Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
To Charlie,
Please read the book "Ninjutsu" by Masaaki Hatsumi and you will understand that Ninjas are not only Special Forces operators, they are the originators of Special Operations, Reconnaissance, direct action and unconventional warfare. Please read the sources first before editing.
This is not the point. The point is that there is absolutely no consensus on the matter as you pretend, and your sources are not backing what you say. CET ♔ 05:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Read this source from Dean Roshtar, retired member of the Croatian Police Special Operations "Alpha" division and 15th dan Ninja master of the Bujinkan Ninja Organization under Grandmaster Masaaki Hatsumi for evidence:
this user Special Forces (see history and talk page) is being stubborn to modify the article without the consensus being met and with his allegations challenged. As I am relatively new to wikipedia I am not sure what are the resources that I can use to prevent the user from editing the page UNTIL actual consensus is being met (either way (yes or no) is fine by me, but I would like him to WAIT until consensus). Thanks.
The IP has been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thank you very much, and I'll be sure to contact you if the user goes at this again in the future. Meanwhile I'll let my request for external comments on the article talk page, as I believe that the user, despite his methods, has fair points which can be debated provided source is given. Again, thanks for acting on this matter. CET ♔ 09:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
September 2010
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Special forces. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
I am not going to say that I used my best behavior (the user has valid points) but I considered such edits (they have been constantly reverted over the last hours) as vandalism, for the simple reason that the user lied about consensus being met. Also I have not violated the three-revert rule. I'll let someone else resolve this issue, because I am not going to play who's right, who's wrong, and my goal is certainly not to do any edit warring. Thank you. CET ♔ 05:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Hi. I agree you haven't actually broken the 3RR rule and I appreciate the good faith behind your edits, but my warning was more of a heads-up than anything as I don't want you to be blocked. And as I am not able to resolve the dispute myself, I really have to present the same warning to both parties in order to be impartial. Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
3RR report
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Well, I hope this moves things forward in the issue. Thanks for your involvement, I wasn't too sure what to do. CET ♔ 09:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
No problem. I've got the page watched, so if the edit war continues after the block is released, I'll file a new report. Another possibility is to request semi-protection at WP:RPP, which would stop IP editors from making changes - we'll see how it goes. And feel free to drop me a line on my Talk page if it kicks off again without me noticing -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
This morning's edit war
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for your reports; I have semi-protected the article, and raised the issue at WP:BLP/N#Chrissy Maher. It's a pity to let an edit war develop that far; when I looked at the history I was actually in some doubt whether I ought not to block you, too. It is rather a grey area whether content removal like that counts as vandalism. I know it's hard to know what to do when it's going on, but have a read of WP:EW, particularly the section "How experienced editors avoid being dragged into edit wars." In particular, when it seems likely that the content remover may be the aggrieved subject of a BLP, it may be better to explain on the talk page that s/he must discuss and reach agreement, with a pointer to WP:BLP/H, even if that means leaving the article at "the wrong version" for a time. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Understood, I will read policy and try to make sense of it.
My actions were based on the fact that this person kept blanking a whole paragraph, and kept reverting my edits without providing explanation, and I agree I have participated in the aggravation. I added tags to the article in order to get this fixed; I am not saying the user is wrong, but I stronly oppose his/her methods of making a point. I will stand by my actions though, as I believe the "war" was in fact vandalism, not in the content, but in the means. A user who drastically changes the tone of an article should provide sources; also, a user who is warned about edits should listen to the warnings, read policies provided in the warning, and refer to the article talk page or at the very least to the comment section of the edit box. I acknowledge your warning, I accept it, and will try and make sense of the policies you are referring me to. Thank you for your involvement in this matter, CET ♔ 11:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
That's true, but an agitated newbie trying to correct his/her BLP will probably not read all our (rather complex and intimidating) policies and procedures as thoroughly as they should. Anyway, thanks for taking my advice in the spirit in which I gave it. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 11:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Fair use rationale for File:Cancom badge.png
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Cancom badge.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 00:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Issue addressed CET † 00:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Fair use rationale for File:CANOSCOMbadge.png
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:CANOSCOMbadge.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 00:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Issue addressed CET † 00:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, ermm, you left a welcome message on my talk page, so I figured I'd ask you, some IP spend all morning vandalising my user page.. is there anything I can do to block anyone but me editing it? Thanks BulbaThor (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Seems that 78.12.254.152 has been warned by Reach Out to the Truth. If it occurs again don't hesitate to escalate the warning on the talk page of the editor, and then if it does not stop you may report it here : WP:AIV. - CETTALK 00:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
I have also placed a warning on 94.36.225.187's talk page. - CETTALK 00:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
The Signpost: 18 October 2010
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
You stated that replacing the offensive term "homosexual" with the preferred term "gay" was censorship, and "we don't censor articles because they might be "offensive.'"
I'd like a clarification.
If I replaced instances of the term "faggot" or "dyke" with the preferred term "gay," is that also censorship?
Same rule for instances of offensive racial, religious or ethnic terms, or is this some sort of specific "Homosexual Censorship Policy"?
