User talk:009o9/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ruse (book) (August 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Tokyogirl79 was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ruse (book) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello! 009o9, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Lo Mein (book) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lo Mein (book) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lo Mein (book) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 20:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Draft:Ruse (book)

Draft:Ruse (book), a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Ruse (book) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Ruse (book) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

my approach

I've worked with a number of paid editors. Most of them were very unsatisfactory at first, but some learned to improve. The key area in which they improved was learning what articles to write, and what not to write; the second, was understanding about writing them proportionately. For the ones willing to learn, i have always been willing to help. I hope that this may also become the case between the two of us. I'd be very glad to withdraw the MfD on Ruse if it became unnecessary. The key signal to me of it being unnecessary would be the withdrawal of the article on Lo Mein, followed by a rewrite of Ruse to eliminate the duplication with the bio. I don't like to force an issue. DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

DGG I'm not trying to be difficult here, this is not a campaign and a couple of articles are not going to sell any $2.00 used books. The concept was a couple of blue links in Eringer's bio (a discriminate collection) with a sample of his fiction and his non-fiction. With that in mind, my writing was geared toward WP:BKCRIT #5 for Lo Mein and the college reviews seemed to support WP:BKCRIT #1.

Revisiting Eringer's bio concerning Ruse, there are exactly three sentences in the lede only that references the Ruse portion of Eringer's life.

Quote from Bio: Eringer freelanced for the FBI's Foreign Counter-Intelligence Division[3] to assist with the apprehension of Edward Lee Howard, an ex-CIA officer who defected to the Soviet Union in 1985. In this ruse, Eringer commissioned Howard to write the, Spy’s Guide to Central Europe.[4] Eringer’s assignments for the FBI, which also included keeping tabs on Ira Einhorn,[1] are detailed in, Ruse: Undercover with FBI Counterintelligence (2008).[5]

This ten years of Eringer's life in not expanded upon in the body. 1. because of the consensus constraints from the editor I was working with, and 2. the sheer size of the controversies section. The reason I got so verbose in the style section is because there are historical facts in the book that I thought should be exposed to researchers.

My resistance to the deletion to Lo Mein is that this has become a policy/guideline issue, if college newspapers are not RS as you say, even for something as non-contentious as book reviews, then where will the college newspaper ban also apply? To just the Book Wikiproject? To articles about athletes? Or, the entire Wikipedia? In any case, college newspapers being problematic should be listed in WP:QUESTIONABLE or at least WP:NBOOK so that other people don't have the same problem.

So where should we open a discussion, on the reliability of college newspapers? Do you want me to move my sandbox copy of "Lo Mein" to drafts so we have a copy for the discussion?[1] Pending the result of that discussion, I might want to resubmit.

Happy to work with you on the Ruse talk page because I'm still not sure what you want. 009o9 (talk) 07:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I just got done reading your response on the MfD, I guess your threshold for the number of WorldCat listings should also be discussed, with a set number, that would make it incredibly easy to determine if a book has the juice for an article. 009o9 (talk) 07:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

There's a basic principle in applying WP guidelines: they are guidelines, not cast-iron rules, and they are applied according to the consensus of the community, and in a reasonable way. The consensus is not necessarily precise, and is always subject to to change, though usually the change is slow and incremental. It's relatively rare that we make a definitive change in a guideline, because it tends to have unforeseen consequences & is often very difficult to get agreement; rather, we change the interpretation. We go a great deal by common sense, tho it isn't a formal guideline, and trying to establish something on a technical bases when it doesn't seem reasonable does not usually work.

for deletion, our practice is recorded the records of past AfDs--which, though they show considerable variation, do tend to indicate what is accepted and not. There is no summary of them other than WP:COMMON; you need to observe them. I've observed them for many years now, and I remember. The variability comes from the people who participate in them,since we do this by self-selection of whoever wants to appear. For other matters which may affect deletion--such as the standards used at AfC, or the meaning of WP:Reliable Sources, there are noticeboards and centralized talk pages, and some of them are indexed. I pay a great deal of attention to the discussions at WP:RSN and at WT:CSD, though other boards are relevant for other issues.

