User talk:CharlieEchoTango/Archive 5

Thanks much for fixing my unintentional blanking

of the death panel article and patching in the other changes. Best regards KeptSouth (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Keep up the good amazing work! :-) CharlieEchoTango (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Supremes, LLC

Hello,

The page for Supremes, LLC was deleted on 11/30. Can you provide a detailed explanation on why and how it can be edited per your requirements?

Thanks, Kim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimasupremes (talk • contribs) 01:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Kim. The article was deleted per speedy deletion criterion A7, because no credible assertion of significance was made. The content was :

An American company that produces disposable baby diapers. Based in Mullins, SC, it has 75 employees and operates in a 300,000 square foot facility.

Please review the notability criteria for companies at WP:NCORP, and the general notability guideline at WP:GNG. Please also review our guidelines on conflict of interest.

Once you have gathered enough reliable, third-party sources to assert notability, please submit your article for review through the article wizard (make sure to select "Submit for review"). Thank you. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 02:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Seriously?

Okay, I'm not trying to be a jerk, really, I'm not. But I need this page to stay up for less than 12 hours for a project I'm doing for my 10th grade science class. I will delete it after I show it to the class so I don't fail my midterm. If you could show a little understanding, it would be greatly appreciated- thanks Charley! :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jugger814 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia is not your personal web host. Articles must comply with our inclusion criteria, and yours did not (fairly blatant when an article starts by "this is false but interesting"). You can probably upload the article on a blog or other web platform so that you don't fail your midterm. Thank you. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 03:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

RFA thanks

Thank you for your support at my recent successful RFA. Being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. I do not feel adminship is authority, but is rather a responsibility and trust accompanied by a few extra buttons. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Sparks Fly & Ours single covers

Thank you! Swifty*^talk_contribs 06:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. FYI, 400x400 (or anything 160,000 pixels and below) is acceptable, and there is generally no need to re-size to 300x300 (no harm in doing so, though). I've deleted the old file anyway as an unused fair use image. Regards, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

• News and notes: Amsterdam gets the GLAM treatment, fundraising marches on, and a flourish of new admins

• In the news: A Wikistream of real time edits, a call for COI reform, and cracks in the ivory tower of knowledge

• Discussion report: Trial proposed for tool apprenticeship

• WikiProject report: This article is about WikiProject Disambiguation. For other uses...

• Featured content: This week's Signpost is for the birds!

• Arbitration report: Elections due to finish this week, little activity on Betacommand 3, Abortion case amended

• Technology report: Incremental dumps help mirrors, full screen search helps mobile visitors, and two MediaWiki releases help external sites

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Review of Mel Leavitt article

Thank you for reviewing the article I started on Mel Leavitt. I'd be interested in any specific suggestions that you have for improving it. Many thanks. Nolabob (talk) 23:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey Nolabob! Thanks for your contributions! :-) The article is well-written, but it could use a bit more structure (e.g. an infobox (see {{Infobox journalist}}), a lead, with sections for early life then later career, etc). Also, what is Leavitt's birth date? Always useful to any biography. Some other things, some I've fixed, some not :

• No external links in the body of the article per WP:ELPOINTS.
• Artistic works are usually referred to in italics, not in quotation marks. ('' '' instead of " ".
• The citation style and format could be improved. See {{citation}}.

I can't think of anything else for now, but I'll let you know if I do. Keep up the good work! CharlieEchoTango (contact) 05:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Larry Rosen Wiki page

The changes look fine. Can I continue to add things if I have third party sources? Also I would like to add pictures, is that alright? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDuva1 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Larry Rosen (executive)

You can add things provided they are written in your own words, are neutral in tone, and are reliably sourced. As for pictures, so long as they are explicitly released under a free license (a. you own the pictures, b. you allow anyone to adapt and modify the picture, c. you allow anyone to distribute the picture including commercially), you can upload them at Wikimedia Commons, and they can be used here. Do not upload copyrighted images that are not under a free license, as they will be deleted. Best, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 16:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

RfA

If you don't mind, please close my current RfA, I've decided to withdraw my request. Thanks, Tarheel95 (Sprechen) 02:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Regards, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 02:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Super pit move

Hi CharlieEchoTango, just wondering why you moved the Super Pit gold mine article without any form of discussion? From previous entries on the talk page, the name of the article has been contested and your move is certainly not uncontroversial, as you claim in the edit summary. It should therefore be discussed first, at least on the talk page. The so-called Super Pit is just the open pit of the mine, the article is about the hole mine, not just one pit. Calistemon (talk) 04:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, reverted. I will advise the editor who requested the move to request under controversial or potentially controversial move, or to initiate a discussion on the talk page to garner consensus. Sorry about that. :-) CharlieEchoTango (contact) 04:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Editor informed. Best regards, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 04:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The proper name for the article is, unlike most other mines, not clear at all but I don't think Super Pit is quite the right one. Thanks again for the quick reply. Calistemon (talk) 04:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Did you mean to redirect Super Pit to UNT Coliseum rather than the gold mine? I assume not, but want to be sure. Station1 (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I restored to the version that stood for 4 years prior to the December 6 change. In the interest of transparency, I have restored the history of the redirect, feel free to change the redirect as you wish if you think redirecting to the mine is more relevant. Cheers, :-) CharlieEchoTango (contact) 06:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I saw the hatnote on the gold mine article and assumed the redirect had pointed there. Seeing the history now, I understand your decision and agree it shouldn't be changed pending outcome of the RM. Station1 (talk) 06:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Finding Citations