You've got the wrong guy, because I never said anything like that. Also, please sign your posts using four tildes(~~~~). Thanks. CETTALK 19:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Please refer to this user for clarification, he is the one you want to talk to, according to the history of the DADT article. Cheers. - CETTALK 19:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion
Hello CharlieEchoTango. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Adam Josephs, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I don't think it's an attack page, in fact I don't think it's speediable. Consider taking it to AfD citing WP:BLP1E. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for reviewing the speedy deletion. I take strong issue with the way the article is written and think that it should not stay as it is, therefore I will try to edit it in order to make it more neutral. Is it possible maybe to merge it into 2010 G-20 Toronto summit protests? Thanks again. - CETTALK 20:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
I would be inclined to AfD it citing WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS, and accept merge-and-redirect to the summit protests article as a compromise. However clear the BLP1E and NOTNEWS seem to be, it's depressingly hard to make them stick at AfD - there are always people arguing that whatever trivial incident it is has some deep long-term significance - that's what the line at the end about "debate on the internet" is trying to establish. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
I have edited the article to make it a bit more neutral. I will propose the article for AfD, citing a possible compromise also, but I am unfamiliar with the whole process, it could take time. I will notify you once cited for deletion. Cheers - CETTALK 20:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
I think I tagged it appropriately, please see Adam Josephs. Thanks. - CETTALK 20:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
(edit conflict)What you have done is a PROD, correctly done but probably a waste of time here because anyone is allowed to take it off, for any reason or none, and the article author most likely will. If so, it can't be re-PRODded, and will have to go to Articles for deletion. How to do that is described at WP:AFDHOWTO, though you should read the whole WP:AFD page. If you do that, I would suggest not proposing merge in your initial AfD nomination - let someone else do that. The reason is that if you do, people will say "Why did you bring it here for deletion when you could have merged it by simple editing?", ignoring that to merge would probably have led to an edit war with people reinstating the article. If the result of the AfD is "merge", it will be easier to make it stick. JohnCD (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'll check it out. Thanks again. CETTALK 20:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Done. Thanks for the help and advice. - CETTALK 20:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
I don not know, why you think, that this article was a hate page. A bad translator has translated an article from the german edition, which has been written by at least three senior editors. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 20:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
The page is clearly written from one POV, consistently written in a negative way, examples consist of "lowest rank", "threatened", and the presenting of Courtney Winkels as a good person which only asked questions, when it could be said that she didn't listen to warnings (I understand this is also a POV, this time from me). Since this is a BLP, in my view it qualifies as an attack page for it's negative-only coverage, but I accept that CSD for this reason has been declined. I don't speak german so I can't read the german article and won't comment on it's neutrality. - CETTALK 20:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
The Article I wrote in another Version did not include anything normative, I have to call it the translators fault and in fact the article ist really bad and it does not even cover the whole issue which could make the article look like a POV-page, even if this has benn caused by accident. As it would not be more work to write about the issue again (probably in the G20-Protests Article) I have asked John CD to perform your speedy deletion request. I will look after the material later, probably in a month or something like that. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 22:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Barnstar
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Tag said references had been removed; that and there being no edit summary usually equates to vandalism. Right after I did it, I had to log of so I didn't get a chance to check and revert. HalfShadow 23:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
The Signpost: 15 November 2010
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
However, noticed that the title above the badge reads: "Canadian Operational Support Command". Is it possible that you could change it to: "Canada Command"? Thanks in advance.
We are about to roll out a series of new communications products which will update the mission, roles and focus areas of the command. These should be available soon through Canada Command's public affairs office. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.123.238.242 (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Orphaned non-free image File:CANOSCOMbadge.png
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:CANOSCOMbadge.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 03:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
The Signpost: 29 November 2010
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
It seems you have either mistaken or have not read the source properly; there is nothing copied in the statement from the source. You can't modify or change quotes as they are original. If you closely read the content and compare it, you will see I have arranged the words myself. Mar4d (talk) 07:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
re
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
That sentence I removed is already present in the leaders section; it is a duplicate. Nergaal (talk) 07:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Reviewer permission
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.
If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Re: Original Research on Iridium Constellation
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Did you realize that half the article, which I wrote, already lacks references, and now you are complaining when I - an iridium systems engineer - add more information, fully 10 years after the system has been deployed ?? 199.106.103.249 (talk) 06:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Hello, this is not a "complaint", this is just telling you about the policies regarding original research. You just admitted yourself this was in fact original research, so thanks for confirming my action. We can't know for a fact that your an engineer and/or work for Iridium (which would happen to constitute conflict of interest, by the way), and this is why the encyclopedia relies on references. Thanks - «CharlieEchoTango» 06:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
If you look you will see that half the article is 'original research' and you are doing a very poor job at editing out the original research, Mr. 199.106.103.249 (talk) 06:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
I let an other note on your talk page. ::You know what, after giving a second look, I might've been a been harsh. Policies on original research still apply though, but feel free to reinsert the content, and if you could link it to one of the existing references or to an external source, this would be great. Thanks again. That was before I read this, and I'm wondering now if I haven't been too nice. Look, just because the article has original research already doesn't mean it's okay to add more. Like I said, I've been a bit harsh. I also tagged the article for reference improvements. Cheers - «CharlieEchoTango» 06:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
The Signpost: 6 December 2010
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Why was this article moved from "Prithviraj Sukumaran" to "Prithviraj Sukumaran Nair" ??
Prithviraj might be from the Nair caste by lineage, but neither he nor his father, the late actor "Sukumaran" , ever attached "Nair" to their first names. Sukumaran was a Communist Party sympathizer, so he had cut off the caste name "Nair" from his name like all Communist ideologists cut off all ties to religion. Prithviraj too on several occasions have indirectly stated that he's an atheist and a Communist party sympathizer through his interviews. So there's no basis for usage of "Nair" attached to his name.
