Jump to content

User talk:2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Mike7682 (talk | contribs)
156 edits
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Undid revision 797675351 by Mike7682 (talk) please don't use Wikipedia for promotional purposes; it will not go well
Line 2: Line 2:
reference. Also, please look into "Belfry High School" in Belfry, KY.
reference. Also, please look into "Belfry High School" in Belfry, KY.
Have a great weekend!
Have a great weekend!

Luke Shen-Tien Chi
That guy who put a speedy delete on Luke Shen-Tien Chi is not good. Please remove the situation he cost.

== Welcome! ==
== Welcome! ==


Revision as of 15:21, 28 August 2017

Great! Thanks for the info, we will grab the old page versions for our own reference. Also, please look into "Belfry High School" in Belfry, KY. Have a great weekend!

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create a named account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a new Wikipedian, decide to continue contributing to our project: an encyclopedia of human knowledge that anyone can edit. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Happy editing! A Great Catholic Person (talk) 03:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vermilion Community College

Diannaa and Drmies, when you have a chance could you give this a look, both for copyright violation and per general guidelines for college articles? I've removed some of the most blatant passages, but there may need to be much more done. Also Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and JJMC89. Thanks! 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted to a less promotional version. Canterbury Tail and Mean as custard have previously dealt with this. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FIM has created Vermilion College after I moved the article back to the original title. Want to G7 that? — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whoop. Sorry JJMC89! Actually, I didn't, the 'owner' did. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 08:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your creation after I moved it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 14:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@JJMC89: Blimey. How did I create it? This is really bizarre. The odd thing is, I don't even remember it. Which is a little worrying! — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 14:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a fun place to go, but I'm always wary of law enforcement. Drmies (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's funny. Around these parts, Drmies, a lot of folk think you are the law. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yech. Someone at the college wants to own the article. I asked for a block. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, thank you very much, JJMC89. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And I can't believe this is still going on. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Current version is okay from a copyright point of view. I am doing some revision deletion and will watch-list. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful, and thank you, Diannaa. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Don Honorio Ventura Technological State University

A new find. Diannaa, it looks like some or much of this is a copyright violation. Drmies, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and JJMC89, the rest of this is a long directory. If anyone has free time and is looking for fun, here it is. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:ACD1:EE0:6A65:AED8 (talk) 15:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the History section was copied here in 2010. I can't find the remaining content anywhere online. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What remains appears to duplicate what's here [1]. I just don't know if it's a Wikipedia mirror, which it may well be. Thanks, Diannaa. 2601:188:180:11F0:ACD1:EE0:6A65:AED8 (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it as a copyright violation of [2], so more rve/del may be necessary. Thanks so much. 2601:188:180:11F0:ACD1:EE0:6A65:AED8 (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. 2601:188:180:11F0:ACD1:EE0:6A65:AED8 (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have topped up the revision deletion. The content was added in the same edit as the stuff I already revision deleted. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the pointer 99. Sorry, forget to attribute you  :) Happy Friday! — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 16:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a neat little COI for your perusal, Drmies, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and JJMC89: Jarred Cannon is a non-notable college student who's run for local office. I'd AfD this in a heartbeat if I could. Additionally, the new editor's additions to Joshua Nelson (politician) look partisan. I've removed the most obvious tone, but see if you think the whole 2014 section belongs at all. Thanks and cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fun for today

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and JJMC89, I've done some clean up at Jepson School of Leadership Studies, but much more may be needed. Drmies and NeilN, Dan Wagner is a problem going back months, with edit warring, block evasion and COI accounts. I've opened a report at the BLP noticeboard. Any help appreciated. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Since WP doesn't let you thank IPs, thanks for this '99. You beat me to it :) TonyBallioni (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huntley, Illinois

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and JJMC89, I'm calling it a day, but you know the drill if you have free time and interest. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Brau

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and JJMC89, please take a look at this when you feel like it. I don't intent to edit war with a COI account who adds unsourced content about the subject's infantry training. I've also notified SwisterTwister, who created the bio. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Waldo Family Lecture Series on International Relations and Brigham–Kanner Property Rights Prize