Hi Charlie, thanks for looking over my LPO entry. I can understand the decision based on not enough citation but must admit I find myself having a tough time finding citations for the subject which aren't linking to either a service company or a product. Do you by chance have any suggestions on what would make a good citation, I'm looking forward to hopefully creating my first wikipedia entry that's not just additional content or ammendments. Thanks, Dave Davebrown1975 (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Two key policies in play here, verifiability and no original research. Here's an example : "With the increased efficiency of the law firm and the lowered costs to the firms clients, LPO promises to be the most cost effective method for law firms to survive any economic downturn." - according to who? As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles should only reflect what has been published elsewhere by reliable publications. If you're having a tough time finding citations in academia, then it's likely the topic is an emerging concept, and thus is not suitable for an encyclopedia. I'll have an editor with experience in law matters look over the article and see if it has encyclopedic potential. In any case, thanks for your contributions! Regards, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 17:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, I'll add some "Citation needed" tags in appropriate places. I've also added another source, so after editing I'll resubmit to the wiki'sphere'. Thanks for your assistance. Appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davebrown1975 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

In answer to your query, CharlieEchoTango, I'd never heard of them either, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything - there are a lot of things on the business side of law that I've not heard of, I'm afraid. The ABA Journal and the ABA don't seem to have anything on that topic, though they do cover search engine optimization. A quick Google search found this article cross-posted at several sites. I'm leaning towards saying that Law/Legal practice optimization is probably a non-notable topic. If it's a growing trend, as the article I found suggests, it's possible that it's not widely covered yet, but will be in the future. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 02:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for looking into it, Philosopher! I couldn't find much either... I thought perhaps someone who knew where to look could. Again, thanks! :P CharlieEchoTango (contact) 02:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

@Dave Brown : I think the best way to deal with it will be to wait until there is more coverage of the topic, or to clearly demonstrate, through citations, that the topic is notable/encyclopedic. Obviously if there is no citations/coverage to be found, the content cannot be verified, and thus shouldn't be on an encyclopedia. That said, the article is not harmful, and Articles for Creation is not a process with 'authority', so you could move the article into the mainspace yourself. From there anyone who thinks the article should not be kept could take it to a a wider community input, this one more decisive. I hope this helps. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 02:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again Charlie and Philosopher for your input. Davebrown1975 (talk) 09:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

bad seed

I'm interested in the reasoning behind this close, which was without explanation. Is it best practice to substitute your judgement for the previous admin's, or is it possible that user tigerboy unwittingly gamed the afd by commenting repeatedly? 86.44.31.213 (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I estimated there was sufficient consensus for deletion, counting 4 delete !votes (including nom) and 1 keep !vote. It was relisted twice, and a decision had to be taken; I don't see King of Heart's relisting necessarily as a "no consensus" judgement, more likely as a "let's see if someone else has something to say that could help establish a clearer consensus". Nobody had anything else to say, so I went with what was there, and I stand by my !count and analysis of the arguments made (e.g. that your reply to Bearian shows that the sources were cited here and there, but not that they meet a certain standard of editorial integrity to meet WP:RS, and that consequently these two weak sources were not enough to validate your !keep vote). In any case, feel free to request a deletion review if you think consensus was not sufficient. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 19:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it was a borderline case but I was curious about the close. (We differ -- I count two strong sources in terms of RS, rapreviews & hiphopdx, and one uncertain, yo raps.) 86.44.31.213 (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Scott Tinkler's page

HI CharlieEchoTango

also how do i link existing wikipedia refs to the Scott Tinkler's page?

Thanks Stinkler (talk) 07:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the question. For help with references, see WP:CITE. For help linking articles together, see WP:WIKILINK. You should know that your submission was deleted as a copyright violation by GraemeL (talk · contribs), so there is no Scott Tinkler page now. Please do not resubmit it here without a) making it crystal clear on http://www.xtr.com/artists/scott-tinkler/ that you release the text under a free license or b) donating the material under a free license through WP:DCM. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 16:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 December 2011

• Opinion essay: Wikipedia in Academe – and vice versa

• News and notes: Research project banner ads run afoul of community

• In the news: Bell Pottinger investigation, Gardner on gender gap, and another plagiarist caught red-handed

• WikiProject report: Spanning Nine Time Zones with WikiProject Russia

• Featured content: Wehwalt gives his fifty cents; spies, ambushes, sieges, and Entombment

