This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.
Welcome to my talk page. If you wish to contact me just press the "Start a new talk topic" link below. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
I manage the PSAL website www.psal.org and it was brought to my attention by my boss's boss that the Wikipedia PSAL page has a section that is incorrect
Information that is false
He went on to say to remove it and to check it every week to make sure that the section that I keep removing does not appear.
The section that I keep removing is the controversy
Please do not keep adding it
@Mromannyr: If you are closely related to the subject of an article - such as being a paid employee of an organization it describes - you have a so called conflict of interest when editing the page in question. Summarized this means that your edits to the page are unlikely to be made for the benefit of creating a quality encyclopedia and are instead aimed at presenting the organization in a preferred positive (And thus biased) point of view. While editing under a COI is not outright forbidden it is very strongly discouraged and subject to the usual policies regarding neutrality.
As for the information in the controversy section itself: It would appear that the controversy section is supported by several sources that on first glance appear to be reliable. The inclusion criteria for Wikipedia is - among others - verifiability, not truth. Since there are several sources that can be considered reliable i see no rationale to flatly remove the entire section under the rationale of it being "Not correct". Seeing the surrounding situation my own translation of the "incorrect" comment would instead be "My bosses boss does not like the section as it is critical in tone, and therefor gave the explicit instruction to remove it weekly". As mentioned in the first paragraph this type of editing would be one that is explicitly disallowed when representing a company. Excirial(Contact me,Contribs)20:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On 5 February 2013 you deleted my article. I understand your reasons, nevertheless, i would like to test a page describing my company and gather other people's opinions and suggestions on matters there touched upon.
Please check www.cosmictroops.com
Thank you for any help
Hello. You have recently revert a change that I have made. The change is with the title of the page Prince of wales museum, The official name of the museum is Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Vastu Sangrahalaya. As changed by the government, refer http://www.thehindu.com/2000/11/16/stories/0216000q.htm and the official website www.csmvs.in
My argument for your assistance is this would be when you search for Bombay on wikipedia a user is direct to the page Mumbai. Because the name of the city was officially changed by the goverment. However, the page does mention that the city was previous called Bombay. Like we have mentioned that Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Vastu Sangrahalaya was formerly known as Price of Wales Museum of Western India.
More over the page title itself is wrong. The museum was never known as Price of Wales museum but Prince of Wales Museum of Western India. The current title is a common term.
Also, if the argument few other users who have changed the title is that the page title should be in English. Then the page for Arc_de_Triomphe should be renamed Arc of Triumph.
Please do assist me in changing the title of the page to its official name and please do lock any further name changes.
Im an official representative of the Museum. Allanoscar (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Allan Oscar[reply]
@Allanoscar: I have no particular opinion in regards to the actual renaming of the page - my only concern was the copy and paste move used to relocate the page as this breaks the article's link to its page history. I do however note that there was a previous discussion regarding the name of the page which ended up without consensus to move the page. Since Wikipedia is build upon Consensus it would not be prudent for me to override a (recent) previous discussions result by moving the page. Instead i have opened a request to have the article moved on its talk page (You can find it here). Based on the discussion the page may either be moved or left at its current title. Your input is of course quite welcome at the talk page mentioned. Excirial(Contact me,Contribs)19:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent edit to the Cards Against Humanity page changed information that is important to the game. It says clearly in the rules that whoever last pooped is the person who starts as card czar.50.248.194.69 (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I will try to correct my page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spo0K_(film) although it is okay to delete
this page: I didn't even realize this was immediately visible. The film itself isn't even released yet and the
only notable things about it is that it has been made by Dutch artist Valensia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valensia
who is my favorite artist and does have a Wiki page, but reading through it all I think it's not notable enough to mention.
I know it rarely happens a Dutch produced film is released in the US but it's indeed not appropriate to dedicate a page
to (at least not now) as the film isn't even released yet. I would like it to be up there and correct it, but no problem
at all when deleted Daniellovell (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Adding onto that: Excirial, the author of an article can request its deletion either expressly or, by blanking it, implicitly, "[i]f requested in good faith and provided that the only substantial content to the page was added by its author." See WP:CSD G7. In this case, placing a {{db-author}} tag on the page rather than restoring its contents would have been appropriate. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Largoplazo: I intentionally opted against using a G7 template in this particular instance. One slight drawback of using a CSD template is that they are dealt with quite fast - sometimes even before the article's writer would have a chance to see them. Since this page was already half a day old and contained ~35k worth of textual data the chances of an accidental or unintended removal of content were relatively high compared to the usual page blanking cases. Seeing the circumstances i opted to use a revert and blank1 warning template as a sorts of "Are you Sure" mechanism over the "If you were not sure, please get a refund" option as it seemed a bit more user friendly.
Granted, i did have the (incorrect) impression that {{uw-delete1}} contained a line that specifically dealt with a user blanking his or her own pages while it actually does not. In retrospect a manual message would have been more practical for what i was trying to accomplish. Excirial(Contact me,Contribs)23:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