Drmies, NeilN, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and JJMC89, here are a couple of articles that raise questions. They appear to be built upon little more than bios of their esteemed speakers and awardees; the honors are in turn added to the individual bios. When you have time and inclination, I'd appreciate your thoughts. This looks like so much public relations, but I'm uncertain how to warn the editor or wrap my hands around the articles for editing--I imagine the biographical blurbs can be dispensed with for starters. Thanks and cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Woooah! I defied my summoning! -you must've stepped out of the pentagon too soon  ;) sorry about that! — fortunavelut luna 13:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Drmies. Probably a good idea to keep an eye on Brigham–Kanner Property Rights Conference as well. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, hope all's well. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Morning, gents. It is I, the Creator. Yes, capital C. While the bios on the Brigham-Kanner page were perhaps more expansive than they needed to be, I want to have after each winner why they were selected for the award. Let me have two sentences for each, one a quick "Person is ____" and the other a brief summation of their contribution to the advancement of property rights. For the Lecture page, I admit that the bios were padding, but I think you should still allow me at least a list of speakers. For a lecture series such as this, the notability is largely dependent on who has come to speak. If the lectures had been by Jimbob from the farm one year and Johnbob from the other farm the next, we would not consider the lecture noteworthy, while if the lecture had Obama one year and Bono the next, we certainly would. Also, I think the destruction of the entire speaker section was too indiscriminate, as certain of the entries had information that pertained to the speaker's appearance at the lecture series, rather than general biography.WBNewman1 (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WBNewman, I don't wish to speak for Drmies, who made the cuts to both articles, and he will likely offer different rationales than mine, but I'm much in agreement with his edits. The reasons for award selection belongs on the university's home page, not so much in an encyclopedia entry; it's not a matter of letting you 'have two sentences for each'; we're not here to publicize or promote any entity. If the content was covered by multiple WP:RELIABLE sources, it's another matter. If it derives from the agency's website, it's more than likely p.r., and not notable for inclusion. Re: the lecture series, its notability is in trouble if it's relying on a listing of guests to establish significance. I've published articles about multiple notable people, but that doesn't transfer notability to me...that Obama spoke at a venue doesn't automatically confer significance. For the lecture series' notability to be established, multiple reliable sources that have made significant mention of the lectures are required. I've nothing against a sourced listing of some of the lecturers, but will cede to Drmies on this, as he knows the landscape better than I do. But any 'padding' has the appearance of a motive that conflicts with the purpose of the encyclopedia. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Padding" would be the right word. You can have as much space as you like on your own website, but not here. Here's a list--List of Nobel laureates in Chemistry. Note that the winners get a phrase which indicates why the jury awarded them the prize. That's fair. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And that's for the Nobel Prize. The subjects in question are not of the same level. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument about publishing articles has the logic reversed. No, you publishing an article on a famous figure would not transfer any of their notability to you because it required no action on their part. A more apt analogy would be the notable figure publishing an article about you (for money, but still) which would indeed speak to your notability. Harvard can get anybody it wants to speak at its events because it is a revered institution. Eastern Shore Community College could not get anyone grand, because it is not a notable institution. So yes, the caliber of speakers at the lecture series does speak to the notability of the event. If you look at the page for the Gifford Lecture, it has a brief description about its founding and purpose and a list of lecturers and their speeches. This is all I ask for the Lecture page. That page is also light on third-party sources. The deletion of my entries on the speakers deleted most of my third-party sources.WBNewman1 (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken re: my articles, but to belabor the intent of our guidelines, notability is established via third-party sources, not the caliber of guests. The case can be made that the Gifford Lectures could use a pruning, as well. But comparing one problematic article to justify another doesn't help. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well I maintain that for the real world, the speakers do show the notability of the event, I will concede to the site's definition of notability as having third-party sources. I will go add some of those to the article. But even with those, will you not let me have a bulleted list of past speakers? I don't think the Gifford Lecture page is flawed. If I wanted to learn about a lecture series, one of the things I would find important to know is who the speakers for it have been. That seems reasonable to me.WBNewman1 (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The site's guidelines rely upon particular standards of scholarship, which do not always coincide either with 'real world' observations or our own inclinations. So, the question isn't whether I'll 'let' something remain; rather, it's the community's best interpretation of the guidelines. That's why I often request feedback from other experienced editors. In nearly all cases, inadequately sourced content is ripe for removal. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well let me add some extra sources and make some edits which I believe will enhance the pages without offending the community, and we can see what you folks have to say.WBNewman1 (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have completed my proposed edits on the Prize page. Let me know if they are acceptable.WBNewman1 (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, any thoughts? 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have also made proposed changes to the Lecture page. Let me know.WBNewman1 (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are we talking about the Lecture series or another article? The Lecture article looks good and concise though one might still question notability. But it's not written in promotional language, so I doubt anyone will throw a fuss over it. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More this one [4], Drmies. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah--well, if that's merged into the conference article, you'd have a stronger, single article... And it's not like it would be too big. Merging would be my suggestion. WBNewman1, what do you think of that? Many "conferences" and professional organization articles have it that way. Drmies (talk) 22:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. On the Lecture Series page, am I allowed to put "Senator," "President of ___," "Ambassador to ___," etc. after the speakers, or will the hyperlink to their own page have to handle that? Please also take a look at the Brigham-Kanner Prize page and give me your feedback.WBNewman1 (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, "allowed"--what we're telling you here is not the law; it's a combination of experience on what's generally accepted mixed in with what we think. The IP editor has a lot of experience with such articles. As for this question, meh--the wikilink really should do all that, but I suppose that these folks are mostly notable for, and invited to speak because of one single job--journalist, senator, etc. So that's not a big deal, but then again, ask yourself what you gain by adding that. My philosophy on Wikipedia is "less is more"... Drmies (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well what was my philosophy with these pages, and part of the reason why I started these articles with the small biographies, is that it is more efficient for the reader to be able to get all of the information in one place. But I've learned from our debates that the site strives to resemble a physical encyclopedia, which would indeed refer you to the page rather than include the biographical information. So what I seek to gain is just letting the reader know what these people are without having to go to another page.
I'm out. If anyone else would like to answer this, please do. Further questions can be directed to the articles' talk pages. I don't recall policy on using persons' titles, but this just feels like nickel and dime attempts to puff the articles, up to the edge of what Wikipedia guidelines allow. Good luck. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Buckley