• Arbitration report: Betacommand 3 workshop revived, two cases set for acceptance and the ArbCom elections finish on a whimper

• Technology report: Trials and tribulations of image rotation, Article Feedback version 5, and new diff colours

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 17:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I took your advice

I took your advice on The International House of Mojo article and found other print references for the site and changed the article to get rid of the section that implied inherited notability. JenniBees (talk) 18:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Image upload

Hello CET, I'm a little new with locally uploading files. How do I upload an image with a specific licensing template, like {{Non-free mugshot}}? Thank you in advance. -- Luke (Talk) 00:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

If you are confident that the intended use of the image is compliant with the non-free content criteria, then follow this link, choose a file to upload, fill in the fair use rationale, leave the licensing selector at "none selected" (the correct copyright tag is already preloaded), and you're done! Regards, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 01:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Luke (Talk) 02:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

RfA

Just to put your mind at rest, lest you tend to follow and believe the words of my detractors and those who are determined to keep RfA in its broken state: I became interested in the RfA process long before I ever dreamt of being an admin myself. It was certainly not a goal I had in in mind at all, and I did not run for 'office' until I had been asked several times by some very expected admins. My interest in the RfA process was born from being stalked, insulted, and personally attacked quite unjustly by an admin, and naturally I wanted to learn about whatever process permitted such people to ascend to power, then use it so badly with impunity. I vote on almost every RfA (about 148 to date) , and do so conscientiously after a thorough research. How I vote can be see here, which would appear to demonstrate that my intentions are far from simply negating others' 'oppose' votes (you may wish to review your own participation at RfA). As I do not believe in 'pile-on' policy, I generally do not vote at all on RfA that are almost certain to fail from the onset; however, there have been exceptions, and there may be more to come where I will certainly oppose if necessary. A review of my voting will demonstrate that I do not go in for undue badgering, and any comments I make are reasonably polite and are generally restricted to votes that at least in my mind are are based on lies, deceit, false interpretation of policy, systemic bias, or simply good faith opposes from naïve people who just don't know any better. Examples of all these can be found in my own RfA - which fortunately passed with clear support of the community by a high number of participants. The irony is where those who have a pattern of badgering and regular opposing are now badgering the bureaucrats. This is unprecedented where the community has spoken in clear consensus, and I hope it is not to become a new trend that will add to the reasons why good editors of the right calibre are already declining to be subjected to the process. I voted on your very recent RfA - I hope I'm not going to be disappointed. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC) You have now been mentioned in this discussion. In the light of what I have said above, perhaps you would like to chime in there after all. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey Kudpung; my comment was not directed at you, but at what you said about discounting opposes, which caught my eye when hovering over my watchlist. I don't agree with your characterization of the oppose section, but as you can guess from me reverting my comment, I don't have much interest in debating this, etc, and I'd rather focus my time elsewhere (something I've been lacking at doing, lately). That said, I assure you my mind is at rest, and that my comment was never intended to doubt your good faith intentions. FWIW I don't consider Kiefer's thread badgering, perhaps a bit snarky, but not badgering. Happy !debating and !voting. :-) CharlieEchoTango (contact) 17:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Please accept my apologies if I had misread your post. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

No apologies needed, but yeah, I think you did somewhat misread my post ;-). Best regards, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 05:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

• News and notes: Anti-piracy act has Wikimedians on the defensive, WMF annual report released, and Indic language dynamics

• In the news: To save the wiki: strike first, then makeover?

• Discussion report: Polls, templates, and other December discussions

• WikiProject report: A dalliance with the dismal scientists of WikiProject Economics

• Featured content: Panoramas with Farwestern and a good week for featured content

• Arbitration report: The community elects eight arbitrators

• Technology report: Visual editor demo launched, hailed as "most important change to our user experience ... ever"; but elsewhere over-hasty deployments criticised

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 03:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	Thank you for fixing that!!!!!!! Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 06:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, no problem! Happy editing :-) CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Jalaj Srivastava

childishness removed

Village pump

I've replied to your comment at the Village pump, as I feel you misunderstood my proposal. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 08:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Tis the season...

		Happy holidays.
		Best wishes for joy and happiness. Guerillero | My Talk 23:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! You too! :-) CharlieEchoTango (contact) 02:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy Holidays Charlie! --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 15:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

You the same, Mohamed. :) CharlieEchoTango (contact) 17:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, CharlieEchoTango. You have new messages at Milonica's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 05:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Attribution

This is fine, but unsightly and unnecessary. Attribution can be given in the page history or on the talk page, if necessary—a full notice line isn't needed. But thanks very much for fixing those attribution issues; too many people don't understand what CC-BY-SA really means. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought those were transcluded, so I used <noinclude> and the notice line directly after the text (agree it's unsightly, but if it's transcluded, it won't be seen). Anyways, happy holidays! :-) CharlieEchoTango (contact) 17:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Great—Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, etc. to you, too! /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy holidays

