This is an archive of past discussions with User:ColinFine. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
thanks for helping me out, and i would like to know if i can request from someone neutral to create a page that doesnt exist yet.
dear colinfine, hello.
i am bb10, and i thank you for helping me out in my questions in the teahouse.
i would like to (slowly) become a reasonable and helpful editor of WP, and to provide my knowledge, insight and helping hand at any matter, in my small way.
(i will not do many things for now, but if i get better and learn the rules of this encyclopedia, then i shall be more helpful)
anyway, i would like your help colinefine, on this subject:
i would like to create/request for a specific page to be created in wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clock_Crew if anyone wishes, i can provide links, internet news sites links, and various parts of evidence, proving the existence and the notability of this group/article.
ofcourse, since i used to be a part of this group, i will not create, nor will i participate in the writing of the article, so i shall ask for someone neutral to create this article, and i will only provide the evidence of its notability/existence/noteworthy value.
(i repeat: if needed, i shall only provide the necessary links/evidence/news about this groups relevance/existence, both in the internet pop-culture, and in some mediums)
it seems that some wikipedia editors have deleted this page in the past, due to the homepage not being active, but i have a link of the webpage, and it seems that it's still active.
also, i have some evidence about this groups existence/notability.
Hi, BB10clock. As you say, articles on Clock Crew have been deleted before: ten times, in fact, by ten different admins. Looking at the deletion discussions most of them were simply because people kept trying to recreate the article, but the primary reason was "not notable". Having said that, the most recent of those discussions was 2007, and it is possible that things have changed. But you will need to demonstrate very clearly what is different now.
The question is, is the group now notable? To put that in other words: have several people who have no connection to the Clock Crew published substantial material about them (not just passing mentions) in reliable places such as major newspapers, books from reputable publishers, or websites with a reputation for editorial control and fact checking (not forums, blogs, social media, or any website connected with the Crew)? If the answer is yes, then the crew may not be notable, and an article is possible. If not you had better give up. Remember that Wikipedia has almost no interest in what the group, or their friends, say or want to say about them: it is only interested in what people who have no connection to the group have said, in reliable published places.
If you have such sources, then there are three courses I can suggest. One if to post a request at Requested articles - but there is a long backlog there, and it may never get picked up. The second is to do what you're doing, try to find a collaborator: there may be an appropriate WikiProject where you can ask for help. In either case, what you are trying to do is enrol somebody into working with you on the article, and so you need to be clear about the situation (the history of deletions and your possible COI) and present the sources you have found, to persuade them that it is worth their time working on it.
The third possibility is to try writing it yourself. This is discouraged, but not forbidden; and if you use the Article wizard to create it in Draft space, are upfront about the history and your role, and finally submit it to (probably tough) review, you may be successful. --ColinFine (talk) 09:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
dear colinfine, hello.
well, yes, wikipedia articles about the Clock Crew have been deleted in the past, (mostly due to website problems, which were affecting the groups notability, mostly in 2005), but things have changed alot since 2005, or even 2007.
Sorry, this sounds as if you are still not understanding what notability is. Nothing about the group's website is capable of having any effect on notability (unless you mean that people weren't writing about it because of website problems, which is a very indirect and probably unprovable effect).
i can link the wikipedia editors with some notable mentions about the Clock Crew, one of them being a website mentioning that: the Clock Crew, after getting funds from selling their music album [it was named stopAllSounds();], they gave those money into a charity foundation, that gave a cow into a poor family, and since they could name the cow with any name that they wanted... they've named the cow wade, after the name of the co-founder of newgrounds, Wade Fulp. an other notable mention was by some freelance animators/studio artists that have mentioned that: the Clock Crew had inspired us in creating colourful, intricate cartoons, and it had thus significantly influenced our artistic careers in one way or another.
i should also mention an appearance of a CC member in the tom green show, which i can also link to a wiki editor, via youtube.
WHICH WEBSITE? You can quote as many people as you like. Until you tell us where it was published and who by, so that we can determine whether it is reliable and independent, this has no effect on notability. An appearance of a member on a show has no effect whatever on their notability. Somebody independent writing about their appearance on a show, and publishing it in a reliable place, might have an effect: it would depend on what that writer said about the group.
i can possibly show all the internet articles, the music albums of the CC(they created 2), and the various mentions by other people to a neutral WP editor, so that this can be a fair and reasonable project.