Drmies, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and JJMC89, speaking of fluff and padding, Starling0616 (talk · contribs) has a way with biographies, at Carol Buckley and Irshad Manji. These look to me like hagiographies. When you have time, any thoughts will be welcome. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

reply

I have no relationship, financial or friendship with either person. I have never met Carol Buckley. I have conversed with her by email; the last extensive interactions were to get her to give pictures to Wikipedia. I attended a lecture by Irshad Manji a year ago. But as a recovering Catholic, I am not a religious person. When I last had a paying job, I was a computer programmer for the University of California. In 2008, I retired. I am 73. I get paid by UCLA and Social Security for getting up in the morning.

My approach to Wikipedia is to try to source everything and to include in the source some words that show that the source illustrates what has been said. I think that the recent "editing" I have done on Carol Buckley and on Irshad Manji is presentation formating and adding sources. I think someone hated my "Unchained" work. I did too. I was going to get back to it. I haven't seen the movie and don't know the people who made it. But I was trying to over-sourse, to avoid just what is happening here.

I have tried to not write hagiographies. That is why I over source. If or where I have failed in my attempt I would like the opportunity to correct my work. Could someone please allow me to do this?

Another reply

Again:

The Carol Buckley page still has a banner on it that says the that "the neutrality of the article is disputed" and that a "major contributor appears to have a close connection with its subject. " Neither of these statements is true. I would like the banner to be removed.

1. Neutrality: many of you have changed the article substantially so that neutrality, according to the changes you have made, must have been achieved by now.

2. My ​"close connection​"​ with the subject: I have never met Carol Buckley. ​ I have talked to her once, 3 years ago on the phone, not about Wikipedia.​ She is not my friend nor do I work for her​ or for anyone​.

