User talk:Rrburke/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Budder, And why That information needs to be there

Im sorry that you think that my "original research" is in violation of Wikipedia policy, The fact is they have an original research tag for a reason,

This substance is illeagal almost anywhere in the world, and it is illeagal for good reason,

when people search google for "budder" they should get real, True, information from the people who have had first hand experience in both making it, and using it

I smoked alot of this stuff at one point and the person who introduced me to it made it sound like it was purer than any other hash, And it turns out this is the only Cannabis product that is potentially lethal and infused with a toxic substance called hydrogen sulfide.

I personally had multiple seizures and know 3 other patients who have since had severe seizures and medical problems because of those seizures, My back/spine is permentntly out of whack because of it, and i have spend well over 20,000$ in medical bills.

I understand wikipedia is a place for solid information, but this substance has not been scientifically researched, and it is very illeagal and RARE.

PLEASE do not remove my edits as they are simply THE BEST INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON THIS SUBSTANCE, if you would like me to further detail, or have these other patients post their stories or research id be glad to, and if you can suggest a way for me to verify my claims id love to do that as well.

BUT PLEASE do not ROB the people looking for good information of a WARNING that THIS IS NOT JUST THC, and it can potentially KILL YOU.

contact me at pwnsi6ht@gmail.com if you would like to discuss this as i personally would do any single thing i could to stop other people from having the same HORRIBLE experience that i did, And im sure you understand that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NotAlright (talk • contribs) 17:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Adminship

Hello Rrburke. Since you have made over 950 reports to AIV and 850 to UAA, would you like me to nominate you for adminship? Please either reply on my talk page or leave a {{talkback}} message. Good luck, --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, HFSW. Thanks for your kind note and flattering offer. I'm gratified, but I'm going to have to decline for the moment, for a couple of reasons: first, I haven't had a ton of time for Wikipedia recently (which is why I've been doing mostly UAA notices -- something I can do when I'm actually engaged in a real-life, non-WP task). The RfA itself requires the candidate's close attention and I don't have the time or attention to devote to it at the moment. Second, User:Rlevse made a similar offer a couple of years ago (which I also declined), and I think as a courtesy I should give him right of first refusal if his offer still stands. May I get back you at a later date if and when I feel more ready? Thanks very much for your gratifying confidence. -- Rrburke (talk) 21:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, just tell me as soon as you think you're ready. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Eido Tai Shimano entry

Please review the latest edits at the Eido Tai Shimano entry by Mr. Marinello. It appears that he is attempting to suppress valid criticism from reliable sources with a major conflict of interest. He does not seem to take your direction seriously as supplied on the Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard.

Thank you. Kobutsu (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I have replied here. -- Rrburke (talk) 01:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Lib3rtarian

Hi Rrburke. Have you been following User talk:Lib3rtarian? He has been using dynamic IPs to continue editing around the block and admits to it. I've protected two of the pages and his response to this was um, quite bizarre - he accused me of "raving" and something about me caring for "kangaroos and koalas, animals with a QI like (me)". I'm really thinking we just need to put an end to all this permanently. I thought maybe it was worth bringing in Italian-speaker but he seems uninterested and apparently thinks he's entitled to do whatever he likes because he basically owns the articles as the person who started them. I have also now been labeled a "fascist" so perhaps I'll finally warrant inclusion in his wiki-facism rant.:p It's all getting a bit tiresome and difficult to AGF when he shows no sign of wanting to follow any of the rules at all. Sarah 05:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I've restarted that ANI report. Sarah 05:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I came across it last night and was going to write you about it. You may also wish to review this, as you are mentioned. As he's already under an indefinite block, I don't think it's productive to engage with him any further. I have an opinion about the articles I'll post the ANI thread. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's really nasty, the "Australian whore named Sarah". I agree with you re continuing to engage with him and there's nothing productive coming out of it - just him refusing to accept policy and abusing anyone who dares get in his way and tell him anything that's not convenient to his mission here. Sarah 16:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

He wants what he wants and he wants it now. If you are impeding him, you are bad. I know someone just like this. She is very dear to me. She is 6. :)

