User talk:DESiegel/Archive 12

'' This is an archive of User talk:DESiegel. Please do not change it in any way. DES (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC) ''

Inactivity
Hi DESiegel, I've just removed your administrator rights due to inactivity. Thank you for your hard work. Worm TT( talk ) 07:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Upcoming attractions in DC
 Hello!

Here are some upcoming DC meetups in April and May:


 * Tuesday, April 14: National Archives Hackathon on Wikipedia Space with American University – 2:30-5pm
 * See the latest work on the Wikipedia Space exhibit in the new NARA Innovation Hub and brainstorm on new ideas for a public exhibit about Wikipedia
 * Friday, April 17: Women in Tech Edit-a-thon with Tech LadyMafia – 5-9pm
 * Team up with Tech LadyMafia to improve Wikipedia content on women in the history of technology.
 * Saturday, April 25: April Dinner Meetup – 6 PM
 * Dinner and drinks with your fellow Wikipedians!
 * Friday, May 1: International Labour Day Edit-a-Thon – 1:30 PM to 4:30 PM
 * An edit-a-thon at the University of Maryland

Hope to see you at these events! If you have any questions or require any special accommodations, please let me know.

Cheers,

James Hare To remove yourself from this mailing list, remove your name from this list. 22:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

May 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=663560312 your edit] to United States presidential election, 1980 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ], Minnesota, Hawaii, West Virginia, the District of Columbia and Rhode Island.

Schamberg
Sorry, hit a bit of an edit conflict on Jay Frank Schamberg, and I may have removed some of your improvements by mistake. Check it out, see if there's anything missing? DS (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * All seems well. DES (talk) 11:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The Lady is Willing
Hi. Thanks for looking into this. Did I do something incorrect? Onel5969 (talk) 01:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not that I can see,. I made a mistake in doing the move, briefly creating a page that redirected to itself, but I fixed that within minutes. MOS:DAB does suggest avoidin piped links in disambiguation pages, but it looks to me as if this case is one of the listed exceptions. However, film titl4es (for feature length films) should be in italics. I hope that this is helpful. DES (talk) 11:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

ACC request
I confirm that I have requested access to the ACC interface. DES (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
Skamecrazy123 (talk) 05:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
Skamecrazy123 (talk) 15:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
Skamecrazy123 (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Starfish and Coffee
Hi. In regards to the "Starfish and Coffee" article, instead of slapping one ugly tag after another to the article, why don't you work on it instead? If you can find the time to tag it to death well then you have the time to work on it. Furthermore, the article was created by a newbie who happens to also be very young. Instead of showing off your knowledge on how well you know the wiki rules, why don't you instead educate the new editor on how things work? As an admin you should know better.  Caden  cool  23:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Frankly, pop music is not a field I know all that well. I encountered the "Starfish and Coffee" article on patroll, and if I had been in a real hurry, i could have simply deleted it. Odds are, no one woiuld have arued with my doing so. But it didn't quite fit the speedy criterion, so I edited it slightly and added tags to indicate what still needed to be done by the original creator or some other editor who knows that field beter than i do. The creator then removed the tags without doing anything to fix the issues. And these are not minor issues -- this would never survive a deletion discussion in its current state, alghouh of course someone might well improve it during such a discussion. So I tried to explain why I had added the tags, concluding my comment with "Please fix an issue before removing a corresponding maintainence tag." I tried to be polite and instructive without being overwhelming. He did not respond to me. Instead he added a single "reference" -- a link to what I think is a fan wiki. But I'm not quite sure, so I don't remove the link, nor reinstate the tags, although I would have been justified in doing so. Instead I placed another message on his talk page, trying to explain the problems here. So far, no response. Did you read my messages on his talk page, ? I know you didn't chime in to give a better explanation than I had provided. Do you think my attempts to explain matters were lacking? Perhaps they were -- I'll try again. But I do try to help out new editors fairly often -- check my my edits at the Help desk and the Tea house, and I've also done some AFC reviewing. In each venue, I tend to be one of the more prolix, and I think and hope, more helpful posters. I don't settle for slapping down a linked acronym, I try to expalin things. But I must admit that usually it is to those who have in some way sought out help, by asking a question, or posing a draft for review.  is fairly new, s/he has been posting for about 6 months. I'll be happy to do what I can to help  -- IF s/he wants my help. DES (talk) 01:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , check out my latest msg to . Better, do you think? DES (talk) 01:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay your latest message to the editor is very good. Thanks for taking the time to do that.  Caden  cool  06:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Would you advise me about a proposed article edit?
Hello DESiegel. I would like to ask your advice on something. I'm considering making a change to an article. It wouldn't be my first change to an article, but it *would* be the first time I remove material as opposed to adding or slightly altering material. I've started a discussion on the article's talk page. If you have time and if it wouldn't be inconvenient, perhaps you could take a quick look at it and give me your opinion. The discussion is at Talk:Kinescope. As always I appreciate any help or advice you give me. Richard27182 (talk) 10:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I responded on the article talk page. DES (talk) 11:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Students' Information & Guidance Bureau
Anupvshenoy (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi DESiegel: this is regarding the page we had created about an Institution Students' Information & Guidance Bureau which you recently deleted. I would like to point out a few facts:

1. The content we have included in Wikipedia is NOT an advertisement or any such purpose.

2. The aforesaid institution doesn't make any revenue out of the article submitted to the Wikipedia page.

3. This institution is more like an NGO which helps and supports students around the region. So we have included this page with a hope, that this concept possibly reaches out to more students so that it can provide them with a problem solving way for their educational queries.

4. Also we'd like to point out that this institution has NO whatsoever advertisements made in any form of media till date so it rules out the point that we are using Wikipedia as "advertisement" for this institution. As the institution functions just on the students' need/requirements, word of mouth, goodwill, follow up and positive social work attitude of the members of the institution.

