User talk:Tim Pierce/Archive/2010

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Twp! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Stephen Cole (writer) -

Tineye in Vector?
I attempted to install Tineye in the Vector (Beta) skin, and I don't see a change. I added

to my vector.js file, but no result. Help? A p 3 rson ‽   23:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Good point. I haven't tried to use the Tineye extension in the beta vector skin myself.  I'll see if I can debug it. Tim Pierce (talk) 23:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI
Please see Sockpuppet investigations/Sciologos. You have been involved with this issue in the past, perhaps you could help with investigation. -- Cirt (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Brexx
No problem. I revert everything Brexx does. When he persuades other editors to do his edit for him, I revert with a note, because you may have decided differently if you had known the request was from a banned editor. If you stand by the edit, that's fine.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for filling me in. I understand the motive but it was still puzzling, because the edit itself seemed so uncontroversial.  Also, at the time there was no SPI notice on User:Wohoooo (I see you've added it now). Tim Pierce (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

a little biting
No need to ask others when yo can do it on your own! --Stone (talk) 21:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ... beg pardon? Tim Pierce (talk) 22:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do not bite the newbie like you did on the page of User talk:Bridgettttttte.--Stone (talk) 05:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. I didn't mean that to sound harsh.  It was intended to be a cheerful reminder that anyone can edit Wikipedia and that you don't need to ask permission. Tim Pierce (talk) 06:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem! The user was new and I changed the refstyle, which made it very unclear to him how it works. I used the PMID not the PMC and a bot to generate the refs and that added a few wrong refs. That User tried to figure out what was going on and tried to edit the article but got lost in the templates.--Stone (talk) 10:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Football and Silly Season
Helli Twp, you recently added a note to the Thierry Henry article. Please note that every newspaper is flourishing with transfer rumors, and so such stuff should only be added when officially confirmed by either of the two clubs in question. Cheerio Sandman888 (talk) 19:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I saw your revert. Sorry to have muddied the waters!  I was working through the oldest  requests, and the reports looked legit -- clearly I don't have enough football background to judge. :-)  If you or other WP Football editors can resolve  requests as they come in, it would remove the temptation for me to "help" :-) Tim Pierce (talk) 20:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Project invitation
Feel free to join this project. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Mobbing
Just wanted to thank you for your contributions to the Mobbing article. I greatly appreciate your feedback. Doniago (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ...though apparently Penbat feels otherwise given that they just undid your edits and claimed that I had nothing else to say on the matter. I did not realize they were a telepath. Doniago (talk) 20:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You posted twice on the mobbing talk page yesterday and you said you would leave it to others and you hadnt so far posted today. If there is any vandalism around here, it is you doing it. I ADDED very constructive text but not only did you destructively DELETE and VANDALISE my hard work, you even rolled back way before I started doing the film list and i have had to try to sort the mess out as later edits have been done. You also havent yet expressed any remorse for blatantly wasting the time of several good intentioned people.--Penbat (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Folks, remember that we all have good intentions here even if we don't see it all eye to eye. Penbat, please remember that just about everyone else who edits Wikipedia is also a volunteer and may not have time to keep up on a daily basis -- the fact that Doniago and I had not posted on this issue today doesn't mean that we were no longer interested in the matter.  I'm confident that we can come to a mutually agreeable solution but please have a little more patience with the process. Tim Pierce (talk) 03:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record, I'm not replying to Penbat because I don't see anything constructive resulting from anything I might have to say. Penbat continues accusing me of Vandalism and fails to AGF without any evidence to support their perspective. The messages they have left on Talk pages and in edit summaries have bordered on personal attacks as far as I'm concerned, and are an unwarranted response to my initial actions. Their recent reinstatement of their changes to the Mobbing page strikes me as a deliberate attempt to impose their views rather than allow for consensus.
 * Penbat's initial approach to their concerns regarding my edits was to go to the Admin noticeboard (without notifying me as recommended on that board) -and- request adminhelp, rather than engage in any attempt at a dialogue with me, and as recent notes indicate they yell at me and refuse to take any responsibility for their own actions. If and when Penbat shows more willingness to abide by consensus and engage in an open exchange of ideas rather than unilaterally enforce their own perspective and make baseless accusations, I will be happy to revisit my concerns. Doniago (talk) 12:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have opened a Wikiquette Alert regarding Penbat's conduct towards me, given that the WP:AN discussion was archived without resolution and Penbat's aggressive behavior towards me has continued. Penbat has been notified. Doniago (talk) 04:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have opened a Wikiquette Alert regarding Doniago's bizarre aggressive timewasting conduct towards me. Doniago's aggressive behavior towards me has continued. Doniago has been notified. --Penbat (talk) 23:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that somebody needs a nap. Tim Pierce (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

