User talk:Fuhghettaboutit/Archive 17

Free newspaper archives
I have a complaint about one of the lists and I'm not sure who to address it to. Since I'm not sure I can post certain information, I want to email someone so ther won't be any problem with Wikipedia itself, and then maybe we can decide how to handle the situation.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  14:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If it's okay with you, I sent the transcript to you by email. Here is the diff, which may clarify what is true about the situation. I don't know who would decide what needs to be said in order to be accurate, but you created and contributed to a similar guide.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  15:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, the email didn't go through. But I have a copy, so I can pass it on to whoever would want to read it.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  15:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure I created WP:FENS, though have made little contribution to the other page (I'm not sure If I've ever edited it at all). I did so specifically because that main list of online archives is in my view rather useless for many articles research purposes. If they're behind a paywall and you don't have access, it doesn't help, and if a database is not text searchable, regardless of whether behind a paywall or free to access, it doesn't help unless you know the actual article you are trying to access. In combination, since that page doesn't aggregate and and tell us what is actually both free and text searchable, it's doesn't present much of a resource at all for the majority of people who might be looking for reliable sources. Anyway, I take it the issue is that the North Carolina page provides access to more newspapers than just those published in North Carolina. If so, your edit a useful clarification but I'm not sure what I could add. Seems uncontroversial, and if the transcript (whatever it was), shows that, it seems pretty cut and dried. By the way, are you using a yahoo email address? If so, I think I might know why it failed.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I use a Yahoo email. The issue, however, is a statement that makes it appear that you get free access to North Carolina newspapers from one source when you do not. The transcript makes it clearer just what's going on, and I didn't want to put that on Wikipedia. What I did was chat with a librarian, asking if through this source I could access North Carolina newspapers by proxy. At one point he/she suggested going to the newspaper web sites. Exactly how is that different when I didn't get there from the source Wikipedia mentioned? And the services I tried to use which were suggested didn't really help me at all. You search by topic, not newspaper, on one, and on the other, none of what is listed is what I would call a "newspaper".— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  22:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I read about the email problem. If they're not planning to fix it, one solution for me is to sign in as User:SpikesWrench and send an email. I don't even remember what my email address is for that one, which could make it more difficult. I had that as an alternate name in case there was some problem, but the biggest reason to use a second name is being on a public computer. And I find I need to sign in as Vchimpanzee even then because that's how I keep up with what I've done. Though simply going to my user page would link me to this name anyway. Whatever problems a public computer would have just don't concern me.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  22:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

New bug. My user page is Balkline and straight rail. Not even a redirect. That's weird.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  22:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, wait, I can change the email address I use. It's a good thing I checked. The old one had my real name in it. We are warned when we send an email that they can see our email address.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  22:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Responding to a few different things: This is not an article. It's not like you are fighting some battle to remove sourced content because of your original research. I think you should just act on the information you have; clarify, remove and modify however makes sense with your understanding. Re the email issue, the result of that discussion and others I've seen is that it's not a Wikipedia issue but a Yahoo! security program and there is no solution on our end, so you should probably sign up for a free gmail (or other) account, and then change it in your preferences, so your email is still useable here. Regarding Balkline and straight rail, there' no bug: you see the floating pool chalk on my page? That links to that article which I wrote. I am betting when you tried to click on your name to access your page, that chalk image was too close and you invoked it as a link rather than what you thought you clicked on.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm just trying to make sure the list accurately reflects what is going on. I was trying to find someone who would know the best way to handle it so people can see the accurate information.


 * I have enough stuff to worry about without having to figure out which email address I use. Gmail is one I do use and I regret that. It's worthless. I am in the habit of checking the one I use for SpikesWrench now at home, along with the increasingly troublesome Yahoo.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  23:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Send me the transcript and I'll, certainly give you my second opinion:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I have used Gmail and other free Google business support tools exclusively in my small web-based business for five years with zero problems and also rely heavily on Google AdWords for marketing. I am making my mortgage payments regularly, get to buy groceries and wine, and so on. Google is a giant economic engine for a reason - they deliver. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree and my gmail account functions ten times as smoothly as my Yahoo! mail ever did. Side note but I am quite perturbed with Google over their news service, which was such an important resource. I thought they fixed it but they haven't (there was a recent post at the Teahouse about that).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on that but it doesn't affect my business but rather my Wikipedia hobby. I really miss the good old fashioned Google News Archive which was better than anything similar I have tried. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Thank you. I will say Gmail, when I'm not being told the browser is inadequate, has no folders so if you archive something you'll never remember it was there unless you remember to do a search with the term. But you'd better archive if you want to have an easy time finding something in the two folders that exist, inbox and sent. You don't see emails. If you click on one you see something strange and finding the email you want is a pain. Don't delete or it will tell you that you deleted a conversation and you have to get it out of the trash. If you want to send someone a new and completely unrelated message, your last message from that person is there. Then there's the jumping if it's a long email. And it's really narrow so you waste paper if you print, or time if you copy and paste something you want to print. I could keep going. Sp ik es Wr en ch  20:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Congrats... You gave an awesome answer in the Teahouse!

 * @LukeSurl:   Thanks Luke, both for the badge and finding that beautiful image! I'm going to see if I can expand it enough in time for a DYK.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I just have to add that the article turned out to be very nice, and that it was very kind of you to put so much time and effort into it. Best Regards,
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 18:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bfpage! Once I get started my interest gets piqued so the effort is satisfying my own curiosity. I enjoy obscure nooks and crannies of history.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you think a DYK nomination is appropriate now? I think it meets the length criterion. --LukeSurlt c 10:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ooh, that's a good gap you just filled (re: Nicander). Love it, thanks! Think it's ready for a GAC? It's ready for DYK:--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not that familiar with GAC, though I struggle to think now how the article could be expanded without straying too far off-topic. --LukeSurlt c 18:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've had problems in the past with subjects where you've written all you can write about a topic, and because of what it is – how little information there is for the topic in RS – it remains relatively short. I might nominate it anyway. Thanks for the help!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
Think I've addressed everything there. Buggie111 (talk) 00:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

A problem you've highlighted
Hey. :) So, none of the attribution templates for compatibly licensed content name author. And I feel particularly badly about this, because I created most of them - copying from the now defunct GFDLSource. While this isn't a problem with content that comes from sites like ours that permit attribution through a link, it should at least be an option. Any chance you can add an optional "authors" parameter to Dual and CCBYSASource sowe can make sure that adding author names is at least possible and I can check to see if there are issues with it in usage? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, I will do my best tonight or tomorrow.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * @Moonriddengirl Moon, just a quick note b/c I'm running out the door. I went the easy route and added an author(s) parameter (rather than splitting it into author and authors), though that might be better. Have a look (also at the documentation), test it, tweak or tell me what changes you'd like.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yay! Thank you. :) I've tweaked the language just a bit (turned it into: ", authored by – ") and tested at, and it works great. Now I need to go through those transclusions and make sure that content is properly attributed. :D How do you feel about adding such a parameter to CC-notice? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Anytime, of course. Not sure why I didn't think of "as authored by" – far less awkward. I'll make that change in CCBYSASource as well, and then add it to CC-notice (tonight). Are there any other related templates you know of where the same facility should be added?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not that I can think of. I'm hoping to get somebody to put together a wikilinkable list of transcluded articles so I can systematize a review. Not sure if I'm going to succeed at that yet. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * All done. Hmm, could you just do it with what links here?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

David Fishelov
Hi Fuhghettaboutit, I've got some assistence from you while trying to add a new article. I got some more comments from ColinFine here. Can you see my notes there and help me to complete the article? Thanks! Davidgute (talk) 10:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi David. I'll have a look some time relatively soon. Please understand though that if reliable secondary sources completely independent of him have not written about him substantively and can be cited to demonstrate his notability and allow a sourced article to be written with verifiable content, then he's simply not a proper subject for an article.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I've found some
I've found a few and left them on the Teahouse page. I've stopped looking for more now so there isn't an edit conflict when you try to reply. Thank you for your help. Rubbish computer (talk) 22:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Nikkimaria (talk) 05:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Your change to WP:NFC
I have reverted your change to the guideline and initiated a discussion regarding the change at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Magnes the shepherd
Harrias talk 12:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

TWL HighBeam check-in
Hello Wikipedia Library Users,

You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:


 * Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
 * Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see HighBeam/Citations
 * Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

12:45, 22 April 2015 Fuhghettaboutit (talk | contribs) deleted page Namegate (Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria G10, G11, G12. Source URL: https://kateofgaia.wordpress.com/2015/04/21/namegate-universal-political-scandal/)

Namegate page
12:45, 22 April 2015 Fuhghettaboutit (talk | contribs) deleted page Namegate (Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria G10, G11, G12. Source URL: https://kateofgaia.wordpress.com/2015/04/21/namegate-universal-political-scandal/)

You have today decided to delete a page this writer created earlier today, called Namegate. The bot assumed copyright infringement. You acted-upon that assumption, even though this writer made a swift note to explain that was not the case. I know, for an absolute fact, there is no copyright infringement because all the 'pertinent' texts were written by this writer. This writer is the webmaster/creator and wrote the text in question, re: namegate, at both namegate.wordpress.com, and the text you based your delete decision upon/cited at kateofgaia.wordpress.com

AND if that wasn't enough how about this:

THERE ARE NO COPYRIGHT NOTICES, NOR EVEN ANY INTENT TO COPYRIGHT ON ANY INFORMATION ON THE SITE/s.

Did you go to look?

The information shared is relating to legal name fraud, and to place a COPYRIGHT upon such information is retarded, as to enforce a COPYRIGHT, one must go via legal channels, using a legal name.