Hoping you'd go through the article again and kindly assess once again and reply positively. Thanks and Regards Anupvshenoy (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)Anup V S.
 * , on wikipedia, "advertisment" is generally short for "advertisemet or promotion". That is, it includes not only commercial advertisemetns or appeals for funds, but also any writing intended or calculated to promote a cause or an organisation. No Wikipedia article should include such text (except possibly as a short quote attributed and cited to its author). Wikipedia articles must be neutral and encyclopedic. Articles must not promote (or oppose) any organization, cause, person, or idea. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. See also our essay Advocacy. For these reasons an article that is promotional of an organization may be deleted speedily.
 * In the case of Students' Information & Guidance Bureau, the article included such text as: "Whenever there would be poor or underprivileged students seeking help guidance or information, V.V. Shenoy would personally provide help financially so that they could complete their education." and "Innumerable Eminent personalities and noted persons have visited over the time and commended Shenoy’s unique venture and his desire to work for the society and students in particular." and "...functions under the able direction and guidance of..." all of which have a markedly promotional tone. Thus your points abovce that commercial advertisement is not present are not relevant.
 * Because of all this, I will not undo the deletion. However what I will offer to do is to restore the pae and move it to the Draft: namespace (which is used for pages not yet ready to be articles) and place it under the Articles for Creation project. This means that you would have a chance to change the page into a proper neutral, well cited article. You would need to submit the page for review before it is accpted as an article, and if it is left unchanged for more than months before being accepted it may be deleted. If you are willing to accpt that, then reply here telling me so.
 * If you don't accept that offer, the article wil remain deleted. You can appeal my deletion at deletion review, if you like, but I rather doubt that my deletion will be oveerturned. Still, you never know. Or you could just start over. But anyone could always list any new article for deletion if it seemed overly promotional.
 * Also, please remember, staements in an article should generaly be citd (or at least citable) to reliable sources, so that they are verifiable. This is important on Wikipedia.
 * I hope this reponse has been of some help to you. I await your response. DES (talk) 15:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Anupvshenoy (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC) Hi DES

yes i shall do that. Plus if you feel there are any particular corrections to be made according to the WIKI norms, do inform.. Thanx and regards
 * I have restored the text and moved it to Draft:Students' Information and Guidance Bureau. I have edited to remove soem of thje most promotional test, and for some formatting issues. However, citations to independent reliable sources are now vital to clearly establish notability and to filfill verifiability. Please read these policies.
 * Please note that Wikipedia articles may not be used as cited references. I suggest that you read WP:REFB.
 * When you think the pae is ready to be reviewed and perhaps taken live as an article again, click the big green "Submit your draft" button near the top.
 * Good luck. DES (talk) 00:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Richard27182 needs your help again.
Hi DESiegel. Once again I need the help of someone experienced. But this time it's not technical but more like "political." I'm trying to correct an error in an article. I made the appropriate correction, which was promptly reverted. Rather than getting involved in an "editing war," I contacted the reverter and tried to work something out, but to no avail. So I started a discussion on the article's talk page. All I ask of you is to check it out and weigh in with your opinion. The talk page is Talk:Wanderer of the Wasteland (1945 film). Thanks! Richard27182 (talk) 08:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing
Hi. I'm writing to you here, rather than on the talkpage of that film, since I think this is a side-issue and might take away from that discussion. After having taken a moment or two to actually look at Richard27182's requests on other editors' pages, it appears to me that it is clearly canvassing, "which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate". He did not simply contact editors and ask them to join the conversation, he asked several editors to join in a way designed to influence their input (stating that "I'm trying to correct an error in an article. I made the appropriate correction, which was promptly reverted"). Hopefully he'll understand what canvassing is now and not do it in the future. Or perhaps I'm not understanding what is meant by attempting to influence a discussion. Regardless, let me know if you think my interpretation is incorrect. Take it easy.Onel5969 (talk) 23:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, . I admit that I had not known that he contacted multiple editors on the matter. That makes it a bit more of a grey area, in my view. As for me, I took it as (in effect, even if not so stated) a request for admin assistance, in which my role was to act as a voice for calm and adherence to Wikipedia policy. Thus I went to the talk page with no preformed views and no adherence to any "side", but hoping that there need be no sides. The line between looking for help to expand or refocus a discussion that seems to have gone stale (which is perfectly proper), and attempting to recruit assistance to one side of a debate by improper canvassing can be hard to draw. An editor involved in a dispute naturally thinks that s/he is doing everything perfectly correctly, and the other side is merely being obstinate. Thus such an editor can describe the dispute in biased terms when s/he thinks s/he is being neutral. When the people being invited are experienced editors with no prior stake in the issue, and no close connection with the involved editor, then the harms of unfairly biased discussion that the rule against canvassing is meant to prevent are not likely to occur, in my view. I see now that Richard contacted a total of four editors, and that another of them advised him that his dispute was misguided. Not exactly the hordes descending on the article to bash it out of shape. Still, I will advise him to be careful in such matters going forward. I hope that will avoid problems,. DES (talk) 00:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi again. Thanks for the clarification.  As I said, I don't think he did it in bad faith, just new. Take it easy. Onel5969 (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The Demo Album 1 article
David-- Thank you for your response. I have added references to the subject article. Should I remove the corresponding tag?

As for notability, I considered this before creating the article. Perhaps, as a fan of Stephen Bishop, I am biased. He has had several charting singles, gold and platinum records, been nominated for several Grammys and two Academy Awards. He has released over twenty albums and his songs have been recorded by many major artists (Barbra Streisand, Art Garfunkel, Phil Collins). This particular album is far from his best selling or most professional. However, I felt it important since it includes initial versions of songs that were later recorded on various studio albums. The overall worth could be debated with different outcomes by reasonable individuals, I'm sure.

Back to the subject of references. In most cases, I have not been citing references to information which is found on the jacket, liner notes, etc., of the subject album itself. This seems redundant. Should this be done? If so, how?