SPERs
If you could please add tld| to the front of, like this  that would help by removing it from the category. Thank you. -- &#47; MWOAP &#124; Notify Me &#92; 19:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

edward kotlyanskiy article
Hi Tim, I am sorry for the inactivity but I was quite busy. I will make the article live now. Have a look at it when you get the chance. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bballplayer3212 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It was a team effort!

Pierre Mcguire
I refer to my proposed edit to the Pierre McGuire section. I have tried to amend this section earlier and was guided by another moderator named "Resolute". I have very little experience with Wikipedia so I don't know if this is possible but could he oversee my proposed edits? He is very knowledgeable about hockey and I think is better suited for this task. FYI, the third source I provided was not a real interview at all, it was all a joke and a very funny joke if you are familiar with McGuire's tendencies as a commentator. I will amend my edit to read "mocked" instead of "criticized" and make some other smaller changes to more accurately capture the essence of the articles I sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitch macdonald (talk • contribs) 02:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, any other editor can address the issue. You can leave a message for Resolute on his talk page, User talk:Resolute.  For the record, I still think the sources you supplied are not very strong.  The sources should be pretty clear even to someone like me who is not familiar with the subject.  But I won't stick my nose in again. :-) Tim Pierce (talk) 02:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

karl lucas
This page has been under dispute for many months now,I stepped in as Lucas's page was being constantly edited,the original page was all based on a CV!

If you check out the abuse he received on June 1st..you will see he has had rather alot of slander.It seems like a particular user has a vendetta.Dont know why?

Can you tell me why CV and why an internationally respected database as SPOTLIGHT isnt recognised?

Also Lucas does appear in the Music Video and is Credited in the final credits.WHy do you not believe this?

Antonio82 (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I do believe it. It's enough to make me believe that it's probably true.  But Wikipedia has a higher standard of proof, particularly where biographies of living people are involved.  Sources need to be independent of the article's subject.  That rules out CVs.  It's unfortunately far too common for people to lie on their CV, and far too infrequent that the lie is exposed, to take them for granted.  Most of the time this doesn't happen, but that's beside the point -- Wikipedia demands more accountability.


 * I did see that June 1 edit, and I agree it was very odd. There's clearly some personal vendetta going on here, but that's all the more reason to be scrupulous about using well-sourced material. Tim Pierce (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks Tim for all your advice!

The page it seems was created originally from LUcas's CV.I only entered the 'fray' earlier this year.

Please can you advise RE the slander/vandalism level this page is receiving and what wikipedia does to protect people from abuse? Can you not make people who want to edit this page,become a user,so abuse cannot take place?

You yourself agree it's all very odd.Maybe the page should be scrapped as it seems that one person/people is using as a vendetta against Lucas.ALl very strange.Now it seems any info on the page will be disputed,all info is being removed or changed.Now as you have said, two Lucas references (including international actors ref site 'spotlight' is debateable for credibility).I have checked sources and they all back up most of his info,the sites where his professional attributes are sourced corrolate with his work credits etc etc.It seems a shame that any info on him will be disputed now because (as you suggest) actors lie on their CVs.Looking at Lucas's credits,it would be a shame.Maybe the page should be deleted,as at the moment its being used as a playground.

Antonio82 (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There are several ways to protect a page from vandalism. It is possible for a page to be semiprotected so that only "established users" are able to edit the pages.  In this case, however, there appears to be only one user who is consistently vandalizing the page.  If they continue doing it, they will be blocked from editing.  I really wouldn't worry about it a great deal.  In all likelihood the user will lose interest and stop vandalizing the page.  If they don't, they will be blocked; if blocking doesn't work, we can seek semiprotection. Tim Pierce (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

editsemiprotected
You've been accidentally performing edits at the request of Brexx, a long term banned user, at Bionic (Christina Aguilera album). I reverted the most recent one. You can add it back if you would, yourself, have independently added that information.

