Jump to content

User talk:Rrburke/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 14

Hello, I'm new to Wiki and want to be certain to follow the guidelines correctly. I'd like you to please visit the link I've added and view the program schedule. You will see that there is a special two-hour program dedicated exclusively to Doris Day's musical career. It is broadcast every Sunday afternoon with rebroadcasts throughout the week so that listeners in all time zones have the opportunity to hear the program. The station began these specials on January 10th, 2010 and have continued each and every Sunday afternoon since. It is definitely a program that the Doris Day fans should know about. Thank you VoiceofanAngel (talk) 12:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Cardiff Mela

Hello Rrburke, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Cardiff Mela, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

An article entitled Cardiff Mela whose creator and sole contributor is User:CARDIFFMELA is not unambiguously promotional? I could hardly disagree more. -- Rrburke (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello!!! You have reverted my edit in post

but what about these link in the same post?? post:state bank of india

Find IFSC Code of all SBI branches in India, or Branch Details by IFSC Code is this is promotional???

Your repeated addition of links to a site you own or represent serves to promote the site, irrespective of whether the site is commercial. Please see Wikipedia:External links#Advertising and conflicts of interest:" you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent". -- Rrburke (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Blocked for the username and for spamming. Acroterion (talk) 16:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Maurya Empire

Thanks for reverting my edits ... not! It is tiring to try to improve Wikipedia because of overzealous people protecting what they don't understand. The photo that PHG had uploaded to illustrate Mauryan coinage is probably not a Mauryan coin (I say probably because we don't know these things for sure). The standard reference in the field (Gupta and Hardaker) assigns that coin type to the Nanda dynasty of Magadha, who ruled before the Mauryas. So I uploaded a coin that IS thought to be Mauryan and revised the text a little bit. I communicated with PHG before making these changes since I didn't want to step on anyone's toes. He also looked at the changes subsequently and approved them (see my Talk page). Do what you want ... I'm done trying to improve Wikipedia when you have to fight every single time to get an improvement to stick. CoinIndia (talk) 15:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I reverted your edits because you added external link to your own site, evidently unaware that doing so runs counter to a Wikipedia guideline you're welcome to familiarize yourself with at:
You should also consider changing your username: your current username matches the name of your website, which is not permitted. Please see Wikipedia:Username policy -- Rrburke (talk) 23:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I was aware of all these things you list, having fought this fight before, which you can see on my Talk page. My website is an educational one at a level of detail too great for Wikipedia, but useful to readers. Other people first started linking pages to my site, so I have added a few when I have created new pages. If you don't want to include the link, don't. But for heaven's sake don't leave the article as it stands now because it is incorrect. The edits I made to the article were truly improvements. So you are harming Wikipedia by what you are doing. CoinIndia (talk) 11:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

ENGVAR

The rest of the article uses American spelling because its an American-released product - why would you prefer to keep one word with British spelling? 204.153.84.10 (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

In your edit summary, consider providing a fuller explanation and citing Wikipedia:ENGVAR#Internal consistency to ensure the edit is not reverted again. -- Rrburke (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Internal consistency is exactly what I was going for - thanks. I will use a more explanatory edit summary. Conversely, it would help for you to check why an edit was being performed before reverting. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

Hello Rrburke

Thank you for your posting. I'm just so confused and even overawed by Wikipedia! How does some other person go about reveiwing my article so that the template at the opening of it will be removed?

I hope you can help as I've gone around in circles until I'm driven nuts trying to find the information for myself - but without any success!

Alicewiki (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Alice. I'd be happy to help. What precisely do you want to know? You may not know that you can also put a {{helpme}} tag on your user talk page and someone will come along (eventually!) to offer assistance.
So what can I do for you? -- Rrburke (talk) 17:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello Rrburke, Many thanks for agreeing to help. My article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Council_of_Irish_Genealogical_Organisations&oldid=390553294

Has a "new unreviewed article" template at the top of it which states that it can be removed once the article has been reviwed by some else (other than me of course). But how does this happen? I've tried looking at the Help pages, but I just got more confused than ever. Wikipedia is labyrintine (sic)!

Thank you (Alice)

Alicewiki (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Alice. Believe me: it gets easier. Sort of. :)
As for the tag, an editor who reviews the article, when one comes along, will either tag the article for cleanup or else remove the tag. There is a backlog, as you might imagine.
May I ask whether you have any connection to the subject of the article? -- Rrburke (talk) 01:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

RBC Dexia page

I'm curious why you choose to revert RBC Dexia's page to its previous version. The page is currently flag for being advertising in nature. We went through the effort to comply with the "neutral point of view" and also include numerous outside link. Our competitor, State Street and Bank of New York Mellon, have very similar page.