At RSN, I have consistently said, and I think to general agreement, that there are no absolute rules: it is a matter of judgment. There is no source that is absolutely reliable for every purpose, and almost no source that cant be used for something. I've increasingly deprecated, with general consensus, the use of college and local newspapers, especially for books: they tend to be remarkably indiscriminate. The trend in fact has been becoming much more demanding for what book reviews actually show notability, and some we have before accepted we no longer do, possibly even more so than I would myself advocate. At AfD, many things which are not formal guidelines are nonetheless applied: library holdings is relevant, and has usually but not always been an accepted argument--the reason for not making a fixed rule about it is that it depends in an inexact way on the type of book and the country of publication. The only really extensive source is WorldCat, and it is only comprehensive for US and Canadian libraries--elsewhere it covers mainly major university libraries , and there is no equally comprehensive index elsewhere. When applied to non-English material ,it will always be very incomplete. Different books have different expectations. I'd be prepared to argue that 20 or so holdings of a book in an arcane field of archeology is relevant notability, but it's otherwise with current English language fiction in a very popular genre such as spy stories, where not even 200 or 300 holdings really matters,because if there's anything even halfway decent, public libraries tend to get them. There is an applicable control: comparsion with the holdins of books that ate of acknowldged importance.

I've learned something about tactics here: Never argue to strongly for one's own article--it's counterproductive, even when there's no coi involved. Take defeat gracefully, and don't fight things too hard against opposition. In trying to change a practice, carefully select your examples. If you want to establish a principle, pick a very strong test case, and one where common sense supports your argument. This is about the weakest case imaginable--the onloy thing weaker would be if it were self-published.

But here's the fundamental problem for me: what are you trying to accomplish? Are you honestly in goo faith trying to establish a eule about book reviews? If so, you are going about it in an unhelpful manner, because the best way to to take strong clearly notable example first, and theyn gradually try to expand it. By picking the weakest of almost all possible examples you hare setting common sense against you, and this is not to good way to accomplish your end of establishing a guideline. Those who really want to change a rule pick stronger examples,and challenge notable cases first.

I do not think you are really out to establish the rule for its own sake. You want to change the rule to get this particular article accepted. You want to keep the article because you are being paid for it. Most people here only tolerate paid editors very reluctantly, and you are not likely to get the benefit of the doubt. This has so far not come up principally with books and authors--its come up mostly with businessmen and companies, and the current trend is to find some reason to delete anything by a paid editor unless it is unquestionably notable and unquestionably neutral. I don't say whether this is good or bad, or whether it is fair or unfair, but it is the current trend, and I would be remiss if i did not alert you to it. I've looked at your other editing--much of it is in fields I neither know nor care about very much. Some of it seems ok; some of it seems excessive, such as the track listing on a recent festival article, and I am likely to challenge it. You have been relying on approvals at afc mostly by someone whose approvals are often very questionable, sometimes so questionable that he has been warned about them.

I do not plan on making many further comments at the XfDs. But I think you are being unreasonable, and letting your coi override your judgment, to the extent that i may carry that part further. I don't like to do that while the XfDs are active. But I think it's only fair to warn you that there are admins who would certainly block you indefinitely for promotional editing if the pattern came to their notice. I myself might not, for I block and ban much more rarely than most of the active admins--I mostly warn. (and in any case I cannot act here myself even if I wanted to, since I've become involved.) DGG ( talk )

Here's my problem, if I take a "take strong clearly notable example first," we are never going to be discussing that particular article, we'll fix the defects in the writing and the article will be approved, end of story. The problem in the various guidelines is that they don't adequately inform the editor of what book articles are likely to be accepted. Especially in cases like this, where the author's notability is established and a book articles should be considered ancillary or part of a "discriminate collection" under BKCRIT #5. If my writing seems COI, with too much background on the author, writing to demonstrate BKCRIT #5 may be part of the cause.