I note that his block refers only to the copyvios. In light of this, should the block log be amended to include references to socking and personal attacks, so that an admin reviewing any future unblock request would have the full picture? -- Rrburke (talk) 16:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I just reblocked with "Disruptive editing, Copyvios, block evasion, personal attacks" in the log and a permanent link to the ANI report. I think the personal attacks and abuse and the refusal to accept policy just on his own talk page is plenty sufficient for admins to decline any unblock requests but at least now they have no excuse for not knowing about the ANI report and the extent of the problems. Sarah 16:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Dawoodi Bohra

The information you have on Dawoodi Bohras is at best, not professional. I have no idea where you've received your data from, but if you are trying to allow people to get to know more about Dawoodi Bohras, you certainly are not accomplishing this task. Instead of removing everything I'm updating, why don't you spend more time on getting citations for the rubbish that's posted there right now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarkcountynv (talk • contribs) 17:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

As I explained in my message on your talk page and in my edit summary, I removed the material you added because content drawn from your personal website is unsuitable for Wikipedia. I agree that the article is in poor shape: as a person knowledgeable about the subject, please feel free to rewrite the article using reliable, third party sources rather than material from your own website. -- Rrburke (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Buchteln article

Hi. I was visiting my Dad recently (user:Loweswatercam) and was cahtting to him about Wikipedia, and he mentioned that he had been to Austria recently, and took some photographs... I talked him through editing and he added to the Buchteln article with an example of somewhere famous that serves them, and a link to a photograph (I don't yet know myself how to upload the picture any other way to show it on the page). I can see you have reversed this edit - please explain why?

Thanks. Gazhiley (talk) 12:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi,Gazhiley. It was a couple of things: first, adding external links inline is generally not preferred, especially for images. The second problem is that users are strongly discouraged from adding external links to their own website: this is typically interpreted as linkspamming and is almost always reverted (if you have a moment, please have a look at WP:EL#ADV). The similarity between your Dad's username and the URL of his website tripped the conflict of interest abuse filter. This will happen whenever he tries to add external links to his website.

As for how to add images to articles, I'm happy to give you a some pointers. First, it's preferable to upload images to Wikimedia Commons rather than English Wikipedia: that way they can be used at any Wikimedia project. The upload page is at Commons:Upload. It's more or less self-explanatory, but it you need help, please feel free to ask. There's also some help available at Help:Files.

Once the image is uploaded, you can find instructions on how to add the image to a Wikipedia article at the page Wikipedia:Images and Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. If you get stuck, drop me a note explaining the problem and I'll see if I can help. Cheers. -- Rrburke (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - will pass that on... Gazhiley (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Elvis was a 10th degree Karate Blackbelt

Greetings! I'm providing you sources that show Elvis practicing karate as well as his own daughter talking about her father (Elvis) practicing Karate. If you would read thoroughly the following sites and watch the videos you will learn something new about the "King"

Sources providing indisputable photo, audio, and literary evidence proving that he was a Karate expert:

1.) http://www.elviskarate.com/

2.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPs8mQuH0jg

3.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvehGcMMOmY&feature=related

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.172.223 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 2 July 2010

Replied at user's talk page. -- Rrburke (talk) 16:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Probert

Thanks for the backup. I can only find blog posts, no big sports news organizations, like TSN or EPSN. We'd best wait. I'll put in a request for page protection. Connormah (talk | contribs) 21:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Hopefully an admin address my requests for protection soon, I'll keep my eye on it until that happens. Connormah (talk | contribs) 21:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Still, I think we should wait until TSN reports it. I'm not so sure that is as reliable as some other sources out there. Connormah (talk | contribs) 21:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, but last time I checked, that stated that he just collapsed, not died. Connormah (talk | contribs) 21:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, Now I have [1]. Looks like it can now be added to the recent deaths list. Connormah (talk | contribs) 21:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I saw that. It's all good now. Connormah (talk | contribs) 21:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure, there is no evidence of vandalism, we should leave it open. It is highly visible at this point too, as well, so we may want to maintain a stable version, but more details may become known in the near future, so I think it's best to leave it open. Maybe pending changes may be worth a shot, I'll request that instead. Connormah (talk | contribs) 21:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