As a general rule, you should check the reason that an article has been semi-protected (it's in the protection log for the page, which you can click on on the history page). If the reason for the protection is sockpuppeting, it's generally a good idea to simply remove editsemiprotected requests.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oops, thanks again. Tim Pierce (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Karl Lucas/Slander
Hello Tim..this is the article 'karl lucas'.

You read over the slanderous and insulting edit history (june1st) and decribed it as 'odd'...do you not think this is slanderous/libel?

You dont think IP addresses should be blocked for this sort of abuse?

Im interested in your opinion or advice on this?

Antonio82 (talk) 11:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right, users who post libelous content (or vandalize Wikipedia in any other way) should be blocked. Wikipedia has a process for that.  It begins with warning the user about their problem behavior, and only proceeds to blocking them if they continue to vandalize after having been warned.


 * was warned for the bizarre story they posted on the Karl Lucas article, and since then they have not vandalized again. In other words, the process is working. If they start up with this nonsense again, the matter can be escalated and it may result in blocking their IP address, but that doesn't seem necessary yet. Tim Pierce (talk) 16:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism
What vandalism are you talking about?--186.81.87.241 (talk) 04:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I mean the only edit you have made to Talk:Vuvuzela, specifically, this one. Tim Pierce (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Clean-up drive
After the successful clearing out of the Requested Pictures pages, how about going for the big task!

I tried to work out how to write a bot by looking at the code you have written but it has been too long since I did any programming.

Could you take a look at this proposal: User:Traveler100/bio-photo-bot. Are you willing to help me out with this or know where I could request assistance? --Traveler100 (talk) 12:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a great idea! I have really wanted to clean up the people categories and make them more manageable, but that's quite a big task.  I think we should approach the WPBiography folks and get buy-in from them on the right way to do this.  They might prefer to update the WPBio template to support "cricket-work-group=yes", "journalism-work-group=yes", and so on.  I really hope that they'd be willing to use reqphoto instead but let's see what we can do. :-) Tim Pierce (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Town Hill District‎ et al
Thanks you for cleaning up the photo tags, some of which were my photos. I (and probably others) would appreciate it, though, if you would mark such changes as minor.

Also, you might want to look at AWB for such things -- it's much faster. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 17:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure thing. FYI, I haven't been marking these changes as minor because sometimes other editors prefer to leave the reqphoto template on the article, because they want (some unspecified) additional photos on the article, and I didn't want to be accused of hiding my true intentions or some such.  But no one yet has complained about marking these edits as minor, so I'm happy to defer to your preference. :-)


 * I have heard great things about AWB, so I'll be sure to try it out when it's ported to OSX. Tim Pierce (talk) 00:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources vs Secondary Sources
I posted a response to your post yesterday but neglected to notify you. You mentioned your health problems, and I didn't want to aggravate anything. But, now I'm also concerned about violating Wikipedia rules. I apologize if this message is unnecessary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Problematic_situation_at_2001_anthrax_attacks EdLake (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I posted a response to your post in response to above. EdLake (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I just added a new comment showing what Wikipedia's definition of "primary source" is, which contradicts what you said a "primary source" is. EdLake (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

T
Thank for for the star and kind words. As a Wikipedian, I'm glad the process worked, albeit with a few klangs and klunks. Herostratus (talk) 02:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

WP Images and Media in the Signpost
WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Images and Media for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Should I post my answers here, or on the Interviews page, or somewhere else entirely? Tim Pierce (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You can answer below each question at Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/WikiProject desk/Interviews. Be sure to sign each response. -Mabeenot (talk) 05:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Terry O'Quinn
hi thank you for starting the discussion at terry o quinn. i honestly dont have the time to really have that discussion it does not matter to me as much as it seems to to bovineboy2008. i am curious though is it not considered rude to do what he did and revert someones change without any comment at all? Aisha9152 (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It is considered a little rude, or at least unhelpful, to revert a change without comment if the change is not obviously vandalism. Tim Pierce (talk) 01:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * i have been encountering more and more hostile editors lately. when i say my thoughts to them they do not care. if you care about the project, maybe you will want to tell the user who twice removed that material without explanation that they are not being helpful. i am not going to bother. thanks for intervening before either way. Aisha9152 (talk) 04:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Christ Episcopal Church (Waltham, Massachusetts)
Twp,

