→Bill Alfred.: Further rewording |
Message re. Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention (HG 3) |
||
Line 104: | Line 104: | ||
:Hi John. While I'm sure your story is genuine, it unfortunately doesn't pass Wikipedia's [[WP:CCPOL|core content policies]] of [[WP:V|verifiability]], [[WP:NOR|no original research]] and [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]]. Material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] to be considered acceptable. One's unpublished personal knowledge or experiences don't clear this bar. "[[WP:NOTTRUTH|Verifiability, not truth]]" summarizes the philosophy that we don't ask readers to believe with blind faith that what they're reading is true - reliable sources must back it up. As well, [[WP:MEMORIAL|Wikipedia is not a memorial site]] for others to leave their personal recollections of a deceased person. It is an encyclopedia with content written from a plainly factual and emotionally uninvolved [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]]. Since you knew the subject personally, I can see how it would be difficult for you write about him from the viewpoint of a disinterested third party. Should your anecdotes be published by a reliable source someday, they might be welcomed back if summarized as balanced, neutrally worded content. Thanks. --[[User:Drm310|Drm310]] ([[User talk:Drm310#top|talk]]) 16:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC) |
:Hi John. While I'm sure your story is genuine, it unfortunately doesn't pass Wikipedia's [[WP:CCPOL|core content policies]] of [[WP:V|verifiability]], [[WP:NOR|no original research]] and [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]]. Material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] to be considered acceptable. One's unpublished personal knowledge or experiences don't clear this bar. "[[WP:NOTTRUTH|Verifiability, not truth]]" summarizes the philosophy that we don't ask readers to believe with blind faith that what they're reading is true - reliable sources must back it up. As well, [[WP:MEMORIAL|Wikipedia is not a memorial site]] for others to leave their personal recollections of a deceased person. It is an encyclopedia with content written from a plainly factual and emotionally uninvolved [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]]. Since you knew the subject personally, I can see how it would be difficult for you write about him from the viewpoint of a disinterested third party. Should your anecdotes be published by a reliable source someday, they might be welcomed back if summarized as balanced, neutrally worded content. Thanks. --[[User:Drm310|Drm310]] ([[User talk:Drm310#top|talk]]) 16:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC) |
||
== Your edits to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention == |
|||
[[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hello, I'm [[User:Petrb|Petrb]]. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of [[Special:Contributions/Drm310|your recent contributions]], such as the one you made with <span class="plainlinks">[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AUsernames%20for%20administrator%20attention&diff=584239726 this edit]</span> to [[:Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention]], because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on [[User_talk:Petrb|my talk page]]. Thanks. <!-- Template:Huggle/warn-1 --><!-- Template:uw-vandalism1 -->[[User:Petrb|Petrb]] ([[User talk:Petrb|talk]]) 18:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:27, 2 December 2013
From P. Barg/Z Animation
(99.67.181.89 (talk) 22:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)) From Peter Barg/Z Animation To: Drm310
I am trying to list Z Animation on Wikipedia. Several other companies, Ace and Son, and Bent Image Group have done the same thing. I specifically followed their format and content. Ace and Son didn't have as much as Bent Image Group.
Thanks, and I'm happy to edit as needed. pb
- My response includes several links to relevant policies. Please follow them for more extensive information, as I don't wish to repeat it all here.
- Wikipedia is not a business directory. Just because a company exists does not mean it deserves an article. Those articles you mentioned are not particularly good either and may now fall under more scrutiny because of your mention.
- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia about notable topics as evidenced by significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. You did not provide reliable, independent sources that proved the company's notability. A company's own website is not satisfactory evidence.
- I presume that you were previously editing under the username "ZAnimationTv". This has been blocked because an account cannot represent a business or organization - just an individual person.