Secondly, there is no article / document / proof available anywhere in the media where Prithviraj is referred to as "Prithviraj Sukumaran Nair" or "Prithviraj Nair". This is because Prithviraj has mostly preferred to be known by his first name i.e Prithviraj or on rare occasions as "Prithviraj Sukumaran". Also the name on Prithviraj's official Twitter account is "Prithviraj Sukumaran" [ www.twitter.com/lionheart_ps ]
So this article has to be moved back to its original title as soon as possible.
All the discussions are still available on the Discussion page of Prithviraj Sukumaran
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. [CharlieEchoTango] 15:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Site historique maritime de la Pointe-au-Père
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Bonjour Charlie Echo Tango,
je ne suis pas trop familier avec la wiki anglophone (en fait je ne trouve pas mon bloc d'aide a l'édition comme en français donc indulgence demandée ...). Tu m'avais dit de te faire part du moment ou le Site historique maritime de Pointe-au-Père sera proposer au label BA. Et bien c'est fait. Je ne peut même pas t'inscrire le lien pour voter car je ne trouve pas les crochets pour inscrire un lien interne. Mais je suis sur que tu connais le chemin... ChristianT (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
The Signpost: 13 December 2010
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I hope I didnt offend. Im just abit disillusioned and surprised at who responded. I dont want wikidrama so I'd rather just move on. Thanks for you help. Buster Seven Talk 15:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
CFAP
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi There,
I'm still a real neophyte when it comes to Wikipedia. I'm trying to legitimately update the CFAP page--much of the info is/was wrong or simply grammatically incorrect. I am a member of the CFAP committee and do have permission form the copyright owner--How can I edit this page without it being erased? I didn't feel that the first edit feel under the 'soapbox' designation.
Bonjour CharlieEcho Tango ! I prefer writing in french !
Bon, j'ai un problème informatique, d'après mon réparateur cela devrait etre reparé en fin de cet après-midi. Je te signale cet incident. Si non, je veux bien continuer à relire fr:Ezra Levant. Ce qui touche au Canada m'interresse, j'y ai séjourné. Bon, voilà, ici c'est cinq centilètres de neige et la pagaille. - Mikeread
The Signpost: 20 December 2010
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Bonjour!
Vu ton message sur l'atelier de lecture. C'est sympa. Merci. J'ai essayé de faire de mon mieux. Mais comme je l'ai dit, je garde l'article dans ma liste de suivi. Je vais tacher de revoir certains points de cet article très interessant. Je te conseille de l'étoffer avec des sources autres que l'article wp:en.(N'hésite pas alors à me contacter pour une relecture) Et si par bonheur tu trouvais des sources venant d'études de journalistes québecois, ce serait pas mal. Apparement Ezra Levant n'est qu'au début d'une carrière prometteuse... Je te souhaite à mon tour de joyeuses fetes de fin d'année. ~Cordialement. Mikeread —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.35.135.139 (talk) 09:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Prodding Dawes
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Sounds reasonable. Please don't take my subsequent edit as a rejection of your prod. It was just some sort of timing clash, that's all. -- Hoary (talk) 16:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Oh, it's fine, thanks for your edits! I was also about to change the "references" title to "publications" and then saw that you did so. Thanks [CharlieEchoTango] 16:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
nigel c dawes entry
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi,
Looks like something about my new entry for nigel c dawes violates copyright issues - can you help me out here and tell me what it might be? i thought i was being very pedantic.
many thanks,
orna — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orna guralnik (talk • contribs) 20:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
The Signpost: 27 December 2010
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
For going out of your way to add inline cites to Travelle Gaines, Sonia has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}
The Signpost: 3 January 2011
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Bonjour CharlieEchoTango,
Encore merci pour ton vote sur l'article de la SHMP. Comme j'ai investi beaucoup de temps sur cet article et que je me suis documenté un peu, je continue le travail sur les sous-articles... NCSM Onondaga, Empress of Ireland et Phare de Pointe-au-Pere. Comme tu t'y connais en ce qui a trait à l'histoire militaire j'aurais besoin de ton avis pour bàtir un plan de rédaction pour l'article sur l'Onondaga. Par rapport à l'état de ce soir je possède encore pas mal d'info que je peux ajouter au niveau des caractéristiques physiques et mécaniques du navire ainsi que sur son histoire. De plus j'ai trouvé sur l'article anglais Oberon class submarine certaines references que je peux retrouver en bibliotheque... Nous ne sommes pas pressé et je peux continuer à ajouter le texte au rythme du temps que j'ai de disponible. Alors si d'ici un mois ou deux tu avais une petite minute pour en discuter ça serait apprécié. P.S l'article sur WP:FR qui me semble le plus près de nous donner un plan type est fr:Classe Mistral. Cordialement ChristianT (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Re: Canadian Forces Artists Program
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hey, I removed the Canadian Forces "see also" link, and therefore the entire section, because it is already wikilinked within the article body. The Manual of Style states "Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a 'See also' section". Hope this helps. Cheers. --NaturalRX 09:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
The Signpost: 10 January 2011
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hi :) Hope you will be good. Can you please help me with this article Decline of Hinduism in Pakistan as the content speaks about decline of hinduism in subcontinent as a whole instead of Pakistan. Pakistan appeared on world map in 1947, while the article details and references relate to 711AD, 1200 AD, 1400 AD, etc. How should I approach this? Sarmadhassan (talk) 07:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
I suggest explaining just that, within the text - and wikilink to appropriate articles such as Dominion of Pakistan. If you need to write more about it, consider using a 'note' in a footnote.[Note 1]
At the end of the above line is, <ref group=Note>Like this.</ref>
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Man why did you change the list I actually had to spend like 15 min. on that and it was better and more verifiable than what you reverted it to please change it back to my list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.78.198.224 (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Hello, I'm sorry for the time you lost, but external links should not be used in the body of an article or a list (see WP:EL). You could create articles about the police services through WP:AfC and then put internal links on the list if you wish to. [CharlieEchoTango] 01:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, CharlieEchoTango. You have new messages at J.delanoy's talk page. Message added 22:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi,
I just saw you rejected my submission for the Pedro García article.
