User talk:Rrburke/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

The Palar Challenge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Palar#April_2011 I have posted a reply to your note on my user page. Thanks Palar (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Awarded Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I, Mikhailov Kusserow, hereby award Rrburke with The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for reverting vandalism to my talk page. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 08:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Gamify page

Hello,

Please let me know what could be done to restore the Gamify company page? I read the conflict of interest, and it stated to me that I should have others to review it to make sure it wasn't biased and if it wasn't biased, it was ok. I avoided all data that wasn't based on facts or news articles and went to #wikipedia and #wikipedia-en-help on irc.freenode.net and had editors there to review it and they thought it was fine since I didn't use hype type of wording and all was based on facts from referenced articles. Our company has news articles from major blogs(BNET, Mashable, Venturebeat, etc.) and we're working with the SETI Institute so there shouldn't be a problem with notability either.

Thanks for reconsidering. I've created a discussion on the topic at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gamify .

-Nathan — Preceding unsigned comment added by NathanLands (talk • contribs) 02:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Natural Bears Classification System

I have removed the prod tag you placed on The Natural Bears Classification System, as the article was discussed at AfD in July 2008 and per policy is permanently ineligible for prod. Compliance with policy is the only reason I did this; please do not interpret this action as my endorsement for keeping this article. Feel free to open another AfD if you still wish to pursue deletion. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Kuyabribri. I missed that it had been AfD'd previously. Thanks for the note. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

updating my own profile

Hello there I'm so sorry, I had no idea it was against the Wikipedia rules to update my own page to make it correct. I didn't create it in the first place (no idea who did, but how nice of them...)

I can't remember why I was looking at it, but I noticed it wasn't up to date, so I updated it with the details of the new column I am doing. The last entry just stated that a column had ended, didn't mention the new one.

As a journalist of 30 years experience, accuracy is very important to me!

Let me know what I can do to make sure that the correct information about me is on there.

Many thanks for the alert.

best

Maggie Maggiealderson (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Maggie. No worries. There's some pretty good advice set out at:

• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Editors who may have a conflict of interest
• Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest
• Wikipedia:Suggestions for COI compliance

If any of this is unclear or if you need any pointers, I'm always happy to help. -- Rrburke (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

hockeyfights.com

Hello, I wanted to bring your attention to hockeyfights.com, something you listed for blacklist here. I wanted to correct a few things: first, most pages don't host video, but are statistical in nature and shouldn't be viewed as a 'fansite source'. These stats are all based on official stats and are not subjective. It has led to the site being sourced on the NHL's own website and television network (and frequently by mainstream media). This is because of the non-subjective nature and fact-checking done. The other frequently sourced items are quotes from interviews and news (which is either based off of official releases or names the source used for the news). Some of the contributors are editors for national news organizations and adhere to ethical and journalistic standards. I realize the name and nature of the content on the site might imply otherwise, and things like user reviews and forums are certainly setup for fun, but the information provided is taken very seriously.

As to the matter of copyright, the reason this is a non-issue is because the videos used are almost exclusively from Youtube (and not from many accounts). The reason this is important is because the leagues, and specifically the NHL have a deal with Youtube that gives them copyright claim (one source of the announcement, note "Claim Your Content"). If there were any violations, the league is already in position to act upon it.

Please let me know if there are other concerns or questions I can address. - David, webmaster, hockeyfights.com 15:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.248.157.162 (talk)

Choir Article; ambiguities to me

Hi, this is Ehsan. I'm about to finish editing/translation of the choir article from en: wikipedia for fa: wikipedia, but I'm still a little bit dubious about some parts. I checked the contributors and found you among them. Here is that question:

Although many contemporary churches have replaced the choir with singers, some churches have choirs which are backing vocalists in contrary to front line singers, which are in the Alto, Soprano and Tenor range for both Males and Females.

Does it mean: except for "Solo" singers, there's a choir also? Are front line singers the "solos"? After the phrase "in contrary...", I don't get it completely. Would you help me on this please?

Lots of thanks; Princilll (talk) 11:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Ehsan. I'm a little confused by this myself: I'm not sure if the sentence is merely clumsily phrased or if "in contrary" is intended to refer to contrary motion, also known as contrapuntal motion (see counterpoint). I think it does mean that the choirs being described are divided into lead vocalists (not precisely soloists, because the rest of the choir may continue to sing) and backing vocalists (the rest of the choir), but the precise meaning of "in contrary" is not clear to me.

You could try posting your question to Talk:Choir or ask an active editor who has made frequent contributions to the article. It looks like User:Antandrus has edited the article quite a bit and is very knowledgeable about music.

Thank you for taking the time to translate this article into Farsi. If you need help with other articles, please let me know. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's even another possibility. I remember I took a "Harmony masterclass" the time I didn't know that much about music theory but some basic Sol-fa courses. In that class maestro talked about these types of contrapuntal motions... One should be in constant touch with these concepts to make use of them.

