, please do so on the talk page of the article. OlYeller21^Talktome 21:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Changes to my edits

Noticed that you've made a few edits to contributions of mine. Just wanted to say these seem fair in the main, and no hard feelings at all. With the three articles in question I have added uncited stuff, filling in easy, but true, information, with the idea that myself or someone else will come back and fill in gaps and add refs later on. Certainly not intended as an abuse of the purpose of Wikipedia, which I believe in strongly, but I take your edits in good faith. Tubefurnace (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

New Article Feedback version available for testing

Hey all.

As promised, we've built a set of improvements to the Article Feedback Tool, which can be tested through the links here. Please do take the opportunity to play around with it, let me know of any bugs, and see what you think :).

A final reminder that the Request for Comment on whether AFT5 should be turned on on Wikipedia (and how) is soon to close; for those of you who have not submitted an opinion or !voted, it can be found here.

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikiproject Articles for creation Needs You!

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from March 1st, 2013 – March 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

Delivered by User:EdwardsBot on behalf of Wikiproject Articles for Creation at 13:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Jeffree Star

Hello again OlYeller21 (we worked together last year with the Ivan Massow COI, if you recall). I'll leave you to it on this one for a bit (I've got to go to bed anyway), otherwise I think we're going to keep colliding in edit conflicts. Cheers, PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 02:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, ya. I think you did most of, if not all, of the heavy lifting over there. I'm going to bed soon as well, in case that changes your plans. I'm just checking dead references right now. OlYeller21^Talktome 02:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Nice job you two.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jeffree Star, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amazon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

COI

I wasn't taking a jab at you. I hope it didn't come off that way.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  00:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It's OK. I thought you might be but I wasn't sure and honestly, I didn't put too much thought into it. I'm sure my lack of sympathy for Jsteininger at this point is visible so I assumed I had said something that seemed cold or bitey. My reply was partially for myself to make sure that I was actually giving the editor the benefit of the doubt. OlYeller21^Talktome 02:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

IThe tag issue was unforunate, but that editor has been on a crusade to defend all things LGBT, even if they don't need defending.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Happy with your hacking job? That's pretty typical of the daily treatment LGBT articles get. No wonder there are conscientious editors who "crusade" to restore appropriate content and add sources. You may also look into the history of what crusades actually are, btw. Insomesia (talk) 21:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Insomesia, I think we can both agree that you have the intention of protecting LBGT related articles. Is it possible that your wish to protect a group is clouding your judgement? Your accusations hurt me, honestly. To accuse me of attacking someone in such a way is hurtful and baseless. If your goal was to hurt me and reduce my desire to edit Wikipedia, you've succeeded.

I'm not going to cite policy or threaten to go tell on you but is this really the way to get what you want? Is it more likely that you're right or five other editors are right (well established editors). Is this really the best way to get what you want? OlYeller21^Talktome 22:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The hacking was directed at LGR if that was what you are referring to. Personally i feel there is an injustice being done to the subject of the article who very well have no clue what is going on with this article which likely ranks highest in information regarding them on the web. And I feel rather hurt being threatened with a topic ban, accused of disruption, flat out questioned if I had any intention of improving the article, etc. So I am very disappointed with how things have transpired but I don't mean to do anything but get more of a balanced approach to how the subject is being treated including the conspicuous COI tags. The decimation of the article, IMHO, is very sad. Insomesia (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry if hurt you. That was not my intent. I have seen a lot of content blanked lately and haven't been able to look at what exactly was removed. Perhaps you can point out part of the removed text that shouldn't have been or if you just compile what was removed, you and I can go through it and re-add what we feel should be included.

To be honest, I feel like the idea that there's a rift here is causing more damage than any either of us intend. I'd like to work with you and the only goal I to comply with WP policy and guidelines. I really think we can do that. I think we just got off on the wrong foot. OlYeller21^Talktome 23:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

LGR has been wikistalking me and as far as I can tell only got involved because they see this as a subject I was interested in. I question all the recent deletions and likely the ones that preceded them should also be reviewed. The content deleted is pretty much what anyone would expect to see in a musician article. If something needs a stronger source then sobeit, it does not mean it has to be deleted. That's disrespectful to all the editors who have contributed in the past. And effectively all the accused COI editor's edit have been obliterated so any clean-up tags should not be pointing to them as the culprit, if indeed any finger-pointing is needed. This is past of the problem with the COI tag, it assumes blame whether warranted or already cleaned up. Once LGR has found another project to give special attention to I have qualms with helping add sourcing to the Star article. I feel we have thrown out the baby with the bathwater on this one. His story is a compelling one that speaks to the emergence of internet fame and that has been pretty much obliterated, I hope it's not deleted but we'll see what happens. Thank you for reconsidering the situation. Insomesia (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Heads up on possible resurfacing of COI editor

