Jump to content

User talk:Revent/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Wikidata weekly summary #126

[edit]
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Please comment on Talk:Richard Negrin

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Richard Negrin. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Kevin Sorbo

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Kevin Sorbo. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 September 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 26 November 2014

[edit]

Request on 07:37:07, 29 August 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Jaryn Sattefield

[edit]


What should i change on article

Jaryn Sattefield (talk) 07:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaryn Sattefield: The speedy deletion nomination for User:Jaryn Sattefield is because you may not have a copy of a draft article on your user page. I also reviewed the copy you submitted, which has been moved to Draft:Jaryn Satterfield, and left comments there. To be more specific, though...
  • You may not include external links inside the text of wikipedia articles
  • You may have a official link or two in 'external links', you may not spam links to dozens of pages
  • You need to reference the given material to reliable sources that are independent of you, so that it is verifiable by readers
  • You must have a sufficent number of such citations to show that you are notable
Please refer to WP:TUTORIAL for help with formatting, and to WP:YFA for directions on how to write an article.
Also, it is highly preferred that you not try to write about yourself, and most attempts to do so end up deleted. Please read WP:YOURSELF. Additionally, it is best to actually intend to be a Wikipedia editor, and gain experience, before you try to write any new article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free web host. Reventtalk 07:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

10:02:47, 29 August 2014 review of submission by Cicimau

[edit]


Cicimau (talk) 10:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cicimau (talk) 10:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC){{Draft: Ivan_Smolović waithing for re-review, with a lot of new sources. I hope now you will see the quality of this article and approve that. Wikipedia have a lot of bad created robot articles with bad sources. My article Ivna Smolović for sure deserve approving. This is my last try and last request. This article is for sure better that million other approved requests. I hope you know that and please approve my article.}}[reply]

@Cicimau: I'm afraid you misunderstood my decline, though I will not re-review it, but leave it to someone else. The sourcing was fine, and better than a lot of other stub articles on football players.... the problem is that to meet the criteria he has to have actually appeared in a game for MFK Košice, either as a starter or a substitution. Merely being signed doesn't qualify. Once he has, and it's in the article, then it can be immediately accepted, and in fact would have been fine as it was, with only that fact added. Reventtalk 10:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

10:34:00, 29 August 2014 review of submission by NeilRedburn

[edit]


Hi, I have tried to cleanup the tone of the recent post, and have removed the contacts (my bad). Other than that, it should now read as a descriptive history of The RHADC. I have a problem with "citing reliable sources". The challenge is, there aren't any! This information is culled from Club archives (on paper) and data that has been on The Club's website for many years. I don't know how to rectify this to your satisfaction. Could you please advise or give give guidence. NeilRedburn (talk) 10:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NeilRedburn (talk) 10:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilRedburn: Paper resources, as long as they were published (old books, newspaper articles, etc.) are perfectly acceptable as sources, they merely need to be referenced. See {{cite book}} and {{cite magazine}}. The website can be used to a limited degree, for simple non-controversial details, but the article may not be 'primarily' based on self published sources. It is simply a core content policy of Wikipedia that information must be verifiable by readers from published sources, but they do not have to be online, and it doesn't have to be 'easy'. If someone would have to travel to Bermuda , go to the library, and look at newspaper articles from the late 1800's, that is perfectly acceptable, as long as the references are to published, reliable sources. Hope that helps.
See WP:CITINGSOURCES and WP:REFBEGIN for more details. Reventtalk 10:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editing of page

[edit]


Hello you recently blanked a page I created and reasoned that it was copyright infringement. Can I redo your blank and request that you view the article once again after i edit it. I understand why it was done and i will work with it as soon as possible, making it wikipedia worthy.

thank you for your help :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by StangerManor (talk • contribs) 16:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@StangerManor: Instead of re-declining it I've just blanked the specific part, and retrieved the previous decline notice from the history (they need to be visible to later reviewers). Please don't revert a blanking for a copyvio, the text can't legally be visible in the current version. A better solution is to simply retrieve the 'usable' parts from the history, and re-paste them into the current version. Before this is accepted, an admin will have to do a 'revision deletion' on the versions that contain the copied text. Reventtalk 06:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Revent: much appreciated, thank you!.

Request on 10:59:44, 30 August 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Kravitza

[edit]


Hello! You've recently reviewed the page I've created on Danish singer Nikolaj Grandjean (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Nikolaj_Grandjean&action=edit&redlink=1), and it was not accepted on grounds of copyrighted materials usage. Now the page is removed completely. Is there any way for me to know which info exactly was copyrighted? And can I rewrite it without that material, so it can be accepted? Thank you in advance! Kravitza (talk) 10:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kravitza: Now that it has been deleted I cannot see it again, no, only an administrator can. The simple answer, though, is that all text that you find other places on the web is copyrighted, and you cannot cut-paste it into Wikipedia articles. Yes, you can rewrite and resubmit the article, and you might be able to get a copy of the 'usable' material, if there was any, from the deleting administrator, user:FreeRangeFrog. Reventtalk 11:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 23:59:34, 31 August 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Vannessacoats

[edit]


August 2014 (UTC)

The response said that the document named Cretzel was not acceptable for various. However, it doesn't outlne what those reasons are, so it makes it difficult to address making edits that will be sufficient for the article to be accepted.

We would appreciate a prompt response. Please do not delete the draft in the sandbox so that we have a common working draft.

Thank you in advance for your prompt response,

Vannessa

Vannessacoats (talk) 23:59, 31

Wikipedia articles must show that the subject is notable, by including references to independent reliable sources that discuss the subject, such as newspaper or magazine articles, or books. In addition, the article must be based upon what is said in those sources, and referenced to them, so that the information is verifiable by readers. Please read WP:YFA for help with writing your first article. Reventtalk 04:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Karan Singh Grover

[edit]

I am sorry I may have been out of line, the page is fine now, however I did see some edits which seemed a bit weird, there was removal of sourced and important information from his/her side hence I felt it was vandalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indian editor television (talk • contribs) 13:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

some vandalism has been done in the Karan Singh Grover personal life section, I was wondering if you could please have a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indian editor television (talk • contribs)

@Indian editor television: Thank you for pinging me, and please keep doing so if you want me to look... that article get messed with to a ridiculous degree. Unfortunately, I edit so many different articles for little things that my watchlist is unusable.
FYI, I reverted it back to the version that was protected, in order to remove the name of the person he allegedly had an affair with. Per the biographies of living persons policy, specifically WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, we cannot mention her by name.
BTW, in the future, you should sign your talk page messages with four tildes, i.e. ~~~~, so that people can tell who the message is from. Again, thanks. Reventtalk 08:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for being unbiased and rational, appreciate it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indian editor television (talk • contribs)

someone is again vandalising his page, can u please have a look! regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indian editor television (talk • contribs) 12:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Indian editor television: A difference of opinion over content is not vandalism, and you would be well advised to discuss the issue with @TheRedPenOfDoom: instead of engaging in edit warring on an article which is already under page protection. Reventtalk 13:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Indian editor television: Additionally, you should not tht you do not own the article—any change that you disagree with is not immediately vandalism. Vandalism is, explicitly, edits made in bad faith in an attempt to harm the encyclopedia. Calling TRPoD a vandal is way out of line, that's the last thing he is. Editors who act like they own articles, and call anyone who disagrees with them a vandal, usually end up getting blocked, and this is starting to look like the kind of thing that got the article protected to begin with. Reventtalk 13:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indian editor television is the latest now-blocked sock of a loooong-term editor hell-bent on disruption of that article and several related ones. Pay him no mind. DMacks (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@DMacks: I'm aware, I wrote that response (assuming good faith) but then I was the one that reported latest incarnation to SPI. Reventtalk 22:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha:) Thanks for helping unravel the latest sock. DMacks (talk) 01:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:38:01, 2 September 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Marycjames

[edit]


Hello re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Yuri_Goloubev I really hadn't meant to actively include copyrighted material. Please could you give me the couple of sentences you think are offending and I will re-write.

Thank you

marycjamesMarycjames (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marycjames (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Marycjames: Hi. Yeah, the 'message' we have is copyright violation, but it's really more of a matter of some sentences just not being sufficiently rewritten... that's why I just noted it instead of actually flagging it for deletion. I can't actually repost them here, but you can see the matching text at this link. The names matching is fine, though it would be best to change the order of the lists (make them alphabetical, or just randomize them), but you can also see some of your phrasing also matches. I could tell, though, that it wasn't 'deliberate'...trust me, I know, I've scanned a lot of drafts.
Thanks for not getting offended or anything, by the way. It looks like you're definitely the kind of new person we need, as compared to all the 'conflict of interest' people that are way too common now. Reventtalk 17:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this is helpful. I'll see what I can do to improve it. MarycjamesMarycjames (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited and re-submitted it so thanks for your help Revent. MarycjamesMarycjames (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi ! Thanks for reviewing my article draft DRAFT:UNESCO-UNEVOC. I However firmly disagree about it being a "copyright violation". I have written this article myself, with my own words. Maybe a couple of sentences are similar to the page you have linked (here are the ones I could find: "The UNESCO-UNEVOC International Centre is one of the seven UNESCO institutes and Centres working in the field of education" or "The UNESCO-UNEVOC International Centre was established as a result of a decision taken by the UNESCO General Conference in 1999." or "he UNESCO-UNEVOC International Centre acts as part of the United Nations mandate to promote peace, justice, equity, poverty alleviation, and greater social cohesion") but it is just a couple of sentences and there are not thousand ways to say those important (and precise) information.... I'd really like some more explanation here.