I'd better leave a question in the talk-page too as you said. That's my pleasure to be a part of this society and to get acquainted with nice people like you. Thanks and good luck :) Princilll (talk) 06:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

remove JIRIPIK from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests/Archive_77

can you remove the text on me from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests/Archive_77? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.97.8.138 (talk) 04:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Last looks...

WP:Schmidt's Primer (shortcut WP:MQSP) Whatcha think before I go live? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciate the Helping Hand Barnstar. Very cool. And, per your suggestion, WP:PRIMER and WP:Rough guide are now assigned. I will now go add links to the suggested "further reading" sections elsewhere. Many thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Something weird

Hi there! This evening I started to log myself into Wikipedia, and on the "Log in / create account" page -- before I logged into my account -- I saw "You have new messages (last change)." As you can see if you follow the links, they lead to the talk page for some anonymous user who was chastised for vandalism back in January of 2009. (I'm writing you because you seem to have been the individual who caught the vandalism.) Obviously that wasn't me, and I've logged in numerous times from this same physical location (my current residence) since 2009, so I have no idea why I would suddenly have received that notification. Should I be worrying about anything? Thanks for your time! --Shadow (talk) 05:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Shadow. There's nothing to worry about. Roadrunner uses dynamic IPs, which means customers are assigned new IP addresses whenever they start a new internet session. Someone who was briefly assigned that IP a couple of years ago used it to vandalize Wikipedia anonymously. Until you were recently assigned that IP, no one has used it to connect to Wikipedia, so you got the message intended for the vandal: when someone leaves a message on your user talk page, that orange bar appears until you click the link to read the new message -- except that in this instance the "new" message was two years old! -- Rrburke (talk) 14:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I figured it was probably something like that, but I also figured I ought to try to make sure. Thank you! --Shadow (talk) 15:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Steve's Photo

lets have a dialogue about this. We shouldn't be offering a photo of a man when he is in poor health to represent his entire life. It's more appropriate and respectful to show him looking healthier. Tree Falling In The Forest (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is that a head and shoulders shot that is more recent is clearly superior for those reasons, and I think rationale you cite for the change is unsuitable. I also don't see any consensus for such a change, which would make a substantial alteration to the reader's first encounter with the article, and as such should only be undertaken after consultation. If you want to start a thread on the subject of the talk page, I'd be happy to offer my 2 cents and, naturally, abide by the resulting consensus if one emerges. -- Rrburke (talk) 00:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see it as a major change -- it's a swap of two pictures. To elaborate on what I said, what we're doing here is trying to present an overview of the man's life, with one image serving as a good example of who he is. A picture of him in ailing health does not do him justice. The picture from MW2007 is a compromise of physical closeness of the photo and health of the subject. If you'd like to start a discussion, I emplore you to. However, as I said, I did not feel such a thing is necessary when making the change. I'm acting in the best of intentions. Tree Falling In The Forest (talk) 00:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Before descending into an edit war, let's try and discuss this. If you'd prefer the other photo, I emplore you to open a discussion. Tree Falling In The Forest (talk) 01:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I have. I am more than willing to discuss it. It is you who have repeatedly changed the article unilaterally without first seeking consensus. Frankly, I don't see why you think the onus to "open a discussion" falls on me when you are the one arguing in favour of a change. I've done so nevertheless. -- Rrburke (talk) 01:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Because we went through quite a few revisions with it uncontested, and you were the only one who saw it necessary to pause and discuss such a thing. I'll keep the image as it is for now since you've opened up a discussion about it, but I don't see the process necessary. Tree Falling In The Forest (talk) 01:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The Upside of Down

I would love to have a discussion with you regarding the COI issue and the fact that this article seems too subjective. I prefer the talk to occur and adjustments made rather than a deletion. I thought Wikipedia was an evolving thing, and I am ready to learn how to develop truly impartial articles. As to the COI, does it not take someone close to the subject to really know and understand the topic? Knowing, even working for a company or person does not mean you cannot step back and be impartial. This article is not an attempt to 'sell books' (they are not new afterall), or promote the author. He needs no promotion. It is meant to give relative information. I used as my example the article on 'The Ingenuity Gap', by the same author. I took the tone and type of facts to give from that, and notice it is still there. I hope I am not being targeted as a new user. Please let's discuss and I would appreciate your help to make the article comply, but stay alive. Thanks...Joan. Jbghewer (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbghewer (talk • contribs) 13:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Homer-Dixon

This is a continuation of the discussion on 'The Upside of Down'. Both of these articles have been tagged as COI. I have read the various Wiki info on this subject, and realize that this situation (COI)is under current discussion and review. Currently, editors are not denied the right to edit even if they are close to the subject. I did not create these articles, they existed, but were very scant of detail. I felt that the topics deserved more current and informative details, and maybe went a bit overboard. As a new Wiki user, I used some existing articles as guides. For the book, I used a previous book by this author (article not done by me) as a guide, and tried to keep to the tone and type of info. For the person, I used comparable contemporaries...David Suzuki, Michael Ignatieff, Al Gore (whom Thomas Homer-Dixon advised when he was VP), since these people are also writers, speakers, people concerned with global issues and in the public eye. Again, I tried adding the type of details found in these other articles...publications, schooling, current interests, accomplishments, etc. I realize that there may be links in my articles to the person's web site, but that is because that is the only place some of the supporting material can be found. I also made a huge effort to stick with the facts. I may be connected to the subject of the article, but I feel that this should not automatically mean I cannot write in an objective manner. A write can give whatever tone is necessary to a work.

