User talk:Drm310/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Eagle Eye Fright Forwarding Agency

NOW we know how alarm, despondency and panic are spread... 8-() Peridon (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, who knew? If they are actually a freight company, I hope they ship better than they spell! --Drm310 (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Come to that, I wonder how they spell 'ship'...... Peridon (talk) 21:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Douglas Greenberg

I saw your message to me about editing the page that is about me. I didn't create the page, but noticed that it was incomplete and inaccurate. To tell the truth, it doesn't matter to me whether I am in Wikipedia or not, but if I am to be there, I would like the information to be complete and accurate. It isn't clear to me how to make that happen without doing it myself. I'd be grateful for your guidance on that...I'm not even sure this is the right way to reply to your message, but thanks for alerting me. Doug.Greenberg (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Doug Greenberg

My advice would be to propose any changes on the article's talk page instead of editing the article directly. That will give disconnected editors the opportunity to review your proposed changes for their neutrality and verifiability from reliable sources.

The main objection to persons editing articles about themselves, even when well-meaning and in good faith, is the inherent risk of unconscious bias. An individual is not the best judge of their own notability, and that can result in articles that are positively biased or contain information that cannot be verified by anyone but the editor-subject him/herself. Wikipedia requires that any statement made about a topic is backed up by a reliable source that is intellectually independent of the article's subject. --Drm310 (talk) 04:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I get all of that and would never have made the changes at all if I had known about this sensible policy. But isn't the article I edited now gone? Can I restore the original in some way and then put my edits and amendments on the talk page for editors to peruse? If I eliminate all my edits (I really just copied an existing bio and cv and substituted them for what was there), won't the bio appear as a blank page? Thanks for your help. Doug.Greenberg (talk) 13:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

All Wikipedia pages have a revision history that can be accessed. Using it you can compare the differences between two revisions, and any past version of an article can be restored. I can revert the edits you made and restore it to the version immediately prior (your revision will become part the article's edit history). Then you can use the talk page for the proposed changes.

Inline citations are the preferred method of giving references; there's an extensive guide at Help:Footnotes but I'll give a brief summary here. To cite a source at the end of a statement or group of statements, use the syntax <ref></ref> to create a inline citation. Then in between the tags, insert the name of the book, journal, publication, or website link, e.g.

The sky is blue due to the scattering of visible light in the atmosphere.<ref>http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/blue-sky/</ref>

Now if you get really ambitious, you could try using a citation templates like {{cite web}}, {{cite book}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite journal}}, etc. These standardize the formatting of references, and allow automated programs ("bots") to search for archived copies of links if they should ever become broken. My above example would look like this with the {{cite web}} template:

The sky is blue due to the scattering of visible light in the atmosphere.<ref>{{cite web
|url = http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/blue-sky/
|title = Why is the sky blue?
|work = The Space Place
|publisher = [[NASA]]
|date = 2011-05-04
|accessdate = 2013-06-06}}</ref>

This isn't necessary, though. I can appreciate that new editors are already overwhelmed, and citation templates are even more work. Other editors like myself would be happy to do that for you. If you need any more assistance, please don't hesitate to ask. --Drm310 (talk) 15:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

That would be great...thanks. Sorry for the trouble. Doug.Greenberg (talk) 15:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)Doug Greenberg

Thanks

for giving the person a COIN notice. I filed the report late last night and totally dropped the ball on that. a13ean (talk) 15:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem... done that myself. --Drm310 (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Innovis page edits

Dear Drm310 -

Thanks for your notes on my recent edits to the Innovis page. I am Director of Marketing for CBC Companies. My company wanted me to correct erroneous infromation on the page. While I am close to the subject matter, I am also a former journalist and know the importance of including factual, verifiable information in the articles. Here are the changes I made:

• Innovis does not sell credit reports at this time, which the Wikipedia article incorrectly stated.
• Innovis does not sell any of the services that were previously listed in the article. I deleted the incorrect services and added the correct ones.
• Innovis is not the 4th credit bureau. I added language to clarify that Innovis is recognized by Freddie Mac as a credit reporting agency and I cited my source.
• Innovis is not the same as CBCInnovis, though both organizations are part of the CBC Companies family. I made that correction.
• I deleted references to CBCInnovis, its revenue, and its number of employees. In addition to being incorrectly attributed to Innovis, those details were factually incorrect.
• I attempted to add an Infobox on Innovis. I was unable to add the level of detail that Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion had on their pages.