	Happy Holidays
	Hello Charlie, I would like to wish you Happy Holidays and very Happy and peaceful New Years. Enjoy this WikiLove message from a fellow Wikipedian to another. -- Luke (Talk) 16:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/IdeaPad Tablets

Re. [1]

I kinda disagree that "IdeaPad Tablets" is the same thing as IdeaPad. Seems like a distinct topic to me.  Chzz  ►  19:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

IdeaPad is currently used for IdeaPad Laptops, so technically the page needs to be changed to reflect that it now also includes the tablets under that brand, but I don't think we need two pages for IdeaPad. The current page could just be expanded, imho. Regards, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 19:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

OK. Personally I think it's a distinct topic; but maybe chat with Trevor coelho (talk · contribs) - xe is mostly adding constructive things about the range. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  19:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Done, added dab hatnotes to both articles. Thanks! CharlieEchoTango (contact) 19:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

New sec

BTW, why does this (your talk) have __NONEWSECTIONLINK__?  Chzz  ►  19:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Kind of selfish, because I had too many Vector tabs for my resolution and the read button tends to disappear behind the talk button. Since there is a prominent link to 'leave a new message', I didn't feel it was necessary to also have the button, but of course, some people might be more used to that button, so I removed the __ NONEWSECTIONLINK _. :@ CharlieEchoTango (contact) 19:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you want Prefs, Gadgets, Change the "new section" tab text to instead display the much narrower "+".  Chzz  ►  19:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy holidays, Chzz! :-) CharlieEchoTango (contact) 19:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Danieldorff

Dear CharlieEchoTango,

Thanks for your comments regarding my submission for "Tritone Press & Tenuto Publications." I'm not clear about how to provide acceptable 3rd party verification criteria. The composer affiliations mentioned are public record, verifiable by any third-party retailer's online catalog, and the website www.tritone-tenuto.com has the whole catalog record. Should I add citations to my proposed article citing the company's website and one large retailer? I don't know of printed documentation of the history per se, but I am the owner of the company and an executive of the distribution company, so it is my personal expertise and experience. I wonder if footnoting the company's website and a third-party retailer would satisfy the requirements?

Thanks for your help! Daniel Dorff Danieldorff (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Daniel Dorff, and thanks for your contributions!

Re Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tritone Press & Tenuto Publications, what you need to provide is references to reliable, third-party publications that are about the subject, so that notability can be established. For example, <ref>Tritone Press & Tenuto Publications acquires Gemini Press, Page A3, The Local Times</ref>. Multiple such references are needed to show that the subject passes the general notability guideline. For help identifying reliable sources, see WP:RS.

Re Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cindy Anne Broz, the submission was declined because it is not written from a neutral point of view. Encyclopedic entries should not promote the subject, and terms such as prominent and celebrated should be either avoided, or sourced to a very good reference, e.g. a third-party publication with higher-than-average editorial standards. Generally it is best to avoid referencing such terms to a (relatively obscure) specialty publication.

The bottom line, for both articles, is this : all information must be verifiable by readers; this is why we need footnotes to third-party references (e.g. not self-published, as these are not considered reliable sources of neutral information).

I hope this helps! Happy holidays - CharlieEchoTango (contact) 21:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susie Cusack

Have you notified the proper editors and projects regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susie Cusack? I don't see anything at WT:CHICAGO, which I watch regularly.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not common practice to notify anyone of AfDs but the creator (creator was notified), so no, I haven't notified projects, etc; but it has been listed at WP:DELSORT. Feel free to notify WikiProjects. Regards, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 01:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion --Ade Olufeko

Hi CharlieEcho Tango,

Thank you for commenting on my submission for Ade Olufeko. After reviewing your comments with the other editor, and speaking to a few others close to the organization, I believe the better approach would be to change the article submission to focus on "Visual Collaborative". This way, my sources are valid, and the subject matter notable. I will begin editing to reflect the changes, and will resubmit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmilayo (talk • contribs) 19:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors – MHotY coming; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the Congolese Wars Review essay: Ian Rose goes to El Alamein Op-ed: DCI's call to revitalize WikiProject History

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion..Ade Olufeko

Hi CharlieEcho Tango,

I have edited the content of the page to reflect the changes, as stated earlier. Your feedback would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmilayo (talk • contribs) 23:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 December 2011

• Opinion essay: Openness versus quality: why we're doing it wrong, and how to fix it

• Recent research: Psychiatrists: Wikipedia better than Britannica; spell-checking Wikipedia; Wikipedians smart but fun; structured biological data

• News and notes: Fundraiser passes 2010 watermark, brief news

• WikiProject report: The Tree of Life

• Featured content: Going through the roster with Killervogel5 and a plethora of featured content

• Arbitration report: Three open cases, one set for acceptance, arbitrators formally appointed by Jimmy Wales

• Technology report: Wikimedia in Go Daddy boycott, and why you should 'Join the Swarm'

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 03:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar

Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar has been nominated for merging with Template:Criticism of religion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.

