User talk:Rrburke/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 14

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broken Springs

I see from the contribution history that the article was created on October 27, 2009... 14 months ago... and that its author did no other editing until creating the Jeff Bobo article on December 15, 2010. Is it your thought that User:GreasyCreek12345 is in fact the film's publicist Jeff Bobo? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Michael. That's actually why I excluded the Times News pieces in trying to judge whether the subject met WP:GNG: they appeared to be by the film's publicist. I saw the Variety review, but it was only a single paragraph. The Dread Central and Bloody Disgusting "reviews" are just as short, of sub-professional quality -- and one seems to have been cribbed from the other anyway. The film's inclusion in the Anaheim International Film Festival, an event in its inaugural year, didn't seem to me to establish the film's notability. I just didn't see anything that approached significant coverage. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Your excluding Times News night have been a bit presumptive, as even a little research shows Jeff Bobo AS a real journalist, and not simply some online amateur... specially as we can find articles authored by him for many years as a staff writer and reporter for the hardcopy The Harlan Daily Enterprise examples:199619971998 and he was writing as a staffer for the hardcopy Kingsport Times News for 4 years [1] before they began their online Times News and encouraged amateurs to submit articles. So he IS verifiable as a real journalist. In good faith, I cannot somehow discredit his articles that appear in their online version. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, Michael. Even if these articles appeared in the print edition of the paper -- which I tend to doubt, but no matter -- they would still not be useful for the purpose of establishing notability, because WP:GNG specifies "reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (emphasis mine), and these articles by the film's publicist are the opposite of independent. An article by the film's publicist is, to my mind, roughly the equivalent of a press release, and such sources are specifically excluded by WP:GNG as unsuitable for the purpose of establishing notability.

Moreover, as the Times News permits users to create their own articles, there is really no way of knowing which of its articles are self-published sources, hence the online edition of the paper lacks the kind of editorial oversight that would qualify it as a reliable source -- that is, a "source[] with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (WP:RS#Overview). Cheers. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Visual Basic for Applications

Thanks for deleting my hours of work. Do you know VBA ? Whether yes or no, can you judge the importance of an article. If needed you can delete the reference but not the article(VBA Coding Best Practices) that I added. Be human, don't work like a bot. Sorry for sounding rude, I don't have any personal grudges with you. If not undeletion, a good explanation can definitely calm me down. Open Excel (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Since removing material not attributed to a reliable source doesn't require any knowledge of the subject matter, what I know about VBA is immaterial. The issue is this: all content added to Wikipedia must be based on material previously published in reliable sources. Like other self-published sources, blogs are (with very few exceptions) not considered reliable. Unpublished material, or things you know from your own experience, are also not suitable for inclusion. If you can find the same material published in a reliable source, please feel free to re-add it -- with the appropriate citation of the source.

Incidentally, the material you added was not deleted: it remains in the article history (see [2] for a permanent link). If you have trouble recovering it, please let me know and I will be happy to help.

For more information on Wikipedia's standards for information added to articles, please see:

• Wikipedia:Verifiability
• Wikipedia:No original research
• Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources

-- Rrburke (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Robert Lenkiewicz page

Hello Rrburke, I would be gratefull if you would not remove the name/s I have added to the page. If you need online proof that I was a former student of Robert's, please see: http://www.robertlenkiewicz.org/lenkiewiczs-students. Many thanks, Joe Stoneman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joestoneman (talk • contribs) 20:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The issue is not whether the information is accurate, but whether it is noteworthy; you have adduced no evidence that it is. Moreover, as I have already informed you, writing about yourself is strongly discouraged by Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline. If this were noteworthy information, somebody else would add it. -- Rrburke (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks. I've just tried to reply to your other message (in my own mytalk) but something went wrong, so here it is: Hi, I wasn't aware that I could not add info about 'myself' - I am not an expert user of this site (as you can see by my last reply to this message!). Anyway, if the problems lies with me adding my own info, would the addition be valid if a different user was to add it? Thanks, Joe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joestoneman (talk • contribs) 20:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

If I may jump in here -- the issue is notability. Mr. Lenkiewicz probably had a lot of students but not all of them will be named in the article, just like not all of his friends and family members are named. Piran Bishop is mentioned because he already has a Wikipedia article about him (although it's borderline in terms of notability). ... discospinster _talk 23:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

[reply to Joestoneman] If a person with no connection to you decided independently that it was important that it be added to the article, this would solve the conflict of interest problem. But simply soliciting someone else to do it in your place is no better than you doing it yourself. Also, conflict of interest is only part of the problem: the other part is the noteworthiness of the information. A couple of examples to help clarify: an artist's major works are obviously noteworthy; his shoe size is obviously not. Between these two is a large and miscellaneous assemblage of information whose noteworthiness is decided by consensus. If others editors are persuaded that information is noteworthy, it is likely to remain; if they are not, it is likely to be removed. If the association between you and Mr. Lenkiewicz has been mentioned in multiple sources, that would go a long way to establishing its noteworthiness. If it hasn't been, it is probably a negligible factoid that doesn't warrant inclusion. -- Rrburke (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Anthony Powell

re edit of the article on Anthony Powell:

 03:09, 18 November 2010 Rrburke (talk | contribs) (16,440 bytes) (Undid revision 397109218 by Powellindex (talk) Please do not add links to your own site. See WP:COI, WP:EL#ADV) (undo) 

Colud you please reconsider this embargo? This index is a major piece of scholarship on the works of Anthony Powell. For evidence of this, please look at http://www.powellindex.talktalk.net/indexpdf.pdf

Oldhall845 (talk) 10:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC) 78.151.39.148 (talk) 14:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no embargo. The link appeared to have been added by the author of the document and owner of the website, contrary to Wikipedia:External links#Advertising and conflicts of interest, q.v. The source also appears to be a personal website, which falls under Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided. If you nevertheless think the link ought to be included, after reviewing Wikipedia:External links you may wish to raise the matter on the article's talk page (Talk:Anthony Powell) to see what regular editors think and whether they believe the document merits making an exception to the external links guideline. -- Rrburke (talk) 16:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. That is helpful. I shall follow your suggestions.

89.240.189.72 (talk) 08:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Reza Parchizadeh

• Dear -- Rrburke,

I am not here to question your or the administrator's judgment, but since the article I created on Reza Parchizadeh was deleted without the clarification of the reason(s) - or perhaps I failed to find them, I wanted to ask you about the reason(s). Was it that he did not meet Wikipedia's standard of notability? Or because there was copyright material used in the article? Or there might be other reasons as well. Whatever the reason, if I contact him for possible further third party information that he might be able to provide himself and also secure his permission for the copyright material, and if both attempts meet success in the end, would it possible to reconsider the undeletion of the article? Timelesstune (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Timelesstune. The admin who closes a deletion discussion does so by making a judgment about whether a consensus has been reached regarding whether to keep or delete the article, so the technical reason for the deletion is that the closing admin judged that there was a consensus to delete: he or she doesn't cite another reason. But, indeed, the discussion focused on the question of notability, and a consensus coalesced around that issue -- which is an unduly prolix way of saying that the reason for deletion was that the topic does not appear to meet the notability guidelines.

The inclusion of copyrighted material is not a reason for deletion: in most cases, such material can simply be removed. No problem that can be corrected by editing is grounds for an article's deletion. Copyright violation is grounds for deletion only when there is no alternative version of the article that does not violate copyright.

If you can establish that Mr. Parchizadeh meets Wikipedia's notability requirements, you are always free to recreate the article or to request that it be undeleted. If you disagree that there was a consensus to delete, you may request that the deletion be reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review. If you require a copy of the deleted article, you can request that an administrator email one to you.

These links may help you determine whether Mr. Parchizadeh meets Wikipedia's notability requirements:

• Wikipedia:Notability
• Wikipedia:Notability (people) (especially Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals)
• Wikipedia:Notability (academics)
• Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources

While you are free to recreate the article if you can establish Mr. Parchizadeh's notability, please ensure that the problems that led to its deletion are corrected in the new version. Re-created articles that are substantially the same as deleted versions will be deleted according to a process known as speedy deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, especially section G4, for more information. Rewritten articles exhibiting the same defects as their deleted predecessors are also very likely to be deleted. Please see the following link for advice on recreating articles:

• Wikipedia:Recreation of previously deleted pages

The following links explain core principles that guide the editing of Wikipedia articles:

• Wikipedia:Verifiability
• Wikipedia:No original research
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

If you need more assistance, I am always happy to help. -- Rrburke (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I will see what I can do. Timelesstune (talk) 09:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.39.76.225 (talk)

• I have contacted Mr. Parchizadeh, and he has replied to my email. I think you must see this email. Is there any way that I can forward it to you? Timelesstune (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You can email me by clicking this link. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I have sent you an email. Timelesstune (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I have replied. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• I have forwarded the files to you. Could you please check them? Timelesstune (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I have had a look at the files you sent, but am not certain of your intended use for them. Could you explain? -- Rrburke (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, since these documents are more of a personal nature, and besides, they refer to names in Iran, I certainly cannot use them in the article. My problem is, the man is somehow "notable" as you can see, but it cannot be established through the regular ways. What I want to ask you is that should I give up the article, or is there any way I could hope to have it back? Timelesstune (talk) 15:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The principal measure of notability is whether the subject has been extensively written about in reliable sources that are independent of the subject -- in other words, newspapers articles, books, journals, magazines and the like. If you can establish that Mr. Parchizadeh and his work have been written about (not merely mentioned, but explored in detail) in such sources, he is presumed to be sufficiently noteworthy to merit an article. If they have not been written about in such publications, not only do he and his work not meet the notability guideline, there will be no source material to use as the basis of the article. As Wikipedia does not publish original research, Wikipedia articles are composed using material already published previously in reliable sources. If no such sources exist, there can be no Wikipedia article because there is no raw material to make it with. In short, whether an article can be written about Mr. Parchizadeh will depend on how much secondary source material you can locate about him. -- Rrburke (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I will be back when I will have found enough secondary sources on him. Timelesstune (talk) 11:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Chester Kallman