I have spent hours on this article, gathering approx. 20 sources and writing it in a neutral point of view. I find quite unfair to see it blancked and speedy deleted like that(having the risk to lose all my work if I was not on wikipedia for a couple of days) if the "copyright" problem is just about 2-3 sentences in the whole article... So please, come back to me and tell me exactly what you are talking about with "copyright violation" so I can fix it. RegardsKaptainIgloo (talk) 06:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@KaptainIgloo: I've unmarked it for speedy deletion, so that you can fix it. The link to the specific comparison is here. The article needs to be blanked so that it is not copied by mirror sites while it still contains copyrighted material... you can take the text from the old version linked in the history, edit the specific parts so they are different, and then paste it into a edit window for the current article to retrieve your material. Afterward, at some point the old revisions (only) that contain the material will need to be deleted from the history.
Normally, when a page is deleted, you can request a copy of it at WP:REFUND... an administrator can restore it without the problem material. Nothing on Wikipedia is ever really 'deleted', doing so just hides it from view.
You are right that it is only a couple of sentences, but they still must be either rewritten or specifically quoted to the source, for legal reasons. Sorry to upset you, this wasn't an accusation, it's just a technical thing that, due to the way Wikipedia works (such as the availability of database dumps that contain page histories) the revisions that contain the material need to be deleted. Reventtalk 07:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for your quick answer. Sorry for getting upset, I didn't know about WP:REFUND (and I kinda panicked). I'll fix the draft today or tomorrow and come back to you then ! Regards, KaptainIgloo (talk) 10:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@KaptainIgloo: Hi. I chatted with an admin and got the matter sorted...the problem text is out, and the previous versions nuked. There are hidden comments marking where I removed text, just rewrite those parts in your own words and everything will be fine. The text is attributed to you in the edit summary, if you look at the history of the draft. Reventtalk 09:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks A LOT for your help (I feel now even stupider for getting upset at the first place è_é). I am working on those copyright issues. Thank you again and see you ! KaptainIgloo (talk) 16:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:40:22, 3 September 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by CD33

[edit]


Hi, my Draft: zenon Software was deleted because of copyright infringement with http://www.ovguide.com/zenon-software-9202a8c04000641f8000000016b37dec#. The fact is that the text we wrote for Wikipedia is unique, written by a COPA-DATA specialist. The source you are quoting has copied our text, not vice-versa. If we get the webmaster of OVGuide to delete the text, will you admit it to Wikipedia? Will we have to write it once again? Thank you! CD33 (talk) 09:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CD33: The content can be restored, and used, but it has to be specifically released to Wikipedia under under the appropriate license. You should refer to Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for information about how to license the content to Wikipedia, and then contact the deleting administrator, RHaworth (talk · contribs) to have the page undeleted. That being done, it is perfectly allowable for OVGuide to also use the text. Reventtalk 09:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:07:25, 3 September 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Rduhayon

[edit]


Hi, I have submitted a draft article on my company (Accedo.tv) yesterday. All facts were substantiated with external articles or press releases, but apparently one of the sentence or link (about the acquisition of the US company CloverLeaf Digital LLC) was seen as "G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement". What was the infringement? And how can I restore and update my draft (to resubmit the article for review)? Thanks, rduhayon Rduhayon (talk) 10:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Rduhayon: I can't actually see the text now that it has been deleted, but the text matched http://www.fiercecable.com/press-releases/accedo-acquires-cloverleaf-strengthens-tv-app-solutions
The entire lead section was basically verbatim from the "About Accedo" section at the bottom of that press release. The draft would have been unacceptable anyhow (as I remember) because it was quite promotional in tone, but you might be able to get a copy of the rest of it from the deleting administrator, RHaworth (talk · contribs).
Also, if you are writing about 'your company', then you need to disclose that conflict of interest on your user page. Reventtalk 10:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:44:55, 3 September 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Sudhirsraval

[edit]


I had submitted the content at the page with name "Sudhir S Raval".

The review was negative with the reason of copyright infringement. I have pasted the reply below.

"09:37, 3 September 2014 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page Draft:Sudhir S Raval (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://sudhirsraval.com/)"

But, the person "Sudhir S Raval" as discussed in wikipedia page is same as the person with URL http://sudhirsraval.com. I am not doing any copyright breach. I am creating the page for the person who is having the persona bio-website at sudhirsraval.com.

I am developer of the the site at www.sudhirsraval.com.

Do I need to cite or provide reference to the website www.sudhirsraval.com

Pl. suggest as to what should I do so that I can re-submit.

Sudhirsraval (talk) 13:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sudhirsraval: Since the text has previously been published, it cannot be posted to Wikipedia without being specifically licensed by the copyright holder. To do so, the owner of the material will need to follow the directions at WP:CONSENT, and you can then contact the deleting administrator, RHaworth (talk · contribs), to have the page undeleted. Reventtalk 13:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:01:25, 3 September 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Falcons84

[edit]


Hi there! I noticed you declined my page on Partners for Mental Health due to copyrighted info. Could you kindly let me know what the copyright info was so I can remove/adapt it? Thank you. Falcons84 (talk) 16:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Falcons84 (talk) 16:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I can no longer see the page since it has been deleted, but the copyrighted text came from http://www.partnersformh.ca/about-us/who-we-are/
All text on that page is copyrighted, and cannot be used without an explicit license to Wikipedia from the owner. If you have a copy of the page, you should be able to tell what matches, and rewrite it before creating a new draft. Please do not post copyrighted text to Wikipedia, even if you intend to immediately rewrite it. Thanks. Reventtalk 16:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Revent:Thanks for the quick reply! I have submitted the page again with adapted copy - Partners for Mental Health. Would love it if you could take a look since you'd reviewed the original page already. Falcons84 (talk) 16:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:19:11, 3 September 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Marc.bratcher

[edit]


Hello. My article "Hallsville, North Carolina" was flagged for an "ambiguous copyright infringement" and was deleted before I could make changes and resubmit it. I spent a deal of time writing the said article and was unaware that this would occur. The source provided as evidence for the copyright violation contained information that was public domain, so I do not think that there was in actuality a copyright violation. However, if you could restore the draft for me to edit, I will be happy to rephrase the information in a manner that does not raise any red flags. Thanks. Marc.bratcher (talk) 21:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Marc.bratcher: I think you misunderstand, in that while US federal government publications are in the public domain, those of local governments are not, unless it is specifically stated. You had about half a paragraph of material from the Duplin County Register of Deeds that can't be used.
That being said, the large majority of the draft is fins. While I'm not an admin and can't actually undelete it, I'll ping @Nick: about having the draft restored for you. You'll need to make an edit specifically deleting the material that was a problem (which was several sentences about James Sprunt) so that the revisions that included the material can be deleted, and then rewrite it so it's not a direct copy. It should be back in a moment.
Nick, the draft is Draft:Hallsville, North Carolina. Reventtalk 21:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Marc.bratcher: Ok, your draft has been restored, and the copyrighted material removed, and the previous revisions deleted. You also had copyrighted content from http://moh.ncdcr.gov/exhibits/civilwar/about_section8.html , which has a copyright notice to the North Carolina Museum of history at the bottom. You can use this 'content', but the actual text needs to be rewritten in your own works to be legal unless a website has an explicit notice that the text is either in the public domain or freely licensed.
Sorry for the drama, and thanks for contributing...the actualt 'article' looks good, it seems like it was simply a misunderstanding. Reventtalk 22:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Revent: @Nick: Thanks for your help guys. The copyright issues have been fixed. The page I resubmitted and that is currently in my sandbox, however, is "Wikipedia:Hallsville, North Carolina". As my original submission was reviewed within a day or two, I was just hoping that this resubmission does not get overlooked. Thanks again.

Request on 07:53:02, 4 September 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Sarahchallis

[edit]

Hi Revent, I had 2x articles rejected - draft:Icarus (EU Project) and draft:Innovteg. Please could you let me know where I can see some comments or a reason why?

Also, where can I find the article? I'd like to re-submit it after I have made the changes.

Thankyou for your time and help with this, Sarah, Sarahchallis (talk) 07:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarahchallis: Hi. Sorry, unfortunately the 'comments' went away along with the drafts. They were both deleted for containing copyrighted material, as can be seen at here and here. You can request that they be undeleted, but any material that was directly copied from other websites that isn't explicitly in the public domain or under a free license can't be directly used. If you want, I will see about getting them back for you with the problem material removed... I'm not actually an administrator, so it might take a bit to round one up. Reventtalk 08:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@RHaworth: Can you take a look at these and see if there is anything not a copyvio worth restoring? If so, I'll take care of cleaning the infringing text out and getting the previous version revdel'd if you want me to. I don't remember offhand exactly how much text wasn't copied. Reventtalk 09:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is tragick (because my money is going into them) but "Seventh Framework" in an article seems to be equivalent to saying "this project is not notable" - see this list. Sarah, please declare your interest - do you work in the Seventh Framework office? I will be happy to email you copies of your articles - read this. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, no I do not work for the Seventh Framework Programme, I work for one of the companies involved in both of the projects. For Innovteg, the copyrighted text was from the website that I wrote, so I guess I was only copyrighting myself! How can I show that it is in the public domain? For Icarus (EU Proejct), I've not seen that text before, I don't know where it came from. The information is in the 'public domain' though, so if I can prove this, can it be approved?Sarahchallis (talk) 09:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • (I include Powerdriver in the list of your creations.) Thank you for declaring your COI and kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks these projects are notable and writes about them here. Regarding the Innovteg page to place it in the public domain, simply change the "© InnovTEG" at the bottom of the page to "the text of this website is public domain". Incidentally the design of that page is appalling - forcing me to view it in a wider window than normal. Please bear in mind that some people have narrower screens than yours or use narrower windows out of preference. The deletion log for draft:Icarus (EU Project) tells you whence that was copied. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks RHaworth for the advice, I can change that on the webpage. Can the articles be restored? The design of the webpage has nothing to do with the article in question so let's keep that off this discussion please.Sarahchallis (talk) 08:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admin

[edit]

Revent, I suspect that you are one of those who explicitly does not want to become a Wikipedia janitor (the new title I am proposing for admins) but if you decided to apply, I would be happy to support you. — RHaworth (talk · contribs)

@RHaworth:(laughs) I seem to be getting a lot of that lately. To be honest, I've actually been pondering it more lately, after comments from a couple of admins I respect. My issue with it, really, isn't that the tools wouldn't be very convenient, but that there are areas of adminship I really have no interest in. Wikipedia janitor sounds much better.
I've said for a long time that I would never RfA, but it really does have far more to do with knowing what they typically turn into, and what a lot of people's 'criteria' are, than anything else. I'm not really, at all, a 'content creator'... I can write, and have helped people rewriting things, but I've never sat down and created an article from scratch, and never pushed an article to GA. I know the 'policies' involved quite well, it's just something that's really hard for me to actually sit down and 'do' for personal reasons.
One thing that I have said for a long time, however, is that I really felt the best RfA nom would be a couple of admins saying "I'm tired of this guy pestering me to use my buttons for obvious things," and it seems like I'm approaching that point, so maybe I really should do it. I just am not crazy about feeling like I would have to spend a couple of months focused on 'setting up' for one. Reventtalk 10:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfC submission for the 114th Infantry Regiment (United States)

[edit]

Revent, thank you for you comments.

