User talk:Toon05/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Toon05. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Reliable sourcess

Like this:

http://www.westendword.com/NC/0/434.html

or this from the STL Post Dispatch

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=SL&p_theme=sl&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&s_dispstring=Are%20you%20ready%20for%20some%20futbol&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date:B,E&p_text_date-0=2006&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=(%22Are%20you%20ready%20for%20some%20futbol%22)&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no

Or this from the USA Today about one of our members who wrote the book and produced the movie on Soccer on Robben Island, Game of Their Lives http://www.usatoday.com/sports/soccer/2007-11-20-south-africa-movie_N.htm --Chuck Korr

Or this about member Mike Sorber, assistant USA Men's National Team coach http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Sorber

Well first off, notability is not inherited, so having members who are in themselves notable does not confer notability upon the organisation; similarly sources covering members do not count as sources covering the organisation. The second source (of what I can see) doesn't cover them in-depth; trivial mentions (i.e. a paragraph or so in an article) are not sufficient and one whole article is also not sufficient on its own. I'm unsure as to the reliability of the first source, as I don't know about the fact-checking or editorial policy. Generally, the "national or international in scope" part of the notability guideline is a good test; it is reasonably rare that a local group would have enough coverage or be deemed notable enough for an entry. I did a google news search for the group, but found only a couple of trivial mentions. – Toon 19:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Citizendium Porting

Hi. Since you edited {{Citizendium}}, I thought you might be interested in the proposed WikiProject Citizendium Porting. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Unidentified Flying Object

You asked DrFil for a reference for his latest claim about CIA investigations on UFOs. There is some background on this page https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/97unclass/ufo.html but it doesn't seem to me to say what he claims it does. In fact he's been trying to squeeze in every last scrap of possible support for UFOs into this entry while ignoring the overall negative tone of the reports he quotes. Needs keeping an eye on. Skeptic2 (talk) 08:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll keep an eye on it. – Toon 18:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

While the comparisons are spooky, the day this is a blue link will be a new low in our history

Ah well. It was fun while it lasted. You saw his old user page, I hope? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ha, yes I stumbled upon it a couple of weeks ago. It does make you wonder whether it is a secret desire to be a character in a book which leads to such drama... – Toon 13:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Peter Bradley-Fulgoni

Hi Toon05,

I'm sorry you've come to the decision of deleting the article I've made. I actually know Peter Bradley-Fulgoni himself very well and had his personal permission and copyright to write this article. He is the one who holds the copyright to the information on soundtechniques.tv, and as you can see from that website, there is no "copyright" written anywhere. It is his CV which he has written himself, and soundtechniques.tv bought it off him as a deal. I'm doing him a favour, and this article would become more accurate and have more reliable sources throughout time. It will soon be created in Russian and Italian as well, just for your information. Could you possibly not delete the article in the future, I would be extremely grateful. Thank you and sorry for causing the fuss!

Wtjulianchan (talk) 16:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Brigitte Lacombe's Wikipage

Hello Toon05,

I see that you have just speedy deleted Brigitte Lacombe's page for blatant copyright infringement. When I saw that it was flagged by the CorenSearchBot, I quoted and added additional citations to her personal website and also included a sentence stating that part of the following text was from her website www.brigittelacombe.com. She is becoming a prominent photographer, and it is most appropriate for her biography to appear on Wikipedia. Please let me know if there is a way I can further rephrase the article to follow Wikipedia's guidelines and ensure it will not be deleted in the future.

Thank you for your consideration. --PhotoFan76 (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Brigitte Lacombe's Wikipage

Hello Toon05,

I see that you have just speedy deleted Brigitte Lacombe's page for blatant copyright infringement. When I saw that it was flagged by the CorenSearchBot, I quoted and added additional citations to her personal website and also included a sentence stating that part of the following text was from her website www.brigittelacombe.com. She is becoming a prominent photographer, and it is most appropriate for her biography to appear on Wikipedia. Please let me know if there is a way I can further rephrase the article to follow Wikipedia's guidelines and ensure it will not be deleted in the future.

Thank you for your consideration.

Wesley_Sneijder

Hi Toon, I was watching this article Wesley_Sneijder and it gets alot of vandalism from IPs and almost no value additions from IPs so could I get it protected? (Off2riorob (talk) 19:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC))

Hrmm, well it seems to have died off for the moment, but I'll watchlist it and semi-p if the anons start up again today, it being a BLP and all. – Toon 10:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It comes and goes in spurts, the trouble is it is not easy to know what is or is not vandalism, the goal tally has just been altered by a new user with 4 or 5 edits and he looks ok so I sent him a plate of cookies. I am actually against protecting against ip's , when I first went there I removed some homosexuual claims but I had to google to see if anything was there to support, hilarious. thanks for keeping an eye out.. most of the recent stuff is galatasery fans wanting him there. Regards (Off2riorob (talk) 20:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC))

Lol yeah, I find a lot of vandalism I come across is pretty funny and I'm always surprised at the amount of people who declare their love for certain body parts in WP articles... I'm reminded of this amusing essay. – Toon 19:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That is very very amusing, and so true. Thanks for a lorra lorra lafs. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

not advertising...