Kate of Gaia, Ninja Bambi, Jane Doe-755 are all about NO legal names, no Copyrights, no fraud, no lies, just truth. In light of this clear statement outlining the obvious ERROR of ASSUMPTION and PRESUMPTION made it will be prudent to simply reverse your arbitrary action with the same speed with which you originally took it. Jane Doe-755 13:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't blame you for not understanding the copyright issue, though you are incorrect; I do for the tone and tenor of your post and for attempting to misuse Wikipedia without attempting to meet what we require in submissions, and what must not be in submissions. As to the copyright, here's what you miss: All artistic expression is automatically copyrighted, and is assumed non-free copyrighted unless a specific copyright release is evident. (There is no requirement that the copyright owner provide a copyright symbol or mark their expression in any way for this to be true.) The way copyright works here is that all of our content (outside of fair use material), is promised to our readers as bearing a very unrestrictive free copyright license, that allows them to take the content and reuse it, even for commercial purposes. This means that we cannot use copyrighted content under a one-time license by an owner, like you, to use it here. Instead, we need an affirmative copyright release of the content to the world, into the public domain or under a compatible free copyright license. That release has to be done in a verifiable way–it cannot be done by an anonymous person on the internet posting to Wikipedia an assertion they are the owner and have authority to release the material. Also the release has to be very specific. So, for example, an owner would have to post at the external site, a notice at the bottom of the page where the content is from, stating:
 * The text of this website [or page, if you are specifically releasing one section] is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).
 * For more on this, see Donating copyrighted materials. All of this is academic, because the material was highly unsuitable for multiple other reasons, and was deleted under CSD G10 & CSD G11 as well. It was an entirely unsourced attack page. We do allow weighted, negative content verified through citations to highly reliable sources, but even if properly sourced, this type of content is not what we mean. This was partisan soapboxing to promote your cause, which has no place here. Wikipedia is not a platform for you to declare any agenda or manifesto. In sum, it was an unencyclopedically written screed asserting some fringe conspiracy with screaming capital letters intended to convince, and not a neutrally written encyclopedia article on a topic demonstrating notability. This is not the say that it is impossible to write an encyclopedia article on this subject. If sufficient reliable sources exist then an article can be written but it would be nothing like what you posted.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Colin Gautrey - your unilateral decision to delete
Why have you deleted the page on Colin Gautrey - a unilateral decision with no discussion which is not right. if you have queries then create a discussion page and allow revisions. Please re-instate the page Rubicon1971 (talk) 08:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)rubicon1971Rubicon1971 (talk) 08:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you write a neutral article that doesn't read like a commercial, then it will not be deleted under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. That does not mean it will not be deleted on other grounds. You also need to avoid copyright violations and plagiarism, since parts of the article were copied and pasted from previously published material without attribution, such as the ad-speak about his books. For example the section with the snippet "...one step in the Stakeholder Influence Process described..." is found here and elsewhere. Of course, to sustain an article you will need to cite much better secondary independent reliable sources than were in it. Either way, we do not accept articles written in a manner that screams promotion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

==points noted - but the use of you 'we' is odd as you took a unlilateral decision and did not open it to discussion which is bad form. where do I find the text you deleted so that I can edit. Rubicon1971 (talk)rubicon1971Rubicon1971 (talk)

TWL Questia check-in
Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:


 * Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
 * When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
 * Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
 * Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks!

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Shoppersexpress
Hey can I know the reason of deleting shoppersexpress page from wikipedia. Thanks =D. Rohitsakala (talk) 12:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was deleted under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion as an article about a website containing no credible indication of the importance or significance of the subject.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:REFUND
I took a second look at the Teahouse question. Of course I shouldn't take the word of the person asking for help. Those who appear not to have been helpful have figured out the person clearly violated rules, while I was giving the person the benefit of the doubt. However, it is a good idea from now on to make sure I clearly state what to do with userfication requests.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  22:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Great! and sorry I didn't notice your follow-up – I'm really bad sometimes about looking back at discussions after a few days passes. It's absolutely amazing how consistently no one ever asks for userfication when they're far more likely to get a good result with it (which probably means almost no one is actually reading the instructions on the page). So few do that I couldn't even estimate how often that would work, as opposed a request for undeletion which almost never does if the article was in the mainspace when deleted. Certainly I would still decline if the article was an absolutely blatant piece of promotion, but I would be much more inclined to userfy by making it into a draft, than to undelete directly into the mainspace.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

A pocket gopher for you!

 * Anytime. I am always willing to accept varmints in tribute.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Jack Barsky/Albrecht Dittirch
Jack Barsky was his cover name but I understand that the name is easier to remember for American speakers even though Dittirch may be the more correct name for the article. I will not fight you on this. Dharahara (talk) 22:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey Dharahara. Let's not fight let's discuss! The main issue is that we never properly have two articles on the same topic. When there are alternate names we make redirects from all others to just one. In that way, anyone searching for the topic, be they using the search terms Albrecht Dittirch, Jack Barsky or any other names, will reach the correct topic. The issue of which title to use as the article title (that all others should redirect to) is a different issue. That is a matter of naming conventions. The man policy page is Article titles. There you'll see various considerations when titling. One of the most prominent is the common names policy. It basically holds that Wikipedia normally titles article by the name they are most frequently referred to in reliable English language sources. Since I believe that he is most commonly known in reliable English language sources by Jack Barsky, that is the reason I redirected the other page there (rather than redirecting the other article to the one you created). I believe this to be the case based on searches like this vs. this, indicating that he is known in such sources by a vast margin as Jack Barsky. Note that if you think a topic by one title should be at another, the process for requesting a formal move of a page from one title to another is set out at Requested moves. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

TWL Questia check-in
Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:


 * Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
 * When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
 * Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
 * Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks! Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of 10:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank You
 WikiEditorial101  (talk)  Thank you so much for your time, patience, kindness, knowledge, and guidance. I can now let this article die in peace *que the violins* WikiEditorial101 (talk)

Thanks!
Thanks for the great addition to my article on the Cruise Room! Justapersona (talk) 14:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject TAFI

 * Hey Bananasoldier. I do appreciate the invite. I am certainly aware of the project but decline to participate since the initial goal (having an article to improve listed on the main page ) was betrayed.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Your attention is called to a merger proposal at Talk:Oxford Hotel (Denver, Colorado). BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Nish Kumar
Hello, I recently placed a deletion tag on Nish Kumar, which was deleted earlier today. However, it's interestingly been recreated by User:Loulou lemon91 with no talkpage history suggesting that this isn't the original creator (i.e. is a sockpuppet). Could you tell me the name of the user who created the page the first time so I may open an SPI into the users? Thanks for your help! -- Non-Dropframe   talk   23:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey Non-dropframe The page was created by user:MacMcKitterick, and it also had content added by the IP address 86.168.114.11. Since I do a fair amount of deletion I see these types of things unfold often and I would say 95% of the time, after the second or third time of recreation and quick deletion they just go away so it *may* not be worth your time. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's great advice and thanks for your assistance! -- Non-Dropframe   talk   23:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Anytime!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It's fine
I decided to get rid of it because it was irrelevant but I think it makes more sense to keep it. Thanks, Rubbish computer 01:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

L'Assiette au Beurre
Hello ! I will take a look as soon as I can. Thanks a lot for your message and your work. Regards, -- Spiessens 10:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello Fuhghettaboutit, I think it would be fair to indicate in your article the fact that most of the new text editings added recently come from the french article : that's what I do when I edit and translate from the English Wikipedia. Yours, -- Spiessens 11:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey Spiessens. Please see the attribution edit summary of the first edit to the article. I will additionally add Translated page to the talk page. We simply do not cite any matters like that in articles themselves.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Experiment section for ping test
Post to Deor, but forgetting to ping.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I got this ping. Perhaps the easiest way, I guess, might be to just use a linked username (Deor) instead of the ping template when adding a forgotten ping. That should work, shouldn't it? Deor (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It could be I'm overcomplicating matters and there's a much easier way but if it works it works. Sure, makes no difference if you link a username or use any of the ping templates. The reason I added the ping template to the original post when I fixed it (even though that does not work), is only for internal consistency (so someone does not wonder "how come I got a ping when there's no ping in this post?").--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Help
Thanks a lot for your help although it doesn't seems as if I can recover my account. Meanwhile, I just intended to create a page. Can you help me out? I am a bit weak in article writing. The article has got sources and is notable. Your helping hand would be a great favor. Thanks dear. PawanAhuja (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC) PawanAhuja (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey again PawanAhuja. You will have to tell me what page you mean. The only pages you've created under this account other than your user page and user talk page are your sandbox, which has never had any substantive content, and Draft:Shekhar Chatterjee, which has no content. By the way, this is just an English tip for future reference, which I take it is not your first language (though you write well!) Your use of "dear" above is highly non-standard. Only someone in a very close personal relationship would ever use it in that manner: a mother writing to their child, a husband to a wife; it means "beloved" or "my love" in the way you wrote it (confusingly, it is also standard to start a letter with "Dear ____" – even in the most formal writing – but it has a very different meaning in that context). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for that. In Indian education system we are told to greet others with 'Dear' but thanks that you changed my perception. I was looking forward to write on Draft:Shekhar Chatterjee. PawanAhuja (talk) 08:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If you write the draft, I will gladly help format it, copyedit it, add sources, make suggestions, things of that nature (if the subject is notable). Be aware that before you even start writing your first inquiry should be "are there sufficient published reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the person to sustain an article?" If there aren't, pick a new topic; if there are, write not from what you know, but from what the sources say (but of course, you must write in your own words, and then cite the sources providing verification of the information). However, I am wondering if you're asking me to write it from scratch, given that your request comes at a time when the draft is a blank slate and always has been. Forgive me for the bluntness but I have my own projects and interests.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Murder of Adrianne Reynolds questions
Fuhghettaboutit, I've got two questions for you about your recent edits to Murder of Adrianne Reynolds – First, did you use a "tool" to fill in the missing info in those references, or did you do all that manually? (If you used a Ref Tool, which one did you use?!) 2) Why did you change the date format for the 'accessdate' parameters in those references from the established ISO format to mdy format? (Such changes are not required under MOS:DATEFORMAT, and in fact are contrary to MOS:DATERET...) Thanks in advance! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey IJBall. No, all manual. The only way I know to use an automated program to fill in titles is to remove the links down to bare urls then use something like refill to fill them back in (I've actually done that a few times but not when the citations have details in them such as author name and the like, because then you'd have to add all that back manually; you'd lose more than you'd gain). A few of the titles were not scrapeable anyway. As to the dates, I just think it reads much better but I take your point. Unfortunately, the lack of titles makes it more difficult to attempt to search for copies of the pages the dead links went to (though its sometimes impossible anyway). Still, with just the URLs the Wayback Machine could be checked. It might be easier to just look anew for sources verifying the same information. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Param Singh
Need permission to recreate the above page. I can assure you the article will meet Wikipedia Notability guidelines including reliable secondary sources. Thank you. Hcns (talk) 04:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Kumi Taguchi (journalist)
I noticed you have edited the above page. I am guessing your attention was drawn to it the same way mine was, from the extremely bad advice given to its editor at Teahouse. I have left the new editor that gave her the bad advice a note kindly asking him to desist from answering questions at the Teahouse until he has much more experience, and offering some personal help (here).