I noticed that you edited the page for Christ Episcopal Church (Waltham, Massachusetts) by noting that the page is primarily about the building, and not the community. I believe it's an important part of the building's identity to provide its history and an explanation of how it came to be, which is the purpose of my history section. In my exploration of other Wikipedia pages (Trinity Church Boston, for example) it is common and likely very useful for the page about a particular church building to provide some context about the building's history and the context of the community within it.

I am attempting to refurbish the page within the next couple of days as part of a project I did on the church's history; if you don't mind, I will ask you to refrain from anymore changes to the content until you see the final product and compare it to other similar pages for historic churches.

Thank you!

Mbalulescu (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Christ Episcopal Church (Waltham, Massachusetts)
Given the work I have done over the past week, I believe that the page for Christ Church in Waltham no longer qualifies as a stub.

How do I go about getting the page "upgraded," if it indeed merits qualification beyond a stub?

Thanks!

Mbalulescu (talk) 02:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Nothing needs to be done to make the article "not a stub" -- it just needs to have the template removed, which looks like it's already been done.  You've done some excellent work on this article -- thanks for all your hard work. Tim Pierce (talk) 12:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think, in fact, that you have just about brought this article up to Good Article status. I'll do a little tidying up on it and submit a nomination.  Well done. Tim Pierce (talk) 12:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Christ Church Waltham
Twp,

Thank you for your kind words regarding the page for Christ Church in Waltham! Regarding sources, you are correct that the reference "The History of Christ Church" is a self-pulished source. I am in the process of verifying more information with secondary sources, and my goal is to rely on secondary sources as much as possible for the "finished" product. I hope that a trip to the Waltham library this weekend will assist me!

Mbalulescu (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Naming conventions for United States federal buildings
Since you commented in the discussion of this topic at Talk:U.S. Post Office, please provide your opinion at Requests for comment/Naming conventions for United States federal buildings. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Christ Episcopal Church (Waltham, Massachusetts)
Twp,

I am considering my work on the Christ Church page complete. I appreciated the edits you made and I hope that you'll give my final draft another read. As far as references are concerned, I added some additional secondary sources, and I also included a link for Christ Church's parish history - I found a hardcover version at the Waltham library, which I believe lends it some credence as a publicly available secondary source, rather than a strictly primary source.

I have enjoyed this first real adventure in Wikipedia - perhaps I'll find another pet project in the future.

Mbalulescu (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Photos
If the licence condition on photos requires proper attribution in the manner specified by the author, then it is necessary to comply with it, or not use the photo. If you decide to remove the attribution, please also remember to remove the photo.

You removed the attribution from photos in the articles listed below, but forgot to remove the photo. I have accordingly removed the photos. If you think the photos should be displayed, then please remember to comply with the licence conditions.
 * Francis Casey Alcantara
 * Luksika Kumkhum
 * Kevin Krawietz
 * Facundo Argüello —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rowland Goodman (talk • contribs) 19:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I am sorry that you're dissatisfied with the Wikipedia licensing conditions for photo credits. Your photos are excellent and would make for valuable contributions to the encyclopedia.