So, I am asking you to guide me in updating these articles rather than simply canning the work I have done with the COI label. I will slowly and carefully add detail to these 2 articles and make every effort to remain as objective as possible. Does an important topic or work deserve to be kept in the dark or given a very lame Wiki write-up simply because no one would think to add detail? Both of these topics are of huge public interest and deserve to have current and accurate information displayed on your site. I look forward to your response.Jbghewer (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Joan. Thanks for your notes. A principal way we ensure the impartiality of articles is by asking people with particular kinds of close connections to subjects simply to steer clear of their associated articles altogether. In general and with very few exceptions, people with a close connection to a subject should simply avoid contributing to the article about it, except for the kind of uncontroversial edits set out at this link. The essay Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest offers a useful guide for editors with conflicts, and I urge you to read it in addition to the guideline Wikipedia:Conflict of interest itself, in particular the sections Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Close relationships and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to avoid COI edits.

"Promotion", as the word is used on Wikipedia, is not limited to attempts the sell merchandise, but refers more broadly to any editing undertaken to enhance the prestige, notoriety or public profile of a subject, an aim incompatible with Wikipedia's goal of creating high-quality, bias-free encyclopedia articles. A laudatory tone, the highlighting of awards and achievement, the addition of substantial numbers of external links closely affiliated with the subject and so forth -- these are all cardinal signs of an editor too close to a subject to be editing the article about it. Here is just one example:

• Born in Victoria, British Columbia in 1956, Thomas Homer-Dixon enjoyed a childhood enriched by spectacular natural surroundings.

This is not the language of an encyclopedia; it's the language of a PR press kit. It's quite natural that you would write this way about a subject in which you have a personal investment, and this is precisely why we ask you not to do it.

While it's quite true, as you point out, that a close connection to a subject can be valuable for understanding it in depth and detail, there is a distinction between "close connection" meaning expertise and the kind of close personal or professional connection that creates a conflict of interest. To illustrate the difference, we want software engineers to contribute to the article Software, but Bill Gates shouldn't be editing Microsoft.

I'd therefore ask you simply to avoid editing articles related to Thomas Homer-Dixon and his work altogether, because your connection to the subject is too close for it to be appropriate for you to be doing so. If you think material should be added to these articles, consider making a request on the relevant article's talk page, explaining that your conflict of interest prevents you from making the contributions yourself.

-- Rrburke (talk) 00:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry my response has taken a while. I have been doing some Wiki searching and soul searching. Thank you for your detailed response in the interest of clarifying your position and actions regarding these 2 articles. As a new Wiki user and someone who did much exploring of Wiki articles before I began any editing, I totally agree that it is crucial for Wiki to maintain a high standard with articles that are neutral in tone. In my pre-editing search of Wiki policies, I did not come across the COI one, as this was not something that had crossed my mind. I was simply attempting to flesh out some existing articles that were not, from my Wiki observations of articles on similar topics, up to standard with regard to content, sections, infoboxes, etc. I did try to match the tone and scope of similar articles, but can now appreciate that I made some errors.

As you suggested, I have done some very close scrutiny of Wiki policies regarding COI, and have found that editors with possible COI are not actually banned from editing pieces they might have a connection to, but there are strict rules surrounding this. First of all, the connection to the subject should be declared on the article talk page and in the edit comments. As a new user, trying to comply with the myriad of guidelines, and not aware of any possible COI at the time, I did not do this. Though I am sure that now any Wikipedians are quite aware of who I am, I will certainly declare my connections if I edit anything related to Homer-Dixon. Here is something of interest from The Wiki page on COI:

Editors with COIs who wish to edit responsibly are strongly encouraged to follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously. They are also encouraged to disclose their interest on their user pages and also on the talk page of the related article they are editing, and to request others' views, particularly if those edits may be contested. Most Wikipedians will appreciate your honesty.

If you have a conflict of interest, then any changes that might be seen as controversial or not strictly neutral should be first suggested on the relevant talk page or noticeboard.