• Chester Kallman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, I noticed you removed the Category:Gay writers from this article. The information appears correctly sourced, was there some other issue? Thanks Fæ (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Fæ. I saw that Chester Kallman was already included in the more precise Category:LGBT writers from the United States, which appeared to make his inclusion in Category:Gay writers redundant; both are subcats of Category:LGBT writers. On reflection, I can see the merits of including both, but perhaps the categories might be reorganized such that Category:Gay writers from the United States could be created as a subcat of Category:Gay writers by country and Category:LGBT writers from the United States. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Your welcome to have a crack at reorganizing the cats, but as you already realise getting the hierarchy right on the sexuality side would be somewhat debatable depending on what the consensus is for definition. I tend to try and steer clear of getting to wrapped up in debating cats, it's a job that can never be completed. Fæ (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree: what looks simple at first inevitably ends up making my head hurt. Hey, unrelated: what's your experience as an OTRS volunteer been like? I've often thought of volunteering, but wanted first to ask someone who's done it. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

80% is run of the mill stuff (such as explaining why we can't accept a newspaper clipping from the '50s) but there are some interesting people and organizations writing in that you probably would never get to correspond with otherwise (particularly those times when you write to the "official" address to confirm they are who they say they are). I have dealt with politicians, musicians, artists as well as folks with unusual old family photos and companies trying to release promotional material but not quite understanding how Commons works. In the process I have improved my understanding of international copyright quite a bit. If you can stick to patient politeness in emails, then I would recommend offering to help out and giving it a go, the number of enquiries you deal with is entirely up to you and how much free time you want to devote to it. Fæ (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Z-Brary Registry of z39.50 Targets

Z-brary My submission to the Z39.50 page was rejected because my user name is "promotional". It's almost more trouble to re-register with a "non-promotional" user name than it is to edit this "talk page" (why no email address?). Anyway, that reason for rejection is ill-advised because of what my page is--the best list in the world of its kind. Not sure what other hoops I would need to jump through to get it mentioned on the Z39.50 page, but it would be a shame if it weren't. Is anyone there at Wikipedia who understands Z39.50 and would recognize my claims? That would clear up the confusion. Many thanks! (Forgive me if this attempt at communicating was done incorrectly, but I find it wildly complicated given its purpose)Z-brary (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Z-brary. Welcome to Wikipedia. The problem is two-fold: Wikipedia's username policy prohibits usernames that match website URLs, company or organization names and the like. The second issue is that Wikipedia's external links guideline strongly discourages users from adding links to sites they own, maintain or represent. In such cases, users are expected to consult other regular contributors to the article in question to see if there is a consensus that the link should be added. This can be done by raising the issue on the article's talk page, Talk:Z39.50. It is customary to disclose up-front that you are the owner of the site in question, and it is preferable that another editor add the link -- not least because, if you add it yourself, it will trip the edit filter again and stands a decent chance of being reverted. Please see Wikipedia:conflict of interest for more information. -- Rrburke (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Capital Services Group not eligible for speedy deletion under criterion G4

Thank you for catching that Capital Services Group was sent to AfD previously. I compared the version that existed at the time of the AfD against the current one. The new version improves upon the old in areas that were identified at the AfD. As a result, it is not substantially similar to the article that was deleted before, so it is not eligible for speedy deletion under criterion G4.

If you feel deletion is appropriate for the article, you will need to open a second AfD for the article (using the tag {{subst:Afdx}}). —C.Fred (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. -- Rrburke (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics

Cirt recommended I ask you for suggestions on my page User:Spick3/The Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics. It had previously been deleted for being promotional. I deleted the majority of the external links and tried to make it more neutral and was wondering what else should be done. Also, once all the necessary changes are made, how would I make it into a main article, not a user page; does an administrator have to do that?

Thanks! Spick3 (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Spick3. Welcome to Wikipedia. Are you the same user who previously edited under the username Giannini? -- Rrburke (talk) 02:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

No I am not, but I know who made the first one. Spick3 (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The reason I ask is that people closely associated with the subject of an article are strongly discouraged from writing about it by Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Editors with conflicts of interest are strongly discouraged from creating and editing articles about subjects related to their conflict. We want software engineers to contribute to the article Software, but Bill Gates should not create or edit the article Microsoft.