If I am not allowed to correct inaccuracies about the company, can you please help me understand how to get someone else to do it? It's not right to have factually incorrect information about Innovis that could potentially negative impact our reputation, revenue, and regulatory oversight.

68.22.157.31 (talk) 21:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)CBCCommDir 6-14-2013

I have replied to this at User talk:CBCCommDir. --Drm310 (talk) 06:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

why did you delete the edit which i made on anu malik page when the info i added is 100% correct!

why did you delete the edit which i made on anu malik page when the info i added is 100% correct? why do u indulge in such activity. plz don't do this. thx:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesusisthesaviour (talk • contribs) 20:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Your edit was potentially libellous, and you did not support your statements with citations. Just because you claim something true will never be sufficient - it has to be backed up by reliable sources. That and your vandalism to one of my user pages is quickly giving you a bad reputation. Please stop your disruptive editing or you will be blocked. Thanks. --Drm310 (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

High Valley

Hey Drm310,

I am with Eaglemont Entertainment. We currently manage and serve as High Valley's record label in the U.S. I noticed you have re-edited what we posted yesterday. Please know that the information we posted is correct and I would appreciate it if you changed it back. Centricity Music is part of Eaglemont Entertainment, but is not associated with High Valley. They are ONLY associated with Eaglemont Entertainment. Also, the introduction we posted yesterday is what we would like people to see as they look up High Valley. Thank you so much for keeping an eye on their page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.16.9 (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Please use these sources when editing High Valley

www.eaglemontentertainment.com http://www.theagencygroup.com/artist.aspx?ArtistID=6030 www.highvalleymusic.com/press

Also, some of the details of the edits we made are not citable because they have never been posted online or in publication before. Please understand that as our edits were correct. Once again, thanks so much for keeping an eye on our page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.16.9 (talk) 14:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia only accepts information that is verified by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If there are any factual inaccuracies, then I will correct them. However, if statements are unverifiable because they've never been published, then they cannot appear in the article.

Any wording that is promotional or a verbatim copy from your website is unacceptable. Wikipedia is meant as a source of neutral information and not a space to publicize your clients. Other editors are free to edit this page at any time, so you cannot ask for a "preferred" version. Since you have a clear conflict of interest in this matter I advise you to avoid directly editing articles of your clients, but post suggested changes to the article's talk page. Here are some links I suggest you review:

• Plain and simple conflict of interest guide
• FAQ for organizations
• What Wikipedia is not
• Ownership of articles
• Identifying reliable sources

--Drm310 (talk) 14:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I definitely understand my "conflict of interest." I am not trying to use wikipedia as a promotional source. I am simply trying to have it updated. Most, if not all of your sources have been updated, yet the page has not. The ONLY album released under Centricity Music was "High Valley," and you are correct, they do still own the masters. "Love is a Long Road" was released under Eaglemont Entertainment/Open Road. It is specified on the album itself. Centricity Music is no longer associated with High Valley. So under Label, it should read Eaglemont Entertainment, Open Road Recordings. High Valley is no longer considered a Christian, Country band. Christian country is actually a specific genre. High Valley is now considered only country. I am asking that the opening statement contain more about the band and less about 3 individuals childhood. The photo associated with the account is now 6 years old. There are multiple sources, including the one that I gave you where you can find a more suitable picture. The three brothers no longer look like the photo that is representing them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.16.9 (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Please be patient. I, like the overwhelming majority of editors on Wikipedia, are volunteers. We have busy lives and jobs, so these edits may take a little time. There is no deadline at work here, so please trust that this information will be appropriately corrected in due course.

As for the photo, we cannot simply copy a photo from a website with a copyright notice. If you wish to donate a photo under a Creative Commons license, please follow the aforementioned link. By doing so, you are releasing it for free use, including commercial re-use and derivative works, with the provision that the original creator of the work is credited.