The internet articles may be relevant, if they are substantial, by people unconnected with the group, and published on sites with a reputation for editorial control and fact-checking. If not, they are irrelevant to notability. The music albums are irrelevant to notability (though independent writing about them might be relevant). Mentions to anybody, up to and including Jimmy Wales, are irrelevant unless they have been reliably published.
also, the founder of the CC, strawberry-clock, got the inspiration to create his username by listening to the band strawberry alarm clock, (and he originally wanted to be named strawberry-alarm-clock), but due to newground's username letter limitations, he had to cut it short to strawberry clock. as a result, some people started to wonder about his name, and later on, when they found the origins of SBC's name, they urged him to create what is now the Clock Crew's music collabs, which are now featured/shown in a Collection page in Newgrounds.com.
That information can go in the article if it is sourced to a reliable published source. Information about his intentions could even come from non-independent sources such as the group's own website, but that "some people started to wonder" needs to come from an independent source.
are those mentions sustainable, if they are backed with various independent sites, articles, and online shops testimonials?
Again, if those are independent, substantial, and reliable (which excludes social media, most blogs, and self-published websites), yes. Online shops are not usually regarded as reliable sources for anything more than that a product exists (and usually there is a non-commercial site which can confirm this, which would be preferable as a source). It is conceivable that a review on a commercial site could be suitable, but usually they are user-generated, and so not regarded as reliable.
please let me know.
also, about your 3 suggestions:
1. post a request: this sounds like a good idea, but like you said, people may never notice it/may never attend to it, especially if we consider the old deletions of this page.
2. trying to find a collaborator: this is my main plan. i want to find an independent, neutral wikipedia editor/article creator, so that i can ask him to create a proper draft of the Clock Crew Wikipedia article. how should i start? should i post in here? WikiProject
also, how should i approach a WP editor about this? and if he/she agrees to help me, where should i post all the various links/mentions that i have about the CC's notability?
No, don't post there: look there and see if there is an active WikiProject appropriate to the group's activities, and if so, post in that WikiProject. However you're looking for collaborators, you need to do a lot better than you have here in presenting sources. You need to give at least the URL, and preferably full bibliographic information (author, date, title, where published), because you are trying to interest somebody in writing about this, and the easier you make it for that person to evaluate the sources, the more likely they are to give their time.
i will possibly follow this course of action, because i want to be a fair person, and to avoid writing it on my own. (i have been a member of the CC in the past, so there might be a COI, and i dont want to be accused of that.)
so yeah, i will try to find a WP editor for that. help me out on where to find such an editor for the article's collaboration.
You could go back to the help desk and ask again, but take note of my suggestions about providing sources.
option 3. try writing it myself, sounds dangerous. so, i will not do it. (unless i am given the permission to do this, by a higher ranked moderator of WP)
anyway, please read my reply, and help me out.
i thank you for your reply, and i wish to only make wikipedia a better place.
Hi, BB10clock. My answers are interleaved through your posting above. But your big problem is that either you still have not understood what we mean by notability, or else that they absolutely are not currently notable, and you are desperately trying to fill the gap in the available sources with things that don't do it. The fact that ten different administrators have previously deleted attempts to create the article means that you have a high threshold of proof to overcome, and so far I haven't seen one single substantial independent reliable source from you. --ColinFine (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
hello, ColinFine, and thank you for replying back.
first of all, when i mentioned that the Clock Crew's website is back and running, i did NOT mean that as a form of notability.
an active website is NOT a sign of notability. (so i know what IS and what is NOT notable, in basic terms)
when i said that 'the CC had issues with their article due to many reasons, and mostly due to website problems, which were affecting the groups notability, in 2005', i was actually saying:
that people weren't writing about it because of website problems.
it should be noted that user nixie had mentioned that: (the CC is a)Non notable internet group, the dead hompage is a testament to their non-notability. posted on 01:05, 4 Mar 2005
afterwards, on 2007, some editors tried to keep a balance between the groups notability(or its lack thereof), they tried to find a middle ground in the debates, and they also fought hard to avoid any vandalism from third parties, which resulted in the page getting locked/protected on 2006/2007 and 2012, accordingly.
now, i dont want to sound biased, but like one wikimember has said in one of those article debates:
if enough evidence is presented about this groups existence/notability on the web, or in the internet-pop culture, then it should have a page of its own, which will stop all those vandalisms and the heated debates about the groups existence on WP.
all in all, i shall provide you some notable links of the Clock Crew's evidence of existence:
-youtube appearance and mention on the 'tom green show':
[Youtube link removed as probable copyright violation]
-youtube documentary about a young man dressing up as strawberry clock, and spreading the word about the Clock Crew in trinity college in dublin:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY_M4o3SWmY (unofficial title of the documentary is strawberry clock goes to dublin in case you need a more appropriate title for the video)
furthermore, the Clock Crew, has been mentioned as a minor easter egg on the videogame Dying Light, and i can provide evidence of this below:
http://steamcommunity.com/groups/newgroundsgames/curation/app/239140/
(it should be noted that both the steam group owner, and the commenters below are NOT CC members, and they are only gamers/users that are only familiar with the terms Clock Crew and of its online history.)
