Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors
Hi! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.
If that sounds like you and you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!
You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).
I've made the necessary changes. I didn't intend my article to be an advertisement and I think I've made the necessary modifications that makes it sound more neutral. Can you take a look? If the changes are sufficient, can you remove that advertisement tag on my article. If not, I don't know what to say, I spent some time on it and don't have much more to contribute to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thrashing0donut (talk • contribs) 09:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hiyas there Trashing - i fear i ended up having to delete the article, as another editor noted that large sections of the article have been directly copied from several pages of the university website. For legal reasons content cannot be directly copied from other sites unless those sites specifically state they have a copyright license that is compatible with Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA, GDFL or compatible). If such a notice is not present content is seen as a possible copyright violation and speedily deleted.
The best way to deal with such an issue, is rewriting a page and using the sources as an inspiration for text, rather then using it as a source for words / content. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)09:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple problems with using an institutions own website as a direct source of information. A primary concern is of course the copyright issue, which is paramount in this case. The fact that Wikipedia is editable by everyone is rather sensitive as far as most licenses go - its therefor not possible to add a mention that part of the content has been copied - this would not be sufficient to satisfy the copyright requirements.
Another issue is that an institutions own website is a primary source. Wikipedia itself uses tertiary sources as a means to establishing verifiability for its content, as tertiary sources are further away from the subject and thus tend to be more neutral. This was quite visible in the article - the language was heavily promotional which is entirely understandable for a website (Man of course wishes to leave a good impression), but for an encyclopedia information has to be neutral in tone and not advertising for a certain goal. Have a look at WP:RS as well, to see what counts as a reliable source to base article's on. That guideline, along with WP:N and WP:NPOV are the core guidelines to writing a good article, and are well worth a glance if you intend to write an article. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them - either here, or at the help desk. The latter option may be somewhat more convenient, since more people work on that page, as opposed to me and a few other persons who view my talk page every now and then. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)09:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what, if anything can be done, but I would also strongly recommend considering a block of the IP addresses that the user has been editing under for most of the past five days or so. They can be found listed here. Strikerforce (talk) 13:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also recommend extending this block to a permanent one. This is a single purpose account focused on promotion of a web server product that this editor is associated with. In addition to the edit waring, violation of the 3-revert rule, this editor has is bent on disrupting the AFD on the article in question and has taken recommending deletion of an article on a competing product here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cherokee (Webserver). No less than 5 editors have tried, in vain, to give this editor the benefit of the doubt and direct them towards more positive contributions. More details are available here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bugapi--RadioFan (talk) 15:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed there Radiofan - extended to permanent block since that kind of nonsense is beyond acceptable. The 2 day block was intentionally short to allow some input in the deletion discussion, and to (hopefully) prevent a myriad of IP's all over the place. I admit that i was actually close to an indef before, but seeing the addition to the other deletion discussion, i believe that WP:RBI is the only way to go here, as is for any future IP's or socks. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)15:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help here. A lot of time has been wasted by a number of editors dealing with this, time to get back to something more productive.--RadioFan (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, you removed my edit from a page, where i pointed out a mistake on the page. You sent me a message about it, and then at the end of your message you said " Excirial (Contact me)" so i clicked on the "contact me" and i got here. I dont see how i can talk to you, so i try it this way. Please let me know how we can chat normally. That would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.123.206.87 (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted the edit in question mostly because of the word "Bullshit" in the article content. If you spot an error, there are generally two things you can do: The first one is correcting the error yourself by editing the table, and removing the mistake. As Wikipedia is a work in progress, content may be incorrect from time to time. Hence, the edit may actually have been made by someone who didn't know that both names refer to the same country, and just added both based on different sources.
The second option is asking someone to correct it, by pointing it out. This is most times the best course of action if the edit would be complex, as opposed to simple fact corrections. Your comment was actually a correct way to deal with the issue, it was just the location that was incorrect. Every article has a talk page (A discussion page) where editors can discuss the article itself. Mixing the discussion in the article itself would eventually clog it entirely and make it unreadable from all the comments.
This is to advise you of what is going on with the request to remove our company page. There has been a vandal that keeps trying to post slander on our page, and we keep removing it. Now they have posted the removal request. All info on the page is verifiable and accurate. Can you please cancel the deletion request, and protect the page from repetative vandal changes? Thank you. Brightonmiplace (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked the user who was posting the information on the grounds that he seemed to have made a sockpuppet in order to do so, but the prod deletion, and the subsequent AFD nomination were actually bothposted by me - see the deletion discussion for the reasoning behind the nomination and the actual deletion discussion.