I found this passage last night in WP:UNIGUIDE:

• Student-published college newspapers and university-published press releases are generally reliable sources for verifying information, but these sources are not as strong a source to demonstrate notability as mainstream news organizations, and they should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis

The community seems to think that BK:CRIT stand for "Critic" or "Critique", the section heading is actually "Criteria," and reviews is the last in the list of BK:CRIT #1, "published works in all forms," (presumably the weakest qualification by order of precedence). But even with the Ruse, clearly having other references, it was declined because one of the references discussed what was in the book, but did not offer a reviewer's opinion. (Come to think of it, opinion is the weakest form or ref going toward notability -- even from mainstream established sources.)

I can clearly see from this and other writings that you are vehemently opposed to paid editing and apparently feel that along with the various other sanctions, paid editors should not be allowed comment in AfD, nor edit their work during AfD. Making it impossible for other voters to fairly judge the article after other editors have hastily deleted content.

• Example quoted from another AfD (4) I think you would do well to confine your editing on these articles, or a combined article, to their talk pages. Having commented here, I cannot take action as an administrator, but if you continue to edit them in mainspace, I will recommend at least a topic ban. DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[2]

The result of that discussion was a merge, where everybody seems to be agreeable to the result.

As a courtesy to the reviewing editor, I've recently begun declaring that the article is paid, above the fold on the article itself. In addition, to providing a talk page notice (before moving to Drafts) and trying to keep my user page updated. I don't know how I can be more forthcoming in that aspect.009o9 (talk) 17:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lo Mein Robert Eringer Book Cover Art.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Lo Mein Robert Eringer Book Cover Art.jpg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brian Riordan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Television Academy. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

This Thursday: Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Getty Center

You are invited to join the Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Getty Center in LA on October 15! (drop-in any time, 10am-4pm)--Pharos (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ruse (book) (August 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Wxidea was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ruse (book) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Wxidea (talk) 04:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Just a late response to this, here is an article in The Washington Post, "Sen. Robert Menendez seeks probe of alleged Cuban plot to smear him" that cites a passage in Ruse in 2014, Ruse was published in 2008. Hard to believe that so many Wikipedian's judge a book by its cover, refuse to consider reviews from people who have actually read the book and instead rely of famous book critics who likely have somebody else read the book for them. 009o9 (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Anthony Marinelli

added links pointing to Burbank, Hand in Hand, Kashif, To Be Number One, Blondie and Koreana

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Harold G. Long has been accepted

Harold G. Long, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Draft:009o9/Never Gonna Be the Same Again concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:009o9/Never Gonna Be the Same Again, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:009o9/Never Gonna Be the Same Again

Hello, 009o9. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Never Gonna Be the Same Again".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 8 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Shawn Amos page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Anthony Marinelli

Template:Anthony Marinelli has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Videos for "Jennifer Cook O'Toole"

HI!

First, THANK YOU for your help with the page. Truly. This is so dang confusing to me, but what I have figured out -- with great zeal -- is the amount of pride, professionalism, and super-high-quality work you and your colleagues put into Wiki. I never truly grasped that before, and with all sincerity, it is incredibly impressive and admirable.

OK, enough of me being sappy. (Sincere, but sappy.)

Question, since I shouldn't do it.

The videos on the new (really cool!) site are OLD. The www.YouTube.com/Asperkids page has uploads from the Speaking Geek series, of a reading in Denmark, a whole playlist filmed by the UK's National Autistic Society (Network Autism), and generally, a whole lot of others that, I think, will serve your readers with more valuable, substantive information. They are ALSO on www.Facebook.com/Asperkids, where (oddly) they've gotten hundreds-thousands more views (ya never know).

May I make offer these suggestions? ANYTHING from "Speaking Geek YouTube series" on iTunes, it's https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/speaking-geek/id1021015570?mt=2

"How did you come to be diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome?" by the National Autistic Society YT link: "Asperkids" playlist on www.youtube.com/Asperkids

"My Own Ruby Slippers" from the USAAA World Conference "Asperkids" playlist on www.youtube.com/Asperkids (You'll also see me in their Self-Advocacy Panel video there.)