The reason I am writing you is I am contemplating a very bold edit and would like at least a little consensus. I propose to move the above article to Draft:Kumi Taguchi (journalist) and dropping a note on the creator's talk page explaining why and suggesting going through AfC before returning it to mainspace. Thoughts? (Feel free to reply here. I have this page watched.)  John from Idegon (talk) 18:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * @John from Idegon:  Hey John. Yeah, I was drawn to that draft by the Teahouse thread. I debated whether to post about it being terrible advice there, decided I'd post about it later at the user's talk page as I was running (but you took care of that), so I just quickly patrolled the page. I like the advice you gave – friendly but forceful (though I don't know if I agree with any 500 edit test). Anyway, instituting some standards to give advice at the Teahouse is probably a good idea. We certainly see a fair amount of blatantly incorrect posts. As to moving it to the draft namespace, sure, that's one approach, but what makes this different than a few hundred similarly poorly sourced articles we see posted to the mainspace every day where we don't do that? The issue that strikes me with that approach is that since it's not already on an AfC path, and since your advice about submitting it through AfC to the user may very well not be heeded (by decision, by failure to note or understand it, or because the user disappears), it may never be subject to G13. It will thus potentially sit there for a very long time (albeit, noindexed) subject only to an MfD nomination. There's always prod or AfD (noting WP:BEFORE), or fixing it of course, if possible, or redirecting it. Also, gathering dust as a draft that was never submitted to AfC, it's less likely to be fixed in the normal course of editing than if it was in the mainspace, bearing maintenance tags. I guess what I'm really saying is that it's no big deal to do that this once, but I don't know we should take up this practice in general, and since this is no different than many others we get every day that could potentially be addressed in the same way, why should we here?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 09:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've prodded the article.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that is the best route, but someone should have a personal conversation with the creator (Mazda1973) to apologize for the bad advice, counsel on how to avoid the problems with this article in their future endeavors, and offer encouragement. Any chance you would do that? I'm pretty busy IRL for the next couple weeks, and I have a thorn in my side I have to remove here on Wikipedia. John from Idegon (talk) 17:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * @John from Idegon:  Done. See the user's talk page. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Eastern Suburbs Rugby Union Football Club Inc.
The rugby Club has an Eightball team that has just had a player represent his country and win a word title. The rugby clubdoes have a ruby team and an eightball tem but uses the name of Eastern Suburbs Rugby Union Football Club. The club plays in the South Eastern Tasmania Eightball association affiliated with Eightball Tasmania and the World Eightball Pool federation.

So a rugby Club can also participate in a cue sport. talk

Draft:Paul Stanford
I think that page deletion, as opposed to section blanking, was stronger than needed here, but I can't argue that it was out of process. I probably should have done the section edits, but it was late and I wanted to get them correct. I did intend to return to this today, and get a copyright-clean version. Now that would be harder without the earleir versions to work from, but restoring the draft after a G12 speedy is something I would not do. If I used the prior versions to create a reasonable copyright-clean vesion offline, what could be done about attribution? Could the history of the tainted versions be restored? I've seen such cases treated both ways.

In any case, would you object if I restored the talk page, to better document what happend? DES (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I've never been pinged from a deleted page before, the effect is rather odd. The notifications window says that I was mentioned on [No page]. But I was able to figure out what must have occured. DES (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I tested it. Yes, it's very odd. No I would have no objection to the talk page being restored. I'm sorry but I think you need to step back and think about the gravity of copyright violations more. They should be deleted immediately, with great prejudice, or the page sent for investigation – which delay is a necessary evil we live with only because the person finding it is not investigating themselves, so there's no way around the delay. If a user is satisfied a page and all revisions were copyright violations, with no clear non-infringing content to keep, the page should be tagged immediately, or in the case of an admin, deleted immediately. Copyright infringement is not akin to some casual and local infraction on a Wikipedia-specific more, such as engaging in original research, or writing in a promotional manner – it is a violation of law that we remove as soon as practicable, with every minute it remains exposing Wikipedia to potential legal liability. As far as I could tell, every single revision of the page was tainted by illegal infringement on another person's protected intellectual property, and also as far as I could tell all the substantive content was. In cases where there is a clean version to revert to, the history should be revdeleted so the copyright violations do not persist. Many users play fast and loose with copyright violations. That does not mean they are correct to do so. Since it appeared to be entirely a copyvio, if you used the prior version to construct a clean version, all you could use from it is the structure and citations – it would need to be a stem to stern rewrite of prose content, i.e., it would be little different than starting from scratch, so there would be no attribution needed to to any prior version. Anyway, in response to the message below, I am going to provide a skeleton. If Sacredcocreation wants to use that to reconstruct the article writing in his or her own words, that would be great.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi everyone,

I hope this is the way I'm supposed to respond to what happened to the entry I was creating. Apparently it's been deleted because of copyright infringement. That was never my intention. I'm a first time Wiki editor and I'd like the chance to make this right and get the article approved. How do I start working on the article to make it improved if the article was deleted? Do I have to start over from scratch? Can you be more specific about what you felt were the copyright infringements? I don't remember quoting anything directly from news sources. Alot of the stuff on the page was used by permission from the pages subject, Paul Stanford. I am still pretty unclear about what I did wrong, and how to correct it so any help would be appreciated.

Thank you,

Christopher

Sacredcocreation (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I am going to provide below a skeleton of the article, with the citations you used and the bare structure, so that if you want, you can start again. That is, you could recreate the draft in the same location, Draft:Paul Stanford, using this content. There is no recriminations here about mistakes, and I don't think you did anything here in bad faith. You just have to understand that you have to write in your own words. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Paul Stanford is

Presto Quality Care



Business
for their medicine's quality.

Award Winning Marijuana Cultivation




Unused refrences

 * Oregon voters may face 3 marijuana initiatives. KGW News Staff, March 13, 2014.
 * The Future Flowers. Finnell, Shannon: Eugene Weekly, April 17, 2014.
 * By the Way, Paul Stanford's Got Marijuana Initiatives, Too. Vanderhart, Dirk: Portland Mercury, January 16, 2014.
 * Operation Red Dragonfly Speaks to Paul Stanford. King, Tim: Salem News, August 29, 2013.
 * Marijuana would be treated like liquor in Oregon if legalization measure passes. Esteve, Harry: OregonLive, October 18, 2012
 * Willie Nelson endorses Oregon Cannabis Tax Act. Fox 12 News Staff: March 21, 2012
 * Willie Nelson throws his support behind proposed Oregon marijuana initiative. Crombie, Noelle: Oregonian, March 20, 2012.
 * Legal pot and union issues could be put to Oregon voters. Cooper, Jonathan J: Associated Press, August 20, 2011.
 * Anderson Cooper Wants to Hit our Joint. Pitkin, James: Willamette Week, June 12, 2009.
 * 'King Bong' Takes Detroit. Pitkin, James: Willamette Week, December 9, 2008.
 * OLCC...C? Activists kick off petition to get pot onto liquor store shelves. Hultine, Hannah: Willamette Week, July 9, 2008.

SAP SE
Hi, thank you for the feedback on my suggested edits to the SAP SE article. I will make a second attempt using your input. Apart from the section on the Board members, wouldn't it be okay to include the sections on SAP's acquisitions (especially Concur) and the sections on CSR? Again, thank you. Harper70 (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Harper70

The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways: Sign up now Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
 * Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
 * Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
 * Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
 * Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
 * Research coordinators: run reference services

Deleted page - Draft:Association of Guernsey Charities
Hi. You have deleted a page that I created: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Association_of_Guernsey_Charities. This was my first Wikipedia article, created after looking at plenty of other articles on similar organisations,. I took some time to create a page, so disappointed that it was deleted - and I was not given opportunity to correct / reword. I would like to try again, but am not sure how to proceed. The original page was written (not copy/pasted). There may have been similarity between the Wiki page and the original (cited) article, for example, the aims & objects of the organization are what they are... I fully appreciate that there cannot be any infringement of copyrighted material, but this was not my intention. Any further help/guidance would be appreciated so that I can create an article worthy of publication. MalcolmWoodhams (talk) 08:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey MalcolmWoodhams. Did you see my response to you at the Teahouse? As I said there: "given that you cited much of the content to the source of the copyright infringements, I don't think you did this with an understanding it was problematic, but sources are used to verify material you've written in your own words. To be clear, you can use relatively short quotations under fair use, but you must attribute them properly, usually with quote marks, in-text attribution and an inline citation, and such quotes cannot make up the bulk of an article." So I already thought your intent was good, but I found almost all the content was others' words and copyright violations must be deleted immediately. I don't know what you mean when you say it was "written and not copy/paste". This was not a matter of "similarity". Swaths of the content was copied and pasted, and much of the rest was slight surface rewording. To give you an example, the first sentence started


 * "The Association of Guernsey Charities is the umbrella organisation for the charitable sector in the Bailiwick of Guernsey. It was formed in 1984 with the aim of providing opportunities for those working with charities to meet together to discuss topics of mutual interest, raise any concerns or issues, and learn about matters which may affect or help the sector."
 * and http://www.gov.gg/charities says:
 * "The Association of Guernsey Charities is an umbrella organisation for the charitable sector. It was formed in 1984 with the aim of providing opportunities for those working with charities to meet together to discuss topics of mutual interest, raise any concerns or issues, and learn about matters which may affect or help the sector."