Just a quick note to point you to User_talk:RobertJoeIllinois#More_on_possible_COI. You had reported him to COIN and he stopped. Now he is back at Talk:Marshall_Strabala#Proposed_Edits. So far he has not edited the actual article, though. Novaseminary (talk) 04:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Break

In an attempt to do what's best for Wikipedia in a COI case, I was contacted by and listened to Benjiboi, not knowing that it was a sockpuppet. I attempted to see both sides of an argument regarding an article about a member of the LGBT community, ignoring the baseless accusations made against two other editors. In the process, I ignored that those editors were doing what they felt was best for WP and probably made editing something less than what they enjoy doing in their free time. I screwed up and let a known sock convince me, against my better judgement, to do something I wouldn't otherwise do. I apologize to those editors, PaleCloudedWhite and Little green rosetta.

In light of this incident, I'll be taking a break for a bit until I feel that I can edit again without letting someone get the best of my better judgement, especially when it may hurt other editors who are editing in good faith. OlYeller21^Talktome 00:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't accept your apology because an apology is not needed. I'm certain you acted in good faith, as did most participants in this matter.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you're being a bit hard on yourself, OlYeller21. Unfortunately I think you've been used by a person who will use quite devious means to get what they want. Their first approach was to try and make people feel guilty, because when they say things like "I very much appreciate conscientious editing but do still think that some obliviousness to non-normative gender issues may also be a factor", it makes it very difficult for a non-LGBT person to argue against them without feeling they're unconsciously being homophobic. It's passive aggressive behaviour, and not attractive. When that didn't work as well as perhaps they'd wished, they took to pretending to be someone else and contacting you behind the scenes. Again, not very attractive behaviour, but I don't think you should feel bad about yourself for being tricked; it's the trickster who should be feeling bad.

I'm really not upset by recent events, and you don't need to apologise yet again. I'd feel happier knowing that you'll come back to editing sooner rather than later. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for opinion

I just discovered that an editor made some comments about me in response to dialogue I had with him about a minor edit to the Allen West page, which has been covered in detail on its Talk page. I was not noticed that he was initiating discussion of me on the Noticeboard to which you referred me. I'm pretty green about protocols, most of my edits being cleanups for misspellings, deletions of outdated info, and changing of present to past tense, I'm guessing. But I'm having trouble understanding how to resolve this issue. Would you mind taking a look at it? I know you're on a self-imposed vacation from editing, but you seem thoughtful about these matters and I'm not requesting any editing. Activist (talk) 02:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I looked at your interests and am sending the below from the National Law Journal that I'd sent two days ago to a patent attorney friend who was the VP nominee on a third party ticket years ago. She appreciated it.

The No. 1 verdict of 2012 was $1.17 billion, awarded to Carnegie Mellon University, represented by K&L Gates, on December 26. Carnegie Mellon sued Marvell Technology Group Ltd. in 2009, alleging that the company's computer chips infringed two patents developed by the university. Quinn, Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan represented Marvell during the four-week trial in Pittsburgh. John Quinn of the firm said the case is "far from over." One ground for reversal, he said, was that 80 percent of the damages were for sales outside the United States, which "should not be recoverable."

The second largest verdict of last year was $1.049 billion, awarded to Apple Inc. on August 24 in a closely watched trial in San Jose, Calif. The jury found that Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. had willfully infringed six patents tied to smartphones and tablet devices, but it ruled against Apple on antitrust and contract claims. Since the award, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh denied Apple's bid to ban Samsung's infringing products in the United States. She also threw out the jury's finding that Apple willfully infringed, which prevents Apple from seeking triple damages.

In No. 3 Verdict, Monsanto Wins $1B Over Seed Patent After three weeks of trial in a closely watched patent case involving genetically modified soybeans, a federal jury in St. Louis, Mo., took just one hour to return a $1 billion verdict against E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co.

(Link in original) THE TOP 100 VERDICTS OF 2012 The full list of the largest verdict awards of the past year.

