User talk:CactusWriter/Archive 2012

Archive 2005

←

Archive 2010

Archive 2011

Archive 2012

Archive 2013

Archive 2014

Archive 2015

Jan Schroers

It appears that my husband's page has been deleted. He is a legitimate scientist who works for Yale University and is quite established in his field. I apparently made a mistake by copying content from him website onto wikipedia. Sinec I wrote the content I felt that it wasn't a copyright infringement. Aside from writing original content, what else should I avoid in the future when working on his page? Should someone other than myself author it?

18:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)Miriam Schroers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miriamschroers (talk • contribs)

Hi, Miriamschroers. The Jan Schroers page was deleted because it was created using non-free copyrighted text -- which is a violation of Wikipedia copyright policy. However, even if permission had been granted to use the text, the wording on that website would not have met our encyclopedic criteria for non-promotional and neutral point-of-view text. This is not unusual. It is a common result when an editor attempts to write about a person with whom they have a close personal relationship. It is extremely difficult to maintain a neutral voice. And is the reason we strongly discourage individuals from writing about themselves, their family or their colleagues. Please read our conflict of interest guidelines for an expanded explanation of this issue.

Should someone other than yourself write a page on your husband? In my opinion, the answer is always: yes. If someone is notable enough to pass Wikipedia's notability criteria, than someone else who is independent of them will notice and write an article. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Deleted page

On the 10th of January you deleted a wiki called American Journal of Preventive Medicine, all of the information provided was cited and I had the permission of the publishers and the editors who hold the copyright for the Journal and all Information pertaining to the Journal. Is there something I didn't do that I could do to get the site put back up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajpmeditor (talk • contribs) 01:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Ajpmeditor. The article American Journal of Preventive Medicine was deleted because it was entirely copy-pasted from this external website -- which states on the bottom of its pages: "Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved." That is a copyright violation. Please note that permission for Wikipedia to use that text can only be granted by the website which must first contact the Wikimedia Foundation OTRS office in writing. (A note was left on your talk page describing this. In particular, you may wish to review this link: Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials#Granting us permission to copy material already online.) The simple alternative is to create the page using your own original writing. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Appreciated your contribution to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visions-Partiet. Ifnord (talk) 04:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Ifnord! I'm happy I was able to help there. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Clarence and the Whatnows

I saw that my page for Clarence and the Whatnows was deleted for lack of significance, but I would like to argue that was clearly stated in the context. With the popularity of The Muppets film and the burgeoning market for Muppet products as well as volume of Muppet Whatnot performances on YouTube, the fact that Clarence and the Whatnows are the first Muppet Whatnot "band" is significant.

It is just a matter of time before others mimic the idea of creating their own Muppet bands and it is my intention to document Clarence and the Whatnows as the original.

I am just curious what additional content would need to be provided to further legitimize the content of the page I submitted.

Thank you.

Ajkuehn (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Ajkuen. The significance -- and subsequent notability -- of a topic is determined by the substantial coverage it receives in independent reliable sources (e.g., books, peer-reviewed journals, national newspapers and magazines, national television reviews, etc.). YouTube is composed of user-submitted content without editorial review. Of itself, it is not an independent reliable source. Please read Reliable Sources to learn the types of references required by an encyclopedia. Also, please note that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Regards. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

An independent third party newspaper has written an article about this topic so I would like to revive my initial posting and then update it to reference the article that was written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajkuehn (talk • contribs) 20:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Deleted Page

Hi there, can you please bring back up my page "WealthTrust-Arizona"? You deleted it because it violated "A7" (No explanation of the subject's significance) and I'd like to see about revising it so that it can be published. Ibulnes (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Certainly. I have placed a copy of the article for you to work on at User:Ibulnes/WealthTrust-Arizona. Good luck with you editing. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Joel Heidtman

Incompetence rather than malice I'm afraid. I saw an obvious unreffed blp text-dumped from who knows where, failed to actually read the history. I've restored now. My apologies, I never deliberately reverse another admin's actions Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ

A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Aaqe

I am Jeremy S.L.Shuler. Just because it's from an unfinished series plan does not mean that it is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JErEmY sHuLeR (talk • contribs) 05:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The article was deleted because there was no context to identify it. Please read Wikipedia:Your first article before creating another page. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 05:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Dborase/Sandbox

May I ask why you removed the Sandbox version? I know I named it wrong... shouldn't be under talk. Bgwhite (talk) 07:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Bgwhite. I was just writing a note to you on your talk page -- but I'll reply here. I realize that you were only trying to be helpful when you created User_talk:Dborase/Sandbox with a copy of their soon-to-be-deleted copyvio article. However, Wikipedia does not allow incompatible copyrighted text anywhere -- that includes user pages, talk pages and sandboxes. Copying the text to a sandbox is actually a violation of our copyright policy. Therefore, it was necessary for me to speedy delete the sandbox. If a user wishes to recreate an article deleted as a copyright violation, than they must start from scratch. I just wanted you to know. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 07:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know. Thank you for the explanation. Bgwhite (talk) 07:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem at all. :) — CactusWriter ^(talk) 07:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear CactusWriter,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Sneh Chakraburtty

Hello Cactus Writer, I created the article about Sneh Chakraburtty and it has been delated because of the copyrights. When I received the warning, I sent an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org to request the permission to use the content of a website and I sent another email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org to request the permission to use a photo. If the wikipedia's team agrees, will I be able to recreate the article about the author? Regards, RachelGB — Preceding unsigned comment added by RachelGB (talk • contribs) 12:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, RachelGB. Yes, once the permission to use the text has been approved by Wikimedia's OTRS office than you will be notified and the text will be free to use. (However, please remember that an article -- especially a biography of a living person -- will still need other reliable sources independent of the subject to verify the text. Otherwise it may not pass Wikipedia's criteria for WP:BLPs and WP:V.) Good luck with your editing. And thanks for following our copyright practices. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you CactusWriter for your answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RachelGB (talk • contribs) 09:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Ali Muhyaldeen Dia

You deleted this page 2/9/2012 citing that the article doesn't no mention significance of real person, although the article clearly does state that his importance, given that he is a prominent leader in the youth section of the Syrian American Council, in particular given the prominence of the current Syrian crisis in world news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roamingkurd (talk • contribs) 20:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Roamingkurd. The criteria is that there must be a credible assertion of significance. None of the links on the page supported any assertion of significance to this person. (Note that user-uploaded YouTube videos are not a reliable source nor provide any significance.) If you wish to improve the article by adding independent reliable sources which discuss this person, I can temporarily recreate it in your user space. Otherwise you may wish to use WP:Articles for creation. Regards. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes please. I will continue to add more sources. Please note however, the youtube video does display the person in question in fact leading a rally as stated in the entry and I don't see anything there that casts doubt on its legitimacy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Roamingkurd (talk • contribs) 21:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay. The article has been moved to User:Roamingkurd/Ali Muhyaldeen Dia. Please read reliable sources -- YouTube does not qualify as a reliable source for encyclopedic information, nor is that video about this individual. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Will continue to work on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roamingkurd (talk • contribs) 22:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Please restore this page until consensus is reached on it's deletion. 108.82.190.79 (talk) 02:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but a consensus was reached at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Dia (Syrian-American) (not even including the three separate editors who previously requested deletion per speedy deletion, prod and prod endorsement). If you disagree with the decision, than you are welcome to state your case at WP:DRV. Regards. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 05:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

North London Self-Employed Lunch Club

Hi CactusWriter,

A few weeks ago you speedily deleted my wiki entry on the North London Self-Employed Lunch Club (NLSELC). I'd like to have another go, this time making the notability of the NLSELC more obvious and including references to press coverage. Would this be acceptable to you? I hope that I can avoid speedy deletion this time! Chd27 (talk) 11:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Chd27. A temporary copy of the article has been placed at User:Chd27/North London Self-Employed Lunch Club. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi CactusWriter. Thanks for allowing me to make some changes to the page. I've now made the edits and saved the changes on the user page that you created for me. What is the next step - how do I go about putting the page back up on wikipedia? Thanks again for your help. Chd27 (talk) 11:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Chd27, I'm sorry but I have been busy and have had little time to advise you on your article. I have moved it to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/North London Self-Employed Lunch Club where other editors will review it and leave notes on anything the article lacks. I did look at it briefly and can say that it is not ready for Wikipedia mainspace. The article currently does not address notability -- it lacks any independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the subject (e.g., magazine or newspaper articles that are independent of the club or its members and describes/discusses the club in significant depth.) As well, any names must be referenced to quality sources, otherwise it is a violation of WP:BLP. I think other editors will give you some needed guidance on this once the article is reviewed. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Restoration of Snoffer

I am one of the promoters of the product comparison site Snoffer.com . I created the wikipedia page for the same but it has been deleted. Please help me with the changes and steps to be taken care of to ensure the page is restored, because as far as infringement of copyright is concerned, there is none. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apoorvishu (talk • contribs) 19:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Apoorvishnu. The Snoffer article was deleted for copyright violation because I confirmed that it was a direct copy-paste of http://www.snoffer.com/ -- and as such it required immediate removal from Wikipedia. The article was also tagged for WP:A7 speedy deletion because there was "no credible assertion of significance". (IMO, my review and a quick online search also supported that.) I encourage you to read WP:SPAMMER -- in particular, Wikipedia is not a space for personal promotion or the promotion of products, services, web sites, fandoms, ideologies, or other memes. If you are here to tell readers how great something is, or to get exposure for an idea or product that nobody has heard of yet, you are in the wrong place. If you wish another opinion on the deletion of your page, than you are welcome to request one at Deletion Review. If you have further questions, please ask. Regards. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Contest Deletion Of Page