COI

I read Talk:Just Detention International - if Justdetention is affiliated with the group, he is still allowed to edit the article and make updates. He just has to follow COI, which tells an affiliated person how to approach such an article. That's all. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, WhisperToMe. Justdetention was blocked per WP:ORGNAME and WP:NOSHARE some time ago. While it's true that editors with conflicts are not strictly forbidden from editing articles to whose subjects they have a close connection, they are neverthless strongly discouraged from doing so -- which is what I meant by "you shouldn't be doing anything of the kind". They should avoid editing such articles, with limited exceptions for non-controversial edits such as are outlined at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Non-controversial edits. -- Rrburke (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I see. As I said on the talk page, the words "shouldn't be" could be interpreted by someone as "You are forbidden from doing this" instead of the "You are strongly discouraged from this" that it was supposed to mean. Better wording would be "While you are allowed to do it, you are strongly discouraged from doing so." WhisperToMe (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... I guess I see it differently: the difference between shouldn't and mustn't (or can't or aren't permitted to) is the difference between admonition and prohibition, which I think the original adequately conveys. Cheers! -- Rrburke (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops...sorry about that!

Must've had that mop in my ear. :) The problem is a clear-cut case of sockpuppetry, so I'll go ahead and block the accounts. Doggone, I feel bad for not getting back to you sooner! Humbly and with an ear full of damp yarn, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

You're one of the good ones, bro. Cleaning up after a particularly active sockpuppet, but I'm about to call it a night for now. See ya round!--PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 21:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

trunkarchive.com

Yes. I got the feeling that's what they were after. Anything I can do administratively? Daniel Case (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Give me a list and I'll take care of them. Daniel Case (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your's and Daniel Case's help on the trunkarchive.com problem. I've blacklisted the domain but there's still the problem of all the potentially spammy articles. I've made a list at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#trunkarchive.com (permanent link). If you're so inclined, could you look at some of these and tag them as necessary for clean-up or deletion? (Markup my list as you do these). Thanks! --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You're shaming me. I've been intending to do this for days. I wanted to do the requisite due diligence before actually nominating the articles for deletion as it's quite possible several of the subjects are notable even if the intent and execution was spammy. So far I've... a) thought about it a bit, and b) done some desultory Googling. I'll get on it. -- Rrburke (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to do everything all at once. For instance, check an article for notability and/or copyright issues, then just add some tags. Come back and nominate for deletion later or maybe someone else will do it first. Do a couple of articles today, a few more later this week. See WP:Eventualism and cut yourself some slack. Before you blew the whistle, nobody even was dealing with the issue. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The Arabic Code

Hi, I don't think this qualifies for db-web, so I replaced that tag with a PROD. Them From Space 19:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, bro. :)

Yeah, this thing really bugged me out and the nimrod is still at it. I've been working off-wiki with two other admins who've been victimized and I'm now handing out rangeblocks right and left across four different wikis. I was given admin rights at Eflightwiki.com (thank goodness) where he was particularly vicious and from there I've blocked all his known IP ranges for five years on that and other wikis where I have admin rights and the same username. We have a remarkable amount of data on the guy since his shenanigans have gone on for several years, so if things continue to get out of control, we can contact the police department in his area. Thanks again. Nice to know I'm appreciated around here. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

PS: Do you have admin rights on Commons? If so, please keep an eye out for me over there. I'm not an admin. PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Tried to fix conflict of interest

Hi I was updating the page on Catholic fiction and inadvertently trespassed on the rules. I tried to fix it by deleting anything that had to do with me or my employer. Catholic fiction is a subject I've researched and spoken on, and I wanted to add some of my knowledge to the entry.

Hope what I submitted was better. I'm still not sure how to use references though. Scholarly articles on the subject are rare: I manged to reference one.

Also, the book "Compasse" that is referenced on the page is apparently a self-pub and I'm not sure why it's up there! Peace and good Regina Doman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reginadoman (talk • contribs) 18:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia always appreciates the contributions of people knowledgeable about a particular subject, but Wikipedians are strongly discouraged from editing articles related to themselves, their organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with. Please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest.

As Wikipedia does not permit original research, all contributions must be drawn from material previously published in reliable sources. Any material not attributed to a reliable source is likely to be removed. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability for further guidance.

As for the mechanics of citing sources, please see Wikipedia: Citing sources, especially Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to present citations. If you're still having difficulty, I'd be happy to help. If you're stuck and I happen not to be around, place the tag {{helpme}} at the top of your user talk page and someone will be along to offer assistance.