Happy New Year!

	Happy New Year!
	Happy new year and we will see you contributing in 2012 of the new year. We are hoping to see and help to make Wikipedia better! Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 22:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 January 2012

• Interview: The Gardner interview

• News and notes: Things bubbling along as Wikimedians enjoy their holidays

• WikiProject report: Where are they now? Part III

• Featured content: Ghosts of featured content past, present, and future

• Arbitration report: New case accepted, four open cases, terms begin for new arbitrators

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 15:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Question

Hello CharlieEchoTango and thank you for your comments on my submission today: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tradescantia/Amy_Halberstadt.

I can certainly focus on references ABOUT Halberstadt rather than BY her, as you say, but I do have some questions:

- I do see on many bio pages like this that there are bibliographies, which I was trying to avoid as it seemed too, well, academic, I guess. But would this be a more appropriate place to put most of the citations to her own work?

- The harder question is this: I do cite some investigators who use Halberstadt's work in their own studies, but the way research goes in science, often the external authorities who are in the best position to make and publish such judgments end up becoming collaborators. That's true for a number of the references cited in this draft. It seemed better to cite these kinds of articles than similar articles by other non-collaborators, whose discussions might not be so useful or delve as fully into her work. But it sounds like this is not what wikipedia is looking for. I wonder if you have any advice about this. Would it be better to have fewer citations of this totally independent sort and more bibliographic, then? are no references to her own work allowed at all (e.g. even to classic articles, of which there are several here?)

Anyway I am not sure, when my article makes a claim like "Halberstadt is currently working on X", why a published recent article by Halberstadt on X, in an established journal in the field, wouldn't be the appropriate/best reference.

Thanks for any advice you can offer!

Tradescantia (talk) 04:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)tradescantia

Replying later today or tomorrow. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 08:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, first, my sincere apologies for the delay.

It looks like someone approved the submission while I was gone.

Now to get to your question;

You can generally include bibliographies, so to answer your first question, yes it would be more appropriate there. It's just usually not a good idea to use one for references. This is because on Wikipedia, references serve two purposes : to verify the claims and to establish notability. While citing the paper itself is a good way to verify the claim, it does not show the subject of the encyclopedic article has been noted; compare :

John wrote a book titled I am a great guy.<ref>Doe, John (2012). I am a great guy. Random House. ISBN 0000000000000

John wrote a book titled I am a great guy.<ref>Doe, Jane (31 February 2012). John Doe's ''I am a great guy'' still a bestseller despite terrible reviews. USA Today.</ref>

The first one verifies the claim, sure. But the latter one not only verifies the claim, it also shows notability, as in it's been talked about by someone somewhere. Notability is in turn important to determine encyclopedic value. When I read your submission, I understand she's a psychologist that has done a lot of research, but all I see are references to her own works and little indication that she has been noted to the extent required by the general notability guideline. Seeing no indication of particular notability, I declined the submission.

Then there is the issue of original research; encyclopedic articles should only be about what's been said elsewhere. Statements like "With Judy Hall, Halberstadt helped establish social psychology’s interest in understanding the relation of hierarchy-related variables, such as personality dominance and actual or perceived social power, to nonverbal communication." need to be attributed; who said that she helped establish social psychology's interest in ...?

Bottom line is, as much as possible, yes, independent third-party citations, about the subject, to verify the claims made from the perspective of a reliable source. References to her work are "allowed" so long as they are used in conjunction with other, better, sources of information.

Hope this helps, again, sorry for the late reply. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 04:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this careful and helpful response! I have recrafted the article and also notice that a colleague added a number of in-line 3rd-party references, though there are still some claims that need fuller support in this way. I will continue to work on it! Tradescantia (talk) 02:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)tradescantia

Happy new year

Thanks ,merci, תודה. I offer you my best wishes of health and happiness for year 2012. Je vous offre mes meilleurs vœux de santé et de bonheur pour l'année 2012.אני מציע לך ואקס הכי טוב שלי D ; אקסאנט? ושל אושר לשנה 2012. --Cordialement féministe ♀ Cordially feminist Geneviève (talk) 12:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Blacklist testing

I forgot to mention on the blacklist talk page -- if you make a change to the blacklist, and you aren't sure of the effect, you can always try posting some test links to Wikipedia:Sandbox to see what gets accepted or rejected. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I did immediately after adding it to the blacklist. It worked! Thanks again, and happy new year :-) CharlieEchoTango (contact) 04:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Clarification on IdeaCentre Q Series and the Lenovo Template

Hi,

I was checking the IdeaCentre Q Series page that I had worked on, and saw the tags about viewpoints and references. What can I do to make the article better (and get the tags removed)?

I've used similar links to the ones on all the Lenovo product pages - product reviews from sites like Slashgear, PC Word, PC Mag, Desktop Review, and Laptop Review. Please let me know what I can do to improve the pages; any feedback you have would certainly help.