This company is relativley new so theres not much, dirt on there shoes yet(g11), so theres really any negative taint to it.And to address "a7" it may not be important to you as youre not a local croftoner, but people who live in the area where the company covers may want to learn more about it, and whether or not mr.trevor is trust-worthy, and could do so by looking at a biography section i was hoping to add.(I have no sources as i am the parent of 1 being tutored so i am the source) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor0000001 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Editor0000001. I am sorry, but your comments only confirm the page was properly deleted per both WP:A7 and WP:G11. To pass Wikipedia G11 criteria does not require that there be negative information included -- it requires that the information provided is written neutrally and non-promotionally. (This typically will mean coverage by outside reliable published sources). The article also does not make any credible assertion of significance. Please realize that this is not a reflection of the quality of the company. There are millions of local businesses which provide good services, but this does not qualify them for encyclopedic articles -- particularly in the case of "relatively new" businesses without significant coverage in independent sources which describe their importance. I would also suggest you read Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest. If you have further questions, please feel free to ask. Regards. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, if we get mentioned in our local news paper or something like that, and were more developed, i'll come back and put it in the experimental pages section(or whatever it is) thanks again. editor0000001 96.244.253.105 (talk) 03:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)editor0000001

No problem. (It's Articles for creation). Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of page

Hello CactusWriter. I noticed you deleted the living person article for Charles Kelley Stevenson citing A7. I am uncertain if you read the talk page associated with the article. The talk page clearly enumerated evidence showing that A7 does not apply to the article. The talk page proved this case with more than sufficient evidence citing Wikipedia's own guidelines. Of primary significance in regard to A7 that the subject "has received coverage of any kind in possibly reliable sources" User:SoWhy/Common_A7_mistakes Your deletion under A7 is unsubstantiated. Examine the wording, "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." Please revert your deletion since the article does not violate A7 and had numerous credible claims of significance and importance from books cataloged in the Library of Congress and industry recognized websites. Corezion (talk) 23:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Corezion. Yes, I did read your talk page comment and looked at every outside source you added there as well as on the article page. However, the key issue here is credible claim of importance -- and I found neither the page nor your statement to substantiate it. In fact, IMO, the article reads like a promotional autobiography. I strongly suggest that you read our Wikipedia guidelines on conflict of interest and autobiography. We welcome and encourage new editors to edit in their area of interest -- however, self-promotional writing violates the primary function of the encyclopedia. If you have further questions, please ask. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi CactusWriter. Thanks for responding and for your efforts to maintain Wikipedia's excellence. After reading the guidelines on conflict of interest and autobiography and reflecting on my own intention for creating the article I feel somewhat snubbed and at the same time humbled. I'm undecided as to what action to take. The first seems, and I imagine this is your hope, that I would accept your decision and completely let go of the article. A second seems to be requesting the article for Deletion Review. I'm assuming you see no merit in the article. Your mention of promotional autobiography and conflict of interest seem tangential to credibility with respect to the noteworthiness of the article. Not withstanding the published book reference performing a Google Search for "'Charles Stevenson' + Exploit" and teasing out the false positives yields thousands of independent references including multiple in the CVE® database which is "international in scope." Another is an article in The Register (UK). And those references only cover a portion of the full article. The article can be objectively edited to remove traces of bias. Is there any room for compromise? Am I wasting your time and being selfish? Corezion (talk) 06:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem, Corezion. Your not wasting my time. I am only one editor -- and a single editor's decision on Wikipedia is never final (nor necessarily correct), so I have no problem with a deletion review discussion. I'll restore the article and open it up for discussion so that other editors can weigh in. This will also give you a chance to provide a claims of significance and notability. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, CactusWriter! Corezion (talk) 03:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

(Commons) speedy deletion appeal: File:Karen M. Spence.jpg

Greetings! We both use en.wiki more than Commons, so I'm leaving this message here.

I have contested the speedy deletion of File:Karen M. Spence.jpg from Commons. I'm asking the question on Kmhistory's behalf of how she can document that she owns the image. One would assume that, by uploading the image to Commons, she has made it available under a free license. Do you know what the Commons process is that parallels OTRS? —C.Fred (talk) 01:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, C.Fred. That's fine if you wish to contest the deletion. OTRS is a Wikimedia Foundation office, so it covers all of the various individual wikis. The process is outlined at WP:Donating copyrighted materials#Granting us permission to copy material already online. I have left a message for the uploader on the file talk page. Good luck. — CactusWriter ^(talk)

Group (film)

Hello,

I'm distressed and confused by finding this new entry (Group (Film) deleted. I don't understand. Would you be kind enough to explain the problem to me? I am new to authoring on Wikipedia, and I tried carefully to abide by the guidelines. I didn't actually submit, or "move" the site from Sandbox. But, I was happy to see it had been moved, only to discover today, the whole thing is deleted. That's upsetting in part, because of the time spent constructing the wiki page. Is that lost now that you've deleted it, or can you restore it to my Sandbox?

I look forward to your response. Having never left a message like this on wikipedia, I hope I do it, and sign it, correctly - and will leave an email address with you for backup.

174.31.214.32 (talk) 23:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)zaiquezaique

aka marilyn@wovie.com

Hi, ZaiqueZaique. The article was deleted per our WP:G12 criteria as a foundational copyright violation. For example, the entire synopsis was plagiarized from this press release. Additionally, The entire review section consisted of large swaths of text copied from the Village Voice, TV Guide and the New York Daily News. Although you attributed the text -- (which was the right and necessary thing to do) -- that did not bring the text into fair use, because the proportional quantity of text used compared to the original was far too large. We cannot permit copyright violations to exist anywhere on Wikipedia, therefore I cannot restore the article to your sandbox. However, if you wish, I can create a sandbox with the small portion which is not a copyvio. The coverage in newspapers certainly establishes the film's notability. However, I suggest you write the entire article in original language. You also can review the manual of style for films for a idea on presentation. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello - Wow, I messed up all sorts of stuff! Yes, please do put an edited, nonvio version in a/my Sandbox, and I'll rewrite it all. I used copy from the press release because I'd written the press release! Didn't think of that as a violation. I'm happy to review the manual of style for films and write original material about the project. Thanks for your patience and help with all this. 192.211.18.163 (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)ZaiqueZaique

 Done -- the article (without copyvio text) can be found at User:ZaiqueZaique/Sandbox. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Elijah juckett

Hi CactusWriter. I believe that this is an unwarrented speedy deletion. The article Elijah juckett IMO does not fall under A7. It did indicate the person's role in colonial Connecticut, and while it was just a stub it was cited. Would you please restore it? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Markvs88. IMO the article did meet the criteria for A7 speedy deletion -- there was no assertion of significance -- in that it essentially stated he was one of about 100,000 individuals who participated in the American Revolutionary War and received a pension. However, it has already been recreated at Elijah Juckett. I won't tag it myself, but instead will leave it for others to decide. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi again CW. I can understand your position, but I still feel that speedy delete shouldn't be used articles that are cited and obviously not vandalistic in nature. Anyway, I'm glad it's back and appreciate your not tagging it. Hopefully some more research will improve it as well. Thanks & Best, Markvs88 (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Dance Moms

I didn't think everything had to be removed. Can't we keep the stuff that we learned about them from the show itself? Such as how old they are, the fact that Maddie & Mackenzie or Brooke & Paige are sister, the types of dance that they each excel at, how long they've been dancing at the studio, etc. Minor things like that. Things like what schools they are attending was never mentioned during the show so that's why I removed them but don't see why all of it has to go. For An Angel (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I removed everything so that thought be given to building those sections in an encyclopedic manner. Because as written, it was unsourced fancruft. I agree with you that the ages and sibling relationships is useful. The bios as presented on the official website can be cited -- otherwise information will have to come from other sources. For example, examine the way the featured article The Apprentice (UK TV series) handles cast members. (See "The Board" section) Each person has a mini-biography, written in an encyclopedic style, with in-line citations from independent reliable sources. I think reality shows like seasons of American Idol can be also be followed for style. What we must remember is that Wikipedia is not a fan website -- and fan-type trivia about 'who hates who', or 'who likes what' is inappropriate, especially when written in non-neutral POV style. The bottom-line is that these mini-bios need to conform to our standards for BLP. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I never argued for the inclusion of fancruft of trivia. I asked why the show itself can't be used as a reference. Looking at the article that you suggested. "The Apprentice", one of the member's minibio looks like this:

• Karren Brady is best known for being the former managing director of Birmingham City Football Club. She was appointed in March 1993, when only 23 years old. She was responsible for the company's flotation in 1997, thus becoming the youngest managing director of a British plc. In 2007, Brady took part in Comic Relief Does The Apprentice where she was chosen as a team leader and took the women to victory, raising over £1,000,000 for charity. She has since made recurring appearances on The Apprentice's sister show, You're Fired!. In January 2010 she was appointed vice-chairman of West Ham United following a change of ownership of the club.

