User talk:Tim Pierce/Archive/2011

Empty parameter logic
Hi, I responded on my talk page. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 02:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Responded again, you should check out px. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  02:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Unblock requests
Hi. I wanted to drop you a note about your edit here. While I definitely appreciate your willingness to help, unblock requests should be reviewed by an admin. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks! TN X Man 15:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. I thought that the principle of non-admin closure applied here as well. I apologize for overstepping, and appreciate your good humor. —Tim Pierce (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. Cheers! TN X Man  16:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Source
Hey Tim. I think we have both uploaded photos at commons:Category:Wikipedia Takes Boston. I noticed that some of yours are marked 'this file is lacking source information', for instance. Probably it just needs to have 'own work' added. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I uploaded with Commonist and only discovered after the fact that it left the source information blank. Cranky! So, yeah, I have to fill that back in. Thanks. —Tim Pierce (talk) 22:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I tried out commons:Special:UploadWizard. That is also an imperfect solution, and files once uploaded to Commons can't be renamed! It seems to me that Flickr has the best system for uploading. EdJohnston (talk) 00:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oooh, I didn't know about that tool. Thanks for the tip. —Tim Pierce (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Help me understand
I am very new to this and I'm not sure why the information I've added too French Paper Company and Charles S. Anderson Design have been omitted. I am just stating the facts. I've read the "advertising" and "soapbox" guidelines and I don't see how I am treading on Wiki's policies. Any information you may have depicting proper guidelines will be greatly appreciated.Jovaney (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure! First of all, Wikipedia has a strict policy against using copyrighted material. The additions to French Paper Company appear to be taken directly from http://www.frenchpaper.com/about_french.asp, and the additions to Charles S. Anderson Design come directly from http://www.csadesign.com/about.html. On that basis alone, these changes can't be accepted in the encyclopedia -- they cannot be duplications of copyrighted material that appear elsewhere on the web.

More generally: Wikipedia's inclusion policy requires, among other things, that articles be written from a neutral point of view, using objective language, and that everything must be verifiable in reliable sources. So here are some examples of contributions which don't fit those criteria:


 * French has not only persevered in an industry notorious for corporate acquisitions, name changes and outright shutdowns, they've emerged as one of the strongest, most consistent paper brands around. (By what standard are they one of the strongest or most consistent? What ranking? Who says?)
 * As one of the last remaining small, independent mills in America, French Paper takes their direction from customers, not corporate bean counters. (Is this a verifiable statement? Is there a source from someone not associated with the mill to confirm that French Paper "takes their direction" from customers and not "corporate bean counters"?)
 * French uses no petroleum in the manufacturing of their papers, and instead generates their own clean, renewable energy. Hydroelectric generators installed on-site in 1922 have saved over one million barrels of fossil fuel to date. (How can this be confirmed? Is there an article about French's use of renewable energy in an independent publication that can cite these figures?)

I hope these examples make it clearer what needs to be done. If it's still unclear, please feel free to let me know and I'll do my best to help. —Tim Pierce (talk) 00:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. It is a little clearer. I still have some questions pertaining to what can be noted. Can books + periodicals online and written be cited as well? Secondly, what if one is contributing to wikipedia about a particular company and one obtains the permission to use the information that a given company may have displayed on their website? Can one just cite the website as a source of legitimate information? Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jovaney (talk • contribs) 18:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yup, reliable sources can include online books and periodicals. The critical piece here is that they must have some degree of editorial oversight, so there's reason to believe they won't print just any random gossip or rumor.  Your other question is a little harder; if something has previously been published on the Internet under a copyright notice, it requires a formal release from the copyright holder. See Requesting copyright permission for more information on that.  However, in your particular case, the material that you've been adding from http://www.frenchpaper.com/about_french.asp and http://www.csadesign.com/about.html would not be accepted anyway, because of its overtly promotional language. It will probably end up being a waste of time to pursue a copyright release for those pages; I recommend that you focus on rewriting from scratch whichever parts of those pages you think should be added. —Tim Pierce (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Justin Bieber
Greetings Tim,