I am quite new at wikipedia (creating articles) although I use it all the time for searching and my family have donated money many times. It is the best website ever!
Well the thing is that I would like to know what was wrong, why my article is not matching the criteria etc.
I avoided using any promotional content and tried to cite as much info as possible.
Pedro García is one of the most important shoe brands in the world with over 60 years of history and brands with the same positioning have their wikipedia entries.
Hello, Félix Fecarrizo (talk·contribs), and thanks for your interest in creating an article for Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the article at this point does not conform with the guidelines on reliable sources, and therefore its notability is difficult to establish. WP:42 sums it up very well. The subject of the article must have received significant coverage in reliable (as in not blogs and not online stores) third-party publications. The fact that other brands have articles on Wikipedia about them does not automatically warrant inclusion of an article about another one, especially if it is poorly sourced, see WP:OTHERSTUFF.
If you have any more questions, feel free to ask by clicking here and adding your question all the way at the bottom, I will be happy to assist you. [CharlieEchoTango] 16:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Uniroyal Giant Tire
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi CharlieEchoTango - Thanks for your help on this site. My team members and I have added more information and references and I was wondering how to upgrade it from Start-class.
Someone did that already, so it is now a 'C Class'. If you wonder about what you need to do to get it to a higher level, you may want to have a look here (if you haven't already).
I notice you say « my team members and I have added more information », but from the history of the article, I can only see one account editing. Per the user account policy, please ensure each of you have an account for themselves; group accounts are not permitted, see WP:NOSHARE.
If you have more questions, feel free to ask! :) [CharlieEchoTango] 17:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Central Bank of Ireland
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi,
Given the very serious economic difficulties that Ireland is suffering (with knock on effect for all of Europe) it is envitable that Irish banking sector and the serious regulatory failings this organisation is guilty of, will generate adverse comment. The facts are not in dispute and are accepted by the new management, all politicians in the country, the media, the European Commission and its ultimate parent the European Central Bank. The article is well referenced and while damning is unfortunately true and accurate. Great things are expected from the new management and in time they should be able to generate positive to balance the article.
I don't think I have to explain how improper the use of the pictures and boldface was. This is clear POV pushing, regardless of the so-called 'acceptation' and the 'non-disputed' facts. Wikipedia is not the place to 'generate adverse comment'. I agree the article is well referenced, that is not in question. What's in question is the undue weight, and your comments show that you know that, but in any case, have a read at WP:NPOV. For your information, the articles are now listed at the relevant noticeboard. [CharlieEchoTango] 21:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
I agree with you on boldface. However all but two of the pictures could be argued for inclusion. If the President of the European Commission, a former Prime Minister and the current management speak adversely of the organisation it is certainly worthy of inclusion. As soon as either positive facts or comments are generated let me assure you their PR agents will include them (an unfortuate fact of life that plagues Wikipedia)
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello guy how r u i wrote an article can u tell me where did i wrong and what is the reason please guide me also. bye — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badalking (talk • contribs) 09:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Hi there. I declined the submission because it is not conform to lists 'guidelines' yet. The lead section is barely understandable for a reader like me that does not know about the subject. You should introduce the subject in more details, starting with the very basics about what exactly is the National Assembly of Pakistan in a short lead section. Here is a list, properly formatted, that could inspire you : List of Canadian federal electoral districts. See also WP:L for the style guidelines. I see this list has not been created yet, and definitely should be included on the encyclopedia, so I encourage you to work on it more using the example I provided above. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask, and I'll be happy to help you. I am also watching the page, so if the list makes significant improvements, I will come by and fix some things if needed. Cheers - [CharlieEchoTango] 20:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Plum Island
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks, I didn't think anyone was watching the page and I've probably already crossed the 3RR rule. IvoShandor (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Well, no problem, AIV is on my watchlist, so I just went checking the history of the article, and yeah. Be careful with 3RR though, it doesn't seem like 'obvious vandalism', more like 'doesn't want to collaborate'. Cheers [CharlieEchoTango] 23:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Centro del Sur
Latest comment: 13 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion
"Better sources could and should be included though." And where do you suppose we get them? I didn't find a thing about the mall on Google News. I see this happen all the time: someone says "Keep but source", the AFD gets closed as keep, and 4 years later it's still an unsourced two sentence stub. Don't say "keep but source" unless you can prove that sources exist; WP:BURDEN. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
It doesn't matter, the subject is notable, and notability can be verified. This is not a contentious article nor a BLP. [CharlieEchoTango] 02:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
So you're pulling the "Speedy keep, it clearly exists, nothing else matters" card. The empty box of Triscuits on my desk exists; should it have an article because it's not a "contentious" matter? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
This is bad faith. Did I mention notability? [CharlieEchoTango] 02:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Yes you did. I see none. "Formerly the largest mall in a town of 20,000 people" is a very weak assertation of notability at best. I know much bigger towns where the "former largest mall" consisted of a single grocery store. Shopping malls are not inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
CET, it does not matter if the subject of an article is a mall, a fish, a person, or a sausage.