The only thing that is sourced in there is a date. I'm assuming the rest of the information was taken from the actual episodes themselves. I don't understand why the same thing can't be done with this show. For An Angel (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

No, the sources for information in that minibio can be found in the article Karren Brady. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually most what is mentioned in her minibio is not referenced in her article, unless they're all in the wrong place. Some of the info in her minibio is not even mentioned in her article. For An Angel (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, For An Angel. I see your difficulty now -- you are pointing out the one name on The Apprentice (UK TV series) added after the FA review, thus it did not have in-line citations. Fortunately for us, the information there is easily referenced when challenged. Even this single independent reliable source suffices. But I have now added five others. The point is that the information of the cast names is treated as a small biography -- all the information is referenced to quality reliable sources per WP:BLP guidelines. Any information that occurs within a particular episode can be added to the synopses of that episode -- using the episode as a direct source. However, the cast bios must meet BLP. For example, you ask if it is proper to include the children's ages. IMO, it is not -- ages are time dependent and the person may not be that age when the article is written nor at a particular point during the year or thereafter. Therefore, birth dates are fine, but ages are not -- and birth dates should be sourced to a quality independent source. The official website can work as a valid reference. However, information should be restricted to the relevant encyclopedic facts, adhering to neutral point-of-view and verifiability. I hope this helps clarify things. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

You keep repeating the same things over and over again but you keep avoiding my one basic question. I'm asking if it's okay to include in their minibios any information about the dancers or the moms that we learned from the show, as long as that information is relevant and encyclopedic. I know the official website can work as a valid reference and you have a point about how including their birthday rather than their ages is more appropriate because ages are time sensitive. But if, for example, one of their birthdays was mentioned in one of the episodes but it's not mentioned anywhere on the official website, can we still use the show as a reference? I'm only using birthdays as an example of one of the kinds of information we can mention about them. Others include: family relationships, the types of dance that they each excel at, how long they've been with the studio, etc. All of which is mentioned on the show all the time but might be difficult to find an online source for. I understand the need to have things referenced in BLP articles and the importance for adhering to NPOV and V. But if you reread my posts you'll see that my only question from the beginning has been if it's okay to use the show as a reference for that information. For An Angel (talk) 03:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

IMO, it is not okay to use information from a reality television show as a reliable source for a BLP -- this is because reality shows are notoriously unreal. (See articles on the subject like [1], [2], [3], [4].) Information and facts are manipulated and/or scripted for dramatic effect. The line between truth and fiction is blurred. And reality show participants are required to sign legal contracts stipulating that they will not reveal anything about how a show has manipulated events or facts. Therefore, I think we step onto a slippery slope when using an episode to reference anything other than information about that particular episode -- because it is difficult to determine whether something is true or not without relying on an outside independent reliable source, as required by WP:V. OTOH, I can understand referencing some simple facts like full names, hometowns and family relationships, although I expect that information can be sourced to the official website. I think your question is an important one -- and, as far as I know, Wikipedia has not established a hard and fast rule on sourcing factual information to a "reality" show other than to take it on a case-by-case basis. I think it would be a good idea for us to open this discussion for opinion from editors at WP:RSN and WP:BLPN. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time understanding why there's such a big difference. For example, in one episode of Dance Moms one of the dancers broke her ankle on stage and had to be rushed to the hospital. You're basically saying that it would be okay to say "so-and-so broke her ankle during a performance and was rushed to the hospital" in the the episode summary section, but in that same dancer's minibio section of the article, we can't say, "In episode whatever, so-and-so broke her ankle and had to be rushed to the hospital". It's the same basic information, just in a different place in the article. Yet one is allowed and the other is not. I don't get it. For An Angel (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The television show as presented to an audience is a construct -- that is, it is not necessarily factual nor reality -- therefore it should follow our MOS guidelines for writing about television shows and other in-universe subjects. However, cast bios should not contain in-universe information, but rather follow BLP standards. I'll ask another editor who has some experience on the RS noticeboard to point us in the direction of previous discussions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

That would be me. I've found this comment: "WP:BLP says "The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject," and the broadcasts themselves are primary sources" which is relevant, and [5]. It's my opion that cast bios need to have independent sources, but if you still disagree you could ask at WP:BLPN. Dougweller (talk) 10:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Doug! The BLP quote and link to the Big Brother discussion helps a lot. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

@For an Angel, the link that Dougweller provides is a discussion about the use of the Big Brother TV show as a reliable source for cast info. In essence, it covers the same ground we have talked about -- that BLP information like cast information should use reliable independent sources (i.e., secondary sources). I hope the comments from other editors helps clear up the confusion. If not, let me know, and we can take Doug's suggestion and open a new discussion at BLPN. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Wadokai aikido

Hello CactusWriter,

I would appreciate your help providing wikipedia the correct copyright notice for our website. I am the website author and the author of the content that was submited... what message do I need to create on our site that allows for our content to be displayed... I have searched for what I need to do and I have either not found it or am to dim witted to understand what to do... any help would be appreciated as I have a lot of information to provide and I want to do it correctly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onebigcelt (talk • contribs) 11:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

if you could also tell me how to provide permission on photos I would appreciate that as well

thank you for your time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onebigcelt (talk • contribs) 11:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Onebigcelt. Don't worry -- it isn't you -- navigating around Wikipedia is a daunting task even for every experienced editors. But the information you want is found at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials: One simple way to grant permission to copy material from your website is to put a permission notice explicitly on the site where that material is posted. This is commonly known as a "copyleft" notice. This notice, usually placed at the bottom of the webpage, must state that your site (or portions of your site) are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts) or that it is in the public domain. For text, a good statement of release might read:

The text of this website [or page, if you are specifically releasing one section] is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

If you do not wish to retain any rights to the work, you may instead release it under the Creative Commons Zero Waiver, which effectively releases your work into the public domain:

The text of this website [or page] is released under the Creative Commons Zero Waiver 1.0 (CC0).

If you verify text by placing a note at the website, you may wish to use {{Text release}} to make sure that your release is documented at the talk page of the article. Instructions for using that template can be found at Template:Text release.

Instructions for releasing photos to WP:COMMONS can be found here. If you have further questions, feel free to ask. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Englisc patriotism

You deleted Englisc patriotism as a blatant hoax. I don't know that I would categorize it as such. If you search on the term, you will come up with a number of forums and websites dedicated to the idea. I don't know that I'd call it a notable movement yet, but I wouldn't call it a blatant hoax. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 09:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

On further reflection, it probably wasn't a blatant hoax. Although a search finds no use of that specific term, we can find use of the Old English spelling of "Englisc" in a blog and a t-shirt sales site. I agree that the page was more original essay than hoax. I'll be happy to userfy it if you wish to develop it. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

your deletion of the Michigan Men's Football Experience

I am new to this medium. I prepared a quick description of the single largest fund raising event for prostate cancer research and intended to supplement it and place it in context. I find that you have deleted what I put up.

The intent of the posting is to further the public's knowledge of prostate cancer research. It is not to advertise and event.

I am happy to submit to you a more complete entry for your review and comment.

This event is to prostate cancer research what the Susan Komen events are to breast cancer. I did not post it before confirming that Susan Komen's events are listed on your publication. I also looked up Mike Milken and he is here with his prostate cancer foundation. They are supporters of the research at issue.

please provide direction on how I should proceed to meet your criteria.

thanks18:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)18:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellepark (talk • contribs)

Hi, Bellepark. I am sorry but the Michigan Men's Football Experience was deleted for copyright violation -- as it was copied directly from this copyrighted page. (Please see Wikipedia:Copyright violations.) You are welcome to rewrite the article -- but please use only original language and reference it to independent reliable sources, such as newspapers and magazines. Check out the WP:Article Wizard -- it can help guide you through the process of writing an article for Wikipedia. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

sorry I have not been back in a while. I actually wrote the article that is being quoted, thus while technically a copyright violation it was simply because I used my own writing. I will be happy to change wording and include additional citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellepark (talk • contribs) 23:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your support at my RfA. I will do my best to live up to people's confidence in me. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem -- thank you for tackling an RFA. Good luck. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Frieda Belinfante

(ed. note: this is in regards to this comment.)

Hi Cactus, Thanks for the comments on this page, and going to all the trouble of reading the sources. I am very happy to have help editing this material as I have done very little of this before. Your suggestions are very welcome! I have wanted to get other editors to review the page but have not known how.

Let me see what I can do with massaging that paragraph and the opening. If you would, please look it over when you can and let me know what you think. If I run out of ideas, I'll ask you for help. xoxo Laguna greg (talk) 19:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I'll be happy to take a look. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay -- I went through and did some editing. The lede doesn't need any mention of Belinfante's speculation as it gives it Undue Weight -- ledes are there to hit the highlights, not minor points. Especially those not reflected in independent sources. I toned down the language in several sentences where it was too effusive, memorializing or comment-like. And I tweaked a few places which did not gel with reliable sources, and, at the same time removed reference to an unpublished source which is not reliable per encyclopedic standards. I think it looks pretty good now. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Cactus- Thanks again for reviewing this page. I agree with almost everything you've changed. It does read a bit more objectively that way. The two things I want to discuss are 1- the way you wrote about her departure from the OCPS, and 2- your handling of the lead paragraph.

1- The way you've written it, it sounds like Belinfante left the organization, which she founded, of her own accord and volition. Not only is this not corroborated in her own eye-witness account, it is also controverted in other eyewitness newspaper accounts. She did not leave of her own volition; she was dismissed. She had no plans to retire, and would have continued conducting that orchestra until the day before she died, most like. Do you mind if I change that slightly? I promise to do something simple and not extemporize or hyperbolize.

2- Her dismissal from the OCPS is not a minor point. Rather, it's a major reversal and the climax of her entire career. If there is one, it needs some kind of explanation up front. Belinfante had a profound impact on the cultural life in the region. How would it have been different for Orange County if Belinfante had been allowed to stay in her post and fix the problems, which was an option, and the orchestra had continued to exist? It would take almost 30 years before another similar institution, namely the Pacific Symphony, would come into being to fill the gap the OCPO left when it folded. Funding for the OCPO orchestral season was available to the OCPS board at the time of Belinfante's dismissal. The board just decided not to spend the money that way, and that's in the newspaper. If sexism and homophobia had not been issues, would Belinfante have been allowed to stay? I'm sure that the folks over in the LGBT or the Women's forum would not consider this a minor point; as a gay person, I certainly don't. Granted we only have one source, and one that is not supported by other sources. Yet we do have it, and it changes decidedly the complexion of the last part of Belinfante's career. As you are aware, there is tremendous historical precedent for sweeping this kind of bias under the rug. Is there any way this can written to offer a contrasting view? Or should this part of the discussion just be moved to the talk page?

BTW, I like the icons on your page! Laguna greg (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Greg, thanks for your reply. Of course, you are always welcome to make changes in the writing -- as long as they conform to the sources. My edits are by no means the best nor last word on any article. (No single editor's words are -- and that can be especially true of mine.)