As I pointed out earlier, in preparing the article edits, I looked to articles of a similar nature in Wikipedia. You might look at those of George Monbiot, Vaclav Smil, David Suzuki, or Joseph Stiglitz. In these articles, there is certainly mention of awards, notable publications, accomplishments, etc. and , at times, they take on a ‘laudatory tone’. Interesting that in the Stiglitz article, there are some boxes questioning the articles standards, neutrality, and source citing issues, with requests for others to help bring it into line. Likewise, in the article about his book Globalization and Its Discontents, there is a box saying that the article is not in encyclopedic style and is like an essay or personal reflection. These seem to be more gentle and reasonable admonitions/reminders to editors not seeming to be in compliance with Wiki standards. In fact, they are also more in keeping with the recent statements/reminders by Jimmy Wales and Mary Gardiner (at the Washington conference 2012) to veteran Wikipedians to be more welcoming and less inhibiting to new users, especially women. (See Wikinews: Wikipedia Tackles Diversity Issues). I realize that the issue here is not really one of gender, but I think they intended the sentiments to encompass all that Wikipedia does and stands for…to “to increase the size of the umbrella of the world” (Gardiner).

Further on this topic, my Wiki policy explorations unearthed Wikipedia: Assume Good Faith (especially the section on Good Faith and Newcomers) and Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. The relevance here is that I maintain my innocence as setting out with a deliberate COI. Again, I was simply trying my hand at updating and fleshing out 2 existing articles that needed it, in a format and style existing in many articles I read in preparation.

I would simply like a fair opportunity to bring my Wiki writing skills into line, learning how to strictly adhere to the neutrality mandate. The guidance of veteran Wikipedians like you would be most welcome.

So, in accordance with Wiki guidelines on the editing of articles by those with a possible COI, I would:

1. Declare my connection on talk page of the article and the edit line;

2. For any substantial edit (other than a correction of a fact or date); first put the suggested edit on the article talk page for others (likely you and I may approach user DGG) to approve before posting.

I certainly appreciate the time you have spent on this and hope that in true Wikipedian spirit, you will agree to help guide a new user along the accepted editing path. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbghewer (talk • contribs) 14:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Joan -- and thanks for your reply.

For a place that prides itself on not being rule-bound, Wikipedia can indeed appear to have a bewildering set of rules intimidating to the newcomer. Worse, new users' first encounter with "the rules" usually comes by tripping over one (or more), and the sometimes hostile response they receive from more experienced users may drive them away. That's unfortunate, because Wikipedia needs to attract new editors. I am happy to offer whatever advice I can to help you through the maze.

While it's true COI editing is not outright forbidden, the beginning of the second paragraph of sets the matter out pretty plainly:

• "COI editing is strongly discouraged."

To my mind, the "strongly" should be in bolded italics. Likewise, the four bullet points the section How to avoid COI edits all begin with the same strong word: "avoid".

Unfortunately, but understandably, new editors with a good-faith enthusiasm for a topic but who have a conflict of interest sometimes tend to seek a way around the avoids and the strong discouragement by focusing on the fact that such editing is not banned outright. Realistically, though, the only kids of edits on topics related to their conflict an editor ought to make are those set out at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Non-controversial edits. Much more will almost always raise hackles sooner or later. So-called single-purpose accounts are also often regarded with suspicion.

I do assume good faith: I assume you undertake your work on Wikipedia for the purpose of improving the articles you edit. It's just that having close personal or professional connections will often lead us to edit articles in ways editors without conflicts wouldn't -- that's why the overwhelming preference is for avoiding COI editing; that's why it's "strongly discouraged".

I'm pleased you plan to seek others' opinions on suggestions for additions to articles related to your conflict. However, although I won't speak for David, for my part I lack the requisite competence to evaluate the merits of suggested content on these topics. A better course of action would probably be to consult the regular contributors to the article. You can find them by posting to the talk page, looking through the edit history or by using Wikichecker.

Finally, enthusiasts, even those lacking COIs, can turn biographical articles into Wiki-hagiographies. Therefore, if you see problems with neutrality in articles like George Monbiot, Vaclav Smil, David Suzuki, or Joseph Stiglitz (or, indeed, any others -- Wikipedia needs all the help you can give it), please be bold and fix them (while always remembering to seek consensus prior to large-scale changes).

I haven't been all that active on Wikipedia recently, but if you need further help or advice, please feel free to ask -- or, alternatively, you can put a {{helpme}} tag at the top of your user talk page, and somebody will (eventually!) come along to try to answer your question.

-- Rrburke (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

This is all very good advice. I am looking forward to using the talk pages more and seeking advice from any who have added to the pages I want to work on. These are my first, but won't be my last. I am getting hooked on searching through articles, finding things that may need some adjustment, etc. For instance, the article on my old home town, etc. Even though, as you suggest there may be many other articles with 'overly enthusiastic' tones, as a new user, I hesitate to alter them. As I develop my own skills at neutral writing, I may feel more inclined to help Wikipedia clean up some other examples that I have found.

The thing is, that if something draws me to an article, there is sure to be an interest. I have been following the discussion on COI closely and see that Wikipedians cannot agree on what it is and how to better manage it. There is always the fact that 'Interest' does not necessarily mean 'conflict'. Editors have to rely on the NPOV rules, and if they do, there should be no problem.