All articles need references to reliable sources. Without such refs, we cannot have an article, because we'd be unable to provide verifiable information on them.
Lots of things are "obviously notable", but they don't necessarily meet the Wikipedia 'notability' criteria; we need the refs.
Yes, often this seems ludicrous, and people scream "Of course it is notable!" all the time. But bottom-line is, we need to see evidence, in RS. Chzz ► 18:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Chzz, thanks for dropping by. I definitely agree with you that most of the time, we need third-party references to assert notability. But I don't agree that we always need to, at any cost. References serves two purposes, 1) assert notability, 2) assert verifiability. Let me pull my favorite argument : there are thousands of geographical articles that are not very well referenced, and you'd (I hope) agree with me that we shouldn't delete Les Collines-de-l'Outaouais Regional County Municipality, Quebec. This is also true with military units. Generic military units are notable, but are very hard to come by with relevant third-party sources, which should not, in my humble opinion, condemn them to be deleted. These are not contentious articles. They are not BLPs. They are written like encyclopedic articles. And they can always be expanded in the future, when a relevant third-party source talks about them. So where is the problem? I love WP:42, trust me, but it is not a rule. It is not the rule. And it should not be used blindly to delete what is not a problem article for the encyclopedia. Asserting notability is not synonym to defining notability. [CharlieEchoTango] 21:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Actually, policy-wise, there is no defined 'notability' - only guidelines cover that. It's all about V; that is the real purpose of refs. If there isn't RS for info, we shouldn't have it. If that means zero info, we can't have an article.
Policy states, If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. - full stop. Nothing about any kind of 'inherent notability'.
My personal opinion (as opposed to policy/guideline) is, indeed, that we shouldn't have unreferenced articles for which we cannot find refs; however, I do understand that the community seems to have some bizarre views about 'inherent notability' in regards to schools, geo places, and so on - and therefore I defer to consensus.
But...I ask you - e.g. a school - what about, if I set up "The School of Chzz", teaching sausage-making to a couple of mates. Is that, therefore, inherently notable? It might be quite an innocuous article, with no BLP info, and could be written in an Encyclopaedic manner; but...really?
When you wrote that Generic military units are notable, but are very hard to come by with relevant third-party sources above, I think we have to be careful to distinguish between common usage of the word 'notable', and the Wikipedia definition. That is a frequent problem; people saying "Of course it is notable"Worthy of notice; remarkable; memorable; noted or distinguished - Wiktionary" when really, we're asking if it is "notableSignificant coverage in independent RS".
Simplifying slightly, but mostly in any AfC - any topic at all - I disregard all the specific guides such as WP:NSONG, WP:CORP, WP:PORNBIO, WP:ATHLETE, etc and I just say to myself, "Does this meet GNG?". If the article, currently, lacks refs, then I look for them. If I am unable to find any, and I think it unlikely they'd be much (in another language, offline, or whatever) then I !vote to delete.
In this specific AfD case, it is a bit unclear if there is signif coverage, in those Spanish sources. As I don't speak the lingo, I asked for clarification. But, at this stage, I'm leaning towards "delete". It probably won't actually happen, because there are lots of "keep" !votes...but, still. Chzz ► 17:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Cookie
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Gfoley4 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Thanks for removing that e-mail address on my talk. I didn't know they had a template for that. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 16:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
DYK for Wilmer Tanner
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
On 30 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wilmer Tanner, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Wilmer Tanner(pictured with a tiger trophy), born 1909, described at least fifteen new species or genera? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hey, you rock! Glad we got a little something out of this. Funny how things build. Go turtles! (special initiative I'm pushing). TCO (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
M,J, Perkins Article
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, thank you for responding to my article. You were telling me that my sources are not reliabble. I was wondering how they were not. For example Moses Perkins was on the Fuse TV show Rock Bottom. I added the actual FUSE TV website which has information about the show as well as a link the runnnig TV commercial which clearly shows him as the actor. Also he was on the Tony Rock Project and I provided sources about this show and I was wondering how reliable using his IDMB is? Also he was on the Lost Mr. Clucks series and I provided links to articles about Mr. Cluck as well as a video clip which clearly shows him in it. RevengeOfTheRobots (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevengeOfTheRobots (talk • contribs) 00:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Hi there RevengeOfTheRobots (talk·contribs) (MJ Perkins), and thanks for your interest in creating an article for Wikipedia. Your sources are not considered 'reliable' because they are either primary sources (that is, affiliated with the subject) or not even sources at all. Please, read about reliable sources and verifiability. What we require is reliable (as in news outlets, publications), third party (as in not affiliated with the subject and gain no interest from promoting the subject) references (as in something that verifies a fact). For example, you say :
Most recently he is starring as the lead character, Ace Deuce, in the upcoming feature film Ace Deuce, BAD MUTHA@#&% and is currently working a musical project Revenge of The Robots.
How can we verify this? Did some music magazine cover it (and not a simple mention)? We (readers) need sources for most if not every fact in the article, in order to verify the claims. One other problem is that you will need to remove all the external links in the body of the text, per the external links guidelines. You can put some of them in a section called == External Links == at the end of the article, if you wish to.
On a side note, I am concerned with your username, which indicates you are affiliated with the subject of the article. If you are, please read WP:COI and the username policy.
If you have anymore question, feel free to ask by editing this page and adding your question(s) at the bottom! Cheers and good luck - [CharlieEchoTango] 01:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Article problem
Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Comment - The title of this article should be changed. This person is NOT known primarily for being a musician. This person is a film director and actor, an online gaming business person, they are better known for these things. They are not primarily known for being a musician. The title of this article should be changed to something else other than musician. This person's article should be changed to simply this: Jon Jacobs. Without the musician in paraenthesis. Or another term besides (musician) should be used.