(they were also mentioned alot in various art/flash animation sites, such as campnorth.tv and sheezyart.com, but sadly those sites have stopped functioning, thus limiting my resourses about this case)
they are also mentioned in the notorious encyclopediadramatica, as a local internet culture site, despite encyclopedia dramatica's malicious and offensive manners in general.
last but not least, the term Clock Crew has 51.000.000 results in google, and the term Clock Crew in Dying Light has 265.000 results in google (so far).
the term 'strawberry clock has 208.000 results in google, while many more results online rank the Clock Crew as an element of internet's pop-culture.
also, animators and comic artists can vouch about the Clock Crew's existence and notabilty:
http://waterloggedcomic.com/
bottom line: the artists of both waterlogged, and ace discovery, can vouch about the Clock Crew's existence/notability in the internet history/internet culture.
also, ace discovery cartoon has 430.000 results on google, thus it is very relevant.
im sorry for the long reply, but you needed answers, and i always back up my words/claims with evidence.
if you need more, i shall post my results.
please read, reply back, and have a nice day. thank you.
BB10clock, I'm rapidly losing interest in this discussion. A hundred and fifty million feeble citations don't add up to a single good one. YouTube is not often useful as a source, because most of the stuff on YouTube, even when it is not infringing copyright, is not traceable to a reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking. It appears to me that those two are posted by the Clock Crew: since the first one does not appear to be on the official Tom Green Show channel, it is probably a copyright violation, so it is forbidden to link to it in Wikipedia and I have removed the link above. If you found that segment on the Tom GreenShow channel, it might meet the criteria to be reliable, but it still wouldn't be independent. The second one appears to be made by them, so also not independent.
Mere mentions are not enough to establish notability: they just establish that something exists.
very well, then.
ColinFine, at least answer me this:
if i provide someone with the actual episode from the official tom green show channel, with the other Clock Crew video as well, AND with the material of knowyourmeme.com, will that be substantial enough for me to move forward with the creation of a wikipedia mention/page upon the term of the Clock Crew?
(i shall request the creation of this page to someone neutral ofcourse).
also, please check out this link, it is quite substantial, in terms of video-game easter eggs & internet culture mention (about the CC) :
its just 2 links, so i dont think that i am asking for too much, just for your advice on the subject upon those 2 links.
(and im certain that since independent, neutral people are mentioning an easter egg about the Clock Crew that exists in a popular videogame (Dying Light), then it is, even if minimum, a proof of their notability, even if small.)
i have seen far less significant internet-trends to get their own pages in wikipedia, with alot less evidence, and alot less sources, and thats why i insist so much on getting a wikipedia page on the Clock Crew.
(and i can back my case up, with various links, which i shall show you ONLY upon request, i dont want to tire you).
BB10clock. Those are both forums. Forums are user-generated, and so are never reliable sources. The fact that other stuff exists indicates that some of our five million articles are substandard, and should be improved or deleted. It does not license creating other substandard articles. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
And, I repeat, you do not appear to have understood what we mean by notability. It doesn't mean importance, or popularity, or significance, or influence, or anything at all other than having been covered in depth by several reliable sources unconnected with the subject. --ColinFine (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Dear ColinFine, i can see that forums and non-article links cannot be a very strong case for an entity's notability, but if thats true, then how do you explain THIS:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurotically_Yoursneurotically yours, is a minor flash-animation show, that consists of 3 characters, it mainly exists in newgrounds.com and on youtube.com, it had 1 reference mentioned on a facebook post, (listed as Foamy The Squirrel : iLL WiLL PrEss (August 17, 2011). "Notes". Facebook. , and all the other references about neurotically yours existed ONLY from illwillpress.com, (the creators site, and therefore it was biased and with a conflict of interests) and 1 kickstarter mention.
so, according to neurotically yours wikipedia page, all i need in order to validate the Clock Crew's existence/relevance in wikipedia is: 1 facebook mention, some mentions from the group's official site, and 1 kickstarter campaign? it seems quite odd, to say the least.
my main debate is, that IF neurotically yours was added in wikipedia with minor, self-created, biased references, then Clock Crew also has that right. (and the CC has more neutral mentions than N.Y. does)
also, the Clock Crew could be added into the Flash Cartoons category, which is here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Flash_cartoons
i do believe that, with over 400 flash animations online, the CC fits the bill on that specific subject.
please read and reply back, and be civil and reasonable.
