User talk:Eldorado74

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, Eldorado74, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Ysangkok (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

July 2012
Your addition to J. Ralph has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

April 2013
Hello, Eldorado74. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * You need not declare your conflict of interest, but we recommend it.
 * Do not edit articles about yourself, your organization, or your competitors. Do not edit related articles. (Exceptions.)
 * Post suggestions and sources on the article's talk page, or create a draft in your user space.
 * Your role is to summarize, inform and reference &mdash; not to promote, sell, or whitewash.
 * If writing a draft, write without bias, as if you don't work for the company or personally know the subject.
 * Have us review your draft.
 * Work with us and we'll work with you.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without verifying permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Without this verification (again, see Permission), we cannot publish this text for legal reasons. However, please note that providing license to the external content does not guarantee that it will remain unchanged. Material published on Wikipedia is subject to Wikipedia's rules, and these include requirements of independent sourcing and neutrality. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to publish content like "Considered by many to have had a profound impact on the documentary medium, J. Ralph has helped elevate the experience of what it feels like to watch a documentary through his scores." We are here to provide neutral summaries of what reliable, published sources that are unaffiliated with an article's subject have to say about them. If you are able to provide documentation of license, please do, and then we can work with the content to bring it otherwise in line with our requirements. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello. You are still able to edit your talk page, and I will be happy to discuss the matter with you here.


 * The content duplicates what is published on IMDb. Adding a reference to that source doesn't make it okay for us to copy that content, I'm afraid. Their material is published under full copyright reservation. We can only copy content if it is compatibly licensed or verifiably public domain. Please see Copy-paste and WP:C for more. Wikipedia's policies really cannot bend on this issue - if it has been published somewhere else before, we have to be able to prove that is okay to copy it here. Otherwise, the content must be written in our original language (except for brief and clearly marked quotations) with reference to reliable sources. IMDb is not a reliable source for most biographical material since the content is - like Wikipedia - open to editing. You can see what constitutes a reliable source here: WP:IRS. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear moongirlxxxx I wrote the wikipedia page and the IMDB page about J. Ralph so there is no copyright issue. I authorize it to be used here on wikipedia. The whole bio is neutral and contains only facts. If you object to the line "Considered by many to have had a profound impact ...", which was taken from a famous quote, I will remove it. The wikipedia page in its current reverted form contains factual errors (eg. J. Ralph does not play the oboe) and is missing the bulk of his significant career developments (eg. oscar nominations, symphonic comissions, other projects, etc). Please do not block my account as I would like to repost the text i wrote and authorize it to be used on Wikipedia. thanks. Sincere thanks, Charles Riggens


 * I have removed this content again but will not block you as long as you do not restore it before permission is verified. In the notes you've been left before, you've been given a link to Permissions which discusses the procedure for verifying license. See also WP:IOWN. I'm afraid we have to verify that you authored the content there - we don't have any means to prove who you are here here, as we do not require identification on account creation. Unfortunately, verifying license for content posted on IMDb is not always as easy as verifying license for content posted on your own website, since you cannot simply place the licensing statement there and since they do not publish your contact information.


 * You are very welcome to correct any misinformation in the article in the meantime, but it isn't necessary to use this content to do so. (I have, for instance, removed the reference to oboe playing which you claim is incorrect.) And, as I mentioned to you before, this content does not meet our neutrality criteria (although I do appreciate that you toned down such text as "Considered by many to have had a profound impact on the documentary medium, J. Ralph has helped elevate the experience of what it feels like to watch a documentary through his scores") or our verifiability policy, since IMDb is not a reliable source. Certainly it's perfectly appropriate content for the artist's own publications, but Wikipedia has a different purpose - we are here to succinctly summarize what reliable publications say about notable subjects. We cannot make claims like "amidst critical acclaim and MTV billing him the next big thing in pop music" without sources that verify critical acclaim and back up that MTV billed him in this way. We cannot quote the LA Times without a valid citation.


 * Verifying your connection to the IMDb profile may be tricky, as I say, given that they are an open-source project, but it isn't impossible - it might begin, for example, with demonstrating via email communication to the Wikimedia Foundation your connection with J. Ralph. But it is only the first step, as all the content will need references to reliable sources.


 * If you are connected with J. Ralph, as you seem to be, you may find it challenging to bring that content in line with policies - this is one of the reasons why we recommend that people with a conflict of interest not edit articles that relate personally to them. It is challenging to exclude material that you know, but can't prove, but our policies require that you do just that. As an open-source project, we allow anyone to edit, but at the cost that no one is presumed to be an "expert." There do seem to be reliable sources out there that can be used to build an article on Wikipedia that meets our requirements: . --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your sandbox
Hi. I'm looking through your sandbox, and I see a few issues that need correction.