I'm very new at this (I created my first article earlier this week) so please forgive any missteps I've made. I have tried to read and consider the many different, and lengthy, guidelines provided but can't guarantee I've followed them all. It was very distressing to see an article I had spent time writing just disappear without explanation. Thanks again. Keesling (talk) 06:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing charge
Hi DESiegel. I had never heard of "canvassing" before, so I'm glad you mentioned it to me. The reason I contacted a few editors was to try to at least get a few people involved in the discussion because it did not seem to be going anywhere. I didn't base my choice of whom to contact on any expectation of their agreeing with me. (I would have had no way of knowing which side they would take on the issue in question.). They were simply editors I'd had contact with before and I felt comfortable contacting them (as opposed to contacting people out of the blue). There is certainly no denying that I stated my side of the issue and not Onel5969's. I was not aware that this was inappropriate. So let me ask this:  given that I did not select the recipients on any expectation of their agreeing with me, would I have been acting appropriately if I had included Onel5969's side; and if so, could I have done that by referencing or providing a link to his own message to me? (I forget if that was on his talk page or my talk page on the article's talk page; and would which page it was on make a difference?)     And generally speaking, when there is a disagreement between two editors about an article, and messages are posted on the article's talk page and nobody else is getting involved, what is the preferred way of getting more people involved in the discussion? (And please remember I am a novice, so please keep your answer simple and easy to understand.) And also please remember that, being a novice, it's inevitable that I am going to be making mistakes here and there. But I am always acting in good faith. Thank you. Richard27182 (talk) 09:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well,, ther are several methods that can be used. What the anti-canvassing guideline is IMO inended to avoid is recruiting a bunch of people to take one side of a debate or dispute and overwhelm or istort what would othrwise be the consensus. On the other hand, asking for more eyes on an issue is a classic, vital method of getting disputes solved or problems fixed on Wikipedia.
 * Here are some methods that you might properly use. When there are pretty much just two people involved, you can ask for a Third Opnion, which is a slightly formalized way of getting people to do more or less what I did in this case. To get someone knowledgable about the general area of the article, you can post a message at one or more relevant wikiprojects. These may well be linked on the article talk page, or can be found via the Project Directory. Some projects are more active than others. Or to try to start a focused debate on a subject, and attract notice to it, you can use Requests for comment (known as RFCs). These are advertised in a neutral fashion in several widely monitored locations. An RFC is considered a fairly serious attempt to decide an issue. There is more information at each of the linked pages above.
 * Or you can invite individual editors informally as you did. If you do, you should:
 * a) invite them only one or two at a time, moving on to others if there is no response after a while.
 * b) Make the invite neutral and brief. Try to explain what the isssue is, giving a short indication of what the various views are, and providing link(s) by which the editors can find the full dispute for themselves. Do not write the invite so it sounds as if you are trying to persuade people to agree with you or "take your side". Rather, invite them to asses the matter from a fresh viewpoint.
 * c) mention on the talk page where the dispute is going on that you intend to ask others for their views. This makes it clear that you aren't trying to recruit people who will simply "take your side", nor are you trying to secretly influence things.
 * d) carefully avoid selecting people known to favor one side of an issue over another, or who have been so closely associate with you they might be expected to agree with you out of friendship. Insted notify or invite editors from all points of view, or experienced editors with no prior expressed views on the subject (as it seems you did here).
 * In fact, had you followed points b & C above, or even only b, I think you would have been unchallanged on the issue of canvassing. Of course, sometimes biased or ill-judged editors will scream "Canvassing!" at even the most neutral and proper notification, but unfounded yelling is all too often apart of debate, here or elsewhere. Fortunately there was none in this case. I hope that helps. DES (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi DESiegel. Thank you for your clarification on "canvassing."  I appreciate all the useful information as well as the links.  It may take me some time, but I plan on checking out all those links.      One quick hypothetical question:  suppose I had posted something on the article talk page to the effect that I was going to invite other editors to join the discussion, and then sent a few (presumably neutral) editors a brief message describing the issue and stating my side, and then included a link to a message from my "opponent" to me (possibly on his own user talk page) in which he states his side.  Would that have been considered appropriate?      Just one more thing.  This is probably getting just a little ahead of things, but if Onel5969 and I are ultimately just unable to resolve the dispute, then I would definitely want to exercise any "appeal" rights I have.  In a nutshell, what would be the first step?  Thanks. Richard27182 (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 09:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Inactive sysops
Hi dear Siegel. Enwiki has a policy for removing inactive admins. But I see no action to apply this policy. (One third of admins had no administrative activity (and maybe edit) in more than one year!) Why does not remove the adminship of these inactive admins? Thanks. Mahdy Saffar (talk) 07:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , Currently, "Inactive" is defined in that policy as having made "no edits or administrative actions for a year. Thus an admin who has taken no admin actions for a year, but who has made edits during that year, does not have his or her admin rights removed.
 * If you will look in my talk page above at and  you will see that my admin rights were removed due to inactivity this April, and only restored after I had returend to editing and requested them back. So the policy as written is being applied.
 * I belive there is a discussion at the Idea lab at the moment about requiring some minimum number of admin actions as well. I haven't participated as yet. Perhaps you would like to join that discussion? DES (talk) 07:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Vince Cardell
Are there any previous revisions that were deleted accidentally? --George Ho (talk) 08:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I checked the previous revisions bfore doing the move, . There were two revisions, both with a two-sentance sub-stub which would have been speedy deletable both under WP:BLP and under WP:CSD. No content of value was lost. If you really want I will put a copy of the content on your talk page, and if you then request, do a history merge, but I don't see the point. DES (talk) 08:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the move, DES. George, I probably seemed ungrateful for the attention you gave to the draft/article, for which I am sorry.    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 12:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