In the draft for the article on the 114th Infantry Regiment (United States), I originally included a note under References saying "This article incorporates public domain material from websites or documents of the United States Army Center of Military History." I've now added a more specific source to the Lineage and Honors section. The source document is in the public domain and was acquired from the US Army Center of Military History. Thank you --Kate. 70.192.73.182 (talk) 15:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@70.192.73.182: Thank you. I thought from the language it looked specifically like it came from an official unit history, I just couldn't find any copy other than that other place it had been posted. This should avoid any copyright issues. Reventtalk 15:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:57:44, 4 September 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Imainfp

[edit]


I would like to clarify that Sydney Finkelstein, the subject of this listing, is the same Sydney Finkelstein who maintains http://faculty.tuck.dartmouth.edu/sydney-finkelstein/about-sydney-finkelstein/ and the social media sites linked to this entry. He is a well-known teacher, researcher and speaker. I hope this clarifies the copyright issue. Please let me know if it is possible edit and publish this page. Thanks. Imainfp (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Imainfp (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Imainfp: The text on that webpage is copyrighted, and unless an explicit declaration is made, on that page, that the text is either in the public domain, or licensed under a WP:Compatible license. We cannot, legally, host text that has been copied from elsewhere. I agree that he is notable, as deserves an article... any holder of a 'named chair' at a university is automatically presumed notable. I suggest you get a copy of the deleted draft from the deleting administrator (I see you alos contacted him), rewrite it, and then recreate the draft. One the copyright issue is taken care of, there should be no problem with getting it published. Reventtalk 12:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

10:45:26, 5 September 2014 review of submission by Garminio

[edit]


Hi Revent

Thank you for taking the time to review my first draft, this is my first article on wikipedia! I believe that I have added some independent sources that should show notability, and I have re-submitted the article but it has not been reviewed. Is this because it needs more sources? I was also wondering if it would be appropriate to add sources in other languages for an article like this one? I am sorry for all these questions, but having some feedback would really help me to improve the article and have some guidelines for my next ones!

Cheers Garminio (talk) 10:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Garminio: Sources in languages other than English are perfectly acceptable, in fact, you'll probably need to use them. Sources don't have to be in English, or online, they merely have to be published in a form that is available to the public. Information has to be verifiable, but does not have to be 'easy' to verify... if I would have to go to some library in Italy to look at an 80 year old book, that is still an acceptable source. For this subject, I would expect the best sources to be in Italian.
As far as not having been re-reviewed yet, unfortunately the review queue is quite large. We're working on it, but it might take a few weeks. Reventtalk 12:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, thank you very much! I will make sure to add them in he meantime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garminio (talk • contribs) 15:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:32:55, 5 September 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Marcosvr

[edit]


Hello, I recently received a copyright infringement notice for User:Marcosvr/ProMetic A new business listing for Prometic. I am not sure what information you think has been sourced incorrectly to fix it? If it is the whole article or anything within the article I can get a Prometic employee to validate allowance.

Your help very much appreciated and thank you

Marcosvr (talk) 13:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcosvr: FYI, that draft was moved to Draft:ProMetic Life Sciences. Since I'm not an admin, I can't actually look at the deleted draft, but the copyright violation was a press release... as I remember, the 'description of the company' was taken directly from there. Even if a section of text is copyrighted by the subject of the article, it still cannot legally be reused unless it has been released to the public domain or under a WP:Compatible license. You can get a copy of the draft from the administrator who deleted it and resubmit it once the issue has been fixed. Reventtalk 13:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:22:45, 6 September 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Bslirx

[edit]


Hi, This is Bslirx here. Can you please explain why have you deleted this article on Ajay Srinivasan since i had quoted genuine sources in the reference section. There are other articles of similar nature on banking heads in India on Wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chanda_Kochhar). All the sources of information are genuine and from the office of Mr Srinivasan himself. Previously when i had submitted this article, there was no copyright issue, can you please explain how it came up now. Any more info to improve my article would be great

Bslirx (talk) 20:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to why the issue had not come up before is simply that the previous reviewers either did not check or did not notice. I actually did not delete the draft, I'm not an administrator and cannot do so. What I did do is notice the copyright violation and flag the text for an administrator to review. Your draft was largely copied from his official company biography at http://abfsg.com/Pages/our-people.html You cannot reuse text from elsewhere on Wikipedia, it is a copyright violation and would be illegal for us to host it. Articles must be based on, and referenced to, what has been written about the subject in reliable independent sources, not copied from elsewhere with sources thrown in to show notability. If you wish, you can ask the administrator who deleted it for a copy of the draft, in order to retrieve the sources, and you are perfectly welcome to submit a new draft that consists of material you wrote. Reventtalk 20:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resubmission of "Draft:Hallsville, North Carolina"

[edit]

Revent, several days ago my draft Hallsville, North Carolina was rejected for copyright issues. They have been fixed. The page I resubmitted and that is currently in my sandbox, however, is "Wikipedia:Hallsville, North Carolina". As my original submission was reviewed within a day, I was just hoping that this resubmission does not get overlooked. Thanks again.

Best Regards,

marc.bratcher — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marc.bratcher (talk • contribs) 12:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Marc.bratcher: Hi. I'm talking to an admin and getting it sorted (the duplicates). Please don't edit the draft for a few minutes, until I let you know it's ok. Reventtalk 12:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Marc.bratcher: Sorry that took so long, got sidetracked by drama. There is now only one copy of your draft, it lives at Draft:Hallsville, North Carolina, and is currently pending review. Without actually formally reviewing it (I rarely do that, as I'm constantly busy trying to help AfC in other ways) it looks to me like there is nothing to prevent it from being accepted. Reventtalk 14:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I'll make this simple: there is no indication that "Yon-Ce" has permission to publish material from Entertainment Tonight on YouTube. If you restore that link again, you will be blocked from editing until you agree to stop.—Kww(talk) 18:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kww:Restore it again? I restored it once, after it had been removed as an 'unreliable source', because the citation was to the Entertainment Tonight interview, not to YouTube. I also fixed the citation to show that it was to Entertainment Tonight, not YouTube, and that the removal as an 'unreliable source' was silly. That was before anyone had made any claim about it that had anything to do with copyright. I removed the {{copyright violation}} template, yes, because it was blatantly the wrong template, given that it refers to the text it is next to, which is from a CC-BY-SA source that is attributed in the article. The YouTube link is, like I said at the AfD, only a CONVENIENCE LINK and not the source for the material, and I did not add, or readd, it after the 'copyright' claim was made. You're 'warning me' for what, exactly? For not guessing that someone was going to make a spurious copyvio claim later? Or for removing a template flagging text for a copyright violation when that text is from a CC-BY-SA source that is attributed in the article?
Regardless, you are patently not an uninvolved administrator, and thus have no damn business warning me about anything. What's more, you didn't remove the supposed 'link to copyrighted material', you removed sourced content that was cited to an Entertainment Tonight interview, and you did so under false pretenses. If your problem is with the CONVENIENCE LINK then remove the damn link, not sourced content. Reventtalk 18:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This edit was enough. You posted the link, and you were responsible for ensuring that the source you linked to had rights to publish the material.—Kww(talk) 19:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kww:You should, then, make sure to warn the other two people who posted the same link, and maybe warn the admin who reviewed the article while you are at it. Again, I didn't repost the link after anyone raised any copyright objections to it, and had no intention of doing so, so your warning me about it is silly. I also note that you're totally ignoring my objection to the fact that you removed content sourced to a television interview, and the citation to that television interview, and that you did so under false pretenses while a participant in an AfD on the article. You are by far not an uninvolved admin, and is is inappropriate for anyone, admin or not, to removed content cited to a reliable source (the television interview, regardless of the YouTube link) while advocating the deletion of an article. It's also inappropriate for you to be threatening to take any admin action when you are an involved administrator.Reventtalk 19:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Drop it Revent, you reverted my removal of the copyvio link not once, but twice, next time just reformatting the link to EW. This WP:IDHT that you have been going on is plain silly. Especially sticking up for a wikia link who's challenged sources are laughable, especially its CC-BY-SA claim. The {{copyright violation}} was correctly placed alongside the link, because the link is a copyvio. And the section has original research whether you like it or not. A wikia is not a reliable source even if that is released to CC-BY-SA, and neither is interpretation of someone's tweet. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 19:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @IndianBio:Honestly, I didn't even catch on to that the particular link was in the material you had tried to delete earlier. That revert was because you had tried to delete the entire article without discussion once by converting it to a redirect, then nominated it and tried to delete a quarter of the article again, which would bias the outcome of the AfD.
Your comments about a 'wikia link' make little sense, as the Wikia article is not being used as a source, and the only link to it is in the attribution... the text came from Wikia, yes, and was submitted to AfC, but a [search] shows that the text on Wikia was not copied from anywhere else, and this check was done before the article was moved to mainspace. People who write on Wikia are licensing their text under CC-BY-SA, just like on Wikipedia, and it is perfectly acceptable to use text that is licensed under CC-BY-SA as long as it is attributed.
Noone, not Wikia or me, is claiming that the video on YouTube is under CC-BY-SA. I happen to think the segment published there is short enough to be legal under fair use, but that's really irrelevant. Even without the convenience link, a television interview with a person saying something is a reliable source for them saying that. You describe it as me 'reformatting the link', but it was really just fixing the citation to show that the actual source was the television interview, and that it was not cited to an 'unreliable source' as you previously claimed.
As far as the template, you need to read the directions for those templates, which are here, FYI. You didn't put a template next to the link tagging the link, you put a template next to the sentence tagging the sentence. I even noted that in my edit summary, if you bothered to read it. You could have easily fixed it, but instead you decided to readd the wrong tag again and complain. Meh.
Either way, I'm done. I didn't write the article anyhow, and I'm not especially attached to it, and never haver been. My participation in this largely stemmed from the fact that you started out by trying to ignore any kind of process and delete the article arbitrarily, wrote an AfD nom that claimed the title was OR (which it's blatantly not, when it was trivial to find 15 RS that use the name), tried to delete a quarter of the article after you nominated it, tried to claim that NALBUMS overrides GNG when it does not, and then tried to claim that you were entitled to ignore WP:BEFORE simply because you didn't like the article as it stood. You were pretty obviously, IMO, repeatedly ignoring half of what I said and making up new objections out of thin air. Whatever. I have better, more productive things to do than to argue with you. Reventtalk 20:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some stroopwafels for you!