So as I said, you must digest what sources say and then write in your own words, citing the sources for the information but not using their words, except for the occasional short quotation, clearly attributed and marked as such. I will provide a skeleton of the draft below but you have to start over, writing in a very different manner. Realize also, that you need to find independent, reliable, secondary sources; the draft had been rejected in part because it was almost entirely based on what the charity itself and those connected with it said about it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

. The AGC has no paid staff and is run by a Council of nine members on a voluntary basis. .

Aims
.

Christmas Lottery
.

History
.

Deleted page - Creating Draft:Clipà.Vu Clipboard Manager
Hello Fuhghettaboutit, you refused my undeletion request for Clipà.Vu Clipboard Manager page. It is my very first attempt to write a Wikipedia article ever - so please understand my situation... I acknowledge all the imperfections and I want to work on improvements. Yes, I am the creator of that software and it is not my intention to write any kind of ads but a fair base describing it. My plan is to ask the users to contribute to that article later on. I can find many similar articles on Wikipedia - on request I can put examples here. So I do not see any fair reasoning why I would not be allowed to create one too. Once again: Please give me the chance to make everything as it should be according Wikipedia rules. I switched to my personal Wikipedia account as the first step as you can see. I acknowledge the fact that I neglected the first chance of correction but I simply did not know the rules. I understand I must learn these rules now. Please correct me if I do not understand the process but I thought that unpublished articles get reviewed and the creator gets chance to correct all imperfections. Thank you very much in advance, Jan Zeman (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC) ---
 * Hey Jan. There are fundamental policies (and in this case laws as well) that no page anywhere can violate. Here, the draft was a copyright violation, which cuts across any fixing of the original – it could not properly remain for one minute after that was discovered, and undeletion and fixing it would still leave the copyright violation in the history. We simply do not undelete copyright violations. There is nothing technical stopping you from trying again (despite your apparent conflict of interest in doing so), but this time you must write in your own words. I must tell you though that the key gauge of acceptance of an article is citation to reliable, secondary sources, entirely independent of the topic publishing substantive material about that topic. If those sources don't exist, no amount of editing will ever produce an acceptable draft, not even if it's beautifully written, (this time) in a thoroughly neutral manner. I'm telling you this for two reasons 1) because your time is valuable and I don't want you to waste it if there is no possibility of making an article that will ever be acceptable; and 2) because this type of topic often cannot meet our sourcing requirements and a search of Google News and Google Books indicates (though does not prove) that such sources do not exist Of course, I understand this is a Czech Republic-based product so there could be reliable sources in Europe that such a search does not capture. Do such reliable secondary independent sources exist upon which an article could be based? If not, the basic requirements to have a Wikipedia article cannot be met, and you should not spend your time on a fruitless task. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

---
 * Dear Fuhghettaboutit. I must admit your reply was a bit of shock for me so I took 2 days break before trying to reply. Again and again I admit I underestimated the task when I created the first draft and I neglected to react timely BUT... There are so many buts I would like to express… I will number them below… Since the early days I admire Wikipedia and maybe I was bit naive in my imagination how it really works and achieves its results. I absolutely acknowledge your reviewer/mentor/approver role and I can see your contribution for Wikipedia is one of the reason why Wikipedia is what it is. I am WILLING TO IMPROVE and to react on your feedback, at the same time I would like to ask you for your respect to my work I do for the others – more described below. In the discussion with my friends and colleagues I always used Wikipedia concept as a proof that the sum of the good will and positively thinking people on the (Internet) world is dominating – I would love to keep this point of view. I have always admired the fact that people work on improvements and they do it in their free time for free. The experience with my article will probably show me the truth - it will show me more about how Wikipedia really works and it is always good to get rid of too naive thoughts for the future experience... Talking about the people who do their activities for free... I have been doing the same for the last 9 years when I have developed multiple versions of the tools called Clipboard History, Clipboard Manager and Clipà.Vu Clipboard Manager. You warn me I should not invest my time in the fight that is lost upfront but that I what I have been doing for all that years. You warn me I should not invest some valuable hours but I have invested literally thousands of them in these different versions. I have it as my hobby project besides of my regular job, I have family, small children and other hobbies/obligations - it is not my main activity BUT of cause I would naturally love to see as many people as possible to use this product and to know about it. Its mission is to SAVE PEOPLES’ TIME and I have a quite successful record of happy customers who really save their time by using it! It was successful only particularly in number of users but I am NOT GIVING UP. At the moment the tool has over 1000 users - with many of them I communicated directly when reacting on their feedback and I am prepared to ask them for their support in this case if necessary. I admit that since the last year beside the free version also paid are offered but I haven't had any personal advantage out of that. First the sales are quite limited, secondly the money is used for payments related to the products development and infrastructure. 1) I would love to stress that I am asking for the CHANCE to work on the DRAFT. We are talking about DRAFT – not the final article. It was NEVER PUBLISHED and never will be unless it gets approved by you and your colleagues. You are trying to put me down by saying that my chances are low without the real DETAILED explanation of the reasons behind your decision. 2) As said couple of times I admit I underestimated the work on the draft. I underestimated the self-education about Wikipedia rules I must go through before I do another attempt. The reason for that was that I was simply heading forward to develop new features and my time I can give to Clipà.Vu is limited. I should mention that I am out of schools for almost two decades but I have the academic background, I have 2 different university degrees and I have worked for some years for Microsoft - trying to say here it should be in the range of my intellectual/editorial/academic/technical possibilities to understand and to address all the imperfections my original draft contains. 3) I have a backup of the draft I submitted 1/2 a year ago. I cannot be 100% not sure whether it is exactly the one I submitted for review. So when you name IN GENERAL the shortages of my draft I HAVE NO CHANCE to understand what you are talking about because you do not want to give me the access to my own draft. Can you please provide me with it? 4) You mentioned COPYRIGHT VIOLATIONS but I do not know WHAT YOU MEAN CONCRETELY? I am honestly not aware what concretely it should be. Can you please provide the EXACT details? I went through my local backup and I did not find what EXACTLY could it be... ??? Is it because I was mentioning "Windows Clipboard"? 5) You said there is technically nothing in my way from trying again. Is it true? Can I create a new draft with the same name? Or do I have to come with another name? 6) You mentioned my conflict of interest. Why? Is it because I am trying to write an article about the programs I am personally working on? What is wrong to share it with other people? I will not write there about me, my family, etc... As mentioned above I have no personal financial benefits here, it is my hobby project. Am I allowed to write only about the free versions? 95% of the users use the free versions, only a tiny fraction non-free. Should I ask anybody from my users? I am sure there will be couple of them who would be willing to cooperate on the article. I can also ask my friend who cooperates on creation of the programs user interface and discussing possible new features. 7) I admit I could have taken some words from another Wikipedia article. I believe it might have been  one or two sentences or only words but it was partly because it was my first article so I wanted to see how others writes these articles and I got trapped. No false excuses here, my bad, I'll do better and of cause to use only my own words. However again... Please tell me concretely what EXACTLY I took from other sources. I just went through my local backup and that short article consists of 4 paragraphs only that were written by me. I cannot claim I have the exact copy of the submitted text but you have. I can easily paste my local backup here but that is probably not the right place. It would be much easier if I was allowed to discuss it on the real draft page so that we can be concrete. 8) Independent SECONDARY SOURCES: Can you please try to open some links from Others opinion page? These are completely independent, I never asked authors to write it, I only found it on Internet after it was written. Also if you google for "clipa.vu" you will get 10+ pages in different languages (only some of them really relevant - admitted). If you google for "clipboard manager" Clipà.Vu ranks usually on the first Google search page, or on the top of the second one. Is classic Google Search irrelevant? Why have you tried only Google News? Google News really got only few hits - that is true – but Google News is about NOW not about the long-term related topics. The top link from Google News got me however quite a nice whole article from: a well-known computer magazine - where the editor had to spend a good portion of his time to create it and do the review. I can provide more but need more instructions here. 9) There are only couple of thousands of users of different versions of this tool but these are from all around the world, cca 70% from the USA. So I do not think you get many different results on Czech specific pages. I have tried seznam.cz (a Czech most used search engine) – here is its search result. One of its results is an article where Clipà.Vu Clipboard Free is mentioned as one of the best tools for Windows 8. Here is the EN translation of that article 10) You stressed the need of neutral manner. I went through my local backup and neither in this point I am able to identify any break - please tell me which of these four paragraphs contains non-neutral statements. 11) You mentioned "this type of topic cannot meet" but a simple search in Wikipedia shows very similar articles - some of them with one single reference... Why these can exist and the one about Clipà.Vu cannot? I simply cannot grasp the reason behind and if feels like injustice. Examples here: ClipX, Shapeshifter or ClipBook Viewer Please apologize the length of my contribution here. In the 3 hours I spent on assembling this text I could have solved the database connection problem I am currently working on for a new program version. I hope I haven't wasted the time, I hope you will help me out. Please give me the access to my draft, please start a cooperation with me so I am able to publish a valuable, useful and informative article. Thank you very much in advance. All the best Jan Zeman, 23:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