On the contrary, I was editing the section to remove the advertising/promotion of any specific site. I unbolded and deleted the top link's description to make all three equal.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.74.26 (talk)

Ah, that edit summary wasn't directed at your edit but to those who are constantly trying to get web traffic for their community websites. Unless written by an authoritative source, the links shouldn't be there - and I'm sick of them fighting over who gets to be top of the list. Very petty. – Toon 20:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

IP vandalising pages

Could you see what to do about this IP [here] he needs blocking but there is an account on the address, I have left a final warning,. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC))

I have reported it on this page..Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC))

I was out last night so not around... looks to have been dealt with by now, they've stopped vandalising. – Toon 13:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

No probs, no pressure. I am sure you don't mind if I occasionally ask you for a bit of guidance....the IP got a one year block for repeated vandalism. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

No, I have no problem with that - I'm happy to help if I can. – Toon 19:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, no worries, we are all good at different things. Someone was on the telly today saying he was gonna buy the toon, good news. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC))

Ah yes, I remember reading about that. Hopefully they can bring some stability to the club, although Ashley's (alleged) £100m price tag is quite steep for a Championship club with no manager and an astronomical wage bill. Sadly, I also find myself not too surprised by the bare faced cheek shown by the club when they explain why they haven't reduced season ticket prices, and try to convince you it's good value. Next season is going to be fun. – Toon 19:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

re: Council on Project Development

Hey, thanks for the apology. Truth be told, it should be me apologizing, since I'm the one who lacked the thick-enough skin to realize you weren't just talking to me. Sorry for the insulting reply I made. No hard feelings? Steven Walling (talk) 18:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Another User:2toy mora sock

Hi. Just want to inform you that this user created another sock. (User:Paul kenneth m mora). He is recreating his deleted articles. Please assist. Thanks. -danngarcia (talk) 06:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like VirtualSteve took care of it while I was away. – Toon 13:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Sikhiwiki

Hi Toon. I have a real problem with sikhiwiki. We have author citing sikhiwiki here as a reference. We cannot cite wikipedia articles as a reference. Also have you see the quality of the work on Sikhiwiki. It is attrotious. We really need to tackle this issue and get articles from there off. It really is a poor site and if we are not careful it will drag wikipedia down. Me and several other editors are already battling to keep the standard of Sikh related articles up (which are generally very poor) and Sikhiwiki is making our task doubly difficult. People quote from there and the material is not even referenced. Anyone, can add to it. They do not have stanadards like here. Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 19:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Great ideas Toon. Anything I can do to keep Sikhiwiki out from here I will do. I think your proposal is a good one about the stub. If you want me too I can use verifiable sources and get to work on a re-write. Cheers and Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Travis Hankins Page

Hi,

I'm the new computer intern management person for the Travis Hankins Campaign. Unfortunetly, I have no idea what the previous interns wrote about Travis Hankins nor do I know what sources they used. I don't know what the previous deleted page looks like. I will attempt to create a new page for Travis Hankins without infringing on any laws. He is a real person running for Congress.

Another solution, if possible could you post on here the old page, so I have an idea of why it was deleted. I want to write this page up as soon as possible and in full cooperation of the Wikipedia Rules.

Sincerely,

Blue13trix13 (talk) 03:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Joy

The Vollrath Tavern was mistakenly labeled as a copyright infringement. Will you please help me to restor it?

Toon05,

Sir, I respectfully submit that there is absolutely no copyright infringement here whatsoever. I am the rightful owner of this historical location, the historic Vollrath Tavern and everything that I have submitted as text in the Vollrath Tavern page here, on Wiki, is 100% of my own intellectual property as I authored every single word with no bit of plagiarisms. Anything that was not of my own word that I felt informative and a quality reference such as publications of news articles written about the Vollrath Tavern was linked to its original source not copied & pasted in the page. I did so to ensure proper credit to the author and the publication,

I did read your link above describing your speedy delete and I would like to know how I might be able to get this resolved as soon as possible with you so to put it to rest and continue to build this page with quality information.

I truly appreciate your do-diligent efforts with respect to protecting intellectual property, I deal with that quite a bit with BMI and ASCAP and the music acts that sometimes attempt to steal other from other artist on a semi-regular bases so I have a deep appreciation for what you are doing here. Again, I do assure you that nothing here is of any sort of a copyright infringement. The only link that will have a copy of what I have posted in the Vollrath Tavern wiki page is that of other site that I personally have posted the same or I have given others permission to quote or paraphrase my words in the like.