Also, please sign your posts on user talk and article talk pages by typing four tilde characters (~~~~) at the end of your post. That will automatically insert your username as well as the date and time of your post. That helps to keep track of who said what and when during a discussion. Thanks. --Drm310 (talk) 02:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar given to me by Zad68 on 17:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC) has been moved to my user page. --Drm310 (talk) 21:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Jeffery Straker article - thanks / bit more help

thanks for the help with the entry 'Jeffery Straker' Two quick questions 1) Can you explain why reference #4 is being questioned for reliability? It links to an article by a verified, legitimate arts publication on the West Coast of Canada. The link provided functions and takes you to the review that this publication wrote. If there is anything else specifically needed to verify reliability, please advise - I'm scratching my head on that one 2) I'd like to help have the following overall comment removed: "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (June 2013)". I've read the material in Wikipedia on why this comment might appear in an article (relating to bias etc) but I don't think it should in this instance. I've gathered my facts and references on the subject and feel it is presented in an unbiased manner. If there is something specific that should be removed from the entry, to remove bias in your opinion, please advise. Much Thanks! TalmagTalmag (talk) 16:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Talmag. I tagged The Coastal Spectator source because it wasn't clear to me whether it was a reputable publication with editorial oversight and fact-checking, or a self-published source with user-generated content. I could ask for the opinions of other editors on this if you'd be agreeable to it.

Another editor placed the {{COI}} tag on the article. I can't say for sure why but I will speculate. Often when accounts are seen to edit just one topic and/or insert text that is considered too praiseworthy, it raises suspicion that the editor has a personal or professional connection to the subject. If you have no affiliation with Jeffery Straker and are just an enthusiastic fan, I can remove that tag. However there are still some phrases that could be toned down to a more neutral point of view. --Drm310 (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with that. I noted the edits you made to make the article acceptable to you to not tip the COI scale/tone it down - makes sense. Talmag (talk) 15:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

About gliomatosis cerebri article

Hello,

First, sorry for my English.

I edited the article to include the link because I think our organization can be useful for other people to contact others affected by this terrible desease. In fact, at this time we are about to do the article on Wikipedia gliomatosis in Spanish to help people find others affected.

If you access the web, you can see that there is only banners of the companies that have helped create the organization. No commercials, campaigns, ...

If you consider to remove the external link, you are free to do so.

Thanks for your work. I really appreciate it.

I see this user is blocked now for WP:ORGNAME, but I will give a short response anyway.

While I'm sure that your organization does good work, your link is still considered spam because it was intended to drive web traffic to your site. This is considered promotional and a conflict of interest, regardless of whether it is a commercial web site or a non-profit organization. See Advertising and conflicts of interest. --Drm310 (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

When Are Drafts Necessary to Prevent Conflicts of Interest?

Howdy,

Thanks for alerting me the Wiki procedures. You said that it might be safer (when working on a topic where I may have a conflict of interest) to create a draft page and have an editor proofread it. Is it best to do this for any change I plan to make. For example, I just updated our products features on a page that compares the features of different web servers. I updated SSI support to "Yes" from "No" and IPv6 support to "Yes" from "Unknown". I would consider these to be small updates, and thus not worth submitting a draft for, but I'd like your opinion.

Cheers,

Michael

Hello Michael. The message I left was a canned {{Welcome-COI}} template, so the text of it might not apply 100% to your activities so far. For small, non-controversial updates like the ones you've done, I'd say that a draft isn't necessary. If you plan to make larger changes to pages dealing with your company, then I would instead propose those changes on the article's talk page.

I do recommend that you create your user page and disclose your affiliation with LiteSpeed on it. If you are transparent about your connection to the company, other editors will have confidence that you're editing in good faith. You can see my own declaration as an example. The links in the welcome message I left are quite useful, so I'd review them when you have the opportunity.

One other small item - please sign your posts when leaving messages on talk pages by typing four tilde characters (~~~~) at the end of your comment. It inserts your username and the date and time of your comment, which helps to keep track of who said what and when.

Thanks for your cooperation and happy editing! --Drm310 (talk) 16:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks! --Lsmichael (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

New York College of Podiatric Medicine

Hi, I am not sure the reasons why I received your message about removal of content, as i did put a label on my edit. the picture of the school is old, and i was updating the image to one that was taken in the past two years. Please let me know, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NYCPM Webmaster (talk • contribs) 19:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Your initial edit [1] removed the photo and had no edit summary. Since there was no reason stated for removing the photo, I restored it.

You should be aware that you have a conflict of interest if you are editing on behalf of the school. You are advised to read Wikipedia's plain and simple conflict of interest guide.