---
 * Hello Fuhghettaboutit, can you please reply to at least my very basic questions from July 19th? It's now a week ago. I want to do things purely and clearly according Wikipedia rules and I cannot progress without your feedback. I apologize my last contribution was a long text but I wanted to give the description of the current situation as accurately as possible. It's OK if you react only on the very basics - but please concretely to my original draft. What are the standard Wikipedia processes in this case? How can I improve a never published draft which source was taken away from me? The only discussion that makes sense is the discussion about its concrete content, no? Thanks you very much Jan Zeman, 12:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay Jan. Given the length of the text, I was planning on getting to this today when I'm not working. Starting with your non-numbered introductory text:
 * I would like to ask you for your respect to my work I do for the others...
 * I do. The very fact you're saying this implies the decision to allow or not allow an article is based on some subjective process of me judging the merit of a topic. But it's not. It's all about existence or nonexistence of the right type and depth of sources. And that depends from the nature of what Wikipedia is; the type of reference work it is. An encyclopedia is by its nature a tertiary source, that provides a survey of information already the subject of publication in the wider world, by people unconnected with the subject writing about it in reliable sources – those with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. That would be things like books published by major publishing houses, newspapers, magazines, peer-reviewed scholarly journals and websites that meet the same requirements as reputable print-based sources. Because an encyclopedia only properly has articles on subjects already the subject of publication in independent reliable sources, it never is the place to announce new things. To give you an example, if tomorrow the greatest and most respected scientist in the world published a groundbreaking paper, we could not have an article on it until unconnected secondary sources wrote about it in detail. Everything comes back to the objective standard of existence of sources, or the lack thereof. As I've said, there's nothing stopping you from trying again, but I have doubts that sufficient independent reliable sources exist for this topic; my doubt does not mean I wouldn't be glad if you proved me wrong. I just did not want you to go in with unclear sight. Having said that, sourcing had nothing to do with the article's deletion, or my unwillingess to undelete it. That was 100% based on the draft having been a copyright violation. From what you say later, it's clear you have no idea what I mean, so I need to explain that in some detail, but let me go through your numbered statements one-by-one (numbered in the same order).
 * You have the chance. Just start anew—this time not copying the previously written, copyrighted statements from DejaVu's website so it won't be deleted as a copyright violation (again I'll explain more about that later). I am not trying to put you down, and I thought I had been clear about the reasons for deletion (the copyright violation), the reason for not undeleting (the copyright violation), and why I thought it was unlikely a recreated draft would be accepted (the appearance of lack of availability of in-depth reliable, secondary, independent sources).
 * Yes, your understanding of what the problems were will help you avoid them and put you on the right path to an acceptable draft in any second attempt, if that's possible. Your background is not relevant to us though. A proposed article topic either meets standards or it doesn't.
 * I cannot, because we cannot undelete copyright violations (again more on this later, and in fact, directly below).
 * This is where I think much of your confusion is centered. From what you say, you did not understand the copyright issue at all. Copyright is a legal protection provided to artistic work. In an oversimplified nutshell, when people write content (or paint a painting or record a song, etc.) they own it and you cannot just take it and use it. Copyright is automatic. If you write text somewhere you do not need to apply for copyright protection. Rather, it is automatically granted and assumed to be fully-protected by law, meaning no one has the right to use your text anywhere without your permission (except where fair use is at play – not relevant here). We often have people come to Wikipedia and copy and paste material they found somewhere – someone else's writing. This infringes on the owner's copyright and we must delete the material. A second kind of copyright problem is presented when someone who is the owner of copyrighted material, comes here and pastes it as article content. The problem there is that Wikipedia's content (with some exceptions not germane here) bears a highly-free copyright license, that allows our readers to take the content, modify it and re-use it, even for commercial purposes, with the only requirement being that they give attribution to the source. An owner of copyrighted material, thus, cannot give us a one-time license for use; they cannot say "I own the copyright and I want to use it and I give my permission for use on Wikipedia". Instead, the owner has to release their non-free copyright ownership to the world, under a compatibly-free copyright license, in order for it to be used here. That has to be done in a verifiable manner. Instructions on releasing copyrighted material are set forth at Donating copyrighted materials. So, turning to the specifics here, you appear to be the owner of the content at http://clipa.vu/desktophelp.htm#.VbOHd0Xlu51 You pasted content from there into the draft article. Though as I said copyright does not need it to be declared, full, non-free protection being the automatic baseline, that page even says "© 2006-2015, Clipà.Vu". That website says "The main task of a clipboard manager is to store all data copied to the clipboard and enable their quick-reuse" and the draft said "The main task of a Clipà.Vu is to store all data copied to the Clipboard and enable their quick reuse." Another: that page says "Windows Clipboard is able to store only one value, overwritten..." and the draft said "<tt>Windows Clipboard is able to store only one value, overwritten...</tt>". You can't use this material here unless Clipà.Vu gave up its non-free ownership of the content. The draft was deleted because it blatantly had this copied and pasted, non-free copyrighted material in it. As we often tell people: "You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words." So, you have two choices. You can start this draft anew, this time not using any previously written content. Or, if you are indeed the owner, you can follow the instructions at the page I linked earlier, Donating copyrighted materials, to release the material under a suitably free copyright license and only then could be prior draft be undeleted (but very few owners would ever want to do this).
 * Yes, you really can start a new draft. While there's no guarantee it will be accepted, it is unlikely to be quickly deleted if it avoids violating copyright this time around.
 * Yes, you have a conflict of interest because you are clearly investing in seeing this product succeed, you are its "Owner, Author, Developer, Designer". People who have a vested interest do not write neutrally either in tone or what they cover and do not cover (i.e., criticism) and the draft was no exception, though it did not have the full blown marketing speak we often see. COI has no teeth though. It is not a prohibition but only a caution (I would have it otherwise).
 * See 4.
 * I will not be the one reviewing the draft and I think I've said enough about sourcing. It either exists or it does not. I hope it does and I hope you succeed.
 * Detailed coverage or just a mere mention as "one of the best"? We don't want sources that mention a topic, we want detailed coverage that can be used to actually verify content (and the content would not properly include such a user's review).
 * Do you really think a proper encyclopedia write-up would proclaim anything like the product is an "Important tool that significantly increases..." Just the facts no fluff.
 * See WP:OTHERSTUFF.
 * Got it?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

---
 * Hello Fuhghettaboutit, thank you so much for your last reply. I appreciate the time you took to make your comments precise and specific. This gives me a detailed and clear overview of things to be improved and allowed me to understand the core of the problem. I really did copy text from Clipa.Vu web site, the joke is the person who wrote the original text on that site was the same who copied it for the article... It was me. So it was my own words but I understand absolutely that nobody else can know it, so seeing it from this perspective the refusal was justified and fair. I am back on the trust relationship with Wikipedia, I will read every point you answered very carefully before my next attempt. Thank you again and have a nice day Jan Zeman, 10:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

 * Hi Coderenius! You're most welcome. I plan to tackle the other half of the article soon. It's a very nice article (great job!), and a welcome break from dealing with the never ending stream of spam.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Then I am glad you think so! I welcome the opportunity, Coderenius (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Copyright issue
Hello Fuhghettaboutit: I must say you are doing a great work here on WIkipedia, I saw you've deleted the 3 pages I created; Danny Nettey, Joe Beecham and Yaw Osei-Owusu  most of copyright infrigement and was also wasn't written from Neutral point of view. I do apologise as I din't know how things really work here. I want to ask if I can be given back these pages as Draft so I can re-write the articles so it meets Wikipedia's Good article Critieria. Also if there's a guideline you can give me to re-write those articles. Thanks and Kind Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwamevaughan (talk • contribs)
 * Hi Kwamevaughan. Did you read the detailed message I left on your talk page? The three pages cannot be restored because they were violations of law. Whereas tone, promotional writing, original research, etc. can all be in drafts and do not require deletion (and we give much leeway for those to be fixed over time when they are in drafts instead of in the article mainspace), copyright infringements cannot exist anywhere, require deletion, and cannot be restored. I will gladly, however, provide you their skeletons, that you could use as scaffolds to build them again – such as their infoboxes, section headers. coding, and citations (you can see what I mean looking higher on this page where I've done that for others); would you like those?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello Fuhghettaboutit, many thanks for getting back to me. I really do get you now. Yes I would be glad to get the skeletons of the pages so I can re build them in the right way. I look forward to that.

My kind Regards, Kwamevaughan (talk) 06:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Danny Nettey is

Singles

 * "God Alone"
 * "Praise Jehovah"
 * "I Worship You"
 * "God is good"

Music career
.

1 Month!
Hello! I haven't known you for long, but I can tell you're experienced and that your contributions can guide me now and in the future, so I thank you for that. I've been on Wikipedia for a month now! Eh? Cheers, Coderenius (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Happy one month anniversary then. Please feel free to stop by anytime.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Puthukkunnath family
Can you restore? User talk pages aren't meant to be deleted under WP:G8, because they're not dependent on the userpage. Thanks. Brustopher (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. Of course they're not; I just was in rote mode and failed to note the namespace of the G11'ed page--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

OppositeGradient
Hi, I recently saw that you deleted this user's talk page through a G7 deletion request. Typically, user talk pages aren't deleted, aside from exceptional circumstances. I've reviewed the history and I didn't readily see anything of concern that would require deletion. If there's something I missed, could you let me know? (If there are privacy concerns, email would be best.) Otherwise, I think it might be best to restore the page. We can just courtesy blank the page for the user if he/she wishes. Best, <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 05:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey Mike. If this user was going to continue editing then there talk page would be a good reason to find that it would be "needed for reference by other users". The user is blocked indefinitely. Do you really see a purpose served here?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I do see a purpose in restoring the page. For instance, the account was issued a warning about discretionary sanctions. These types of sanctions apply to the individual, not the account. Should the user appeal the block from the original account - say 6 months down the line or so -, the warning would still apply and this information would be helpful for the members of the community should an issue arise. In addition, a block appeal was made and in the interest of transparency and for any future unblock requests, it should be made available to other users. (Also, if it's necessary to get down to the details, G7 deletion only applies when the individual is the sole contributor to the page. As other users edited the talk page, the criteria doesn't apply.) Overall, I do see a benefit in restoring the page to provide its history. Would you have any major objections to me doing so? <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 18:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, this is so ministerial I can't imagine thinking about for another moment. I certainly am not going to give lots of deference to the wishes of an indefed user. Done.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Image restore
A long time ago you restored an image for me that had been deleted. That image was File:Tnaturningpoint2005.jpg and had been deleted because it wasn't being used properly. I created an article for the event it was for and you restored the image for me after a request to do so. I thought I'd skip the whole request part and try to speed up the process. I need another image restored for the exact same reasons. The image is File:Tnafinalresolution2006.jpg and it is for Final Resolution (2006) which I'm working on here and I will be finished with it shortly. I was wondering if you could restore the image for me once I'm done?-- Will C  08:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure! Just drop me a note when you've moved the draft to the mainspace.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have the article ready. I got held up from finishing it for a bit. I'll be moving it into the mainspace later today. Just doing a copyedit and adding another note or two.-- Will C  14:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey WillC. Done, nice article! Remember to change the name in the fair use rationale to whatever you move it to (I changed it to Final Resolution (2006) so maybe it's already at the correct name).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I will do. I always update the rationale. I'll probably hit you up in the future about other images if that is alright. Someone went through and deleted all of the PPV images of articles that had not been expanded a few years back.-- Will C  02:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Dinesh Soi
Thanks for the revert Fuhghettaboutit ... Now, we have again re edited the article on Casting Director Mr. Dinesh Soi and tried our level best to make it acceptable. As written earlier, we are new to Wikipedia and its our article. We have learnt a lot of things and the process is still on. Whenever you get time, please see the article and let us know if still which thing is lacking and what should be done to make it acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonam R Thakur (talk • contribs)
 * Hey Sonam. Not sure what "revert" you mean. I merged the history, since it was a copy and paste move, but made no changes, other than restoring the prior declines at the top (they really should all remain on view). Anyway, I see you removed all of them, and by doing so hid the resumbit button, which might have resulted in it never being reviewed again. However, Timtrent restored the declines, and has left you an updated comment. I am not generally involved in performing reviews of AfC drafts directly (though I often give users advice about what might make them acceptable). In short, it will not be reviewed by me, but I do have some comments. What I think you really need to understand, if you don't already, is that what we are looking for in the majority of sources used are ones that are:
 * reliable (books published by major publishing houses, newspapers, magazines, peer-reviewed scholarly journals and websites that meet the same requirements as reputable print-based sources; sources that have a reputation for fact checking an accuracy – so not random webpages, most blogs, forums, user-generated content, etc.);
 * secondary in nature (for example, newspapers or magazines writing about him (not interviews with him);
 * that are entirely independent of him; and
 * which write about him is some detail (not mere mentions of him).
 * Without those cited the draft is unlikely to be accepted, and if they don't exist, Wikipedia should not have an article on him.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