However, in answer to your points:

1. This is the sentence as it currently reads: Belinfante’s involvement with the Orange County Philharmonic came to an abrupt end in 1962 when her contract was not renewed. The sentence is accurate to the sources. Of course, it can be improved upon to sometime like: Belinfante’s involvement with the Orange County Philharmonic came to an abrupt end in 1962 when the OCP board decided not to renew her contract. Or something like that. However, we cannot say that she was dismissed nor fired -- because this would be inaccurate per all sources. Belinfante herself states in her 1994 interview that she had a 5-year contract, that when it was finished, was not renewed. That is not the same as a dismissal or being fired -- and we cannot state it in those terms. And the non-renewal of a contract is not an unusual event -- it is typical business. In this case, multiple reasons for not re-signing Belinfante to another contract are provided by this independent reliable source. Belifante confirms the stated reason in this 1988 article: "Belinfante left the Philharmonic Society in 1962, when, she said, the board decided to import big-name orchestras rather than cultivate a local symphony." If you know of some other published sources which provide a different version, I would be happy to look at them.

2. All those "what if" questions are wonderful and interesting -- but, they are mere speculation and completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. A core policy of Wikipedia is that only verifiable information is permitted. (WP:V) That is, we can only provide factual information as given in independent reliable sources -- then we allow the readers to make their own inferences or deductions. I know this is hard. We all have our subjective opinions about particular subjects -- but these are irrelevant to providing encyclopedic information. Delving into these what-ifs and speculations is a luxury for authors of scholarly papers, books, magazine articles, blogs, etc. -- but is not part of Wikipedia. And I do understand you have strong personal feelings for the subject -- which often makes it very hard to write while resisting an agenda or a particular viewpoint. That's why we also have a policy on conflict of interest. I think it would be a good idea if you read our core policy on Neutral Point of View.

I appreciate your efforts to comply with the policies and build an accurate bio. And, if you would like, we can move the discussion to the talk page and I will invite some third party editors to provide their opinions. Let me know. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Cactus, Thanks again for taking all this trouble to engage in what is turning out to be a very interesting and profitable discussion. I appreciate your suggestions very much. I'm aware of the problems of conflicting interest and objectivity in writing materials like these, which is why I'd much rather hash these things out here beforehand.

I agree with you on my first point and think that is an excellent way to describe what actually happened. I'll try to massage that paragraph so that it states it that way. As far as my second point, I'm beginning to think that the problem is not "who/what is right" pre se, but rather how to present an issue of some controversy, or rather conflicting perceptions. It's always the problem with writing any history, which is why I usually avoid writing that kind of thing! I think I will need to look at more contemporaneous sources before I make any more edits that way. There might be enough information to discuss the "controvery", rather than the issues as they appear. There appears to be a small but very regular amount of traffic on this page, so I want to make sure this comes acress credibily. Cheers! Laguna greg (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

sorry and request

I am so sorry for copyrighted problems in Tulsi Virani Article for creating that

Please Confirm My account give me confirmed rights i have requested WP:Requests for Permissions/Confirmed#User:CIDss but i have not received any result

Confirm Request:I want to edit semi-protected pages e.g:Geet - Hui Sabse Parayi,India & many more..and i have experience about wikipedia and i want to upload new images at Kahani ghar ghar ki,Shobha Kapoor and many more and i want to upload new versions of Uploaded images e.g File:Parichaycolors.jpg,File:Navya1starplus.jpg etc,Thank you CIDss (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC).

Sorry, but you are adding copyrighted text in several places. I am currently reviewing your contributions. I certainly do not think you can be trusted to edit any protected pages at this time. Please read the Wikipedia policy on Wikipedia:Copyright violations and do not copy-paste any text into Wikipedia (including from one Wikipedia page to another without attribution). Thank you. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Please Just give me last chance and trust me and i really want to edit semi-Protected pages and i will not create copy-paste Problem on Articles or pages plzzzzz just give me last chance?? i hope you will confirm my account thanx (Assign Permissions) 17:37, 15 April 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CIDss (talk • contribs)

Permission has already been denied [6] for suspected sock puppetry. You are not helping your case by forum shopping. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Replay has been given on Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Changez121...Plzzzz give me confirmed rights i want to upload images at wikipedia & if i upload images at Commons then it will be deleted so it's better and easy to upload it at wiki...(Plzzzzzz plzzzz plzzzzzzzz Confirm my account) 17:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry per ANI discussion. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for all your work today on clean up. All best wishes Span (talk) 23:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Spanglej, it should be me thanking You! Your spotting the copyvios and keeping on top of the socks made things so much easier for everyone. It is really appreciated. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Enjoy the week. Best wishes Span (talk) 09:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

More thanks

Thank you for your contribution to the discussion regarding the "contradiction" of my entry on the Legends_and_myths_regarding_RMS_Titanic article, about the Atlantis novel. Your citations were especially helpful. I was able to return the entry in revised form, and you are welcome to review it (feel free to edit). I am considering expanding it a bit, after noticing that the serial newspaper publication (final part: 24 April, 1912) overlapped the Titanic events. It might be interesting to note that the ending of the story was published around the same time as the actual disaster (presumably^[vague], the fictional disaster would have been near the end of the story). When I get the chance^[when?], I'll read a Google translation of the related (German) article you mentioned. -- Anyway, thanks again; regards, ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem, Eric. I was happy to help. It would be interesting to find the exact date that the part about the sinking of the Roland appeared in the newspaper. I haven't read the book but have seen the Atlantis film. The sinking event occurs half-way through the story -- page 190 of the 415 page book. Knowing the span of the newspaper publications dates, that would put the publication of that part of the book sometime in the beginning of March 1912. So it does seem accurate that that part of the story was published four weeks or a month before the Titanic disaster, as is typically stated. Let me know if you discover anything further -- I will be interested. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Haven't found anything new ... will let you know. (Haven't checked German sources yet) ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 02:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Hip Hop Nation Award

Since you deleted Hip-Hop Nation Award, you should delete 31st Hip-Hop Nation Awards which was bundled. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Right. Thanks for the reminder. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 04:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Three Years Later

Hello, I'm new to Wikipedia and don't really understand all the rules and guidelines. On April 22, 2012, you deleted a page called Three Years Later. The reason was something about lack of significance. I didn't really understand. Three Years Later is a real band who have released a full album. I responded to the "contest to speedy deletion" and gave what I thought were valid reasons. If you could tell me how I could fix the page, and another about the band's first album Would You Believe, which for some reason also meets the criteria for speedy deletion, that would be great. Thank you. Ddjjyuyuhakusho (talk) 06:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Ddjjyuyuhakusho. The article was deleted because there was no assertion of significance. Please note that neither the simple existence of a band nor the recording of an album makes a band notable -- there are millions of local bands in that category. Nor having a facebook, twitter account or personal homepage, as you suggested on the article talk page. You should read WP:BAND for a list of some criteria that can qualify a musical group for an encyclopedic article. However, a local band with a self-recorded album (selling only 100 copies) and no significant in-depth coverage by independent reliable sources will not pass any of the criteria. This should not be taken as a slight against the band -- rather that an article about a band before it achieves a significant popularity is undoubtedly premature. You are welcome to ask for another opinion about this at Deletion Review. Regards. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 04:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Rob Roy MacGregor

Hi, CactusWriter. Once again I approach, hat in hand, to solicit copyright aid. An IP has asked about the possibility that the subject article is substantially a copyvio. It appears to the uninitated that the website in question is using WP content. However, I think it best that more knowledgeable minds apply themselves to this concern. Thanks for any help you can offer. See ya 'round Tiderolls 01:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Tide rolls. No problem. I'll take a look and offer an opinion. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and commented at the article talk page. Your instincts were correct -- the website had copied from Wikipedia. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

XXXSport in India

I came to it through a post on ANI. I've asked the editor to explain why these are backwards copies. It's also possible that the main article Sport in India is a copyvio. Just an FYI. —SpacemanSpiff 04:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, you are right -- I only just realized that myself when I was googling sources -- and had just commented on it at ANI (but was interrupted by an EC). We do need to inform the editor that the text must be attributed to the source page in Wikipedia when it is copied. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 04:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Sean's Bar

Sean's Bar is not listed in the "oldest" section of the official Guinness records website and one of the sources you cited says, "The establishment claims to date back to AD900 and there are remnants of bygone days scattered around the place to prove it. Just make sure you take a pinch of salt with your pint of stout." (My emphasis.) In other words, the source you cited actually mocks the claim rather than confirms it. I also included a link to a debunking of the claim in my edit summary when I added the hoax template. It is obvious to anyone with eyes in his head that the kind of architecture shown in the picture of the pub does not date back 1,100 years! The whole thing is a joke that does not belong in Wikipedia, particularly as it is not confirmed officially at guinnessworldrecords.com. — O'Dea (talk) 04:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, O'Dea. Thanks for the link. It does appear that there may be a joke somewhere there. (I note the date on the source you provided is April Fools Day. The same blogger wrote this article 5 months later. I'm not certain that either is particularly RS.) But the fact that there are multiple independent sources which indicate there is a "claim" by the bar (whether a joke or not) indicates that this is not a "blatant hoax" on Wikipedia. And, therefore, does not qualify for speedy deletion. Because of the considerable attention in all these sources, I would think the article would not even be a candidate for AFD based on the now obvious notability in those sources. It does, however, mean the page should be revised to clarify any accurate sources or new information. Thanks again for pointing it out. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 05:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Houtan Delfi

Hello this page has definetly been deleted by mistake because this is a true Professional football player playing in Europe right now. I DO NOT know why this has been deleted because this has been correctly referenced after every sentence and you can see the references and links yourself everytime. So can you please post this back up on the Articles section and DO NOT delete this article please. Cronaldo79 (talk) 08:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Cronaldo79. I'm sorry but the article was deleted per WP:G4 criteria -- it was a recently created article, previously deleted per AFD discussions, without substantial change. Two previous discussions were held: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Houtan Delfi and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Houtan Delfi (2nd nomination) -- both which determined the player fails notability criteria. Please see WP:FOOTBALL and, in particular, the list of the football clubs at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues which confer notability on players. Only players competing on a team in the fully professional Serbian SuperLiga are considered to have inherent notability for Wikipedia. Delfi has not yet attained that level of professionalism -- and until he does, a biography page about him is premature. You are welcome to ask for another opinion at WP:DRV. 18:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

To Cactus Writer

Dear Cactus Writer Peridon Deleted my Articles but i need Them Back Please Help Me!!!!!!Iuydf (talk) 11:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

how does one...