[edit]
Thanks Revent for going back and taking a look at my page. Your help is very much appreciated! Falcons84 (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:35:59, 9 September 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by 170.148.198.156

[edit]


Hi Timtrent, this is regarding the article I submited for Tim Hailes that you rejected due to copyright information. I believe that the article was similar to his biography on Alderman Hailes webpage. I work for Tim Hailes and wrote both articles so no copyright has been breached please could you review your decision on this submission. Kind regards Sally.

170.148.198.156 (talk) 08:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(pinging @Timtrent:, whom you mentioned) @170.148.198.156: We cannot legally allow the reposting of material from copyrighted sources without a specific legal release. Please see WP:DONATETEXT. Merely a statement here that you are the original author is not legally sufficient. Reventtalk 10:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:13:19, 9 September 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Swherton

[edit]


Hi this is regarding the article for Alderman Tim Hailes, I have been talking to Timtrent. I have now sent the 'Declaration of consent' including the emails addresses that are on Alderman hailes website to permissions and am instured to post this remark on the talk page:

{{OTRS pending}}

Please advice on what happens now.

Kind regards Sally Swherton (talk) 14:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Swherton: You need to have the administrator who deleted the draft, @RHaworth:, who I am pinging, undelete the draft, Draft:Time Hailes, and them post that notice on the talk page for the draft at Draft_talk:Tim Hailes. You should note, however, that you will still need to comply with other Wikipedia policies; specifically, you need to also declare your conflict of interest (that you are an employee of his) on the talk page of the draft article, and you will need to provide reliable, independent sources about him to show that he is notable and so that the given information is verifiable. Reventtalk 17:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Pellet Heating

[edit]

Hi Revent, thank you for taking the time to review the "pellet heating" user page! I worked hard on the update and it now got moved to the Draft section from another user. I am not sure who is responsible for removing your Review comment or if I still have to do something. Would be great if you could check quickly. Thanks a lot! Draft:Pellet_heating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Pellet_heating Geneva2106 (talk) 11:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Geneva2106: I just cleaned your draft (to put the banner at the top), and it is pending review, but I guess I didn't explain myself well. This topic, while distinct from Pellet stove (which exists), somewhat overlaps, (there is a lot of duplicated content about how the work, really) in a way... your topic is 'bigger' versions of the same thing, but you don't show any sources other than people selling them to show that they are ever discussed as a separate thing from 'pellet stoves', which already mentions both furnaces and boilers. I think it would make more sense to expand upon boilers and furnaces as types of stoves, and merge the descriptions of how they work, or to add some sources that are not from people selling them (like magazine or newspaper articles) the talk about them as something separate from the more 'general' idea. Hope that makes sense. Reventtalk 03:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
About the draft getting moved, it's considered 'standard' to move drafts to the "Draft" location once they are submitted....it's largely so that if they don't get lost...if the author never comes back, eventually people go through the 'stale' ones and look for things that can be salvaged. . Reventtalk 03:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The problem is, that the pellet stove is just one little part of different versions of pellet heatings and a stove ist not a boiler. The information about pellet heating, does not really fit in the pellet stove section since a stove is only standing in a room and the heating is a huge system in the cellar that has different parts. I started in the stove section to explain furnaces and boilers and asked what to do and was told to start a different topic. I already cleaned up that part again, since it didnt belong there. The German section about these things is huge. Concerning the sources, you are right, it is almost impossible to find 100% neutral sources, since the technology is quite new in the english speaking world. The book from Stefan Doring should work though, right? I really think that it would be important to differentiate between heating systeme and stove but if you say it's better to incorporate the details into the stove than I could do that, but it's just one little part of the different pellet heating systems so not really right and as I said I was told to do so...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pellet_stove — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geneva2106 (talk • contribs) 08:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:44:29, 11 September 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by LexieHoskins

[edit]


Cambridge International Examinations

I tried to make revisions to the existing page but they were rejected. I was then advised by Theroadislong that I should draft the new page first and ask an editor to proofread it.

Having done this, I was then told that the submission was declined because the article already exists.

Can someone please have a look at the following and let me know that if I now make changes to the existing page that they will be approved?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LexieHoskins/sandbox/Cambridge_International_Examinations

Thanks in advance for your help

LexieHoskins (talk) 12:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC) LexieHoskins (talk) 12:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@LexieHoskins: Sorry for the confusion...I think what was meant was to 'draft' the changes in a sandbox, and then talk about them on the article talk page. The 'submission' process you used, specifically, is "Articles for Creation", which is only for new articles. Articles for Creation is about "will this 'new' topic get deleted if I pass it", basically, not for changes to existing content.
The way you are trying to go about changing the article is just 'wrong' in Wikipedia terms. You are completely overwriting the existing article, including removing a reference for the name change (which belongs, definitely), the old logo, and removing the improvement tags and such others have added, without fixing the issues. You can't just overwrite an article, you need to make edits to change the existing article. Also, because you have a COI, you shouldn't be editing the article directly..you should just propose changes.
Most of what you are trying to fix looks fine to me, as far as the text, but the article is still based on only primary sources, and needs major work, which doesn't get done if you overwrite the maintenance tags.
What you need to do is mention your draft on Talk:Cambridge International Examinations and talk about the changes that you want to make. It's considered inappropriate (see WP:PSCOI) for people connected to a company to edit the article about it directly, instead you should propose changes publicly. Reventtalk 18:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

20:57:23, 19 September 2014 review of submission by Kji7258

[edit]

I know that this draft has not yet been formatted according to Wikipedia guidelines. I would appreciate reasons for the decline. Thank you. Kji7258 (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kji7258: While the subject appears to be notable, the draft can't be put live until it is reformatted to 'look' like a Wikipedia article, hence my links to WP:TUTORIAL and WP:MARKUP. Also, the draft has no inline citations, which are needed so that the information given is verifiable. I didn't decline the draft because it doesn't look like he shouldn't have an article, but because the draft you submitted is not ready for article space yet.

Specifically, as far as the text itself is concerned, please look at MOS:BLPLEAD for how the introduction to a Wikipedia biogrphy is supposed to be written. Reventtalk 21:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 03:33:34, 20 September 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by 173.76.154.110

[edit]


I would like the advice of the reviewer as to what should be done to this draft to make it acceptable to Wikipedia.I realize that in its present submission it does not yet have the proper formatting. Thank you.

173.76.154.110 (talk) 03:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@173.76.154.110: See my previous message on this page, where I answered your question. Reventtalk 21:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

[edit]
Thank you for your contributions to wikipedia! Learning Facilitator (talk) 08:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:27:51, 23 September 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by 75.67.240.107

[edit]


Hi.

In my review of my article on Chloroplast Migration by Plant Stress Doctor, two comments were made. One stated that they found a copy of a chloroplast migration drawing on an Australian web site and a link was provided. Since I personally drew all drawings in the article, they are not copyrighted. The Australian web site copied the drawing from my work with my permission. They are a distributor for the company that I work for. There is no copyrighted information in the article.

Second: It was suggested that the article needed to be reviewed to ensure that there was no original research in the document. There is not. This is only a review of existing research that has been published.

Please reconsider the article. (Plant Stress Doctor) 75.67.240.107 (talk) 19:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)Plant Stress Doctor 75.67.240.107 (talk) 19:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@75.67.240.107: @Plant Stress Doctor: People often misunderstand this, but under current law (this changed decades ago) you are not required to claim copyright.... you automatically have copyright in anything you create, without needing to register it. Unless material was specifically released under a 'wikipedia compatible' license when it was published, it cannot be reused on Wikipedia unless it is specifically relicensed to Wikipedia... we have no way of knowing that you, as an 'anonymous' editor, are the owner of the material. Before it can be undeleted, you need you need to follow the procedures at WP:DCM. Once the OTRS people have received your message, they will restore the material.
It was not simply the photos, which could be deleted separately from the draft, but there was a substantial amount of text that matched this page. Reventtalk 20:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

05:09:25, 25 September 2014 review of submission by Yuva888

[edit]


i dont know why you are declined my article please explain i am new new to this.

Yuva888 (talk) 05:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Yuva888: As explained by the text and links in the decline message, Wikipedia articles are about subject that are notable, as shown by significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Articles also need to be based upon, and referenced to, what has been written about the subject in those sources.
Your draft article has no references, and the only 'coverage' shown is the person's own website and his facebook page. This doesn't even slightly indicate that he is meets the notability criteria. Reventtalk 05:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

04:00:12, 26 September 2014 review of submission by Rstordeur

[edit]


I'm trying to find out which entries require footnotes. I have reviewed the guidelines but it doesn't clear up which entries require verification. I have also checked numerous other Wikipedia articles to see if I can understand which require annotation, but each article seems to be different. Some have references to certain fact, some do not even though they seem to be the same type of information.

I tried using the chat the other day before I resubmitted, but didn't received any help. Maybe I was doing it wrong as well.

Any help would be appreciated. Rstordeur (talk) 04:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Rstordeur: For most purposes, general references (without inline citations) are fine, however anything that 'has been or is likely to be challenged' needs a specific inline cite. For biographies, that generally means any claim that indicates the significance of the person (such as an award) or any claim that the person is in some way 'exceptional'. It's not something that is 'specifically' outlined by any policy other than WP:MINREF, it really comes down, in a large degree, to experience with what types of statements tend to be challenged (by the addition of a 'citation needed'). In this case, in particular, it's the statements about how he was working professionally starting at the age of 16 that really need specific citation, because that is something that indicates he's 'unusually talented'.
Also, statements that are very 'specific' need citation, as they also tend to be challenged. This refers to him being known as 'the voice of business news in Los Angeles'... you need a citation to where he is referred to in that way. Other than those things, the draft looks quite acceptable, and should be approved fairly easily once that is addressed. Reventtalk 04:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio?