IP Awards Dominate Intellectual property verdicts represented the largest category in number and dollar value last year. The category has contributed one verdict higher than $1 billion in each of the three prior years. But this year's list of top verdicts was notable in that three verdicts reached the $1 billion mark or higher, and all of them came out of high-stakes trials. Activist (talk) 08:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

DJ Hollygrove

Trying to get a clear explanation as to why this DJ who is on itunes and other major reliable sourcing info is not being allow wikipedia access? MacBookbro1 (talk) 00:02, 17 Dec 2012 (UTC)

Subjects found on Wikipedia must be considered "notable" by Wikipedia's notability guidelines (see WP:N). Specifically, this subject could use [[WP:GNG], WP:BIO, and WP:ARTIST to establish notability. The article is now deleted but from what I can remember, it claimed something rather outrageous like one million sales of an unnamed album. There was no reference for this and it seems incredibly unlikely as he has no music on iTunes at all. It also cited him being on iTunes with a reference that shows that he has his own app. I could have my own app but that doesn't satisfy any notability guideline. He also has no coverage from independent and reliable news sources from what I could find and I didn't see any in the article (Googles News search, Google News Archive search).

Long story short, if you want this article to make it into mainspace, you'll probably need to initiate a deletion review here. The page was created and deleted several times to the point where DJ Hollygrove was locked to prevent creation. If you need help with that, I'd be willing to help but before that happens, I really suggest reading over [[WP:GNG], WP:BIO, and WP:ARTIST so that you can make an argument as to why the article should be reinstated. Does that help? OlYeller21^Talktome 06:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok how can we go about doing this!? I am all ears!!! Are these article not good enough? http://www.thesource.com/articles/193140, http://www.hiphopdx.com/index/news/id.18124/title.og-ron-c-announces-launch-of-new-label-chopped-not-slopped-entertainment/ MacBookbro1 (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

GEO

Thanks for the notice! WhisperToMe (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd be curious as to your thoughts on my bold addition of a new template [4]. I have been adding it to articles on a BRD basis to see if there are objections. CorporateM (Talk) 19:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Back

I'm back from a short break. I won't be editing much today but I'll get back with people as soon as possible. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you're back. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

David Tolley

I'd like to redraw your attention to the David Tolley article you have nominated for deletion. You talk of a search being complicatted by a musician of the same name but it appears the musician and the sculpter is the same pearson. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I checked for that. They're not. One is in Australia and the other is in the US. I also found pictures of each. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Gibraltarpedia

Hi OlYeller, I noticed you reopening the Gibraltarpedia discussions. I'm going to be WMUK's GLAM organiser from April, so I've been reading up on some of the contentious issues that are UK or GLAM related, and though Gibraltarpedia wasn't a WMUK project it is certainly seen by some as a GLAM event in the UK. As well as your fresh but as yet unevidenced allegations of Gibraltarpedia copyvio; I notice you've also accused a non-participant of the competition of having won it. Do you have any evidence for that assertion, other than that someone who didn't enter the Gibratarpedia contest and who has been involved in WikiProject Gibraltar for years before Gibraltarpedia offered to help Gibraltarpedia whilst on a trip he made to Gibraltar during the competition? BTW I didn't notice you informing the people you are accusing of the the accusations you are making against them, may I suggest that if you have evidence for those assertions you post it and inform those editors, and if you don't you might want to strike those accusations. For the avoidance of doubt this is a suggestion from a fellow editor who did not participate in the Gibraltarpedia contest. I don't start with WMUK as an employee till next month so I'm certainly not speaking for them, and I know too many of the involved editors in this saga to involve myself in an admin capacity. ϢereSpielChequers 12:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

This really would have been a better post to make at the discussion, no? I'll post my evidence there. OlYeller21^Talktome 15:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

No, if you are going to make unsupported allegations on multiple pages against people, and in at least one case without informing them of the allegation, it is perfectly appropriate to raise matters directly at your talkpage. ϢereSpielChequers 16:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

OlYeller21, that's an idiotic thing to claim (and why didn't you notify me that you were making claims about me?). I didn't participate in the competition so how could I have won it? I visited Gibraltar in October 2012, two months before the competition ended, at the end of a holiday in Morocco. I didn't even know about Gibraltarpedia until well after I'd planned my visit. Frankly, you're making a fool of yourself. Please find something more constructive to do. Prioryman (talk) 21:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, OlYeller21. You have new messages at Mdennis (WMF)'s talk page.
Message added 17:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

This is most likely the last comment I'll be making in this thread.

Prioryman, I didn't "accuse" you of winning because I earnestly thought you had won when in response to someone asking who sponsored the competition you said, "you tell me what your previous account name was and which user you are on Wikipediocracy, and I'll tell you who's funding my trip to Gibraltar" A trip to Gibraltar was the prize for the competition. "Accuse" seems to imply that I had thought that you had done something wrong. I had no idea that you were involved in the project and not a competitor as I didn't think it would be needed to make sure that you were telling the truth, from my perspective. At any rate, I apologize but I also think that you need to calm down.