I am 73. I have been retired since 2008 from the University of California, where I worked as a ​Java ​ ​computer programmer. ​I have never written articles for money. (I did work for Ardis Publishing in the early 1970s, but not for money). ​Today I get paid by UCLA and Social Security​.

I have never worked for money with elephants or any animals. Now I ​volunteer (for f​ree ​aquarium ​tickets​​) for our local Aquarium. The aquarium belongs to the AZA and they do not approve of sanctuaries. I have no boss​es​​. ​I have no friends who know about or would be impressed by my contributions to Wikipedia.

Your conclusion that I must have some financial or friendship relationship with Carol Buckley is wrong. How can we remove those labels.

  • I reached no such conclusion, but there were enough issues with the article's tone and your edit history that conflict of interest was a legitimate concern. I've removed the maintenance templates. Thank you for your contributions here, especially in creating the biography. Your role was important, as is that of editors who collaborate, copyedit and amend articles to meet encyclopedic standards. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eliane Elias

If you notice the editor adding more copyrighted content, please report them at WP:AIV for immediate block. I decided not to protect the page since it was only two cases, but we can block editors who are adding copyrighted material. Thanks for your edits!! Malinaccier (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diango Hernández

Drmies, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and JJMC89, when and if you're so inclined, please have a look at this spammy bio, that has been written in large part by the artist and his representatives. On these long artist resume articles, my rule of thumb is that museum shows are inherently notable, and gallery shows, unless sourced objectively, usually aren't. Clean up aside, the persistent presence of COI editing merits watching. Thanks for any thoughts you may have, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent analysis! — fortunavelut luna 14:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, I was rather bold with this edit- too much so, would you say? — fortunavelut luna 14:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like he's on the way to canonization. Drmies is good with these, too. Thanks for the help with Diango, though given the abundance of interested accounts, we'll probably see some page protection in the near future. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and JJMC89, I give up. The resume was restored by the admin who protected the article. No good deed goes unpunished. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, your preferred version has been restored by JJMC89. (talk page stalker) SkyWarrior 03:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, SkyWarrior. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Capponi

Any help you can provide here will be appreciated, Drmies, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and JJMC89. Yesterday I had quite a time just slowing down a paid editor who has created a public relations bio; I think it can use some paring of the promotional content and unacceptable sources, and you all generally wield sharper instruments than do I. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Hello,

I am not a paid editor. I am not creating a public relations bio. I am editing a page. You removed some of the cited content I added that was previously not mentioned on the page. I understand it had copyright issues, but instead of rewording it and properly citing it, you removed it. I don't understand is why you hyperlinked certain words and not others in the Early Life Section. Can you please explain to me your reasoning for how you chose which words to link? Thanks! SetTheRecordSettherecord (talk)

Hi, Settherecord. Yes, I removed the copyright violation content; given the history of promotional intent by COI accounts at that article, one is not inclined to go out of the way to assist, but I was trying to stanch the flow of unacceptable edits. By the way, one doesn't have to accept payment to have a conflict of interest. And I didn't hyperlink anything, but it's possible that in the process of the many reversions that were necessary, restored versions that were not copyright violations or promotional in nature did have hyperlinks. Thank you, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And let's not do this anymore [6]. There are many sources to support this, and the persistent attempts to remove this don't look good. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


You removed the copyrighted material, but you could have revised it, the way I did. I made the article more neutral and removing the drug/alcohol words you hyperlinked. I do not have a COI. I met him once, in an elevator. SetTheRecordSettherecord (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to defend removing copyright violation content that you added, period. On the article talk page you described yourself as his friend. Your sole interest on Wikipedia has been editing this biography, and you've made some improvements there. Thank you, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Li Chevalier

