Adrian M. H. (talk | contribs) →Overused image/self-promotion?: replied |
→Overused image/self-promotion?: reply. |
||
Line 155: | Line 155: | ||
:Take it to [[WP:AFD|AFD]] if you want to. '''''[[User:Adrian M. H.|<font color="navy">Adrian</font>]] [[User talk:Adrian M. H.|<font color="navy">M. H.</font>]]''''' 20:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC) |
:Take it to [[WP:AFD|AFD]] if you want to. '''''[[User:Adrian M. H.|<font color="navy">Adrian</font>]] [[User talk:Adrian M. H.|<font color="navy">M. H.</font>]]''''' 20:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC) |
||
:*(double ec) Your suspicion per [[WP:COI]] seems legit to me; my suggestion would be to consult other editors at [[WT:IFD]] for additional insight on this matter. --[[User:Aarktica|Aarktica]] 20:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:04, 30 June 2007
To make a general request for assistance, please place your name and a brief (a few sentences) description of the issue you need help with at the bottom. Resolved, stale and other old discussions are archived.
Assistants: Please tag each settled request as {{resolved}}; all other requests should be marked as {{stale}} after ten days of inactivity. A thread can be archived after being tagged for two days.
West Highland Free Press
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
On one of my on-line browses I stumbled across wikipedia and, to my surprise, found an entry on the West Highland Free Press, a newspaper based on the Isle of Skye. This entry, posted during December 2004, was inaccurate, misleading, and grammatically poor. It also, in my view, infringed on the intellectual property of the West Highland Free Press.
I therefore edited and updated the listing to one which was, not only accurate and grammatically sound, but also a verbatim repeat of the Company’s “Official” corporate identity statement: an identity the West Highland Free Press is proud of and jealously guards.
However, this listing has been edited several times by a user in wikipedidom to something other than we, ourselves (the entity to which the article refers), posted. Now this edit isn’t dreadful and mercifully it’s grammatically sound, but it is not how the West Highland Free Press wants to be listed.
If, as a legally recognised entity, we cannot control our identity and intellectual property, we would prefer not to be listed at all. Moreover, I would think this situation provides wikipedia with a moral and legal dilemma over its content and editing policy. --Whfp 10:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- I believe I am the wikipedidom user referred to above. Please have a look at my talk page for a discussion with the above editor. All the best. Mmoneypenny 14:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- It seems that you need to understand how Wikipedia works: No one owns an article; this is not the place for any "official corporate identity statements"; and no one has any say whatsoever about how their company is presented. This is an encyclopædia, not an advertising portal, promotional tool, soapbox or freespace, and no one gets to say whether their company is mentioned or not. WP:CORP does that. The history of the article shows that NPOV was violated as well. Adrian M. H. 15:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply. Encyclopedia indeed! I thought your well researched and written article on "masturbation", the indispensible "masturbate-a-thon" entry and the intelligent, but quite possibly discriminatory, "queer studies" guide, are well worth being listed beside.
- Keep up the good work and keep exercising that tight editorial control.--Whfp 16:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- So now you don't like the fact that Wikipedia is not censored??!! I will assume that by "your" you actually mean Wikipedia and not me, since I have not contributed to any of the named articles. You have confused editorial control with policies, guidelines and consensus, by which Wikipedia is run, and by which all of us (including you) must work. Adrian M. H. 16:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Edit War, more like edit warfare..any changes I make seem bothersome despite accuracy
How should I deal with the issue? I have a problem with two demographic sections about living people that contradict the numbers and scientific literature. Yet they are presented as fact. Certain studies are even deemed "debatable"...also, are users allowed to remove { {npov } } from certain pages!?!? if I know for a fact that a page is inaccurate and that it is being protected unfairly, can I not voice that concern without having it removed? Mariam83 15:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Can you be more specific? Links to articles in question, and diff links would help.67.40.31.115 18:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
connexion technologies
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
I have been trying to post a brief description of connexion technologies today, but my post is being deleted by overzealous editors. Our main competitors have extensive wiki advertisement-like pages complete with graphics and links. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon
I tried to post two paragraphs with company facts and a link.
Why am I being deleted when our competitors are allowed to have pages?
Mfk9019 18:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- That is a WP:WAX argument, and the use of "our" shows clear COI. Those editors are, I have little doubt, not over zealous, but are applying important policies and guidelines. For example, the article to which you just linked, Verizon, was edited by someone calling himself Verizoninternetemployee14004 and this edit was reverted. The COI could not be more obvious in this example and the added material looks like biased unreferenced advertorial. And look at the edit summary that said employee used: talk about trying to take ownership. If you see any advertorial on Wikipedia, please tag it accordingly or clean it up to meet the required standards. There are not enough good editors to keep on top of this sort of thing. Adrian M. H. 19:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Also, here is a post left on your user talk page, which I think is pretty helpful on informing you with the reasons your article is being deleted.