Editors with conflicts are expected to declare their conflict up front, to largely restrict themselves to the kinds of unobjectionable editing set out at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Non-controversial edits when an article's subject touches on their conflict, and to follow the advice set out in the essay, Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest.

Could I ask you to clarify whether you have any connection to the topic of the proposed article that might make Wikipedia:Conflict of interest applicable? -- Rrburke (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand the rules set out for conflict of interest, however, I do not believe I am in violation of it. I am a student at the University of California, I do not work for the Giannini Foundation, nor am I receiving money to create the article. Does the page still appear to be "promotional"? Thanks, Spick3 (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see much objectionable about the page in its present form. The tone is a little informal in the section dealing with the origins of the foundation. In particular, our style manual recommends the use of surnames to refer to people (see WP:SURNAME) after their full name has been introduced. It is also not customary, and probably not necessary, to include a list of the members of the executive committee as such a list is probably not of interest to most encyclopedia users. If necessary, individual board members might be mentioned in relation to their activities rather than in a list. Also, I note that the lead section doesn't actually mention the principal purpose(s) of the foundation. Consider having a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section) for some useful advice.

You don't need anyone's permission to move the draft into article namespace. Just click on "move" link: in the "To new title" box enter Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics (see WP:DEFINITE) and in the "Reason" box enter something like "moving completed draft into article namespace". You may also want to create the article Giannini Foundation as a redirect to assist anyone searching for the article under the abbreviated name of the organization.

If you run into any trouble, have any questions or need any help, just drop me a note here. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

A followup: remember to remove the {{COI|date=May 2010}} tag and the link to the deleted image before moving the article. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Consciousness link removal

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Consciousness http://c0ffeeartc.blogspot.com/2011/03/world-human-consciousness.html It was a link for a practical use of consciousness, why did you remove it ? It's not a spam. Please explain how to change it so it wouldn't look like promotion ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by C0ffeeartc (talk • contribs) 17:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. The problem is two-fold: blogs are not suitable for addition to an external links section (see WP:ELNO) and adding links to your own site is strongly discouraged (see WP:EL#ADV). -- Rrburke (talk) 17:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Sad news, the info concerns the consciousness topic only, combines different views of modern psychology and gestalt. Could be used for programmers, teachers or psychology practitioners. Won't go against rules, sorry to know it anyways. Thanks for the fast reply — Preceding unsigned comment added by C0ffeeartc (talk • contribs) 18:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Taino (rapper)

Hello Rrburke Im writing to you as I saw in my talk page that the article that I have been writing about taino has some issues. Im not a company affiliated to Taino. The reason for writing this article is due to the fact of Taino's importance in the Puerto Rican Community as a composer of a major song thats is part of puerto rican history. Their is a documentary inspired on this song and he happens to be the composer and singer of it. This song is constantly sang at major cultural events and sport events. I decided to add more info on his career so people would know how he go started and what he has done. I have looked at pages for other artists in wikipedia to get Ideas on how to best word this article. Im willing to work with you in order to make the article to wikipedias standard.

Thank You MCTAINO — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mctaino (talk • contribs) 19:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Mctaino. I'd be happy to help out. The place to begin is by finding reliable secondary sources to construct the article out of. Wikipedia doesn't permit original research, so everything an article contains must be backed up by a reliable source in order to satisfy one of Wikipedia's core principles, which is set out at Wikipedia:Verifiability. This is especially true of a biography of a living person.

An abundance of reliable secondary source material -- major newspaper article and reviews of Taino's work, for example -- will help establish that he is notable. For a subject to merit a Wikipedia article, it must satisfy the general notability guideline in that it must have received substantial coverage in reliable sources. In the case of Taino, the article should demonstrate that he is notable by showing that he meets the guideline , which is know as Wikipedia:Notability (music). In particular, have a look at the list of criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles.

You mentioned that you are not affiliated with Taino. If that's the case, you may wish to consider changing your username, because if you continue editing this article with your current username you will repeatedly come up against editors who are going to assume you are here to promote Taino, and that the article is an autobiography.

But if you are not Taino, I have to confess I'm a little perplexed: the article you created cited no sources, but contained detailed biographical information about Taino. What was the source of this infotmation? Likewise, the license tag you added to the image of Taino you uploaded, File:Taino Wiki.jpg, states that you hold the copyright to the image. If you're not Taino and not affiliated with him, how is that possible?