...go about getting a userpage deleted if it is specifically set up to look like an Wikipedia article? I see a WP:FAKEARTICLE at User:Kasyfil yohan. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, MQS. (LTNS! Nice to see you around.) Looks like a newbie account -- doesn't quite get it yet -- perhaps drop a note on his userpage first. But it can be submitted to WP:MFD. You'll find some similar examples in the current listings there. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 09:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Yup... I've continued busy enough as a contributor and been doing some with the admin bit as I learn the ropes therein. Well, as for the User:Kasyfil yohan page... it shows his age as 16, and I'm willing enough to accept that as a newb, he is still trying to feel his way around. I'll politely send him to WP:PRIMER. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

GRBackPro

Thanks for taking care of this. - Desine (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! — CactusWriter ^(talk) 10:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: A Twist Of TIme Deletion

Good morning - you recently deleted a page I added. Your reasons were copyright infringement, but I am the copyright holder. The Gumtree item you refer to was posted by me. I have re-intstated the Wiki piece in the hope that it will stay. Please feel free to ask me for any information at xandpart@aol.com. Many thanks, David Ireland — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xandpart (talk • contribs) 06:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, David Ireland. I'm sorry, but because all Wikipedia editors are essentially anonymous (i.e., anyone can say they are anyone), permission to use copyrighted text can only be granted through official channels. For Wikipedia to use the exact text as posted on an online website, a person using the website's e-mail address must first contact the Wikimedia Foundation OTRS office in writing. (A note was left on your talk page describing this. In particular, you may wish to review this link for instructions: Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials#Granting us permission to copy material already online.) Please do not recreate the article using the copyrighted text until it is approved through the OTRS office. The alternative -- and often the best choice, IMO -- is to create the page using original writing, so that it also conforms to our other core guidelines. If you have further questions, please ask. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Deleting Russell Walseth

Yesterday, you deleted my page on Russell Walseth with the reasoning that it was largely copied from a post on AllBuffs.com. I can confirm it was copied from there, because I was the author of it there (I'm one of the basketball mods for the board and led "BasketBuffs History Week") and decided that since Sox Walseth was such an important member of CU Basketball History that he needed to have a Wikipedia page. I'm VERY new to the whole Wikipedia thing, so I didn't even think about the repercussions of this. What would be the best way to handle this? Can I have the page reinstated? If so, do I need to re-write it for Wikipedia so it's different, or can I just source that it's from my writing at AllBuffs? Thanks for your help. Jlucas4092 (talk) 14:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Jlucas4092. Permission for Wikipedia to use the exact text from AllBuffs.com can only be granted by the website. To do that, a person using the website's e-mail address must first contact the Wikimedia Foundation OTRS office in writing. (A note was left on your talk page describing this. In particular, you may wish to review this link for instructions: Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials#Granting us permission to copy material already online.) The alternative -- and often the best choice, IMO -- is to create the page using original writing, so that it also conforms to our other core guidelines. Don't worry about being new to Wikipedia -- we've all been there :) -- and it is understood that it does take time to learn all the rules. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Haumoana

Evening CactusWriter,

When I originally tagged the article Haumoana (Surfer/Musician) with G12, I acted on the presupposition that the content was a substantial duplicate of the source, such that there was scarcely any non-infringing material. My recollection of the article's history is imperfect, but the CorenSearchBot had previously flagged the article for a copyright violation from a similar website, where the infringing material was identical. While notifying the author of the infringement, and their removal of the bot's tag, I subsequently realised that s/he had included this particular source in the footnotes, albeit improperly formatted. Perhaps the issue is merely a technicality, but I would assume that the inclusion of the reference would actually render the occurrence of a copyright violation equivocal, rather than unequivocal? Although this might effectively constitute pedantry, I'm curious whether my initial decision was mistaken. Cheers, Meph^talk 00:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC).

Hi, Mephistophelian. Your tag was absolutely correct -- the entire article was a copy of the text from the outside source, from top to bottom. It doesn't matter if the text was properly attributed or even had been placed in quotes. A copyright violation can occur if quoted text on Wikipedia comprises the total or a substantial portion of the sourced text. In this case, it was the entire source. The article was a copyright violation from its foundation and would require a complete rewrite to make it compliant. Therefore, it was properly tagged for G12 speedy deletion. I hope that helps explain things. Let me know if it doesn't. (And, nope, not pedantry at all:)) Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, my intermittent editing engenders a degree of forgetfulness. Meph^talk 02:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC).

Eric Schlager Deleted Page

Dear Sir/Madam:

I very much appreciate your diligence in protecting the Wikipedia community from copyright violations, vandalism, and other licentious acts. It is comforting to know that individuals like yourself seek to promote the highest standards of integrity and morality.

As a relatively new member to our community, I would respectfully request your assistance in helping me to publish this article on Eric Schlager in a format that would be acceptable to you and in accordance with Wikipedia's legally enforceable doctrines. I would very much appreciate you sending me the information for the deleted page so that I may revise such data to be in accordance with stated policy and procedure.

To address some of your stated concerns: (i) Nearly all of the published article was fact-based and included no opinions. While you note that certain material was cited to the Urban Land Institute website, in fact, if you closely analyze the citations, you will see that most of this information was previously published as generally available biographical data on the Bulfinch Companies website. (ii) Mr. Eric Schlager meets the generally accepted qualifications of being a notable entity as a result of the size of his company, civic leadership positions, mentions in national publications, etc...

I am willing to work with you to ensure the completeness and professionalism of this encyclopedic entry. In the future, I will run all pages by you before publication so that we may be able to avoid any unnecessary hindrances to future publication.

Thank you very much for your assistance.

Very Kind Regards.

Response to previous Conflict of Interest Post dated Aug. 3 on my Talk:

You allege a conflict of interest. The person writing this page is neither Eric Schlager, a family member, friend, etc. This is an arms-length party writing an encyclopedic article about Eric Schlager. Please restore this page. Thank you for your concerns, but they are unfounded and not based in valid evidence

— Preceding unsigned comment added by EDS250 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, EDS250. The text of the deleted Eric Schlager page can be found at the source websites from which it was copied (that is the reason it was deleted as a copyright violation in the first place.) I have restored the list of references for you at User:EDS250/EricSchlager. Please note that the page was also deleted for its promotional text. As written on the source websites, the information does not pass our encyclopedic guidelines for neutral point-of-view. I suggest you read WP:NPOV before rewriting the article in original language. It may also be helpful to create the page using the WP:Article Wizard -- this provides a step-by-step process for determining if the article will pass Wikipedia core policies, as well as gives you access to experienced editors who can provide further advice. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Cregagh Cricket Club

Why did you delete Cregagh Cricket Club without consulting me as the creator of the article? The article had previously been considered by the WP cricket project and it had been agreed that it should be kept, given the club's history. Mooretwin (talk) 08:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Mooretwin. The article was deleted for copyright violation. It had been tagged for close paraphrasing since July 5, 2011 and the report was finally investigated by me at WP:Copyright problems in June 2012. I did note that you made 3 edits to the article in August 26, 2011 -- therefore, it is presumed that you were aware of the copyvio tag on the top of the article but never took the opportunity to address the problem during the last 12 months.

If there was a deletion discussion which resulted in a decision to keep the article, that should have been noted on the article talk page. I am unable to find such a discussion. On the other hand, I find that the other 4th level clubs in the NCU league were all deleted by AFD discussions (e.g., see WP:Articles for deletion/Academy Cricket Club, WP:Articles for deletion/Dungannon Cricket Club, WP:Articles for deletion/Donaghadee Cricket Club, WP:Articles for deletion/Clogher Cricket Club, etc.).

However -- the club's lack of notability is not the issue here -- close paraphrasing is. What I will do is restore a stub which will allow you to build an article without using the substantial paraphrasing of the source. (By the way -- close paraphrasing problems are typical in articles which depend entirely on a single source. Use may wish to read WP:Close paraphrasing.) As far as notability concerns, I'm making no assessment, and that should be decided through AFD. But it would be a good idea if you found substantial coverage of the club in some independent reliable sources. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 03:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Item 41. Eric Schlager

Hello CactusWriter,

My name is Ed Cafasso. I am a senior vice president at the public relations and marketing firm of Solomon McCown & Company in Boston, Mass. Our firm represents Eric Schlager and his company, the Bulfinch Companies. Mr. Schlager has asked me to look into who is creating a Wikipedia page about him at .

Based on the history available at , it appears that an unknown person using the user name EDS250 began building the page around August 3 by collecting personal and professional information about Mr. Schlager. To be clear, Mr. Schlager has not authorized anyone to create this page, nor has anyone he knows approached him seeking permission to do so.

From what I can gather, EDS250 ran into some issues with a couple of Wiki editors, including you, on copyright questions and the overtly promotional tone of earlier entries. At one point, the page was deleted. It’s difficult to follow the thread here: .