In essence it would seem that the page was never truly notable or supported by reliable sources. The other editor who posted the criticism just made it catch attention i'm affraid to say, which resulted in the nomination from my side. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)20:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and Welcome back
Hello and welcome back Excirial !
I have a request;
With this edit [1], User:PANONIAN divulged his personal opinion about the Hungarians, which is totally unaccaptable regarding both Wiki-policy and the inward of Wikipedia when saying that :
“
Ok, Wiki rules are to be respected and if someone conduct revert warring talk page is a place where this kind of disruption should be elaborated. Man can feed his soul from two sources: love or hate. It really amuse me how much of their own free time are some people ready to spend to feed their hate and to spread it around. It amuse me how some Greater Hungarian nationalists are still dreaming that borders will be changed and that they again will rule over "minor races". Justice for Hungary was served in Trianon. In modern free and democratic World it is not acceptable that an local minority rule over local majority. Bačka is majority Slavic, so attempts of asserting an aggressive Hungarism in article about Bačka cannot have other interpretation but one that the person who trying to assert that thinks that in some close or distant future Bačka will be attached to Greater Hungary in which local Hungarian minority will rule over local Slavic majority. Nationalism, ethnic oppression and genocide are examples of poisonous legacy that Hungarian rule left in Bačka.
”
Could you please deliver PANONIAN this ArbMac warning as an administrator, in order to spur him to adhere to the good purposes of Wikipedia?
ArbMac warning
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. Thank you.
I updated the info on the request, is there anything we can to do protect the page as much as possible for however long possible? Phisigadmin (Phisigadmin) 18:14 March 2011 (EST)
The information being added is being removed on the basis that it is unsourced, and seeing it is a secret society i believe it will be nigh impossible to source it reliably even if one intended to do so - which means that the edit could essentially be mere speculation. I do, however, see no reason to protect the page as of current, let alone fully protect it for an extended period of time. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone, and protections are only placed in severe cases as outlined in the protection policy.
I would add that Wikipedia equally isn't bound by internal rules from an origination or corporation, which means that any restrictions that organization has do not apply on Wikipedia, provided that no U.S law or Wikipedia policy is violated. As an example i would note another secret society who had a rule that their symbols (Much like the ΦΣK that Phi Sigma Kappa has) may not be posted anywhere. For Wikipedia however, this rule does not apply, as it was valid, source-able information that didn't violate any copyright or other laws.I would argue that the added content falls under the same category, as there is no copyright on certain information - provided that the sentences weren't directly lifted from a copyrighted document. Having said all that, i see no reason to include the added for reasons mentioned above, so there should be no real problem. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)22:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Words have been "directly lifted" from copyrighted documents. Does that not count? Phisigadmin (Phisigadmin) 18:44 March 2011 (EST)
Provided that the copyrighted content is still in the article, it certainly does count - Wikipedia's copyright policy is quite strict on these matters. If there is a copyright violation, please refer to the copyvio page, section "Copyright owners" for details on how to report it. Normally i could verify this myself, but seeing the subject matter i believe that this will not be as simple as checking a public website for content that was copied over. Copyright violations are not, however, a reason to protect a page unless it meets the criteria in the protection policy. Deleting the infringing content and (if needed) blocking the users who added it is the prefered way to handle such situations. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)22:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you look over the edit summary again please. I did not, ever, say his edits were vandalism. It was he who described my edits as such.
Further, I don't agree he's trying to prove the article. He was just passing through, took a POV-fancy to something there, and is now warring over it. It is unlikely that he would have returned to the article had I not reverted his edit in the first place. Dapi89 (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which is exactly why i labeled that section "Specifically for user 86.4.81.225" - the comment regarding the vandalism warnings was meant for him. I presume the confusion was caused because i tend to use the same reply for both parties. As for 86's edits, please assume good faith. The edits are not plain vandalism or PoV pushing, and he did bother to write a three paragraph explanation on the article talk page. If the both of you cannot agree, its likely best to seek a third opinion and go by that. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)20:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Re: he did bother to write a three paragraph explanation on the article talk page. He did minutes ago only. i.e, after the horse had bolted. Dapi89 (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it would be an expanded version of the explanation presented to you at 19:30, 24 March 2011 on your talkpage. The same explantion presented to you during my edit of 19:16, 24 March 2011, and of 08:33, 24 March 2011. Regards