We also choose to be open about who we are, rather than hide in an internet cafe and some fake name. Our interest is in providing the right content for the right situation.

Let me know. Regards,

Jeff Rbcdexia (talk) 15:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I reverted it because, as I mentioned in the edit summary, in keeping with Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline it is inappropriate for you to be editing it. You added substantial information about awards the company has received: such edits are considered promotional, and Wikipedia is not to be used as a vehicle for publicity or promotion. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Help with editing a page

Hello, Can you help me with corrections/edits to a semi secure wiki page? What do you need from me to get started? Thank you, Angie Angilosi (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Angie. I'd be happy to help. What precisely do you need? -- Rrburke (talk) 01:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm very new to wikipedia so bear with me:) How do I prove that i am a correct person to make corrections or changes to a semi secure wiki page? in coming upon this page I noticed corrections needed- can you help with edits? Angilosi (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If you would like to edit a page that is semi-protected, you can make become auto confirmed by making 10 edits over 4 days. If you don't want to do that you can put {{Edit semi-protected}} on the talk page of the article followed by your request. Gfoley4 / Wanna chat? 21:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Do you mean that the page is protected? If that's the case, you're probably being prevented from editing it until your account is autoconfirmed, which usually means the account has to be at least four days old and has made at least ten edits. Sometimes when a page has been the target of vandalism, an administrator will temporarily restrict editing access to more established users. The protection will probably expire soon. Even if it doesn't, once you hit ten edits and four days you should automatically be allowed to edit it. Let me know which page you mean and I can look into it. -- Rrburke (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! i think i figured it out. how could i suggest a more recent photo for a semi secure page? or is this only for people who have made 10 edits and has an account 4 days old? Angilosi (talk) 23:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

If you have a free image to contribute, you can upload it at Wikipedia:Upload. But consider uploading it to Wikimedia Commons instead, where it'll be easier for people from other Wikimedia projects (and beyond) to find and use.
If the image is not free, don't upload it to Wikimedia Commons, which only accepts free content (see http://freedomdefined.org/Definition for a definition of free content). If the image isn't free, you may still be able to upload it at Wikipedia:Upload, provided it satisfies the non-free content criteria (see also Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Image use policy). If you find this confusing, don't worry: I can help you figure it out.
For help on uploading, see Wikipedia:Uploading images and for Wikimedia Commons, Commons:First steps/Upload form. For information on adding images to articles, see Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. Again, if you find it confusing, I can help you through it. If I happen not to be around, you can place a {{helpme}} tag on your user talk page and somebody will come along to answer your question.
Before you swap an image out of an article, you may want to ask people about it first. Make the suggestion on the article's talk page and see what others think about the change. -- Rrburke (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
-- Rrburke (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Rrburke- thank you for your help! I made some date correction suggestions to the following page, can you tell me if I did this correctly? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Travolta thank you, Angie Angilosi (talk) 18:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angilosi (talk • contribs) 18:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions

Hello, Thank you for contacting me. Years ago, someone put up a wikipedia site about me. Sadly, I knew nothing about wikipedia and I updated it with small edits over the years. Recently, I attempted to have a photo of myself put on the site and this opened up a can of worms. That's ok. I want wikipedia to be a great site. I know now NOT to add or delete or do ANYTHING to the site. However, Jeremy, a wikipedia editor, wrote me, after many tags were put on the site, to simply put in the resources that were needed. Which I did. So now, what do you suggest? The tags are still there and I'd love to see them gone. Is this possible? Linda Wolf (talk) 23:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC) october 23 2010