"The Ugly Duckling....Turns Out to Be an Aspie" in Odense, Denmark (Sikon, DE) FB link: https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=766533853457028 "Asperkids" playlist on www.youtube.com/Asperkids

"Jennifer: Variations on a Theme" by award-winning filmmaker, Amy Serrano (who has a wiki page) of Siren Studios YT link: "Asperkids" playlist on www.youtube.com/Asperkids

Or really ANY at https://www.facebook.com/asperkids/videos.

ALSO! Do you want any photos???

At Dr. Tony Atwood's "Top Aspie Mentors" Conference, 2014

Author, Jennifer Cook O'Toole, in a video shot by film director, Amy Serrano.

Author, Jennifer Cook O'Toole, in a video shot by film director, Amy Serrano

THANK YOU! GingerJenny (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)Jennifer

Hi Jenny!

I had to modify your comment, I've never seen images presented that large, I added Answering Audience Questions to your article. Nice candid shot, the other looks a little posed, Wikipedia would rather have candid.

We've used a Speaking Geek link reference to Asperkids page, so an additional external-links line item would be inappropriate. Let me have a look at the other links you've provided to see about their placement. Hope you are feeling better. Cheers! -- 009o9 (talk) 22:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Jenny I've added the standard templates for YouTube and Facebook, iTunes is iffy because it is generally for sales rather than information, same reason we don't link to Amazon, even if the book is free. Unless specific videos have won some direct acclaim in the media, we should allow he reader to explore the links provided.

I've added the Autism resources horizontal infobox to the bottom of your page, let me know which category is most appropriate for Asperkids, USAAA doesn't appear to have enough press notability for inclusion. The flimmaker's Wikipedia article is a little bit weak, let me do a little background on her before we shine a light on her article. Cheers! -- 009o9 (talk) 00:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• • • Best resources are probably Autism Society of America, National Autistic Society (UK), and now Amy Poehler.....but definitely NOT Night of Too Many Stars or anything related to Autism Speaks. What most people don't realize is that they have ZERO people on the spectrum employed by or advising their work -- kind of like the NAACP being run by nice white people. They mean well, but, as they saying goes, "Nothing About Us Without Us." You're free also to link to my publisher, Jessica Kingsley Publishers (who primarily handle autism related topics) and/or my new (yay!) agent, Erica Rand Silverman at Sterling Lord Literistic -- the founder is a wiki page https://en.wiki2.org/wiki/Sterling_Lord+Brights) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GingerJenny (talk • contribs) 18:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi fro GingerJenny (I hope!)

Hi - I'm sorry - I don't know how to do the messages at all AND managed to get a concussion this weekend - not ignoring you!

Yes, that IS me - and apologize - didn't realize that was disallowed.

Just wanted to correct mistakes......other than that, my sincere apologies!!!!

Jennifer — Preceding unsigned comment added by GingerJenny (talk • contribs) 23:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Ouch! Sorry to hear that User:GingerJenny. Nice to hear from you. Happy to help you on this one, you can access your article's talk page by using the "Talk" tab in the upper left of your article, or use this link Talk:Jennifer Cook O'Toole. If you want to write something for your article, post the content on the talk page, we'll check it to make sure it conforms to the various policies, referencing and Manual of Style conditions. This will save us both some time and keep your article conforming.

On talk pages, we indent responses with paragraphs that start with one or more colons, this keeps us straight on who is responding to what. At the end of your comment, add your signature with four tildes ~~~~. If you need to ping me in a comment on any talk page, use [[User:009o9]] within the edit interface. It's just like James Bond 007, only different. Cheers! -- 009o9 (talk) 23:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I hope you don't mind that I changed the article name to match the name that Amazon displays, we're supposed to use the name that you are most notable as. -- 009o9 (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

You know, I am a smart chickee, but I am having such a TIME with this Wiki thing!!! OK, so I realized an Award that's missing: Make A Wish's "Women Inspiring Hope and Strength" (WISH) 2014;

Also to the name -- I'm only Jennifer Cook O'Toole on my book covers -- EVERYWHERE else, I'm just O'Toole.....so, honestly, people won't put both In (I actually added Cook as a tribute to my late dad when submitting first manu, sure that nothing would ever get published!). So, for example, if you search Google, it'd just be O'Toole......just FYI.

