User talk:CharlieEchoTango/Archive 4

The Signpost: 26 September 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Sun News
I take it you don't care much for Sun News.Loyalist Cannons (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not about caring for Sun News (I tune in to The Source when I can), it's about caring for Wikipedia. This is not the place for advocacy, and as much as I agree with you, your addition was worded in a way that covers only one side of the story. The use of "it is worth noting" is also a red flag; according to whom is it worth noting? If it's according to an uninvolved credible media outlet, then it may very well be relevant to the article, just make sure to accurately and fairly represent the two sides of the story. For example, you could write "Sun News has accused Bell of [...]; however Bell denies these allegations [...]" and then source it to a third-party publication (not Bell nor Sun as they are both involved in this dispute). I encourage you to read the policy on neutrality, which is a fundamental pillar of this project. Best regards, — CharlieEchoTango  — 23:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Licensing
Hey, Charlie. You helped me with the Canadian Army badge, remember? Well, I was wondering if you could help me with this images? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Picnicface.png and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Picnicface_Cast.jpg. The first one is a screenshot like this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TheOffice%28US%292-01.jpg, and the second link is a promotional image like this one : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_office_US.jpg. Could you help me with the copyrights? You help would be much appreciated. Spaceshuttlediscovery (talk) 23:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey Spaceshuttlediscovery! The first one is inelligible for copyright as it only consists of simple text, so it can stay on Commons (I changed its license accordingly). The second one cannot be on Commons, as it is a picture and all rights are reserved (or likely to be) by the copyright owner. I marked it as a copyright violation on Wikimedia Commons; but you can upload it locally (on the English Wikipedia) under a fair use claim.
 * You can upload the file locally by clicking here, and then add a fair use rationale. A fair use rationale is needed so as to explain why a copyrighted image is being used on Wikipedia; you can copy the one from File:The office US.jpg, just remember to change the parameters (article, etc).
 * One thing you should never do is claim that you own the images (I know it was not intentional), but in the descriptions,  refers to the actual author of the work, not the uploader, and you cannot release the works under a free license because you do not have permission from the copyright owner to do so (if you do, then my mistake). The other thing you should never do is upload non-free content to Wikimedia Commons. As a general rule, the vast majority of pictures you find on the internet are not free, and should never be uploaded to the Commons. Some (like the one above or like logos, etc) can be uploaded on Wikipedia directly under the non-free content criteria. When you are not sure, it's better to ask before uploading though. In the future you can do so here. Let me know if I can be of more assistance. Best, —  CharlieEchoTango  — 23:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, thank you so much. I will ask before uploading from now on. Thanks again for your help, and I would very much appreciate it if you could check the new image in case I did something wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cast_of_Picnicface.jpg . Thanks and have a pleasant evening! Spaceshuttlediscovery (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Non-free images should always be low-resolution, so I uploaded a smaller version. Otherwise everything is now ok, and the Commons version should be deleted shortly. Cheers, — CharlieEchoTango  — 23:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Once again, thank you. I was just trying to open Inkscape and failing at it. Have a great day! Spaceshuttlediscovery (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Well aren't you late, dear Signpost! — CharlieEchoTango  — 05:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 October 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 October 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Crown Copyright and DND Imagery
The Canadian Forces freely distributes it's imagery, provided that the Canadian Forces are credited as the author. It is normal to see "please credit CF Photo" embedded in the caption information of CF photos.

Under Canadian copyright law, any intellectual property, such as imagery, that is produced by anyone while on their employer's time belongs to their employer, regardless of who takes the picture and who owns the camera or storage medium. With this in mind, theoretically no picture of any Canadian Forces activity could be replaced with a free image on Wikipedia, as the Crown holds the copyright on every image any CF member ever takes while on duty. And, if you are deployed or working, you're on duty.

I have filled out the fair use tag information for media_escort.jpg and re-loaded it.

Cheers!

Dave — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kprtqrf06 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Dave. The problem is that the CF does not "freely" distribute its imagery. Free implies that it can be used by anyone for any purposes. If you compare the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license and the CF licensing terms, you will see two major incompatibilities : CF images cannot be modified or altered and thus derivatives cannot be created (a key provision in all free licenses), and commercial use is subject to restrictive terms and conditions (also a key provisions of all free licenses). While it is a permissive license by most standards, it is incompatible with any of the commonly accepted free-content license. This is why the CF on Flickr do not use the CC-BY-SA license. As for the works belonging to their employer, yes this is the case, and this is why, being a Crown copyrighted work, the photo cannot be used either under a free license (which is not compatible, as stated above) or under a fair-use rationale (because what the work depicts could be replaced by a freely licensed depiction). Logos and some other files (like historical pictures) are exempted per the fair use provisions permitted in US laws, and used in a very limited way on Wikipedia, which is a repository of primarily free content. I hope this makes it more clear. Thank you — CharlieEchoTango  — 20:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

So then this picture shouldn't be there?
Canadian soldiers during Operation Medusa.jpg

The original CF image number is: AR2006-P005-0055.jpg (My photos were AR2006-MXX and AR2007-MXX when I was in Afghanistan and I was across the road when this shot was taken).