Hi, Linda. In general, in keeping with Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline, you should be steering clear of this article altogether, with the exception of the kind of contributions set out at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Non-controversial edits. Any changes more substantial than these should only be undertaken after consulting other editors and obtaining their consent. Adding links to websites you own, operate or are closely associated with runs the risk of being viewed as attempting to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for self-promotion (please see WP:EL#ADV) -- as, indeed, does all conflict of interest editing. In addition to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, please consider also having a look a Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest.
I'm a little confused by your account of the article's genesis: your first logged-in edit to the article occurred less than twenty minutes after it was created, which is either an extraordinary coincidence or suggests you were aware of its impending creation. The contributions of the anonymous user who created the article, the kind of contributor we call a single-purpose account, have all involved adding information about you and your activities, as have those of a handful of other IP editors, at least one of whom, if this edit summary is anything to go by, appears to be you. Wikipedia is really not a place for people to write about themselves, their close associates, or any projects they may be involved with. These activities are better suited to a blog or a personal website. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
As for the tags, I have no good answers. The article is marred by an objectionable promotional tone conferred by the use of peacock terms such as "internationally renowned," which is the reason for the NPOV tag. It also appears to have been heavily edited by people with a close connection to you, which is why it has been tagged for conflict of interest. If it had been created and edited solely by people with no close connection to you but only a keen interest in you and your work, there probably wouldn't be any wouldn't be any tags at all. Having such an article end up in a state the subject doesn't like, sometimes referred to as Wikipedia's Law of Unintended Consequences, is one of the many reasons we counsel strongly against the creation of autobiographies. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

THANK YOU for everything you wrote. Yes, it was my assistant who edited the short description and I am so embarrassed. Please go ahead and remove "internationally renown" - I wish I could say I am more renown, but maybe when I turn 70 I'll be discovered! I think I'm most recognized for pioneering a new form of Talking Circle for teens...however I never expected that. I am deeply grateful that you and others are keeping wikipedia content as highly full of integrity as possible. You can bet your boots I won't touch that wikipedia site again! If there is anything I need to address, I'll put out a call for an independent editor to address it. Thank you again, linda Linda Wolf (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC) October 25th, 2010

Thompson-Nicola Film Commission

Rrburke. I have been reinstated to edit as PBWriter, I used to be TNRD, thanks for your help so far with helping me navigate my way around Wikipedia. I have put a request for a page for the Thompson-Nicola Film Commission on Wikipedia. How do I go about trying to find an interested editor to create the page? I also created a new heading for Film Commissions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PBWriter (talk • contribs) 21:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. About a recent vandalism.

I've been fixing things from this anonymous user for the past few weeks. Here is the talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:173.185.184.2

You recently caught one and left a message on his or her talk page, but as you can see, there are numerous such incidents every few days. I'm relatively inexperienced with the ins and outs of Wikipedia; I've been around for years but never really got into editing seriously, just catching typos here and there. All that said, I don't know where to go or what to do to get this person's IP banned from editing without logging in. Do you think you could help? Thanks for your time. siv0r 16:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siv0r (talk • contribs)

Template:Treehouse of Horror

Please weigh in on Template talk:Treehouse of Horror#Inclusion of episode segments, so we can generate a consensus. Thanks, Fixblor (talk) 08:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Che.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Che.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user talk page! Here's a cookie.

Wayne Olajuwon has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Wayne Olajuwon chat 20:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Favonian

I noticed you reverted an edit to User talk:Favonian. I was wondering why you did this, since it was not blatant vandalism and it was a legitimate comment. AFAIK, we leave these to be read by the user themselves, which they can then delete. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 14:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I reverted a trolling vandal's personal attack, one that Favonian him/herself had already previously reverted. It was by no stretch of the imagination a "legitimate comment". -- Rrburke (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Not to mention the open proxy use which makes it really rather blatant... Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 14:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Did you report it at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies? -- Rrburke (talk) 14:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Looks like the original IP was dealt with pretty quick. The latest one's not been reported yet, will get right to it. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 14:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Done and it's been blocked. Thanks for the nudge in the right direction. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 14:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Sure. What made you suspect it was on open proxy? -- Rrburke (talk) 14:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
The fact that the first one had already been blocked as such. :) Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 14:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Thought you had magic powers. You could've strung me along with some techie-speak and I totally would have bought it. :) -- Rrburke (talk) 14:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Between Weathers

Hello Rrburke. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Between Weathers to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question - it does not seem to me particularly promotional; but I have PRODded it as failing WP:NFF. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Update on that: if an article is written in particularly fluent prose, it's worth putting a sentence or two into Google to see if it's a copyvio. I did, and this was. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 21:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Rrburke. You have new messages at JohnCD's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JohnCD (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Help with editing a page

Hello Rrburke! :) Can you help me with a few date correction/addition suggestions based on research for the following page, (I can't as I have not done four edits yet):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Travolta

What is listed on John Travolta's wiki page under "Singles": "Can't Let You Go" (1975)

Suggested change: "Can't Let You Go" (1977)

See link to album for confirmation: http://www.discogs.com/John-Travolta-Cant-Let-You-Go/master/153534

Also, under "Singles" it could be listed that John Travolta recorded a duet with Carly Simon "Two Sleepy People" in 1997 http://www.amazon.com/Film-Noir-Carly-Simon/dp/B000002VTP

Also, "Take A Chance" was a duet John Travolta recorded with Olivia Newton-John from Two Of A Kind http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olivia_Newton-John_discography

Suggested additions:

"Take A Chance" (1983) #3 (duet with Olivia Newton-John)

"Two Sleepy People" (1997) (duet w/Carly Simon)

Angilosi (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

TA

Because I'd moved it from Transmedia Activism to Transmedia activism. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

So I see. That was briefly disorienting -- only too mildly and not long enough to qualify as fun :) -- Rrburke (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Jack Frye TWA Wiki page

I am requesting informal clarification at this time.