Do you want anything about advising at the White House's Council on Disabilities? I did a video short - if you want it, here you go: . If not, that's ok, too :)

Also - am presently working on a piece about Sesame Street for Amy Poehler. Helped advise on the new character, Julia, who has autism -- however it took my 12yo daughter to point out that she has red hair and green eyes. Ummm...hi! :) GingerJenny (talk) 18:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)JLO

Hi @GingerJenny, you are not the only one having trouble. I also do paid editing and have tried to use this account for both paid editing and volunteer editing. Paid editing is highly stigmatized on the Wikipedia, but there is demand for it because nobody has the time to learn the thousands of rules. Moments ago, I decided that I can't do both from the same account and it is unclear if I can create another account for volunteer editing. (Politics, politics, politics.)

Anyway, I'll have a look at that missing title, we shouldn't mention the Sesame St. character until you have some press to go with it. If you have a video segment you'd like to add to your article, it would need to be in OGV format, uploaded and released to the Wikimedia Commons. I was able to include a video in this article Stetson, Street Dog of Park City Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 20:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

References

A deletion discussion you may be interested in

Please stop adding my name to that list and posting it on other talkpages. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

FFS, stop this shit, now. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The preferable alternative to what you did is to just ping us at the discussion. That way I would have seen one red ping when I logged on rather than 15 of them. That was very annoying so please avoid doing that in the future. MarnetteD|Talk 15:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I apologize, I had not considered that the convenience links would notify everyone multiple times, they were included for completeness. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 16:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Just do what you think is best and dont waste to much time on debating people with odd POVs. Dont get stuck up on the rules and keep in-mind that things like at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Navigation the part that says " WikiProject consensus is against including actor templates....." is not part of the " guideline its self".... its a note to let editors know that they may run into problems with this project on this point (basically a heads up about the projects POV... WP:ADVICEPAGE). Perhaps we should make this more clear....but I am not sure how? Remember deletions cant keep-up with content being added by thousands of users daily ...if it helps or informs our readers it will be back in the long run even if deleted today. - Moxy (talk) 04:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @Moxy, IMHO what is written in the Film project's MOS and Project page is the current consensus, the Foundation even feels that the Projects can set more strenuous restrictions on paid editors. The projects may have more juice than you think and certainly enough to prevail on an essay discussion involving a preference like WP:TCREEP -- even if a handful of editors have been successful in a few uncontested deletions. One problem is that there is very little guidance on navboxes, so it really is left up to the Projects to decide. The Actor's exception on navboxes is clearly stated and explained, but is is also clearly stated here [3] and in the failed RfC that all other creative navboxes are welcome. If the soundtrack artist navboxes are not wanted, that is not a big deal, if the project guidelines are not clear on the matter, that is a big deal. Other editors may do the work and wind up in the same TfD battle -- like Groundhog's Day.

As a paid editor, I can't really work around the fringes, I have to go straight at these people with odd POVs because most of them are administrators and they are just looking for a reason to block me. Alternately, I want to improve the Wikipedia and try to help by making sure the policies and guidelines are posted for all users, and not just bound to what the administrators have been doing lately. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 07:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Taking a more detailed look at WP:ADVICEPAGE (which is a Guideline, WP:TCREEP is just an essay) it looks as if the Film project may have overstepped its authority on the Actor's navbox ban.