This whole copyright thing seems to be a tough nut to crack. A Crown copyright image can be reproduced but not altered, so, with certain exceptions such as badges and logos, that means that nothing with a Canadian Crown copyright can be in Wikipedia. Have I got it right?

Cheers!

Dave — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kprtqrf06 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The file you reference may indeed be a violation of the terms. No source is given, if the uploader was indeed a CF employee then the image is Crown copyrighted. I have started a deletion discussion (accessible here). On the other hand, if the creator of the work was a civilian contractor, then they do own the image. If they were with the US forces, the file is in the public domain, etc. As for the other thing you said, this is exactly right and unfortunate. All Crown copyrights uploaded to Wikipedia must fall within the boundaries of WP:NFCC. Best,— CharlieEchoTango  — 21:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

AR2006-P005 0055
English/Anglais AR2006-P005 0055 14 Sept 2006 Kandahar, Afghanistan

Soldiers of Alpha Company(A Coy) conduct operations in the Panjwaii District of Kandahar Province as part of Operation MEDUSA.

A Coy is from 2nd Battalion, Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry (2PPCLI) based out of CFB Shilo, MB, and is part of the Task Force 3-06 Battle Group (TF 3-06 BG), which is centred around 1st Battalion, The Royal Canadian Regiment based out of CFB Petawawa, ON.

Op MEDUSA was conducted with an aim to clear insurgent forces from the Panjwaii District. TF 3-06 BG was the main manoeuvre unit in Op MEDUSA, which also had significant participation from US, Dutch and UK air and ground forces, as well as the Afghan National Army and the Afghan National Police.

Op MEDUSA commenced on 2 September 2006. Task Force Afghanistan is part of Canada’s contribution to the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. This mission is about Canadians and their international partners helping Afghans rebuild their lives, their families, their communities and their nation. Canadian operations will work to improve the quality of life of Afghans by providing a secure environment in which Afghan society can recover from more than 25 years of conflict.

The Canadian Forces (CF) contribution in Afghanistan comprises about 2,000 soldiers, most of whom serve with Task Force Afghanistan at Kandahar Airfield and Camp Nathan Smith in Kandahar City. Additional personnel are assigned to Kabul, various military headquarters, and civilian organizations.

Photo by: Sgt Lou Penney TFA OP ATHENA Imagery Technician — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kprtqrf06 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the confirmation. It is indeed under Crown copyright, I will post this on the deletion discussion. — CharlieEchoTango  — 21:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Jack Layton
Why did you cut the additions about the influence of Charles Taylor and idealism on Layton? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmeynell (talk • contribs) 14:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I did no such thing. Your edits are still in the article. My last edit was to revert vandalism. — CharlieEchoTango  — 17:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

re: forgetting signature
Thanks for the reminder. Just slipped my mind last time. Ohspite (talk) 05:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Jack Layton
You're right, my apologies. Somehow they weren't showing up and I tried to figure out how they were deleted. I'm still very new to this.

Cheers, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmeynell (talk • contribs) 15:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Comd RCN
Hi CET,

Ref your message on my talk page about CMS/Comd RCN, MARGEN 036-11 (regret I can't find a link to it that's open to the rest of the world, but I'm looking at it now) indicates that the title CMS has been "replaced" by Comd RCN, which is the new combined title for both the commander of the command and the institutional head of service, so both Comd MARCOM and CMS have been merged into Comd RCN. Geoff NoNick (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Re your page. — CharlieEchoTango  — 18:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 October 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Office Hours
Hey ! I'm just dropping you a message because you've commented on (or expressed an interest in) the Article Feedback Tool in the past. If you don't have any interest in it any more, ignore the rest of this message :).

If you do still have an interest or an opinion, good or bad, we're holding an office hours session tomorrow at 19:00 GMT/UTC in #wikimedia-office to discuss completely changing the system. In attendance will be myself, Howie Fung and Fabrice Florin. All perspectives, opinions and comments are welcome :).

I appreciate that not everyone can make it to that session - it's in work hours for most of North and South America, for example - so if you're interested in having another session at a more America-friendly time of day, leave me a message on my talkpage. I hope to see you there :). Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry not to see you at the session; the logs are here. In the meantime, the Foundation has started developing a new version of the tool which dispenses with the idea of "ratings", amongst other things. Take a look at WP:AFT5 and drop any comments, criticisms or suggestions you have on the talkpage - I'd be very grateful to hear your opinions. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Office Hours
Is that a "no, I don't want to take part"? :P. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean archiving my talk page without replying? I thought it was an automated message, sorry. You're right that I don't really want to take part in such discussions, unless I feel I have something important and constructive to say (which I don't) or I have a question (which I don't) or have a lot of time to devote to endless discussions (which I don't). So long as I can disable the feature and it doesn't impact my selfish self, I don't really mind. Quite frankly I think the WMF, although it has every right to do so, takes the wrong approach by forcing such new features down the throat of Wikipedians without consulting the community first or at least does a lousy job at explaining and announcing such changes in a central location. As for the AFT specifically, I think that editors (old or new, IPs or users alike) who want to give feedback and voice specific concerns can do it on the talk page, and that anonymous, immediate, youtube-like "feedback" from the general public is unwanted and out of scope for an encyclopedia; that being said I also think version 5 is a major improvement from the rating model. Good luck in whatever you guys are attempting to do. Best, — CharlieEchoTango  — 22:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We're trying to clear it past the community - that's why I'm notifying people we want to discuss it :P. If you read the proposal, you'll see it's for allowing a method of posting comments to the talkpage (or a subpage thereof). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was referring specifically to the first implementation of the AFT. I think the new proposal is not so bad, though I don't think it is necessary either. Making it easier and "immediate" to provide "feedback" invites comments that are not necessarily constructive (such as politically motivated, or the "Justin Bieber is gay LOL" type comment). Maybe I'll voice this concern on the proposal's talk page if it hasn't been already. Thanks for notifying people, by the way. Best, — CharlieEchoTango  — 22:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Okie-dokes :). Hope to be seeing you there soon. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar
Hello Charlie,