- In addition, you should not be writing about a company you own or are employed by - this is a conflict of interest. Wikipedia discourages this kind of editing because it quite often becomes nothing but advertising or promotion, neither of which is permitted. Please consult the plain and simple conflict of interest guide for further guidance on this matter. --Drm310 (talk) 15:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Yassmin Ghandehari
Hi Drm310, thanks very much for your welcome and for giving this draft article an initial review. I have made the adjustments you recommended, although there isn't a whole lot more out there in the way of adequate third party references with which to expand the career section. Nonetheless, as you say, the sources themselves are good – she has received coverage in in some authoritative publications and in number of different contexts. You mentioned you don't usually review AfC submissions – can you suggest someone for me to approach who does, or else ping them here/there? Once again, thanks for your help. GATalbot (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Peaceplayers International
I have noticed that the PeacePlayers International Wikipedia page has been reverted to its original version because there were multiple accounts making changes. However, I forgot the original account passwords and did not setup an email for them so I created this last account to make the final changes. I have linked this account to an email and have saved the password so that I will not forget the password to this account as well. I apologize if this appeared as sockpuppetry, but it was really just me being forgetful of my account information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peaceplayersintl (talk • contribs) 16:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Very well. I've relayed your explanation to the sockpuppet investigation report and the admins may decide to close it without any action. However, there are still some major problems.
- Your username(s) represent your organzation. This violates Wikipedia's username policy, which forbids any accounts that represent a group. They can only represent a single individual. I urge you to submit a request to change your username or your account will certainly be blocked.
- You have copied and pasted material directly from your website, which is a copyright violation. Even if you are the copyright holder, you can't just re-use it without following Wikipedia's procedures for donating copyrighted materials.
- You have a conflict of interest because you represent the subject. While this isn't forbidden, it's discouraged because of the strong potential for promotional editing, which is not permitted.
- I suggest you change your username and also review the plain and simple conflict of interest guide before proceeding any further. Good luck. --Drm310 (talk) 16:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Yassmin Ghandehari
Hi Drm310, thanks for you help on my talk page re this article. I've submitted it to AfC here and will now ping someone to it along with full disclosure of my COI. Thanks again. GATalbot (talk) 11:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- You're welcome, and best of luck with your AfC submission! --Drm310 (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
username change
In response to the username info you sent me, I have no problem changing it to my real name. I didn't see an area to do that. Perhaps you have a short cut for that, I scrolled down and clicked on a few things but to no avail. Feel free to touch base with me — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimplySaidMedia (talk • contribs) 04:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
JCPenney page
Hello,
As you're aware, I'm attempting to update information on the JCPenney page that is relevant and accurate. Most news releases to which I'm linking were issued by JCPenney and are filed with the SEC. Additionally, there is some information sprinkled throughout the 2010-2013 section that is either hearsay or not necessarily relevant to JCPenney as a company.
I do work for JCPenney, which I now understand is a conflict according to the conflict of interest guide. However, I'm unsure how to proceed with getting the page corrected with a neutral point of view and valid, reputable sources.
Thanks for your help.
Jcpnews (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hello. Thank you for your attention to the issues that I raised. There are a number of concerns that need to be addressed before you make any further substantial edits. I have included several relevant links in blue text for you to follow.
- Your username is a problem, as it violates Wikipedia's username policy. Wikipedia accounts must represent a single individual, and cannot represent a business or group. Corporate accounts are routinely blocked on sight for this violation. Another editor already reported it to Usernames for administrator attention, so I suggest you put in a request to change your username before your account is blocked from editing.
- I am glad you have reviewed the conflict of interest policies and have disclosed that you work for the company. Once you have changed your username or created another account for yourself, you should restate this on your user page. Other editors will appreciate your transparency and give you the benefit of assuming you are contributing in good faith.
- Wikipedia does not accept news releases as reliable sources as they are self-published material. Information provided by the company itself can only be considered a valid primary source if is plainly factual (e.g. number of employees, yearly earnings, etc.) but it cannot be use as a source for interpretations of those facts.
- Sources that are more likely to be accepted are those that are independent of the company (e.g. have no business or financial interests with the company) and have an established reputation for editorial oversight and fact-checking. Major news organizations are an example of such.
- Both positive and negative information about a topic is fair game if presented in a balanced way and backed by reliable sources.