As per your answer to my help post, here are some links of news stations & magazines who helped promote the events. Please let me know if you need more. THANK YOU FOR ALL THE HELP!

http://www.local10.com/slideshow/entertainment/27364865/detail.html

http://premierguidemedia.com/miami/picture-day-with-justin-biebers-40668-hair-hosted-by-stone-rose-mens-apparel-raises-thousands-for-tsunami-victims-in-japan/

http://theluxuryproject.com/wp/2011/04/fans-queue-for-picture-day-with-justin-biebers-hair-sponsored-by-stone-rose/

http://top40-charts.com/news.php?nid=65343

http://www.okmagazine.com/2011/03/take-a-picture-with-justin-biebers-hair-to-benefit-japan/

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Picture-Day-With-Justin-prnews-2453677978.html?x=0&.v=1

http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2011/03/box_of_justin_biebers_hair_yes.php

http://tartemag.blogspot.com/2011/03/music-justin-beibers-picture-day-hair.html

http://www.katv.com/story/14361823/picture-day-with-justin-biebers-40668-hair-hosted-by-stone-rose-mens-apparel-raises-thousands-for-tsunami-victims-in-japan?redirected=true

http://www.tmz.com/2011/03/29/justin-bieber-hair-lucky-strike-tsunami-japan-auction-ellen-locks-bangs-cut/

http://thebeat.com/post/17765

http://the305.com/2011/03/28/justin-biebers-hair-in-miami/

http://www.justin-b.org/2011/04/picture-day-with-justin-biebers-hair/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cranegamelia (talk • contribs) 20:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Missing photos for Roxbury goals in recent 'Wikipedia Takes Boston' event
Hi Tim. I've been doing some delayed processing of the Wikipedia Takes Boston results. However, I can't find images of some goals you mentioned as completed on that page. Here are the goals you mentioned, with notes on if I cannot find corresponding images among your contributions to Commons here:
 * C-1 (Boston Public Library: Dudley Branch)  can't find
 * C-2 (Boston Public Library: Egleston Square Branch)
 * C-7 (Holy Temple Church) can't find
 * C-8 (Mosque for the Praising of Allah)
 * C-12 (John D. O'Bryant School of Math and Science) can't find
 * C-13 (Madison Park Technical Vocational High School)
 * C-16 (Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary Center for Urban Ministerial Education) (only photo seems to be of a plaque on the building)
 * C-17 (City on a Hill Charter School)
 * C-20 (Malik Academy Elementary School) can't find
 * C-21 (Lewis K-8 School)
 * C-23 (St. Joseph School)
 * C-27 (Eliot Burying Ground)
 * C-30 (Roxbury (District B-2) Boston Police Department Station) can't find
 * C-36 (Dillaway School)
 * C-38 (Frederick Douglass Square Historic District)
 * C-39 (Goldsmith Block) can't find
 * C-41 (Lower Roxbury Historic District) can't find
 * C-45 (Boston Fire Department: Engine 14)
 * C-46 (Boston Fire Department: Engine 42)

Do you know if you perhaps missed these while uploading? Am I not looking in the right place? I tried finding possible uploads by User:Dbs on Commons, but had no luck. Thanks, Emw (talk) 02:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Most of these were taken by my coconspirator, but I thought he had uploaded them already! Thanks for poking me about this, I'll see if I can get them uploaded in the next few days. —Tim Pierce (talk) 03:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

OK I am confused
all I ever try and do is contribute fair and honestly and people like you confuse the hell out of me. I get a message from you that the "facts" i had put on the Saint Augustines College, CAirns page relating to the arrest of several Marist Brothers, was supported by actual fact including newpspaer reports etc, you send me some message it wasn't good enough, but when I go to the page its all still there. Put any of those names into google and you will get plenty more credible real news sources. The nesparers I originally quoted dont get any more credible then that. The Catholic Churches own newspaper is pretty credible one would think??? I dont understand people like you or the other people who jump all over me when all I do is try to help. I can't be bother contributing any more and may as well go and delte all my original photos SEE YA Angra (talk) 11:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you're frustrated by this. I've posted the reasoning for making these changes at Talk:St Augustine's College and think that's the best place to discuss it. If I turn out to have been wrong, I will be happy to undo the changes and make it right again. :-) —Tim Pierce (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