-- Rrburke (talk) 18:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I think I managed to put the sources in correctly but I'm not sure how well I did with reference. Peace and good Regina —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reginadoman (talk • contribs) 20:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Horacio Salinas (photographer)

Hello Rrburke. I am just letting you know that I deleted Horacio Salinas (photographer), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. Ged UK 20:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Senior Rock

mI don't know; WP:BEER says nothing about that. :-P Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Inventages

Dear Rrburke. I would be grateful if you would undo the changes you made to Inventages entries in wikipedia. Inventages is actively investing in start-up companies. At a time when access to capital is scarce, I think entrepreneurs would greatly benefit from increased awareness on our fund. I think Inventages also has significant impact in the start-up community, being worthy of an entry in Wikipedia. I'm new to entering information on Wikipedia, and I shall edit the articles to remove any bias in the entry, but please give me some time to work on the articles before deleting. Thanks a lot, Kind Regards. Siroperez Siroperez (talk) 14:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Siroperez. The reason I've tagged the article for speedy deletion has nothing to do with its state of completeness. Your position with the company puts you in a conflict of interest and I believe the article's purpose is promotional. As such, it qualifies for speedy deletion under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G11. Wikipedia editors are strongly discouraged from writing on topics to which they have strong personal or professional connections, and Wikipedia is not to be used as a vehicle for promotion. In addition to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations and Wikipedia:Spam -- especially Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements masquerading as articles.

It is a broadly-accepted view at Wikipedia that if a subject merits a standalone article, an uninvolved editor will get around to creating an article about it eventually. Employees are strongly discouraged from doing so.

If the article is deleted, you may wish to ask that somebody else create it by posting a request at Wikipedia:Articles for creation, explaining that although your conflict prevents you from creating it yourself, you nevertheless feel it is sufficiently noteworthy to merit an article. Evidence of substantial third-party coverage of the company will aid your request.

The section of Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest guideline called Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Editors who may have a conflict of interest contains helpful information about what kind of contributions you are permitted to make to the article, as does Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest.

Please feel free to contact me if you have questions.

-- Rrburke (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Rrburke. Thanks for your fast reply. I understand your position and the rules governing Wikipedia. However, there tends to be a bias to venture capital firms investing in the internet space, just because people are more used to entering entries in Wikipedia. It's the same with blogs, etc, a topic that is being discussed lately in specialized press. Entrepreneurs in Life Sciences have much less sources of information than those in internet, tech, etc. I'm just trying to point to sources of capital for start-ups, I don't think this can be seen as promotional

I wanted to populate the article with third party references from renowned sources (e.g. Techcrunch, Fiercebiotech, Venturebeat) so there are less concerns about a potential conflict of interest. Would this be enough for you to keep the entry? Please give me a couple of days to finalize the article, you will then be able to confirm that there is ample coverage on our firm and the work we do financing and supporting innovation.

I think in this case strictly applying the guidelines would do a disservice to the Life Sciences start-up community. Thanks for your understanding.

Siroperez (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Lucia Bova

I read your proposal of deletion of the article "Lucia Bova" then I'm adding bibliographical sources in order to let you value my activity and to render it verifiable.

All best Lucia Bova —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucia Bova (talk • contribs) 10:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Ms Bova: my proposing the article for deletion has nothing to do with the quality of the article and is not meant to denigrate your achievements. I proposed the article for deletion because using Wikipedia as a vehicle for self-promotion is contrary to its purpose. Please see Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. -- Rrburke (talk) 12:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear editor, I understand what you mean and I agree with the general principle. But I would like to propose to Wikipedia a new rule: for biographies I think that it should be necessary that the article is signed openly by someone, as it happens with any voice of any encyclopedia on paper. Because, you see, anyone can ask a friend to use a nickname and create an article of celebration. I saw the articles "Claudio Ambrosini" "Paolo Ravaglia", "Lavinia Meijer" and "Floraleda Sacchi" and they haven't any reference or source. Is it enough a nickname or a name not verified to have an article on Wikipedia? I think that this is not a good system and that it shoul be improved for the future. I have thought to be honest and I have written the article about me with my name. If you think that it might be improved, deleting or adding something, please tell me and I'll do it.

Thank you for your kind attention and best regards. Lucia BovaLucia Bova (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the system is open to abuse by people writing about themselves under the guise of a pseudonym. Unfortunately, it happens all too frequently. However, the tone of such articles is typically laudatory, so it is often easy to guess their provenance.