If you need any help or advice, please let me know. -- Rrburke (talk) 13:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Robert Arneson

I'm not clear on why some updates to Bob Arneson article (on his teaching career) that I supplied were rejected. I was indeed one of Mr Arneson's graduate students (from 85-87), and therefore I would think that there would be some value in something like an personal accounting of events, as eyewitness testimonies should presumably have some value in terms of providing a genuine (and richer) historical record. I felt qualified to enter these comments, in that I knew Mr Arneson well, and I had the full support of his widow (Sandra Shannonhouse, also a former student). Citing my own website (as a source for some comments which were quoted) was a necessity, in that it showed that I assumed personal responsibility for the comments made in an interview. As an artist an educator who was directly influenced by Mr Arneson, I felt that my comments genuinely added to the greater public understanding of him. As I attempted to point out, although an internationally-recognized artist, Mr Arneson devoted a significant portion of his life to teaching. My notes were only intended to provide an insight into this aspect of his life, and to document his legacy and influence upon future generations of artists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglas Ogg (talk • contribs) 01:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Mr. Ogg. There are several reasons this material presents a problem. First, anything an Wikipedia contributor knows from first-hand experience is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia under a policy known as Wikipedia:No original research. In order to comply with this policy and another known as Wikipedia:Verifiability, readers must be able to check, preferably by inline citations added by the contributor to accompany material being added, that all content added to Wikipedia articles is based on material previously published in reliable sources -- that is, sources with suitable editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For this reason, personal websites and other self-published sources are not considered suitable sources. Personal reminiscences are by and large not appropriate for inclusion unless their importance to the subject can be demonstrated by their having been written about in reliable sources.

Finally, writing about yourself is strongly discouraged by Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline, which is set out at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Indeed, you may wish to consider whether your connection to Mr. Arneson places you in a conflict of interest. It may or may not, but writing about yourself is always frowned upon.

If you have further questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them. -- Rrburke (talk) 02:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Palo Santo

Rrburke, My wife was editing some content within my account on Wikipedia......If Dogfish can be on Wikipedia for beer, my should be able to add myself for Ice Cream.... Please explain, if I need to put in other context fine. Branden — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conejo78 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Branden. Sorry, but neither you nor your wife should be writing about you on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. -- Rrburke (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Roger Heusser's Page

I have added appropriate references to verify both Roger's importance and the legitimacy of the entry.

In other words, I took wikipedia seriously and went and verified the sources in accordance with editorial policy. Please (consider) removing the deletion tag.

--heusser — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mheusser (talk • contribs) 18:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Mr. Heusser. The sources you've added merely mention Mr. Heusser in passing and do not satisfy the general notability guideline's criterion of "significant coverage".

Quite apart from the issue of notability, in keeping with Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline you shouldn't have created an article about a family member in the first place, and you certainly shouldn't be writing about yourself. Wikipedia is not a place for people to write about themselves or their family members: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

I would ask that you stop contributing to articles on topics to which you have close personal connection. Please observe the limits set out at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Editors who may have a conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest. -- Rrburke (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Rebecca Shearing

Actually, the reposted version is no longer copyvio and does seem to make some sourced assertions of notability. It may be a deletion candidate still, but it will have to be handled at AfD. I have thus removed the tags (the creator got blocked again). Daniel Case (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It was speedied again, so I have listed it at AfD. Daniel Case (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

k87h and Salmon Arm Roots and Blues Festival

Hi There,

I have NO conflict of interest, yes i vounteer, but i am not aasocated with anyone who runs, works or is part of the board of the SAFMS, as a vounteer I go to the festival for 3 days and told what to do by OTHER vounteers , it is a very important event in Salmon Arm please re-consider getting rid of the page, or at least give it some time until others have a chance to write about the event.Thanks K87h (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, k87h. As a person who volunteers for the festival, it appears to me that you do indeed have a conflict of interest. The conflict is between your desire to make the festival better known and Wikipedia's core mission to produce high-quality, unbiased, well-sourced encyclopedia articles on noteworthy topics.

I don't object to your desire to make the festival better known: I think that's laudable. It's just that Wikipedia does not exist to be used as a vehicle is for such a purpose; Wikipedia is also not a webspace provider or a directory.

In addition, the tone and much of the content of the article seem to me promotional and unencyclopedic: long lists of artists accompanied by external links to their websites look distinctly promotional to me. A description of "site amenities" does not belong in an encyclopedia, as Wikipedia is not a travel guide.

It's quite true that other festivals have articles about them: those articles are written collaboratively by people knowledgeable about the festivals, people who have sought out reliable, published sources about them, but who are not affiliated with them. When people affiliated with the subject of an article try using the article to promote it, their contributions are removed and, if they persist, they are eventually blocked from editing.