GingerBread Lane
Hey Twp, I was saying I am having a web designer do a wiki page that looks good. Yes I am paying them to do it, but because I think the exhibit is large enough and visited enough to warrant one, and I want it to look professional like a wiki page should. So bear with me a couple days. Not a conflict of interest. Just merely wanting to make sure it is up to wiki standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcdcchef (talk • contribs) 05:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's the thing, I didn't delete anything. If I did, it was accidental. In January, a reporter wrote a very nice feature piece for GBL in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review. She told me as did her editor that GBL should have a wiki page, since so many people use wiki as a resource. I said okay. Had the artist who does my graphic art do the piece. Sounded like a high school creative art major wrote it. Then someone else re-wrote it, sounds good looks like hell. So I emailed wiki for advice, and their advice was wot have someone who is a 3rd party who is good with wiki create the piece. They even agreed it was wiki-worthy, I would be happy to forward you the email. So I went on craigslist, and put out an ad for someone to clean it up, without any feedback from me, make it look like a real wiki entry, and get it live. That is all I am doing. I get that there are those of you out there who do this sort of thing, police wiki and keep it cleaned up, and that is a good thing I must admit. There was a time this place was so jacked up! Anyways, I can assure you, no conflict of interest and doing it the way I was advised to do by wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcdcchef (talk • contribs) 15:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:William Clarke Wontner
I just undid your recent edit to this talk page. While the article does indeed have two images, they are reproductions of two of his works, not a photo of the subject himself. – ukexpat (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the correction, I mistakenly thought that the portrait was a portrait of the artist. Do we know of a source for any images of the artist?  Do we know whether any exist?  I can't find even any non-free images in a google search. —Tim Pierce (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Image on the article page appears to satisify the image request
What are we going to do now they're all gone? I feel lost. ;) - Dave Crosby (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know about you but I plan to have a very stiff drink to commemorate the occasion. :-)


 * (Seriously -- this category started with something like 12,000 images when I started this project. It's not an experiment I plan to repeat, at least not via category tagging -- possibly with a toolserver or something.) —Tim Pierce (talk) 20:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The drink is a great idea. :) The Backlog Drive did the project proud I think, it could probably handle another. ;) Drop me a line if you start something else, I feel like (chicken) geotagging tonight. - Dave Crosby (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

GingerBread Lane Part Deux
GingerBread Lane - Tim, working with a wiki admin the last 2 weeks ( Cirt ) and a wiki employee, I think the wiki piece is now meeting all wiki requirements. I did everything I could to avoid any COI issues, and to make it fit wiki standards. You are a notable wikipedian, was hoping I could get you to review piece again and approve. Cirt worked with me 2 weeks to make it appropriate, telling me what needed done. It now has 19 reference points from various news arcticles, online and print pieces, feature photos with news captions, etc. Was hoping to secure your approval on the piece. Kcdcchef (talk) 23:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC) Kcdcchef (talk) 00:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Jon, I'd be glad to review the article and discuss it with you. I think you're in pretty good hands with Cirt but I appreciate your desire to make sure you've got all your ducks in a row, and I'm glad you haven't been discouraged. —Tim Pierce (talk) 00:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Tim. I have learned through this process some wiki editors have itchy trigger fingers and rush to delete, and some are more objective. Based on how polite you were to me in this process ( hell, the fact that you fixed my comments in this very thread which were screwed up!!!! ) shows that you are in the "more civil" wiki editor camp! Any thoughts you can provide, will help. I was advised to stay out of the AFD discussion this time, I was specifically told there are at times all delete votes and the piece stays. So I am staying out of there. But last time you were being uber helpful and further offering to fix it. So wanted your feedback now that is fixed. Kcdcchef (talk) 00:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * A sockpuppetry (well actually meatpuppetry) case has been opened based on on editing patterns in this article, You might want to share your thoughts there as well.--RadioFan (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the incredibly nice comments on the GBL AFD, I have completely withdrawn from the whole thing waiting to see what happens, as it so happens today was the first time I even checked on it in days, I fully expected the piece to be deleted by now! Suprisingly, it is holding it's own on the AFD vote. And a couple who vote no said "it has only 1 actual arcticle, and no national". Wow, and they get votes? It has three actual arcticles thank you very much, post, trib, and martha stewart, and Martha Stewart IS national!!! Anyways, thanks for the kind words on GBL. WOrking hard on it as we speak actually. Kcdcchef (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