I look forward to us resolving this, if there are any tips that you may share with me so to fix this and to avoid such a thing in the future, please, by all means share that with me at your leisure fro I will be happy to comply. Thank you!

Very Respectfully,

--DaGaffo (talk) 07:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Update

Just now I reverted a massive wave of over 25 IP edits on the Suicide Silence article, seeing how they released their new album just a couple weeks ago and are on the cover of Revolver this month, I guess you should generally protect the article or at least add it to your watchlist in the meantime. • GunMetal Angel 21:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I've semi'd it for a week. Let me know if it needs more when it expires. – Toon 21:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Afd

Sorry, it wasn't actually from the main LPL article but from Lebanese_Premier_League_2005-06:

The 2005-06 Season of the Lebanese Premier League was the 58th season of Top-Flight Professional League Football (soccer) in Lebanon.

Cynical (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Angel michael's ultima dream

No, I did not know. Don't worry, the mistake will not happen again. Thanks, MacMed^talk _stalk 19:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Suicide Silence

It's happened again • GunMetal Angel 20:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Umm, if you could not ignore this that would be nice, you directly claimed to inform you if the vandalism happens again and it has. • GunMetal Angel 02:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Since there've been a couple today, I've protected it for 6 months. There was, however, up until these, only one vandalistic edit against several constructive IP edits over the past couple of days. – Toon 11:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Sandhya (actress)

Sorry, that removal was a mistake. I did not see it. It can be replaced back if it needs to. However, I don't see the significance of it. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

What's up?

There seems to be a bit of a bee in your bonnet at the Great Repeal Bill RfD these days. I was willing to ignore your first really intemperate response to my comment as a one-of-a-kind slip, and I was glad to see you reconsidered the worst of your remark. (Yes, I saw that.) Your most recent reply to me once again took me aback, though. If you look at my history, you can see that I've been a regular contributor to this project for nearly five years (and an admin for most of that time), so I thought that being hit with a "Do you honestly believe..." was a little bit out of left field.

You're welcome to disagree with me on the application of Wikipedia policy, and on how best to improve the encyclopedia. Not only do I think that healthy debate is good for the project, I've also been known to have my mind changed from time to time. If I've made a poor argument in a discussion, I don't mind (much more than the average fellow) being advised of the problem. What I don't find helpful is having abusive, insulting remarks piled on me. I don't recall ever having so much as commented in the same discussion as you before; what did I do to earn all the animosity from you?

I guess all I'm here to ask is for you to dial back the invective a bit. Whether or not I can persuade you that I don't deserve it is moot; either way it's not good for the collaborative editing environment for admins to go about attacking people that way. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I apologise for my initial comment - it was ill-judged and unfair, and the redrafting of it was very much necessary. My argument is not meant to be an attack on you, nor do I feel any kind of animosity towards you (and it'd be unlikely for me to form an opinion of an editor based upon just one interaction). I could have phrased that "Do you honestly believe..." response better, but I didn't mean it to be abusive or insulting; I merely wanted clarification of your position. The phrasing was intended to convey my surprise rather than cast aspersions upon your integrity - it seemed to me that your questioning why anybody would come here looking for the project was quite strange, given that there were originally and still are quite strong links from the blog itself – we are linked to and then mentioned again, both in the second paragraph (And he’s making history by drawing it up on Wikipedia), then linked to again in the fourth paragraph (Make your suggestions by going to this Wikipedia page and amending it in the usual way.), and one of the blog's tags is "Wikipedia". There's also the fact that when anyone says "Wiki" (such as in the title of the blog), people (especially the general public) nine times out of ten think Wikipedia. And then there's the point that we aren't even hosting the content but even if we were, for me our page (actually, still the article-version) doesn't even rank on the first page of ghits, I get two random blogs and then the MP's page, then Wikiversity and then Hannan's Telegraph blog. To me all this seems to make my point quite obvious, although I recognise now that to others it clearly doesn't.

The reason I reacted so strongly to your comments (and the real bee in my bonnet) was more to do with the general insular air I feel that Wikipedians have adopted; I think that as a community we are far too focused on internal workings and abiding by our rules (and expecting newcomers to understand them instantly, which actually takes a very long time), rather than trying to build a resource that will be helpful to people. In my mind this should be our primary objective.

I'm glad that you came here to discuss this with me and I'll try to tone down the rhetoric in future. Believe me, I don't have a negative opinion of you (I don't think our paths have crossed before) and I don't like being a dick (no, really I don't), but very occasionally I make my point in a manner which is less than helpful; for this I apologise. It is only a Wiki, after all.