SAP SE
Hello Fuhghettaboutit, thanks for your detailed feedback recently on the SAP SE main article. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, and appreciate your help. I've made (revised) suggested edits on the talk page, and would appreciate your input again. The edits have been corrected, keeping a close eye on avoiding copyrighted material or promotional copy. Thank you!! Harper70 (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)Harper70
 * Hello Harper70. No I am not inclined to look, other than checking again for copyright problems (it looks clean, this time). I might have been, except that I choose not to use my time for this, given that one week after I left you the detailed message at Talk:SAP SE, explaining about copyright violations, plagiarism and close paraphrasing – which you acknowledge above – you posted the absolutely blatant copyright violation at User:Harper70/sandbox about Stefan Ries. I am giving you notice that any further copyright violations will subject you to an immediate block from further editing.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Yaw Osei-Owusu
Hello Fuhghettaboutit, Hope you're great. I've started re-writing the articles to meet the Neutral point of view. Please I will like you to check this page out Draft:Yaw Osei-Owusu and kindly advice. My Best Regards,Kwamevaughan (talk) 11:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

ANI notice for Russian Winter RFC
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Lowellian (reply) 18:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Armbrust
Hello Fuhghettaboutit! I wanted to ask you about something – I've noticed lately that User:Armbrust has recently been closing WP:Requested move discussions as "Move" even though he is not an Administrator, may not have the technical ability to complete some of these moves, and has not attempted to move these articles after he has closed their RM discussions. (Indeed, several of these are still unmoved several days after the RM discussions were closed by Armbrust.) Is this allowed? My understanding of WP:NAC (under WP:BADNAC) is that non-Admins shouldn't close discussions for which they lack the technical means to complete the discussion outcome. I don't want to get anyone "in trouble" here, but I thought I'd mention it to you as one of the primary "Move" Admins, in case you wanted to follow up on this on your end, and discuss this with Armbrust or "complete" the moves in question. Thanks for your consideration! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not against the rules as they're currently written; see Requested moves/Closing_instructions, which states:


 * "Where a move is not technically possible without administrative intervention, non-admins are permitted to close the discussion and then tag the redirect with . They may also file a technical move with a link to the closed discussion."


 * However, that said, I think those rules should be rewritten to discourage such actions because when a non-admin closes a move that he or she can't technically complete, it not only does not save anyone any work, but it ends up causing more work and problems: it leaves pages in a state of limbo wherein the requested move is listed as decided but the page and its associated pages remain unmoved for sometimes days, during which the various housekeeping tasks involved with moves (fixing double redirects, fixing references to the title within article prose/text, etc.) gets delayed, and then an admin still has to get involved anyway to review and complete the move. User:IJBall, I would encourage you to bring up the issue at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves. —Lowellian (reply) 00:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note, for completeness: Parallel discussion here. Lowellian, I appreciate the comments. I generally agree that NAC "move" closes (as opposed to NAC "not move" or "no consensus" closes) are probably not an advantage (and no offense meant to Armbrust here, who's apparently been doing NAC "move" closes for years with no prior challenge(?)...), and that this should probably be tightened up. OK, so that's now two things on my "policy" docket that I have to move on soon (the other is to reduce the article limit for Autopatrolled rights...) – I may try and broach this at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves, but if I get little response there I may move on to WP:VPP. (Also, it may take me a few days to move on this...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey guys. First, I don't believe anyone should ever be discussed without informing them: . Second, sorry for the delay (yes, IJBall, I was working hard on that template project and hope to put it to good effect). Third, blame me if the non-admin closure section of the closing instructions is a problem. I pretty much rewrote the page back in 2009 and added the non-admin closure section. However, it has been discussed since and my initial version has been changed and attention indicates consensus. When I added it, I included instructions on how to achieve a move if the technical ability to move the page is lacking – adding db-move, etc., and also added the obligation language that if you take on closing a move you can't technically close, you need to be actively monitoring the speedy deletion request, and ready and willing to perform all tidying after the move. At that time it was stronger; it was followed by the instruction "If you are not willing to wait for the deletion and follow up in this manner, please only close requested moves that do not require administrative abilities." That has since been removed. I think that obligation still exists under the current language, even if it has been watered down. Anyway, turning to specifics (and note: I wrote all of the preceding comments about a half hour ago before looking at them), Ambrust appears to have followed-up – placed the relevant deletion tags for those with the technical ability to free up the way for the closing process – and I don't see these RM discussions falling afoul of the "significant contentious debate among participants"-exclusion for a NAC under WP:RM/CI (I would not characterize the oppose at <tt>The beast (Revelation)</tt> as even close). The two moves you mentioned at Jenks24's talk may not be representative but I see no problem as to either (I certainly do not have time to do a vast survey to see if necessary cleanup up is not being done on others, but that's a different issue than the focus of your question). You mentioned that there were some still not closed. Is that because you believe the required steps by Armbrust to effect the closes were not taken? Or is it, rather – as Jenks24 mentioned – that there has been some admin backlog? On that issue, let's just keep in mind that it is very rare indeed that it is a pressing matter that the move after an RM close be done quickly. I do not think you are at all correct that such NA closes do not save any work and "end up causing more work and problems". Just as an example, what if the admin acts on the deletion and then leaves a message on Ambrust's talk page to do the cleanup work that WP:RM/CI instructs be done by the closer? What if the admin does the move, but is not very familiar with move procedures and does not fix the sort key, the lead, the name throughout, the hatnote, the dab page, and the fair use image description for the image on the page? What if the closer does quite a few of these fixes in advance of the move expected to be done soon? Anyway, to the issue of WP:BADNAC, it is certainly more strict than WP:RMNAC which is addressed to the specific concerns presented by requested moves. And yes, WP:BADNAC has guideline status and WP:RM/CI is "just" a closing instructions page, but WP:BADNAC is a general page. Ever heard the concept of ejusdem generis – the specific controls the general? WP:BADNAC, by necessity, has to take the most strict position because processes within its purview (AfD for example) are much more contentious places for NAC closes, and require tools that non-admins simply do not have, where, by contrast, only some requested moves have a technical barrier and it's far less of a controversial application of admin tools to remove the technical barrier for the closer. In sum, since Ambrust's acts appear to have comported with the specific closing instructions for requested moves AFAICT, at least as to the two you raised, I see no fairness in questioning his actions in performing these closes. I also echo Jenks24's concern of biting a willing helping hand where help is sorely needed. If you think that these closing instructions should be reformed, on the other hand, that's another issue, and should be openly discussed at WT:RM. However, if you're thinking of doing that, the question I have for you is this: Have you actually seen any RM closings that met the looser letter of WP:RMNAC, but not the stricter letter of WP:BADNAC, that were actually problematic on the merits of what was done? If not, what purpose is actually being served but procedure churn? I am not saying that those bad closes don't exist even in multitudes. I simply don't know. But I think any discussion opened where you don't point to an actual problem of substance, with examples of where following BADNAC's guidance over RMNAC's produced a bad result, will be quite weak. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * A couple of points here. First, I didn't "ping" Armbrust in the original messages here, because I wasn't sure he had done anything "wrong", and so didn't want to cast aspersions until I got a clarification (which I now have, first from Jenks24...). Second, I wasn't accusing anyone of "improper" closes – what I was concerned about was delayed RM's: i.e. RM's that had been closed as "move" but which weren't immediately moved. That's the one clear advantage of RM's closed by Admins as "move" – the RM's are then generally moved immediately after the close. The two RM's that I referenced to Jenks24 were literally the first examples I have ever seen at RM where that didn't happen (and in one case seemed to take 3–5 days after the close before the move happened). In the latter case, it does seem to have been due to a backlog at technical move requests, I gather.
 * I think in light of all of this, my conclusions are:
 * At the least, the previous "If you are not willing to wait for the deletion and follow up in this manner, please only close requested moves that do not require administrative abilities." language should probably be restored to WP:RMNAC at WP:RM/CI (which is another one of those guidelines, etc. I wasn't even aware of until this discussion...) just as a matter of course (i.e. it doesn't apply in this case, but this is language that should be in the guideline, regardless, IMHO).
 * I also think non-Admin closers should be specifically instructed to use RMnac at WP:RMNAC when doing NAC's of RM's. (I don't believe Armbrust did use the RMnac template in the two closes I saw; I have seen other non-Admins use RMnac however...)
 * A wider discussion should maybe be held on this issue of NAC "closed as move" closes (probably at WT:RM), as we have at least one Admin here who has expressed reservations about the current practices. (And I don't have to be the one to start that discussion, obviously...)
 * I think that's probably all I have to say on this, at this point. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I apologize: I meant to say this at the start, and then it got lost in the shuffle: My response was intended to encompass everything said by both you, and Lowellian, and Jenks24, such as the concerns raised about BADNAC at Jenk24's talk page (not just your OP) and I'm aware your post here, standing alone, raised a less broad issue (though since it was about a specific named user, that's still discussion concerning them). I am also now aware with less tired eyes, I made a fundamental error above, thinking BADNAC was part of he consensus policy, when it's an essay. Oi!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Heh. You're not the only one – I completely missed that WP:RMNAC already does make explicit mention of using the RMnac template to sign closes. So my concern on that front is assuaged, at least! In the meantime, I intend to dig up the sentence mentioned in my #1 above, and probably restore it to the guideline. I just have to look through the revision history first to see when it went, and why... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ – (slightly edited) sentence restored to guideline. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the wording,, that seems to be good advice. However, I would like to come out in support of non-admins closing discussions as move if they are prepared to go through the hoops. It's something I do myself quite often. And there is clearly less of a burden on the admin who eventually does the move, because the hard work in closing a discussion is not so much moving the page, but trawling through the discussion, getting a sense of the arguments, and making a decision. That part is done by the non-admin, while the admin simply carries out the move that they've decided upon. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Re: Speedy Deletion "El Baile en TVN"
Hi! An article I started (El Baile en TVN) was deleted because of a claim by User:MopSeeker there was a copyright issue. You can check on this old revision from where the blog post was published: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dancing_with_the_Stars&oldid=451386226#Chile from Sept 19 2011 (one day before the blog claimed as source).