However, in a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope, such as insisting that all articles that interest the project must contain a criticism section or must not contain an infobox, or that a specific type of article can't be linked in navigation templates, and that other editors of the article get no say in this because of a "consensus" within the project. Emphasis mine -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 07:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

What is needed is a re-evaluation of what should be in templates on pages at the project level (the project needs to work for our readers not for there style preference that is not working at all)....For example Clint Eastwood#External links ....I think most would agree that having links to the movies he has appeared in over hundreds and hundreds of unrelated actor links would be best. Simply said some projects do things ass backwards and all have to deal with it....waste of many peoples time....why are you fighting for a valid navigation template is a great example. -- Moxy (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Moxy The Wikipedia is pretty difficult platform to learn (and I come from a programming background). To have someone come along, after the work is done and after ensuring it fits the public facing rule-sets to say, "we don't support that anymore" is beyond ridiculous. Being a paid editor, my work gets attacked a lot and it is always a handful of specific editors with some unwritten rule -- for example, book articles have to have 4 professional reviews and 100s of WorldCat entries. It is always difficult to tell if they are attacking me for being paid, my writing, or if they supporting their new agenda. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 19:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: World Head of Family Sokeship Council (November 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:World Head of Family Sokeship Council and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

comment left on Draft:TECTERRA

Hi,

TECTERRA refers to itself in all company information in all caps, so I believe it is correct to maintain that in the article.

Thank you for the addition of the infobox. Is there any other elements that may be necessary for the article to be approved?

Nxucgy (talk) 16:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@Nxucgy: In the Infobox, the Mission section appears self-serving, it will probably get your article in trouble later. You should shorten it in your own words, or avoid it altogether. As you've probably already learned, business and organization articles are hard to publish and keep these days. Also, if you have a close connection, or a paid relationship with the organization you should declare it on the talk page. See WP:COI.-- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 16:23, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@Nxucgy: TECTERRA should also have some incoming blue-links from other appropriate articles, if the article does not have at least one incoming link, it will be tagged as an WP:Orphan and the article will come under additional scrutiny. When you find appropriate articles to mention TECTERRA, be sure to also provide a relevant reference. You can leave the mentions in plain text for now and go back and link them [[TECTERRA]] after the article is published. I'm still thinking that Tecterra is a better name for the article, because some editor is VERY likely to change it -- the all caps will appear spammy in other articles, something you really want to avoid. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 16:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@Nxucgy: The article is looking pretty good, I saw three references that are pretty solid for notability. Let me know when the article is ready, I'll stick my neck out on this one, provided we can agree on not going with all caps -- we can keep TECTERRA Inc. in the infobox, but we have to avoid all caps everywhere else. Here is what WP:ALLCAPS says: "Reduce text written in all capitals in trademarks – see WP:Manual of Style/Trademarks". (I would also advise against including "Inc." in the article name.) Let me know when you are ready for a review. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 17:33, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi 009o9,

I've completed the changes, and also moved the page URL so it is not all capitals either. I hope this fits with WP:Manual of Style/Trademarks requirements now. You may review it now. Thank you so much for your help and advice. Nxucgy (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nxucgy: I'll have a look at it later today. Your next step is to find other Wikipedia articles that should appropriately mention Tecterra (with a reference) so your article is not a WP:ORPHAN. One incoming link is sufficient, but the old rule was three. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 16:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi 009o9,

Do lists counts? I have included some links at the bottom of the page. I know of a few articles that would require updates to be able to link to Tecterra. Will updated articles need approval before changes go live? Thanks

Nxucgy (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nxucgy: Some editors may try to discount a mention on a list, but it is in the article space. When you are working in article space your changes go live the moment you save them. If you are connected to Tecterra, or have a conflict of interest WP:COI you should declare that COI and you shouldn't make article space changes yourself, propose the change on the article's talk page and put in a Template:request edit. If you ping me from the talk page, I'll check them for neutrality. Be sure to read WP:COI, if you are not connected, you are free to edit anything in the article space. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 17:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done -- @Nxucgy: I made a small edit in the lede and published ("faster" is subjective). Tecterra be sure to put the article on your watch list (the star next to View History). Cheers! -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 18:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sharyl Attkisson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page University of Nevada. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Venue for discussion of article is article talk