Thanks very much -- it's been too long since I've received one of these. ;) I'll move it to my user page soon.

And I agree about the correspondence; I was just thinking of this earlier today. CJCurrie (talk) 00:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * :) Keep up the good work! — CharlieEchoTango  — 01:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

My posting of messages on everyones page I could find
Yes I did. First let me say I love the poppy. There was a buring on november 1st in USA of clearly not americans. Lest we forget indeed.

Now the reason is in the post I made: "== Help == Please help me save the pages Robotics Design and ANAT technology. I am being assaulted by people that make accusations and votes but present no worthy evidence. Democracy in this case is that of a raccoon and a fox voting to eat a squirrel, and this is unlawful, unfair, unreasonable, and I need help. Thanks.Canadiansteve (talk) 02:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)"

The pages I made are being nominated by people that have no idea about the topic. They are opinionated, in my opinion. My only defence is to attract others, and get them to present counter opinions, because there has not been a shread of evidence presented yet, simply accusations. If I am to be outvoted by a couple folks who do not know what they are talking about, or keep their reasons secret (unlikely), then I intend to have other people make diffrent demands, with of course the same knowledge of the topic, and while I would like them to present evidence, clearly that will not happen, so what am I to do?

One of the pages I heavily contributed to was made years ago, and now it too will be deleted, to the detriment of the many students who learned about it through wikipedia, and had that technology guide their career, and the many that are to learn, and can do the same. Education is being presented as advertisment, without evidence of course, except for obscurely saying "its one big propotional brochure" which is absurd. Tell me how I can beat a wikipedian in a debate with evidence against their lack thereof and votes, and win, and Ill do that. This is the only way I see now, and though fighting fire with fire is a risk, doing nothing has shown me will never have the evidence I present get its way on wikipedia.