Clearly, the blog used data from Wikipedia, not the other way around.

It'd be nice to not be falsely accused of copyright infringemet :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tordek ar (talk • contribs)
 * Hey Tordek ar. Got it. Please read Copying within Wikipedia and the instructions for providing mandatory copyright attribution at its subsection at the shortcut WP:PATT. It actually was still a technical copyright violation but of a very different kind and one that would never have resulted in deletion but fixing. I will restore and fix the copyright attribution with a dummy edit. I do see your edit summary "Start page based on a section from the original article", which makes it sterling clear you now were trying to do the right thing, it just did not provide the clarity of where the content came from (linked, name of Wikipedia article source) to comply with copyright, or stop me from making the mistake of thinking it was copied from the outside "article". It will be back in a few seconds:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thanks! Tordek (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

RAeC
Good afternoon, Fuhghettaboutit,

Thank you for your practical and helpful response to my question about a lack of verifiable sources. I am embarrassed to tell you that I have made a mistake. I said that we were mentioned on the Wikipedia Page of the Royal Aero Club, when we aren't. This was one of those situations where I had planned to add the text to that page, and convinced myself I had done it. Can I ask you to revert your change as the RAeC and the RAeCRRRA are 2 distinct organisations, with the former being the governing body of many organisations in the UK?

On a separate issue, how can I can get my draft of a page for the RAeCRRRA back online after it was deleted with some pretty harsh comments? Will that person now be the sole arbiter of that draft having already reviewed it once? I still retain a draft. Petechilcott (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey again Pete. I'm answering your first question only right now as I haven't investigated the second. I have reverted myself on Royal Aero Club. If you do add information there about RAeCRRRA, keep in mind that everything you add to Wikipedia should be cited to a reliable source (though I think by now you might be thinking, "Yeah, I've already been told that ten times").--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Wotcher! What does the abbreviation "(e/c)" mean? As far as the club is concerned, I think I've found a couple references which will help me develop the history of the club both on the RAeC page and on a dedicated page. Onwards and upwards!

Petechilcott (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * e/c = edit conflict. It was intended to indicate that I was typing my question at the same time as the user who answered you first. When two people try to post at the same time (in the same spot) the edit does not take, and you get an error. Noting it expressly, as with "(e/c)" before one's post, is often used to indicate, sort of tacitly, "my post might cover some of the same ground as the other; that's not because I'm incapable of understanding what's already been said and repeating it like a prat, but because I was typing at the same time". See also Help:Edit conflict.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay Pete, the issue is copyright. I'm not sure you understand the issue, since you reposted the copyright violation at User:Petechilcott/sandbox/Royal Aero Club Records Racing and Rally Association. You can't post copyrighted content here like this. We often have people come to Wikipedia and copy and paste material they found somewhere – someone else's writing. This infringes on the owner's copyright and we must delete the material. As we often tell people: "You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words." A second kind of copyright problem is presented when someone who is the owner of copyrighted material (or otherwise has authority to license it), comes here and pastes it as article content. I think this may apply to you. The problem there is that Wikipedia's content (with some exceptions not germane here) bears a highly-free copyright license, that allows our readers to take the content, modify it and re-use it, even for commercial purposes, with the only requirement being that they give attribution to the source. An owner of copyrighted material, thus, cannot give us a one-time license for use (as they can at many other websites); they cannot say "I own the copyright and I want to use it and I give my permission for use on Wikipedia". Instead, the owner has to release their non-free copyright ownership to the world, under a compatibly-free copyright license, in order for it to be used here. So, to use the content from RAeCRRRA website and britishairracing.com, for example, each would need to give up their copyright ownership–completely and irrevocably. That would have to be done in a verifiable manner. Instructions on releasing copyrighted material are set forth at Donating copyrighted materials but it's very rare for organizations like these to want to do that (and for very good reason). You asked whether the person who deleted it would "be the sole arbiter of that draft having already reviewed it once?" No. First, there were two people involved: the editor who discovered the copyright violation and tagged it, and the administrator who responded to the tagging and agreed with it. You might get two completely other people if you posted it again, but they would all properly do the same thing. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello - again (sorry!)

Clubzz.co.uk was the problem in the first place. When I looked at their entry, the words seemed familiar and they are, in fact, taken from our Air Racing Handbook [|Air Racing Handbook]. It would be possible to argue that THEY infringe OUR copyright, I guess. I have emailed them and asked them to take down the entry.

You've also highlighted another problem. http://www.britishairracing.com was the club's website, but I was recently tasked to use a new URL, http://www.royalaeroclubrrra.co.uk and there are many links to change which use the old URL (not my choice). SO britishairracing, royalaeroclubrrra.co.uk and the Royal Aero Club Records Racing and Rally Association are all one and the same.

I think I've also learnt that the sandboxes aren't 'hidden'!

Petechilcott (talk) 19:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Reply to your post about Bobby Ogdin
Hi Fuhghettaboutit. I haven’t given up on the Bobby Ogdin article; in fact, it’s much improved. I have broken the long text into paragraphs as you suggested. I would like for you to fix the infringement on your work by a history merge, if you will. When that is done, should I send it to draft status? By the way, I have written another article (Red Lane) which was accepted from draft status. Thanks for helping me. Eagledj (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey Eagledj. I actually did the history merge long ago:-). If you look at the article's history back to April 17, you'll see all my edits and those of others are in there, including your earliest edits. You can submit it for review by placing at the very top this code and then saving. I've just now made a number of tweaks to improve it. Your stick-to-it-iveness is impressive! Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)
 * Great edits, thanks. I just reworked the Music Industry section.Eagledj (talk) 23:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

On Özdere
It is done, my friend! As of yesterday, the article on Özdere is fully completed and nominated for DYK. I encourage you to provide feedback and to contribute yourself, and especially to copy-edit the prose with me so that it reaches the best possible quality. I would love to see this article eventually reach WP:GA or WP:FA. The best to you, Coderenius (☎) 17:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Marc Nuttle page
You recently deleted a page that I created about a person named Marc Nuttle. I was wondering if I could fix the things that you found wrong with the page instead of have it just simply be deleted. I am willing to make edits that need to be made, I just don't want all of my work to have been in vain. Thank you for your time. Jackson.lisle (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell every single sentence was a copy and paste copyright infringement of either here or here, except possibly the two sentences of the Congressional Campaign section, and none of that prose can be used or provided. It was not fixable in place because the entire history was corrupted by illegal use of other people's non-free writing. Do you understand now that you have to write in your own words? (And in a non-promotional manner; some of this text would have been unsuitable even if it was not copied and pasted.) To be clear, you actually can use a very few short quotes under fair use, but marked as such with quotation marks and in-text attribution and cited at the end of the quote with an inline citation to the source of the quotation. Also, you can't just take existing text and modify is on a surface level. That does not avoid a copyright problem (see Close paraphrasing). I will provide a draft skeleton below that you could use as a scaffold – containing the infobox, section headers, coding, and citations.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