Your username is also a problem. It describes a position within an organization, which could potentially be occupied by more than one person, and is therefore considered a role account. Wikipedia accounts and usernames can only represent an individual and not imply shared use. Please request a change of username as soon as possible, as an admin may block your account from editing with the current name.

Finally, please sign your posts when posting on a talk page by typing four tilde characters (~~~~) at the very end. It will automatically insert your username with the date and time, making it much easier to tell who said what, and when. Thanks. --Drm310 (talk) 23:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User talk:Anarcocapitalista austriaco has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. AA simply said he went to school with Huerta de Soto. That does not constitute a COI. (User:SPECIFICO simply speculated and asked if AA was HdS.) The legal threat issue has been raised on the ANI. It is bitey to post the big warning -- that's something for an admin to do. Please remove the templates. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 15:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC) Shame on me -- I should use the preview button. The templates you posted have not been removed. Thanks 15:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

It was this diff [2] that I took as a self-confessed COI ("I am Huerta de Soto's close familiar"), so I believe I was justified in using {{uw-coi}} in this case.

As for {{uw-legal}}, I checked the template talk page and I didn't see any consensus on its usage by admins only. And the above diff I took as an unambigious legal threat ("Huerta de Soto will have to take legal actions against wikipedia or delete this page. "), to justify its use. The seriousness of that in my opinion justified the risk of biting a newcomer.

But I am tired and I have no appetite for a lengthy debate about who's right. I'll just revert my edits and end my involvment here. --Drm310 (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason to second-guess Drm310 in this matter and I see no basis for Srich to have taken it upon himself to instruct fellow editor Drm310 in this matter. Srich, please strike your comments above. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 16:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) AA has received a stern warning from an Admin. He's required to remove the threat. You are correct about the template, but I had already posted the ANI. (Indeed, I considered posting a simple warning/link to WP:LEGAL, but decided the ANI was a better course of action.) AA is not an native-English speaker, we get vague remarks. (In Hollywood, everyone is everyone elses' "dearest friend" so "close familiar" might be a similar meaningless phrase.) In any event, thank you again for the reversion. Enjoy your sleep!! – S. Rich (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Federation of writers

Hi, Thanks for the advice. This is my first time entering a subject on Wikipedia so please excuse my errors. I am trying to generate a page about the Federation of Writers without it seeming to be a promotion. The problem is how can I do that? I deliberately did not mention that membership was free although donations are accepted as I felt that was promoting the organisation. Which part seems wrong and if I edit that part out can the rest be approved? Thanks for your help. RipleyLV426 (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. If you move the content to your user sandbox, then that's an acceptable place to work on a draft article. Then you can remove the content from your user page.

Please note that any article you create must be about a subject that is notable, and anything you state must be written in a neutral tone and verifiable by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Also if you are affiliated with the organization, then you have a conflict of interest and you must disclose this connection. Thanks. --Drm310 (talk) 15:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I've removed the article from my user page and have written a greatly reduced version which now resides in my sandbox. I will do some more work and research on how it should look and sound and then can I get in touch again for you to have a look at it? Thanks, Ian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RipleyLV426 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to sign and date that note I left you regarding the Federation of Writers article! Here it is! RipleyLV426 (talk) 18:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a good start! And yes, you can certainly contact me again if you need another pair of eyes to review your work. Here are some useful resources you can draw upon:

• Beginners' guide to the Manual of Style - a simplified version of the larger Manual of Style, with guides for article layout and formatting
• Identifying reliable sources - how to find reliable sources to verify the information you're adding
• Citing sources - how to insert the sources you've found into the article
• Neutral point of view - policy on writing from a balanced and dispassionate perspective

Good luck to you! --Drm310 (talk) 19:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Limbagio

Hello, sorry for the post in the wrong page... I put the same post in the right place (i hope so!). Thanks again for yur help! --Limbagio (talk) 16:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

No worries - looks fine to me! --Drm310 (talk) 16:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

page

Hi Drm310,

Our page was just deleted, etc.

I am new to this process. How far off was I?

Am I wrong in assuming that a company page is possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stratashops (talk • contribs) 18:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Quite far off, I'm afraid. Your page was just a collection of external links, which does not a Wikipedia page make. It is possible to create a page about a company, but there are some fundamental problems that must be overcome.