I wish you luck promoting the festival. It's just that Wikipedia isn't a venue for doing that. -- Rrburke (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not promoting the festival i will get rid of the links if you want...i did what the calgary folk festival did... go look at their page its almost the same.... if the links piss you off so much just tell me to get rid of those and i can get rid of the site amenites to its not hard and as i have said before EVERYONE in salmon arm has now or in the past been involed with the festival it is a SMALL communtiy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K87h (talk • contribs) 15:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

re change to David Maxwell (rower)

Sorry - not sure how best to communicate - but your name was at the bottom of the message: I edited the above article just now. Just not sure I want the world to have access to my date of birth, which is why I deleted it. I then had second thoughts but in the end have tried to delete it. Is this not allowed? DavidLM44 (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)David Maxwell 23 March 2011

Hi, DavidLM44. In general, someone who is the subject of an article (or who has a close connection to the subject) is strongly discouraged from editing that article (please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest). In this instance, though, since you added the information yourself and it is drawn from your own knowledge and not from a published source, it technically oughtn't to be there anyway (please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research to better understand why). I've removed the information as unsourced.

In the future, should you have any information you wish to contribute to the article, please have a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, especially the advice set out at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Editors who may have a conflict of interest, and Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest to see what restrictions an editor with a conflict of interest is expected to observe.

If you have any questions or need any assistance, I'm happy to try to help. -- Rrburke (talk) 01:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rrburke: Thank you for your helpful comments and explanation. I am sorry that I wasn't aware of the 'conflict of interest' policy but have now read it and I think, somewhere, that it does comment on revealing personal information such as dates of birth. All I had wanted to do was to remove my date of birth as this could used for fraud purposes/stolen identity etc. I thought I had better explain, on my part, that I did not create this Wikipedia page (if this was what you were saying) - I'm not sure who did, but think it was someone in an East European country who set up a lot of Wikipedia pages of a similar ilk. I'm not sure what you have removed as the date of birth is still there. DavidLM44 (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC) DavidLM44 DavidLM44 (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, DavidLM44. I'm afraid another editor has restored the date after finding an online source, which he's perfectly entitled to do. In general, "personal information" on Wikipedia refers to things like phone numbers, addresses, social insurance numbers and the like, not to information that's publicly available. At any rate, as it appears your birthdate is already posted elsewhere on the internet, it's unlikely to pose any increased risk by being added to the Wikipedia article about you. I'm sure any risk was negligible anyway.

No, I wasn't trying to imply that you had created the article: It's possible to see who added what in the article history. Cheers. -- Rrburke (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Service award level

There has been a major revision of the the Service Awards: the edit requirements for the higher levels have been greatly reduced, to make them reasonably attainable.

Because of this, your Service Award level has been changed, and you are now eligible for a higher level. I have taken the liberty of updating your award on your user page.

Herostratus (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

In fact, you went up two levels. Congratulations, and thank you for your many contributions to the Wikipedia! Herostratus (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Herostratus. Thanks for your note! -- Rrburke (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Why are you busting my chops?

--Mark A. Kukucka, MS, DVM, PhD (talk) 17:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Why are you busting my chops?

Somebody else added the "Unit" column to the "Spaatz Awardees of the Maryland Wing" table... all I did was to include the unit from which I received my Spaatz since it wasn't noted... I really don't believe that rises to the level of "writing about myself"!

Cool you poisonous pen, -Mark

If you'd had a closer look at the edit history, you'd have seen that I wasn't reverting your edits but reverting to your edit after another self-promoting contributions by another editor, not you. Thanks anyway for the snotty note, though! It might be worth remembering that censorious and wrong are not an attractive combination -- and so easily avoided! Cheers and happy editing. -- Rrburke (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Confusion about my article being deleted.

Hello, Rrburke.

You have sent me some information about my article being deleted. I'm sorry, but I'm still confused. There is an article on Wikipedia about the Broadway Show, High Fidelity. I am an original cast member that's listed on THAT Wikipedia page. Since my name is listed on that page, I wanted to create an article which links to my name. As you can see, Kirsten Wyatt, who is also listed on the High Fidelity page was able to create an article for herself as an actor. I included only factual information and NO opions. I also included references. In fact, my article looks very similar to hers. So I don't understand why my article is considered inappropriate. As I am new to Wikipedia, would you mind telling me the very specific things that I need to remove from this article? What I would like to be in the article is below. Thank you. ________________________________________________________________________________ J.B. Wing is an American actress who made her Broadway debut in the musical, High Fidelity written by Amanda Green and Pulitzer Prize winner, David Lindsay-Abaire, and composed by Pulitzer Prize winner, Tom Kitt. She also performed in the 1st Broadway National Tours of Xanadu, directed by Christopher Ashley, and Legally Blonde, directed and choreographed by Jerry Mitchell.

In 2005, J.B. performed in off-Broadway's, BINGO, and soon after that, she appeared in Bill Russell and Henry Krieger's musical, LUCKY DUCK at the Old Globe in San Diego. LUCKY DUCK was directed by Tony Award winner, John Rando.

She has studied with Michelle Pawk, Craig Carnelia, Robert X. Modica, and Marni Nixon.