Oh and Daniel Hannan – your impression of him is spot on IMO. His flair for the dramatic (particularly in this rant at our PM in the European Parliament and then his channeling Dr Seuss to portray similar feelings) does, however, make him rather entertaining to watch. – Toon 01:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Noida Institute of Engineering and Technology copyright problem

Even though i had the permission still I have rewritten the entire page. Please see if you still find copyright violations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camcool (talk • contribs) 05:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I have reedited the complete temporary page and now it does not look like an advertisement. I am an alumni of this college so unable to visit the college. Is the matter fine and according to Wikipedia NPOV??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camcool (talk • contribs) 16:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks better but there are still issues; I'm heading out for the night but I'll make a more in-depth reply tomorrow. – Toon 19:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Referred by deleting Admin / help resurrect deleted article to re-work?

Hello Toon--

Can you help me resurrect an article that was deleted so I can re-work it? Please see discussion below with admin who deleted it, thanks.

Incidentally, the topic, Camerado, already has an entry in Wikipedia which has been approved, not sure why this one might not qualify.

Thanks if you can,

JCM

Hello - please email copy of deleted article for "Camerado"

Hello--

I see the page for Camerado had been deleted due to not being notable enough; I'd assumed the fact that it's one of the few active movie entities left in a country (Cambodia) which had had its *entire movie industry* (and most filmmakers) destroyed during the Khmer Rouge regime, and which is solely dedicated to the cause of reviving said industry would make it notable -- my bad if not.

Can you please email a copy of the article to my at <redacted> so I can examine it, etc, improve it and start it up as an incubator page.

I still don't think it should have been deleted...there are so few motion picture organizations existing out here - and how tough it is to actually operate under these circumstances.

Would have thought that would be notable.

Anyway, thanks

JCM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncmorley (talk • contribs) 05:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I cannot recreate a deleted article. Take a look at the "Speedy deletion nomination of Camerado" in your talk page, at the bottom of the tag is has a link to Admins that will help you get a copy of your article. As far as why it was deleted, take a look at notability and the associated subpages for help in establishing an article. I'll also make sure you have a welcome message on your talk page that will provide you with links to help you create a great article. Thanks and good luck. ttonyb1 (talk) 16:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I've emailed you a copy of the article that was deleted as requested. I've also restored the article to a subpage of your user space, where you can work on it for a reasonable amount of time without the pressure of it being deleted. It can then be moved into article space when it's been cleaned up to meet our policies. It's located at: User:Johncmorley/Camerado. You should add references from reliable third party sources to establish that it meets our notability guidelines, otherwise it is likely it'll be deleted again. I hope this helps. – Toon 15:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo article you gave a second opinion on last year

Toon05, I'm going through and cleaning up the mess I made of Jetsunma's article. I wasn't straight with you guys, though my spin-doctoring against Jetsunma was pretty obvious to the Wiki community I'm sure. I did not have scholarly integrity in how I wrote the article about Jetsunma, cherry-picking negative information to put together as negative a picture as possible -- even more negative than the most critical materials out there. I knew what to use because I was one of the main sources on the book, The Buddha From Brooklyn, which is major conflict of interest as well (especially since I didn't admit my involvement and presented myself as an outside party and then used that book extensively for the article). In fact, my real name is Michelle Grissom, formerly known as Ani Dechen, and am actually a student who broke with Jetsunma in 1996. I was one of the main reasons the book was so slanted against Jetsunma. I was not honest in that book either, slanting information exactly the same way I did here on Wikipedia: I used things that weren't really a problem for me because I knew they would upset non-Buddhists. Describing a confrontation where -- after 8 years of my rebelling against the monastic community and my breaking my monastic vows -- she yelled at me and swatted me once, I called it a "beating," simply because the police term for any kind physical contact is battery. I swept my own behavior that led to this under the rug. Jetsunma has been divorced several times, to men who either were or later became her students, and I used that in the article to make her look like she was sleeping her way through her students. I also used the generosity of her students as a way to paint her as being very greedy, even though she's never even asked for a salary, and blamed her for the ongoing struggle to build a monastery, even though the main reason the monastery hasn't been built is that the land bought for it doesn't perk. I've taken all the spin-doctoring out of the article and I am very, very sorry I abused Wiki for my own personal vendetta. Longchenpa (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I am disappointed to find that you behaved in the way you did. While it in no means makes up for your prior actions, it is certainly admirable that you are now attempting to correct your mistakes. Good luck with it. – Toon 00:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Why did you delete Informatics Europe entry?

What is the alleged "copyright violation"? Why did you delete this page? Why did you not contact Informatics Europe?

In the absence of a good reason please restore the page promptly. B-Meyer (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I deleted the article because the contents of it were copied from an external website ([1]) that gave no permission for reuse under a license compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike. As copyright is granted automatically, Wikipedia cannot use text taken from elsewhere without permission from the copyright holder; such articles must be deleted in order to comply with international copyright law and our own policies.