[edit]

I do not see that the entire article is copyvio in this version of the draft, which you tagged for speedy deletion. Only the Social responsibility section is copyvio from that source, & it could simply be removed. (I'm going to delete it anyway, because we already have a decent article on this extremely notable person.) DGG ( talk ) 13:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: I didn't say the entire draft was a copyright violation... in fact, I explicitly said otherwise. The criteria is not that 'the entire thing is a copyright violation', it is that 'there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving'. In this particular case, once the copyrighted material was removed, you are left with more material that is about the company than about the purported subject of the article, and of what if left that is about him, a signifigant part is /still/ a copyright violation... the 'personal life' section is mostly taken nearly verbatim (with the change of one word) from http://www.bornrich.com/anil-agarwal.html
Given that, as you yourself noted, there is already an article about this subject, given that most of what you left isn't even about him, and given that what is left, usable, and about him is both extremely minimal and already in the existing article, I really don't get why you think the rest is 'worth saving'. I really don't get why you think it is 'worth saving' as a pending draft, when you could easily (and appropriately) have declined it as 'exists' anyhow.
I also, though I rather expect you to ignore this point again, as you seemed to do the last time I mentioned it, don't understand why you think that it is acceptable to leave copyrighted material in article histories, when it means that we are not only then distributing copyright violations in database dumps, but doing so knowingly. Wikipedia is more than 'what is visible in the current version on the website', and we have an obligation to ensure that what we distribute is free from illegal content.
For what it is worth, after my last comment about copyright on your talk page, I asked several other experienced users that are active with AfC, including a couple of admins who are quite knowledgeable about copyright issues, to read over what I had written. Their agreement was that what I had said was correct.... I have, quite a few times, consulted other people for 'opinions' before I have nominated things for G-12, and I think the fact that out of the fairly large number of admins who have taken action on them, that you are the only administrator who has either not deleted one, not given me the revdel that I asked for, or even complained shows that your stance on this is not in accord with consensus... you are creating 'criteria' such as 'the entire thing must be a copyright violation' that simply do not exist. Reventtalk 18:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Hedda Gabler (2014 film)

[edit]

I thought I'd leave a note that there was an email received by OTRS. A more specific statement of consent is needed, so we're waiting for that. —Mikemoral♪♫ 23:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikemoral: Thank for letting me know. I'd just added the comment on there because I noticed it had been recreated, and didn't want anyone approving it 'early'. Reventtalk 01:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We've received confirmation and I've put a notice on the talk page. It's okay to review now I imagine. —Mikemoral♪♫ 12:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Templates

[edit]

For example what image is used for Template:Abu Dhabi Princely Family? It's just the flag of Abu Dhabi. There are also some other royal templates with this kind of images that are not related to the royal family. Coat of Arms or flag of a country is not always the symbol of its royal family. Also about templates like British and Spanish royal family that have an image which shows the royal family's coat of arms, I should say what is the purpose of these images? Keivan.fTalk 11:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And about Template:British Royal Family, please start a discussion to see whatever we should remove the image or not. Keivan.fTalk 11:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Keivan.f: I'm not going to debate specific images, as I'm not 'personally' that interested in them particularly. Your removal of them all, without any rationale given for the specific edits, gave no evidence of being anything other than trying to make a 'point' after your attempt to keep the image at British Royal Family was reverted. You did not indicate in any way that your removals were intended to be in any way related to the merits of those particular images... instead you simply made a mass removal of content with no justification given. That was highly inappropriate. If you want to remove particular images with some kind of rationale, and then engage in discussion on those talk pages if someone objects, I have no problem with that, but you cannot simply remove large amounts of content without explanation.
As far as the British Royal Family in particular, such a discussion should have already taken place on that talk page after the removal was initially reverted. Instead, people edit warred about it. Again, I'm not 'especially' interested in the subject myself, though I think it's fairly obvious that actual 'coats of arms' should be included, but I'm not going to enter into an edit war about it. Surtsicna 'claims' that he engaged in a discussion about it somewhere, but I'm unable to find it. Regardless, I'm far more interested in seeing people engage in an actual discussion to establish consensus than in any particular outcome. By policy, on that particular template the image should remain in place until a discussion has taken place, as BRD tells you to discuss it after the first reversion, however Surtsicna seems as if he wants to exert 'ownership' over the issue. Personally, my intent is to simply keep an eye on this and stay out of the actual 'dispute', with a mind toward trying to get people to actually engage in discussion somewhere other than edit summaries, and to possibly give some admins a poke if people's behavior gets to that point. Reventtalk 12:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, actually after an edit war with "Surtsicna" I removed all the images. Well my decision was wrong of course. I had to discuss first. Anyway you reverted my edits and I have no problem with it. I'll try to have a discussion in the future about this matter. No one owns anything on Wikipedia. Surtsicna will stop the edit war if a discussion takes place on the talk page. Keivan.fTalk 12:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Keivan.f: For specific images, if you have and give a rationale for them to be removed, no 'prior' discussion is required... be bold! You are probably correct about the templates that just use the 'flag'...those images should probably go away, and I doubt that people would object if you pointed out that they are not 'specifically' related to the family. Just, please, engage in an actual discussion, on the talk page of that template, if you are reverted, instead of trying to discuss in edit summaries as has been happening at the British page... you are not, IMO, particularly at fault in how things have gone at that specific location, and I have little doubt that the image would end up being kept if an actual discussion occurs. Surtsicna really should be reverted there until a discussion at that talk page has taken place, I'm just not going to get into an edit war with him. His behavior there has not been reasonable, IMO, as he has been edit warring with multiple people about it and trying to discuss in edit summaries. I find his 'claim' in his most recent edit summary to be rather dubious... I can't find a discussion he had with any of the people who reverted him, and the discussion should have been 'public' on that talk page anyhow. I don't know him, but for someone with his 'experience' I think he should know better than to behave as he has. Reventtalk 12:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are complaining here as well.

68.100.172.139 (talk) 04:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@68.100.172.139: This conversation was about something else, and my 'complaint' was not about socking, but about the edit warring that you are apparently also engaging in, with these same people, in an entirely different set of articles. All three of you need to read WP:BRD, WP:EDIT SUMMARY, and WP:OWN. I am looking at the set of Turkish biography articles that you people are all fighting over, and am going to make some edits to most of them, but I am not interested in getting dragged into what is a 'fight', not a discussion, over images. If I take any 'action' about this, it will probably end up being taking all three of you to ANI for having an edit war across dozens of articles. Reventtalk 04:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think he should read Wikipedia:Canvassing. Besides this discussion is not related to you at all. Keivan.fTalk 07:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Surtsicna & keivan.f

[edit]

Are they editors? They behave as if they are the editors.

Last week, I got suspected of Surtsicna , and now I'm suspecting of keivan.f because I consider Surtsicna the editor and keivan.f the vandalizer. But the worst situation is this: If Surtsicna is not an editor, then both of them are the duplicate of Biar122.

Thanks for your considerations.. 68.100.172.139 (talk) 02:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@68.100.172.139: I'm not personally familiar with either editor, beyond my recent interaction with them on the issue of the images in royal family templates, but both of them are well-established users that had been editing Wikipedia for years before Bier122 came on the scene. If you believe that you have evidence that they are in fact the same person as Bier122, you should make a report, with links to the evidence, at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Biar122. I think it is quite unlikely, though. Reventtalk 02:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When you block Biar122 they both totally lost control and they are deleting all the images..this is a big vandalization team and they behave like editors, since you have also complain about some issues I reported to you..

68.100.172.139 (talk) 02:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@68.100.172.139: I am not an administrator, and had nothing to do with blocking Biar122. The issues with the images seem to have nothing at all to do with what got that person blocked, which was apparently about editing articles related to Albania. Given that Surtsicna and Keivan.f have argued in the past, I doubt they are the same person.
From what I see by looking at the edit histories of these articles what I see is a whole group of people who like to edit war and don't use edit summaries. It's ridiculous behavior all around, but I don't see any reason to believe that either one is a sock. Reventtalk 03:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really? If he thinks that we are socks of Biar122, he should prove it. Without any clear reason he accuses me of vandalism. Why? Because I reverted his edits. If you're trying to find who makes vandal edits here, you should take a look at this IP's contributions. Keivan.fTalk 07:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Keivan.f: I don't think any of it really 'vandalism', per se (that term gets thrown around way too much in content disputes), but yes, I did see that the IP had blanked a fairly extensive list of warnings and blocks from his user page. Going through that whole list of articles that are being fought over and making actual 'improvements' (mainly to the formatting of the references, which is very broken) is actually pretty high on my 'to-do' list right now. I find the fighting over images in articles that are themselves broken to be rather silly and fairly disruptive, since all it does is create a hostile editing environment. Content issues need to be resolved on the basis of discussion and consensus, not on grounds of 'who is most persistent' or 'who gets pissed off enough to do something blockable first'. The comment I would make to you, specifically (and this really applies to everyone involved) is that you really, really, need to made better use of edit summaries. The 'default setting' should always be to summarize your edits, and not in a way that 'argues' with someone else... a edit that needs discussion should point at the talk page, the debate should take place there, and the article should be left the hell alone after a single revert until the discussion has taken place.
And yes, the IP was blatantly trying to canvass me. Not that I'm going to take sides (like I've said elsewhere, I don't really 'care' unless the image is just wrong) but at least it did alert me to a fair number of articles that need the kind of work I actually 'do'... you might want to look at Safiye Sultan to see what I'm talking about, if you hadn't already noticed. Reventtalk 21:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:29:53, 29 September 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Jamellis

[edit]


Could you please restore my article on Years & Years so that I can make the relevant amendments to the copy in order to have it approved? Thanks