Also, some unknown IP made about six edits to the Lenovo template on Wikipedia. They're all wrong (incorrect product groupings, desktops categorized as laptops). I want to undo all of the changes. Can I do it directly or should I notify the IP's owner on the associated talk page? I checked this person's talk page out and he/she's been blocked for vandalism before.

Any advice will be appreciated.

Trevor coelho (talk) 03:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Re 1st question, looks to me like over-tagging, so I removed the tags; perhaps you could ask Shirt58 (talk · contribs) what he had in mind when adding them. I think the sources are reliable enough, and though the article could be better written, it's unclear at best what viewpoints are missing.

Re 2nd question, be bold. You can and should undo the changes if they are wrong, though beware edit warring, more specifically the three revert rule. Of course, initiating discussion after undoing an edit is always a good thing.

By the way, because most IPs are dynamic and/or shared (such as schools and workplaces), a user who edited/vandalized from the IP in the past may not be the same than the one currently editing from it, so we should not assume the user is a vandal unless the pattern of edits is similar and/or very little time has passed since the last block, etc.

Hope this helps, happy new year! CharlieEchoTango (contact) 04:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yup, that definitely helped - and happy new year to you, too!

I'll talk to Shirt58 too ... I got confused for a bit (you approved my IdeaPad Tablets page) and thought you had added the tags (because I forgot to check the Edit History before I posted on your talk page).

I undid the changes to the template; it's back to the way it was now. Although, I did revert six edits -- will that be a problem? The edits didn't seem like vandalism; just shifting around of product groupings, almost as if someone was experimenting/practicing with page edits.

About your point on the Q Series article: you said it can be better written. Is that with reference to language used, sentence phrasing, or something different?

I worked on pretty much all the Lenovo product articles (so they sound very similiar) and I'm slowly updating articles on gaming and books. Any advice on writing for a Wiki will be helpful. Plus, if there's a lot of scope for improvement, I look at slowly making the articles I've alredy done better.

Thanks in advance.

Trevor coelho (talk) 12:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The 6 reverts are not a problem but there are more efficient ways to do this. One of them is to use a nifty tool called Twinkle. You can enable it in your preferences under the "gadget" tab (or clicking this link). This tool will let you, among other things, revert all edits by a user when in "diff" view. For example, in this case, you would have used the blue 'rollback' link (see image on the right), then entered a suitable edit summary. You could also compare the earliest faulty revision with the latest good revision and use the brown 'restore this version' link; but this is more useful when there are successive edits by different people (the rollback feature only reverts edits by a single user). You have to be really careful which rollback link you choose, do not use the red rollback link if the edits do not fall within the conservative definition of vandalism.

As for the better written part, I didn't mean anything specific, there is nothing wrong with the article. Like anything, it can be improved both in substance and in format. I'm not really familiar with computer articles or the computer industry, but for example, when writing about books, one would attempt to include how well a copy sold, the author's thoughts behind the book, etc. So in this case, perhaps how the Q-Series fit in the market in relation to its competitors and sister series, how well they sold, to which countries they were distributed; all kind of encyclopedic information is good really. One could also use the {{Infobox computer}} template, freely licensed pictures of the product, a specifications table, etc. For example, here's a featured article about a computer : Macintosh Classic.

Hope this answers your questions, and don't hesitate to ask if you have more questions or if I can be of assistance in any other way. Keep up the good work! :-) CharlieEchoTango (contact) 00:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow, those were excellent suggestions. Especially the part about sales figures and what the developers thought. I've been wondering about improving the articles for a while now, and those simply didn't occur to me. I'll see what I can find for those points, and what else I can put in.

Thanks for the offer of help, too. What sort of articles do you usually work on? I'm slowly updating articles on fantasy authors and books, gaming, and game publishers/developers. If I know what you're used to working on, I'll know what to check back for when I need something. :)

Trevor coelho (talk) 07:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't 'work' on many articles, unfortunately, lack of time mostly, and as a recently minted janitor, I tend to go the lazy route and pick-up garbage more than anything. My main areas of interest here on Wikipedia are primarily politics, media and military; I did write a good article on a book : Ethical Oil: The Case for Canada's Oil Sands, though it is not yet completed. I have also worked on many Canadian Forces article. That said, through my work at AFC, I have reviewed an extensive number of articles, and can deal with a broad number of topics in day-to-day editing. I am also familiar with the more intricate parts of Wikipedia, such as image licensing.