new (simple) question (in addition to the other two)
Hi DESiegel. In addition to my hypothetical and other question under the "Canvassing" section, I have one additional new question. Is it OK to post a direct link to a user/editor's personal user talk page. I can clarify my purpose for wanting to do it if the answer depends on it. Thanks Richard27182 (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:List journal
Hi DESiegel. I saw your post at the Teahouse, but I think its better if I replied here than there since that question has already be answered and the template is only indirectly related to it. I'm not a template expert, but it seems fine to me. One thing is that I don't really see how your version of the article it is an improvement over this version by. My eyes are going bad as I get older, so this would be the first time I didn't "see" something. I think the template will probably be very helpful for newer editors or editors just creating a list article from scratch, but I'm not sure if it's going to lead to the eventual deprecation of "cite journal" or "cite book" in list articles. It's another option though, especially when there's no title. You should let the editors at WP:WPT know about it. They'd be good people to ask for more specific feedback. -Marchjuly (talk) 07:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding . At this point there isn't a lot of difference. What there is is the chance to distinguish between display format and meaning. In the wiki-text, it is clear exactly what each data item is. I think and hope it will be easier to add aditional items to the list when all an editor needs do is copy the parameter names, not worry about complex formatting. The templae will also help provide consistancy of formatting, which manually constructing each list item would not do. Also, while I have not yet implemeted such a thing, this tempalte could include machine-readable microformats in the output HTML, as several of teh cite templates do.
 * I don't expect, or want to deprecate cite book or cite journal. However the primary purpose of those is to format citatons, as the name says. To use them for items in a list article sometimes requires gyrations, particualrly for cite journal when the item is the journal itself, not an article, as it is in the list I edited. I am hoping that List journal will be useful in that admitedly less common appliation. Again, thanmks. DES (talk) 08:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Notification
Hi DESiegel. I'm filing a request for help with Wikipedia:Dispute resolution concerning that Technicolor dispute. If I understand the instructions correctly, I'm supposed to notify everyone who is or was involved in the discussion. In order to comply, I included your name Richard27182 (talk) 09:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

My new article deleted by you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishal_Mega_Mart
I just created a new article on this major Indian retail player - Vishal Mega Mart - and you deleted it even before I could contest it. Though the page was marked for speedy deletion, the company is a leading chain of retail stores in India, just like Wamart or 7-eleven in USA, has very prominent brand name with hundreds of stores throughout India. I was about to add reliable sources to support my claim, but you deleted it within a few minutes of creation of the page. Please undo the delete and help Wikipedia expand and grow. - 1pp2 14 June 2015 2:59am IST — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1pp2 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , I have undeleted the article, and moved it to Draft:Vishal Mega Mart. In general it is best for new article in an unfinished state to be created in the draft: namespace. Thsi tells evereyone that the article is not ready for public view, and means that the kind of speedy deletion that you experiend will not happen while the article is in draft staus.
 * When you are ready to ahve thew article reviewd for readiness to go live as an article, place submit at the top of the draft.
 * Please be aware that you will need to establish the notability of the subject. See our notability guideline for corporations. This must be done using citations to reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and have discussed the subject in soem detail, not merely a directory listign or passing mention.
 * Note that if a draft is left unedited (no changes at all) for a 6-month period, it may be deleted.
 * Thank you for contributing to wikipedia. DES (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Corrections on page Vasudev V Shenoy
Hi, there are some photographs evidence on Wikipedia and linked to Vasudev V Shenoy. You can have them too as photographic evidences. Kindly go through... also if u can point out what is the intricate details interested to only a certain smaller group of people, I'd explain the importance of that information or straightaway take it off.


 * http://gsbkonkani.blogspot.in/2006/05/annual-day-celebrations.html
 * http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hubballi/VV-Shenoy-is-no-more/articleshow/46515896.cms
 * http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hubballi/Vague-exam-venue-address-puts-army-aspirants-in-the-*lurch/articleshow/9966145.cms

Anupvshenoy (talk) 08:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi DES,

Maximum texts have been corrected. If you could be more specific regarding the information such as intrinsic details and biased information, that shall be explained or removed. Also there is enough photographic evidence for now regarding the person's information mentioned here on the page. One person's close relation also I guess has been cleared out. Kindly have the page active soon without any notifications heading the page.

Thanks and regards Nayaksonal (talk) 10:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The article still includes promotional and unencyclopedic language such as
 * "He was known for his commanding and leadership qualities and always had a soft corner for all his fellow students and other people. Be it Academics, extracurricular activities, National Cadet Corps (India), representing the college or various other organizations and other social activities, he's known to excel in all."
 * He then pursued and successfully completed his Bachelor of Education in Belgaum as he believed that it would help him in understanding the students’ issues and the situation of the educational system..."
 * "... he started (invented) a unique organization called Students' Information & Guidance Bureau ..."
 * V.V. Shenoy personally attended to and guided most of the students to attain information and achieve education in their particular preferred field of interest.
 * "The little green empire on the roof, making a mockery of the usual rough and rugged concrete terrace also mocks at the main misconception connected with gardening – that gardening is the monopoly of the aristocratic with sprawling acres, plenty of money to spend on manure, saplings and gardeners."
 * "The little green empire on the roof, making a mockery of the usual rough and rugged concrete terrace also mocks at the main misconception connected with gardening – that gardening is the monopoly of the aristocratic with sprawling acres, plenty of money to spend on manure, saplings and gardeners."