I am writing to seek your help in understanding who EDS250 is, how I may contact him/her, and what his/her interest is Mr. Schlager. As you can imagine, the sudden and unexplained creation of a page that includes detailed personal information has become a cause for concern for Mr. Schlager and his family. Although well known in greater Boston among those in real estate development, Mr. Schlager is a private businessman and is puxzzled as to why a complete stranger would create a wikipedia entry about him in this fashion.

I thank you in advance for your help in this inquiry... Ed Cafasso, SVP, Solomon McCown & Company, ecafasso@solomonmccown.com.

Edcafasso (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Ed Cafasso. First, I'm sure that you can understand that all accounts registered with Wikipedia are essentially anonymous -- anyone can register and anyone can state that they are anyone else (even in your case.) And, in fact, we have a policy against revealing another editor's identity. (See WP:PRIVACY). Only through official channels of the WP:OTRS office of the Wikimedia Foundation (in which all communication is kept private) do we deal with actual identities. Therefore, I can't delve into the identity of another editor nor speculate about their motives. If they do not wish to reveal their identity, that is their prerogative. As editors, we deal only with the value of sourced notable information, not the individual editor. If you wish to discuss anything with an editor, than you are welcome to write a message on their talk page.

Second, why a page is created for any individual or topic can be for a variety of reasons -- but is generally outlined in the General Notability Guideline. 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 or stand-alone list. Essentially, if Eric Schlager has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources (i.e., newspapers, magazines, books, journals, etc.), than it is possible that someone feels he is notable enough to be included on Wikipedia.

Finally, Wikipedia notes that Biographies of Living People must be treated with great care to ensure that any information included is proper. The Foundation urges that special attention be paid to neutrality and verifiability regarding living persons; that human dignity and personal privacy be taken into account, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest. With BLP articles, such as the one on Eric Schlager, we must err on the side of a presumption in favor of his privacy. If there is an immediate problem, let me know. Should Eric Schlager have any concerns over the page, I suggest he follow the guideline at WP:BIOSELF for contacting editors on Wikipedia or contacting the the Foundations's OTRS office directly.

Should you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Clarence and the Whatnows

I made a page called Clarence and the Whatnows that was deleted in January for lack of independent 3rd party references. An independent 3rd party newspaper has written about my topic, so I would like to be able to resurrect my page and add the reference to legitimize it. Please let me know what I need to do to have this completed. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajkuehn (talk • contribs) 18:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Ajkuehn. You can use WP:Article Wizard -- it will help lead you through the process to determine if any topic will pass the guidelines for an encyclopedia article. You should also first read WP:BAND which outlines some necessary elements for a musical group to be considered notable, including the first criteria about significant coverage in "multiple, non-trivial, published works." If the group doesn't meet those criteria, than an article about it is probably not yet appropriate. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

School of Science and Technology, Singapore

Hi, I'm a current employee and staff of SST and I'm given the permission by the Principal of the school, Mr Chua Chor Huat, to use the writeup and pictures from the SST website into the SST Wiki page (pls refer to the sst website -> about SST -> Organisation Structure -> Admin Office -> Carol Lum). I'm the Corporate Communications Executive and I do both the photography and writeup for the school.

Apparently it was stated in the deletion log that the page had been deleted because of the use of the logo in the page. This page is the school's main Wiki page and it is not possible not to use the logo at all. I'm not sure I understand why it was deleted based on this reason as it does not seem justifiable.

If reusing the photos that were from the SST website is not allowed, I will change the gallery entirely. As I've taken new photos of the students' achievement in the recent month, I've already made periodical edits since early this week.

Please reinstate the page to allow me to make the edits to the pictures in the gallery.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumcarol (talk • contribs) 01:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Lumcarol. The page was deleted for copyright violation because the entire text was copied or derived from the official school website. Restoration of a copyright violation is the same as the violation itself, therefore I cannot restore the page for your use. If you wish to use material that is already published online, than please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the proper procedure in gaining permission. Please also understand that copyrighted text, even after you have received permission, may still not be suitable for an encyclopedia. It must pass the core policies of neutral point-of-view. So, I also suggest that you read Wikipedia guidelines concerning conflict-of-interest and promotional materials before posting new material. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Cactus. Unfortunately due to the intense editing by different editors, the SST information is now incorrect. My colleague has tried to make the changes to the writeup including the curriculum for Years 1 and 2 (which is wrong by the way) and the main information (SST is not set up by Ngee Ann Polytechnic although we are their subsidiary. It is initiated by the Ministry of Education.) to name a few. Could you assist to revert the changes made by my colleague? She has even cited references in ALL the categories mentioned.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumcarol (talk • contribs) 14:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Lumcarol, I notice that the article is already receiving help from a number of editors and an administrator. I think it best to discuss any difficulties you have with them -- as they are already familiar with the article content -- and can advise you accordingly. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Wayward Echoes

It's possible that the article you deleted didn't have any information because I started writing it fifteen minutes ago. Just a theory.(Zerocompliance (talk) 00:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC))

Hi, Zerocompliance. Ten minutes is our usual standard for an editor to provide even a minimal single legible sentence for the start of an article. Given that you could not provide even that minimal standard, it is not unexpected that the page was deleted after fifteen minutes. I suggest that you build your article in your userspace or use our WP:Article Wizard to construct a page which does meet Wikipedia guidelines. This is the best way to avoid these kinds of problems. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Fifteen minutes is more than enough time to write a single sentence, thank you very much. Fifteen minutes to write a single sentence adhering to formatting guidelines while learning a new mark up language, on the other hand, strikes me as setting the bar a bit high. Also, you may want to review the "Don't bite the newcomers" section of Wikipedia's Talk Page guidelines. Subtle snarkiness is still snarkiness. (Zerocompliance (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC))

Zerocompliance, I suspect you understand, your sarcastic comment of "Just a theory" might invite a like reply. But poor formatting or mark-up is not an issue for speedy deletion -- lack of a single sentence is. That bar is not considered to be too high. My further suggestions to you still apply. And you're still welcome to create an article which meets our guidelines. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 02:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Bianca Jade

I just logged in to check an article that I created and see that it was deleted. I appears that the recommending editor did not read the talk page. I left a comment about the previous deletion and this page is NOT substantially similar to the last page. As stated, the fluff was removed and the article is more than notable. I also left the message that I checked all of the references to make sure that they were valid (as this was an issue with the last deletion). I would request that you reinstate the page and if someone has an issue with it they can take it to RfD as the page is NOT similar to the last. In fact, not sure how the recommending editor compared the two articles as it no longer exists. I know as I have a copy of it. --HappyTwoBEE (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, HappyTwoBee. I did read your comment on the article talk page. I also noted that the issue at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bianca Jade (2nd nomination) was a concern about notability of the subject. I then compared the two articles. Although your latest version of the article had the "fluff" as well as the false references edited/removed, my own comparison of the two articles showed they were essentially the same article which was deleted for failure to pass general notability guidelines. However, you are certainly welcome to obtain other opinions about this. If you wish, you can request a review at Deletion Review. If you have further questions, please feel free to ask. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I have filed with RfU [7] but I guess I do not understand. I thoroughly read the 2nd RfD and the comments were about notability (as the references appeared to be passing mentions or not even talking about her). However, I have since added the notable references as you can see if you look at the deleted page. Also, here is the SPA report from the 2nd nomination [8]. Not much, but a potential duplicate which is probably related to the nominating editor. With my complaint about the editor aside, I do not want the page to suffer because it was poorly written the first time. That is why I would rather see it go through RfD as opposed to Speedy Deletion (as the article is substantially different than the one in the 2nd RfD - IMO). --HappyTwoBEE (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, I agree with the comments in the second RfD about the article. However, you will see from the one that was posted that none of those comments would apply to the article I wrote. I think it is worth a second look if you would be so kind. --HappyTwoBEE (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand your concerns. (There is actually nothing convincing about the SPA report -- but, as you state, the issue of notability resides in the comments by the other editors as well -- so the SPA point is not really worth too much bother.) I recall that the new article did have the promotional material removed/edited which did make it a better presentation -- but the issue of spam was not the major cause for previous deletion. I don't recall seeing anything in the way of new notability material nor RS citations, but I'll be happy to take a second look when I get a chance. In the meantime, some second opinions at the RFU can be helpful. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate it. Unfortunately, I am only one person so unless someone else chimes in at RfU I doubt there is going to be many second opinions. If possible, please move the article back to a subpage User:HappyTwoBEE/sandbox/BJ3 for me. The notability is stated in the way of her being an expert in her field. Also, you will see that the sources back it up (notable television and magazine appearances for being an expert). Again, these are not just passing mentions or "promotional fluff" like the 2nd article that was deleted. I understand everyone's concern for articles being spammed back into Wikipedia after being deleted, but this is truly a case of one that is deserving of inclusion. Again, I would have been the first to vote delete on the 2nd article, but this article is meets Wikipedia guidelines on Notability to a "T". --HappyTwoBEE (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Would also appreciate (although I am not fishing) if you could leave your comment on the RfU page for those reviewing, especially the comment that "I recall that the new article did have the promotional material removed/edited which did make it a better presentation."--HappyTwoBEE (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