Please note that no individual, group or organisation has control or ownership over articles on Wikipedia, including the subjects. Articles that do not meet our policies and guidelines will be deleted and no company has any control over whether an article exists or not. As someone who is connected heavily with the organisation in question, you should ensure that you abide by the conflict of interest guideline and avoid editing related articles. Thankyou. – Toon 00:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Why did you delete Informatics Europe?

You deleted the Informatics Europe (IE) entry due to alleged copyright infringement. IE is a non-profit organisation dedicated to Informatics research and eduction in Europe. I have no idea what kind of copyright violation you are referring to. Please restore the page immediately or substantiate your charge.

Regards, heiss@computer.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.149.144.39 (talk) 10:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I have already discussed the matter at User talk:Bertrand Meyer. – Toon 13:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Willie Sandlin

I noticed that you speedy deleted the Willie Sandlin article due to blatant copyright infringement. I think I know what happened but since I am not 100% sure I wanted to ask. Since this is a Medal of Honor recipient there are a lot of web sites out there that place a full unedited copy of the recipients Medal of Honor citation on their website with a copyright tag. As a work of the United States government this info is not subject to copyright and therefore does not represent copyright infringement. Corenbot frequently places an inappropriate copyright banner on these Medal of Honor recipient pages because it finds false positive matches on other sites. Because I think that this article was likely a stub or short article anyway I am going to recreate this article but since you are the one who deleted it the last time I wanted to let you know. It should be out there in WP the next couple hours. Please let me know if you have any questions. --Kumioko (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for letting me know. Actually, the article I deleted contained text from this private website rather than the normal US Military citation that would be public domain. I'm pretty certain that it's not a product of the US govt given the flowery language and stylistic and formatting differences; it looks like it was written by someone at hazardkentucky.com. I'll have to remember to include the source website in the deletion logs in the future - that is one disadvantage of using twinkle. The new article looks good, however. – Toon 17:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the quick response. Nope not a government site I would have to agree. Thanks I just created it as a stub (so that I can get the WWI recipient list complete, all recipients have at least something like his). I will continue to build it up. --Kumioko (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Blackburn Rovers FC

Hi there

thanks for the welcome message to Wikipedia.

I have one sole aim, to ensure that the information portrayed on Blackburn Rovers FC page of Wikipedia is accurate.

Currently there are a lot of inaccuracies, the Owner's are listed wrong, there are players who should be listed that aren't, whilst there are others that shouldn't be. These really should be rectified and I'd like to be able to do so.

Please can you explain how I can go about this. I really don't see it as a clash of interests, my only interest is ensuring that the information contained on wikipedia is as accurate as the information I portray on www.rovers.co.uk

Many thanks Lee

(Blackburn Rovers FC 12:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackburn Rovers FC (talk • contribs)

Hi Lee, that kind of editing is fine (in fact encouraged) - you are in a position to make such corrections. You might want to beware of making big prose edits, as that can often lead to accusations of bias (even when little exists) - fact checking etc. is fine though. You haven't been able to edit the Rovers page because your account isn't old enough or doesn't have enough edits to pass the confirmation threshold needed for semiprotected pages. When you change the details, please try to back up the changes with a reference from a reliable source such as news article or official listing from the club website. I should also note that the club has no editorial control over any articles on WP, all are governed by consensus of editors in accordance with our policies and guidelines. Finally, you should know that accounts aren't allowed to be used by more than one person, and they shouldn't have an organisation as a name (see: the username policy) - you should either create a new account which doesn't relate the name to an organisation (or otherwise imply authority of an organisation) or head over to WP:CHU and request a new name. If you do decide to create a new account, let me know and I'll grant you confirmed status that'll allow you to edit semi-protected pages. Best, – Toon 13:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

HI Toon05

This is Lee from Blackburn Rovers, this is my 'non company' account. If you can allow it to alter semi-protected pages that would be great. As previously said, I've only interest in one page, and will only make changes to items that are factually incorrect.

Many thanks, Lee

(Groobster (talk) 14:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

Hi Lee, I've confirmed your account, so you should be able to edit as normal. I've also added a welcome template with a lot of links that may come in handy when you are here. Happy editing! – Toon 15:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yerevan History Museum

Can YOU please repair my article Yerevan History Museum. I would write from another source.--Hovik95 (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. You are free to create a new article at the same title, but please bear in mind that we cannot accept content taken from elsewhere without permission. If you create a new article, please use your own new text, not the stuff off the website which has a copyright notice at the bottom and no other release. Thanks, – Toon 18:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Pamela Polland

Dear Toon, I‘m new to Wikipedia, but someone told me you just deleted my page. Why? Pamela Polland (and btw, I used the bio from my website just to get something up before going into more editing details. Since I WROTE the bio on my website, it was mine to share... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peemer (talk • contribs) 00:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The article was deleted because the site the text was taken from did not state that it was licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license or another compatible license. Wikipedia can only accept content that is licensed appropriately; many people are unaware of the requirements of copyright law and often post things they find on the internet into articles, in violation of the copyright holder's rights.