But really, any question, I'd be happy to help; if I don't know the answer, I'll be sure to send you to the right information booth. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 08:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

• Technological roadmap: 2011's technological achievements in review, and what 2012 may hold

• News and notes: Fundraiser 2011 ends with a bang

• In the news: Wikipedia ends annual fundraising drive; Monmouthpedia launches

• WikiProject report: From Traditional to Experimental: WikiProject Jazz

• Featured content: Contentious FAC debate: a week in review

• Arbitration report: Four open cases, proposed decision in Betacommand 3

• Technology report: December in more detail; and why the MediaWiki codebase was "slushed" this week

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 03:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Ethical Oil Page

Hi CET... I'd like some additional information on why these two edits were reverted, and ask that we bump this up to another level of wiki for review and confirmation of your decision to revert these two edits. I'll ask for the review of it or you can ask?

1)In 2011, Alykhan Velshi, a former staffer for Minister of Immigration Jason Kenney, founded a website to promote the ideas put forward by Ezra Levant in his book. The website, EthicalOil.org, launched a campaign to compare Canada's 'Ethical Oil' against OPEC's 'Conflict Oil' and features controversial advertisements comparing conditions for women, gays and other minorities in OPEC countries to those in Canada. EthicalOil.org has staged counter-protests in response to opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline project.

You removed this edit of text from the paragraph above. The start of the paragraph above refers to Velshi's initial career as a former staffer for the Minster of Immigration. How is the sentence below any more or less informative in regards to Velshi's carrier in the government? Why was it removed, it was also referenced to The Globe & Mail as well. This sentence does nothing more than cite the evolution of the government career continuing from the first line of the paragraph.

After setting up the ethicaloil.org website, Velshi has returned to Parliament Hill in late 2011, in the position of Director of Planning for the Prime Minister's Office.

2)In the part of the page titled "Criticism" you removed additional edits cited from an online radio debate held on December 6th 2011 on CBC's "The Current" between Andrew Crane, a leading York University business ethics professor and director of the Schulich School of Business‘s Centre of Excellence in Responsible Business, versus an oil industry spokesperson Kathryn Marshall. They were directly discussing the book in question. The criticism levelled on the book by a York University Business Ethics professor covered in "The Current" would appear to be reasonable criticism of the book and thus relevant to this section of the page.

On December 6th 2011 a debate was held on CBC's "The Current" between Andrew Crane, a leading York University business ethics professor and director of the Schulich School of Business‘s Centre of Excellence in Responsible Business, versus an oil industry spokesperson Kathryn Marshall. Mr. Crane highlited several ethical concerns he had with the manner in which oil sands oil was being branded ethical.

"...its narrow focus on human rights and the rule of law distracts attention from the massive environmental damage and energy consumption involved in extraction and processing of tar sands oil..."

"...the claim that tar sands operations fully respect human rights is debatable, with numerous First Nations claiming that these operations impair their rights to clean water and a healthful environment..."

"...the xenophobic undertones of the Ethical Oil message – it is no coincidence that most of the countries targeted by the campaign are ethnically, culturally or religiously distinct from the white Canadian majority, and the dangerous “otherness” of the foreigner is a central trope of Levant’s book..."Kurt Dundy (talk) 12:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm loosing patience here, so you'll excuse me if my message is not as polite and helpful as the previous ones.

I reverted these edits because they again fit in a pattern of slanted editing; you do not seem to comprehend WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, and your pattern of editing shows someone who is here with an agenda, possibly with an undisclosed conflict of interest : "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." I already explained several times why I reverted your edits in the past, and I'm not going to go out of my way again to explain the reversion this time; the pattern is the same, the reasons are the same. I'll go very shortly as to why this time they were reverted :

• registered lobbyist is irrelevant and it was put there to tell the world Ezra Levant is somehow a bad man; he did have this job at one time, while the addition is relevant on Levant's article, it has nothing to do on the book's article because it is not who Levant primarily is. He's also a tv host, a former politician, etc. These are all irrelevant.
• Velshi 'back' at the PMO might be relevant, though one footnote would be sufficient.
• The rest is the real reason; it is utterly irrelevant cherry picking of criticism that is only tangentially related to Levant's book and thus relevant to this article; some would perhaps fit, toned down, in an article on the broader context of the ethical oil debate, but as said to you before : WP:UNDUE. I'm sure Crane is a nice guy that a lot to say, so do so many people, but why do Crane's 'concerns' matter enough to take half of the article in a poorly formatted paragraph that does not even bother to present his opponents's counter-claims? If you had added "CBC's The Current held a debate on the merits of the argument, and (Crane...) argued that the narrow focus of the debate distracts, while (Marhsall...) responded;" then maybe we could work towards something here.

I put a lot of time and effort in writing this article and I'm not going to let you add crap obviously designed to put a slant on it, however that looks. I'm sorry if I'm assuming bad faith, but my prior efforts to help you were obviously ignored, and I'm not interested in baby-sitting an editor with an agenda.

You want to "bump" this, then sure, go right ahead; you could start with the neutral point of view noticeboard, or Wikipedia:Third opinion.

By the way, you don't have to add the content of each edit in your talk page posts as we are able to read diffs.