HappyTwoBEE, I have again looked at the deleted page and find that that all but one of the references are unsuitable as independent reliable sources for a biographical article -- especially a biography of a living person, which requires the most stringent standards. Some are press release material, some are blogs, some are mere mentions of the name, some are badlinks, some are simply pieces written by this individual, and many are not about this person but merely them talking about a topic. It is these types of citations which suggest the article is being written only for the purposes of self-promotion. Please note that pertinent reliable sources will be entirely about the person, not their field of topic, and independent of any connection to this person. IMO, the only independent RS source is the one from St. Louis Magazine. That, however, is a local piece and insufficient for establishing notability or the creation of a encyclopedic bio. This person may one day be notable, but they are not as yet, by Wikipedia criteria. If in six months time or a year or further down the road, Jade becomes the major subject of multiple, independent and reliable stories, than there should be no problem with creating a page on Wikipedia. In the meantime, I will place the article in your userspace. But only with the understanding that it cannot be moved into the Wikipedia mainspace prior to removal of all self-promotional material and references, and the addition of quality references which provide substantial and independent coverage of Jade. Otherwise, the article will be subject to deletion again. (I am not commenting at the RFU because the advice you received there seems correct to me.) If you have further questions, please ask. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you again. I appreciate you being polite throughout this ordeal and also thank you for taking the time to look at the article again. I also understand not commenting in the other forums. I was told I was in the wrong forum for the last request so I need to take the matter to DRV. However, to follow guidelines, I need to make sure I "discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first."[9]. With that in mind, I only wish to point out some of the independent and reliable sources that fit the example of what you state above; and, request that you also keep in mind that the Advert part of the article (deleted pursuant to the 2nd nomination) was removed and the article re-written from NPOV (again, IMO). Naturally Fit St. Louis She was featured as one of 5 sexy role models (the article is not solely about her, but neither would be an article talking about 5 people who won a nobel prize this year; The Today Show The link is to the video clip (give it time to load as it looks like a dead link but it is not); Bliss Bliss is a great reference about her as they followed her throughout an entire day of her work (includes photos and everything); Junonia They are one of the largest active wear retailers in the U.S.; Time Out New York Time Out New York is one of the sites from the Time Out Company (see their Wiki article for additional info) and the article is about her; Rate Your Burn Yes this is a blog, but in the fitness world, it is regarded as one of the best (you would need to ask around as it is difficult to know without being part of the fitness world - not saying your not in shape, but saying that you probably do not get into reading about it that much); US Weekly Again, this is not about her personally but IMO the article would fall within guidelines as it is one of the largest magazines (not just a fitness magazine so it would definitely be independent) and they bring her in as the expert on fitness and use her as the expert.

Although some of the sources are not 100% about her, they are references where she was brought on and interviewed for being an expert (such as US Weekly) in the field. I understand that notability is not inherent, but the citations still support the claim of notability (IMO). WP:SELFPUB allows her contributions on Fox Latino to be used as well (although they are not 100% about her, it is still allowable under the criteria as long as it is not self-serving - which I believe that it is not, again IMO). BLP states that "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." (I believe that this would apply to the entries that you state are blogs or possible do not carry as much weight as the other sources." BLP also provides that "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." So, I used some of the sources that may or may not be considered heavy weight to those viewing the article, but they are at least used to support the content within the article (and used as inline citations so they are pointing at the correct content).

Finally, I am not sure which reference is a dead link (you may have looked at the old article) as each reference that I used I personally researched (and also just went through them all again and they all work). Any citation that is duplicate from the last article was used ONLY AFTER I researched it. Also, please keep in mind that although some references are from less known sources, they can still be used as a combination as a single source to establish notability. I am hoping that you do not take my ranting on and on about this article or citing of Wiki guidelines as disrespect as I know that you are an experienced Admin and already know the policies. I just want to show you how I am viewing the article as I wrote it and that I am not trying to spam an article or re introduce an poorly written article (which the userspace article will not be restored at this time as I am hoping that you either restore it as is or restore it to RfD). Please let me know your final thoughts (I guess that is how to phrase it) so I know if I need to go to RfD to comment on the article or go to DRV with the request). Again, thank you for your time and for being nice throughout the process. --HappyTwoBEE (talk) 13:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You should probably read the essays on Masking the lack of notability and Citation overkill. I find these essays are helpful. For example, A well-meaning editor may attempt to make a subject which does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines appear to be notable through quantity of sources. Ironically, this just serves as a red flag to experienced editors that the article needs scrutiny. IOW, bombarding an article with lots of references with only trivial mentions will not establish notability -- in fact, it does just the opposite. (By the way, cites #2 [10] and #13 [11] are badlinks.)

Bottomline: If you find yourself going to great lengths to establish notability, than Jade is probably not notable. That she is not notable yet is the overwhelming consensus among editors who tagged the article, commented at AFD, commented at DRV and responded to the RFU. I think it best for you to move on and concentrate your energy on creating articles about more notable topics. Good luck with your editing. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Bianca Jade

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Bianca Jade. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. HappyTwoBEE (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Please do not think that I am trying to go around you by requesting undeletion of the page. I appreciate all of the comments that you have given me and hope that you are not offended. --HappyTwoBEE (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Sorry that I have been slow to respond -- I've been in meetings in Washington DC for the past week. I have now replied at the DRV. And for the reasons previously stated, my position is unchanged. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

DVD box text

Hello. I wonder if you'd take a look at this section. I can't see why it wouldn't be a copyright violation, but since it constitutes about half of the article I thought I'd ask someone who deals with WP:COPYVIO before removing it. I don't recall ever running into this exact situation before. Rivertorch (talk) 10:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

You're correct, Rivertorch -- copying the movie description from the DVD box is definitely a copyright violation. Unfortunately, it is typical to find an editor has created the synopsis section of a movie article by copying some published source. I've gone ahead and removed it, and added a {{cclean}} message to the talk page. Thanks for spotting that. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

And if the editor who added it had chosen a different section heading, it might have remained there for 30 years instead of three. Thanks for sorting it! Rivertorch (talk) 04:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah! Ha! Gotta appreciate their honesty. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Graeme Hammond

Nice work on the expansion of his bio! Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 19:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Lugnuts! I ran across a little item in the news today, checked the WP bio and thought "Hey, wait a minute, this guy is a little bit more than an Olympic fencer." I assume you created this one during one of your regular campaigns through a topic. Thanks for starting it. And I appreciate your comment. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I created the bio as part of my fencer creation drives. Always good to see expansions and interesting articles coming from them! Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 19:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of user page

Just checking edits and I notice you have deleted my user page for vandalism without stating the specific reason. Not sure why as I don't even recall starting one. I'd like to know the reasoning please. It seems you ask the same if done to you so it only seems fair. If I did do something I'd like to avoid it in the future. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FactualFix (talk • contribs) 22:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, FactualFix. I'm sorry for any confusion. There was nothing that you did -- the page was created by another editor with whom you were in an editing conflict. It was tagged as vandalism and I deleted it. The deletion does not reflect upon you. You are, of course, always welcome to create your own userpage. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Die Young

Hi! There are a few of us interested in editing Die Young (Kesha song), but it was deleted and protected. Would it be possible to have this page undeleted or, at the very least, unlocked so we can recreated? The topic has definitely achieved notability since it's deletion and has already charted in Belgium. Here is a list of reliable sources we would like to use to fix up this article: source list. We would also like to redirect Die Young (Ke$ha song) (also sysop-locked) to Die Young (Kesha song), as per the discussion on Talk:Kesha and various deleted talk pages linked to Die Young (Kesha song). Please get back to ASAP. Thanks. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Thevampireshlee. Given that the song is released now and has substantial coverage in reliable sources, I have unprotected the page and redirected the other page to it. [12] Go ahead and recreate it. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Alliance of Rouge Communities

OTRS has been processed for this. Can you handle the tag you put there? Thanks. PumpkinSky talk 00:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure. No Problem. Thanks for processing the ticket. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with Renard Makuchin

Also note Special:Contributions/96.24.50.100. Seems likely we can expect the same vandal to create a hoax page on Marcus Shanae too. (edit conflict: that's been done; I tagged as G3 already). BusterD (talk) 03:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I'll drop a final warning about hoaxes on the editor's page. And if there is any further vandalism, they'll be blocked as a VOA (including the IP). Thanks for staying on top of this. It's much appreciated! — CactusWriter ^(talk) 04:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm getting better at New Pages Patrol. Used to be shy about drinking directly from the firehose, but have been practicing CSD tagging in the last few months and using some automated tools to view the the data. I always try to do a quick WP:BEFORE when applying CSD tags, so I spotted the addition of redlinks on the Safety page after a search for Renard Makuchin. Seems to me I'd remember a Raiders safety whose number is retired, so when the search only returned the Safety page I was pretty confident someone was pulling a pair of fast ones. Appreciate your eyes. BusterD (talk) 04:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Open Access

Hi CactusWriter, just noticed your edits at commons:File:Malaria.jpg and was wondering whether WikiProject Open Access would be of interest to you. With a smile, -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 02:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh my, I should have known someone would see that blooper! Daniel, you caught me. I did almost blow that one. Mea maxima culpa. But... yes, I appreciate the open access project -- especially in regard to the science journals. Thanks for your commitment in that regard. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 03:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

puppy

	puppy
	A puppy. Goatgreek (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello It's Me Goatgreek send me a WikiLove please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goatgreek (talk • contribs) 17:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Goatgreek. Instead, I would appreciate it if you stopped uploading files from WP:COMMONS to Wikipedia. I have left enough personal notes, as well as template messages, on your talk pages concerning this issue. It should be clear to you by now. Persistence in making edits contrary to Wikipedia policy and guidelines without an overriding positive effect is considered disruptive editing. If the only purpose of your account is to persist in copying files from Commons to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

wtf wye u delet my mark gjonaj u kid great u fore mark gjonaj whqan u know batter fucker Gjoni66 (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The article Mark Gjonaj was tagged and deleted for being obviously untrue. See Naomi Rivera, who is the actual representative of District 80 in the New York State Assembly. If you wish to have a coherent conversation about this, than fine -- I suggest you first read WP:NPA and WP:CIVILITY. But if you are unable to communicate in a proper manner, than this conversation will not proceed. — CactusWriter ^(talk)

An iPad for you!

	iPad
	Thanks for restoring the edit history for iPad (4th generation)! Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Anonymous321! Just what I wanted -- maybe I should hope that Ferrari needs restoring soon. :) — CactusWriter ^(talk) 05:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Ha ha ha – you deserve it! –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Mose the Fireboy