1. Your username is the same as the name of the business you're writing about. Wikipedia accounts and usernames cannot represent a business, organization, or group of people. They must only represent a single individual person. I encourage you to request a change of username immediately, as your type of username is almost always blocked for violating Wikipedia's username policy.
2. You are writing about business where you are employed - this is a conflict of interest (COI). Although you are not prevented from writing about a topic with which you are affilated, you must disclose your affilation on your user page and the article's talk page. The plain and simple conflict of interest guide expands on this.
3. You must show that an article topic is notable by citing reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The tone of the article must be factual and neutral, as Wikipedia is not a business directory and not a vehicle for advertising or promotion.
4. Articles are typically structured with a standard layout and use an established style guide.

Hopefully this will help you overcome a bad start. Good luck. --Drm310 (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Barcelona Rentals Vacation

Thank you for your warm welcome. My great concern is to make sure that the article I posted barcelona rentals vacation does not sound as advertisement. Please help me to make sure that this is correct. Also I will like to add a logo and I don't know how. thank you! Frante Camar (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)Frante Camar

Hi there. It appears the article you started was deleted because you didn't show how the subject was notable, or of interest to the world at large. You can try staring over by clicking here to create your user "sandbox", an area where you can create a draft article without the risk of it being prematurely deleted. I think you've gotten some good advice on Discospinster's talk page, so there isn't much more I can add. Good luck to you. --Drm310 (talk) 23:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Jeff Rollason contributions

Thanks for the input. I will try to get onto these entries this week to rectify defects. I am a busy man but some of these defects are simply procedural errors on my part. Thanks Jeff Rollason - CEO - AI Factory Ltd — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffrollason (talk • contribs) 07:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I think there's probably more of a concern that you are writing about yourself and some others are concerned that you might not meet the notability guideline for academics. While I admit I am not familiar with the intricacies of the latter, I do agree with the policy on autobiographies. Unconscious bias can creep into even the most well-intentioned article, and we're not the best judges of our own notability. --Drm310 (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Help with posting company page

Hi - you deleted an edit I made for my company. I was using the sandbox. how do I get a company website to be accepted as a page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DocuXplorer Software (talk • contribs) 15:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Your account has been blocked by an admin, but here's my response anyway. To be clear, you were writing an article in a template space. You should have been using the article sandbox.

The simple answer is that you should not be writing an article about your company in the first place. This is a conflict of interest and while not explicitly prohibited, COI editors are discouraged from writing about subjects with which they're affiliated. Wikipedia:Requested articles is a better place to request an article about your company, because then others who are not connected will write one about it, assuming it is notable as evidenced by reliable independent sources.

Note also that Wikipedia is not a business directory or a space for publicity. Only legitimately notable topics are worthy of inclusion. --Drm310 (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Kelly Block

Thanks, Drm310 for the reminder re: conflict of interest. Yes, I am in conflict and accept the rebuke. I have since offered another edit which I hope will withstand a challenge. A declared conflict of interest ought not to disqualify a legitimate clarification... I'll see what happens. The alternative is to play silly games and create a less obvious userid, or orchestrate changes through different users. I welcome the reminder and look forward to learning more re: wiki edits and postings. cheers SRBvtr 15:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkblock (talk • contribs)

Hello Mkblock. You are correct, an editor with a conflict of interest is not prohibited from contributing to an article. A declared COI is actually more likely to help your cause because other editors such as myself are more likely to believe that your edits are being made in good faith. Someone who attempts to conceal a COI, or engage in sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry is more likely to be viewed with suspicion that they are manipulating an article to a preferred non-neutral version.

If you have any more edits to offer, propose them on the article talk page. That will give other editors the opportunity to review the content and the sources used to verify it.

One more thing, when you post on a talk page, please sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Best of luck with your future contributions. --Drm310 (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

How do I reference a written article with no online link

Hi thanks for the help you previously gave me… I have another question I was hoping you could help me with.