As for your suggestion that articles be signed, I'm afraid it's not practical, as Wikipedia articles are edited collaboratively. Additionally, as Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", it is an established principle that users can contribute without having to identify themselves or furnish credentials.

If users find articles that, as you have described, lack references -- particularly biographical articles about living people -- they are encouraged to improve the article by finding such references and adding them to the article, or to call attention to the problem by tagging the article for cleanup -- for example, by applying a tag such as {{Unreferenced}}. -- Rrburke (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thank you very much for your explanations.Lucia Bova (talk) 19:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Socking

Hi. It appears as though these two users might be the same person:

Peachpundit (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Senchiprogers (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Anna. The editor assures me that s/he is a constituent and not the senator himself, and I assume good faith. There does, however, seem to be a sudden spate of edits to this article by new accounts and anon-ips at almost exactly the same time, which gives one pause. Either way, the tone is commendatory and will have to be cleaned up for WP:NPOV. -- Rrburke (talk) 19:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. The 4 min. difference between the last of Senchiprogers and the first of Peachpundit's on the Rogers article made me curious. Also, the fact that they both only ever edited Chip Rogers and John Oxendine seemed odd. I will assume good faith. Thanks for the reply. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Claude Béchard

Hi Rrburke

I noticed you added the {{recent death}} template to the above-captioned article only four edits after I removed it with the edit summary "rm recent death template--only for articles being edited rapidly by many editors". If you review the template instructions, you will find that they state that the template is only for use in highly edited articles. Since his death, the article on Claude Béchard has been edited 28 times by 13 editors. There is no reason to add a sensationalist template to an article with so few edits.

Regards, ^Bongo_matic 01:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Should you wish to reply, please do so here. I will watch this page for a few days, so no {{talkback}} or other comment on my talk page is required.

Hi, Bongomatic. I'm sorry I didn't have a closer look at the edit history. I added the tag because, as I recall, it adds an article to the category Category:Recent deaths, the contents of which typically get picked up and added to Recent deaths. I don't agree that the tag is sensationalist: it's merely descriptive and serves a useful, if limited, purpose. Cheers. -- Rrburke (talk) 01:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Chip Rogers

Hey man,

Not trying to have an edit war. Just curious to your reasoning behind changing the picture. I want to just make this page look better, I am a constituent, not the candidate. The edits popped up in one of my feeds and got me interested.

I was adding more details around the elections as well. I am looking for more sources that are not the campaign page. Does the official State Senate pages work? They are not controlled by the subject.

Thanks.

Hope we can be civil on this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peachpundit (talk • contribs) 18:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Peachpundit. The reason I changed the image is that File:Chip_talking_in_well.jpg is likely to be deleted shortly. Its source is http://www.senatorchiprogers.com/issues.html and material taken from websites is treated presumptively as copyrighted unless there is evidence to the contrary. It was uploaded as a public domain work by the uploader, but there is no evidence that the uploader has the permission of the copyright holder to release it into the public domain. Confirmation that the uploader has the right to license the image has to be undertaken by the process set out at Commons:OTRS. For example, if the copyright holder is Senator Rogers himself, then Senator Rogers will have to confirm both his identity and that he agrees to license the image for use according to the terms described on the licensing tag PD-self or another suitable free license.

Thanks for trying to improve the article by looking for third-party sources. have a look at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources to see what kind of sources are preferred.

On a separate matter, are you affiliated with the site http://www.peachpundit.com/ ? If so, you need to consider changing your username, as having a username that matches a website name is not permitted according to Wikipedia's username policy, Wikipedia:Username, in particular Wikipedia:GROUPNAME. -- Rrburke (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I am not associated with www.peachpundit.com. I know of the site, but never go to it. I have added 5 or 6 sources today. I contacted Senator Chip Rogers, and he was emailing the email provided to give them permission to use it. He considers it in the public domain. He was providing his personal emails to confirm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peachpundit (talk • contribs) 19:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW, on another note. The reason I keep changing his surname back is verification. I cannot find anything that says that is actually his real name. I am pretty sure the first name is correct, I do not think the middle name is.

I have removed the middle name. WP:SURNAME actually refers to how a person's name is used in wikipedia articles. After the full name is given, the person is typically referred to by their last name only -- in other words, "Rogers" not "Chip".

