User talk:TheNYCdan

Welcome
Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!) ''' Hello, TheNYCdan, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:
 * Be Bold!
 * Learn from others
 * Be kind to others
 * Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
 * Tell us a bit about yourself
 * Our great guide to Wikipedia

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

We're so glad you're here! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Assist
I an attempting to clean up a client list I found by using the column template.. The entire list is sourced from corporate material.. how do i remove the notification that some elements are outsourced.. do i need to add a ref to the entire section?
 * It might help if you told us which article.... Peridon (talk) 11:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is 5W Public Relations -- John of Reading (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If so, that "Client List" is bordering on WP:LINKFARM, and it probably better with it removed.  Ron h jones (Talk) 18:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The columns have been created and further discussion on the content of the article can take place on its talk page. -- Diannaa (Talk) 18:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Is an article from http://gawker.com/#!365723/the-story-of-ronn-torossian a gossip site, considered to be a reliable source. This information keeps coming up.. on a companys article. would like your opinion.
 * From what I can tell, there is no consensus as to the general reliability of Gawker as a source. There have been a number of discussions about it at the Reliable sources/Noticeboard, (See ,,,, and the BLP notice board )and my reading of them suggests that Gawker is a border case. While sources should often be considered on a case by case basis if the assertion is controversial, this is especially true for Gawker. What that piece is being used to support will influence whether it counts. The more an article relies on it, the more controversial the assertion is, the bigger a reliable source problem there is. Sorry for the non-answer, but Gawker seems to be a gray area, if you provide the specific use of the article as a source, it may be easier to form a conclusion about it. Also, you can always make a post to the Reliable sources Noticeboard. And if you want another opinion, just remove the -helped from the helpme tag and it will re-open.  Monty  845  08:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is the issue.. im editing a corporate page.. and went to create a client list using press releases and corp literature from 5wpr.com editors are telling me this is not a valid resource? as it can not be confirmed.. i see other PR companies client list using same corp material as a source.. im new here.. but seem to be going up against 3 editors who i cant seem to come to concession with .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:5W_Public_Relations#Client_list_and_5wpr_as_reliable_source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:5W_Public_Relations#Client_list_and_5wpr_as_reliable_source


 * A list of clients is inappropriate per WP:NOTDIR unless you can provide an independent reliable source. odwyerpr.com is not independent; it says at the top, "List your PR firm with O'Dwyer's and pick up new business".


 * We are simply not in the advertizing business.


 * The other users on the talk page are quite justified in challenging the additions. If you can show a (true) newspaper article (or articles), or a book, showing this list of clients - then we could make progress. If you cannot, it's probably best to give up on that specific point.


 * And yes, you mentioned other articles, and on the talk people mentioned WP:OTHERSTUFF - that is quite correct. If there are other articles with such lists (without good refs), then all that means is, we've got more articles to fix.


 * In addition, you have only edited re. this company - that does not indicate that you are actually here to build an Encyclopaedia, but indicates your specific interest in promoting one org. To avoid being labelled a single purpose account. I recommend you edit other articles - thus avoiding the conflict of interest, and gaining experience in Wikipedia. See User:Keegan/Butterfly.  Chzz  ► 12:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

There are press releases all over the place like http://www2.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/09-09-2008/0004881789&EDATE= which then get picked up by KCstar for example.. if i source the press release or the NewsPaper.. isnt it the same information.? the client list i think is important.. Where would Crazybirds be without Apple? where would Boeing be with out the airlines.. a customer base demonstrates the companys reach.. i dont want to list all of the clients..just key ones. short of asking the company for copies of the invoices.. the best i thnk we have to go with is Press releases which do not have any retractions on.