inre Articles for deletion/Dead fury
I request that you revist the article Dead Fury, which is undergoing expansion and improvement and which has so far gone from an 11 word stub into a (so far) 559 word start class article to serve the project and its readers. More remains to be done, yes... but the AFD was unneccessary. I request you consider a withdrawal of the nomination.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Tim, yes, please do take another look. Truly remarkable what MQS was able to find.   DGG ( talk ) 20:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * And thank you for the very courteous close. I've never done a 500x expansion before... it was fun. :)  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well done. :-) —Tim Pierce (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Entry rollback
Tim, you recently rolled back some of my changes. I had added geographical coordinates to web pages, usually in the Geography section. I put them there to maintain consistency with hundreds of other Wikipedia entries I have read, and to add the decimal coordinates for use in genealogy programs, such as GRAMPS. I know the D/M/S information is in the upper right corner, but the entries in the Geography section are consistent with other Wikipedia entries. I do not think you should roll my changes back. My changes prevent other Wikipedia readers having to make the conversion from D/M/S to decimal. MrBill47 (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation; at least now I know what your goal is. :-) I have to respectfully disagree that this is a good idea.  It's better to put the geographic data into the article in only one place; if it later turns out that the geocoordinates are incorrect, or need to be updated, it opens the possibility that only one set of coordinates will get corrected, raising more confusion down the line.  If you need to convert coordinates from degrees, minutes and seconds to decimal coordinates on a regular basis, I recommend bookmarking a tool specifically for that purpose, e.g. http://transition.fcc.gov/mb/audio/bickel/DDDMMSS-decimal.html. —Tim Pierce (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the conversion tool. While I agree that having the coordinates appear only once is a good idea, because of updates, I still think it is helpful to have them in the geography section too. All an editor will have to do is make sure all locations have the same information. I always compare the coordinates I add to the ones listed in the upper right corner. I use them as the source for the conversion to decimal. I've been writing for almost 40 years and double-checking edits is second nature. There are numerous entries (Bishop, California, for example) in which the coordinates already appear twice. Adding them to the Geography section is more hepful than burdensome. MrBill47 (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand me. Some pages have the coordinates displayed in more than one location because they use the "inline,title" coordinate display parameter. That is different from having the coordinates recorded in two separate places in the article source.  It's the latter practice that I think is unwise because it's prone to leading to article drift.  I've opened a conversation about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates -- please feel free to chime in there if I haven't represented your case fairly. :-) —Tim Pierce (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Prince William County Government
I have no idea why you sent me a warning nor do I appreciate your continuing to change my edits of the Prince William County Government page. I am a Public Information Officer for Prince William County Government and I have beeen tasked with updating and correcting the information on the pages. I removed the sentence because to say that the County seat is in a City is incorrect, and later on in the article it mentions that the courhouse is in an enclave owned by the county that is surrounded by the city. This is correct and why I continue to take off the reference to the County seat being in the City of Manassas. How can I possibly have a cite for taking off incorrect information? I will continue in my efforts to correct any erroneous information on my County Government's page, and again I have no idea why you keep changing my work. If you want to email me directly, please feel free to do some at dwolfe@pwcgov.org. Wolfiedw (talk) 13:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Prince William County
I have no idea what you mean when you say warning, and as I said in my email to you earlier, I am just trying to do the job I am paid to do for the citizens of Prince William County who I am paid to serve. I am not sure why you feel qualified to continue to warn me about facts I know to be inccorect, but I will move on. Wolfiedw (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)