Sincerely, Jbwing (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Jbwing. An administrator deleted the article because he or she judged that its purpose was self-promotion. Promotional pages are not permitted on Wikipedia (please see Wikipedia is not a soapbox and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest), so the article was deleted under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Editors using Wikipedia to promote themselves can be blocked if they fail to heed warnings to stop.

Creating autobiographies on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, so I wouldn't recommend re-creating the article: autobiographies are often deleted when a promotional purpose is detected or if there is insufficient evidence to show that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the notability guideline for biographies.

It's true that there's an article about Kirsten Wyatt; however, the crucial difference is that it appears to have been created and edited by someone else rather than by Ms Wyatt herself and doesn't appear to be promotional.

If you are noteworthy, somebody will probably create an article about you sooner or later: Wikipedia is not finished!

If you'd like advice on how to contribute to Wikipedia on subjects besides yourself, I'd be very happy to help!

Best, -- Rrburke (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia page flagged: Rachael Nedrow

Hi,

I thought the content was provided in an informational, unbiased way. I would be glad to remove anything that you see as advertising or as promoting in said article. I was not trying to promote/advertise the mention websites and will remove them if they seem to be portrayed in such a way.

Thank you, Speedstackinggirl (talk) 02:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi... Just to be clear: creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged (please see Wikipedia:Autobiography). Creating and editing articles should be left to editors without a close connection to a subject (please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest). Editors with a close connection to a subject are generally expected to restrict their edits to the article(s) in question to the kind of uncontroversial edits set out at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Editors who may have a conflict of interest and to follow advice like that detailed at Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest. -- Rrburke (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Another question...

Hi again,

How do you know that I created an autobiographical article? There is no proof of that claim. I am very sorry if the article appeared so biased, and I would be glad to change it. I would like to make it better, even if I must start over again.

Thanks again, Speedstackinggirl (talk) 02:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You already claimed to be the subject of the article on this file description page: File:RachaelNedrowWikipedia.png. Jujutacular ^talk 11:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

And having a username that matches that of your YouTube account is also something of a giveaway.

As for improving the article, I really wish you would just leave articles on topics about which you have a conflict of interest entirely alone. I renew my request that you review Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Editors who may have a conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest.

If you need assistance or have questions regarding how to contribute to Wikipedia on any other topic besides yourself, I'd be more than happy to help. But you will find that being perceived as trying to use Wikipedia to publicize yourself and your activities will garner nothing but resentment from those of us who are trying to build an encyclopedia. -- Rrburke (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Plumpy'Nut Page

Hi Rrburke, We are writing to you regarding recent edits to the Plumpy'Nut page. It seems that after we submitted several changes in order to bring all of the information up-to-date, you reverted the page back to an earlier format. There have been several changes to the PlumpyField network as well as the product itself since the Wikipedia page was initially created that needed updating on the page in order to ensure its factual accuracy. We had been in contact with our parent company, Nutriset, in order to acquire their approval regarding the edits as well. Please let us know if you would like to discuss your reasoning in rejecting these changes. Thanks, Edesia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edesia (talk • contribs) 18:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Greetings. I reverted your contributions because, in accordance with our conflict of interest guideline, your close connection to the subject made substantial contributions to this article inappropriate. If you have material you think ought to be added to the article, please consider posting it to the article's talk page, explaining that while you believe the material merits inclusion, a conflict of interest prevents you from adding it to the article yourself.

Please limit your direct contributions to the article to the kinds of uncontroversial edits set out at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Editors who may have a conflict of interest. For a guide to the standard of conduct many Wikipedians expect of editors with conflicts of interest, please see Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest.

Additionally, you will need to create a new account that represents you rather than you company. Sharing accounts and using company and other group names as a usernames is prohibited on Wikipedia. Please be aware that choosing a new name does not exempt from following the guideline Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

If you need more assistance or advice, I am happy to help. -- Rrburke (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Avid, Aviiid, Third-age

Hi there. I am confused. Someone has just undone all of my edits as a 'possible conflict of interest'.

I removed a dead link and added some new links.

Please advise.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviiid (talk • contribs) 11:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. That was me: you inserted material promoting your company and added links to your y's website; however, Wikipedia is not a venue for promotion and you should avoid writing about topics to which you have close connection. -- Rrburke (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. How do I distinguish having useful and relevent knowledge from having a connection?

I've been asked by the charitable foundation to note several community programs and exhibitions which have been talking place for seniors in Australia with the Museum of Contemporary Art and the City of Sydney. I've omitted any references to any commercial organisations but there are sponsors as this is quite a big event here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviiid (talk • contribs) 11:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

That distinction can sometimes be rather grey, but what I usually tell people is that while we (definitely) want a software engineer contributing to the article Software, Bill Gates probably shouldn't be editing the article Microsoft. If it's more grey than that, consider having a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest to see if it applies to you.