This is in regard to what Wiki considers a "personal website", yet what the general public may consider an official website. My website link has been removed from the Jack Frye page, (www.sedonalegendhelenfrye.com) yet I do not understand. As example: Jack Frye's business partner, (Paul E. Richter TWA) wiki, has three entries on it added by his daughter of websites that are without a doubt "personal websites" and always have been. I am very confused and use this site as an example, because I am familar with its history. I also notice that nearly all editing on the Paul Richter Wiki site is done by the family (daughter- Ruth Richter- Av8er). Isn't this kind of like the fox guarding the hen house? Why can this "public editor" add personal websites for herself, (one of which I might add I originally built for her originally) and yet, my website, which is the only one out there for Jack Frye is continually deleted? This sounds quite discriminatory to me. I thought wiki was supposed to be above all manipulation and bias??

Please let me say I do not need wiki driving anything to my website. I have provided the website Sedona Legend Helen Frye (totally non-profit) at my own expense for 8 years. It does not generate a single penny, but does cost me many dollars to maintain it. I do it because Jack deserves it and his family has endorsed my efforts. I do not care who links to it as the site drives itself. But would think that a wiki Jack Frye page should be referenced to it.

Is it then considered "O.K." for me to start going through all wiki pages I am interested in and deleting all personal website links? Because it seems to me that this is something that is far from being monitored by wiki staff.

I look forward to your response. RR Sedona Legend

RR (talk) 19:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Victor Balykin

Hello. I did not see the tone/content as being promotional. I did clean out the Augean stables and BLP-ProD. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 21:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Dlohcierekim. Thanks for your note. If you'll permit me to speak candidly, I never understand this kind of decline on a speedy request for this kind of spam autobiography: articles like this are inherently promotional because, irrespective of their content, their purpose is to enhance the prestige, public profile or notoriety of their subject by creating an article about it on a top ten website, namely Wikipedia. If that's not promotion, then there isn't any such thing and we should just throw in the towel and resign ourselves to being a vanity press instead of an encyclopedia. -- Rrburke (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
We must look beyond intent to content. Had you not figured out where the article came from, would you have felt it to be promotional? And are we not free to remove anything remotely promotional? If the subject turns out to be notable, are we not benefited by the article? And if he turns out to be not-notable, we can certainly proceed with deletion via ProD or AFD? We must not be in a hurry to delete on principle. The article is tagged as a BLP-Prod. It will be sourced or it will go. And AFD is right around the corner. Ironically, that can be the surest way of closing a loophole in CSD. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 21:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


your issues

Rrburke - You have taken issue with three pages I created as well as a page that pertains to me (Thomas Bliss). I went to the discussion page but don't see how to comment. Do I simply edit the Articles for Deletion page?

Does the fact that two artists know each other personally disqualify articles? I should think not.

There is significant third party support for the Robert Piser and his groundbreaking Daily Palette pages - but most of it pre-dates the internet.

Furthermore, the article about me, which you seem to object to, has only facts, no opinions whatsoever, so what does it matter if the person who created the article knows me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbliss558 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Bliss,
Yes, participating in the deletion discussion is simply a matter of editing the deletion-discussion page. The process is described in Wikipedia:Guide to deletion.
If there is indeed significant independent reliable source material on Mr. Piser and his work, that information should be added to the articles as the surest way to reduce the likelihood of their deletion. However, if you are an associate of Mr. Piser, in accordance with Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline, you are strongly discouraged from editing the articles or participating in the deletion discussion.
The short answer to your second question is yes: it is expected that Wikipedia articles be created and edited by people with no personal or professional connection to their subjects. This doesn't mean that a software engineer shouldn't be editing the article Software (quite the contrary), but it does mean that Bill Gates shouldn't be editing the article Microsoft. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest offers a fuller explanation; the section Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Non-controversial edits sets out the kinds of edits editors with conflicts of interest can make to articles touching their conflict. The essay Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest explains the standard of behaviour expected of editors with conflicts of interest.
As for the article about you, I merely tagged it to note the conflict of interest, with an eye to improving the article's sourcing, which is poor. Please see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for a guide to Wikipedia's preferred types of sources. -- Rrburke (talk) 03:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Following is from the Conflict of Interest page: Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias. Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, try to identify and minimize your biases, and consider withdrawing from editing the article. As a rule of thumb, the more involvement you have with a topic in real life, the more careful you should be with our core content policies—Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability—when editing in that area.