Please note that writing about subjects with which you have a conflict of interest is strongly discouraged - that includes writing autobiographies. It is better to wait until someone unconnected with you decides to write an article. Best, – Toon 14:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

PLNet

Hi Toon05. I see you were the one that killed an article under copyright rules. The article "PLNet" was indeed a copy of content from the Government of BC's website, where I am the director of PLNet.

I did send email to the "permissions" addresses confirming permission to use the content, as I am the owner and wanted the common content as the stub to expand the article.

can you give me some insight how I should go about clearing permissions in advance so the page does not get deleted next time?

thanks PeterGoldberg

Petergoldberg (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. With regard to pages in the future, you can avoid the article being deleted for copyright reasons by leaving a message on the talk page indicating that permission is on the way or simply adding {{otrs pending}}. Assuming that the article doesn't meet any of the other criteria for speedy deletion, the article will be tagged and blanked until the permission is received, at which time it'll be restored to normal.

Ordinarily I'd restore the article and ask a volunteer to look for the permission email, but unfortunately in this instance the article itself was written in a promotional manner and therefore qualifies for speedy deletion as blatant advertising. Promotional language is, of course, expected on organisation websites, but in an article we must keep to our neutral point of view policy. You should also be aware of our conflict of interest guideline which strongly discourages editing (and creating) articles on subjects to which you are connected. If you have to edit such articles, it should be restricted to simple fact-correction. Regards, – Toon 22:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Toon, we're a government body that provides networking to schools and we are trying to use the social networking we provide access to to make it easier for the public to look up information on the program. We don't sell our services, nor do we advertise. It wasn't promotion, it was describing what we are and what we do in plain language. If you're going to delete this as 'promotional' then wouldn't you need to delete any corporate article? IBM's is pretty promotional, Compaq/HP's is VERY promotional. Please help me understand how this qualifed as being written in "promotional language" and how I can describe this NON COMMERCIAL service in a way that we can get this posted?

Thanks again Peter 142.31.168.40 (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of whether your organisation is commercial or not, the article was very promotional. Rhetoric such as "provides reliable, robust and safe network infrastructure", "Rural or urban, remote or metropolitan, PLNet connects BC’s Educators" and "PLNet brings opportunities and programs to communities..." are a few examples of language inappropriate for an encyclopaedia article. Please note that Wikipedia isn't a place for governmental organisations to communicate with the public, but an encyclopaedia aiming to provide neutral coverage of subjects that meet our notability guidelines. Our relevant inclusion guideline for organisations states that non-commercial organisations "are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:

The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources. (In other words, they must satisfy the primary criterion for all organizations as described above.)"

If your organisation only operates in only one province, it will not meet this guideline. If you can provide reliable, third party sources that cover the organisation in-depth, it may meet the general notability guideline.

If you feel that you can satisfy these guidelines, the new article should be submitted to the articles for creation process, where it will be evaluated for neutrality and verifiability by another editor before being moved into article space. Regards, – Toon 22:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Typical Newcastle fan.

Check your source again or stick to football. Poor old Blatas got deleted because of what? Are you sure? True, he is not exactly notable but then again did you look yourself at the source material and apply a valid comparative analysis prior to deletion? Not that it matters much Wiki is quite correct to keep deleting 'ad nauseam' simply because a subject does not get enough Google hits (often bought through self-hype). However there was no actual copyright infringement on what was deleted so is this truly an encyclopedia or an exercise in algorithmic experimentation and bureaucracy?Ernstblumberg (talk) 05:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

As the message the automated bot left on your talk page indicates, the article was deleted because it was text found elsewhere on the web, where it was not marked as released under a license compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license - on the contrary, the page explicitly states "Copyright © Grosvenor Gallery. All rights reserved." Presumably you are unaware that a big problem Wikipedia has is people taking text from elsewhere and adding them to articles, not knowing that the copyright that is automatically granted to all creative works requires permission from the holder to release some of their rights. I should point out that the deletion was nothing to do with getting "enough Google hits" and questioning the underlying methodology of Wikipedia, however fascinating, stems from your misunderstanding of the situation and is therefore redundant. If you would like to see the situation resolved, it would be helpful to explain why the text is not a copyright infringement - this would allow me to investigate and the article could be restored. If you would prefer to throw insults around, my time is better spent elsewhere and I'd appreciate you not posting here. Regards, – Toon 13:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The ISBN No. of the primary source was quoted in the article and was re-written as per Wikipedia requirements with no infringement that I could discern. The text was was not "taken" but adapted accordingly as per most Wikipedia articles that require non-original work, in particular biographical substance. Re: your investigation - check the sources yourself or preferably go spend your time doing whatever it is you actually do.Ernstblumberg (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I assure you, I checked the article thoroughly against the flagged web page before it was deleted. You should note that alteration of material does not make it original, nor does it remove the original author's copyright. Significant changes can result in a derivative work (The U.S. Copyright Act states that "A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.") however it is doubtful that the article would pass that threshold. I'll demonstrate the close similarity between the article and the source page.