 * Bonjour. I'm somewhat sympathetic to your situation, but you are hardly being assaulted by other editors : there is a process in place to determine the suitability of articles for Wikipedia, and as far as I can see it's being followed in the spirit intended. What I can say with fair confidence is that most of the people you 'spam' with your help request are going to be more annoyed than anything by your message, so if I were you I would stop before someone calls you out for being disruptive.
 * As for the articles, I have only one thing to say: if they are truly notable subjects, which I doubt, they will be recreated by someone who doesn't have a conflict of interest. If you can counter the arguments made in the deletion discussions, by all means do it and make your case for independent editors to agree or disagree with, but the heated rhetoric and the canvassing will get you nowhere and is guaranteed to put more editors against you than on your side. Best of luck — CharlieEchoTango  — 02:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Bonjour mon ami. If I wanted to, I would have ten ETS students come here and write the page the same way I did. When I made the page, I had two, and was accused of sock puppetery, so they said it was best if I do everything, and I write for a living, so they were sure I'd do best. The page for Robotics Design In french was written by one such student, under my account. We prefer the COI to speedy deletion.
 * Notability has taken precedence over encyclopedic. The technology is quite notable, though not so well known to wikipedia contributors. There are several PHDs made by simply quoting and proposing more uses of ANAt technology, and far more masters degrees. That these people do not have the time to come here is not an argument for deletion. Bogus pages get a hearty following, but are deleted for not being notable or nonsense. Regardless of the following, this technology has generated tens of millions of dollars making it useful, and the company has been directly and indirectly involved in making hundreds of millions of dollars, maing it notable. The awards, media mentions and otherwise are a bonus. I have stopped being disruptive, and fully expect you to delete the page, so I will spend the day tommorow, while my wife is at home, at the home of a university student that has worked with this technology, and he will post the same exact thing. Or is it a conflict of interest if someone knows about it?Canadiansteve (talk) 02:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Not sure if your "you" was referring to the community or to me, if the latter let me clarify I am not an administrator and thus cannot delete pages. I'm not going to follow up on the arguments you make for notability on this page, but you're welcome to make them on the deletion discussion page (I see that you've done that already). Independent editors should come by in the next seven days to provide their opinions on the notability of the topic, and an administrator will then determine if there is consensus for deletion, consensus for keep, or no consensus (keep by default). As for your question, it would be highly inappropriate to re-post the same content if the page is deleted, and such recreations are subject to speedy deletion, whether it was you, your student or anyone else that made it. You should also know that the articles are not being deleted because you have a conflict of interest, but because their suitability for an encyclopedia is being challenged. Bonne soirée — CharlieEchoTango  — 03:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Absolument, their sustainability in an encyclopedia should be the only focus. My connection should not be. The same content should be published if it is encyclopedic by another person, if it me the community has a problem with. My issue is that most votes are made without presenting evidence, or have a problem with me, or are a blantant insult. This is a debate. A debate is point vs. point, not vote vs. vote. If voting was the way pages are maintaines, the page on Isreal would be anti-semetic. Justin Beiber would be next in line to Zeus. I am worried that all my points are simply being ignored, and that voters are refering to points Ive refuted in their votes, without re-refutation. If reason is given to me beyond debate why this page should not exist on wikipedia, I am 100% for deleting them. But they are encyclopedic, they are rational, they are informative, they are neutral, they benefit education, they benefit wikipedia, and they benefit their readers, as was in the case of those that discovered the technology here and went on to do PHDs while referencing it. When I first joined wikipedia, I had over 10 pages I inteded to improve or make, in regards to shampoo, hemp, the tucker automobiles, cattle, and several other topics i could remember. Needless to say, after the first page, robotics design, I realized that my time spent would multiply by ten in debating everything I do, so I consider it more beneficial to educate those around me, instead of fighting the "community". This one page however those that already know about it want it online for others to show them their ideas in regards to it, among many other reasons, but I should not have to debate that. If it encyclopedic, it must be verified. If it is neutral, it should be here, and should not be taken down by voters who reach concensus against the facts. Get others to help, too, please, and restore my faith in something I scarely understand how others I know swear by.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve (talk • contribs) 04:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Silliness
...of which I partook in, and argued poorly, is stuff I should be ashamed of and glad you quickly corrected my mistake. So thanks! Cheers! LoveUxoxo (talk) 09:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 November2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Swagbucks Article
Thank you for reviewing the Swagbucks.com article that I submitted. However, i'm a little confused about the comment that the sources in the article are not-notable or spam/self published. The articles that are referenced are major outlets such as CBS News (BNET), New York Times, Billboard, Loyalty 360. If you do a Google search for Swagbucks you can find lots of sources referencing it as a reputable and legitimate site. What else can I include to get it approved? Thanks so much for your help StanleyJean05 (talk) 03:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Lee McQueen article
I appreciate that there is already a Lee McQueen submission under 'The Apprentice' series 4 section but as my submission is a more detailed and in depth submission I felt it deserved its own page, much like other Apprentice candidates such as Tim Campbell and Raef Bjayou. How would my submission be allowed on its own page? Your help is appreciated Ash --AshRTA (talk) 09:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AshRTA
 * ✅ CharlieEchoTango (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
Hi, Thanks for the info about conflict of interest. I'll keep that in mind. Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrangHo KWS (talk • contribs) 09:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Swagbucks Article
Swagbucks Article

Just following up on this, have not gotten a response...

Thank you for reviewing the Swagbucks.com article that I submitted. However, i'm a little confused about the comment that the sources in the article are not-notable or spam/self published. The articles that are referenced are major outlets such as CBS News (BNET), New York Times, Billboard, Loyalty 360. If you do a Google search for Swagbucks you can find lots of sources referencing it as a reputable and legitimate site. What else can I include to get it approved? Thanks so much for your help StanleyJean05 (talk) 03:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by StanleyJean05 (talk • contribs)
 * Some references are okay, but most of the other ones are spammy. Here's how the reference section looks when converted from bare URLs :


 * Quite frankly it looks like a list of links one would find on a spam site. Now if I go through references individually, here's what I see:


 * The bottom line is that out of 17 sources, only three are acceptable, perhaps four with . This is not enough to show the subject has received non-trivial coverage in reliable and third-party publications. Such sources are important to establish the notability of the topic, and to properly verify the statements made. See the guide on how to cite sources, and more importantly the policy on reliable sources. Thank you - CharlieEchoTango (talk) 23:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and feedback. I understand your perspective on some of these articles, a couple others I would disagree with but I respect what you are aiming at, and have gone ahead and removed the questionable sources and added new ones (MSN, Fox Business, CNET, PC World & SoCalTech) that would be more relevant. I would appreciate it if you can take a look, I've resubmitted it using {subst:submit} tag. Thanks again. StanleyJean05 (talk) 03:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ CharlieEchoTango (talk) 04:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you might look again...
The original article was indeed poorly written, poorly sourced, and had a biased point of view. I've just spent some time using a sandblaster to rewrite the article... to remove any sense of promotion, make it more neutral and encyclopedic, and to add suitable sources. While I personally do not agree with the filmmaker's method of trying to equate the Holocaust with women's rights and abortion, our inclusion requirements require verifiability, and not truth. Perhaps you might stop by 180 Documentary, look at how it was when when firest nominated and how it now appears after some work. I believe, whether we might like the topic or not, WP:NF is now shown as being met. Best regards,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not even going to look at WP:NF because your work shows that the topic passes WP:GNG. In light of your comments, I feel compelled to clarify that my delete !vote was not motivated by anything else than the lack of substantial sources, something a quick research initially confirmed. Thanks to your work however, I was proven wrong and I am more than happy to go change my !vote to an unequivocal keep. Best regards, CharlieEchoTango (talk) 05:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you right back. And I'm happy to grant that the original version was a real stinker, and had suitable souces not existed and had I not been able to whip it into shape, I'd be calling for a delete myself. Cheers.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 November 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Guidance with Sow-Hsin Chen article
Thank you for reviewing the page that I submitted on Sow-Hsin Chen. I am very new to Wikipedia and would sincerely like to improve the quality of this article, but I could use some guidance. Are you willing to advise me, or can you please point me in the appropriate direction? Many thanks. Rubinm (talk) 12:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi there, and welcome to Wikipedia! I appreciate that you want to improve the article. It is well sourced and of acceptable quality but does have some issues, for example the article includes wording that is not neutral in tone, e.g. "as a devoted educator of over 45 years", "his life-long scientific contributions", etc. These statements may all be true, but are worded in a way that promote the subject more than they inform the reader. See WP:WORDS.
 * Of course, there are many other ways to improve the article, for example you could take a look at the grading scheme to see what it takes to bring it to a better level; some tips can be found at Article development and at Writing better articles. If you want, you can also submit your article for a peer review, which is a great way to get advice from fellow Wikipedians. I hope this helps, and don't hesitate to ask if you have more questions! Best regards, CharlieEchoTango (talk) 04:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Grossmanattack.jpg
Thanks for fixing it -- I have a Ph.D., have been editing Wikipedia for 7 years, and have uploaded hundreds of images to Wikimedia Commons, but I really couldn't master all the petty-bureaucratic nonsense and jump through the various arbitrary hoops necessary to fill out the fair-use forms complying with all goldenrod triplicate bureaucratic requirements (and User:Moe_Epsilon wasn't much help)... AnonMoos (talk) 07:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem! :) CharlieEchoTango (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Title Edit
Thanks for your help with the redirect/title edit. Much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TylerJThomas87 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem. Welcome to Wikipedia! CharlieEchoTango (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 November 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Type-1 OWA operators
This shouldn't have been declined; it is not WP:NOT. I've now accepted it.  Chzz  ► 11:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite right, thanks. Cheers! CharlieEchoTango (talk) 06:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Nova Scotia Barristers' Society for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nova Scotia Barristers' Society 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 Articles for deletion/Nova Scotia Barristers' Society 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Night of the Big Wind talk  18:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Good luck!
Good luck on your RFA, my friend. So far, so good! :D — G FOLEY   F OUR!  — 01:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :-) CharlieEchoTango (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to wait for more comments and questions, after which I'll review them all, and then I'm fairly certain I'll cast my first RfA !vote, WITH GREAT PLEASURE, for you. Best wishes LoveUxoxo (talk) 05:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Walter Editing.
Ĥi, I have supported your RFA but I wish you to take careful clue in dealing with troublesome users in the future. Your recent edit summary usage here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walter_Natynczyk&action=history and as cited in your RFA you removed tags from an article you were editing shows you may have some attitude, per se. I just want you to continue using clue, and don't let stress take over. Thanks for handling my question mishap in your RFA. I see you must double space, then use a semicolon before additional questions and leave an A for answer mark. RFA Guy (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I appreciate you coming forward with this concern, but I'm not sure where is the issue in the diff above? I understand perception is everything, but let me assure you there is no attitude here, only a concise edit summary (and not a troublesome user, either, though I don't know why he bolds the engagements, I'll see if I can ask him directly). I think you may have misunderstood the second one, which is correcting a typo made by me. ;) Cheers, CharlieEchoTango (talk) 22:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not a big deal really, I'm just letting you know of the edit summary usages. It's not a bid deal or I would not've supported. Best of luck to you! RFA Guy (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the second one as you were right, best of luck! RFA Guy (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 06:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Larry Rosen Wiki page
Hi,

I submitted a request for a username change like you suggested. Is there anything else I can do to fix up the Larry Rosen page so that it will be approved. It is fairly neutral information, just a short biography. Is there anything there that could be seen as biased in anyway?

Let me know what I can do.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarryRosenPR (talk • contribs) 14:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Re ,
 * Hello JDuva1, thanks for requesting a change in username, it should be processed shortly. Please note however that you will still not be exempted from our guidelines on conflict of interest. As for the article, the issue was not neutrality or bias, but the lack of third-party or quality sources that demonstrate notability of the subject, see the general notability guideline. That said, I have gone ahead and fixed that. However, in the process I discovered that the article was taken verbatim from the primary source cited : http://www.harryrosen.com/eng/aboutUs/biographies.cfm. This is a copyright violation and is not tolerated on Wikipedia. I understand you work for the company, and it is technically yours to distribute, but please mind that our content is licensed under a free license, which is incompatible with . If you wish to donate the material to Wikipedia (and to the world), please explicitely release the content under a free license (WP:CC-BY-SA for example) at the source page, or follow the instructions outlined at the declaration of consent for all enquiries. I have rewritten the article and I will 'approve it' later today when I have the technical ability to hide the old revisions, in the meantime feel free to work on the article to improve it further - in words that are not written elsewhere. If you have anymore questions or need clarification about the above, please do not hesitate to ask. Best regards, CharlieEchoTango (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ CharlieEchoTango (talk) 06:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Ethical Oil and Peter Kent
Hi CharlieEchoTango...