BB10clock. I repeat, "The fact that other stuff exists indicates that some of our five million articles are substandard, and should be improved or deleted. It does not license creating other substandard articles." Neurotically yours has already been tagged as unsatisfactory: quite possibly it should be deleted. Unfortunately, nominating an article for deletion takes considerably more work than rejecting a draft, because the nominator is expected to do some research and see if the subject does appear to be notable, whereas a draft can be rejected just because it does not (so far) establish notabililty.
There is not a single subject in the universe which has a right to a Wikipedia article. This is partly a consequence of the fact that there is not a single subject in the universe which has, or could have, a Wikipedia article. Subject do not have articles: Wikipedia has articles on subjects, and Wikipedia's rules govern which subjects it may have articles on.
The fact that you are working so hard to try and persuade me that Clock Crew is notable, and now talk about its "right" to have an article, confirms me in my suspicion that you are not here to improve Wikipedia, but for promotional reasons.
Please stop posting about this here. I have attempted to help you as best I can, and you have repeatedly returned with arguments which do not come close to meeting the criteria I advised you of at the beginning. In my opinion you have failed to make your case, but it is not me you need to convince. If you want to continue the argument, go and bother somebody else.--ColinFine (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello, ColinFine! this is my last message to you, so rest assured, i will respect your wish to go away, and i shall bother someone else with my legitimate concerns.
all i have to say to you, is that: 1) you are rude, and 2) your posts are unhelpful, immature, and you treat your interlocutor like garbage, which is a sign of an uncivilised person.
feel free to validate your points of validity, notability and of other (absurd) rules, while the CC is a true and existent thing, but please, dont treat other people like garbage.
be gentle, reasonable, and well-behaved.
this advice might fall into deaf ears, but i suppose that it doesnt hurt to try.
also, i am not here to: not be here to improve wikipedia, but rather, to insert various elements of the internet's pop-culture, and to contribute in creating and translating various useful articles. you dont know me, and you cannot declare that you know who i am, or what i do.
last but not least, if i wanted topromote the page of the Clock Crew, i would create it myself in 12 minutes, and i would NOT bother to ask someone neutral (like you), to discuss the possibilities of such a group being inserted in the holy hallways of wikipedia.
but god forbid if i do such a crime!
good day to you, my rude, uncivilised & vulgar friend.
Thanks Colin, You have been very helpful regarding information about producing new articles, the book is notable, as it was published and there was also a newspaper article about the book back in 2012. The newspaper article was written in an Australian newspaper, explaining about the book. I am the author. My name is Tome EGUMENOSKI. Nice talking to you Colin. ConstantinVacheron (talk) 10:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Pinging other editors
Hi Colin. I just spotted this edit, and wondered if you knew that editors only get a notification if you ping them correctly in the same edit that you sign your post? If you subsequently have to correct the username, then you have to re-sign to make the notification work. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
No worries. Just thought I'd check, as lots of people seem to make the mistake of thinking that the notification will work when they don't sign. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Acknowledgment
Thank you for your helpful comments abt improving content. I didn't know where to raise the issue - you suggested the article's 'talk' page. Great. I'll do that. I wanted to contact Redune, but couldn't figure out how to add my question to his/her talk page. Getting started editing reuires a lot of figuring things out, but step by step works well for me. Thanks again. Caboc333 (talk) 23:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the acknowledgment, Caboc333. For future reference: if you start a new topic on a talk page, please create a new section (there should be a '+' or 'New section' link at the top). I couldn't find what you'd added except by looking at the history of this page. In every page except (infuriatingly) the Teahouse/Questions, new sections go at the bottom.
To talk to Redune, you go to Talk:Redune: until the page exists, that will be red, and will come up with a message inviting you to create it. You can do this (and start by creating a new section). But in this case it is better to discuss it on the article's talk page. It would be a good idea to ping Redune when you do so. --ColinFine (talk) 10:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind assistance
Yeah..
Initially i copied some text, but the intention was to to get the main structure of the article only, as i am not familiar with the way to write the article here (i.e.) How to edit the source? How to add the new sections? How to add images to the text? How to give references? But at that time i didn't save till i removed, the things not related to this article "Tehreek-e-Dastak Pakistan".
Apologies in fact for doing so..
But still i have things to remove or edit there..
So can you help me please..
Or please show me the way to delete this article..
(I was already writing this reply when you thanked me) Hello, Mzl azakheli. I have moved it to Draft:Tehreek-e-Dastak Pakistan. At the moment Tehreek-e-Dastak Pakistan still exists as a redirect to the Draft: page, but I have requested it be deleted because at present the page is misleading.