You mention you have been in touch with Senator Rogers: I'm sure you're aware that if you are affiliated with the senator or his campaign in any way it would not be appropriate for you to be editing the article about him -- with the exception of the kind of edits explained at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Non-controversial edits. It goes without that the senator himself should avoid editing the article, but so should anyone who has a close connection to him. Please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for more information. -- Rrburke (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know him, only emailed him once. Not entirely sure it was a response from him vs an aide. But they did respond with that message. You are going to leave William even though it is not sourced as a sure thing? You have deleted other things that are a sure thing that I have sourced. ??? Also you added that Craig Dowdy was a democrat. He is not. He lost in the primary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peachpundit (talk • contribs) 20:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was the middle name "Michael" that was possibly wrong. I googled the senator's name, and came up with several hits on 'William "Chip" Rogers' -- enough to leave it in place pending a more reliable source. If you're convinced it's wrong or feel it needs better sourcing, feel free to remove it. I presume "Chip" is not his birth name, and the first line of a biographical article typically begins with the subject's full name.

As for the mixup about Dowdy, that was my error: I misread the section, not realizing it referred to a primary. Thanks for catching my mistake.

The parts of your contributions that I removed were actually either unsourced, had an non-neutral, unencyclopedic tone or, as in the case of the names of all four of the senator's children, seemed unnecessary for a brief biographical article. For example, no source said the previous districts had been gerrymandered, and there were no references in any of the sources to the Senator's campaign slogans or his refusal of donations -- if such things are even noteworthy, which is probably a matter of opinion. -- Rrburke (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Man, again, you reverted back changes that I made that were factual. I.E. Tommy Williams that you keep linking too is a Texas politician, not a Georgian politician. Senator Rogers was never a legislator in TX. I have fixed this. But you refuse to accept that I know that of which I speak. --Peachpundit (talk) 03:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Fixed -- Rrburke (talk) 10:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Rich Cronin

TMZ says he has died: http://www.tmz.com/2010/09/08/lfo-singer-dies-leukemia-stroke-hospital/ Do you consider this reliable? NawlinWiki (talk) 00:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Well... close enough. -- Rrburke (talk) 00:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Jeannie Cho Lee‎ SPA edits

Hi Rrburke. Just to follow up on the report started on Jeannie Cho Lee‎ edits, the seeming SPA accounts Asianpalate (talk · contribs) and Aphk (talk · contribs) now seem to continue under Winestudent725 (talk · contribs). Not sure if this should be added in some way on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Asianpalate or left alone for the time being. Cheers. MURGH ^talk 12:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I noticed. I agree there's a strong circumstantial odour of socks, but it might be hard to interest an admin in it after I flubbed the initial report: I thought the block tag was {{Uw-spamublock}}, which puts the burden on the user to convince an admin that they won't repeat the spamming before being unblocked. It was actually {{Uw-softerblock}}, which only tells the user to get a new account. Which she did. Duh on me.

If she persists, you might think about reactivating the report. For the moment I'm inclined to just keep reverting the spam edits and hope she either comes into compliance or gives up. Anyway, I've place a COI warning on the user's talk page. -- Rrburke (talk) 13:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Right. Patience is good. Glad your eye is on it. Cheers. MURGH ^talk 13:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Why would I be "crypto-"?

This one was particularly amusing, since I'm a Southern Baptist turned Quaker: about as goyische as they come! Thanks for the revert. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Clerk elections

Hi, this is just to inform you that elections for Clerkship at WP:UAA have started on the talk page. You have been sent this message because you were recently active in handling submissions or discussions. Discussion is ongoing and you are encouraged to voice your opinion on the candidates.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Fridae'sDoom (talk) at 06:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC).

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user talk page! Wayne Olajuwon chat 00:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Mary Ellen Mark and Trunk Archive

Hello,

I have a few questions regarding entering data about artists/photographers and linking to galleries and agencies.

