User talk:MadeYourReadThis/Archives/2011/April

Your new template
I mean Template:Uw-refspam. Absolutely marvellous, this would've been in need a few times. What if either of us added something like "quality, not quantity" to the template? I've seen cases where editors flood the article with dozens if not hundred refs, most (if not all) of them opinion posts, blogs etc which are bad sources. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I like your idea, could it be incorporated into the existing template?  Perhaps a sentence at the end that summed it up as quality not quantity?  Feel free to edit the template.  Also, I'm working on an essay on reference quality and an article tage.--RadioFan (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, there is already a refspam template that is specific to spam in references. I'm going to rename this to refquantity, which is also a bit more neutral sounding and wont be so off putting.
 * Thank you, RadioFan! Zakhalesh (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Cwrsync
Hi,

Thanks for your feedback about Cwrsync. It is actually very popular with more than 300 downloads daily and there are articles, officila appnotes recommending Cwrsync as a solution for Rsync from Windows. I have now updated external links with some examples including an appnote from Novell and a you tube video about how to use it on windows 7.

Best regards Tevkar (talk) 10:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The concern here is that the subject does not appear to meet notability guidelines, the references provided are primarily from the official website for this product. you can help resolve this by providing reliable 3rd party references that provide significant coverage of this software.--RadioFan (talk) 12:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Many of the external links were supposed to be references. I have now reorganized cwrsync to mention them as references. Tevkar (talk) 07:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Citations tag in Murry Hope
Hi RadioFan, I noticed you put a tag (in the article Murry Hope) asking for “more citations from reliable sources, etc”. So please, first of all let me clarify some points about the article:


 * 1) the whole article it is completely edited from references (absolutely all).


 * 1) If you eventually felt some lacking of reference then please just look for the next note (reference) in the text or check the earlier note. Examining there you will find the assertions made in one or more earlier paragraphs (when consecutives sentences or paragraphs use the same reference then the reference is showed once after all statements).

If these above 2 items clarify your doubts, excellent, all solved. If not so, please let me know, could you specify which exactly sentences(s) you have doubts? Before editing I always do a very careful and hard work with the notes-references, even so: is there some reference inspiring doubt to you? If yes, which one?

Or may be you feeling clearer see the same note consecutively repeated. If it is that the case, I am ok! But still needing to know: where or which are the spots?

Thanks for your attention. Regards, Hour of Angels (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC).


 * This article is under discussion for deletion, please click on the link at the top of the page to participate in that discussion.--RadioFan (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Bhaskar Mukherjee
In fact I was tried to talk admin BigDom, but unable to, if possible please post the message to the a/c holder. The A/c holder delete the file Bhaskar Mukherjee with mentioning reasons that he has not fulfill the criteria. Thanks for comments, but I again suggest to check Google scholar or any other source about Bhaskar Mukherjee. Let me share: 1. Articles on JASIST received 5 citations, LISR recived 3, Scientometrics recived 2 and Libr Phil Practice recived 2. It is small fraction, just to check the sources. Be remember all the works are in solo authorship. So the criteria of notability from point 2 or 3 does not violate. He has three books published from various international publishers. He is the member of ILA, IASLIC. He received University Gold Medal three times and National Level raja Rammohun Roy Library Award in 2004. A person without chairing any session of any conference/seminar can not not be judgement criteria of notability. If so, I strongly suggest wiki to change policy of notability. Somewhere it is also mentioned that after consulting various experts of the field, the entry has been deleted (Bhaskar Mukherjee). It is completely a false statement, because no such evidences have been there. Who are the person with whom you made consultation, will it be possible to know? I don't feel you have consulted anybody. If so then how an expert put such comments for person who atleast receive some citations, good bio-data - you delete his entry and someone who never recived any citation - you keep his/her entry. So, being an administrator you should be unbiased. You people never check the fact, because you have so many work. But it reflects your caliber that how you handel things. --Open3215 (talk) 08:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * First, please understand that I deleted nothing and I am not an admin. I brought this article up for discussion where the consensus of multiple editors was that this person does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion.  An admin deleted this article as a result of that discussion.  While I appreciate your passion, I am disappointed that you failed to read the top of this page that makes this point clear.
 * You are most welcome to participate in editing Wikipedia but like most things, there are rules you must learn and follow. You misunderstand how Wikipedia works, You cant add and article and leave it for others to finish, especially leaving references to reliable sources for others to find.  I, and likely the other editors in this discussion, dont appreciate comments like "you people".  The responsibility for providing reliable sources lies with you, not others. Please read WP:BURDEN which spells this out more completely.  I have no comment on consultation of field experts because I have no idea what you are referring to.  Also please understand that this person must meet not only the general notability guidelines but also those for biographies and the must more stringent notability guidelines for academics.  That was made clear in the deletion discussion.  I see no evidence of any bias in the administrator closing the discussion and deleting, such a personal accusation is serious and you should think twice before making it.
 * FInally, if you believe that information was missing from the deletion discussion, talk to the admin that deleted the article, not me. I cant do anything about it, I'm not an admin.  That person can.  If you are unsatisfied with that result, you may request a Deletion review where another administrator and other editors will review the deletion process followed and consider any information you'd like to provide.  I should caution you though, articles which are aggressively recreated after deletion without addressing the concerns brought up in the deletion discussion, especially when there are attempts to circumvent controls put in place by admins by changing the article name to avoid detection, are not viewed positively.  No one is out to get you or the subject of this article.  Please stick to the facts and maintain a professional tone when discussing this with admins and other editors.  That reflects on the calibre of how you handle things.--RadioFan (talk) 10:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Block of Bugapi
I'm not sure what, if anything can be done, but I would also strongly recommend considering a block of the IP addresses that the user has been editing under for most of the past five days or so. They can be found listed here. Strikerforce (talk) 13:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd also recommend extending this block to a permanent one. This is a single purpose account focused on promotion of a web server product that this editor is associated with.  In addition to the edit waring, violation of the 3-revert rule, this editor has is bent on disrupting the AFD on the article in question and has taken recommending deletion of an article on a competing product here: Articles for deletion/Cherokee (Webserver). No less than 5 editors have tried, in vain, to give this editor the benefit of the doubt and direct them towards more positive contributions.  More details are available here: Requests for comment/Bugapi--RadioFan (talk) 15:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed there Radiofan - extended to permanent block since that kind of nonsense is beyond acceptable. The 2 day block was intentionally short to allow some input in the deletion discussion, and to (hopefully) prevent a myriad of IP's all over the place. I admit that i was actually close to an indef before, but seeing the addition to the other deletion discussion, i believe that WP:RBI is the only way to go here, as is for any future IP's or socks. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 15:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Wendell Flinchum