Our Article: Arbit Blatas (1908 - 1999) was born in Kaunas, Lithuania of Russian parents prior to the First World War. By the age of fifteen he was exhibiting in his native land but swiftly left for Paris and by the age of twenty-one had already become the youngest member of the School of Paris. He was twenty-four years old when the Jeu de Paume acquired his first picture and had become a colleague and friend of many of the freat Parisian figures including: Vlaminck, Soutine, Picasso, Utrillo, Braque, Zadkine, Leger and Derain. In 1947 Blatas was elected a life member of the Salon D'Automne.

Original website: Arbit Blatas was born in Kaunas, Lithuania, of Russian parents. At the age of 15 he was already exhibiting in his native country. Soon afterwards he left for Paris, and at the age of 21 was already the youngest member of the “School of Paris”. He became a colleague and friend of many of the great figures of Parisian art scene including Vlaminck, Soutine, Picasso, Utrillo, Braque, Zadkine, Leger and Derain...In 1947 Arbit Blatas was elected a life member of the Salon d’Automne.

That is the first third of the article, the rest is in a similar vein - the whole Grosvernor Gallery page is reproduced in the article. We can only use non-free content sparingly, in accordance with our non-free content guidelines. Please do not add copyrighted content to articles; it puts Wikipedia at risk of legal action which is why repeat offenders are blocked from editing. Regards, – Toon 22:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you actually saying that the book (written before the website quote) is not the primary source? Where do you think the website bio came from in the first place?Ernstblumberg (talk) 05:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Whether the text was taken from the book or the website, neither are out of copyright (assuming the 1996 publishing date is correct) and therefore we cannot use it without permission from the copyright holder. There is a difference between using something as a source of facts or ideas and simply taking the text itself and altering it slightly. The first is permissible, the second is not. – Toon 12:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I will obtain the copyright and/or re-invent the wheel in order to 'Wikify'.Ernstblumberg (talk) 20:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Block review?

Hi. :) If you have a moment, could you review my block at User talk:Johnathan colin? I'm not sure what else to say to this guy. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I've just been catching up on the House, MD I've missed - I'll take a look now. – Toon 22:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Ooh! On the DVR to watch for tonight! Can't wait! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Ack, my internet connection keeps dropping out >:( But yes, unfortunately I agree with you. Judging from his previous unblock request and the recent series of edits, I don't think that the editor quite understands that these additions aren't acceptable. The only way an unblock is feasable is if he shows that he actually knows what he can and cannot do (and shows willingness to do it) - at the moment he's just copy and pasting sentences - which has the additional drawback of being difficult to spot. There seems to be an incongruity between the style of writing in his unblock (and the referencing, i.e. "retrived") and the text he's adding to articles (presumably there's a language barrier in effect here too) None of the edits I've looked at seem likely to have been written by the user himself. So yes, good block. – Toon 22:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about your internet connection, and thank you very much. I don't like indef-blocking people, but I don't really know what else we can do. If he just goes back to copyvios when the block expires, that's no good. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Name check

Just to let you know that I have name checked you at User talk:Pr3st0n (specifically here). I suspect you won't mind, but I thought to let you know in case he does decide to consult you for further feedback. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Ha! I've just had a flashback to one of my favourite childhood films. I'll happily lend assistance if they wish. – Toon 14:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

As icons to be compared to go, that's not so bad. :D Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

AFI follow up on the list question

Our OTRS release is now clearly identifiable to the AFI, and the lists are public domain, though the logos are not. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah good! Thanks for following up. – Toon 16:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Boboy9

See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Boboy9. Added two new likely socks. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Just what we need, a sockpuppeteering serial copyright infringer. Thanks for letting me know, it looks pretty clear. – Toon 16:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That phrasing made me laugh; thanks! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Assistance

Hey, I haven't visited your talk page in quite a while, glad to be back! I'm here to recomend protection to The Devil Wears Prada (band) article, numerous disruptive edits by IP adresses have came about. Otherwise if you choose not to, maybe you could keep in on your watchlist and help with the reverting, I really need assistance with it, it's getting out of hand. • GunMetal Angel 19:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, good to see you again – that's an article with a lot of reverts! I've semi-protected for three months, given that it doesn't seem to be letting up despite the prior prots. Best, – Toon 02:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