In a review of the article on Homer-Dixon that I posted, I can see the glaring errors I made. My plan is to: take out any contentious links,references and content; practise an extremely neutral tone; make changes slowly. I will declare my connection on the talk page and invite other interested editors to view the changes and make improvements.

The bottom line is that, as I have said, the articles on the person and book were sadly lacking in detail which I know would be of interest to many people doing searches on the web. They deserve to find accurate information on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia should do everything to ensure that this happens if it is going to maintain its status as a quality source.

Again, I thank you for your advice and suggestions, and hope you will have the time to take a look at these articles occasionally to monitor my progress as an encyclopedic writer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbghewer (talk • contribs) 17:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

La Huerta

Hey, I'm just trying to fix. Please read the link and stop reverting me. Thank's 187.79.111.243 (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. When you recently edited Kamilia Shehata, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Minya (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 04:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Henry James, Sr.

Hello friend! Just about the " Henry James" life on Wikipedia.

"He was the son of Henry James, Sr., a clergyman, and the brother of philosopher and psychologist William James and diarist Alice James." What is the meaning of "clergyman" in this context? Thanks a lot in advance! 31.190.10.129 (talk) 09:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC) was

Henry James Sr. studied at the Princeton Theological Seminary but did not complete his studies and was never ordained. He later became an enthusiastic (but idiosyncratic) Swedenborgian, writing and lecturing on Swedenborg-flavoured theological topics. But I think "clergyman" (and "theologian", as he's described in the article Henry James, Sr.) are probably inaccurate and should be changed. Consider posting a query to Talk:Henry James -- and, if you like, Talk:Henry James, Sr. -- to see what others think. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

VW Beetle

Whoops, I've just removed my last edit here: I see now your concern wasn't about the transmission edit, but rather about vandalism.842U (talk) 12:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an instruction manual

Since Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. I would very much like you to remove the “Detection and disarming” sections from the S mine and other land-mine and explosive articles. Since this info is in fact instructional and so dangerous that people can be killed as a result. Thank You--71.22.156.40 (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks

I've purged the foul language from my talk page. If you can't clean up your mouth, please don't post here again.

And just so there's no mistake: you address another editor like that again, you're gone. Clear enough? -- Rrburke (talk) 02:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

angela yee is 37 not 32! that is a FACT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.77.85 (talk) 02:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Appreciate it

Appreciate it very much for the note, -Kurmaa (talk) 00:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

FUR

Feel free to see WP:BRD. You were bold. I reverted, you are starting an edit war now. Rationale of fair use for Past Present DVD is present at File:Moyaaid.jpg. I could be mistaken, but that could make the comment at this edit incorrect. Please explain at the article rather than continue to edit. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Walter. As I'm sure you're aware, non-free files need "a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item" (WP:NFCC). Neither the uploader nor anyone else has offered a plausible rationale for its inclusion in Moya Brennan. If you know of one, please add it to the file description page, as required by WP:NFCC. As the file description page currently provides no rationale for the image's inclusion in any article, it should not appear in any article.

I haven't added a fair use rationale myself because I don't think there is one. There would be a plausible case to be made for its use in an article on the concert film for Self Aid, but there's no such article.

I'm confused that you're accusing me of starting an edit war: I'm doing nothing of the kind. This is pretty black-letter NFCC and I'm surprised to find an experienced editor contesting it. Cheers -- Rrburke (talk) 01:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry. It appears that we're not speaking the same language or you're wikilawyering. There is a "Rationale of fair use" on the image and you're saying there's not "fair use rationale". Apparently, you need the wording to be precise. Sorry that you don't see that they're the same thing. If you would like to see it expanded, the correct place to do so is at the image, not in the articles where it's contained.

As for edit wars, it's not an accusation, it's a fact. After I reverted, you should discuss and you decided instead to revert again. That makes it the start of an edit war. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it appears the uploader was not familiar with Wikipedia's policy relating to the use of non-free content or with the doctrine of fair use more broadly and has mistakenly offered what he thinks is a fair use rationale when it's actually not one. A fair use rationale sets out in detail the rationale for the file's use (as the name suggests) for each article in which it appears. A fair use rationale is a justification for the use of the file in an article, not a justification for uploading it to Wikipedia -- which is what the uploader appears to have believed was required. A fair use rationale would explain why the use of the file in this article (and separately for each article in which it appears) justifies an exception to copyright protection. The circumstances meriting such exceptions are quite limited. Because we would like a picture of Moya Brennan for this article is not one. Without such a justification, an editor adding such an image to an article risks copyright violation.

The circumstances that merit such exceptions are set out both in Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria and Wikipedia:Non-free content. If you can see in these documents a rationale I've missed that would justify this image's use in Moya Brennan, please add a {{Non-free use rationale}} template tag to the file description. For my part, I don't believe there is a valid rationale to be found: in general, where the video or film itself is not the subject of commentary in an article, a fair-use exception to copyright protection is not justified.

