User talk:Ponyo/Archives/May/2011

Ring of Fire
My primary concern is that the article, as written, contained just one single sentence of complete prose, namely Ring of Fire is a neoclassical/progressive/power metal band from Chula Vista, California formed in 2000., while the entire rest of the article consisted solely of bulleted lists. Even if the band has notable members, the article has to actually explain that — it's not good enough to just list their names without giving any actual context to explain that they're notable. And it didn't have any sources, either, so strictly from looking at the article itself I have no way of knowing whether it actually had notable members or just obscure wannabes who happened to have the same name as some more notable people. (I do realize that it most likely was the real people — but as verifiability goes, it's the job of the Ring of Fire article to make that explicit up front, not the job of the reader to go clicking on the musicians' individual articles to see whether they mention a band called Ring of Fire or not.)

And it's also important to remember that speedy or prod deletion doesn't mean that the band can never have an article; if someone comes along and writes a better one which makes notability more apparent, that'll be perfectly fine. It just means the band can't have that particular article as written. And you certainly also have the choice of restoring it if you choose, but it needs a hell of a lot of work before it'll actually be keepable. When you get right down to it, the criterion isn't "topic does not have any notability", it's "article doesn't explain the notability of the topic" — and there is a difference. Even our article on Stephen Harper could be deleted if it somehow failed to actually say that he's the Prime Minister of Canada. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree that "it needs a hell of a lot of work before it'll actually be keepable". As you noted that you have no issues with my restoring the article, I will do so. If notability is a concern then it can be taken to AfD for further discussion - confirmed notability is not covered by the A7 deletion criteria and should not be used to justify speedy deletion. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The article has to actually state some notability before you can say that it "confirms" any — and it does need a hell of a lot of work before it'll be genuinely keepable, because as written it wasn't even close to being an actual article. Though I see you've made some improvements, so thanks for that — but it certainly wasn't "keepable" and didn't have any "confirmed" notability in its original form. Bearcat (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added a couple of references and incorporated some of the listed information into prose. If notability is a concern, it can always be discussed at AfD. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I'm not concerned about notability anymore, given your improvements. I was concerned about notability for the original version of the article only, because a functional notability claim and valid references weren't present in that version of the article as written. So now that you've improved it, there's no longer an issue. Bearcat (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I do still disagree that it met the A7 deletion criteria, but it is a very repectful disagreement. I'm glad that, regardless of how it came about, the article is now improved and we both appear satisfied with the outcome. Cheers, Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ironholds (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Seen it, thanks for the note. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 13:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Concerning "Don Sahli" page.
The page I wrote was deleted in March: Don Sahli. The listed reason is copyright infringement. The reference of the infringement, Folger Gallery, is writing that I wrote for them. The copyrighted material is my material. Please let me know if I can do anything to remedy this or how I can get Don Sahli back on Wiki. I collect Don Sahli's work and have been long time follower, along with many, many collectors/artist around the globe. He is a notable, famous artist with work in galleries around the United States and 30 years of documented art career in notable magazines and newspapers. Don Sahli's name was also added to the Wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Bongart. Sahli was the last apprentice to Sergei Bongart and many of us that follow them both would like to see the connection and mention on Wiki.

Thank you for your work for Wiki and if you have any questions, please contact me - so we can work to add Don Sahli back to Wiki.

Thank You

Kathryn Foreman [redacted] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.2.143 (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Kathryn - in order for us to host copyrighted materials on Wikipedia, we need to ensure the correct permissions and licenses are in place. In order to donate copyrighted materials, please review Donating copyrighted materials for instructions on how to proceed. The article can be undeleted once the licenses have been verified, however it will still need to adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality and sourcing policies in order to avoid possible future deletion. Good luck with the article! Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Ponyo,

I am unsure what you need from me. I have not copyrighted every article or bio I have written. When I visited the Folger Gallery website, the only copyright mention was pertaining to the images. Here is whats on their website "LEGAL NOTICE: All digital images on this website are the property of FolgerGallery.com. Any copying, distribution or use of the artwork without the express written permission of FolgerGallery.com constitutes copyright infringement and is punishable by law." Please let me know what you need. In the meantime I will review the links you provided above.

