User talk:Scherf

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 19:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

General suggestion to all participants in this conflict

Hello. May I suggest you take a look at this page? I realize you are involved in sort of a tough situation over at the article on Gracenote, and that page has some tips that might help you avoid personal attacks which only make the situation worse. It also has tips for working towards a compromise version of a disputed page. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 19:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing an article about your company

Looking at the talk page on Gracenote, I see several editors have asked you not to edit the article of your company. I don't think, however, that anyone has pointed you towards this page. That page is the guideline they are talking about when they ask you not to edit that article. This other page is also applicable to the situation on Gracenote. You will notice, however, that the first page I pointed you to does allow you to correct mistaken facts. Remember also that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and you should work with people you disagree with (I know, that can be very hard, but that's where the general suggestion comes in) ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 19:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Scherf

I have removed negative unsourced commentary from this article, and will continue watching it. At present the article contains minimal information and cites no sources at all. Under these circumstances, there are two possible options:

Add verifiable bio material, proper cites, and strenghten the claim of notability.
In it's current condition the article could probabaly be justified as a candidate for deletion.

It would be best not to edit the article yourself at this point, but I would be willing to assist if you wish to pursue either of these options; just let me know. Doc Tropics 17:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created this page some time ago myself in response to the John Seigenthaler, Sr. incident. I wanted to set the tone to something neutral before some anonymous crazy person created a article like that with my name on it. It appears that it made no difference, as people seem determined to post negative commentary anyway, regardless of fact. I have no interest in having a Wikipedia page of my own. The approach I want to take, frankly, is whatever approach is most likely to thwart further vandalism. I presume deletion would be the best, assuming nobody could just arbitrarily recreate the page. I agree that I am not noteworthy enough for my own page anyway. Steve Scherf 01:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say you created it in response to the Seigenthaler incident? You aren't doing anything for your credibility here. This original revision of the article (soon to disappear when the deletion process completes) by 12.177.18.41 (an IP that belongs to gracenote, according to the whois) is dated November 17 2004. The John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy broke a year later, in November 2005. - Anon reader. 06:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right, my memory is not perfect. This is the edit I made after the Seigenthaler incident [1]. I didn't know much about how Wikipedia works, or I would have requested deletion instead of editing the article at that time. I wanted to set the tone of the article, but leave it short. I had forgotten that I created the article, but a few months after Seigenthaler I realized there was something out there, and it was pretty empty and needed attention to set the tone. But your implication that I am lying about this is silly, because, as you have done, anyone can come and look at the page history. An honest mistake, and one that's pretty irrelevant anyway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scherf (talk • contribs) 20:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

As an FYI, I certainly wasn't suggesting that you aren't noteworthy, but simply that it might be possible to delete the article and thus end your aggravation. The fact that "anyone can edit" WP means articles are susceptible to POV editing and other abuses; but please remember, most 'serious' contributors won't tolerate it and work hard to keep it out of articles. If you wish, I will nom this for an AfD as you've indicated. If I do, there is no gaurantee of success, but there is a good chance for more controversy. I just want to be sure before I make it offical...you're certain you want me to start an AfD? Doc Tropics 05:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a quagmire this place is. Too vulnerable to disgruntled/clueless/misinformed people making a mess of things. I am not sure I understand why requesting deletion of the page will raise controversy, but I'll leave it up to you. I'm just tired of this whole website. I'll leave the best approach up to you, but I would love to see the page just go away. Steve Scherf 21:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, thank you for the help. I do appreciate it. Steve Scherf 05:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, I'm sorry for the way things are going with all this. I tried to work within the system of consensus when a source was added, but it would have been better to simply revert the sentence again. I've done so now, and I've also requested that admin Durova look into this, since she answered your original post at WP:AN. I'm pretty sure that you are right about the whole thing, but I'm afraid that complex legal issues in a BLP are not something I'm familiar with, so I'm probably not much help. I'm not sure where this is going, but I'm willing to see it through; there are some important issues involved, especially your right to privacy. I'm just hoping that we can resolve this quickly, so it won't cause you any more frustration. Doc Tropics 09:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ja: tag

Means there's an article about it in the Japanese Wikipedia. — User:ACupOfCoffee @ 03:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Scherf AfD