Again, reverting a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy, even an inadvertent one, is not edit warring. This image is included in an article without the required accompanying fair use rationale that would justify its inclusion, so it ought to be removed. Please note that the burden in this instance falls solely on the editor seeking to add or restore the file:

• "Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale" (Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#Enforcement).

-- Rrburke (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. This predates the current FUR template. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't predate the requirement to justify each use with a detailed fair use rationale, an obligation which has always existed. -- Rrburke (talk) 14:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Kurdistan Workers' Party and IP blocking

I've blocked the IP you reported for 48 hours. I'm uncomfortable calling this vandalism (and I forgot that we have a series of user warnings for NPOV violations), so I made it an edit-warring block; if the IP complain that you didn't get blocked (since both of you violated 3RR), I'll tell him that it's because you were reverting blatant NPOV violations. Page history shows lots of back-and-forth IP editing recently; do you think semiprotection necessary? Nyttend (talk) 15:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI, the IP has just levied an unblock request, so semiprotection indeed seems necessary to me, but I'll not do anything without your input, because I'm not very familiar with the article. Nyttend (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Nyttend. The article's naturally a magnet for controversy, but this looks like a limited number of editors and the problem is probably manageable without PP. Your call: you have all the nifty buttons. :)

The user appears to want to post his crazy manifesto or whatever to WP. I also agree it's not exactly vandalism, since he probably believes it's true and improves the article, whereas good-faith edits -- which I'll squint and say these might be, even if only from this editor's rather skewed perspective -- are not vandalism even when they damage the article. Neverthless, they are repeated violations of WP:V and WP:NPOV, and after repeated warnings this behaviour becomes pretty WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, which is disruptive and merits an according block. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I responded to the unblock request (not declining it, since I'm not allowed to, but just explaining my rationale), saying that edit warring, NPOV, and unsourced content addition were each a problem with this user's editing that would have justified a block regardless of the other two problems. Obviously a WP:DISRUPT case. Nyttend (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Not likely a sock, as the blocked IP geolocates to Istanbul and the unblocked one to California. I can't issue a sock block in good faith, and a single edit (even this) isn't enough to block as vandalism, so I've semiprotected for a week. Nyttend (talk) 15:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it is, both because of the identical halting English of the style, and because the user has replied to you on the blocked IP's talk page as though he's continuing a previous conversation. The second IP looks like an open proxy: [1]. -- Rrburke (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

As I said, one edit isn't sufficient to make that conclusion. A second edit, however, is completely different — I explained to myself his style of writing as an indication of reverting the removal of the text, but there's no getting around the reply that you linked. Kinu gave the second IP a week-long block for block evasion and extended the first IP's block likewise, and I'm going to ask someone more knowledgeable about proxies to investigate the possibility of this being one. Nyttend (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Nyttend. Kinu has posted the IP to WP:OPP. -- Rrburke (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I reported it at WP:AN, and they told me to go to WP:OPP. Thanks for letting me know about Kinu's report; I've offered comments over there. Nyttend (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Not sure

Hi, thanks for this, but I'm not sure that it was vandalism or a PA. I assumed it was just a piece of irrelevant information. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, DVdm. Perhaps not, it but looked like a WP:VOA to me. Maybe he was just telling you about his hobby? :) Cheers. -- Rrburke (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, likely, resp. ouch, let's hope not ;-) - DVdm (talk) 16:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Improving my edit

Hi, you cited a lack of citation to remove my edit. I don't think even 1% of the people reading that webpage are unware of the fact fluoride table salts are much less used than tap water fluoridation, and consider it uncontroversial fact. I feel much the same about most of my edit. If you could point out which parts you find not obvious from 2 minutes of googling or general knowledge, I can find a citation for it.

Any suggestions to improve my edit? As I won't find "fluoride salts in salt shakers means less fluorides end up in the environment than if people showered with fluoridated tap water, study says" and other obvious things anywhere soon in a serious medical journal, because it's too obvious.

Also keep in mind I never said anywhere fluorides didn't actually work if you use the right ones in the right dosages --- just that some are better than others (citations findable as part of the fluoridation controversy page already, so I didn't repeat that). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.231.229 (talk • contribs)

Your edit included several claims not supported by citations from reliable sources: the first sentence begins, "Conspiration theorists point out...". Presumably this is an inadvertence for "conspiracy theorist", but you adduce no evidence from published sources that any significant number of people believe any such thing, nor that, even if they do, the issue represents a significant enough controversy to merit inclusion in the article. Assertions containing vauge, unsupported attributions ("some people say that...", "many experts believe..."), sometimes called "weasel words" (see WP:WEASEL), should be replaced with supportable claims backed up by reliable, published sources. Next,

"because of the financial incentive to get rid of many pollutant types cheaply overrides financially the health concerns leading to using only what's best, or knowing which one is best."

Something is clearly garbled here, but at any rate no evidence is offered in support of the claim that cheap disposal of contaminants is a motivating factor or that significant number of people believe that it is. Likewise the sentence beginning, "This would be the reason fluoridated table salt..." etc.: no evidence is offered to support either the claim that it is, or indeed that anyone indeed believes it is, "the reason".