Jamellis (talk) 09:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamellis: I can't, personally, restore anything... I am not an administrator. As was pointed out at WP:REFUND, though, a draft that is composed entirely of material that is a copyright violation cannot be legally restored, as we cannot have such content on Wikipedia, even in the edit history of the article. You should start over, and write a draft entirely in your own words, based on and referenced to the sources, not try to start with material taken from elsewhere and try to edit it into something acceptable. Reventtalk 21:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen MacMahon

[edit]

Revent: thanks for helping me with the additions to the Stephen MacMahon page. Although I had submitted and noted the COI, I'm new to all this and realized afterward that I didn't have my user page reflect that COI as transparently as possible. I've now updated that user page, and in the spirit of transparency, close the loop with you. Thank you again.Easel14 (talk) 12:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Easel14: As I commented in IRC, thanks for being open and honest about it. That's, unfortunately, something that is unusual among people who have a COI... even if they 'admit it' in some context, they are usually just here to push their 'pet topic' and not to 'improve the encyclopedia'. Input from people who 'know about' a topic can be quite helpful, as long as those people are willing to understand and work with our policies... the whole reason that most of those 'promotional' people want to have a Wikipedia article is, after all, basically due to the fact that we try as hard as we can to eliminate such biases, which becomes rather circular. Reventtalk 20:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Luke Zimmern

[edit]

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Luke Zimmern. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Rotimi Amaechi

[edit]

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Rotimi Amaechi. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography

[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Orson Scott Card

[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Orson Scott Card. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her

[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Hedwig of Holstein

[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Hedwig of Holstein. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Mahatma Gandhi

[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mahatma Gandhi. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

15:30:50, 1 October 2014 review of submission by DaveAiello

[edit]


Seth Appert is the head coach of RPI, a Division I men's college ice hockey team in the ECAC Hockey League. All of the head coaches of competing teams in the conference except for Ron Fogarty, the new head coach at Princeton University, already have Wikipedia pages, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:ECAC_Hockey_men%27s_coach_navbox.

I was trying to add enough information about Seth Appert to get the article accepted, but there is obviously other information to be entered, such as the record of the University of Denver's hockey team when he was an assistant coach there. If you want me to add more information about his career, please let me know how much more detail I need to add before you would consider accepting this page. Thank you. DaveAiello (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DaveAiello (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DaveAiello: I have little doubt, given his position, that he is probably notable, but the draft doesn't show it. You need to include references to several independent, reliable sources (such as newspaper articles) that discuss him in some degree of depth to show his notability. He does not 'inherit' notability based solely upon his job... you need to show that he, himself, is notable. To be honest, based upon a quick glance most of the other coach articles fail this criteria as well, being based upon either databases or 'news articles' that were published by their own coaching programs, but that is no reason that you can't make this one 'better'. It's somewhat unfortunate that there is a (understandable) tendency of fans of a particular subject, such as college hockey or some band, to create little 'walled gardens' of articles that have similar issues. Not that I'm 'blaming you' for this, but that's how it stands.... the entire set of articles that you referred to are about people who 'probably' are notable, but they seem to uniformly fail to demonstrate it... Reventtalk 21:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Revent: I added a few more aspects to Seth Appert's bio, with sources last night. I resubmitted it. I will try to find more to add when I have time. DaveAiello (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@DaveAiello: The type of references that you added are indeed exactly what is needed to show notability, and that he was elected president of the AHCA is quite good, as it is an indication that he is considered 'signifigant' by his peers. If you can find one or two more articles (actual 'news' articles would be best) that are substantially about him, then I would have no complaints about this draft, though I should probably not be the person to 're-review' it. FYI, the criteria for AfC is a bit higher than what is typically actually 'applied' to the survival of an article, as drafts are expected to show, in and of themselves, that the article would survive a deletion discussion... in the case of live articles, an editor might exercise WP:BEFORE and determine that the subject is indeed notable without actually 'fixing' the article itself. I suspect this is largely the case with these articles...they don't 'prove' notability, but people are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt since it seems unlikely that the coverage doesn't exist. Reventtalk 21:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Revent: Thank you very much for your feedback. I really appreciate the help. I added an award that Seth Appert received from the Autism Society chapter in Albany, NY for his work promoting Autism awareness, which was cited by the City of Troy's website on a page that included photos. I also linked to his bio on the RPI Athletics website, which further substantiates his role as head coach of the Men's Hockey Team at RPI. As a public figure, Seth Appert's comments on hockey are published several times a week during the ice hockey season by the Record of Troy, NY, the Times Union of Albany, and The Gazette of Schenectady, among other online publications. He regularly appears on the broadcast and cable television networks in Upstate New York, and on a student-run service at Rensselaer which is called RPI TV. If I start citing media coverage of games in which his team played, the question will be where should that stop? I'm saying this rhetorically, of course. DaveAiello (talk)

19:08:47, 1 October 2014 review of submission by 108.236.128.118

[edit]


I am new to this process, so I first submitted a draft that was very sparse, just to get a good idea of how to submit. I then got it kicked back, so I understood better the content that needed to be added. Over the last few days, I've updated the content with better citations. I've removed external links from the body content and I've generally improved the submission. I did use the ref citation tool, and it looks like I've gotten some errors there, but I'm not sure how to Edit a ref citation through the template so that it fixes the missing URL. But, it also looks as if the URL is there for some of the red errors, so I'm not sure what I did wrong. Hopefully, I've added some solid citations about Tony Humphries, as he is a legendary DJ.

108.236.128.118 (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@108.236.128.118: Yes, it is much better referenced now, and the Billboard biography and entry from the "Encyclopedia of Popular Music" are quite good references for notability, as they are 'authoritative' sources that not just discuss him in depth but specifically describe him as particularly significant. The citation errors you are seeing are because when you provide a url in {{cite web}} the software also wants you to provide the |title field for the cited page, so that it can 'hide' the bare url behind the page title. In the case of the book, the use of the 'author' fields and the use of the 'first and last name' fields are mutually exclusive... you can use either way to list the authors, or use one way for some authors and the other for the rest, but you can't use both for the same person.
One additional note... you can't use 'specific' terms that indicate a person is significant or important, such as 'world renowned', without a specific citation to a source that makes that exact statement. For article to be neutral requires that we, as editors, can't make such judgements, we can merely discuss 'facts' such as that other people have made the statement about him. The reader of the article should ideally have no idea if the editor who wrote it likes, hates, or is ambivalent about the subject... the article itself should merely be a discussion of facts, and 'evaluations' of the person should be left to the sources that we use. Reventtalk 21:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re-Submitted Draft: The Toy Soldiers (film) page - Notability issues fixed.

[edit]

Revent,

Would you please take another look at the Draft:The Toy Soldiers (film) page that i re-submitted? I believe that I have solved the notability issues by adding articles from both the LA Times, New York Times, and Variety, among others; and have no longer relied on IMDB as a source

Thank you!

clr65109.

Clr65109 (talk) 00:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Clr65109: Unfortunately my internet connection is acting up right now, an I can't get the references to load, but they do look from the 'description' more like what is needed. Reventtalk 02:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Revent,

Would you mind looking at the 'Draft: The Toy soldiers (film)' page again. It's been in the submission cue for almost three weeks now and I think that the content has improved per the specifications. I you had a minute to look it over that would be great. :) Thank you so much for reviewing the page!

Chelsea (clr65109) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clr65109 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grizfolk

[edit]

Hi,

I was discussing an article I've been working on for some time with Jimfbleak. The article, Grizfolk, was deleted my Jimfbleak because of apparent copyright violation re: Pandora. Could you please identify the copyright violation? I assure you it was unintentional. I'd really like to have this draft reinstated so that I can make any necessary revisions and re-submit to articles for creation.

Thanks!

Sambres8 (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sambres8: @Jimfbleak: Since I am not an administrator, I cannot look at the deleted page, but the deletion log notes that it was a copyright violation of http://www.pandora.com/grizfolk
From looking at that page, my memory is that you had used a substantial section from the artist biography on that page, which is copyrighted material. You cannot reuse content that has been previously published anywhere else, or that you personally did not write, unless it is explicitly released under a Wikipedia compatible license or the original author has submitted a copyright clearance to Wikipedia. Under current law, anything a person writes is copyrighted by default, without the requirement for them to 'claim' copyright in it... in this case, though, the text is attributed to Mark Deming of Rovi, and copyright to that page is claimed by Pandora. What I would recommend is that you ask Jimfbleak to give you an 'email refund' of the text, that you rewrite any and all content that was taken from other sources in your own words, and that you then resubmit the rewritten article as a new draft. My flagging of it as a copyvio was not intended to be 'critical' of you, by the way. It is not uncommon for new editors to misunderstand copyright, and reuse 'bit and pieces' of other sources to create a new article. It's simply not allowable... we can't host copyrighted content, even if it is later rewritten to not be a copyright violation... we distribute database dumps, and they would still contain the copyrighted material. It is best to completely write the text in your own words, using the facts given by the sources (and referencing them to those sources) instead of attempting to simply rewrite content from elsewhere. Reventtalk 19:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spiralizer Page

[edit]

Hey man. I read your comments on the spiral vegetable slicer draft (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Spiral_vegetable_slicer ). I have no idea what your comment means. The term spiralizer isn't actually a brand name, its just a cute name people use since "spiral vegetable slicer" is a mouthfull. In fact, there are many different "spiralizers" you can buy from multiple manufacturers.