These are just a few example. All of this and much moe like it must go, in my view for this to be a valid article.
 * As to WP:COI and a "connected contributor" the article now says "SIGB currently functions and looked after by Mrs. Aruna Vasudev Shenoy. The article has been much edited by User:Anupvshenoy, who superficially appears to be the same person. One can't get much more connected than that.
 * I am pressed for time, and so will make more extensive comments later. DES (talk) 13:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC) ( (Previous ping was incorrectly done. DES (talk) 13:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC))

Ben Folds
Hello. Would it be too weighty to go to the place in the entry where the song appears and add only (the song was featured in a Nationwide Insurance commercial called Toddlers in 2015)? And it does have an article. You Don't Know Me (Ben Folds song). I had that in my post. Can we add the Arkansas Traveler to it? Thank you.108.54.16.72 (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, 16.72. As to your first question, that is a judgement call as to how significant this is compared to the overall article Ben Folds. I wouldn't be inclined to, myself, but others might, and you can if you wish. If someone else disagrees, that editor might revert. if tha happens, discuss on the talk page, please. (See WP:BRD.)
 * As to adding it to You Don't Know Me (Ben Folds song) (which I apparently missed in the talk page post) that seems reasonable to me, as the information is sourced, and the song is critically discussed. it should be a relativly brief mention with a citation, I think. DES (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
Datbubblegumdoe (talk) 17:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Lucky Blue Smith
Hi! It looks like as you were moving that article, it was being saved back in article space, so now there's 2 copies extant. The mainspace one is undergoing continued development, so this one may not be needed. Crow  Caw 22:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * A bit akward, but that's a wiki for you. Thanks for the notice. DES (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
At Omen Phaze I was on the fence between speedy deletion and AfD, so I decided the best thing was to start by nominating it for speedy deletion, which was effectively a way of asking for another opinion. You gave that opinion, for which I am grateful, and I accept that the speedy deletion has been declined. However, I thought I would just let you know that, although I thought the article was borderline for speedy deletion, and was therefore prepared for a likely decline of my nomination, I do not at all agree with the reason you gave for doing so. These days, anyone who chooses to can compose, produce, and publish 4 solo albums, just as anyone can write and self-publish books: I personally know several people who have done so, but who are not within a million miles of being significant enough to be considered for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 23:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , I agree that the article was borderline, and there were several items that weeighed with me, but were too loog to put into an edit summary or a template notice, including his work with a blue-linked artist and band (this is, i understand considered significant in the Wikipedia pop-music world). And I surely agree that having several solo albums does not prove notability or appropriateness for inclusion. What it does, in my opnion, is raise the plausible possibility that there is something behind that fact stated that will make the subject notable. All I concluded was that this case wasn't clear cut enough to delete withotu discussion -- and AfD might well be closed as delete -- indeed unless additional sources are found and added, it more likely than not would be. I might even !vote Delete nyself at an AfD. But when reviewing a speedy, if there is any doubt, i give the articell the benefit of it, i will only delete if the case is plain. And any alleged statement of fact that might, if supported by sources and elaborated on, sway people at an AfD, counts as a claim of significence in my view. I like the essay WP:CCS that I liked above, but then i should, since i think it borrows from comments I (and others) made at WT:CSD long ago.
 * Anyway, that is my basic position on the matter. I'd be happy to discuss it further with you, if you care to. DES (talk) 23:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining your view on this. I am, in fact, 90% in agreement with you. Really, the only point of difference is that I would give far less weight than you do to the albums, but I do agree that they are one more small point to add to various other reasons for thinking that A7 might not apply. The most important point, as I see it, is that I was unsure whether to speedy-delete the article, so I asked for a second opinion, you gave one, and I accept it. Since we have both considered the article, and neither of us was willing to go ahead and speedy-delete it, it is obvious that it is not a sufficiently unambiguous deletion to be done without allowing discussion. I may or may not take it to AfD: I will have to think about it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 23:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I am restoring my above comment, which was removed by Neutralhomer in this edit. No doubt unintentionally. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologizes on that, totally unintentional. I ran into a couple ECs, which might have kicked your post for mine.  Either way, my apologizes. :S -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 00:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

KAOK/KAJN-FM
Earlier today, you deleted two radio station articles per WP:A7. These would not have qualified for speedy deletion or deletion of any kind. They are protected by WP:NMEDIA, Common Outcomes, and community consensus many, many times over. The user who nominated the articles for deletion has been notified of this as well. Could you please restore the above listed articles immediately? Thank you.... Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 23:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * How is a radio station different from any other corporation or organization? It provides a service and, in general earns money doing so. There is a specific exclusion for schools, but none for radio stations. I didn't see anything in the articles that looked like a claim of significence to me, and of course neither came anywhere near passing the WP:GNG, although that is not required to avoid an A7 speedy. DES (talk) 23:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC) ((ping|Neutralhomer}} messed up notification before. DES (talk) 23:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Per NMEDIA, per common outcomes, per community consensus. They are not organizations or corporations, but radio stations.  The company they are owned might be, but that is neither here nor there.


