User talk:VB00

Consumer Reports Citation (Franklin, 2015)
Hi VBoo, thanks for making improvements to the Consumers Union page on Wikipedia (here's the edit you made)! I'm a researcher studying the history of Consumers Union, and I'm fascinated by the "Franklin 2015" reference you cite. Unfortunately, I can't find it, and the full citation isn't included. Do you have more details? Thanks! Rubberpaw (talk) 20:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I can't seem to remember much about it. You might want to contact User:Blueraspberry, who proposed its addition to the article. Hopefully, they will be able to provide some information. Regards, VB00 (talk) 07:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Russian School in Dubai
Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I do like to save often (as I never know when maybe an unexpected browser freeze/PC shutdown will occur) but I'll keep this in mind :)

Thank you for expanding the article! WhisperToMe (talk) 12:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, VB00, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

December 2016
Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Adena High School. I noticed that when you added the image to the infobox, you added it as a thumbnail. In the future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox (see WP:INFOBOXIMAGE). What does this mean? Well in the infobox, when you specify the image you wish to use, instead of doing it like this:

SomeImage.jpg

Instead just supply the name of the image. So in this case you can simply do:

SomeImage.jpg.

There will then be a separate parameter for the image caption such as Some image caption. Please note that this is a generic form message I am leaving on your page because you recently added a thumbnail to an infobox. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using! Please consult the Template page for the infobox being used to see better documentation. Thanks! Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Implementing requested edits
I saw that you implemented an edit at @WalmartLabs. However, did you look at the discussion? I had objected to parts of the edit (as such, I have reverted it) This is a COI edit request and it needs to be looked at in detail. I would be glad if you could explain. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The issue that you mentioned in the discussion seemed to be fixed (which was also stated by the editor proposing the change), and, seeing that, as well as that the edit in question didn't seem very controversial (there didn't seem to be clear opposition on your part), I went ahead and implemented the edit. If you believe that not to be the case, I'll leave this to you. Regards, VB00 (talk) 15:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

This as well. Quite a few of the sources, are not reliable and are clearly not WP:RS. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand that you are a new user. My suggestion would be to actually work on content for a while and understand our policies and guidelines better such as NPOV and WP:RS. COI edit requests are often tricky. In addition, it also required editors to do a proper disclosure per WP:PAID. In the meantime, it would be helpful if you avoid answering COI edit requests. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding the second edit - the article already contains the 2 reference templates, so, if you think about the process using which those articles will be fixed (someone looking over at the information and replacing the given sources with better ones), it is much better if they have updated information (which I have done) and some kind of sources that suggest that this information is actually there. Otherwise, pages like that might get "skipped over" by editors due to increased amounts of work that needs to be done to actually fix them. Now, I do understand that normally, I would be expected to converse with the editor in question and ask for more reliable sources, however, as you can see here, the proposal in question was their only edit on the account, which happened almost 1 year ago, so discussion wasn't quite possible. Regards, VB00 (talk) 15:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