As for more refs, I'm on it. CerealKillerYum (talk) 00:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CerealKillerYum: Perhaps I was misunderstanding, but when I looked at the references, they all seemed to feature prominent photos of the exact same product, and gave the strong impression that it was a "Spiralizer" (as a brand name), and that 'spiral vegetable slicer' was a descriptive term that you had invented that was not used in the sources. If a 'Spiralizer" is not a specific product, but instead a term that is used by the sources for them, then that should be the article title... I didn't specifically 're-review' it, but it looks now as if you have included far more sources to show notability... if this was indeed a misunderstanding on my part, I'd be more than happy to leave a comment to that effect. Reventtalk 06:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Revent: Hey, I updated the article a lot and re-submitted it. Is it better? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Spiral_vegetable_slicer CerealKillerYum (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

[edit]

@Sigeng: Just as a note, your alleged COI issue (which I don't think exists) is not the one I was highlighting with that COI template... looking at the history, it appears that several people with a COI have edited it over time (look at it's initial creation, which apparently had input from it's leaders)... while I'm aware it has been largely rewritten, the intent was to flag it as a 'potential problem' article for people to pay attention to. Not that I'm arguing with your removing it, just pointing it out. Similarly, my other tagging wasn't intended as a criticism of the work you have done, but actually to attract more editors with access to other sources. Reventtalk 14:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that. I thought someone had put that up before reading the discussion on the noticeboard. I see your point that that influence is still present, but the many concerns raised are better captured by the text of other templates. -Sigeng (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article would benefit greatly from an 'arms length' analysis of NCMI's doctrinal beliefs by other religious scholars (some Jesuit, perhaps) if such a source could be located. Reventtalk 14:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sources of the type you mention tend to be discussions of the New Apostolic Reformation (or whatever the author calls it), and will give NCMI as an example in a list of similar groups. Chetty under Further Reading in the NCMI article is an example of this pattern. -Sigeng (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sigeng: Yes, as I just mentioned at COIN, I unfortunately don't have access to the existing sources, and unfortunately it seems (based on what I have seen in the past) that such sources tend to be either paywalled or offline. It's my hope that we can attract some editors with access to research tools such as Highbeam who will be able to broaden the sourcing, and provide more 'context' for the article. As it stands, the 'analysis' of them is too narrow, but I'm not under the impression that this is from an attempt to introduce bias on your part, but instead just from a limitation in the sources you've been able to dig up. Reventtalk 10:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I started a new section for the purpose of trying to focus on finding and discussing new sources, though my hunt has not been incredible successful so far. The 'best lead' I found so far was actually about a different group. Reventtalk 11:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Submission rejection - Copyrighted material?

[edit]

Revent,

Regarding my resubmission Sept 26, 2014 "Mark Anthony the “Psychic Lawyer," which was rejected because it included copyrighted information.

I reviewed the submission, and could not see which content was protected/copyrighted material. can you email me the draft, and if possible, clarify which material triggered the copyright issue?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by EwareTroy (talk • contribs) 19:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@EwareTroy: Since I am not an administrator, I cannot directly see the deleted page anymore. You will need to ask the deleting admin or WP:REFUND to send you a copy.
Your draft had text that directly matched parts of the 'web references' in the page at http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Mark-Gager/37933663 specifically including parts of the exact description of his qualifications. Reventtalk 22:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:TimeCamp

[edit]

Could you please check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:TimeCamp once again? I have tried my best.

Best Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.127.203.206 (talk) 14:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

17:53:51, 11 October 2014 review of submission by Fabiobat

[edit]


Hi, I was advised that you declined my proposed article about Patrizia Genovesi due to a copyright problem. Genovesi is a living photographer and in fact some content was taken from her own website, as you correctly pointed out. Actually, this content was tagged in the article as "Genovesi's statements about photography", so I was not aware that this could be a copyright problem as I was declaring the source of the statements. So my question is: could you please suggest me a way to provide content that actually comes from Genovesi (and is published by her on the internet) without violating any copyright rule? For instance, would it still be a copyright issue if I explicitly quoted Genovesi's website as the source of the content? Or is there any other solution that you could suggest? Many thanks in advance for your help, Best regards, Fabio


Fabiobat (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

11:39:46, 12 October 2014 review of submission by Pt018

[edit]


I just want to know what is wrong with the article. I listed the characters, short blurbs about them and who their English va's are. What else do I need? And there are no source materials for Mugen Souls characters in any newspapers, books, news, scholars, JSTORs and free images. I just jot down what I know about them, and then have someone else do the heavy lifting. Pt018 (talk) 11:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 'problem' is that articles need to be about subjects that are notable, as shown by the fact that they have independent coverage. Articles aren't supposed to be based on 'what you know', but on what secondary sources say about the topic. If a topic doesn't show that it itself is 'notable' then it probably wouldn't survive a deletion discussion.
It would probably be easier, to be honest, to merge your content into one or both of the existing articles, unless you can find some more sources. As far as that is concerned, however, you might want to look at the sources used on the Japanese and Korean Wikipedia.. sources don't have to be in English (you can translate them with something like Google translate and still cite the original article if you get a decent translation)... you need to show that there is mention and discussion of the characters outside of discussion of the series itself to justify an independent list. Reventtalk 01:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In layman's terms? Pt018 (talk) 12:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cover-More Insurance

[edit]
@Revent: Hello - Thanks for reviewing my article. Sorry its take so long to get back.

I think its fairly obvious now that in my initial post, I had no idea what I was doing and not referencing correctly. I've since had alot of help from the community - and one particular chat TimTrent was very helpful. Anyway - I was wondering if you can have a quick look to ensure I've also cleaned up any concerns you had initially? TimTrent seems to think its OK, though rightly because he's helped so much he wants to be independent of approval.

weirdly, this post didn't add my details, so there is probably no way of contacting me... GB_at_CoverMore — Preceding unsigned comment added by GB at CoverMore (talk • contribs) 07:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of the second law of thermodynamics

[edit]

Revant Since a full article was not appropriate, I attempted to edit existing articles on the subject of the second law and evolution. A suggested edit was posted for List of common misconceptions, 5.2.4 Evolution. The existing section of the article was quickly removed by Mr. Swordfish (talk) when the original references were examined in view of contrary references. When contrary references were posted for Objections to evolution 7.3 Violation of the second law, all my edits were rejected. While as you say “the fallacy you are writing about is based on a gross misunderstanding is fairly obvious”, it seems not to be obvious to all. The (talk) section tells of the discussion. Is there a way to progress on this matter? I am threatened with being blocked if I say any more. LEBOLTZMANN2 (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You all ok?

[edit]

Hola! Guess who!? Just checking in to see if all is good with you. Been awfully quiet as of late. You know how to reach me :) 118.165.123.156 (talk) 19:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You all ok?

[edit]

Hola! Guess who!? Just checking in to see if all is good with you. Been awfully quiet as of late. You know how to reach me :) 175.111.41.184 (talk) 19:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

22:21:04, 30 October 2014 review of submission by 90.199.7.197

[edit]


I have added the references. Could you please review again?

90.199.7.197 (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help with my article

[edit]

Hey Revent

If you recall you helped me out via chat with editing an article "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ranveer_Brar" It has been re-declined today on grounds of non-neutral tone of information. I had a chat with one of the WIKI helpers, but sadly that person cut out almost everything from my article saying they are not needed and makes the article look like a fanpage or a resume!! I am at my wits' end now..The old draft is at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Ranveer_Brar&oldid=632028967 . Could you please let me know your views on the matter? Coolkrc (talk) 09:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The Toy Soldiers (film)" page: re-submitted

[edit]

Hi Revent,

You reviewed my page"The Toy Soldiers (film)," a while ago and declined it. I have been waiting more than a month for it to be re-reviewed. Do you think you could look at it again? I added a lot more sources than it had before. If not, is there away to get it reviewed faster? The film premieres this weekend.

Thank You so much!

Best,

Chelsea — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clr65109 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello Revent. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI#Gamaliel

[edit]

I've moved your request to WP:AN#Gamaliel. Nyttend (talk) 23:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: Fair enough. Thanks. Reventtalk 23:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi there, I removed all of the copyright violation from 7digital. Please can you review the article that you flagged up last July/August? The flags at the top of the page aren't relevant anymore, as I think the article is free from such violations. Thanks :)Llamalady28 (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Llamalady28:  Done The article is vastly improved from the last time I looked at it. Reventtalk 21:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assistance and time. :)Llamalady28 (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inca clathrata

[edit]

The source is this. Is this public domain? Do we have an attrib template? Many thanks for any guidance you can offer. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See [1], specifically "Published in The Coleopterists Bulletin, 39(4):38 1-389. 1985. Copyright © 1985 by Julius Boos and Brett C. Ratcliffe. Used by permission.". Digital Commons is an 'open access' research aggregator, but the material they publish isn't freely licensed, it's just 'free beer'. Given the amount of 'direct copying' of the species description (Earwig's bot calls it 69% confidence), I'd definitely call it nukable. The 'facts' of the species description aren't copyrightable, but the exact language used is, and it honestly looks like most of the 'divergence' is due more to poor typing ('projecting' becoming a grammatically incorrect 'projection', for example) than intentional rewriting.
If you look at the history, it's also previously had an out-of-process removal of a G12 tag by the original creator. I'm re-tagging it so that you can feel free to push the button. :) Reventtalk 00:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Button pushed. Thank you kindly for the thoughtful reply. All the best. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Anna Frodesiak: FYI, I gave the user a 'removing speedy tags' warning, but I also left a note explaining the issue and inviting them to create a draft on the subject using their own wording. Reventtalk 01:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is nice of you. I got distracted by other things and didn't do that myself. Cheers. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simultaneous opposite direction parallel runway operations

[edit]

Hi Revent - thanks for restoring this. It was added by a banned user so generally I revert the edits straight off without discussion - but it always annoys me a bit when I have to remove content, so it's good to see you re-adding it under your own name. I know it seems petty to revert banned users over and over, but there's no point in banning them unless we do! Many thanks once again for re-adding it and not being too shouty about it. All the best, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 16:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry: Sorry for being shouty at all, but I wasn't really expecting a 'nice' response, given the behavior I've seen out of some other people recently (and I apologize for extending that expectation to you). I understand the 'logic' behind enforcing the rules, but I also see that they really are unenforceable, to a large degree (dropping out for a while and coming back 'clean' under a new username is fairly trivial) and it's pretty hard to see the logic behind the way some people have acted in the last few months. I really just think we should all be here for the sake of writing an encyclopedia, I really feel there are some 'noisy' users who are far more interested in playing power games than anything else, and I strongly (though unprovably) suspect that some of them are long-banned users gaming the system to work out old grudges. It just really bothers me to see 'rules' standing in the way of improving the project, for whatever reason, and I definitely think that picture speaks better than anything else at explaining what that article is about. Reventtalk 17:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know where you're coming from! The rules are sometimes unenforcable, you're right: but they're not always. The G5 rule is there for that reason: banned users can't edit because if we let them edit, then there's nothing stopping them from making the encyclopedia a toxic place. I recall one example of an editor who was particularly mysoginistic: he'd improve the encyclopedia, but would send abusive, threatening emails to female editors who disagreed with him. Even though he was improving the encyclopedia with individual edits, the net effect of his presence was damaging. That's why he was banned! For most people, a ban is enough to have them let go: some people, though, get obsessed with the project, and can't let go. They just keep coming back - but those who do are only a dozen or so people in total. They'll drift off eventually. In the meantime, those of us who can play nice need to keep writing the encyclopedia. That's the fun bit. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 23:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Revent, thank you for reverting what was obviously a useful edit. But FYI:

"Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry" has made a serious allegation of me harassing him on his talk page on this project. After he initially made allegation I asked him to remove the potentially libelous allegation. He immediately removed the allegation, and then immediately raced back to English Wikipedia to re-enforce the allegation. Being level-headed I again asked him to remove the allegation, particularly as it looks like he made it on Wikimedia UK time and dime. After the reinforcement I emailed D'Arcy (the new WMUK CEO) with an unofficial heads up of the issue.