The only other Jon Jacobs is a virtually unknown writer named Jon Jacobs who has a poorly sourced article entitled: Jon Jacobs (writer) on Wikipedia.
This is the most well known Jon Jacobs on Wikipedia and should not be incorrectly regulated as being known as a musician. Since that is not what they are known for. Please have an editor correct this, thanks!98.151.53.27 (talk) 03:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Because there is two persons with this name that have articles on Wikipedia, the article cannot be named simply 'Jon Jacobs', so a disambiguation page has been created. If he is not known as a musician, then what title do you suggest? And why?
By the way, I assume you contacted me because of the message I left on your talk page, but note that I have not been involved with the article before. The editor who has moved the article is Ktr101, because the previous name of the page was Jon Jacobs (internet), which was misleading. See this diff.
I would say the title should be Jon Jacobs (actor) since he has over 30 actor credits on IMDb.com and that seems to be what he is most known for. He is certainly better known for being an actor than being a musician. Here is his IMDb profile:
I hope you may be able to double check /advise as I'm new to putting references in.
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi - many thanks for your consideration of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Histed and thanks for the advice which appeared at the top of it about putting in better references/citations. I think I've managed to add in a set of secondary refernces correctly now from a range of good onlne sources and publications, but if you got a minute to look at it and let us know if we need to do more or better, that would be much appreciated. Being new to doing this, I apologise if the first attempt has not been perfect! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gh347634 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Yes, it is good enough and I removed the tag. Thanks for quickly fixing the 'issue'! [CharlieEchoTango] 16:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
It was in red and when I clicked on it noting came up. Having worked with Laura I felt that something other than a name should be there. That is why I submitted what I did. She is a legend in medical circles in northern Alberta.
Roy Daly
The Signpost: 31 January 2011
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
But you can't link to this article on the users talk page, also the article doesn't appear to be on Wikipedia. If you see the users talk page you can see what I mean:
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for the help with David Levine Photographer's page I wanted to add his credit to page that contain his photos for example culture clubs Karma Chameleon page. Cant work out how to add it to the credits page. I mean I have added it like this | Photography = David Levine Photographer but it doesn't show in the preview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Tracy UK (talk • contribs) 12:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
Inner Circle
Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello CharlieEchoTango,
Can you please check for me, I have done some modifications to the write-up. :)
Thank you! Just realised that you're Canadian, hopefully not disturbing your sleep.
No, not disturbing my sleep, it's 10 PM. Since you're on IRC, I'm answering you there. Thanks for the message. [CharlieEchoTango] 03:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
Articles for creation/Kanguera
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I don't understand this. There are multiple academic publications, peer reviewed. how does this fail WP:V? WP:V says "academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources" Jeff Song (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Master of Puppets has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Charlie,
Hello and greetings from London.
I have created this article and provided all the references and sources which are authentic and trustable like Amnesty International, UKPNP's own websites, Human rights associations and Newspaper links as asked by the admin(s) of wikipedia.
But since a few days I always asked to make changes and changes over and over again. I have told and provided all sources for this political personality of Kashmir. I AM HOLDING POSITION OF MEDIA SECRETARY OF UNITED KASHMIR PEOPLE;S NATIONAL PARTY (UKPNP) AND ALL THE INFO PROVIDED WITHIN THIS ARTICLE ARE TRUE AND GENUINE ABOUT SARDAR SHAUKAT ALI KASHMIRI, WHO IS THE CHAIRMAN OF THIS PARTY of Kashmir.
So please let me know how can this article can be finally approved and published, as I am not a technical or technology guy and now getting confused about publishing this article.
sincerely,
Zahid Mehmood
Media Secretary
United Kashmir People's National Party
[ email address removed Chzz ► 19:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)] Reply
When you leave messages, please remember to "sign" your name, by putting ~~~~ (four tilde signs) at the end. This will add your name, and the date and time. You can also do this by clicking the 'sign' button, pictured to the right.
Please do not type in all capital-letters, because it sounds like you are shouting
Please do not put email addresses on wikipedia talk pages
I suggest you change your user-name, because 'group names' are not permitted, so "ukpnp" does not seem appropriate - see WP:UPOLICY. To change it, see WP:CHU
Regarding the article, all facts need a reliable source. So, for example,
He was born on 1958 in a Kashmiri village Called Papanar[citation needed]
Kashmiri has his early education from Government High School, Trarkhal in 1973[citation needed]
then he migrate to Karachi for high studies[citation needed]
there was no college for higher studies in Pakistani Occupied Kashmir at the time.[citation needed]
He completed his degree in F.sc from Government Science College, Nazimabad in 1977[citation needed]
He had his Bachelor or Law degree in 1982 and then Master of Islamic studies in 1985,[citation needed]
...ie, we need to know where we can check all these facts - and, all the other facts in the article.
Any information that cannot be verified should be removed.
The reason that I put the article on hold can be found under the big purple message. I stated :
Lacks sources for many statements. See WP:NOR, or cite the sources for the research. Thanks.
Basically, the article is about a notable subject and is conform to guidelines as far as I can see, but I do have concerns over large bits of text that don't cite their source properly. This can be quickly fixed though : you can add code to insert what we call inline citations.