Thank You - Kathryn Foreman — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonSahli (talk • contribs) 21:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In order for Wikipedia to include material (images or verbatim text) that has been previously published on other websites, we need to ensure that we have the permission of the author and/or the copyright holder to host the material. Please do review the links I have provided above for information as to how to go about donating material, this link is particularly helpful in describing the process. Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 21:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I did review the links, thank you, and I will contact the owner of that website and see if they can update it with Creative Commons. My concern is the website owner, you can see that they have not updated any of the content since March 23, 2003. Is there another alternative to achieve the page? Can I just resubmit with different content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonSahli (talk • contribs) 17:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Rewriting the article from scratch is of course an option. I would suggest using the article wizard as it will help guide you through the process. As long as you ensure that the material you include is verifiable through the use of reliable sources, and the content is not promotional in nature it should be fine. You may also want to review the notability criteria for artists to ensure Mr. Sahli meets the criteria for inclusion. Good luck with your article! --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 17:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Miss Behave
Wondering why you deleted the beginning of the Miss Behave TV Series page? I am the creator/producer of the show, and my co-producer was creating the page. We are needing to make a show page, and trying to figure out how it's done. Leonianpictures (talk) 07:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The Miss Behave (TV Series) article consisted solely of a plot summary which was a copyright infringement of the material used at IMDB. Wikipedia cannot host copyrighted material without ensuring all of the proper permissions and licenses are in place. Information explaining this was included on your co-producer's talk page. Note also that creating an article in order to promote your program is a conflict of interest. If your television program is successful, an uninvolved and neutral editor will in all likelihood create a page on the subject. You may also request article creation here. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots  13:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Shraddha Kapoor
Hello. As for Shraddha Kapoor, I'd like to say that she really is born in 1987. I know someone who has studied with her in Boston University, but if you need more proof, go to http://www.pipl.com. Type Shraddha Kapoor. You can see her old myspace profile which really says she is 24 years of age...which means she is born in 1987. Keep clicking "search" if you can't see the profile. She uploaded her picture on Feb 27, 2007-4 years ago, before she decided to become an actress. There are many fake profiles of hers on the internet, but these are post 2010...so obviously that what makes the profile fake. This particular profile was made before 2010.

Plus, it's very common for actresses to lie about their ages. She's taking 2 years off her age. She probably realizes that she is a star and she must take a few years off her age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Disgrl (talk • contribs) 02:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds like possible WP:SYNTHESIS and original research. The only way Wikipedia can include the birthdate is through the inclusion of sources that meet our sourcing policy with regard to verifiability. As there seem to be different dates floating around, with varying levels of sources to back them up, I will take the date out altogether (this is standard for contentious information in a biography article). Once consensus is reached on the talk page, then the information can be restored in the agreed upon format. Please lay out your argument on the article talk page and then, in order to draw in additional editors opinions, you could start a request for comment. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 13:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

- That sounds reasonable. I strongly believe she is born in 1987, but to be fair we'll wait for more credible sources to release. Thank you for understanding.
 * Note that I started a discussion on the talk page if you would like to add any information there. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 13:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Ponyo, thanks for reverting whatever-it-was on my talk-page. I'm sure I'd have found it dispiriting - the stuff left on Cynwolfe's talk page was quite enough to be getting on with. Ho hum. Haploidavey (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The garbage on your page was significantly worse, but tis gone now! Cheers, --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 20:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