Per your request and Durova's suggestion, I have nom'd the article for AfD. The discussion will be here. You are free to participate if you wish, and certainly welcome to voice your opinion, but since this might be perceived as COI, please considered your comments carefully before posting. As I mentioned, I can't gaurantee results, but I will do what I can to have this deleted. The process normally takes about one week. Doc Tropics 19:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD seems to be going well; so far there is no opposition. Just remember that the comments there aren't directed at you personally, but at the article (a minor but very important distinction). I hope that this will be resolved soon, and that you will find the resolution satisfactory. Doc Tropics 19:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Say hello to the opposition. --BenBurch 02:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gracenote mediation

Hey there, I was reviewing your mediation request for the Gracenote article and I wanted to comment that I think it's going to be very difficult to find someone willing to mediate this case. The reason is that the situation has a fatal problem from the start - namely that it is inappropriate for you to be editing the article to begin with. I know it is difficult, but I suggest that you withdraw the mediation request and recuse yourself from the article. --Ars Scriptor 21:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We sat by the sidelines for over a year as the Gracenote page and other related ones became ever more misinformed and biased. As a result, Gracenote and its trademarks are being damaged by this site. Nobody seems willing to do any real research here, and the only people editing are those that are actively looking for negative things to post against Gracenote. See Fatandhappy's postings, for instance. Only negative things, and no effort spent to validate good things that others post. We are legally obliged to protect our name and trademarks, and cannot simply wait for others to get things right, perhaps never. We are trying to work within Wikipedia's framework, but if we are disallowed from doing so then we will be forced to examine our other options for dealing with the problem. The Gracenote page (and others) is horribly skewed and full of misinformation. We fully expect it to be given the same treatment as other competing vendors' pages, none of which seem to have editorial issues like this. In fact, some of them read like marketing documents, and clearly have been written by company representatives. The lack of impartiality here towards Gracenote, as well as the inequality in the way Gracenote is being treated WRT similar organizations, is unacceptable. If you have advice other than to recuse myself and withdraw mediation, I'm willing to listen. I will be withdrawing the mediation request and filing an arbitration request today. Steve Scherf 22:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to help with the article, if you're willing to give me a chance. You are not disallowed from editing the article; it is just discouraged because it is not really possible to write about oneself or a company one in is involved with neutrally. The company I work for has an article here, and it really stinks, but I won't touch it with a 12-foot pole. Agree to give me a week to review and work on the Gracenote article? --Ars Scriptor 15:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the offer of help, I do appreciate it. A user named Simonkoldyk has been helping out, though it's a very difficult task. There is a user who is really causing problems with the Gracenote article, and the going is really slow. The problem is that this person verges on paranoid and really has it out for me/Gracenote. This person goes so far as to accuse me of lying and manufacturing documents at every turn, so apparently no amount of good data is going to make a difference. If you have any way of helping out in conjunction with Simonkoldyk, then I'm all for it. Thanks. Steve Scherf 04:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting request

Mr. Scherf, I know it may seem like a small thing to you, but please indent your replies to people when appropriate, especially when they are replying to earlier comments by you. You do this by prefixing extra colons to your comment. (Try it now in preview; it's easy.) This lets people see where threads of discussion branch or stop.

Also, if you're going to write long responses, please consider more use of paragraphing or line breaks. It's really hard to read a page-long block of text, otherwise.

Thanks. --Markzero 22:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just protected Gracenote

Its gonna be a target due to its current exposure so I have protected it from editing by new/unregistered users :) Glen 01:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gracenote mediation

Thanks for your response on Talk:Gracenote; I'm currently waiting to see the response by one or more of the other parties.

Incidentally, regarding what Ars said above, I think conflict of interest is a problem, but not an insurmountable one, so I don't think it necessarily makes mediation difficult. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Gracenote logo.png

Thank you for uploading File:Gracenote logo.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gracenote logo.png missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

File:Gracenote logo.png

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 10:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Gracenote logo.png

The file File:Gracenote logo.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused logo with no article used, it's also can't move to commons because of an unused logo will be deleted as of out of project scope.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Willy1018 (talk) 14:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]