- One, the article you posted is a copyright violation, which is strictly forbidden. Two, it reads like an advertisement. Three, it does not assert the notability of its subject. All of these reasons make it ineligible to appear in an encyclopedia. -- Merope 18:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Pay careful attention to points one and three. — Dorvaq (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
This short article was in no way a copyright violation. It contained only few sentences that stated facts about the company. I modeled the paragraphs after content from competitors of this company who listed far more extensive company information. Notability is very subjective is this case. Is it not?
The text is reprinted below. I added the last sentence to overcome the lack of "Notability".:
Connexion Technologies, is an American fiber optic amenity company. It was established in 2002 and formerly known as Capitol Infrastructure. The corporate headquarters are located in Cary, North Carolina.
Connexion Technologies serves single family, multi-family, highrise, resort, and hospitality communities primarly in the southeastern states. Services include telephone, television, internet and home security. It is also certified by the ftth council.
Connexion technologies is one of the top three providers of FTTH.
Mfk9019 20:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Much of what you have written is borrowed from here: Connexion Technologies website.
- Yes, notability is subjective, but wikipedia still has notability guidelines you can refer to, to help you determine if your company is notable enough to merit an entry into wikipedia. Adding an unsourced statement such as, "Connexion technologies is one of the top three providers of FTTH" will not suffice. Especially because I couldn't find any reliable mention of this over the internet and the statement comes from a company insider making it potentially biased. Again, I would invite you to read wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. — Dorvaq (talk) 20:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Someone has nominated my article for deletion
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Hi, 18 months ago I created a short biography of myself (stub) on Wikipedia (Jill Neimark). Wikipedians have been very helpful--someone found the ISBN #'s for my books and edited my bio for me, someone else voluntarily resized my picture, and others have helped from time to time. At one point I discovered it was an orphan and read about how to link it to and from other articles that cite me. I see that my bio has been classed as supported by the arts & entertainment group at wikipedia.
Now someone who has never posted on wikipedia before and only joined today for this one post has nominated my article for deletion suggesting that it is self promotion. Can someone please help me? I'm not sure what to do and how to properly deal with this. I have been reading on Wikipedia but I can't figure out where or how to respond. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenbooks13 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- We do try to discourage writing an article about oneself or one's own company, but it's not explicitly prohibited. The best thing you can do to prevent an article's deletion is show that significant amounts of non-trivial, reliable source material exists that was published by someone independent of the article's subject. If such material does exist, I can certainly help you add it to the article. If such source material does not exist, the article probably should be deleted. (By the way, I edited your comment to wikilink to the article in question. I hope you don't mind, but if you do, please let me know and I'll certainly put it back the way it was.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi--I will write you on "Talk" and I have looked at reliable sources. I have been quoted and referenced a lot recently on blogs and other websites in particular for my autism article, and for other articles in the past. Are those considered reliable sources? IE for a bibliography? I really am not sure how to do this and I don't want to create an inflated bio. I would like to keep my bio up there, and in the past it seems to have met with wikipedias approval and help. So I would like to create reliable sources if that helps. Plus I'm not intimately familiar with how to create a bibliography. I think I would rather do that and add footnotes to the line about the autism article, if that is okay, but I may need help with the formatting--Jill (June 23, 07:19)
- Per WP:RS, blogs are not reliable sources. Content needs to be attributed and any that is not can be considered OR even if the contributing editor knows, or claims, it to be true. Adrian M. H. 12:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you--Seraphimblade has also answered me on my own talk page but I'm not sure how to post there and am trying to figure out :). Would a discussion of my autism article by bestselling author David Kirby who is also a columnist on Huffington Post (where he discussed it) be considered reliable? Would the Autism Speaks website be reliable--they are a $100 million foundation that supports autism research? There was an article in the Columbia Tribune by a PhD that is online, I see. Other citations include blogs by PhDs and doctors but if those are not reliable sources, no problem. I don't want to make changes on my own that are incorrect. Can someone tell me how to respond to Seraphimblade on my talk page? I will also try her again on her talk page. The use of Wikipedia is still a little hard for me sometimes. Thanks. She said to put four tildes and my name and date stamp will show up so I'll try that. jenbooks13 14:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- WP:RS answers those questions. Obviously, oversighted and fact-checked editorial content from a reputable newspaper can be considered reliable. And it obviously depends on what it contains and what you expect to ref with it, just like any source. Blogs are out, as are fora. If it is published by some unknown person and/or has no oversight and fact-checking, then it cannot normally be considered reliable. Also be wary of the potential for bias, such as some corporate websites (promotional agenda). Adrian M. H. 13:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
user:VanTucky
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
This user VanTucky has made incredibly snide remarks in his Discussion with me, all the while couching everything in Wiki-ese. A typical case of "I'm right, you're wrong and I'll interpret Policy all day long until you give up." I've contributed to many many pages, have never gotten into an altercation of this kind, and don't need to take this kind of behavior. And yet He's the one complaining against ME, and is threatening to have me blocked. What recourse do I have?Matthewdkaufman 06:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Recourse to what exactly? Users can't "have" other users blocked. If he complains, you will only be blocked if an impartial administrator finds you are committing a blockable offense. Note that blocks are used to prevent future disruption, rather than punishing past infractions. — Demong talk 08:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- It's between multiple editors on the Toupee article. If you read the discussion about a contentious List of known toupee wearers (that I removed several times bc of BLP libel concerns, and was totally ignored and simply reverted by Matthew and anon IPs) you'll see that not once did I threaten Matthew with a block nor did I place template warnings on his talk page. I did tell an anon IP that they could be blocked for personal attacks as they continually called me "arrogant" for arguing my case. I admit I got pretty heated up, but not more they either of them, and I never threatened Matthew or anyone with a block for simply disagreeing with me on content. VanTucky 16:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Editing Homeopathy
I edited and added some data in Homeopathy under the contributor name Frenchmango. I do not see the changes and I do not know if that was edited, remeoved or if I did not upload properly.