TDWP

Regarding The Devil Wears Prada article... Gunmetal Angel is reverting edits under "vandalism" that, in reality are not vandalism. Look at his talk page and you will see an admin telling him to stop labeling good faith edits as vandalism. GaudiumInVeritate (talk) 04:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Looking at the page history, there has still been a substantial amount of vandalism to the article; over the 36 hours prior to the protection there were the following edits made: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] and [7], some of which are violations of our biographies of living people policy. I realise that the length of time for which I protected the article was substantial, this was because the previous periods of protection showed that this is not a temporary wave, but something which continues once the protection ends. I don't mind if you want to seek a second opinion by applying at WP:RfPP, I'll happily defer to the reviewing admin. Best, – Toon 12:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkpage protection

Hi, toon. Good to see your team doing so well.

I have a little question, if a user is getting harassment from IP socks on his talkpage, one is blocked for 2 weeks another appeared there today, is it feasible to semi protect his talkpage for a month to stop the harrasment? This is the talkpage in question User_talk:Sir_Floyd Off2riorob (talk) 13:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Life in the Championship seems to be suiting us so far!

The protection policy doesn't like user talk pages being semi-protected unless there's a lot of vandalism. The guy seems to have only edited once today so hopefully they've become bored with the troll-block cycle by now. I've watchlisted the page, if it gets hit again I'll semi-protect it for about 48 hours. Naturally anonymous editors need to be able to talk to editors, so we should keep the period short, stepping up if necessary. – Toon 14:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, thanks. There has been previous trolling by another ip that is currently blocked and this has created issues with a User, but I agree for now, keep a watch on it and see how it progresses, thanks, I am also watching it. 07:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

San Yesidro Tranit Center

I an writing to you in response to the move of the "San Yeidro Transit Center" page.I as a public transit commuter in San Diego, regularly monitor Transit Related Articles, To avoid confusion many people, including myself recommended we add a tag to the names of these articles, i had re-classified all "Stations" by adding the tag (San Diego Trolley station) and all transit centers with (MTS Transit Center) This act was taken to avoid speedy deletion, and allow the end users to ensure they are on the correct page. --Koman90 (talk) 03:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

CorenSearchBot messages

OK - the next batch I try I'll try that and see what happens. Thanks for the heads-up! --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 13:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Halloween

Happy Halloween from a Moonriddengirl to a very valued colleague.

You make me very glad that I ventured back into the land of RfA to co-nom you. Not that you wouldn't have made it anyway, but this way I get to take some credit. :D Thank you for all you do and for being such an essential part of copyright clean up on Wikipedia. (It will not hurt my feelings if you want to get rid of the shiny Halloween image, though I loved it when I stumbled across it. :D I hope the "card" renders well on your page, because I don't usually make these things for myself.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Halloween back at you! That put a smile on my face when I logged on :) I like the card and certainly appreciate the sentiment; I'm very glad that you did agree to nominate me. I don't need to tell you how important your own contributions have been for the last few years. – Toon 22:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Help

I have a question. When I write the place (city) where someone (scientist, actor) were born, what country's name I have to write:

the country where the city is now located

or

the country where the city located in the time of when person was born.

Thank you.--Hovik95 (talk) 19:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm pretty sure that it's the second one, but I'll go have a rummage for the relevant guideline. – Toon 19:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hrmph, well I can't find the specific guideline that mentions it, but I'm certain that it's the country the city was located in at the time. – Toon 20:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

This issue came up on a football article and we got around it by adding both, as can be seen on the Asmir_Begovic was Born in Trebinje, Yugoslavia later to become part of what is now Bosnia and Herzegovina. Covering all bases so to speak. An experienced editor did say that the name that it was when the person was born is the wiki way to do it, I found that by adding both all users were happy. Off2riorob (talk) 20:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, especially if there's a dispute. – Toon 21:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:SCV

Hi. :) I've tweaked the instructions to reflect the new processes. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice one. I think including a sort of "legend" for the templates might be user-friendly. I started an adapted version of the WP:RFPP editnotice before realising that I had no idea how to make it automatically appear on yet to be created subpages like the system we are using. Then I started a new job IRL and I have very little time and even less energy to find a solution at the moment, so it has been left hanging. – Toon 17:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Conservapedia

There's more on moonriddengirl's talk page on this - the fat lady has not yet sung. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Noted, cheers.– Toon 20:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Dear Toon,

With reference to the above subject as mentioned , I would like to draw your attention that the information which i posted is with in the authority of the University its not copyright. If you wish, i can show you relevant documents showing the authority given to me . Please take necessary action and allow me to re-edit .

Best regards UCB —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nissanz (talk • contribs) 22:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)