When you have got the draft ready for submission, edit it to insert {{subst:submit}} at the top, and presently somebody will be along to review it: if they accept it, they will move it back to mainspace.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 10:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Colinfine, hello. Thanks for editing Bradford Beck, I must have misread because I thought most of the plaques were installed! However I have amended the citation dates as it does state use DMY format at the top of the article. Thanks. The joy of all things (talk) 07:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, The joy of all things. I've also corrected a couple of names on the route diagram (Poplar Road and Westbrook). I have never come across Trap Syke - just where does it join? I know Red Beck through Northcliffe Woods, but it vanishes by Redburn Road, and I can only guess where it might join the Beck. I find that this blog also lists Bolton Beck and Northcliff Dike. I guess Bolton Beck is the one that runs down behind the works in Bolton Hall Road. --ColinFine (talk) 11:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Not exactly sure where Trap Dike joins as most run into the culverted sections. Lots of the citations mention it. Will have to check the large maps in Bradford library next time I am there.The joy of all things (talk) 11:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
Thank you for your awesome answer at the Teahouse!
Hi....Colin
I'm a member of Wikipedia as a editor ..
And I want a help from ...
That Please create a page of Sameer Baliyan
He is a writer and a mechanic of Mobile phones
He writes stories and Repair mobile phones fastly.....And better
So plz help me make or create a page of Named above ...
I hope u will do it
..
Thanks
Sameer Baliyan Sameer Baliyan (talk) 05:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry. Sameer, I have no interest in doing this. Any article about you should be based close to 100% on what people who have no connection with you have published about you in reliable places. Do those sources exist? If so, then somebody will eventually write an article on you. If not, then you are not currently notable (in Wikipedia's special sense) and no article is possible. --ColinFine (talk) 08:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Re: fathead
Colin,
I am a researcher I usually do not do this so please give me a break over links. I do not know how to do it any other way. I can just as easily leave wiki! You are wrong these are the proper links to fatheads worldcat, VAIF and musicbrainz. The numbers are different from what is in there article now.
These are the correct Worldcat indentifier, VIAF no. and Musicbrainz for FATHEAD BLUES BAND from Canada. The GND account has nothing to do with this band.
Hello, T Heart. I wasn't meaning to give you a hard time over the links; just saying that it's much easier to read links internal to Wikipedia if you present them as Wikilinks ([[Fathead (band)]]) than as URLs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fathead_%28band%29), especially if somebody is reading them on a different kind of device.
I see there is some confusion, but I think it is in VIAF, not in Wikipedia or Wikidata. The VIAF link from Fathead (band) is to https://viaf.org/viaf/153233329/, and that mentions "collection of contemporary blues songs from Canada", and Nationality: Canada. I agree that it links to Fathead (brand) in Wikipedia, but as far as I can see, all the other information in the VIAF record is appropriate to the band, not the graphics company. It looks to me as if VIAF has two different records about the same entity (the band) with an erroneous link to a different Fathead in one of them (and mostly not overlapping information, as it happens). This needs sorting by OCLC, not by Wikipedia.
Having said that, if you think it is attached to the wrong VIAF entry, you can edit this in Wikidata. Pick "Wikidata item" from the sidebar, and edit the record accordingly. --ColinFine (talk) 13:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, the fact I am a former musician is why I know that collection of blues is NOT fathead it is a bunch of musicians from eastern canada I recognize their names not sure how Fathead blues band got connected (or if they are it could be an album name) in that as they have nothing to do with this band. I will attempt to make changes in this wikidata T Heart (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I made the changes to the VIAF (as long as another editor does not change it back). When I did it put Fathead with the right worldcat identifier. Now how do I add Musicbrainz??? T Heart (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't know, I'm afraid, T Heart. This goes beyond my knowledge. I've worked with Wikidata, but I've never looked at authority control before. Template:Authority control says "Wherever possible, the template also generates a link to WorldCat Identities, using VIAF or LCCN values", so it expects to find the Worldcat record via the VIAF or LCCN id, and it doesn't appear to have a way of entering a Worldcat ID separately. I assume that this is because the VIAF or LCCN id should be authoritative for identifying the Worldcat record. The VIAF link from the article, https://viaf.org/viaf/102795846/ is the right Gary Kendall, but the Worldcat link, https://www.worldcat.org/identities/viaf-102795846/ (which, you'll notice, has the same VIAF ID) relates to a different Gary Kendall.
It seems to me therefore that the error is in Worldcat, and cannot be fixed in Wikipedia. There is a "feedback" link at the bottom of the Worldcat page, but I've no idea how responsive they are.
Thanks, I found an email to worldcat yesterday and I have written to them as they state if there are errors they wish to know. This morning I sent Gary's right ID to them also. T Heart (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, A invitation
Hi, I am quite sure you must not have heard of "The Signpost" by Wikipedia. It is a weekly newspaper published on the English Wikipedia. Click here to go to subscription page or simply place this template anywhere (where you want the newspaper to be placed) and the newspaper will appear there. The Template is- {{Signpost-subscription}} . OTHER WAYS OF SUBSCRIPTION ARE ALSO AVAILABLE ON THE SUBSCRIPTION PAGE. I have subscribed to the paper you can also do it. Visit my
User Page to see the paper.