R. "Marc" Nuttle is

Hoax
Another one for my learning curve; I wonder if you would care to take a look at this. I don't mind spending time to rescue/find references for unsourced articles but I suspect this is simply a made up story and I would appreciate your input. CV9933 (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like CV9933 is right, Funnily enough, an editor, with their only edit, said as much but was reverted by Cluebot.User talk:Mitten 9. Doug Weller (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Because if this is a hoax (and I do think it is), it is a good enough one that CSD G3 does not apply, I have taken the article to AfD. I can't find any sources so even if it's not a hoax it appears unverifiable. Cheers--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sound call, it's what I would have done. Maybe someone will find something, who knows? Doug Weller (talk) 05:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I should think there are many more like this, as there is a massive backlog of unsourced articles. Thanks for your input I’ll know what to do if I come across them. CV9933 (talk) 12:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Anytime. It is scary just how many unsourced article there are (I was just thinking about this the other day). It comes from us having never enforced verifiability with any teeth. I've harped on that in the past but given up.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Re: Speedy Deletion "Credibly"
Hello, I started an article for Credibly, which was deleted as stated by you in the Credibly talk page for "blatant copyright infringement". I currently work for Credibly, and of course was given permission to upload/create the content/logo. What do I need to do to get this article back online? Sorry for any issues on my part, I am no way a seasoned Wiki editor. Shirtgawker (talk) 04:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Shirtgawker. Wikipedia's copyright situation is not similar to that of the average website. The vast majority of sites on the internet are fully copyrighted. That means that they can use a third-party's non-free copyrighted material under a one-time license for use given by the third-party: "we give you permission to use/host our content" – while the third-party retains non-free copyright ownership of the content. The way copyright works here is different because all of Wikipedia's content (outside of fair use material and some exceptions not germane here), is promised to its readers, the public at large, as bearing very unrestrictive free copyright licenses, that allows our readers to take the content and modify it and re-use even for commercial purposes, with the only restriction being suitable attribution to Wikipedia's contributors as the source. This, in turn, means that Wikipedia cannot use non-free copyrighted content under any such one-time license offered by an owner, like your employer. Rather, we need copyright owners to provide an affirmative copyright release of their content to the world (permanently and irrevocably) into the public domain or under a free copyright license that is compatible with the free licenses Wikipedia's content is automatically co-licensed under (the CC BY-SA 3.0 license and the GFDL). That release has to be done by a verifiable method—it cannot be done by an anonymous person on the internet posting to Wikipedia an assertion they are the owner and have authority to release the material. The release has to be very specific, stating the license the material is being release under. One method of release in a verifiable manner is for an owner to post at the external site where the content is hosted, a notice, typically placed at the bottom of the page, stating the release. For example:
 * The text of this website [or page, if you are specifically releasing one section] is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).
 * Other methods of release are explained at Donating copyrighted materials. While it is not uncommon for individuals to be willing to release their content just so it can be used at Wikipedia, it is rarer for a organization to want do do this. Even when this is done, a common issue is that material from a person or organization writing about themselves is rarely suitable for use here unchanged. The content you posted was not nearly as promotional and unencyclopedic as much we see, but it did contain promotional sounding marketing speak like "to reflect a growing customer base that extended well beyond the retail industry". Be aware that even if the organization is willing and goes ahead with proving a release of its material, that does not guarantee an article will remain. It would only take care of the copyright issue. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio question
Hi Fuhgettaboutit, I made this edit earlier today, not so much because it caused a cite error or was promotional but I suspected it might be a copyvio. Easiest for me was to revert it. Only problem that I could see is, if the page does contain a copyvio, does the actual page need to be deleted even though it is no longer visible? Thanks for your help. CV9933 (talk) 18:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey @CV9933: . Good question. No, not the whole page, but the particular revisions should be deleted if they contained copyvios. This can be done through revision deletion. For this, fill out (see its documentation). Because you only suspected a copyvio here, though, it'd be a bit of a reach to request RevDeletion unless and until it was pinned down. But I've confirmed it was indeed a copyvio, and so I've RevDeleted. If you look at the history you'll now see those two edits as crossed out and the diffs inaccessible. The sad part is that the earlier edits are probably copyvios too –  added by a COI SPA paid editor named "Digitized Health", but too far back in time to make checking easy; the Wayback Machine was not useful here. So it goes: another marketing brochure created by a PR agency to add to the mountain we've allowed to grow so tall we can only tidy some loose scree at the bottom. Feel free to stop by anytime and I'll try to be less morose;-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would say that I have been a bit of naive editor until fairly recently - I’ve less than 500 edits in around six months on here. However, focusing on fixing reference errors has raised my awareness of some cynical disruptive editing, edit warring, socking and now promotional activities. The positive I take from it is the amazing collaborative effort -no time for morose - all we can do is WP: keep chipping away. CV9933 (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Help desk
I see you're hiding revisions with the person's personal details. You might want to go back and hide the ones from yesterday between when they posted it and when it was redacted. Here's a diff. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 20:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @ONUnicorn: Aha. Thanks for the heads up – working on it now. There's a can of worms leaving this type of material visible.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I keep getting a "Lost connection to MySQL server" error.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC) Finally had to split it into two separate events to not get that error.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Commons category template
Dear Fuhghettaboutit,

I guess this discussion Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_August_20 might interest. I suppose your input on this topic could be valuable.--Robby (talk) 21:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey Robby. I have always had very little interest in categorization and I believe I've commented only once ever in a CfD discussion. I will not be doing so here. I don't know what made you bring this to my attention in particular, given that, AFAICT, no edit of mine would have made you think I had any particular connection to this category or interest in its fate. Please read Canvassing. I am not referring you there because I have determined this this message is a violation, but because "Posting an excessive number of messages to individual users, or to users with no significant connection to the topic at hand" is one of the hallmarks of a canvassing violation listed at that page, and I see you are in the process of notifying other users of the discussion. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Dear Fuhghettaboutit, it was just my intention to make you aware of this discussion. Your edit here was leading me to the idea the general behaviour of the template commons category was interesting more specifically. So please accept my apologies for misinterpreting this. --Robby (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I see you had a good reason to view me as interested. I really did mean I just wanted you to be aware of the canvassing policy so you wouldn't have a problem since I missed my connection to the page, and see nothing of the sort was occurring.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Curious about an edit suppression in the section "Why are the time stamps not in synch?" on WP:Help desk
I really am not too worried about it one way or another, but I was curious why you suppressed an edit I made to the section "Why are the time stamps not in synch?" on WP:Help desk? The edit was made 22:13, 20 August 2015. I originally posted this as a question on the Help desk, since I had no better place to ask, until user:Maproom pointed me to the deletion log. FWIW, I don’t immediately see anything in my post that would count as either personal details or a legal dispute. Anyway, I'm not intending to argue the point, I'm just curious as to why. Rwessel (talk) 07:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Now explained at the Help Desk by PrimeHunter. Maproom (talk) 12:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

RM Bongbong Marcos back to Ferdinand Marcos, Jr.
Hello, I noticed you participated in the 2012/13 discussion to move to Bongbong Marcos, which ended in "not moved". Someone started a new discussion a few months ago with barely any participation, not even taking in the factors mentioned in the initial RM and they moved it anyways. Perhaps you'd be interested to voice your opinion in the new RM I just started. Thanks. Raykyogrou0 ( Talk ) 09:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair Use
Hi Fuhghettaboutit, I found this page today and thought it would be a good idea to place it on my user page as a handy reference. I thought about putting it inside a userbox because I haven't done anything with images yet. Then, in one of those lightbulb moments, I wondered if I could borrow the image from here to put inside the userbox. I clicked on the image and it says "fair use" so does that mean it can only be used in that article? Regards. CV9933 (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey CV9933! Yes it does mean that. With the caveat that I'm going to oversimplify a bit here: The rule is that a non-free copyrighted work (a work of sufficiently unique artistic expression that is subject to copyright protection in the first place) cannot be used by you at all without a license/permission to do so from its owner, full stop. Fair use is an exception to this general rule for valid educational purposes, so it is made as narrow as possible in its construction. Additionally, since a mission of Wikipedia is to have as much free content as possible, we construe fair use even more strictly than may be necessary under legal precedent. It's a bit of a slog, but I invite you to read Non-free content criteria, Non-free content criteria and Non-free use rationale guideline. One rule I will distill for you because it tells you the answer to your question: you cannot use any non-free content outside the article mainspace (so you cannot use that image in Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual). In fact, you can only use an image under fair use in the specific location in the mainspace where a fair use rationale has been provided for it, making the case that its use for that specific topic and purpose meets all parts of non-free content criteria. To demonstrate that I'm oversimplfying, even that is not strictly true; there's an exception to the exception, in that we do allow certain uses outside the mainspace but only where absolutely necessary to function (see Category:Wikipedia non-free content criteria exemptions. Regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Glad I asked, that would have been an embarrassing faux pas. Having now gone back and read the rationale template on that image, my proposition would not only have been wrong but also discourteous. Cheers. CV9933 (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

FYI
The user: Clintric is SPA account with sole purpose of spamming. Thank you.--Ivetliviya9 (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

your email to me
Hello, I received a no-reply email from you saying that you sent me a message but I am not finding it. Can you please post it where I can read it? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SLBloom (talk • contribs)
 * Hi SLBloom. I did not send you an email, but I did make a change to your talk page, and you must have your preferences set to receive emails whenever your talk page is changed. In any event, you must not have seen it but I explained to you what that edit was at User talk:Timtrent. I also advised you of a problem with copyright there, among other matters. By the way, on talk pages like this one (but never in articles) you should sign your posts – just as you'll see me doing through a signature at the end of this post to you. This is done automatically by the software, when you place four tildes ( ~ ) at the end of your post and then save. Regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Response to message
Hello, You have left me the following message:Remove AfC copyvio decline category: this page is not the draft that was declined (which is what the category is intended to flag). I am afraid that I do not understand it! Could you please advise what is required? Many thanks. By the way, on talk pages like this one (but never in articles) you should sign your posts – just as you'll see me doing through a signature at the end of this post to you. This is done automatically by the software, when you place four tildes ( ~ ) at the end of your post and then save. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Design Archivist (talk • contribs)
 * Hi . Two templates were placed on your talk page by other users in April informing you that your then draft had been declined as a copyright violation. These templates erroneously placed your talk page in a category for "AfC submissions declined as copyright violations". That category is not for user talk pages but is intended for the declined drafts themselves. The template has been fixed to no longer place this category, but in the meantime, there were a few hundred talk pages that were cluttering up the category from this error, when they never should have been placed in it by the template's use. So my edit, which you can view here simply removed the false category from the two uses of the template at your talk page (as I did for a few hundred other pages). This is pure behind the scene maintenance work that has no affect on you, so don't worry about it. Think of it as someone from the town coming by to patch a hole in the street near your house. By the way, on talk pages like this one (but never in articles) you should sign your posts – just as you'll see me doing through a signature at the end of this post to you. This is done automatically by the software, when you place four tildes ( ~ ) at the end of your post and then save. Regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for Poetry in the early 21st century
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Poetry in the early 21st century. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
 * Your comments at WP:CWW and others are being discussed at Drv. Could you glance at it. MusicAngels (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

But listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect But. Since you had some involvement with the But redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 22:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry
I shouldn't have snapped as you did help. Rubbish computer 17:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC) Rubbish computer 17:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * @Rubbish computer: I hardly would call that snapping at me—and I can certainly see why you were upset. In short, no worries. Black Kite's close and action seems appropriate and probably what I should have done in hindsight.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Rubbish computer 18:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Mail
Flat Out (talk) 03:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)