The article Wendell Flinchum has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * WP:BLP1E. The subject is the chief of the Virginia Tech police department.  His only notability is derived from being in the news during the aftermath of the Virginia Tech massacre.  Half of the article is simply a one-sided attack based on the police initially being given a bad lead.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. B (talk) 16:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Wendell Flinchum for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wendell Flinchum is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Wendell Flinchum until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. B (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Procedure for handling copyright problems
Hi. :) Thanks for being so diligent about copyright issues, but with respect to your actions at the now-userfied User:Ellen Ada Goldberg/Boué Soeurs, I just wanted to be sure that you know that when a contributor has asserted that he or she wrote the copyrighted source, the article is not eligible for WP:CSD. In such cases, the content is blanked with copyvio until the verification is complete, as set out at Copyright violations and Copyright problems. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your concern but looking at WP:CSD G12 this was eligible as there was no indication of free license or public domain there, only an acknowledgment that the contributor is the author. Additionally, the article stated that the copyright was owned by someone else. The contributor may be the author but they dont necessarily own the copyright.  I'm all for giving a new article written by a new editor a chance but not when it is copyed and pasted from copyrighted material.--RadioFan (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * G12 is only for "Unambiguous copyright infringement" (as it says). WP:CSD says, "For equivocal cases (such as where there is a dubious assertion of permission, or where free-content edits overlie the infringement), please consult Copyright violations." Copyright violations addresses this situation specifically, where it notes that "if the contributor is the copyright holder of the text, even if it is published elsewhere under different terms, they have the right to post it here under CC-BY-SA and GFDL – the text may still be unsuitable for Wikipedia for another reason, but it is not a copyright violation." It also explains that copyvio is to be used pending verification,not WP:CSD. (For the policy as of the date of tagging). The article does not state that copyright is owned by someone else, only that it is "housed, under copyright."


 * I doubt that there are very many people on Wikipedia who spend more time working to ensure that our content is copyright compliant than I do, so I appreciate your caution. But it is important to follow policies and recommended practices in addressing them. Applying the tag was understandable, but reverting the contributor who corrected it to the proper forum was not a good idea. The copyright problems board is equally effective at dealing with copyright problems, and this is among the kinds of copyright problems it was created to address. That you yourself don't see "the need to save it", as you wrote, is really immaterial. In such cases, it is in fact better to list it at CP than to delete it under an easily remediable criterion like G12; all it takes is permission through OTRS, and the AfD has to start from scratch. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Based on the text there, I felt it was unambiguous copyright infringement. I found removing G12 because of a questionable interpretation of the copyright status of this contribution inappropriate.  The contribution itself indicated that the author did not own the copyright.  Authoring something doesn't necessarily provide copyright, I'm sure you know this based on your previous copyright patrolling work.--RadioFan (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, in most cases, authoring something does provide copyright; it is the basis of the U.S. copyright law that governs us (as per . While "work for hire" situations may negate that and in some circumstances publishers may acquire exclusive rights, it is not "unambiguous" unless we know this to be true. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of List of hobbies
Hello RadioFan! I have left a note on the [Talk:List of hobbies] page. Please read it if you get a chance. Thanks! Jeffrey Scott Maxwell (talk) 23:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Prod of List of hobbies
Hi RadioFan,

I removed the prod tag you placed on List of hobbies because it seemed clear to me that User:Jeffrey Scott Maxwell opposed deletion of the article. Also, I think articles that had AFD discussions aren't eligible for prod even if the previous version was deleted (unless the new article is on a completely different subject that just happens to share the same name). Anyway, if you still think the article should be deleted, feel free to start a new AFD. Calathan (talk) 01:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:United States Air Force Space and Missile History Center
Wanted to get your feedback here because I know you launced this article. Please leave a comment about the possibility of a merge on the article's talk page. Thanks, FieldMarine (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Look at Cadogan Tate Page
The Cadogan Tate page must be considered advertising because our page was very similar but got deleted. You cant be biased to one company so either delete theirs or put our back up. You so called editors have far to much power on this site and get all high and mighty because you can delete pages, just like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshy1236 (talk • contribs) 11:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)