 * Moreover, I'm afraid that you're only going to continue having this problem as long as the license conditions are not clearly articulated on the photo pages. Future editors who come across these photos will undoubtedly add them to Wikipedia articles with the best of intentions but without the photo credit you wish.  In order to prevent that, you will probably have to ask to have your Commons photographs deleted.  I hope you reconsider. Tim Pierce (talk) 20:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I already made the deletion requests.Rowland Goodman (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Rowland Goodman's images
I've begun a discussion on the admin's noticeboard on Commons regarding this editor's uploads to Commons. You may wish to participate. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

National Canal Museum
You've reverted my edits on National Canal Museum claiming that the source does not provide proof of the claim of birthplace of the industrial revolution. It is commonly known that since Beverly had the first cotton mill in America, it contributed extremely heavily towards the earliest parts of the industrial revolution, making cotton milling possible here in America. How is that not a supported claim? Silivrenion (talk) 14:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The Textile Industries of the United States by Bagnall does not appear to refer to Beverly as "the birthplace of the American Industrial Revolution," on page 97 or anywhere else in the book that I can find. Tim Pierce (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Constipation/Archive 2 listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Talk:Constipation/Archive 2. Since you had some involvement with the Talk:Constipation/Archive 2 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Tim Pierce (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ahuano, Ecuador
Villages are considered inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Not for nothing, but this isn't actually any more convincing than when Clarityfiend said the same thing. Tim Pierce (talk) 22:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Coconut octopus nomination
There's another version of the image available at. I'd appreciate it if you could offer comment or state a preference. Thank you. Makeemlighter (talk) 08:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Curse of Moreno's Mistake listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Curse of Moreno&. Since you had some involvement with the Curse of Moreno's Mistake redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Our Lady Peace - Saul Fox theme
I work with Barbara Kagedan, niece of Saul Fox, who lives in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. She has confirmed that he is indeed still alive but has been debilitated due to his battle with Alzheimer's disease.

--192.197.82.203 (talk) 20:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi -- I believe you. But Wikipedia needs sources to be both verifiable and reliable.  It's important for a source to be something that another editor can check at a future date.  A personal communication from the man's niece isn't something that can be verified by another person. Tim Pierce (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

---Quite understandable. My most sincere apologies for my ignorance of the Wikipedia policies on this matter. --192.197.82.153 (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries! I apologize for reverting your change without a comment to explain why the first time around.  My finger slipped. :-) Tim Pierce (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

how detailed reqphoto?
I see you have edited some reqphoto entries of people from in=state to in=county. I have at the same time been editing articles of people from in=state to people of state. Do we need to go down to county level for photos of people? --Traveler100 (talk) 21:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think there's no reason not to, if an appropriate county can be known. For most people I think the appropriate county (-ies) will be where they live and/or work -- so for a mayor of Nashville, for example, it makes sense to change "in=Tennessee" to "in=Davidson County, Tennessee".  Most opportunities for getting a free photo of him will be in or near Nashville, after all.  You raise a good point about "people of " -- I wish I had thought of adding that to PhotoCatBot on this run.  I'll see about adding it for the future. Tim Pierce (talk) 21:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Oregon photo needed cats
You made some recent changes to WikiProject Oregon's photo needed management categories. As the editor who set it up, I was unaware that anything needed changing, but I can't find any discussion. What's going on? —EncMstr (talk) 18:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi -- I'm consolidating "photo needed" categories wherever possible. Since Category:WikiProject Oregon image requests is basically identical to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of Oregon (which is the category where articles are added when  is added to an article), I merged them to have all Oregon-related photograph requests in a single category. Tim Pierce (talk) 19:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Film
Am doing some research, will get back to you on the second film (it's on IMDb). Shearonink (talk) 12:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, thanks for your work on this. Tim Pierce (talk) 16:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Filomena Ristorante
Hi Twp,

Why do you keep on deleting the "Filomena on NCIS" addition to the Filomena Ristorante entry? There are no copyright issues, the whole page was started by me, and facts are backed by a link. So where would a potential violation lie?

Thanks for getting back to me.

Regards, Ueberhund (Ueberhund (talk) 01:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC))


 * Hi - there are several issues here. Probably the most important one is that your edits actually removed references from other parts of the article, which is almost always a problem.  Another issue is that the "Filomena on NCIS" section doesn't include an acceptable citation (youtube.com isn't okay for most purposes; see WP:YOUTUBE).  A third is that "in popular culture" sections tend to be inherently problematic: "passing mentions in books, television or film dialogue or song lyrics should be included only when that mention's significance is itself demonstrated with secondary sources." (WP:POPCULTURE). Tim Pierce (talk) 01:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way, the Filomena Ristorante article was started by . Tim Pierce (talk) 01:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Twp, I hope the new entry is what is meant my "sourced changes."

