User talk:OriginalBK
WELCOME!! Hello, OriginalBK! I want to personally welcome you on behalf of the Wikipedia community. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you haven't already, you can put yourself new user log and list of users so you can be properly introduced to everyone. Don't forget to be bold, and don't be afraid of hungry Wikipedians...there's a rule about not biting newcomers. Some other good links are the tutorial, how to edit a page, or if you're really stuck, see the help pages. If you have any questions, feel free to drop me a ♪ at my talk page...and again, welcome!--ViolinGirl♪ 13:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
November 2008
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Factsheet Five, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Open pop star
[edit]
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Open pop star requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. -
→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
July 2013
[edit] Please do not add or change content, as you did to Neoism, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. freshacconci talk to me 01:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Open pop star. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Click here to contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. freshacconci talk to me 03:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Please stop removing speedy deletion notices from pages that you have created yourself, as you did with Open pop star. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. みんな空の下 (トーク) 03:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry I was deleting the Speedy Deletion notices. I was not aware I was doing that. I do not quite understand the editing process so forgive me.Panman (talk) 04:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Article Deltion
[edit]You may wish to read over Wikipedia:Your first article before attempting to create a new article. If you wish to have the deleted text moved to your user space, please let me know. CitiCat ♫ 04:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes please move it to my user space. And if you could please let me know what the problem is with the page. Thanks.Panman (talk) 04:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Your text can be seen at User:Panman/openpopstar. I really suggest reading over the link I gave before, but some quick tips - Articles in Wikipedia must be for notable subjects. I would strongly suggest an opening sentence referring to the title of your article and why it is notable. For example - "Openpopstar is a (blank) that became widely known because of (reason)". This should be understandable to the layman. Looking at what you have so far, you are writing an article entitled "openpopstar" and I cannot easily discern what "openpopstar" refers to. It is important to understand that even if the article is well written it will likely be deleted if the subject does not qualify under Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. If there is any specific help I can give you please let me know. If you respond on My talk page I will be more likely to see it. CitiCat ♫ 16:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
THANK YOU for doing that. However I made several much more developed versions of the page after that. Are those still retrievable? They are not part of the page's history. This was the very first version of the page I made before you or someone else started putting speedy deletion notices on the page. I did not understand what was going on so I kept updating the pages and also inadvertently I was removing speedy deletion notices from the pages. I apologize. But are those other versions of the page still in existence? I would like to see those, too. I was moving toward a notable version of the entry. Can you include those other versions of the page within the history? OR if you cannot, can you replace the current one with the longest one of those versions? The article was getting longer and longer as I went on. For instance, User:Panman/openpopstar is a single paragraph and those versions had 2 and 3 and possibly 4 paragraphs.Thanks Panman (talk) 23:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
The article Open pop star has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- no evidence of notability
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Undeleted
[edit]- Interesting. I see that another user (User:Minna Sora no Shita) undid your most recent edits and reverted it to the version that was deleted (the one I put in your user space). I'm going to contact that person and ask why that was done. For now, I've restored the full article. I've also removed the proposed deletion that was just placed there as an undeleted article is ineligible for deletion by that method. CitiCat ♫ 00:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Nomination of Open pop star for deletion
[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Open pop star is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open pop star until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
December 2014
[edit]
- Why can't I edit Wikipedia?
Your account's edits and/or username indicate that it is being used on behalf of a company, group, website or organization for purposes of promotion and/or publicity. The edits may have violated one or more of our rules on spamming, which include: adding inappropriate external links, posting advertisements and using Wikipedia for promotion. Wikipedia has many articles on companies, groups, and organizations, but such groups are generally discouraged from using Wikipedia to write about themselves. In addition, usernames like yours are disallowed under our username policy.
- Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username?
Probably not, although if you can demonstrate a pattern of future editing in strict accordance with our neutral point of view policy, you may be granted this right. See Wikipedia's FAQ for Organizations for a helpful list of frequently asked questions by people in your position. Also, review the conflict of interest guidance to see the kinds of limitations you would have to obey if you did want to continue editing about your company, group, organization, or clients. If this does not fit in with your goals, then you will not be allowed to edit Wikipedia again.
- What can I do now?
If you have no interest in writing about some other topic than your organization, group, company, or product, you may consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead.
If you do intend to make useful contributions here about some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following:
- Add the text
{{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}}on your user talk page. - Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:Listusers to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy.
- Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:
- Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the edits for which you were blocked.
- Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
OriginalBK (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Requested username:
Request reason:
Accept reason:
- Only, thanks for your advocacy of this editor and your diligence. I will grant you and Panman immediately that they made lots of positive edits, but one edit I looked at was this one; note that a website called "Panmodern" is linked, and that page includes a reference to "Panmag". Other such edits are detailed in the original report. Why now? Well, someone reported it at WP:UAA when I happened to be watching, that's the only answer to that.