The usual issues here, Drmies, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and JJMC89. I think the article has been owned by the subject or her agents for a long time, perhaps since its creation. Lots of unsourced fluff and biographical detail. I'm away for a few days, if anyone wants to have a go at this. Thank and cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Drmies, I'm in a Holiday Inn far from home, so I'm not in the best position to pursue this. The COI account is persistent and willfully ignorant of the guidelines. I think it's getting close to a block, given the determination to spam several articles on the artist's behalf. Thank you very much for your efforts to clean up the bio. Cheers from 99! 107.77.215.227 (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Topping up your tan, 99?!  ;) — fortunavelut luna 10:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi! Visiting an elderly parent in tropical climes. 107.77.215.227 (talk) 12:32, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, looks like there are socks working on the bio. Really needs page protection. Or something. 107.77.215.227 (talk) 12:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos to Yngvadottir for reconstructing the article properly. Hopefully the COI accounts can be kept away. Thanks to all for your diligence. 107.77.215.227 (talk) 13:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is Drmies on holiday again?! — fortunavelut luna 16:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some three minutes in--but hey you can listen to the whole thing. Drmies (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll pass, but may listen to this [7]. Loved the album when I was 16. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How's your Summer?

Hello 99, and longtime no talk! I come from afar, with best wishes from User:Drmies. Anyway, I was hoping you or some of your TP stalkers may be able to help me with the article jeans. There is a lot of promise here, but also a lot of unverified crap and borderline WP:PROMO. If you have some time I would appreciate a look over :) Thanks! Garchy (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For your work in reporting users at AIV! Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 02:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Drmies and JJMC89, any help you can provide here [8], here [9] or here [10] will be much appreciated. I've requested user blocks to no avail, so the promotional excesses drag on. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Mountain College of Art and Design

Diannaa and Drmies, I've removed some copyright violation from this article relating to galleries, which may need to be rev/deleted. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've done the revision deletion and dealt with their copyvio image uploads at the Commons. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Diannaa. And thank you, JJMC89, for giving the article a shot. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the SPA already reverted me without explanation. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Original editor came through, discussed the edits with me with references to WP policy (thanks) and I made changes to content based on those suggestions. Second editor came through last night and deleted content en masse with subjective explanations like "doesn't belong here" and "not important." Looking at similar articles, I'm not sure why this one is being singled out after I made a solid effort to comply. Rather than just deleting, I'd really appreciate solid policy-based productive feedback ("more citations needed in this section" or "this sentence isn't written objectively"). Thanks. Poetxpress (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with JJMC89. What you're edit warring over is not fully sourced--policy has been clearly explained--nor is there an imperative to include information about the different buildings. They can either stay or go, but they need to be sourced. I'm not especially interested in going back and forth on this. I do, however, question the neutrality of a WP:SPA account, despite assurances to the contrary. I suggest other, objective editors keep an eye on the article. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Will add more citations right now. Agree, I'm not terribly interested in back and forth either but it seems like most colleges would be out of compliance since they regularly list prominent buildings on campuses? Either way, I'll cite some more and hopefully the time I put into it won't be deleted. Poetxpress (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many college articles here are blatantly promotional, and are largely tended by their press departments. With some exceptions, they are not good examples of encyclopedic structure. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikipedia article is not (an extension of) the college's website. Also, OSE is never a good argument for poor content. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While it is not an extension of the college's website, it IS an importance source of information about an institution and should be comprehensive ("encyclopedic" literally means "comprehensive in terms of information"). As a novice editor, of course one will try to emulate other articles about similar topics. You didn't learn to write code by just sitting down and magically doing it - you copied someone's syntax and structure and tweaked it. That's how people in communities learn and evolve.Poetxpress (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Annie's Homegrown

Paragraph under "History" is redundant. It already exists under "Food Quality Issues". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.133.64.212 (talk) 03:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Watkins

Drmies, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and JJMC89, any thoughts on this self-promotional piece? Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've removed a bloc that appears to have been mostly copied from a business letter. Does this require rev/deletion? 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I think I just edit/conflicted with you. Tell you what, a basket of hot wings will take care of it. Drmies (talk) 04:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quite so. I won't issue you a level three template for restoring a copyvio. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was the source copied for the career section: [11]. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ha, well, that's OK then--given the obvious COI, I think that there is no copyvio. If the editor is the subject, he obviously has the right to his own letter.