WSC, coming here in your admin capacity seems like it might conflict with WP:INVOLVED as I don't particularly see a difference between being an employee and being a soon-to-be employee At any rate, your concerns seem legitimate, although possibly a bit skewed due to your involvement, in my opinion. I didn't feel that I was "accusing" Prioryman of any wrongdoing because I had no idea he was involved with GLAM. In my eyes, he had declared that he had won. Anything outside of that is your own interpretation of the situation and your assumption that I had implied something that I had not. Had I thought that someone involved with putting on the competition had won it, I would have been much louder and much more direct as that's not appropriate at all (for a planner to win their own competition). As for Bill william compton, I didn't feel the need to notify him regarding a copyright violation as he was clearly already aware of the issue. However, I did make a mistake about the timeline in which those violations occurred. Also, those claims weren't made at a noticeboard that requires notification so I'm not sure what you're concerned about in your admin capacity unless you're hear to block me for what you interpret as violation of WP:CIVIL (or something I haven't thought of).

So, my question to you fellows at this point is, what are you hoping to accomplish here? It seem that you have and/or plan on taking part in running a competition that seems to have thrown caution to the wind when it comes to keeping things legal. I'm not saying that you've broken laws because I don't feel like having you jump down my throat again and frankly, I'm not in a position to make such a claim. However, it does seem to me, a person whom is not an attorney but has read the laws regarding competitions and lotteries for both locations, that there are some regulations that were not followed by GLAM's competition. I couldn't care less is GLAM is the biggest Ponzi scheme in history, let alone if they make some mistakes when running a competition but I do care if the WMF and WP are held responsible. My original questions that spurred your action was quite simply, "Was this discussed when this competition was started? Did anyone contact WMF and let them know that a competition with a prize was being held completely on their servers?" Instead of the answers being "Yes, here is where we discussed that issues." and "No, we didn't." - here we are.

Had those questions been answered, you could have come here and said politely, "Hey, I think you were wrong about your accusation. Can you come clear that up, please?" I was wrong and would have (and am now) attempting to correct my mistakes. Instead of that scenario happening, my concerns are "idiotic" and thinly veiled threats are made when you come here in your "admin capacity" and completely dismiss the real issue. Before you claim that it wasn't a threat, how could you being an admin possibly have been important to this discussion if it was not to simply throw your weight around?

Anyway, I feel that I have made myself clear at this point. I still need to apologize to Bill Compton and make a note on Maggie's talk page about my mistake but unless you have something constructive to say here, making sure that your next competition complies with the appropriate competition laws might be a better way to spend your time. It seems to me that the best thing for Wikipedia has happened so anymore finger pointing and threatening is really just a waste of time. OlYeller21^Talktome 18:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi OlYeller21, firstly when I said "I know too many of the involved editors in this saga to involve myself in an admin capacity" I was I thought making it clear that I was not and am not involving myself in this dispute as an admin but merely as a fellow editor. I'm not one of the organisers of Gibraltarpedia and I haven't involved myself in the discussion as to whether that contest was legit. I came here because there were two other things you'd said that I thought you needed to evidence or strike, and I'm glad that you now accept that both allegations needed retraction. As for whether I could have been more polite in my posting, well the least polite epithet that you list was describing your accusations as idiotic, and that wasn't anything that I said or necessarily agree with. If there is anything I've said that you consider impolite then feel free to point that out. As for "making sure that your next competition complies with the appropriate competition laws" I'm going to assume you have merely made the mistake of thinking that I'm one of the organisers of Gibraltarpedia, I'm not, and I don't know if Prioryman is. I don't know whether Gibraltarpedia's contest complies with the appropriate competition law, though it obviously isn't a Ponzi scheme, and unless one of the participants raises a concern about it I'm inclined to assume it was probably legit. If you have found flaws in that contest then it is rather a shame that you've buried that accusation amongst so many other easily refuted allegations. As for what I hoped to achieve by coming here, well I wanted to see two serious allegations evidenced or retracted. ϢereSpielChequers 08:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Whatever helps you sleep at night. I'm not going to argue with an employee (or soon to be employee) that their competition may have some issues or why their assumptions of bad faith (in my opinion), served no purpose. I'm done spending any more of my time chatting about this. Good luck with your future endeavors. OlYeller21^Talktome 00:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)