CharlieEchoTango (contact) 17:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I can confirm my only agenda is when appropriate to attempt to ensure relevant context is included for wiki users that I notice. I'll tackle the above edits and your suggestions one at a time. To my knowledge I have no conflict of interest. My lack of editing experience certainly shows, you have made helpful suggestions on how to present better I am taking it in. My intent remains to improve the available information adding depth of context where possible.

I believe that if it is relevant to the page that Alykhan Velshi was a former staffer for the Minister of Immigration at the start of the paragraph... It is useful information in the paragraph to also point out that he left government, set up the website and then returned to government in the PMO in 2011. The return is a fact and equally as relevant as the initial statement, it also adds additional context for users I believe. Why would you include the staffer fact in the first sentence of the paragraph, and then opt not to include the return to the PMO all in 2011 after setting the web site up? instead relegate it to a footnote or choose not to include it at all. In choosing not to include it I think it bears asking why and for what purpose (though I will operate on the basis of good faith)? I would argue they are both relevant and add value and context to the information presented to the users. I would propose the following change to you in lieu of a footnote. I don't believe including this additional information is slanted, rather the opposite if it is not included.

In 2011, Alykhan Velshi, a former staffer for Minister of Immigration Jason Kenney left government service and founded a website to promote the ideas put forward by Ezra Levant in his book. He subsequently returned as the Director of Planning for the Prime Minster’s Office later in 2011. The website, EthicalOil.org, launched a campaign to compare Canada's 'Ethical Oil' against OPEC's 'Conflict Oil' and features controversial advertisements comparing conditions for women, gays and other minorities in OPEC countries to those in Canada. EthicalOil.org has staged counter-protests in response to opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline project.

Kurt Dundy (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

What I meant by footnote was that two were not needed and one reference was sufficient; but yes, I agree with you the inclusion of Velshi's 'return' to the PMO as you wrote it right above is factual and relevant. The other edits, much less. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 20:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

On to the next set of points...

Let me put my edits in context for you….

York University is is Canada's third-largest university, Ontario's second-largest graduate school, and Canada's leading interdisciplinary university.

York University's business school and law school have continuously been ranked among the top schools in Canada and the world.

Addressing “criticism that is only tangentially related to Levant's book “ I don’t think I am going out on a limb here when I point out Mr. Crane was offering direct critical analysis of the book, that hardly qualifies as “tangentially related to Levant’s book”… I believe that when a top ranked Canadian University and Business School program both domestic and on the world stage…. has a tenured professor with a Ph.D. ‘Marketing, Morality and the Natural Environment’ ... who teaches Ethics and Social Responsibility in Management and International Business Ethics at this top ranked school… I think it fair to say he is one of the perfect people to offer critical analysis of Ezra’s book on “Ethical Oil”. This was all done on a leading Canadian journalistic program. This man is more than qualified to offer insightful and meaningful critical analysis of the content of this book, that adds substantial value for wiki users viewing this page.

I’ll cede the point that my presentation could be much better, particularly with the lack of the rebuttal statements from Kathryn Marshall. I’ve ordered a copy of the program text to ensure I accurately capture Ms. Marshall’s rebuttals.

As to your comment of undue, given the earlier content of the page and the content of Ezra’s book I don’t think 4 points and about 8 or 9 lines from Mr. Crane's direct critical analysis of the book are undue at all (I think it safe consider him a leading expert on the subject in Canada... - prof top domestic school, top 20 international, teaches ethics), nor do they digress. Once I get the transcript and have accurately captured Ms. Marshall’s rebuttal statements I’ll put another version up here for you to look at prior to posting. If this page is going to have a Critical section lets put meaningful critical analysis there… That does nothing but improve the page for users in my opinion. Kurt Dundy (talk) 07:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Image Use Question

I noticed above "I am also familiar with the more intricate parts of Wikipedia, such as image licensing." which is proving to be a confusing topic for a neophyte editor such as myself. I'm working on the Occupational safety and health page. I've added one graphic to wiki from an ILO document, but am trying to figure out if an image from the the UK Health and Safety Executive Guidance Note HSG65: Successful Health and Safety Management can be used. I believe based on the copy write notice below it can be.

You may reuse this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open government Licence. To view the licence visit , write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk.

Some images and illustrations may not be owned by the Crown so cannot be reproduced without permission of the copyright owner. Enquiries should be sent to copyright@hse.gsi.gov.uk.

I believe either of the images I am interested in on page 9 and 10 belong to the HSE, and therefore could be uploaded and used on the wiki page if deemed useful for the page. Do you agree with that my interpretation of the copy write text? Kurt Dundy (talk) 14:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes if the images are actually under Crown copyright (e.g. not third-party); the UK Government's Open Government License is a free license and thus compatible with Wikipedia's requirements. You can upload the file on Wikimedia Commons then use it here. I'll reply to your message above tomorrow. Regards, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 08:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Appretiate the assistance. Kurt Dundy (talk) 09:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Your input is needed on the SOPA initiative

Hi CharlieEchoTango,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The Helpful One 16:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.