I wanted to reference two written articles for a wikipedia page but they don't have a linkable online reference? What is proper standing operating procedure? I scanned both articles, but have no other online reference. --Coffeerob (talk) 00:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. I assume that you're talking about sources offline that are printed material, like newspapers and magazines? As long as you have some basic info about the referenced article and the publication, you can use citation template like {{cite book}}, {{cite newspaper}}, {{cite journal}} (for magazines). You would place these inside of a <ref></ref> tag pair. If you need help adding one as an example, give me a shout. --Drm310 (talk) 16:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks if you had an example I could take a look at I think I could figure it out from there! Cheers --Coffeerob (talk) 02:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Go to the article Wildwood, Saskatoon, which I've extensively edited. Click "view source" on the History section, and you'll see several examples of {{cite book}} (and {{cite web}} for online sources). You can follow the links I placed above for the other citation templates, as they have subtle differences in the field names. - but the usage is pretty much the same. Try one out for yourself and if you want me to check your work, just let me know. Good luck! --Drm310 (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for you help! I found some external references (more like people found them and sent them to me) about the history of the pub in some long out of print publications. I added those references to the article and made mention of them in the talk page. Hope that helps with some issues on that page too. --Coffeerob (talk) 03:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

User_talk:ShakeCreativeWiki

Thank you for catching that. Not sure why Twinkle put that there (and also on the correct user's page). EvergreenFir (talk) 16:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Maybe Twinkle's targeting system's a bit shaky today. I'm sure it's a random error that won't happen again. --Drm310 (talk) 17:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi DRM310,

Thank you for the message - I understand now and apologize if I violated any policies. I should have looked through them thoroughly before editing. I simply wanted to clean up the page and my main goal was add in additional charity information/updated info on endorsers and sponsorships. What would be the best way of getting those edited without violating any policies? I left information on the page that didn't shine the best light on the company in order to show the integrity of the page, so I hope that counts for something.

Laurieadvocare (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Laurie, and thanks for the message. If you work for or represent AdvoCare, then you have a conflict of interest (COI). I encourage you to disclose this connection on your user page and the Advocare article talk page. Being transparent about your involvement with the article's subject will give other editors confidence that you are contributing in good faith. COI editors who try to hide their connection are often (and usually, rightly) viewed with suspicion because of the potential for edits that are promotional or biased.

While you are not prohibited from editing the Advocare article, it is recommended that you propose changes on the article talk page instead of editing the page directly. By doing so, other uninvolved editors can check your work to make sure it is neutrally worded and reliably sourced. Note that company press releases are considered primary sources and may be challenged if used to support content that is worded as puffery.

I haven't looked at your edits extensively but as you mentioned above, you left the fairly sourced criticisms intact. That shows me that you're editing in good faith, which is an encouraging start. --Drm310 (talk) 15:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Affiliation issue

Hi, Drm310. Thanks for the message about affiliation and conflict of interest. I am employed by the organization that I edited, and am very careful to follow Wikipedia's guidelines. Our only changes are factual -- well, that's all that the site seeks to do, present the facts, not opinions or judgment. I am now leaving my position here and would like to change the name of the user to reflect my replacement. Is that possible? I am quite sure that person understands the guidelines as well, but will make sure to emphasize them before I leave. The revised name should be MaryO-WNE. Please advise. Thank you for your time. SashaN-WNE (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)SashaN-WNE.

Hi Sasha. Unfortunately, as per Wikipedia's user name policy, user accounts cannot be shared or transferred to another person, and cannot be tied to a position within an organization (e.g. "Marketing-WNE"). An account's edits must be tied to one individual's activity for its entire lifetime. The request you submitted at changing username page will likely be declined for those reasons. Your replacement should create her own account, read Wikipedia's plain and simple conflict of interest guide, and disclose her affiliation on her user page and the article's talk page.

I also noticed that one of your edits included a word-for-word copy and paste from a WNE web site. This is a copyright violation and will almost certainly be reverted. --Drm310 (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I will advise my replacement to do as you say. I also saw that flag and just edited it so it's no longer a copy and paste. Unfortunately I can find no other source online referring to this Center. Should I therefore remove it? Apologies for this. I thought I was careful. Thanks for being on it. As for the name change, I understand this account lives on in perpetuity but I will no longer use it. Is it acceptable for me to create a second, personal account at some point, should I wish to edit Wikipedia in the future? As myself, not for an organization; I won't do that again. Thanks again. I understand you are volunteer and I appreciate your time. SashaN-WNE (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)SashaN-WNE

You could just request for your existing account to be renamed to something more personal. Wait until your first change of username request is declined before making a new one.