 * It is sometime very hard to understand you because English is apparently your second language. But I think that what you are trying to say is that you would consider a press release identifying 5WPR as a spokesman of a company, reproduced in a secondary source, to be a reliable source that that company is a client of 5WPR. I agree completely. On the talk page of the article I suggested that you rebuild the list, using such sources as your references. Sally forth! --Ravpapa (talk) 13:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * (As an aside, I suggest that if you have any connection with Mr. Torossian or his ad agency, you suggest he hire a proofreader. The press release you cite is full of typographical, grammatical and syntactic errors. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC))

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four halfwidth tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 07:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Negative aura
You note here that you "sense a negative aura". You are absolutely right. You contend you are new to editing this article, so perhaps you are unaware of what went before. This, and a number of other articles, all associated with Ronn Torossian and 5WPR, were created and carefully pruned and cultivated by a number of editors who all turned out to be the same person. The articles in question were clearly efforts to promote Torossian and his company, and were not attempts to create unbiased, encyclopedic accounts of reality. Puffery. That is what it was.

We stodgy old editors of Wikipedia, who have been around for many years, and who have devoted ourselves to documenting things like Ignaz Schuppanzigh and Rav Papa are profoundly offended by this obvious attempt to subvert our project for base lucre. So we are vigilant, perhaps excessively, in rooting out what we see as vile.

Into this negative aura you have walked. Not only have you walked into it, you have focused your entire effort - intensive indeed - on editing two articles. This suggests to us that you, like the previous editors, are not interested in building an encyclopedia, but in promoting Ronn Torossian and his 5WPR.

I suggest you give these articles a rest. There are many articles on many diverse topics that require immediate attention. Jewish Music is a mess. Perhaps you would like to undertake a rewrite? --Ravpapa (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Bias
I have been a wikipedia.com user for many years, although never inspired to edit or to contribute. I was chasing articles for top PR firms and stumbled on 5w being ranked 15.. i chased that to wikipedia.. and saw the discussion page was argumentative.. the whole page seemed to have an overall negative tone to it, in contrast to the other PR companies on wp. I continued reading the comments and figured this listing is not getting a fare reading.. so perhaps I can bring some light into this and simply utilize templates and columns used by other PR companies, addition of standard client lists.. addition of more awards and recognition.. removing stuff like gawker which is like the national Enquirer of news... and simply polishing this page. The experience has been interesting...and yes i will learn by other editors. which is why i have been asking my questions on my talk page, as to get unbiased opinions. It is clear that the editors on this article have a bone to pick with this PRfirm.. and i think that aura is apparent.

I would argue that feelings and sentiments shouldnt have a place in an encyclopedia.. and if you are too close to this page based on previous efforts to "puff' the page;well perhaps its time to back away from it. As you suggest, there are many other pages that require attention. I have looked at the music page and i will begin to divert some of my time to assisting other pages,yet i think as this page was my gateway into wikipedia.. I should see it through.. I have no problem leaving out a client list.. but what a shame..it adds to the page..but im not focused on it.

What i cant figure out is that i added a recognition link, and it was swatted down.. although it is the same source for the opening line that 5wpr ranking dropped in 2010... i was going to remove that reference also... but seems anything I add that puts 5w in a non-negative light.. is squashed. Ill keep trying.. and if the client list require 3rd party links.. ok.. ill find some.As an outsider here.. id point out that your frustration at 5w's failure to create unbiased, encyclopedic accounts of reality... is kind of what im feeling at this point.

If i can get this page to be unbiased at the same time informative.. i think we will all have gained. TheNYCdan (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I am glad to hear of your intention to work on other articles. Soon you will have an opportunity, because both Ronn Torossian and 5W Public Relations will be locked, so you will be unable to edit them. This will give you time to work on the other Wikipedia projects you are interested in. --Ravpapa (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Temple Beth Am
Hello. Concerning your contribution, Temple Beth Am, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.bnaijeshurun.org/history.htm. As a copyright violation, Temple Beth Am appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Temple Beth Am has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Temple Beth Am and send an email with the message to . See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at Talk:Temple Beth Am with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Temple Beth Am.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While contributions are appreciated, Wikipedia must require all contributors to understand and comply with its copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Diannaa (Talk) 18:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)