As you can see, he is hardly active on this project and on 2 December he blocked and marked an account as a "CU-confirmed sock". This indicates that he has used the CU tool on myself. I was required to create this account because my ISP account had a soft-block on it, so that it can't be edited from even if logged in from another account. As you can see I was doing useful edits to various articles, including uploading logos which have now been deleted by this person. As you can see, I was editing in areas of Burmese aviation, and also a couple of general aviation topics; not his general area of editing.

As you can see from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Russavia/Archive#09_November_2014 there is no case been opened for this account, so him "hunting" the account down wasn't as a result of normal process on this project; i.e. someone filing a report.

If The Cavalry wants to prevent himself being seen to be acting in a vindictive and harassing way, I would suggest the following:

  1. Stop following my edits on Commons. The SODPROPS is the only way he could have found the account. When one's life is in shambles because of it being made a living hell (what a load of nonsense), and when they request that I stay away from them, generally one would expect them to do likewise. Instead, he is doing exactly the oppposite, and is using the "stay away" message as a way to continue to talk nonsense about me.
  2. Stop using the tools on myself. This is especially important, because there is no evidence of disruption from that account. Only useful edits. And the insertion into an article of a photo I uploaded is hardly evidence, given I've uploaded 350,000 photos to Commons. He should be filing an SPI report, and let others deal with it. Or better yet, stop following my activities on another project when they do not impact on him in any way, shape or form.
  3. Stop commenting about me. Publicly stating that I have made his life a living hell is a pretty big accusation and demands some evidence. Continuing to comment on me will only make things worse for him in the long run.

Only then will he cease being seen to be acting in a vindictive and harassing way towards myself. Let someone else deal with the problem of me editing on this project. I will again be giving D'Arcy a heads up to this, and if I see anything else in future that indicates that he is continuing in the way he currently is, I will make the complaint to WMUK official. 201.255.99.26 (talk) 12:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This on Nick talk page will add some more clarity to the issue as well I think. 201.255.99.26 (talk) 12:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific please?

[edit]

You know, constructive criticism and all that? Serendipodous 10:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Serendipodous: Sorry, I thought you would catch it after looking at the article. That the 'Black Friday' name is due to retailers going 'into the black' is a complete myth, the result of a 'rebranding' attempt started in the 1980s in order to counteract the negative connotations of the original source of the term (that it's traffic hell, basically) and that 'Black Friday' historically referred to quite unpleasant events. There's a quite authoritative article about it here, and it's discussed in our article. Reventtalk 11:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unjust Conclusion of Webmeister1 as a hoax

[edit]

Mr. Revent, I have just realized that you have uprightly assumed and decided that I (Webmeister1) and the American Contemporary Artist Tyler Turkle I have been writing about are one of the same. I assure you sir that we are not. If I can read through your reasoning I believe it is because with the images I have posted to Wiki Common within "Source" I placed "Own Work". I did so because I believed I was to upload accurate information about the producer of the product who is Tyler Turkle - plain and simple. This is why I stated the source as "Own Work" because it is his "Own Work". If I was in error for doing so then I stand by corrected, but to begin to assume Mr. Turkle as a hoax is not right.

I suggest that you have made a grave error in judgement sir and have jumped to a totally wrong conclusion. I request that you retract the unjust deletions that you have been making justified solely on this on this premise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmeister1 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Webmeister1: While I have been given the impression that you are Tyler Turkle, it is based not only on the fact that you uploaded images of his art to commons as 'own work', but then filed tickets that were verified by OTRS. While I'm not a volunteer with OTRS, and can't see those tickets, this was either a mistake on the part of OTRS in 'verifying' them, or an oversight. It did, however, give the distinct impression that they had explicitly verified that you are are Tyler Turkle.

As far as deletions, I am not an administrator on commons, or on english wikipedia, and cannot delete or undelete anything, all I can do is state my opinions, which are then weighed together with those of other editors against policy when closing a deletion debate. As far as the images that were deleted on commons, the ones that I endorsed deleting were not on that basis, however. Those two pieces of art, even if they are legitimate cases of 'fair use' of Picasso's concept, and still derivative works, and cannot be legally licensed by him in a way that commons allows (fair use files are not allowed on commons).
As far as the AFD debate here on wikipedia, while someone else made comments about a 'hoax', I did not. My opinion was based on that the sources cited in the article do not establish that he meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and after a significant amount of time searching the net I couldn't find any others that indicated he does. While such sources may exist offline, and could be used in the article, I can't be expected to find them. I have no doubt that he exists, and works as an artist... I found records of several of his works selling at auction. I could not, however, find any evidence that he is a notable artist.
If you are referring to several relevant edits I made to other articles, they were based on content policies. External links, for example, are supposed to link to online sources that provide more information about the subject of the article... a link to an IMDB page on a documentary about a football team, or to one about another documentary a person was in, do not meet that criteria... they don't provide any actual information.
Either way, you would be better served making your arguments, based on policy, at the relevant deletion discussions, based on policy, instead of addressing them to me privately. Reventtalk 03:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

13:22:05, 19 December 2014 review of submission by Stighe

[edit]


Stighe (talk) 13:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JOE Decker

We have been modifying the ABRF Metagenomics Research Group page. We really need this to be active before we can link other wiki pages to it as well as assemble the Extreme Microbiome Projects page and two other active pages. Can you please actually review it and not just decline it.

Scott

@Stighe: I'm not Joe Decker (talk · contribs). Your draft, however, is written as an essay, not an encyclopedia article, and does not include any references showing that the subject meets Wikipedia's requirements for the notability of subjects. Those policies are linked in the decline notice. Reventtalk 04:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

14:58:34, 5 January 2015 review of submission by Carlypnicholson9

[edit]


I am curious as to why the references submitted are not sufficient. I would like to know what types of references would be acceptable seeing as outside press releases and various technology conferences are not.

Carlypnicholson9 (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:36:53, 22 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by IPI WARLEY

[edit]


Hi

I am a Board Member of the Institute of Professional Investigators - a UK Institute committed to increasing the professionalism of this industry. We thought that it would be helpful to have a page on Wikipedia so that members of the profession and indeed members of the public can see what we are about. Hence the article, which you have deleted, was drafted by members of the Board including the Principal of the Institute. the reason you have given for deleting the article is that it infringed copyright. The alleged copyright infringement is the Institute's OWN SUBMISSION to a Parliamentary sub committee on Private Investigation. Hence any copyright attaching to the article is our own arising from OUR SUBMISSION to a Parliamentary public forum. It consists of OUR OWN WORDS ABOUT OUR ORGANISATION!

Could I therefore ask that you reconsider this decision or advise me how to dispute it?

Thanks

Regards

Richard Cumming Director

IPI WARLEY (talk) 09:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@IPI WARLEY: In order to protect the rights of copyright holders (since there is intentionally no way to verify the 'ownership' of a wiki account) and because of the license used by Wikipedia for content, previously published material cannot be reused without an off-wiki verification of license permission. Please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, most specifically section 4 of that page. Once the grant of permission has been verified by a member of the OTRS team the text can be undeleted. Reventtalk 09:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 07:32:06, 31 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by IPI WARLEY

[edit]

{{SAFESUBST:Void|


<I AM TRYING TO SUBMIT A WIKIPEDIA PAGE FOR THE UK INSTITUTE OF PROFESSIONAL INVESTIGATORS (IPI) WHICH HAS HIT A COPYRIGHT ISSUE}

You declined our first submission on the grounds of copyright.

This was due to the same form of words having been submitted to a Parliamentary Sub Committee explaining about the IPI.

This form of words was submitted by the Principal of the IPI (David PALMER) explaining about the function and history of our Institute. Unsurprisingly, we are seeking to utilise the same form of words in our explanatory page on Wikipedia. I have explained the issue to David Palmer. Both he, the current Principal and the Board of Directors agree that the form of words used in the Parliamentary Sub Committee submission can be used on our Wikipedia page and are willing to donate any copyright that exists to Wikipedia if this enables the page to be published.

Given the above could you please reinstate the IPI Wikipedia submission.

Many thanks

Regards

Richard Cumming Director

IPI WARLEY (talk) 07:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@IPI WARLEY: I am not an administrator, did not delete your draft, and can not restore it. As I replied before, you need to contact the OTRS team by email, according to the instructions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Contacting OTRS by email will let them verify that you are in fact able to legally license the material... the 'ownership' of a Wikipedia account is not itself verifiable, but the source of an email can be verified to be from an official address of the organization. Once that is done, the OTRS member will request undeletion and mark the text as having a verified license permission. As I am neither an OTRS member nor an administrator, all I can do is point you in that direction. Reventtalk 08:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Stuyvesant Apartments

[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Stuyvesant Apartments at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --Allen3 talk 14:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: New helper policy

[edit]

Hello member of Category:Wikipedians who use IRC! You are invited to join an ongoing discussion on Wikipedia talk:IRC/wikipedia-en-help aimed at defining a policy for prerequisites to being a helper in the "#wikipedia-en-help connect" channel in a section titled "New helper policy".

To prevent future mailings about IRC, you may remove your user page from Category:Wikipedians who use IRC.
Assistance is available upon request if you can't figure out where it is being added to your user page.
This message has been sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC) on behalf of — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Revent/Archive_2&oldid=1143262427"