Regards, Ueberhund (talk) 01:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I just found your response...Thanks.

I used to be WikiMiami...but changed it as it may be perceived a geographical reference. But 'Miami' is the name of my dog...hence, Ueberhund now.

I removed two references as the links have been taken down. Until recently, the removed reference gave information about the meeting between the President and the German Chancellor.

As for the YouTube link, this is the exact video clip showing the dialogue between the who characters. It is therefore 'backing' for the entry.

Ueberhund (talk) 02:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Please do read WP:YOUTUBE -- it explains clearly why Youtube links cannot generally be used as sources. Even when the Youtube clip is a copy of the show itself being referenced, most of the time these clips are copyright violations, making them inappropriate to use in Wikipedia citations.  Even beside that, WP:POPCULTURE discourages adding every passing mention in the mass media to an article, and I think it's an appropriate guideline in this case. Tim Pierce (talk) 04:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, the potential for copy-write violations linking YouTube makes sense. Will posting the text without the link be okay? Thanks, Ueberhund (talk) 13:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. 72.70.38.126 (talk) 14:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Maxim Behar
Hi,

I would like to ask you for advise about your rejection of my article about Maxim Behar. The third-party independant source is http://www.forumdavos.com/Committee. Forum Davos is a reliable and well known PR forum. The other sources are cited to confirm Maxim Behar's membership in each organization. For example about the statement that he is a Deputy-Chairman of the Bulgarian Business leaders Forum (BBLF) the most reliable source is the organization site (bblf.bg), even if it is connected to Maxim Behar.

In other words I trust I cited all the needed information in order to confirm the statements in the article. What kind of source I can show more? Is it possible that you review again and reconsider the submission?

Thanks, Ivanka Zheleva —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.70.85.10 (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi! The primary issue is that the biographies on the Forum Davos page were almost certainly self-authored -- i.e. the biographical background for Maxim Behar was probably written by Behar and submitted to Davos for publication on the web site.  That means that even though Forum Davos is a reputable site, that particular page cannot be considered an independent source of information about Maxim Behar.  The other sources are fine to confirm his membership in those organizations, but they do not help establish his notability or confirm his achievements.


 * The rule of thumb is that it's not enough for a source just to have been published on a website that's independent of the article's subject: the information itself really needs to have come from someone who's independent, and it needs to have been subject to some degree of editorial review. That's why blogs usually aren't considered good sources -- anyone can post pretty much anything they want on a blog without any fact-checking.  An article published in a magazine or newspaper at least had to be reviewed by an editor before being posted.  So newspapers, magazines, interviews, professional blogs and websites where the article clearly wasn't written by someone on Behar's staff, are all examples of good sources.  Good luck! —Tim Pierce (talk) 15:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

David Cote
I'm still learning some of the reporting procedures and didn't quite know how to go about reporting this incident. The sock investigation is closed, so I just thought to bring it to your attention. I added a CSD/G4 tag, but looks like an another sock of User:NickSoroka.
 * New article, Cote, David by new editor, User:YesYesWowies. Any other questions? Cindamuse (talk) 12:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Ugh. Thanks much for catching that!  I'll make sure the new socks get added to the existing SPI. —Tim Pierce (talk) 13:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI, I reported this by going to —Tim Pierce (talk) 13:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to particpate in the December 2010 Wikification Drive
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 19:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC).

MfD nomination of User:Twp/Jewish Defense League
User:Twp/Jewish Defense League, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Twp/Jewish Defense League and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Twp/Jewish Defense League during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Uzma Gamal (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Please confirm your membership
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 20:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC).

Category:Articles which may no longer need images
Hello. I've been working with others to clear the backlog of articles within this category and believe it may actually be superfluous. From what I've seen, articles with an image request are added to the category if they have images or not. Therefore, articles can be removed from the category if they have images in, but also if the request is still valid and they still require illustrating. This is taking the title of the category at face value but I would argue it isn't a necessary category, and, with a backlog of nearly 7,000, is creating an unnecessary workload. Hugahoody (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for WikiProject Photography
An article that you have been involved in editing, WikiProject Photography, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Traveler100 (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)