Improving the edit would principally involve establish the importance of the subject and clear attribution of points of view -- both supported by reliable, published sources. -- Rrburke (talk) 16:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

George Clarke photo

Hi

I amended the link, which state it's "approved for use" - I'm not sure where on the BJL Group website I can find actual authorisation to use the pic if permission isn't covered by "approved for use"...

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gham1970 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Gham1970. I think that only means they've cleared it to be posted on their site. I'm pretty sure it's copyrighted and as such not eligible for inclusion on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. What this means is it'll have to be deleted. I'll request deletion

Unless a file has been explicitly published under a free license like Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike, it isn't suitable for Wikimedia projects. If you'd like to learn more about what can be uploaded to Wikimedia projects, consider having a look at Commons:Licensing and Wikipedia:Copyrights. If you have questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them. Cheers! -- Rrburke (talk) 15:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Your changes to Rentier capitalism

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. 213.246.88.142 (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. 213.246.88.142 (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

If you had looked at my contribution history, you would have seen that the reason for the edit was to remove unsourced material, challenged over a year ago which you have since replaced and which I have now removed. Again. 213.246.88.142 (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Your contribution history reveals exactly one previous edit from this IP and two from another (presuming that's you), so what contribution history is it I was supposed to have checked?

You've now left the article without a serviceable definition of the concept that is the article's subject, so rather than complaining and issuing facetious warnings, why don't you just fix it? -- Rrburke (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Erasistratus Discovering the Cause of Antiochus' Disease, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stratonice (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion

Can you tell me how I perform a basic deletion for the page Clyde F.C. Reserves and Youth Teams.

I moved the main article for this page on Clyde F.C. that has all the proper information so there is no need for the page Clyde F.C. Rserves and Youth Teams — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daftcelt (talk • contribs) 00:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Let me have a look at it. -- Rrburke (talk) 00:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

You'll want to turn it into a redirect. I can do it for you, but if you want the practice of learning how to do it have a look at Help:Redirect. -- Rrburke (talk) 01:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

For Rrburke

Hello! Do you think if I ask the author about permission organize images in Wikipedia, then can I upload them? Email me the answer! :) АнДрЕй ПаВлОв 18:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi... I've replied on your Commons user talk page. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Blog link

Hello why the link had been removed from the site even tough it was complying with wikipedia guidelinesAsjadullah Sarosh (talk) 03:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

In fact, the link does not comply with Wikipedia guidelines. First, links to blogs and self-published material is discouraged; please see "Links normally to be avoided (WP:ELNO, point #11). Second, "you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent" (WP:ADV). Linking to any blog should be avoided; linking to your own is a form of self-promotion incompatible with the principle set out in Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise your essay. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism to the Ray Quinn page

I did not vandalize the Ray Quinn page, I think there has been a mix up, it's actually quite upsetting for someone to even suggest I put that nasty line on the page. Regardless I attempted to follow up with the false vandalism claim by cluebot, but the page to report does not load. I don't know where to put this but here is cluebot's revert id - 572522 - hopefully this is useful information to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.73.113 (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Deleting Photos by Fulvio Wetzl

Dear Rrburke, I saw the photos of which I possess the copiright, that I put in the pages of my films, in wikipedia, have been removed. Already at the beginning of January 2013 I have sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, authorization and certificate of ownership. I also sent this morning, January 25, 2013, the same authorization. I would therefore ask you to re-enter the picture in the pages of my films. thanks 151.42.104.84 (talk) 10:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Fulvio Wetzl

wikimedia

Hi !

Thank you for your messages about Cendrars and Brecht.

1) I want to know if it's possile to publish my own translatings of Brecht's poems without the german text ?

2) About the pictures that concerns "Timaru" and "Ion Vartic", I didn't took the two pictures, but I know that they agree with this publication.

3) If I use a picture that isn't my own and I add a text on it, may I use it as derivative work' ? I just don't know how to proceed and what sort of license I should use.

Thank you for your help !

--Martin Greslou (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Martin Greslou

contact

Hi Rrburke,

I would like to contact you. Do i reach you like this. I am trying to update saskia de coster's wikipage: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saskia_De_Coster but you overrule me. It is really annoying since Saskia is sitting next to me. She has just published a new novel, she asked me to update her page and you make it impossible. How can we fix this? inge — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ingejooris (talk • contribs) 20:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Ingejooris. Thanks for your message. There were two problems: first, you were uploading new images over existing ones, thereby removing the old ones. When you upload a file, please give it a new and unique filename. Second, some of the files you uploaded were copyright violations. The copyright for the book covers is held by the publisher, so unless the publisher agrees to publish the cover image under a free license such as CC-BY-SA 3.0, the cover image can't be uploaded to Commons. In the case of images to which Ms. De Coster herself holds the copyright, she would need to contact permissions-commons@wikimedia.org to confirm that she agrees to publish them under a free license. If you are confused, I can help guide you through the process. -- Rrburke (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rrburke, thanks for your reply. Saskia De coster has mailed to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org but she didn't get any reply. Does that take more than a week? Do i ask the publisher also to mail to that emailadres. What i don't understand is that if saskia mails to the emailadres and even mention my name, what will happen then? Will they send me an email to say: go ahead. If you could help me in this, that would be great. The wikipediapage of Saskia De Coster is very much visited by students and journalists. We could make it so much more attractive if we could add nice and update pictures. Thanks so much inge — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ingejooris (talk • contribs) 16:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Ingejooris. The current backlog for verifying permission is 75 days. This work, like all the work here, is done on a volunteer basis and so unfortunately can be subject to lengthy delays.