Respectfully remind as per policy the proper venue for the discussion of a Wikipedia article is its talk page. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Please cite said policy, and how a section heading "Watchdog.org related" logically indicates that I am discussing the article. I used the section heading to indicate how and where User:Safehaven86 has interacted with me before. Truthfully, the offline discussion is about a tendentious editor and I've updated that section heading to indicate this. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 19:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Additionally: "There is no community consensus regarding the posting of private off-wiki correspondence." WP:EMAILPOST taken from the WP:HARASSMENT policy page -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 20:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 November 30#Vu Digital

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vu Digital (2nd nomination), you supported deletion and the AfD was closed as "delete". At Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 November 30#Vu Digital, I asked for the community's permission to restore the history under the redirect so I can merge material to C Spire Wireless, the parent company.

I will only merge material sourced to TechCrunch, Mississippi Business Journal, Broadcasting & Cable, and The Clarion-Ledger, which all pass Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. I will not merge any material sourced only to press releases or sources that fail Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Would you support this? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@Cunard I was a keep on this article, I don't remember the content (I can't see the delete article now), but I did review the article your logic met WP:N, so I'm sure there is useful content to be salvaged. Feel free to ping me on these, I appreciate your efforts to save and salvage knowledge. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 19:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words, and thank you for your excellent work at AfD. Yes, there was some material that could be salvaged and that I plan to merge to C Spire Wireless. As an AfD participant, would you comment at the DRV about your thoughts on proposal to restore the history under the redirect so I can merge material to C Spire Wireless, the parent company? Cunard (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@Cunard Glad to, but where is the DRV?-- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 20:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

BTW: I thought it was foundation policy under CC BY-SA that a published article always retains a redirect and history? Am I mistaken?-- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 20:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The DRV is at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 November 30#Vu Digital. A published article should always retain a redirect and history under CC-BY-SA if the material is used in another article. I have not yet used Vu Digital's material in C Spire Wireless, but I have asked the community's permission to do so, which would require retaining a redirect and history under CC-BY-SA. There is an open discussion about preserving history at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#RFC: delete and redirect. Cunard (talk) 20:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Cunard I added some logic, but not sure in the right place, kind of confusing on what Endorse means so I changed my vote to redirect and reuse perfected copy. Let me know if I need to move my content down below the "convenience...." whatever that is. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 22:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the terminology at DRV can be confusing. "Endorse" means that you support the closing admin's decision. Changing your vote to "redirect" and preserving the history would allow for a merge to occur. Would you move your comment below the "convenience" and after SwisterTwister's comment to preserve the chronological ordering of the comments made. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Cunard, I went over to move it, but it already had a comment below it, figure just best to leave it alone, I responded to the comment. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 23:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Email

Hey there: sorry to be dense, but I still haven't figured out Wikipedia's email system. I have my address set up, and I'm now receiving a message each time someone writes on my wall ("009o9 left you a message on Wikipedia‏") but then it just directs me back to my own talk page. In other words, I haven't seen a private message from you. Any ideas what I'm doing wrong? Thanks! Safehaven86 (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@Safehaven86 I believe that my message can be read through you email package, I believe the "Email this user" just blindly forwards my email to your registered address. Perhaps it takes an administrator to verify your address? Does that help? I'll send you something direct. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 21:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Got your message, thanks! Safehaven86 (talk) 00:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

User:009o9/Return to the Hiding Place

I know you have a draft going at User:009o9/Return to the Hiding Place but isn't that the same film as War of Resistance (film)? Should it be merged together? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Ricky81682 My understanding is that it this a reworked version. I guess the War of Resistance was prematurely released (overseas?) version of the film (poor editing?). I'm just seeing this version going to DVD now on my Facebook page. I was communicating with the director producer a couple of years ago, but communications abruptly stopped. To tell you the truth, I think the director producer would like see the War of Resistance (film) article completely replaced/forgotten. It's a nice family and a decades long, self funded project, shall we do something with it? Do you have the time? I've got a troll on my back right now.-- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 08:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Wow, I had not realized that this release has extremely good coverage. Looks like I was talking to the producer (not the director) in November of 2013, the family already had 17 years into making the film at that time. Should be a pretty easy article with all of this press, I'll have a closer look in the morning.-- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 09:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert - American Politics