 * I mentioned you in an ANI thread regarding the above issue. As such, I am notifying you of the thread, which can be found here. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 00:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * } Sice you saw fit to take this to ANI without waiting to discuss with me individually, or at WP:DRV I will not be undeleting these unless and until the ANI thread, or a future DRV thread, if any establishes clear consensus to do so. Any admin that undeletes without such consensus would be wheel-warring. DES (talk) 00:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I took it to ANI prior to knowing you were involved. Since I mentioned the articles you deleted, I was required to mention you in the thread.  I was hoping you and I could settle this part on our own. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 00:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, and there is clear consensus, has been for a very long time. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 00:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC) 00:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The Winner Twins
I would appreciate your advice regarding The Winner Twins page SciFiChronicle (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , When I reviewed that page for speedy deletion, I concluded that the subjects were probably notable, but the article as written was way too promotional, and the sourcing was deficient (too sparse). There are two obvious ways forward:
 * Start over, basing a new article on published reliable sources and writing with a neutral tone, possibly working in the Draft: namespace until the article is solid enough to withstand scrutiny. Any editor could do this, and my approval is not needed.
 * Ask me to restore the deleted text as a starting point. I would do so only to the draft: namespace, and tag it for the articles for creation project. The draft would need to be rewritten to remove promotional content and achieve a neutral tone, and to clearly demonstrate notability. (Or an editor could ask another admin, or use WP:REFUND.)
 * Would you be interested in working on this article, under either method? DES (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are interested and want more specific advice, let me know. DES (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * DES, this was previously deleted at AfD back in April, so he's going to have to go through the standard steps to get it back into the mainspace. (IE, contacting the closing admin and if that's a no go, he has to go through DRV.) Other than that, I have no opinion on their notability, although I will say that the article doesn't really have a huge amount going for it other than the IPPYs. In any case, he likely has a copy of the text since this was a cut/paste of the content from the original article when it was at Winner Twins, otherwise I'd recommend e-mailing him the content. At best I think that the only place for this would be at AfC at this point, since the AfD deletion from April makes it relatively ineligible for mainspace restoration without DRV or the closing admin's OK, considering that the article made no new claims of notability and used pretty much the same sourcing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, per the editor's comment at REFUND, it looks like he was aware of the article's AfD. I admit that I'm fairly concerned about how he wrote things, since it does give off a strong COI vibe and it also gives off the impression that he wants the article's content kept "as is" rather than re-write it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In any case, I'd say that the IPPYs would maybe give some notability as they get somewhat of a recommendation from Victoria Strauss. I don't know that it'd be a big enough award to really give complete notability, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not really seeing much out there that wasn't already at AfD. There's the OC Register article and the IPPYs, but other than that the coverage is primarily blog and junk hits. The only somewhat usable link was this Mental Floss mention, but those aren't considered to be RS for the most part since it's sort of a trivial list. I did manage to find an additional source here, but again, it's weak sauce so far. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Only other things are this io9 article, which is pretty brief, and an interview with Vince Russo via his podcast. Not sure if the latter would be considered a SPS or not. In any case, I'm not really seeing much to overturn the AfD, although I don't see why they couldn't work on a draft version if they wrote it from scratch. Still, their tone at REFUND does concern me somewhat. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  07:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi!!!
Hi, DESiegel. Thank for welcoming me here. I saw your user page. And your like a admin. How to be an administrator. That's my wish.--BartOlley (talk) 01:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello,, If you would like to eventually be ab admin here, please read Administrators and Guide to requests for adminship. While there are no absolute rules, it is quite rare these days for anyone to become an admin with less than 1-2 years of regular editing, and 5,000-10,000 edits, or more. It is best if you consider what you can do that you will enjoy and that will help Wikipedia, and not worry too much if you are on course to be an admin or not. However, i do hope you enjoy editing and stick around. Feel free to ask me questions in future, or to post questions at the Teahouse or at the Help desk. DES (talk) 01:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi again. I have another question.
Hi again. How can I design my signature?--BartOlley (talk) 02:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Read Signatures and WP:CUSTOMSIG However, a fairly simple signature is usually best, many people are not happy with the fancier signatures that some editors use. The important thing about a signature is that it identifies you on talk pages and includes links to your user talk and possibly your user page (and in some cases other related pages) to help people communicate with you and/or learn about you. Any formatting that makes that harder is a bad idea. Notice how complex my sig is. DES (talk) 02:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
I should have realised that would happen. Doug Weller (talk) 12:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem, . I fixed at least 5 statements that strick their number as well as their comment. Easy to do. DES (talk) 12:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * And much appreciated. I'll try to remember next time. Doug Weller (talk) 12:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

help on wiki
hello sir, i have posted my first article on wiki but i copied the article from my church website verbatim because i am the website administrator and the webmaster how can i live it on wiki for people to read. please give a helping hand Profog.sda (talk) 09:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry,, but you can't. Wikipedia will not accept copied text unless a formal written release is sent, as described at Donating copyrighted materials. Even then it is very unlikely that text copied in bulk from an external website would be suitable.
 * If you want there to be a Wikipedia article about the church, it must be written as an original document, in your own words. First of all, make sure that the church is Notable This means that there must be several inddependant published reliable sources that discuss the church in some detail. These should not be blogs or personal web sites, but books, magazines, newspapers, or their online equivalents.  At least some of them should not be purely local. (See our guideline on notability of organizations.) Then the article must cite those sources to verify the statements it makes. (See Referencing for Beginners for how to do that.) Also, remember that as someone closely associted with the church, you have a Conflict of interest. This means it is particularly important that you should write about the church, if you so, in a neutral way. I urge you, if you go ahead, to use the Articles for Creation process, where your draft will be reviewd by an uninvolved editor. I hope that helps. DES (talk) 12:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding my page speedy deletion
I checked your comment on my page 'Kuppiya'. I am completely new to Wikipeida and learning it with the help of all the experienced writers. my page kuppiya had been marked for 'speedy deletion '. could you please help me to solve this issue.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zakzee (talk • contribs) 17:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!
DESiegel, Thank you for your helpful suggestions about my editing the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Joseph_W._Papin page. Sorry to be a pain but I wanted clarification about quoting. If I quote something from an article or book and put the reference next to the quote I thought I was giving credit to the person that said the quote. Do I need to write in the text something like John Smith said "ice cream saves lives..." or if the reference is right next to the quote and it says that John Smith is the author of the quote doesn't that suffice? Thank you for your help. I looked at your page and I am in awe of all that you have done on Wikipedia!Jrptwins (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * , you need to both cite the quote (that means putting the ref right after the quote) and attribute the quote to the speaker or writer (that means writing in the article "as Smith said at the Dessert Awards ceremony, 'ice cream saves lives...'". The cite alone is too easily missed or detached from the quote, the attribution alone doesn't give enough information to verify. Besides, many quotes are cited to 3rd party sources auch as news accouints, so the title would not indicate who said the quoted content, one would need to read the linked or offline source to learn whether it was Smith or his associate Jones who was being quoted. And if the source becomes a deadlink, this would leave no useful attribution at all, Thus the ref is not enough. DES (talk) 21:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to say thank you for your time and effort in helping. You are awesome. And kind to assist others! I am continuing to take your suggestions and make the needed corrections. Jrptwins (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * you are very welcome. I am glad that i have been some help. It gives me plasure to see an article get into mproper shape, and in anothr way it gives me pleasure to pass on what i nhave learned, and to feel useful. All I can say is learn to do good work here, and pass itr foreward if yopu would. DES (talk) 19:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Invitation
Being that you've been here since February 2005, I thought I'd inform you that you are eligible for membership (such as it were) at Ten Year Society. Just a drive by FYI, in the event you want to pursue it. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Mahler on the Couch
Hello! Your submission of Mahler on the Couch at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Edwardx (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello (plus a question)
Hi DESiegel. We haven't communicated in a while and I thought I'd say hello. Also I have a question. It's not urgent, but when you have time maybe you could answer it for me. I often use when I write to or about someone (unless I'm posting to their own talk page or they've asked me not to "ping" them). But I've noticed that other editors (including you) sometimes use templates which seem to have a similar function, such as and. I haven't been able to find these in any Wikipedia documentation (since they're only one or two letters, they're kind of hard to search for). Anyway I was hoping you could explain to me the difference between them, and which is most appropriate to use where and when. Thanks. Richard27182 (talk) 05:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, ,I hope you are doing well. There isn't that much differnce between ping and U. Ping (whih is actually a shortcut to reply to adds the at-sign in front, and has the optional ability ro include links to multiple editiors in the same call. U (and u) are shurtcuts to user link. U is more useful for mentioning the name in runnign text, as I often prefer to, but it is just a minor difference in formmating.  is basically a shorthand for  .  Any of these will generate a notification if posted to a talk page as part of a signed comment (must be signed in the same edit or the notification doesn't happen). See WP:Echo and the list below. Note also the "related templates" list in the documentation of both U and ping. I hope that is helpful. DES (talk) 11:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Your review is requested
As the administrator who blocked User:J0eg0d (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 2 weeks (account creation blocked) (Personal attacks or harassment: Unsupported sock accusations and apparent attempted intimidation on User talk:Jimbo Wales) , you may be interested that they continued to make such allegations. They were notified of the improper nature of such actions,  and. After a series of back and forths with an IP, User:J0eg0d 's response appears to be --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  11:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Another question from Richard27182
Hi DESiegel. I have an unusual question that I don't think is likely to show up under any of the Wikipedia policies, and I'm hoping you can answer it for me. Suppose I'm considering making a small change to an article. Would it be OK to contact the author of the article (or the author of the section I'm considering modifying) in advance on their own talk page just to run the idea past them and get an idea of what kind of reaction the modification would draw? I don't think this would count as "canvassing" since, if anything, the editor I would be contacting would be more likely to be biased against my point of view. The whole purpose would be to try to avoid getting into any more contentious, argumentative battles like the one I'm currently involved in. As always, thank you for your help and advice. Richard27182 (talk) 22:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , yes that should be perfectly proper. you could do the whole thing on that editor's talk page, or describe your planned change on the article talk page and then link the original editor to it. You should probably fist check the contributiosn of the editor you plan to reach out to, to make sure that s/he has been active recently -- there is no point in "alerting" soemoen who hasn't edited in years. Note that most articles to not have a single "author" -- you could choose the inital drafter, the editor who seems to have worked on the text the most, or a recent major contriobutor. If all of these are the same, then the choice is clear. DES (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