Thanks and please subscribe
--VarunFEB2003 (talk • contribs) 07:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you
Thanks for your speedy reply to my CoI query.
I'll go back to my employers and explain.
I will get round to creating a personal account though - this looks like a skill I'd like to learn and a pleasant community.NFSP comms (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, VarunFEB2003, but I am here to build an encyclopaedia, and help other people do so. I regard piddling around with signatures and user pages as a distraction from Wikipedia, and don't wish to be part of your game. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 15:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Colin. My recent question about Yale-NUS college at teahouse was archived before I could thank you. Everyone has been very responsive. In the article, I checked that the criticism section was named as a 'reactions' section previously, and it still has positive notes there. As such, I am thinking of reverting the name and to summarise the section, with balanced reactions from pro- internationalization advocates. Would this be fine? Also, is it a COI if we post views from Yale-related news sites like these -- [1] and [2] ? Baxter.melb (talk) 11:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Baxter.melb. It would be really useful if you would link to the article in your question: I see it is Yale-NUS College. It seems to me that "criticism" does not mean only adverse criticism; but I'm not somebody with an interest in the article. The place to discuss the question is on the article's talk page. As for your last question: unless you have a connection with Yale-NUS or with Yale Daily News, the question of COI doesn't arise. But those articles are clearly not independent sources, which is what I think you mean, so they can only be used in a limited way: see WP:PRIMARY. In any case, as they both include "blog" in their URL, it seems prima facie that they count as blogs, which are hardly ever regarded as Reliable sources. --ColinFine (talk) 18:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks and a question
Hello, ColinFine
Yes, I am a writer paid by Houston Community College and was asked to work on their page, which is sorely out of date. I am happy to cite my affiliation but efforts to post the disclaimer have not been successful. Can you help?
The updated statistics in the sidebar were derived from a fact sheet on the school's website. I have provided links to the fact sheet.
Should I provide all new information about the college on its talk page and request that someone else make the edits? Thanks for your suggestions. We are only trying to keep the page current, not promote the school. Mlwmiller (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Mlwmiller. I've moved your question to the bottom: everywhere other than the Teahouse adds new sections to the bottom. What is the problem you're having with posting the disclaimer? WP:COIDISCLOSEPAY seems quite clear to me, so I don't know what difficulty you're having.
You certainly should suggest changes on the talk page, rather than editing the article: make them as specific as you can, and provide the references, where possible to a published source independent of the college. (an editor who looks at them may or may not agree with your suggestions, but if you've been specific and provided references, it's much easier for them to make that judgment, than if you are inviting them to do some research and write some text). If you put {{edit request}} in your suggestion (with the double curly brackets) that will bring your request to more people's notice. --ColinFine (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Not sure if u are the right person i am telling. but the desk's section -For help specific to the operation of Wikipedia: has links to help desk, village pump, new contributers help page but not a link to the teahouse. I think this link should be added to guide new users who go there --Varun☎15:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Ah, right. I was looking at the wrong place on the page. You could change it, but on a very prominent page like this, I would advise discussing it on the talk page first, Varun. --ColinFine (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I added it yesterday and i dont think anyone has objected or should object its making no difference actually Thanks--Varun☎04:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
...contact someone who has made a change on our business page? There are many locations of the business/school and the editor has moved the school seal to the bottom of the right bar and put a photograph of a single location/site at the top. We would like for the seal to be at the top, similar to Stanford and Harvard. Also, as requested, I have not added updates to the page, and I have put the updates on my talk page. But no one, including BigrTex, who moved the seal, has incorporated them. Please help. Thanks. Mlwmiller (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Mlwmiller. If you look at the History tab of Houston Community College, you will see that the recent edits have been made by BigrTex: you can talk to them on their user talk page (but they will anyway get a message that I have just pinged them).
Please be aware that that is a Wikipedia article. It is not a "business page", and it is absolutely not your business page. How you want the article to appear is of little interest to Wikipedia and its editors. You have done the right thing by making your suggestion on the talk page; but since there is little traffic there, I suggest you add {{edit request}} to your suggestion (with the double curly brackets), as this will put it on a list of outstanding request, and be seen by more people. However, your suggested text is promotional, and will certainly not be added in your words. For example, "to live and work in an increasingly international and technological society" is advertising puff, and "is one of the country’s largest ..." doesn't belong in any Wikipedia article unless it cites a reliable and totally independent published source that says just that. --ColinFine (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Colin--
Thanks for your response to my question about the HCC Wikipedia page. I did not mean to imply that it was "our" site. So sorry for using the wrong language. I understand that it is Wikipedia's site about Houston Community College, and not a media placement.