- If there are statements which are spurious, please mention these on the article talk page where they can be discussed with other editors. The result of that discussion should result in a neutrally worded version acheived by consensus.
- Hopefully this should help, and your future contributions will be more positively received. Good luck. --Drm310 (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: User:GLAM (grupo)
Hello Drm310. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:GLAM (grupo), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. —Darkwind (talk) 06:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
St John's School Porthcawl
Thanks for the feedback on the page created this morning and also on the username. Having looked at the guidelines again please do delete the page. (St John's School Porthcawl (talk) 15:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC))
- I'm not an administrator, but someone who is will take care of your request. Thanks for your cooperation. --Drm310 (talk) 15:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Dodgeball link
My apologies. I was unaware adding links was against the rules. As you can see I am new here. I added the link because I had been alerted by friends that it should be up there since it is one of the premiere leagues like Dodgeball Nation and The National Dodgeball League. If its not allowed,then I understand, but the link is a reference to a website that people can use to find events, rules, and other info.
Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elitedodgeball (talk • contribs) 07:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
UAA
Hi there,
Thanks for your contributions to UAA. I just wanted to let you know that it's rather unproductive to politely warn a user about spam, and then ask for them to be blocked less than 60 seconds later. It's advisable to pick one route or the other. In this case you're probably right, but just keep this in mind for the future. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 22:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- More often than not, I have perceived a significant lag between a user's listing at UAA and any admin action being taken. During that time, it's possible that the user can make further unconstructive edits, blissfully unaware that they're doing anything wrong. In my opinion, it's better to risk a redundant warning message and nip unconstructive editing in the bud, instead of cleaning up additional wreckage caused by an unwarned user.
- I usually defer to the judgement of more experienced editors, but I hope you're open to reconsidering your opinion here. Thanks. --Drm310 (talk) 03:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I can only direct you to the UAA Instructions, which I had no part in writing but happen to agree with. It's just important to remember that even if somebody is editing from a role account, there is still a real person on the other end of the block who is likely to be very confused. I guess I consider it contradictory to say "Hey, you're doing something we don't allow, please cut it out and you'll be fine" and then moving to have the same person blocked in the same glide of the mouse. At AIV, for instance, many admins will decline to block the routine vandal if they haven't edited since their final warning, and that's for blatant vandals! Just my thoughts. I have been known to A too much GF, though. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Bill Alfred
Ah well, Drm310: . I have no published source for this; it's what Bill told me, when I was sitting in the very chair Robert Lowell had been in, in Bill's living room at 31 Athens Street, when Bill was running back & forth to NYC doing the possible rewrite of "Hogan's Goat" as a musical for Ms Dunaway with Jules Stein. I wanted his lovely personality, the reason we all cherished him, on the record. If this must be deleted because I can't prove it, so be it. I'll continue to tell interested people about Bill, and if it never reaches print, so be it again. The truth is the truth, whether it's got a piece of paper to make it so or no. The ora/aural tradition sometimes is not fiction, d'you know? Deepsix it, keep it, no matter, in the long run.
Thank you for your message; rules is rules, I spoze. Later -
John McLaughln, PhDJohn McLaughlin, PhD (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hi John. While I'm sure your story is genuine, it unfortunately doesn't pass Wikipedia's core content policies of verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view. Material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source to be considered acceptable. One's unpublished personal knowledge or experiences don't clear this bar. "Verifiability, not truth" summarizes the philosophy that we don't ask readers to believe with blind faith that what they're reading is true - reliable sources must back it up. As well, Wikipedia is not a memorial site for others to leave their personal recollections of a deceased person. It is an encyclopedia with content written from a plainly factual and emotionally uninvolved neutral point of view. Since you knew the subject personally, I can see how it would be difficult for you write about him from the viewpoint of a disinterested third party. Should your anecdotes be published by a reliable source someday, they might be welcomed back if summarized as balanced, neutrally worded content. Thanks. --Drm310 (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Your edits to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention
Hello, I'm Petrb. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Petrb (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)