Regards,
Dr.Clement — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frenchmango (talk • contribs) 02:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Several points.
- * In talk pages and other discussion spaces, the convention is that users "sign" their postings by putting four tildes "~~~~ at the end of their postings. These get automagically expanded to username and date.
- * Each article page has a "History" link at the top, clicking it gives you access to the history of the article - who edited it, and what (if anything) they wrote as an edit summary.
- * Clicking the Homeopath history link shows that your changes were saved, and later another editor reverted the changes. The edit summary says: "v - non-notable, see Talk"
- * Each article also has a "talk" page (which is often labeled as a "discussion" tab), there's further information there.
- * A direct link to the relevant "talk" is: Talk:Homeopathy#Cytokine_Expression where you will see that 3 other editors are discussing the appropriateness (or not) of the material you added. Feel free to join that discussion.
- Hope this helps Studerby 03:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
hello
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
I submitted an article, and it was denied on grounds that didnt seem to actually fit into what was being said, I contacted the Editor that denied it and in 2 days go no reply, from the first they said it was the sources could not be proven, then added on me redoing the article that it was now unnotible, could you please look into it, I find it is Bias and Unfair of this person to be one sided to an article of interest, Vince Ciampi, Blue Tiger, here is the page and article is Blue Tiger ( band )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2007-06-26 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathsee (talk • contribs) 06:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- thanks for the info. It would seem that you are just not well known enough. Wikipedia is a worldwide site with 1.8million articles in English alone. A band going far back as you do must be popular, but it has to be guaged on the scale of do people in Buenes Aries follow you? You did provided sources but when making decisions it often falls to the person doing it to consult google. If you get 10,000 hits your in etc.
your sources were Sources Official Site and Reference
- [online Interviews from Mag]
- [Blue Tiger CD out worldwide in June 07 *[[http://www.retrospectrecords.com]
I would also agree that the band is not yet famous enough. In a 6 months I might well be dreaming I never wrote this. Mike33 07:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- See the criteria at WP:BAND. It lays out clear criteria that have to be at least adequately met to warrant inclusion. Adrian M. H. 16:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I need assistance with the Sandworms of Dune wiki entry. The book has yet to be released and only Advanced Reading Copies (ARCs) are available. Spoilers on the wiki site are in violation of copyright law, similar to if the last Harry Potter book's spoilers were posted. Please assist. Thanks. Unsigned
- I know of no particular policy on wikipedia that would exclude its inclusion. But having said that it is very poorly written and it's impossible to know that it true. I shall remove the section for now, but can't guarantee that it will reappear. Mike33 11:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Chitra Ramanathan
Due to confusion caused by some previous user entries, the Biography page and links for Chitra Ramanathan has been affected. I, the artist request that the page to be please be restored for contributions by future qualified users.
Thanks
208.70.43.99 19:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Overused image/self-promotion?
Hi, I've noticed that this image has been popping up on several pages. I admit I'm not familiar with the gentleman in the photo, but his article leads me to believe that he is relatively unknown (non-notable?), other than for playing an unusually-designed guitar. Granted, he does appear to be a talented musician, but could this be an issue of self-promotion? This editor's nickname name implies that he is writing about himself. And even if the article is valid, is this image being used appropriately? I feel it is not, but I don't want to just start deleting things. Maybe someone could look into this for me. Thanks. --buck 19:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)