First, the "associated acts" line in the infobox is only for artists with whom he has had significant and sustained association. It is not for "One-time collaboration for a single, or on a single song." It seems that many of the entries in the "associated acts" line are for single song collaborations - please prune that to only more sustained collaborations, with sources to verify the connection. It's perfectly all right for this line to be unused if he does not have such sustained associations; it frequently is unused.

Although it is a small point, we do not use ®. That should be removed.

The Wall Street Journal piece is a good source.

You cannot call The Rumor Mill "an internationally award winning music production company" unless you have unconnected source(s) that verify that this is true (that they have won awards internationally). It certainly may be true, but we can't use primary sources such as the company's own website to verify such claims.

The source being used to support the sentence "J. Ralph does not read or write a single note of music and is completely self-taught." does not support it. It says, "A musician with no classical training who said he relies largely on instinct in composing...." This doesn't mean he's completely self-taught (there is training other than classical) or that he does not read and write music. We need a source to support specifically that. I have not listened to the NPR interview being used to source that material in the current article, but if it does support this assertion it should be used instead.

The Hollywood Reporter piece does not seem to call him "prominent." If they don't, we can't. Such words are known as "peacock" terms on Wikipedia. Instead, you should stick closer to what they say, probably with a short quote. (There are other quotes, I see, that could be used from that article in discussing his work.)

The source does not say that he worked on "4 out of the last 5 Oscar winning/nominated documentary feature films". It just says, "His work includes the Oscar-winning Man on Wire (2008) and The Cove (2009) as well as the 2012 best doc nominee Hell and Back Again." We can't include information that our sources do not.

Why do you want to exclude information about other work, including his scoring of commercials and his solo albums? Wikipedia is interested in including all of his noteworthy work, and if sources discuss it, it's noteworthy. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I have implemented most of your suggested draft into the article. There were a few terms I could not carry over - such as "culturally defining" - and I have edited his filmography as a composer to accord with the cited source. I have retained previously existing information on his career and sourced those as well, so that the "needs sources" tag on the article is no longer needed.


 * You mention being keen to add more, please be very careful with this. Promotional content must be removed, and adding promotional content is likely to wind up with a flag on the article that will not be so easily removed suggesting that it has been edited by a person with a COI. We have articles that have carried this flag since 2007, and it doesn't necessarily show well to readers. :/ If you follow WP:COI and Plain and simple conflict of interest guide very carefully, you shouldn't run into any issues. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited J. Ralph, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Meru and Virunga. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

J. Ralph
Please see WP:FILMOGRAPHY WP:TRIVIA, and WP:V. Filmographies are listed in chronological order on Wikipedia, not reverse. Trivia section are deprecated. In addition, the "facts" are only "known" if you cite a reliable source.

Please do not add or change content, as you did at J. Ralph, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 02:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Lead sentence
We have standards for the lead sentence of an article, it's called the Manual of Style. Specifically, lead sentences in biographies start with the nationality and profession of the subject. We are specifically not supposed to mention where they are from: that can be mentioned in a subsequent sentence. Awards or other distinctions go after the standard lead. Please learn our standards and stop edit warring. You do not own the article. Skyerise (talk) 04:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

December 2015
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please remember that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on J. Ralph. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Karst (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at J. Ralph shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Karst (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm CAPTAIN RAJU. I noticed that you recently removed some content from J. Ralph with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. CAPTAIN RAJU ( ✉ ) 17:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

January 2016
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please remember that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on J. Ralph. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Karst (talk) 13:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Eldorado74. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the article J. Ralph, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, please:


 * avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your circle, your organization, its competitors, projects or products;
 * instead propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the request edit template);
 * when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. Karst (talk) 07:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

dear Karst,

As previously discussed, I'm sorry you feel this article is promotional but the article is not opinion or discretionary in any way. It is entirely fact based with everything properly cited from external, valid 3rd party sources (i.e. sources that have nothing to do with either you, me or other editors). As previously discussed there is no COI. I wrote the original article and many people have added to it. Further, you continue to delete factual, useful and updated information by me or other users which is also properly cited and approved by many other users over many years. Please stop vandalizing the article. Thank you.

Mediation
I have lodged a request for mediation on the J.Ralph page here. Karst (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Suggest that you engage in the mediation discussion so that a way forward can be found on this. I would avoid the use of all caps in the discussion. Keith D (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you.

April 2016
Your recent editing history at J. Ralph shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Liz Read! Talk! 21:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF). About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)