Thanks for revising the wording in that section - I've removed the copypaste tag. However there is still a bigger problem that the section - the entire article, in fact - is too reliant on primary sources that are affiliated with the subject. Primary sources are OK for verifying simple statements of fact but truly reliable sources are independent, third party ones. Material that is unsupported by third party sources may be challenged and/or removed for being non-notable, because a subject is not the best judge of its own notability. --Drm310 (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the copypaste tag. I speak with my replacement about the larger issue. And I will change my name once my first namechange has been rejected. You've been very helpful, thanks. SashaN-WNE (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)SashaN-WNE

Speedy deletion declined: User:Industrias Intelectuales

Hello Drm310. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Industrias Intelectuales, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: user has provided an assurance that the account is only for a single individual, and plans to change username. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Drm310. You have new messages at EvergreenFir's talk page.
Message added 18:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

EvergreenFir (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Your sockpuppet report (I2c corporate / Prepaid reporter) — more info needed ASAP

Hi. I'm one of the clerks at the sockpuppet investigation (SPI) page. Just a heads-up regarding your recent SPI request regarding I2c corporate and his suspected sockpuppet Prepaid reporter — you need to go back to the request page (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/I2c corporate) and supply specific diffs supporting your case. Also — especially since neither account involved here has been blocked already, please make sure you are noting exactly what makes this a question of abuse of multiple accounts; I suggest you re-read the sockpuppetry policy (WP:SOCK) and make it clear how this is not only a use of multiple accounts, but a use of multiple accounts for an improper purpose. If you don't do this in a timely manner, your SPI request will most likely be closed without any action being taken. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Responded at SPI as per request. --Drm310 (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Roslyn Elementary School

Hello Drm310, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Roslyn Elementary School, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to schools. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Reply

Hello thank you for your message, if you have more suggestion with my work please feel free to message me, but let me do the editing, Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PLANATE (talk • contribs) 07:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I urge you read the rules regarding conflict of interest and the username policy and take the necessary steps to remedy the issues raised. Otherwise an admin will almost certainly block your account for violation of the username policy. --Drm310 (talk) 15:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Coaching Experts

Coaching experts (talk) 16:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Sorry for the mistake. I was just trying to provide more information on Zak Willis Sr. Thanks for letting me know and could you let me know how to find sources for information. Thanks again and again so sorry--Coaching experts (talk) 16:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources has extensive guidelines about what kinds of sources are considered acceptable. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is another relevant policy that you should review, as those types of articles are treated more sensitively. --Drm310 (talk) 05:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

ESDCSC

According to Wikipedia's FAQs "While a list of the notable services your organization provides might be appropriate, such a list should only include those that are a part of the primary mission and are necessary to adequately describe the organization" I think you unfairly placed a speedy deletion on our page without reading it. The educative mission and purpose of this scientific Society was clearly stated. Kindly remove the deletion that you placed. Thank you. ESDCSC (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia accounts are meant for individual and may not represent a group or organization. - WP:ORGNAME
2. Wikipedia user pages are not for advertising or promotion of an individual, business, organization, group, or viewpoint unrelated to Wikipedia. - WP:UP#PROMO
3. Wikipedia discourages persons who are connected with the subject of an article from writing about it. - WP:COI
4. A creator who disagrees with the speedy deletion should instead click on the Click here to contest this speedy deletion button which appears inside of the speedy deletion tag. This button links to the discussion page with a pre-formatted area for the creator to explain why the page should not be deleted. - WP:SPEEDY

I don't intend to remove the speedy deletion tag. If you wish to contest the deletion, please follow the prescribed procedure. An admin user (which I am not) will make the final evaluation as to whether your objections have merit. --Drm310 (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the warm welcome!

Emily Sherwood (talk) 23:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome!

Hi Drm310, thanks for your message. I've started out very tentatively and just edited the Thriller Genre article. I love, love, love the interlinking on Wikipedia and took a look while editing at how it's done. So I included a few internal ones in the mentioned article. I guess you should be careful that you don't overload? I made three in different places so far, hope that's OK. It's very easy to happily lose yourself in all the content here.