The Piser and Palette pages contain only fact; however if you see evidence of bias, please point it out and I will happily edit out the bias - or you can. Thank you.

Mr. Bliss: I think you may have acquired the mistaken impression that conflict of interest is the reason I have nominated these articles for deletion; that's probably my fault for not disentangling the issues to make the situation more clear, so please allow me to explain: conflict of interest is not a reason articles get deleted. The principal problem with the articles you're referring to is that they fail to satisfy what is called the general notability guideline (also known as WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV):
"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." (WP:GNG)
In their present form, the articles lack evidence that the subject satisfies this guideline. If you know of reliable, third-party sources, please add them to the article as the surest way to lessen the likelihood of its deletion. -- Rrburke (talk) 16:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Followup: I notice that you've added several new sources to the article The Daily Palette, but as the full contents of the linked sources are not available, I can't make out whether any of them treats The Daily Palette in any depth -- or whether they even mention The Daily Palette at all. If they don't, they do not help to establish the notability of The Daily Palette. If they do discuss The Daily Palette, please consider posting some excerpts on the page Talk:The Daily Palette so that other editors might form a better judgment about whether these sources amount to what is called "significant coverage" (See WP:SIGCOV). -- Rrburke (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

ROBERT PISER/THE DAILY PALETTE

THE ARTICLES CONTAIN ONLY FACT. THERE IS NO OPINION SO I SEE NO ISSUE REGARDING NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. PLEASE ADVISE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbliss558 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The articles appear to have been created and principally edited by people with close connections to their subjects, something strongly discouraged by Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline. The article on you contains a complete list of the films you've been involved with, and lists of accomplishments added by the subject of an article or a close associate convey a strong impression that an article is being used as a vehicle for self-promotion. Wikipedia is not is place for people to post their resumes; nor is it to be used as a vehicle for promotion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. -- Rrburke (talk) 03:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Was it you who deleted The Daily Palette page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbliss558 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it was deleted by an administrator following the conclusion of the deletion discussion, a record of which may be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Daily Palette. If you object to the deletion, you can ask to have the deletion reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review. -- Rrburke (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Rrburke. I do appreciate the thought & effort behind your latest comments to me. I understand how these things happen - we set out always to try to apply wp:AGF, & when sometimes it seems to backfire, our guards are a bit high for a while - only natural, I'm sure. We see your good, well-intentioned general work though. Thanks again for your latest comments. Best wishes, Trafford09 (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Internet Suraksha

Apart from the self promotion angle, the article was also lifted in its entirety from the news website linked as a source. I deleted the article as a blatant copyvio and warned the user. --GraemeL (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Missed that. I'd kind of given up the task of searching for new article copy-and-pastes to the CorenSearchBot, which always seems to get there first. Thanks. -- Rrburke (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
No problem, keep tagging and we'll keep bagging. --GraemeL (talk) 18:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Big Business (UK Soul Band)

Hello Rrburke. I am just letting you know that I deleted Big Business (UK Soul Band), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Why me?

Oh, tricks are just fine, thanks. Apparently, I have incurred the wrath of yet another new user who didn't read the rules.  :) Thanks for the alert. PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

I would just like to thank you on getting a page I created on an Australian band called Chambers of Insanity deleted. Hours of work wasted. 11:31, 24 December, 2010 (AEST). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldmateadz (talk • contribs) 00:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

It's important not to take deletions personally. Not all topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, and in my opinion these articles didn't make a plausible claim to satisfying Wikipedia's notability requirements. To better understand what criteria are used in deciding whether a topic is sufficiently noteworthy to be included in Wikipedia, please see:
If you disagree with the deletion, you can challenge it at Wikipedia:Deletion review. However, as it's also not considered appropriate to use Wikipedia to promote your band, yourself or your friends, even if these topics were to be judged suitable for Wikipedia, you yourself would be expected to avoid editing the articles about them

. For more information, please see:

-- Rrburke (talk) 16:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rrburke/Archive_9&oldid=1140165860"