I did not write or edit the content that you pointed out as promotional. My original intent was to update the factual information, which is sorely outdated.
The proposed update of reorganizing the 17 campuses into 13 centers was a logistics move to identify areas of study and focus the workforce training of each into a single discipline. It is a relatively new academic restructuring and was covered in The Houston Chronicle in October 2015.
http://www.chron.com/news/article/Houston-Community-College-Centers-of-Excellence-6556809.php
I believe it is possible to word this feature of the college objectively if someone has the correct information.
The HCC Wikipedia page may not be frequently referenced, but I believe that accuracy is important if and when someone does need information about the college.
Hello, Mlwmiller. Please don't start a new section here when you are continuing a discussion. I have removed your header and merged the sections.
The words I was quoting are from the text that you put on Talk:Houston Community College, so I took that as the text you wanted added to the article. If there are factual corrections to make, by far the best thing you can do is suggest the actual (neutral, factual) text that you claim would be more accurate, with citations which support it; and add the {{edit request}} template. That would make it easy for somebody to review your suggestion, check the references, and hopefully apply your suggestion. Wikipedia is concerned that its articles are accurate, but people who need information about anything should not be relying on Wikipedia, thought they might use it as a starting point.
You might like to look at Talk:Bradford Playhouse, where I made a request for a COI edit. (Since I was proposing quite a lot of new text, I put my suggestion on a user subpage and linked to it from the request - I would not have done that if it was only a paragraph or two). --ColinFine (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Persistent vandal
You've answered some of my questions before, and on WP:Teahouse/Hosts you list vandalism as one of your concerns, so I'm writing this to you.
In the course of a discussion on a mailing list I belong to, the question of alternate names for manholes came up, and someone wrote
Surprisingly enough, Wikipedia just provided some quick answers: utility hole, sewer hole, maintenance hole, and (interestingly) ding-dong.
That last rang an alarm for me, so to speak. Manhole began with
A manhole (alternatively utility hole, cable chamber, maintenance hole, inspection chamber, access chamber, sewer hole, smellhole, flabhole, ding-dong or confined space) is the top opening to an underground utility vault ...
AWB revealed that the three I've underlined were all added at the same time by an IP user. That user's contributions all seem to be the same kind of seventh-grade graffiti/vandalism, except for one copyedit to Bad Bentheim. Most of them were reverted on the next edit, but Young Lions FC took 2 1/2 months to notice and fix, probably because it was less obvious. And I've just fixed Motherwell from 7 December, as well as Manhole.
Maybe, Thnidu. But I can't, as I'm not an admin. Furthermore, there are no recent warnings on the talk page User talk:173.8.120.9, and the warnings that are there are all level 1. WP:Vandalism says that it is not a requirement that a vandal have received warnings, but that "administrators usually only block when multiple warnings have been issued". --ColinFine (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
@ColinFine: Thanks for the clarification. Where's a good place, attended by admins, to ask? Including, I suppose, whether they consider it worthwhile to issue warnings to this bozo. --Thnidu (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
@ColinFine: Sorry! I wasn't trying or intending to circumvent policies or recommendations, just not thinking too clearly at nearly 3 a.m. my time. I shall follow your recommendation and follow the recommendation. --Thnidu (talk) 00:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, ColinFine. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I am still a junior editor, i am still learning the proper ways of editing.I just read the guidelines and realized that i have to change my information so it does not disclose too much information.Thank youHarrison-Montsho (talk) 22:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Alice. "Uploading" is not the way we usually do things here. If you, as a new user, have written an article outside Wikipedia and are trying to upload it to Wikipedia, then I should say that it is very likely that you have not written the article in a way that is acceptable to Wikipedia. If I am right, and you upload it, it will get deleted. Please, if you wish to contribute to Wikipedia (and I hope you do), read and follow your first article - particularly the bit about spending time improving existing articles before you embark on the very difficult task of writing a new article. --ColinFine (talk) 13:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
sir
i have written the article by my own in MS word and copied it to the space provied for editing so its purly my own work.but the problem i am facing is iam unable to upload the pic which i want to give it in info box .and iam not geeting it how to do it
That is because you are trying to work in a way which Wikipedia does not support, Alice Wonder pekhwar. Wikipedia formatting uses Wiki markup, which is entirely different from MS Word. And pictures have to be handled in a quite different way - uploaded to Wikimedia commons (or Wikipedia if a non-free image is being used) and then linked from the article. I fear that if you continue in this way you are going to be very disappointed and get frustrated. Please study the links I've given you and learn how Wikipedia works before you try to introduce a new article. By the way, you don't need to add a new section when replying - just edit the section you want to comment on. If you start with one or more colons (:), that will indent your comment one or more steps. --ColinFine (talk) 14:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
iam totally on peak to cry because iam not getiing it thats why requested you to upload it for me sir iam just doing it from many days just for a notible person .but unable to do it . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alice Wonder pekhwar (talk • contribs) 14:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Sir i have done with the article editing but now facing 2 main problems one is autoconformation of account and the other is uploading of that notable person pic in article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alice Wonder pekhwar (talk • contribs) 14:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Alice Wonder pekhwar, your account will be autoconfirmed when it is four days old - that is, two days from now. I have given you my advice as a Wikipedian editor of many years experience: if you choose not to follow it, that is up to you. Creating a new article is one of the single most difficult activities on Wikipedia, and you are making it even harder for yourself by insisting on working a different way. It is possible that when you manage to get your article uploaded your way it will meet Wikipedia standards; but my experience of new editors jumping straight in suggests that this is unlikely, and you are going to be disappointed again. I hope I am wrong.