I'm contacting you concerning an article that was deleted a few months ago. The reason given was that it was "blatant close paraphrasing" of "The Gangs of New York" by Herbert Asbury. I don't know if it was edited since its creation, however, the original version used multiple sources. There may have been direct quotations taken from Gangs of New York, however, they were all properly attributed. If if was restored, I'd be willing to revise it. 72.74.199.106 (talk) 02:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The original version at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Submissions/Mose the Fireboy listed a number of references under a Further Reading section but was attributed and referenced to only one source: The Gangs of New York: An Informal History of the New York Underworld by Herbert Asbury. Although the article was attributed (including an entire paragraph quoted directly) -- this did not relieve it of copyright violation. A comparison to the source showed that the Wikipedia article was a line-for-line close paraphrase of pages 30 to 34 from the book and included numerous instances where creative phrasing written by the Asbury were used. Please note that close paraphasing not only concerns exact word choices -- but also sentence and paragraph structure. The creative ordering of Asbury's sentences and paragraphs was an obvious template for the Wikipedia article. This substantial amount of close paraphrasing created a copyright violation -- and, unfortunately, a revision of the text would still have been a derivative work of the single source. The article required a revision from scratch. I appreciate your willingness to revise it, but it is against Wikipedia policy to restore any copyright violation, even into user space. You are welcome to create a new page on the subject, but you may wish to read WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASING for a clearer idea of the issue. If you have further questions, please ask. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

A little word of praise for common sense

Thanks for declining speedy deletion of a perfectly intentional redirect page. I had already bedazzledly commented on my talk page, and feel reassured by your wise response to the request.​▲ SomeHuman 2012-11-02 19:09 (UTC)

No problem. I'm sorry you were effected by an obviously overzealous new page patroller. In consideration of your long contribution history, I've added WP:Autopatrolled to your user rights. I hope that will prevent this kind of misunderstanding in the future. Thanks for your editing, SomeHuman. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Good thinking, nice job, well understood and much appreciated!​▲ SomeHuman 2012-11-03 11:27 (UTC)

American Perfection (professional wrestling)

Just out of curiosity, what was the reason you deleted the American Perfection, was it the resources?? Please answer, because I do need to know my mistakes to try and do better the next time. Hemmeband17 (talk) 11:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Hemmeband17. American Perfection (professional wrestling) was deleted on June 4, 2012 because it was a recreation of an article that had been previously discussed and deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Perfection (it was also deleted as American Perfection on April 11, 2012 and October 13, 2012.) The article lacked any reliable references for the term "American Perfection" -- that is, there was no substantial coverage of that phrase by any independent sources like newspapers or professional magazines. If you disagree with the deletion, you can request other opinions at WP:Deletion review. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

No I do not disagree with you. What if I remade the article as just Dolph Ziggler and Jack Swagger, because I admit I didn't know what sites were useable and what weren't, but I do now. So would it be fine if I remade the page with all new reliable resources?? Hemmeband17 (talk) 8:29, November 8 2012 (UTC)

Those two articles already exist so there is no need to create a new article with their names. If you have good reliable sources for some significant information about either of those people, you should be able to add it to their article page. I do notice that neither page mentions the term "American Perfection" when discussing their recent tag team -- which suggests to me that the term is insignificant. However, I am not knowledgeable about the WWE nor these wrestlers. I suggest that you first raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling -- and ask for the opinion of experienced editors there -- then follow their consensus. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar!

You left a barnstar on my user page! Just dropping by to say thanks, it made me smile. --Olegkagan (talk) 04:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure. Please continue the great editing. By the way, I do hope you will someday be able to expand Lawrence Clark Powell. I loved The Blue Train when I was a student at the University of Arizona back in the 70s, even before I realized Powell was there -- and do enjoy the autographed copy on my bookshelf. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 04:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Apadana Palace, Persepolis speedy deletion

Hi Cactus, In this link you can find the copyright permision for wikipedia: http://www.livius.org/mail2.html I will add the next link copyright permision as soon as I find out.

By the way, the articlewas far from done yet and I was editing it, you could see from history that I was working on it. There were parts that were copied and not rewritten yet, but there were parts that I had rewrite them. I agree it wasn't done yet but I was looking for good book resources. It was a disappointment to see it is deleted without any alert. I had found the right structure for the text; yet some parts were rephrased but definitely the structure was different from both references that you had mentioned. It took me an evening! So, please give back the text so that I can edit it.

Regards, Faridoun (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Faridoun. I do appreciate efforts in trying to comply with Wikipedia's copyright policy. However, there are a several problems with your request. The website link you provide as copyright permission is inadequate for our purposes -- firstly, it addresses the copying of photos from the website and, secondly, it disallows use on commercial websites and that is incompatible with Wikipedia's licensing requirements. (See Wikipedia:Copyrights)

The proper way for providing permission to use materials already published is either: to license them for public use by posting a CC-BY-SA 3.0 share-alike license on the site; or granting permission by writing to the Wikimedia Foundation OTRS office. The methods for doing this are outlined at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. (By the way, I noticed that link was provided to you on your talk page on November 12, 2012 when you were notified about another copyright violation and had a subsequent discussion about it. So this isn't the first time you've been alerted about this problem.)

Please also note that editors may not upload incompatibly licensed copyrighted text -- even when they have the intention of rewriting it. Not only does the text still exist in the history, but the foundation of that text tends to create a derivative plagiarized work. And would remain in violation. You may wish to review the essay on WP:Close paraphrasing.

Finally, it is against Wikipedia policy for me to restore any page or text which violates copyright. So I cannot do this. If you have further questions, please ask. Regards. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Question about Deleted Page

I had created a page and was notified that there was unambiguous copyright infringement. I don't believe there was, though. I saw that you deleted the page. Can you provide me with any information? Also, is there any way I can get the text back? Unfortunately, I do not have it saved anywhere else. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/David_Furchgott&action=edit&redlink=1)

Conradkh (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Conradkh

Hello, Conradkh. I have rechecked the deleted page -- and, yes, it was an unambiguous copyright infringement. The text on the page was a word-for-word copy of this bio ( ©2012 International Arts & Artists). It is also a violation of Wikipedia copyright policy to recreate incompatibly licensed text on any page -- therefore, I cannot restore it. You can still read the original text from the infringed website if you wish. If you have further questions, please ask. Regards -- — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Apache Pass Amphitheater

I wrote the entire text of that article in my own words. If there is a problem with the UT picture, fine, but the other pictures are originial product, as is the entire article. I wrote it myself and did not take any text from anywhere. Please restore the article immediately without the offending picture if necessary, but put the rest of it back up as I wrote the text. With the exception of the Spurs picture, there are no copyright problems. Please fix it immediately. The Moody Blue (Talk) 20:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Themoodyblue, you state that you did not plagiarize the text of Apache Pass Amphitheater -- and, yet, your submission was a word-for-word copyright violation of this website, which has been on-line for several years. For example, here are the first two sentences in the history section of the article you submitted on August 16, 2012:

From 1746 - 1749 three Spanish missions and a Presidio (fort) were built in the area by Spanish missionaries, mission Indians and a garrison of Spanish soldiers. The Spaniards goals were to Christianize and civilize the numerous Indian tribes in the area and to establish a presence, in this region, ahead of the French.

And here are the first two sentences of the source page as it appeared on December 12, 2010:

From 1746 - 1749 three Spanish missions and a presidio were built in the area by Spanish missionaries, mission Indians and a Garrison of Spanish soldiers. The Spaniards goals were to Christianize and civilize the numerous Indian tribes in the area and to establish a presence, in this region, ahead of the French.

Your submission continues with the entirety of the source's text (as well as text from other pages). How do you wish to explain this? Because, as written, it is a blatant copy-paste and copyright violations cannot be restored. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 04:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

So I can't use my own material I wrote on a website? I am not wasting anymore time on this one. The Moody Blue (Talk) 05:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Material previously published must first be licensed or released for use under the Creative Commons license, prior to being copied to Wikipedia. This was described to you in the template message on your talk page. Further information for the specifics on how to license this material is found at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 05:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I am confused - I need to go through Creative Commons to use my own work? How do I do that? The Moody Blue (Talk) 04:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Themoodyblue, any work that you have published previously, but that you would now like to copy to Wikipedia must be licensed under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. As you are aware, all editors on Wikipedia are essentially anonymous. I.e., anyone could say they are anyone. Therefore, we cannot simply accept any editor's word about the use of materials outside of Wikipedia -- this must be done officially. There are two fairly simple methods to release the text officially -- as described at Granting us permission to copy material already online. The first is to place a copyright notice on the bottom of the source website pages. A notice might read, for example:

The text of this website [or page, if you are specifically releasing one section] is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

If you don't wish to place a copyright notice on the website page, then you can send an email, ideally using the language from the template at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries:

(1) From an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org;

(2) After sending the email, place {{OTRS pending}} on the article's talk page.

Someone will reply to your email, indicating whether the content and your license is acceptable and update the page to indicate that the confirmation of the license has been received.

If any of the instructions are unclear, please feel free to ask for further help. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Holiday cheer

		Holiday Cheer
		Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings.

Thanks, Michael. Happy Holidays to you, too. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio reinstated

Hi CactusWriter. About a week ago you cleaned List of Curious George episodes of some copyvio. Yesterday an IP reinserted some from the same source. I've reverted and warned, but was wondering whether it might be useful to semi-protect it for a while? Merry Christmas. --Stfg (talk) 13:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Stfg. Thanks for keeping an eye on that and reverting the new copyvio. Unfortunately, reinsertions like that are not uncommon. The reinsertion doesn't quite rise to the level of disruptive editing that's necessary for protecting the article. Not yet, that is -- but if it continues than, yes, I will semi-protect it. In the meantime, I'll keep it on my watchlist. Thanks for letting me know. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)