This is done by adding <ref>source</ref> after the facts. Example : you say « He was abducted and tortured by ISI in 1994 and 1998 », but we (the readers) have no way to verify this fact. By adding the code previously mentioned, we will have a way to do so. It will appear as « He was abducted and tortured by ISI in 1994 and 1998.[1] » The [1] acts as a link to the footnote at the bottom of the article (this is automatically done by the software). You can add the same source more than once by giving the reference code a name : the first one would be <ref name=source name>source</ref> and all the ones after that would be <ref name=source name />.
Doing that will ensure that the article is not composed of original research and that all the facts are verifiable. If my explanation on how to do inline citations is unclear, this page may be of help. Also, make sure to have a look at WP:RS and WP:V.
Thanks for your guide and I really appreciate this.
I have added more sources to my article for fact / reliability verification and I also have updated the article as per your instructions and looking forward for your review and comments or publication to wikipedia.org
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Its again with great disappointment for me towards the Wikipedia.
I have created a new biography article of Sardar Shaukat Ali Kashmir and has been reviewed more than dozen times by two or three administrators of wikipedia and every time they came up with new things to do and I have done what ever possible as they instructed. Now, I have been asked some silly questions to add and have been declined after week's discussion:
I wrote He was born on 1958 and been asked "Citation needed", What I have to do???? PROVIDE WITH HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE???????? and in another sentence I wrote Mr Kashmiri has his early education from Government High School, Trarkhal in 1973 and again asked "citation needed".
I wrote From 1980 to 1997, Mr Kashmiri had organised several[quantify] seminars, rallies and meetings in various[which?] cities of Kashmir. I HAVE NO QUANTITY OF THESE SEMINARS ETC FROM 1980, THESE ARE COUNTLESS AND HE MR. KASHMIRI TRAVELLED ALL AROUND THE COUNTRY AND ITS NOT POSSIBLE TO JUST MENTION SOME OR ALL CITIES!!!!!!!
IS THIS A JOKE WITH ME or their are influenced Administrators who are anti-Kashmiri, I am confused. WHEN SOME ONE WITH FAKE ID PUBLISHED ABUSIVE AND INAPPROPRIATE MATERIAL, IT WAS PUBLISHED INSTANTLY AND WHEN ON MY REQUEST THIS WAS DELETED AND ASKED TO CREATE A NEW ONE, I HAVE TO GO THROUGH INTERROGATION LIKE A CRIMINAL, WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY MAKE ME FEEL BAD. I am holding position of Media Secretary in this part (United Kashmir People's National Party-UKPNP) and also provided links to our website.I HAVE PROVIDED WITH MAXIMUM REFERENCES/SOURCES AS I CAN, FROM AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, HUMAN RIGHT WATCH, MR. KASHMIRI'S PARTY WEBSITE AND MANY MORE. ARE SOURCE AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL AND THEIR REPORTS NOT TRUST-ABLE OR RELIABLE? OR WIKIPEDIA DON'T WANT TO ADD THIS ARTICLE TO THEIR SYSTEM. PLEASE LET ME KNOW.
Looking forward for your prompt reply in this regard.
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
CharlieEchoTango.
I need your help on my submission for "Lawrence Borg Movie Theatre Enteprenuer".
I do not understand at all the reason why my submission for this was declined.
I submitted this, which was a submission from a Book which was posted in the
listings footnotes. The entire submission was from one entire posting in a book
from 1958
The book this was taken from is :
The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography, VOLUME XLII, BEING THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES, NEW YORK, JAMES T. WHITE & COMPANY 1958
I did not create this myself.. and I am crediting the valid source document.
Can you please tell me why then it is being declined if I have a valid reference source
?
Your help is greatly appreciated, and you may contact me via WIkipeida.. but please also email me
at [details removed] aswell. I want to get this posted, as this man was a theatre man big in the 30's.
and I would like to get this sumbission for a cinema treasures group.
Thanks for your submission. Unfortunately, here is two reasons why it is not acceptable at this point :
The article relies on a single source, which is not enough to establish notability. This can be fixed by adding multiple reliable third-party sources, which will show that the subject has significant coverage and is thus acceptable for inclusion in an encyclopedia.
The source is not formatted in inline citations, and thus it makes it hard to verify the facts. This can be fixed by adding multiple inline citations to third-party sources.
I have concerns about your statement that this text is not from you but taken from somewhere else. It is (or may be) a copyright infringment to publish text that was published elsewhere and not by you. This is an issue that will need to be addressed, and the article needs to be written in your own words.
Please do ask if you have anymore questions, I will be happy to help.
I have removed your email address to protect your privacy
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Dear User CharlieEchoTango
You have left the following message for one of my recently created article "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Professor D. P. AGRAWAL" -
"Please do not recreate this article, as it was composed mainly of copyrighted information, which is not permitted on Wikipedia."
Please note that the article was not created using copyrighted material. Please justify your remark and prove to me that the material was copyright or else restore the contents of the article. One would expect a greater level of professionalism from you than you have displayed here.
Alternatively we can submit the article for "peer-review".
May be you are not familiar with the person of the article since may be you are not Indian (your user page suggests you are Canadian). In that case if the matter is outside your area of expertise then may be you can refrain from commenting, restore the contents of my page and we can submit it for comments via peer-review.