As for pictures, I would advise you to worry about getting your article to an acceptable standard of referencing before your worry about pictures; but see Help:Images. --ColinFine (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Alice. Anybody can use the Article wizard to create a draft, whether they are autoconfirmed or not; and I always advise people to use that method to create new articles unless they are very sure that they can create an acceptable article first time. --ColinFine (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
sir for creating a draft iam still having problem of picture uploding can i do it without uploading the picture ?and will i be able to upload it in the article after learning how to upload picture after sometime? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alice Wonder pekhwar (talk • contribs) 17:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Alice, I'm trying not to get bad-tempered with you, but you seem to be persisting in trying to do something that you are not yet equipped to do. Creating a new article is hard, and if you won't read the resources I have pointed you at, you are likely to do it wrong. My suggestion, as I said, is that you spend a few weeks or months learning how Wikipedia works before you try to create an article. But if you insist on going ahead with an article straight away, I suggest you create the draft so that people can look at it and tell you whether it is worth continuing. Either way, adding a picture is a detail that you can do later, when you have handled the important matters like references. When you do so, yes you have to upload it first, and then you can use it in an article. But before uploading it, you need to be clear about the copyright. Did you take the picture yourself? If you did not, you need the copyright owner to explicitly release it under a suitable licence that will allow anybody to reuse it for any purpose.
I say that references are the important thing. If you have written your article from your own knowledge, it will probably not be accepted. Wikipedia is not interested in what you know, or what I know; and it is not interested in what anybody or any organisation says about themselves: it is only interested in what people unconnected with a subject have published about it. So if you have written your Word article entirely based on published material by people who have no connection with the person you are writing about, and have cited everything in the article to the reliable published source that substantiates it, then your article has a chance of being accepted. If that is not the case - if it does not cite sources, or the sources are not reliable published sources, or they are not independent of the subject, or if the article contains any opinions, evaluations, arguments, or conclusions which are not in one of the sources, then it will probably be rejected. Do you see why I say that creating an article is difficult?
I do not want to discourage a new user from getting involved in editing Wikipedia: quite the reverse. But I do want to discourage you from doing something which I fear will be an unhappy experience for you. That is why I recommend that you start with little edits to existing articles. --ColinFine (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
i got your point sir iam just want to do it quickly that's way i am impatient and irritating you sorry for the inconvenience. i will not get discouraged because uploading the article mean alot to me.InshaAllah i will do it in a more good way .And sorry again for irritating you sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alice Wonder pekhwar (talk • contribs) 17:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
What is your suggestion
Thanks Colin for your comment. What I meant was I am volunteering at the organization and my task was to upload some of the translations, and some other were uploaded by some other volunteers. I believe it is the same with the articles about Unesco and other similar heritage organisations. What do you suggest? Best, Dijana — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dijana PC (talk • contribs) 12:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Dijana PC. The problem is that it is not the organization's task to write or update Wikipedia articles about it. If you are a volunteer, then declaring your conflict of interest is recommended, but not obligatory as it is for people who are paid. The best thing you can do is to collect sources where people who have no connection with the organisation have published substantial material about it, and propose some edits to the article based entirely on those independent sources (but in your own words, not just copying theirs, as that would be an infringement of copyright) and replacing the unsourced material currently in the article. Put your suggestions on the talk page Talk:Interpret Europe, with the note {{edit request}} (including the double curly brackets), and in time somebody will look at your suggestions and decide whether and how to incorporate them into the article. The references do not have to be in English (though if there are English sources, that is better), but they do have to be reliable - major newspapers, for example, or books from reputable publishers - and they have to be independent, so they cannot be based on interviews or press releases. --ColinFine (talk) 13:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
-- John of Reading (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