User:216.230.150.59
The IP is still adding dates to articles even though we both pointed this out at his talk page. DJ Magician Man (talk) 01:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the belated reply, luckily another admin has given the IP a temporary "break" in order to give them time to peruse the MOS links we provided. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 12:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for deleting the Brian Keating hoax article just now. You may also wish to take a look at article. As with the BK one it was created by an editor with no previous edits. Then it was heavily edited by. This IP falls into the range used by blocked user who has finally been banned per this discussion Administrators' noticeboard. If you prefer to let the AFD run its course that is fine with me. Thanks again for your work and for taking the time to read my post. MarnetteD | Talk 19:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry I forgot to leave you a link to the AFD Articles for deletion/James Bate. MarnetteD | Talk 19:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "I've come across a number of these fake actor articles in the past couple of days and there are many tell-tale signs that they're hoaxes perpetrated by the same user. I'll take a look at the James Bate article and delete it if it's an obvious hoax. Please feel free to drop a note here if you come across similar articles in the future - I'm sure there are plenty out there that have escaped our keen eyes! Cheers, --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 19:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the time that you took to look into this. I will keep my eyes peeled for more of this sort of thing. Thanks again and have a nice weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 20:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is one that looks dodgy Bobby Prescott. Same MO of being created by a newbie though no anon IP followup. MarnetteD | Talk 18:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Got it. If not from Harvey Carter, it might have been User:Jake Picasso. The empty headers with other sections fully formed is pretty classic for that banned user. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 18:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update on the other possible sock master. That will help in any sock tags that I might place in the future. MarnetteD | Talk 18:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Moore Physics
(and various other names) looks to be starting again as User:Bill Moore: Physics Teacher - should these be blocked when I find them or do they need to go to SPI? (I should know this - losing track. Too busy revising my French and getting odd things done...) Peridon (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've had run-ins with either of these accounts previously, but would be happy to help if you need anything. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 15:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My bad - getting mixed up with Harvey Carter... Peridon (talk) 17:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Here are a few new hoax articles
Hi again. Just found a three new ones today. Alan Cassady, Ronald Hamilton and Alan Hendry. All were created by. Sheesh this person is putting in a lot of time on these. MarnetteD | Talk 17:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the IP that is doing the followup edits including adding the hoax actor pages to numerous film articles. MarnetteD | Talk 18:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This editor has joined in the hoaxing . This editor just created this What Lies Above hoax article MarnetteD | Talk 18:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Update. As you will see these are all red links now. JohnCD took care of these hoaxes for us. What a way to start a new week. MarnetteD | Talk 19:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Users blocked, IP blocked 24 hr, I have raised an entry at Sockpuppet investigations/Jake Picasso to see if it's him. JohnCD (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks all - a long weekend here in Canada combined with a Vancouver Canucks afternoon game led to a bit of a lag on replies. I think Jake Picasso might be stale, but if we can establish a new trail based on behaviour it will certainly be helpful. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 22:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hope your weekend was enjoyable. The Canucks sure looked good. It would be great to have a Canadian team playing in the finals. I'm old enough that I got to see the Vancouver Canucks (WHL) play the Denver Spurs when I was a kid. I wonder if our hoaxer is ever gonna find something else to do with their time. MarnetteD | Talk 23:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Checkuser linked in some previous hoaxers and a sleeper. JohnCD (talk) 10:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

New resolution proposal
Hi. Just wanted to let you know that a new proposal has been made in a thread you contributed to at AN/I concerning the possibility of prohibiting a user from initiating actions at AN, AN/I, or WQA. Thanks, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 06:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

You deleted my Wiki page for our site, www.Rankography.com
How come and how can I recover it?

I don't understand what we did wrong.

Tyler tyler@rankography.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rankography (talk • contribs) 05:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The article Rankography movies was deleted under the A7 criteria, specifically it did not assert any significance or importance with regard to the subject. In order to have a Wikipedia article, an organization or company needs to identify what makes it significant in comparison to the other millions of companies throughout the world. Please review the notability criteria for inclusion in order to see what Wikipedia requires with regard to notability. Unfortunately your username gives the appearance of representing a company or organization and is therefore a violation of Wikipedia's username policy. I will need to block the account, however I will leave instructions on how to request a rename once it has been confirmed you are aware of Wikipedia's policies against using accounts for promotional purposes. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 13:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Another IP in the 99 range
Hello again. It looks like you are already on this but the IP that you are currently reverting looks to be making the same edits as this on that you blocked on May 21. I wish we could use rollback on these though I can understand why we aren't allowed to. On another note "Go Canucks"!!!! MarnetteD | Talk 16:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The edits were outright BLP violations by an IP hopper who has previously been blocked - I've reverted all of their edits. When it comes to serial violators such as this sometimes a little IAR goes a long way. And yes, I'm both excited yet terrified about the upcoming game. Fingers crossed Luongo comes to the ice with his game face on. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 16:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't know if you are still online but I thought that I'd let ya know that the one from this morning is still at it. Cheers MarnetteD | Talk 19:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note - I was blocking them as you were composing this message! --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 19:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much - there is no better response time than getting something done before the request is finished :-) Those NHL rascals are making us wait until Wednesday for game one, Grrrrr. In fact this could be the first time in I don't know how long that the Stanley Cup is won after the NBA title. MarnetteD | Talk 19:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)