thanks DESiegel
I saw it was highlighted and really just didn't understand so just changed it. I appreciate your input, suggestions and edits. Sorry I don't do this often or have your experience. mary Paulhus15 (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You are qwuite welcome, . Most editors will try to be helpful here, although sadly not all. We all must start soemtime. If you find it worthwhile, you may become highly experienced yourself in time. Thanks for your contributions. DES (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Brilliant
Hello DESiegel, Wow, this is most impressive and most helpful! I really appreciate you help in uploading that organizational logo, with all the complicated rules surrounding that action. You cut thro it brilliantly. And thanks also for explaining, step by step, how you did it so I could do it myself another time. EMP (talk) 00:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . But to be fair, most of the complexities are pre-dealt with, so it is a matter of choosing options off a menu. At least whyen taking a commoin path, and uploading and using a logo is indeed a very common path. So is uploading an image that is your own creation. It is when you want to use a copyrighted image in a less standard way that things can get tricky. But many people are always willign to help, at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Happy editing. 02:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

My entry was deleted and I was not really given specific examples of what I did wrong. How do I make this right and get the page approved?
Hi DESiegel,

I had a page deleted for copyright infringement issues (Paul Stanford), but the person who deleted it said that I used info from LinkedIn. The info used from LinkedIn was from the article's subject's own LinkedIn page and I had full permission to use it. I also used text from the subject's own website, with full permission. I can understand not using text from external press and media sources, but how is it a violation of copyright if I used text from the subject's own mouth, and with full permission. I don't understand the difference.

And how am I supposed to fix anything now if the article has been fully deleted? Is there some kind of appeal process for this? It's my first Wiki edit/creation so I want to get this stuff right so I don't waste a ton of time, which I've apparently done already. This is very frustrating to me, as not only did I not know I did anything wrong, but I don't know the path towards fixing things. Any clarity you can share with me is appreciated.

Thank you,

Christopher Sacredcocreation (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello . The problem is that "full mpermission" almost surely isn't really "full". Did Paul Stanford grant not just you, but everyone in the world, permisison to use, re-use, edit, and change the text, for any purpose at all, including to sell, without paying any royalties? if not, the permission wasn't sufficient. That is the permission that must be granted for all content on Wikipedia. See Donating copyrighted materials and Requesting copyright permission, mostly the second. This says in part: "To use copyrighted material on Wikipedia, it is not enough that we have permission to use it on Wikipedia alone. That's because Wikipedia itself states all its material may be used by anyone, for any purpose. So we have to be sure all material is in fact licensed for that purpose, whoever provided it. and later "Text imported from other sites into Wikipedia articles must be licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) (CC-BY-SA compatible licenses are also accepted, as, of course, is release into public domain)." A written grant of permisson, as decribed there, would need to be sent to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org" by email. Follow the detailed process in the Requesting copyright permission page. And even if permission is sent and recieved, the sourcce needs to be explicitly acknowledged, with a nothe  such as "this articll contains text copied from with permission from the copyrigh holder", because we cannot accept text labeled by the histrory as your creation when it is in fact Paul Stanford's words. DES (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As to how to procede, there are two basic ways:
 * Get the permisison registered with the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) as discussd above. Once that is done the previous draft could be undeleted, and work proceed from there. Thsi might take a bit of time for permission to be granted, an email sent, and the permissions recorded and logged. Note that permisison for every web site from which text is to be imported must be granted.
 * Start over. I could send you a list of sources cited in the deleted version, and of images used there. With that and what you have learned, things ought to go significantly faster. Note that not only exact copying but close paraphrasing of sources must be avoided.
 * What is your choice? DES (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi DESiegel,

Thanks for getting back to me. I really want to get this stuff right, and being a newbie editor I understand why Wiki needs to protect itself. It for the good of everyone. I'm just trying to learn this stuff and do the best I can, so any advice and input your have is definitely appreciated.