If it does, please have a look at Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Editors who may have a conflict of interest for advice on how to proceed.

First, though, you're going to have to get yourself a new username: our username policy prohibits usernames that match group or company names, or which convey the impression that a contributor is editing on behalf of a group or that the account may be shared. Your current account will likely be blocked shortly: creating another one (that represents you only, not any group, or organization) is as simple as creating the first one. If you have any problem creating a new a account, place a {{helpme}} tag on your user talk page and I or someone else will come along to help out.

For a broader introduction to the core principals of Wikipedia, please have a look at Wikipedia:Five pillars. If you need more help, post a message on your talk page or on mine -- but you'll have to get a new account to do the latter, as the current one will be disabled shortly. -- Rrburke (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviiid (talk • contribs)

Another question...

Hi,

Since I loosely based my article structure on Steven Purugganan's article, I was surprised when I was told that I lacked reliable sources, when his are mostly from YouTube, yet his article has not been questioned? I am not encouraging it, but I was just confused.

Thanks, Speedstackinggirl (talk) 02:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The short answer is that no one has noticed it. English Wikipedia has over 3.6 million articles, many with problems that need fixing. I will have a look at the article to assess the problem. -- Rrburke (talk) 02:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Bangkok Charity Orchestra

This is my first wikipedia article (so I'm not too familiar with all the rules here), how can I make this page 'encyclopedic'? It's not intend to promote an entity and there are no competitors, but to give reader information about the Bangkok Charity Orchestra...just like any other orchestra pages (e.g. London Symphony Orchestra) on wikipedia. Please advise or feel free to edit it to make it more neutral. All info can be found at www.charityorchestra.org.

Thank you. Chulayuth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chulayuth (talk • contribs) 10:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank You

Hi Rrburke. Thanks for sharing that link on internal linking on Wikipedia. I wanted to link internally to other entries, but didn't want to disrupt the flow of the sentences by going with the default title. Now I know use "pipes" | to accomplish both. Thanks! Markp615 (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Minor/Major Edits

Hi again. You're right that some of the changes weren't considered "minor". I'll be more careful to label changes as major if I'm adding or changing more than just a few words. Markp615 (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

i am sory

I delet your mixtape artical it wuz whack. Not liek Michel Jackson but liek Vanila Ice insted. Ice ice baby suks. PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Naiara Moraes

Good evening from Belgium; I appreciate you helping in keeping Wikipedia as neutral and correct as possible - I am working in a museum myself, so I know what is required to present data unbiased. As far as I am concerned, the article in question has nothing to do with promoting a person or organisation; if it were so, a fair amount of entries would have to be deleted, purely because they give facts about a person, organisation, event etc. No evalutation is made of the qualities of the person, neither is the article complete yet. So I would ask you to remove the speedy deletion tag, as to give me a reasonable amount of time to improve on and elaborate on the contents of the article. Thinking about it, I might have to change the content of the link about the painting, since it is since long NOT a commercial activity of the person in question, and thus neither is the article on Wikipedia intented to promote the sales of any product. I will need till end of the week to make the corrections, as I do not have a lot of time online currently. Thanks for your understanding, Christian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brasil-online (talk • contribs) 22:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Greetings and welcome to Wikipedia. "Promotion" does not refer only to promoting the sale of products and services for commercial gain; it refers equally to attempts to enhance the public profile of a subject by using Wikipedia as an organ of publicity -- even when there is no commercial motive. Where a close connection exists between the subject of the article and the article's creator, it is reasonable to conclude that the purpose of an article is promotional, and editing for promotional purposes is incompatible with the core aims and principles of Wikipedia.

In this case, because your username matches the URL of Ms Moraes website (http://arte.brasil-online.com/), I have inferred that a close connection exists between you and the subject. However, if you can assure me that no such connection exists, I will take you at your word and remove the tag.

Nevertheless, even if the article's purpose is not promotional, at present the article makes no claim that the subject is sufficiently noteworthy to merit a Wikipedia article: there are many poets and painters, and many people have been photographed by professionals. These by themselves are not sufficient to justify the creation of an article. The principal criterion by which the noteworthiness of a subject is judged is known as the general notability guideline, and it reads as follows:

“ If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. (WP:GNG) ”

The present version of the article makes no claim regarding Ms Moraes' noteworthiness; nor do the sources present in the article establish that Ms Moraes has been the subject of multiple third-party published works. If such sources exist, please add them to the article to minimize the chance of it deletion.

Should the article be deleted before you have an opportunity, you may obtain a copy of it from an administrator. You may recreate the article, but please make certain that you can demonstrate that Ms Moraes meets Wikipedia's notability criteria, otherwise the article is likely to be deleted again. Here are links to the relevant documents:

• Wikipedia:Notability
• Wikipedia:Notability (people)

-- Rrburke (talk) 00:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)