For your consideration please.
abhishek singh 09:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
The article contains closely paraphrased content from this document, meaning some of the text in the article is not written by you. Everything that is published, on the internet or elsewhere, is assumed to be copyrighted under a restrictive license except in specific cases, and it's up to you, not me, to « prove » that it is released under a free license for reuse (including commercial). If you hold the copyright to the text, you can release it for use on Wikipedia, see WP:Permission; but it looks like the text comes from a government source. I have declined the page again as a copyright violation. [[CharlieEchoTango]] 20:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
I have also read your comment at WT:Wiki Guides. Note that I fully stand by my supposedly 'incorrect' assessment. Close paraphrasing is not acceptable on Wikipedia, and articles should be written in your own words. As for the copyright status, there is no way to verify this as the document where the text is taken from does not mention any license, thus it is correct to assume it is copyrighted under a restrictive license. It is up to you to show otherwise. [[CharlieEchoTango]] 20:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
Copyright issue - "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Professor D. P. AGRAWAL"
Dear User CharlieEchoTango,
Let me start off by saying that I genuinely appreciate the time you take to review the articles and to provide feedback. Its people like you who maintain a certain quality of the Wikipedia articles. So firstly I apologize for my own earlier remarks. On closer inspection, I could have reacted a lot better and a lot more politely for which I am sorry. It was never my intent. Hopefully you were not offended. All I want to do is to raise the standard of information available about "India" in Wikipedia, which I am sure would give it a much wider audience that it already enjoys.
Secondly, as for the copyright issue, let me assure you it is not copyrighted. What I failed to understand at first instance was that you probably do not know what "RTI" & "UPSC" stand for in the URL of the link in question. "RTI" stands for Right to Information. Under this act in India all material provided by a government agency is public by default and belongs to all the citizens of India. (You may separately read about the details of the act on Wikipedia but let me warn you that even that article is also not up to your high standards and needs a lot of work for it to be considered comprehensive). Since the information I have referenced for my article falls under the public domain provided by UPSC, also a government body, it is not copyrighted material but belongs to all citizens of India to be used freely. Hence I can take the liberty to paraphrase the material and distribute it freely. In summary, the information is provided by a Government Agency of India to all its citizens under an act that defines the ownership of that information with "all the citizens of India" and not just an individual. I hope I have conveyed my point clearly to you.
Thirdly, with regards to close paraphrasing, I had recreated the article once again and had resubmitted it again but you have yet again "blanked" it out. This is a serious waste of time for me if you are going to keep blanking it out for let me assure you the information is indeed about a very important diplomat of India. Google it if you want a sense of what I am talking about.
Lastly, like I mentioned on the WT:Wiki Guides, I am simply trying to improve the quality and quantity of content of Wikipedia that should be here about a country that should be here in the best possible way I know. It does take time and effort on my part too, for creation of content and it does not help when some fellow "collaborator" destroys your work based on assumptions that may not be totally accurate. And if you see that I am making a mistake, don't condemn my work but see if you can improve it. After-all it is meant to be a collaborative effort, isn't it?
regards
abhishek
abhishek singh 22:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
DYK for Stephen Herbits
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I cannot understand why you won't accept my contribution when I see everyday Wikipedia articles with missing references or "quotation needed" captions. I added three web pages as sources, but I also have a direct source: private communication with Ms. Khmelik herself.
Thank you for your time.
Unfortunately, the article did not provide evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources, and did not provide inline citations to the material. For verifiability purposes and to establish notability, you need to cite reliable sources with your work. Unfortunately, a personal interview is considered original research and is not acceptable on Wikipedia.
Please, do ask if you have any more questions, and do not hesitate to work on the article if you can find sources that establish the notability of its subject.
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thank you for your help with Women's Institute Copy Paste the other day. I had not realised that drawing attention to such potential issues would result in the blanking of the page Women's Institutes. I have added a reply to the Women's Institute web site administrator on the talk page which I would be grateful if you would review as a copyright expert --Senra (Talk) 15:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
Sorry for the delay, I have answered on the talk page, although it wasn't really necessary since you did a great job at outlining the procedure . Cheers - [[CharlieEchoTango]] 00:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
Re. PSSG
CharlieEchoTango
Thanks - can you review it?
Nick NPRFTE Nick Robinson 14:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NPRFTE (talk • contribs)
Blanked page but it was properly referenced from the original source
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Hi CharlieEchoTango,
Thanks for reviewing my page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Digital_Design_Studio
It was 'blanked' as you say most of the content is copyright - but it was all written from scratch except for one bit which is the bit that is probably causing the problem - the description of the 1938 Empire Exhibition research project. I've used a phrase from the (properly referenced) project website which the main institution's newsletter (the place where you say I'm copying from) has also used. Is the simplest solution just to rephrase? This is just one bit of the whole page. I will happily rephrase that section to not be a direct quote from anywhere if that's easiest but I don't know what the procedure is for 'unblanking' the page.
Thanks in advance for your help. Daisy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.29.149 (talk) 09:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
I will remove the infringing paragraph and unblank the article so you can work on it, but note that every text you take from somewhere else is assumed to be copyrighted under a non-free license. Properly citing its source does not mean you can take the text 'as-is' or paraphrase it, unless it's identified as a quote and is short enough. The best solution for you will be to write that paragraph in your own words, and cite the reference.
If you need any more help, please do ask, I will be happy to work with you!
Hi, I have made the changes as suggested, I can't see any non-neutral language left and I've written everything more simply without direct quotes. If you could have another look I'd be most grateful. If there's anything else needs improved just let me know. Many thanks for your help with this. Daisy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.29.115 (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Special forces. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Hey there CharlieEchoTango, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:CharlieEchoTango/cflfc. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.
Done, by Shirik - [CharlieEchoTango] 05:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
[[CharlieEchoTango]] 04:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
[[CharlieEchoTango]] 21:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
. Cheers - [[CharlieEchoTango]] 00:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