Now, our Panman could always argue that the "man" part individualizes what could otherwise be called a shared account; in addition, Panman, I think you should be very reticent in adding links like this--that you are associated with Panmodern seems clear to me, and if you can tell us that you will such links only to improve articles and not web traffic, then I have no objection to unblocking and allowing you to keep the same user name. Only, I'll leave that to you and your judgment (now that you have some more evidence), and it will make your unblock quota look better as well. You deserve that, for your advocacy. Panman, good luck. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the insight, Drmies! (Not an unblock quota...just helping in an area of Wikipedia that often gets ignored). Panman, I agree that you have a lot of quality edits; that's why I didn't see the problem at first--I didn't look at every single edit, and didn't see the few "red flag" ones while looking. I leave this up to you: can you agree to what Drmies said and avoid linking to the Panmodern links only when necessary (or, better yet, only after asking other users on the talk page if it's reasonable to put it in)? If you can agree to that, we can unblock you with whichever user name you prefer, this one or the OriginalBK that you've suggested. only (talk) 18:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- Panman sez: Thanks all for your clarifications and openness and respect for what I am doing. I will think about which name is better for me. However in the meantime, just to understand, can you explain to me what I should do if I see my site, and it is my site, Panmodern.com as a place that offers the most relevant and definitive information on certain topics? I never tried to hide that it was my site nor did I link to it in order to drive traffic. I simply offer those links to provide clarity around certain topics that are largely undocumented elsewhere. I am engaged in some very fringe activities that are only now being written about in books and I am one of the people writing about them and so Wikipedia is the best place to gain clarity around some of them and that would include links to articles on my site occasionally. So what should I do in such a case? Is that a conflict of interest of some kind? Is it less of one if I take a new name? Anyway, thanks for bearing with me on this. I never intended to come across as a self-promoter or activate any red flags. I an enthusiast of several avant garde art groups including Neoism, mail art, performance art, art strike, Ray Johnson, Communications Art, pre-computerized social networking, Fluxus and others. Furthermore I am offering alternative viewpoints on some of these even though they are already under-reported so please advise how to handle such matters. Thanks for your understanding.
- PS Panmag is my magazine which is published in hard copy as well as online and has existed since 1980. It is collected by the Museum of Modern Art and other institutions so while on the fringe, it has been validated in the mainstream. Would it be preferable to use Panmag as a citation as opposed to Panmodern.com?
- Panman, the essence of Wikipedia is the citation of secondary sources. Since 1980? That's pretty old--good for you. Now, I can foresee a bunch of scenarios and objections. The long and short of it is that a. someone can well say your linking to your magazine is self-promotion; you'll just have to accept that. b. someone might object that your magazine is not a reliable source (see WP:RS) and use that as an additional reason to say you're promoting yourself. I tell you what, it's somewhat unusual maybe for a case like this and let's see what Only has to say, but if you declare your conflict of interest here on your user page with this template, Template:User disclosure, maybe with a note mentioning the magazine, then that part is cleared up. And if any editor has a problem with any of your edits, well, you'll just have to explain--and if all else fails you ask me or Only and we'll come by and either help or block you into smithereens. :) OK? Drmies (talk) 00:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- Panman said: Thank you. Would it be better if I took on the new username?
- Panman said: Yes, let's see what Only has to say.
- Thanks for the insight, Drmies! (Not an unblock quota...just helping in an area of Wikipedia that often gets ignored). Panman, I agree that you have a lot of quality edits; that's why I didn't see the problem at first--I didn't look at every single edit, and didn't see the few "red flag" ones while looking. I leave this up to you: can you agree to what Drmies said and avoid linking to the Panmodern links only when necessary (or, better yet, only after asking other users on the talk page if it's reasonable to put it in)? If you can agree to that, we can unblock you with whichever user name you prefer, this one or the OriginalBK that you've suggested. only (talk) 18:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- Panman sez: Since Only is not responding, yes, I can absolutely tell you that I will include such links ONLY to improve articles and not to increase web traffic. Also I am happy to declare my "conflict of interest" here on my user page with a note mentioning the magazine. Where should I put it? on this talk page or somewhere else? It will say "I operate the website Panmodern.com and publish the print zine Panmag. Any links I include to those sources will link only if no other source is possible to validate the same information. Furthermore please note I do not place such links to increase web traffic. It is only for purposes of citing peritinent information in an area hitherto undocumented elsewhere." Would this be OK? Can I be unblocked?
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Larry Miller (artist), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.eai.org/artistBio.htm?id=347.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 3
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fluxus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Larry Miller. 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) 09:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)