        But to the matter at hand. Of course that content is out of order, so to speak--it is not written in encyclopedic language, and it requires secondary sourcing. This copy and paste job is all too easy. However, and I can say HOWEVER, we are dealing here with some incredibly notable cases here. Have you read Killing of Bernard Whitehurst? I drove by his marker the other day. If you ever come to Montgomery I'll show you the neighborhood, which combines the best and the worst of what the South has in its past and its present. It's just around the corner from the Winter Place, for instance, and it's right next to the MLK thruway, which, ironically and typically, is an interstate that cuts right through the center of town and conveniently destroyed a neighborhood with a high black middle-class population. Divide and conquer! Anyway, he clearly deserves an article, which of course will need better sourcing than what it has now. I may have time to get on it, though if he's got so many off-shore interest and oil platforms, he can pay a better editor than you or me, I have no doubt.

        Anyway, so no, I believe the COI and will not rev-delete. If Donaldvwatkins1 wants to come by and discuss, they are welcome to, with full respect to him, his career, his father, and his mother (his father needs an article, and perhaps his mother too), and I'll do my best. Mr. Watkins, you have provided our city, and the South, invaluable service and I respect that immensely. Roll Tide!

        Speaking of which, 99, I see how you got here: I have indeffed that possible alt-right, Lost Cause-believing BLP violator. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The National Museum (Sultanate of Oman) can be pared to the bone, but I don't want to start an international incident. By the way, since when do Wikipedia editors sleep? 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Capponi 2

Hi Diannaa and Drmies; the bio is subject to long term manipulation by COI accounts, and could use page protection. Additionally, recent edits added copyright violation content which needs to be rev/deleted. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 2601. I have removed some more copyvio and done the revision deletion. Semi-protection won't prevent User:Settherecord from editing the article, as the account will become autoconfirmed later today (10 edits, 4 days). — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Diannaa. Given its history, methinks the article would benefit from lots of eyes. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have already added it to my watchlist. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Terrific. Going Out for a Walk may require reversion/deletion now, too. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe Diannaa hasn't met her COI block quota for today? :) If my intuition doesn't deceive me, such a block, when followed by more edits, will make an SPI much easier, and thus our means of quality control. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've reported to AIV [14], for what good it'll do. But eventually the article will need to be locked, and yes, an SPI may reveal what we suspect. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Veer Surendra Sai University of Technology

Drmies, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and JJMC89, I've started to de-puff this article. Feel free to go further re: the listing of programs. I'm most comfortable removing the obviously promotional and non notable persons. There also may need to be some rev/deletion done here for copyright violations. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Il y pas difficile!! I've left you the lede to deal with '99 ;) thanks for the ping, too — fortunavelut luna 14:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
C'est magnifique! Thank you. This has, by the way, been subject to promotional editing at least since 2008, so it's worth watch listing. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the usual business at Frisch School, if you feel like having a look, Drmies, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and JJMC89. Happy weekend! 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some trimming, but it might need more. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, JJMC89. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Emma from Lord of the Rings my arse!! :D Nice one there. — fortunavelut luna 14:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manipur University

Dear Diannaa, perhaps you can have alook at this re: mass copyright violation and revert/deletion. It looks like the problem may go back to at least November 2008 [15]. Echh. Thank you, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to finish when I get back from my car appointment. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)  Done. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As always, Diannaa, thank you. 2601:188:180:11F0:1C19:2AB2:EA1E:50DB (talk) 00:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Navy SEALs

Drmies, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and JJMC89, what's your take on this? Notwithstanding lengthy discussions at the article talk page, is there a good reason for allowing so much unsourced content and non notable persons? Looks like a repository for servicemen who don't wish to remain anonymous.... 2601:188:180:11F0:1C19:2AB2:EA1E:50DB (talk) 00:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, I was going primarily from this check [16] of the History section. 2601:188:180:11F0:1C19:2AB2:EA1E:50DB (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Source web page has a notice at the bottom: "REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES All content is in the public domain unless otherwise stated." What we need here is a {{PD-notice}} template for the copied sections. I have gone ahead and done that. Spot checks don't reveal any obvious need for revision deletion so if you found more you will have to be more specific. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Diannaa. I'm sorry for not having been more observant. My follow ups are whether block evasion is possible there, and regardless, to suggest the wisdom of long term page protection given the persistence of promotional and unsourced edits. 2601:188:180:11F0:1C19:2AB2:EA1E:50DB (talk) 13:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure if you requested page protection at WP:RFPP you would be turned down. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The suspicion of socking has merit to it, but I was not able to find any evidence of it. Drmies (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Drmies, on a morning when I seem to be swinging and missing a bit. 2601:188:180:11F0:1C19:2AB2:EA1E:50DB (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Pankova