21rstcenturyWatson (talk) 11:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear you've been having a good experience so far! Yes, one can get carried away with linking too many things. WP:OVERLINK is the pertinent section of Wikipedia's Manual of Style that talks about this. --Drm310 (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Some assistance on how to deal with conflict of interest/advertising issues

Hi, You recently assisted on an article I was editing by placing tags and reverting edits. You seemed clued up on how to deal with these issues so I was hoping for some advice. I regularly come across articles that look like they've been cut and pasted from the annals of the artist's PR department. I attempt to tidy them up, delete inappropriate info, put tags on them and clean up the inevitably poor grammar and layout. Every single time, my edits are resisted and reverted by a SPA, an editor who either overtly or inadvertently declares to be the subject or to have a close relationship with them, and despite anything I do, they lurk around the article and don't accept their article being brought up to wiki standards, as it normally has an adverse effect on the content (in their eyes). In the past, I've gone to the COI board a few times, but have not had much joy. Sometimes other editors have got involved, but this is normally a short-term solution, and the editor in question resorts to other tactics to achieve their aims - most often playing the waiting game or using an alternative IP/account. Recently I've come across a glut of articles which are in dire need of a tidy-up, but have had several editors do the same thing in resisting changes. I'm aware of wikipedia's rules such as don't bite the newcomer and assume good intent, but in many of these cases, it's very obvious these are sock puppets with a single purpose of paid or self advocacy - which in theory are huge breaches of wiki policies - but in practice go unpunished because I'm the only editor involved in the article who cares about restoring it to a decent standard. It seems this issue is rife amongst music producers who use wiki as a personal platform for self-promotion. So as someone who seems to be well versed in these issues, can you please advise me on effective approaches to take that will achieve the aim of removing promotional content from an article and prevent closely linked parties editing their own articles? After those unsuccessful attempts to generate support from the COI board and repeated games of cat-and-mouse with little support from other established editors it can get very frustrating! Your help is much appreciated!Rayman60 (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rayman60. I share your frustration in dealing with editors who are determined bad-faith COI contributors, POV-pushers and promoters. Here are a few things I can suggest.

Usernames are a good start. An obviously promotional username that matches an article name (e.g. user "MyRecordLabel" creates the article "MyRecordLabel") can be reported directly to WP:UAA as a violation of WP:CORPNAME. Those tend to be easy, open-and-shut cases though, which doesn't sound like what you're dealing with. A username like "Mike at MyRecordLabel" doesn't violate the policy, so the best we can do for them is a {{uw-coi}} warning. I will sometimes search on the username and find that it's someone's Twitter or YouTube username, which then reveals a connection to the subject. Again, {{uw-coi}} is the appropriate warning there. I find that makes about half of them stop immediately, as they know that someone's onto them and they'd rather give up instead of facing the added scrutiny.

Using the {{Connected contributor}} or {{Connected contributor multi}} templates on the talk pages can also help alert other people about the problematic COI editing. I usually don't add them until the person's been warned once and they continue despite the warning. {{COI editnotice}} is another useful one for the talk page when someone has openly declared that they're acting on behalf of the subject.

If you think that there is sock or meat puppetry at work, watch the content that's being added. If several editors add/re-add the same content, word-for-word (or almost word-for-word), these can be used as evidence of WP:SOCK. I've had some success reporting these to WP:SPI, listing the diffs of the sockpuppeteer and the socks. Sometimes the admins will run a Checkuser on them, which can often confirm that they are the same person. Other times, the behavioural evidence is enough for them to declare them sockpuppets as per WP:DUCK.

Another avenue is WP:RPP, where you can present your evidence of long-term WP:SOAPBOX edits by SPAs. The admins might grant protection to only auto-confirmed users, which can often stop the edits by newer SPAs in their tracks.

The avenue of last resort would be WP:ANI. I hate to use that big gun very often, because it bears a pretty large burden of evidence on the reporter, and you have to have given the editors sufficient levels of warning and several opportunities for redemption. However if you aren't getting any results from the other two paths, that may be your only hope.

I hope that helps you to get some results. Thanks again for your efforts... I know that combatting COI goes unnoticed and unappreciated, but it's crucial work in keeping Wikipedia a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia. Best of luck to you, and let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. --Drm310 (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

CM School

Hello I updated our wikipedia page CM School with our correct website address. You have reverted back to the incorrect information . Please can you change I back to the correct web address. Regards CM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.1 (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Medicine Baba

The article Medicine Baba has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I'm not sure if this can be fleshed out to a better quality article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 18:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Non-English copyvio

I blocked the account for a username violation. As for the copyvio, you just deal with it the same way, maybe note somewhere that it is translated (although translations are still derivative works). Daniel Case (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)