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Note to self I note that both editors who have made statements in the ANI have received this message, here and here but I'm not seeing a similar message sent to the subject of the ANI. Most current edit on that talk page. 009o9 (talk) 07:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I will warn you however that it is disruptive to the RFC at Talk:Watchdog.org to repeatedly argue about whether or not other editors should be permitted to discuss there. Your views were made at AE and other places were made quite clear and it seemed like Callanecc and I agreed that HughD's edits may have violated the topic ban, repeatedly arguing it at the RFC was a distraction to other editors and not helpful. The proper remedy is to accept the results and if it is overturned, to possibly strike out any blatantly offensive comments. That said, you've made your point that it's a violation of HughD's topic ban but that doesn't mean the entire discussion should be stricken and ignored. People should still argue and discuss the actual content without going into the editor. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ricky81682 Actually, having Callanecc tell HughD to keep editing Watchdog.org did not impart to this reader that you and Callanecc were in agreement.

I don't want to rehash the entire issue, but HughD went to WP30 deceptively and then to RfC, after stalking two of his "colleagues" as he puts it. I went around and around with the guy for an entire week discussing the "actual content," he would not accept a modification to his verbiage and would not defend the cherry picking in his submission. His reputation is his problem and I provided Diffs everywhere when I finally took the gloves off. With my paid status, and inability to have an alternate account, my reputation is shot with my opening disclosure -- so I have no sympathy for him.

I'm generally not this forceful, but as one of the very few declared paid editors that I'm aware of, my experience has been that the policies and guidelines are often disregarded, largely from a prejudice of this class of editor. So with all of the time I've spent defending content and overlooking policy violations from self-righteous editors (go along to get along), HughD has been a case that stands out as somewhat extraordinary, not following up on this case was not an option.

Thank you for your attention and close on this matter, had your TBAN been interpreted by the book (all subtopics and related -- to include talk pages), none of this would have been necessary, nor occurred. I'm interested in avoiding the administrative sections at all cost, but there are a few occasions where defects must be addressed. 009o9 (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

New Info for Jennifer Cook O'Toole

Hi! So sorry to start a new convo, but I cannot figure out how to add text otherwise!

Re: the Sesame Character. Here we go - it went public on Amy Poehler's site a few weeks back and the character ended up looking VERY familiar! http://amysmartgirls.com/autism-sesame-style-how-one-muppet-girl-is-changing-the-world/

The artwork is original, by the way. So it's usable if you want.

Also - I was just appointed to the Autism Society of America's Board of Advisors' Panel of People on the Spectrum. So, that'd go under the initial paragraph, I'd guess. The site is being updated, as the appointment happened on Monday, but here's the correct link. http://www.autism-society.org/about-the-autism-society/boardadvisors/panel-of-people-on-the-spectrum-of-autism

THANK YOU! GingerJenny (talk) 15:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)GingerJenny "Autism, Sesame Style" by JO, On Amy Poehler's Smart Girls at the Party

@GingerJenny The picture is super cute, but Wiki is super sensitive about copyright verification, without license verification it will be removed in seven days. The best way to do this is to have an official Flickr page, upload there first with the CC BY-SA license release and then copy over to WikiCommons using Flinfo. Going directly to Wikipedia is more difficult, even if you paid for the copyright (work for hire) they will still only accept a release from the original artist/photographer etc. Via Flickf, we don't have that problem.

It is actually preferred to start a new conversation for new topics, almost impossible to gauge what has been inserted. Last time I checked, the sourcing on the Sesame St. was close but not specific enough, I'll have a look at the links you've provided. If you can redo the artwork, i.e. official release on Flickr, I'm sure an independent reference will turn up.009o9 (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@GingerJenny please send me a reminder when the webpage gets updated, happy to add it and congratulations! Well written article, but we are going to need an independent reliable source (so not you, or an outlet you are connected with) to solidify the connection with the new character. For my clarification, are you the actual artist of the picture here? 009o9 (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)