For example, the photographer Mary Ellen Mark has a Wikipedia page with external links to the gallery which represents her (Trish South Management). Trunk Archive is an image licensing agency which also represents Mary Ellen Mark, specifically when her work is published. Trish South Management deals with Mary Ellen Mark's work as it is sold to private clients, collections, and shown in museums and other galleries (and profits from these dealings). They also are responsible for displaying her work on their website and in their gallery, and this serves the purpose of exposing the public to the work of the photographer. Trunk Archive functions similarly by managing the rights and reproductions side of the photographer's work in publications. Trunk Archive also has an extensive number of Mary Ellen Mark's images on their website. Trish South Management and Trunk Archive function similarly and perform as representation for Mary Ellen Mark, however when we try to add a link to Trunk Archive, we have been warned that we are acting out of promoting our business.

It is true that in linking to Trunk Archive on the page of a photographer we represent, we are essentially self-promoting, and I understand that this is against the rules of Wikipedia. However, we do it for the same reasons that a gallery adds a link on the page of an artist they represent (such as Trish South Management in the case of Mary Ellen Mark), and numerous other artists (such as Robert Adams and Fraenkel Gallery.) The Wiki for photographer John Akehurst has a link to one of the agencies which represents him (Camilla Lowther Management) but Trunk Archive has been edited from his page, although we represent him, as well.

On the Trunk Archive Wikipedia page, the list of artists that the agency represents has been edited and removed from the page. If you look at the Wiki page for Matthew Marks Gallery, you can see a list of artists that they represent.

Can you clarify why Trunk Archive has been blacklisted and if it is for any reason other than self-promotion? It appears as if we have been singled out when we are in fact operating in the same ways as the galleries and agencies listed above.

Thank you for your insights.

Photophotophoto (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

question

i see various other companies with their pages and they are not deleted, but when i edit and add revalent content to my page i do not get chances to enter the info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abradley1981 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Most other pages are there for information about the company and usually those pages aren't promoting themselves as the page you currently edit does. If you do plan to keep it, you need to keep a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view in your edit rather then having a biased point of view.--IGeMiNix (talk) 23:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Those companies are not writing about themselves -- or if they are, they haven't been detected yet. The only kinds of edits you should be making about your own company are set out at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Editors who may have a conflict of interest. Please also see Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest. -- Rrburke (talk) 01:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

what in my post is biased?

All i have done is just add fact based info, and im not endorsing the company just stating location, founders, and info. can you please explain how i am promoting my company? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abradley1981 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Irrespective of the content of the article, you are attempting to enhance the company's public profile by creating an article about it on a top 100 website. Wikipedia is not a directory, not a webspace provider, and it's not a vehicle for promotion. Please see the links above and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. -- Rrburke (talk) 01:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

please explain??? has my post become unbiased? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abradley1981 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you bothered to follow any of the links I've pointed you to so you can try to understand what the problem is? -- Rrburke (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I have reviewed the links that you have given me, and reviewed them well, not i see that it is "unwise" to establish your own paost about your company but i am not able to ascertain as to WHO would past about a company that is on wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abradley1981 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

News_Embargo

Saw you reverted my addition to News_Embargo to remove the Embargo Watch/embargowatch.wordpress.com (as it is a "blog"). The site is notable: it is edited by the editor of Reuters Health (Ivan Oransky) and has been cited by major media outlets, including Columbia Journalism Review and NPR. It is an originally reported online news source solely dedicated to the topic of the entry.

If this doesn't meet the standards, it doesn't meet the standards. But it's not a personal blog and it's precisely on-topic. --Bbr53636 (talk) 21:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I note that you've taken the issue up on the talk page -- a good idea. Please have a look at WP:ELNO, which recommends avoiding "[l]inks to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority." If you're satisfied it meets the criteria for an exception, I have no objection to you re-adding it. You may want to put a brief explanation in the edit summary to reduce the chances of someone else reverting it. -- Rrburke (talk) 22:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Will follow your advice and re-add. I assume the fact that it's a Wordpress-hosted blog throws red flags. But the site is a recognized authority and the furthest thing from a fansite. --Bbr53636 (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Re:Upper Beaches

I also live in this area, and I've heard the term Upper Beach(es) used with some regularity. As search of newspaper archives finds that the term has been used at least since the 1950s. For the neighbourhood maps I used six different maps to determine accepted boundaries. Four of them include the Upper Beach(es): The City of Toronto communities map, Toronto Star, Toronto Public Library, and ToBuilt. The two exceptions are the City of Toronto demographic map that call the area East End-Danforth and Toronto Neighbourhood Guide that call the entire area the Beaches. - SimonP (talk) 03:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)