It appears that the OTRS ticket for one file, File:Cover wijenik decoster.jpg, has been processed, but that the information supplied was not sufficient to permit the file to be published on Commons. I am not an OTRS volunteer, so I can't tell what the problem was (for privacy reasons, the contents of OTRS correspondence can only be read by OTRS volunteers); however, if you wish to send me by email a copy of the correspondence that was sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org I can probably ascertain why the information supplied fell short. Alternatively you could contact User:Trijnstel, who appears to have been the user who processed the OTRS ticket.

To answer your question about what the process is for informing you that permission has been granted to publish a file on Commons, I don't actually know because I am not an OTRS volunteer. However, you can ask this question or any other question about the status of an OTRS request at the following page: Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard. Please make sure to specify the file(s) you are asking about and, where appropriate, the OTRS ticket number. In the case of File:Cover wijenik decoster.jpg, the ticket number is 2013031310003326.

Please feel free to ask me for more help if you run into difficulty. -- Rrburke (talk) 23:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rrburke, Thanks for your reply. I will forward you saskia's mail but which is your mailaddress? Mine is [email address redacted]. With kind regards inge — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ingejooris (talk • contribs) 08:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Inge. You can contact me by the "E-mail this user" link under "Toolbox" on the left of this page. To avoid receiving spam, it's best not to post your email address on Wikipedia, so I've removed yours above. If you wish other users to be able to contact you email, you can enable email by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Emailing users. -- Rrburke (talk) 13:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rrburke,

I am definately a newcomer! under toolbox, there's no 'email this user link.' I looked some more around wikipedia but nowhere i could find your email. maybe you still have mine and you can send me a small email to whoch i can reply. I am so sorry I take so much of your time. With kind regards! inge — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ingejooris (talk • contribs) 07:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Martin McCartney and Lennon.JPG)

Thanks for uploading File:Martin McCartney and Lennon.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Trudeau signature.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Trudeau signature.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Trudeau signature.png missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

• File:Trudeau signature.png

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 16:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Trudeau signature.png missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

• File:Trudeau signature.png

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 16:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Elgar and Britten

I notice your recent removal of the links from these articles to Norman Lebrecht's "Overgrown Path" site. It is not necessary to be an admirer of Mr Lebrecht (I am most emphatically not) to recognise that he is a significant, or at least unignorable, figure in British musical criticism. I think you ought to restore the links you deleted. Tim riley (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Tim. Thanks for your note. As I understand it, "On An Overgrown Path" is a blog written by Bob Shingleton, not Norman Lebrecht. As a self-published personal blog, "On An Overgrown Path" falls below the threshold of a reliable source. Likewise, the external links guideline categorizes personal blogs under "Links normally to be avoided". -- Rrburke (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Good Lord! I've got the wrong end of the stick good and proper! How on earth did I get that mistaken idea into my head? I withdraw in confusion. Thanks for your very gentle correction. Tim riley (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, Tim. No worries. The blog is not signed. I note that 26 of the links were added by Mr. Shingleton himself, which also runs contrary to WP:EL#ADV, and that he takes umbrage at their being removed. I was girded for objections, and consequently was already wearing the requisite "bland and civil recitation of facts and policies" demeanour :) Cheers! -- Rrburke (talk) 03:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of The Monsters in the Morning for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Monsters in the Morning is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Monsters in the Morning (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Levdr1lp / talk 12:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Trudeau signature.png missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

• File:Trudeau signature.png

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 04:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Badiou changes 'seem not constructive'?

I disagree. What is 'not constructive' about them? I fixed a number of very poorly written passages so that they made sense and left indications that one that I didn't know how to fix needed fixing. How is that 'not constructive' in your view? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.122.30.180 (talk • contribs)

Hi there. That was an error; I've reverted it. However, this edit requires substantiation by way of a reference from a third-party reliable source, as the claim and the language are quite strong. If there is no source that says this explicitly, it shouldn't be included. -- Rrburke (talk) 13:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Tony Waddington (songwriter)

Thanks for reverting the removal of the content. It seems that Mr Waddington may be unhappy with parts of the article, but it's hard to know what his problem is, so long as neither he nor his PA make any comments on talk pages. There was some previous discussion with another editor here. May be worth keeping an eye on, if you're interested. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)