Thank you for the advice on editing. "Hello Kurt Dundy. I'm notifying you that I have reverted to of your recent additions, [1] and [2], because they are original synthesis. The CBC source does not make the contrast between the ethical oil argument and the arms sales, and doing so is original research. I would also suggest you have a read at the neutral point of view policy; Wikipedia is not the place to push a particular point of view. Please also mind the biographies of living persons policy: making a negatively-worded statement by a political opponent without in-line attribution is not acceptable. You are welcome to include additions that are not undue, are neutrally worded and appropriately referenced (see reliable sources). Thank you, and if you have any questions, please do ask! :-) CharlieEchoTango (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)"

I do have some questions on your POV.

1. The ethical oil book is based on the premise that many of the OPEC nations are guilty of various unethical acts against their populations. The premise that Canadian Oil Sands production is "ethical" is based on the argument our government does not do these things to our people. I think it fair to say that it is not original synthesis to draw the conclusion that if the reason you qualify as "ethical" is you don't do this to your own people. You also don't profit by selling weapons to the countries who are doing it? It is a matter of fact we sell millions of dollars of weapons to the nations that are accused of unethical behaviour in the book. How can Canadian oil be ethical because the Canadian Government doesn't do certain things to the Canadian population, but quite happily sells the weapons to the nations who do and then call them "unethical" afterwards?

2. I'll make the modification to include specific references to Elizabeth May who quite clearly outlines the "distortions of truth" (http://greenparty.ca/blogs/7/2011-11-28/fact-check-kyoto-distortions) It's a much clearer argument then to go item by item with references to the Kyoto Protocol, though I'm willing to do that as well. A BLP policy does not protect the person from factual, referenced, public statements they have made during the course of their political career. BLP's are not puff pieces, though they as you say do need to be written in a neutral tone. If a politician in this case Peter Kent uses a popular term coined in a book, (in this case the ethical oil book) there is a specific intention to attach the arguments within the book to his use of the phrase. As above I think it a valid point to highlite that the very reason Canadian oil sands oil is ethical is because the Canadian government is not committing the various acts described in the book on their people. It is a fact though that the Canadian government does sell weapons to these nations. How can we be ethical in our treatment of our own people, but say another nation is unethical and sell them weapons??? There is no original synthesis here.

Thoughts? Kurt Dundy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurt Dundy (talk • contribs) 19:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey Kurt Dundy, thanks for replying!


 * Re Q1
 * There are two wrongs here:


 * 1) The claim is a correlation (or contrast) the CBC source did not make. When you argue that because Canada sells weapons and thus lacks the moral ground on the ethical oil argument, it's a conclusion you draw, and it is the textbook definition of original synthesis: correlating two facts, but with no source cited for the resulting synthesis itself. It's akin to saying " ".
 * 2) The claim is made from an authoritative and engaged perspective. You added " " - a) this is your opinion, b) it is not the role of an encyclopedia to say something is 'definitley (sic) questionable', especially without sourcing it to a reliable source that actually makes that claim (again, the CBC source did not). I highly suggest you read WP:NPOV, which is a fundamental pillar of our project (see also what Wikipedia is not).
 * Possible solution: Did someone notable actually made the claim and was subsequently reported in reliable, third-party sources as making the claim? If so, then it may be included. E.g. " " That said, always beware WP:UNDUE.


 * Re Q2
 * There is no policy against factual public statements. There is a policy against negative claims on living persons which are not supported by reliable sources (and no, a political opponent is not a reliable source). Consider these two examples :


 * See the difference in wording, relevance and presentation? Has Liz May's outline of Peter Kent's "distortion of the truth" been reported in a reliable, third-party media? If not, then why is it relevant to the article? Can you imagine what our articles would look like if we added everything political opponents say about each other? We would have 3 megabytes page on every politician in Canada. Again, see WP:UNDUE. In any case, presenting negative content as fact and sourcing it to a highly-partisan source is not okay.
 * See the difference in wording, relevance and presentation? Has Liz May's outline of Peter Kent's "distortion of the truth" been reported in a reliable, third-party media? If not, then why is it relevant to the article? Can you imagine what our articles would look like if we added everything political opponents say about each other? We would have 3 megabytes page on every politician in Canada. Again, see WP:UNDUE. In any case, presenting negative content as fact and sourcing it to a highly-partisan source is not okay.
 * See the difference in wording, relevance and presentation? Has Liz May's outline of Peter Kent's "distortion of the truth" been reported in a reliable, third-party media? If not, then why is it relevant to the article? Can you imagine what our articles would look like if we added everything political opponents say about each other? We would have 3 megabytes page on every politician in Canada. Again, see WP:UNDUE. In any case, presenting negative content as fact and sourcing it to a highly-partisan source is not okay.


 * The bottom line is quite simple, really: claims must not be presented from an engaged perspective (e.g. Wikipedia doesn't tell the world that something is definitely questionable) and must be sourced adequately to reliable, third-party sources (to show relevance and to make the claim verifiable). This is especially true for biographies of living persons.