Mr. Stanford did give me permission to use text from any of his websites and social media. He originally email me this;

You have my permission to use anything on my LinkedIn profile and paul-stanford.com website for Wikipedia. I have previously given Wikipedia permission to use my photographs for their entries on John Trudell and Jack Herer.

Yours truly,

Paul Stanford

Because he needs to give the rest of the world permission to use his materials, for any reason or gain, I then email him back this form as per the suggestions from Happysquirrel;

I hereby affirm that CHOOSE ONE: [I, (name here), am] OR [I represent (copyright holder's name), ] the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of CHOOSE ONE: [the media work] OR [the work depicted in the media] OR [both the work depicted and the media] CHOOSE ONE: [URLs of the content] OR [attached images/text].

I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. (THIS IS THE STANDARD CHOICE; YOU MAY CHOOSE ANOTHER ACCEPTABLE FREE LICENSE, IF YOU WISH TO)

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

[Sender's name] [Sender's authority (If applicable. E.g. "Copyright holder", "Director", "Appointed representative of", etc.)] [Date] ---

Is this form the one that he should use to grant permission? I should be receiving it back from him anytime with the info filled in.

I think I would rather try to get permission to use the text that I've already created on the Wiki entry. If I can't get the article approved this way then I guess I'd start all over, but that seems to be alot more work.

In any case I will do what it takes to follow the Wiki guidelines so I can get the article approved. I've probably got 40 or 50 hours into it so far with everything I've done. I never expected to put so much time into it, but being a newbie I had to learn everything from scratch. Obviously I'm still learning :)

Thanks again for your help and suggestions.

Kind regards,

Christopher — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sacredcocreation (talk • contribs) 21:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello again The standard release form is at Declaration of consent for all enquiries I reccomend using it. It sems to be almsot the same as the above except for using CC-BY-SA version 3.0 rather than 4.0. I know copyright issues fairly well for a non-lawyer, but I am not at all sure exactly what difference this version change would make. I can't see any harm from going with the Wikipedia page linked above, however.
 * The release should be emailed directly from an address that is verifibly that of Paul Stanford to . It should not be sent by him to you for you to forward. A "webmaster@" address for the web page would be good, or any email address that has been published as being Paul's. The exact URLs of all pages for which this should apply must be included. It will then probably take several weeks until the permisison has been registered, as the queue is run by volunteers. After that, you can ask for the drat to be undelted, citing the ticket number that will be provided by the responding email. Then we will be where we were last night before I found the copying.
 * Note well that in future you should not copy directly from another web site or other outside content to a Wikipedia article or draft, unless in making a direct, attributed and cited quote, marked as such. DES (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks DESiegel,

I've let Mr. Stanford know what needs to be done. He will send the copyright release form off to the  address. The release should be for the two websites, the main sources of some of the info I put on his Wiki page. In any case they are his own words and from what I can tell it appears that we have violated his copyright, even though I had his permission to do so. But I understand that I needed to get a more formalized copyright permission from him and that's what I'm doing now.

Then I guess I'll just wait until we get through this part and then take a look at the (hopefully) undeleted page to see if there's more corrections and/or improvements that need to be made. I already got all the correct permissions for the images that I used, and submitted everything to Wiki Commons correctly. Now I just have to get the correct permissions for some of the text that was used of Mr. Stanford's own website and his LinkedIn page. After that I hope I'm good to go.

Thanks again,

Christopher

Sacredcocreation (talk) 23:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

thanks so much DESiegel
for your helpful thoughts and suggestions for my article. I will go back and make changes and corrections over the next few days. I appreciate you dropping by and giving me your knowledge and input. maryPaulhus15 (talk) 23:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

one further question; once an article is cited in the bio and solo career, since I should not cite the same source again in the discography, must I find an additional source or is one source adequate. I am trying hard to give proof of all my information to keep it accurate and perhaps over doing. thank you again for your thoughts Paulhus15 (talk) 00:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I must have been unclear. What I meant was that you should not Wiki-link to the same Wikipedia article twice. Think of a wiki-link as like expanding an acronym. Say on a page about taxes one writes "The Internal Revenue Service (IRS)" and later just writes "IRS", not spelling it out twice. The wiki-link is sort of like spelling out the term, it lets the reader get extra context or related information.
 * Source citations, on the other hand, show where a statement is supported. As a single source may support multiple statements, a source may be cited several times in an article. In fact I have seen the same source cited 15 times or more. DES (talk) 00:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is so common that a special way of doing it that avoids retyping the citation info has been created. See Help:Footnotes, but here is the short version. If you give a ref a "name" like this  and use it like that in one place in an article, when you want to cite this same source elsewhere, you simply add  . (Note the closing slash (/), it is important.) That tells the wiki software that this is a 2nd occurance of the first reference, and to display it as such. Here is an example:
 * "Playing the guitar is very easy. Almost anyone can do it. But practice is needed to do it well. People learn by different methods. A good instructor can be very helpful. But many great players were self-taught."


 * As for a discography, if the album was published, especially by a major label or major indie label, it is to some extent its own source for its title and listed authors and contents. An additional source is useful, but not essential.
 * I think your draft is looking pretty good and is about ready to go live. Good work. DES (talk) 00:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)