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and JJMC89, I could practically clear-cut this unsourced resume--perhaps much of this can be supported by Russian sources. Any thoughts? 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes. I've left a bit of a bio which is relevant, and I would've left stuff re. major exhibitions- except that I couldn't actually find any sources to back any of the claims. Still can't, in fact. This is a general search- hits look pretty dodgy to me?- and more to the point, this is news-specific and this is from GBooks. Nichego, as she would say  :) Mind you, whether that's the best search term, I dunno- Russian patronyms vs. westernised forms, etc., might mean there are more results with a different search term. Sup, 99? — fortunavelut luna 12:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, I was similarly unimpressed with search results. The only thing that kept me from tagging this for notability was the listing of museum collections, which you justly removed for lack of references. Not much sup, except having an exhibition and planning to nearly triple my teaching schedule in NY this fall. Sup with you? 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Uh the PhD continues its war of attrition against any sanity and self-worth I have remaining. Who said WP =/=THERAPY? ;) Yes the Collections would certainly indicate notability and I was tempted to leave one or two unsourced (after all, a v little can be unsourced) in for that purpose. But the problem there lies in the fact that I know so litle about the thigs that I wouldn't know which to take out and which to leave. Hey ho. That sounds like plentysup! — fortunavelut luna 17:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How do you have time to edit here? And by 'here', I mean a land in which the current political atmosphere lends cover to those whose sole rationale is plumping their biographical resumes in the guise of 'editing.' 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Embassy Cinema

The 'Restoration Project' section is a small recent part of its history. I'm just a local Chadwell Heath Historian, who has gone to a lot of effort to discover the building's history by visiting local archives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The.Night.Fox (talk • contribs) 16:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alderman Pitt congratulated Weston, very sincerely, for designing the building, the contractors, Dorman, Long & Co. Limited and Andrews Gibbs Builders Ltd., for the excellence of their work, and the owners, Sinden and Lyons, for their business foresight and enterprise. He then thanked them on behalf of the public living in the area for the outstanding provision that they had made. Cheques worth thirty guineas and ten guineas were handed to the Mayor, for the King George Hospital and the Ilford Tuberculosis Care Association respectively, by the proprietors of The Embassy. The Mayor stated that this generous act demonstrated that Sinden and Lyons were prepared to accept their share of the responsibilities which faced the burgesses, and trusted that their venture would realise all of their expectations.

Fair enough I understand your point. I have a habit of being very thorough by including every detail- apologies. Perhaps it does need condensing in future edits. As far as copyrighting is concerned, I am happy to submit proof from the local archives and the Royal Institute of British Architects that the relevant licences have been purchased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The.Night.Fox (talk • contribs) 17:05, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thoroughness is to be commended, and I say that without a hint of snark--would that all writers felt so. I would condense a lot, and remove all but one or two quotes, keeping those to a sentence or two. Remember that what's appropriate for a local newsletter may not be for an international encyclopedia entry. At the end of the day, an article here ought to be written so that I can't tell what the authors' feelings are about the subject. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice. I shall have to review it again. My problem is that a lot of the information that I researched is not on the internet at all. It all involved trawling through old newspaper articles on microfilm. Do you have any suggestions as to how I can gather more credible citations?The.Night.Fox (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Maybe have a butcher's in [17], it'll have sometihng, though whether it's a brief mention or a chapter I don't know. — fortunavelut luna 17:43, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much 'Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi'! Much appreciatedThe.Night.Fox (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, have a look at Redding, California, at your convenience. Probably could use more clear-cutting than I did. And thank you for all your kind help. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63&oldid=797675488"