 * Again : WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTHESIS/WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. Thanks for your time, and I hope you have a great day! CharlieEchoTango (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I would remove the statement sourced to "Doe, Jane (31 February 2000) Coalition against fake gays says Jack "distorting the truth". Page A3, National Post" - page A3 is blank! :P → Σ  τ  c . 06:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hah! Funny :-P CharlieEchoTango (talk) 06:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful RfA!
Congratulations on successfully passing through the gauntlet of RfA. Your bits have been twiddled and you are now a newly-minted administrator on Wikipedia. Please refer often to the policies relevant to any action you may take, and feel free to drop me a line if you have any questions. Welcome to the cabal Again, congratulations! ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 05:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on your successful RfA. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  05:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :-) CharlieEchoTango (talk) 05:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Well thank you very much for the demotion, good sir! (and since I won't be thankspamming, a special thank you to you !voters who watch my page). :-) CharlieEchoTango (talk) 05:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So it was YOU who edit conflicted me! You must be desysopped :P Congrats on your demotion. Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 05:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Now, as your first act as an admin, could you kindly send CAT:PEND through Special:Nuke? (joking, of course) Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  06:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Well done! A very well played RfA... You might find it useful (if you've not already done it) to set up an admin dashboard page. Mine is fairly simple, with templates as so:

deletion log

Cheers,  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  07:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I don't think I'll need the dashboard (has a page for itself), but might post adminstats to my user page eventually. Cheers, CharlieEchoTango (talk) 07:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me for breaking up the merriment, but can someone puhleez take care of this? Thanks  – Lionel (talk) 10:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting move light green.png This noticeboard is for the lulz only. Consider taking this report to the suggestion box. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Congrats, and welcome to the ranks of the caretakers -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! CharlieEchoTango (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Ethical Oil and Peter Kent
1. The ethical oil book is based on the premise that many of the OPEC nations are guilty of various unethical acts against their populations. The premise that Canadian Oil Sands production is "ethical" is based on the argument the Canadian government does not do these things to people in Canada. I think it fair to say that it is not original synthesis to draw the conclusion that if the reason you qualify as "ethical" is you don't do this to your own people. You also don't profit by selling weapons to the countries who you accuse in the book of doing it? It is a matter of fact we sell millions of dollars of weapons to the nations that are accused of unethical behaviour in the book. How can Canadian oil be ethical because the Canadian Government doesn't do certain things to the Canadian population, but quite happily sells the weapons to the nations who do and then call them "unethical" afterwards?

I think it a fair critical point to highlite this vs the content of the book.

I'll begin to list supporting papers and articles here.

1) The G8: global arms exporters Failing to prevent irresponsible arms transfers

(P.6) ..."Considering the extensive nature of human rights violations13 in Saudi Arabia, it is surprising that Saudi Arabia is one of only 16 countries to which automatic firearms can be exported according to Canadian regulations.14 The G8 global arms exporters, Control Arms Briefing Paper, June 2005 7.  The other countries are Australia, Belgium, Botswana, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, the UK and the USA. In March 2005, Finland, Latvia, Poland and Portugal were added to the list..." The current version of the export list is available on this site and does include Saudi Arabia as per the above paper dated 2005.

2) Canadian Government Report from CSIS, I'm looking for newer versions of the same report that are unclassified.

ARCHIVED: Commentary No. 33: The Contemporary Armaments Trade

..."Certainly, strong elements of public opinion in the West appear to be opposed to the export of arms in principle, on ethical grounds. However, most governments throughout the world have long considered arms transfers to be a perfectly legitimate instrument of their foreign policy, at once beneficial to both supplier and recipient."

..."In the current climate, however, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that most arms suppliers are driven most of the time by purely economic motives."...

3) A related news article from the UK

A Point of View: Why euphemism is integral to modern warfare

"...So, even as Gaddafi's forces were being destroyed in bizarre battles that pitted British weapons against other British weapons, plans were afoot to sell still more of the same to authoritarian regimes in the Middle East - such as Saudi Arabia and Bahrain - with documented histories of human rights abuses."

"...But why shouldn't we apply the same domestic analogy to the conduct of states themselves? If we consider a government that attacks its own citizenry to be on a par with a homicidal maniac who stabs his wife, then what does that make the government/person who supplies the knife other than an accessory to uxoricide?..."

"...Absolutely, let's call a spade a spade, a gun a gun, missile a missile, a cluster bomb a child-killer and a Tactica armoured car a means of brutal civilian repression when it's deployed by the Saudis to support the undemocratic government in Bahrain."...

I do not think it is a stretch that to claim you provide "ethical" oil alternative, this must be backed up with more than just domestic policy fluff. That a valid critisism of this "ethical" title is linked to the foreign policies of the Canadian government particularily when they connect weapons sales to regimes used to highlite the disparities between how governments treat their own populations. The connection is made by CSIS, BBC, Various International NGO's etc...

I'm not sure how to cite the above references... any help would be appretiated I'm still a rank rookie at this. Kurt Dundy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC).


 * You're not getting the point. Your sources are valid to reference the fact that weapons are bad, and that Canada sells weapons. But nowhere does your sources say that Canada's argument for ethical oil is hypocritical because they sell weapons. Find me a source that correlates the two and we'll be talking, but so far the above is irrelevant. Please read and understand my message above and WP:SYNTHESIS. Best, CharlieEchoTango (talk) 07:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Unable to create a new page for Polaris Software
Hi,

I was trying to add a new page for company called Polaris Software, which is a Financial Technology company headquartered in Chennai, India. For some reason, I could not add the page.

I am thinking of page similar to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infosys

Please suggest how do I proceed.

Regards, Harry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.162.217 (talk) 08:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I have deleted the article as unambiguous copyright infringement; because it was deleted twice prior, I have also protected the page from creation. Please go through WP:WIZ and submit your article for review with the Articles for Creation process. See also our policy on copyright, and, if relevant, the conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you CharlieEchoTango (talk) 08:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Accusations of racism by Peter Mackay
I noticed you did a revert on Mackay page. I left your reversion intact despite the obvious conflict of interest that you appear to be strong conservative (assuming your good faith) I've voted conservative but I'd best describe myself as swing. I have very little faith in the claims of Harper (and Mackay) at the moment precisely because their handling of the name dispute between Greece and the former Yugoslav republic.

As a Greek Canadian (which I realize puts me in a conflict of interest on the issue but please consider my words in good faith as I do yours) I know for a fact many Greek Canadians see Mackay as prejudicial towards Greeks because of his seeming blindness over the recent changing ethnic narrative of the citizens of the former Yugoslavia into decendents of ancient Macedonians (see Giant Alexander statue). Again here is what their diplomats used to assure Canadians (and others) only a few years ago. (feel free to confirm the quotes)

'We are not related to the northern Greeks who produced leaders like Philip and Alexander the Great. We are a Slav people and our language is closely related to Bulgarian.' - FYROM´s Ambassador to Canada Gyordan Veselinov, Ottawa Citizen Newspaper, February 24 1999

"We are Slavs who came to this area in the sixth century ... We are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians" - Kiro Gligorov, FYROM's first President, Foreign Information Service Daily Report, Eastern Europe, February 26, 1992

"The whole story about Ancient Macedonia sounds undoubtedly very nice. However, there is a great problem, a huge hole﻿ of about 2,000 years during which we have neither oral nor written tradition, nor a single scientific argument” - former Prime Minister Ljubco Georgievski, FOCUS, 31 March 2008

"The creation of the Macedonian nation, for almost half of a century, was done in a condition of single-party dictatorship. In those times, there was no difference between science and ideology, so the “Macedonian” historiography, unopposed by anybody, comfortably performed a selection of the historic material from which the “Macedonian” identity was created. There is nothing atypical here for the process of the creation of any modern nation, except when falsification from the type of substitution of the word “Bulgarian” with the word “Macedonian” were made." -former FYROM foreign minister Denko Maleski http://www.utrinski.com.mk/?ItemID=C7A7DD4ECD45C946BF6573284EC01164

'We do not claim to be descendants of Alexander the Great.' - FYROM'S Ambassador Ljubica Acevshka, speech to US representatives in Washington on January 22 1999

Several wars have involved this Macedonia issue. Its not a just a silly dispute over a name as some claim. Through usage of the name the citizens of the former Yugoslav republic are manipulatively trying to insinuate part of the Greek identity and territory belong to the former Yugoslav republic. The fact Mackay pretends to not notice their changing ethnic narrative is very real evidence of bias.

I want to satisfy you though (and am hoping that just because you are conservative you don't blindly support any action by a conservative). What kind of reference would suffice to put an entry referencing this accusation of bias into the article? I'll try and find something that meets your requirements .(and if I can't I'll leave the article as is) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.107.129.106 (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello. First, I do not have any conflict of interest per se with regards to the pages I edit, and my biases here are only towards Wikipedia. I reverted your edit because the claim was unreferenced; while you had references for the actual issue of Greek identity, you did not include proper references linking this issue to Peter MacKay.
 * Please see the biographies of living persons policy - when making such a serious and contentious claim as racism, you will need rock-solid evidence that it has been widely reported in the media and that it is relevant to the subject. That means you will have to come up with a reliable and third-party source, preferably a major news publication (The Globe and Mail, Toronto Star, The Gazette, CBC, Macleans, you name it), that actually reports that "Greek Canadians see MacKay as prejudicial towards them". Then and only then can we possibly (emphasis on possibly, see WP:UNDUE) include it, in a neutrally worded and concise paragraph. Feel free to raise the issue on Talk:Peter MacKay once you have found appropriate sourcing.
 * Regards, CharlieEchoTango (talk) 22:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok. That's fair enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.107.129.106 (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

dude
it was funny you meanie

Jack Vale
The only indication of him being dead is a bunch of comments on his youtube channel. Probably some sort of joke, but I will keep an eye on it in case it shows up on the news. A13ean (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As the message right above yours shows, it's just trolling. I've semi-protected the page for now. Regards, CharlieEchoTango (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, good point, heh. A13ean (talk) 17:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)