For your last comment - I have worked on content, and I do believe that I understand Wikipedia policies. I do not seem to understand what you are trying to say with the sentence about disclosure. If you are talking about the editor proposing the change, they have done so prior to their edit request, as can be seen on the article's talk page. If what you are suggesting is that I do a disclosure, I don't believe that to be necessary, as I do not have a connection with the subject(s) of the edit requests/articles that I am working on. Lastly, It would be great if you could avoid adding edit summaries such as this one - after all, how could I implement a change without viewing it (on the talk page), so I did look see the discussion. Regards, VB00 (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, I will reply to all three comments. Firstly, I am sorry for this edit summary. Somehow, I was a bit irritated at having to revert a bunch of unsourced edits before that. I apologise for the tone.
 * Now let's look at the questions you asked
 * About declaration. Editors with a COI (who request changes) are usually WP:PAID editors - the definition of paid applies even if they are employees of the company or a PR organisation on the company's behalf. As such, these editors must declare their "employer, client, and affiliation". This is a step which is required according to WMF's terms of use and it is not optional. The most basic step here involves placing a template on the talk page with the required details after the editor has declared. (As you can see, it was done in the case of @WalmartLabs but not for the others). If an editor has not declared, I will generally not implement their edits.
 * COI edits are generally supposed to be implemented only after thorough checking. It is OK to have a backlog rather than implement a weakly sourced edit
 * In the case of @WalmartLabs, the issue is replacing information (which is different from adding information). Anytime an information is replaced, it needs to be looked into. Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia (and not the current webpage/profile of the company - where old information is removed). Something which is usually worthy of inclusion, generally shouldn't be removed. In this case for example, it was removing a bunch of products and personnel from the infobox. Such edits need to be thoroughly looked at. Unless a thorough check of the background (in this case the company history) has been done, it should not be implemented. (The infobox is also supposed to summarise the content in the article - in FA article, the infobox doesn't contain any novel information).
 * In the case of Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, you edit added information entirely sources to either primary sources or unreliable sources. We usually require reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. If you look at the 2 sources towards the end of the edit, the Huffington Post is a user submitted content while the other is an annual report uploaded to a cloud website. These are not considered RS. First - the Huffington Post blogs allows anyone to start a blog and there is no (or lax) editorial control. The cloudfront document may not be authentic as anyone can create a document and upload it there. We need to properly scrutinise the sources and make sure they reliable sources.
 * In cases where the account only has one edit, it is perfectly fine to decline the request and leave a notice on the talk page (of the article and the editor) to reactivate the request along with their reply.
 * It is OK to refuse and edit request pending further clarification. I didn't mean to discourage you from answering the requests, but only that due diligence needs to be done while answering these. I would be glad to clarify further if you want. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying, I'll keep those points in mind. Regards, VB00 (talk) 10:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, taking you up on your offer, I do have a question. Sometimes, especially with old edit requests, you find that the edit in question has either been:

a) Implemented by the editor requesting the change; or

b) Implemented by other page editors, without any discussion having taken place to indicate a consensus.

What would you do in those 2 cases? Regards, VB00 (talk) 10:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Can You Look at Harvey Karp Talk Page?
Hi VBOO. Thanks for your advice on the Harvey Karp talk page. I have updated the request to be as neutral as possible. Would you consider updating the article about me? Using all of your own words, writing off the sources provided (or others) would be appreciated. I want to comply by the living biography policy and have the page be neutral. Thanks for considering Harvey Karp MD (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Harvey Karp
 * I'm don't have much experience writing in biographies, and, seeing as someone has already started looking over your proposed changes, I'll let them handle it. Hopefully you don't mind. Regards, VB00 (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Austin Macauley Publishers
We have kept the Controversy section in and have only edited to show actual facts regarding SFWA. If they continue to remove what are facts regarding them the we will have to issue a warning and are already in discussions with Wikipedia to ensure our edits remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.211.58 (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

A problem with your edits is that you have added a multitude of unsourced information (see WP:V). As well as that, controversies about the SFWA should be added into their article (which is there), and not on the page of your affiliated organization (trying to give them less credibility? That's not how Wikipedia works. A relevant guideline would be WP:Undue). If your edits continue to appear in their current form, I will have no choice but to keep undoing them, as they are obviously damaging to the article's quality. Btw, as a member/ someone affiliated with the company in question, it is advised for you not to apply edits by yourself, instead using the Request edit template. The reviewers there will make sure to implement your edit if they feel that it is suitable. Regards, VB00 (talk) 12:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

George Monbiot edits refused - advice, please!
Hi there,

I'd really appreciate some help.

I can't understand why the requested edits - which I'd set out on my own page, and on George Monbiot's - have been refused. I really do need this to be explained in very simple terms. I'm absolutely doing my best to follow guidelines and protocols but am frankly finding it baffling.

I understand that I'm doing this with a COI, but have declared that from the outset.

Please would you explain how I need to make the request, and what the problem was with the edits? One issue that I'm very unsure about is what references / citations I could provide. Although George has written a great deal, there are no biographies that I can draw on.

Thanks for your time on this,

Rowan Cairns (talk) 10:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Thomas D. Wilson entry
Thank you for your review of the proposed revision. You note "While some of the sections of the proposed information are sourced, others are not, which is not acceptable..." - however, I find it difficult to determine which sections are not acceptable, can you help me on that, please, by being more specific about which parts are not acceptable? I take the point about the external link - presumably it would be appropriate to have such a link at the end of the entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.254.179.244 (talk) 10:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * First of all, the sections "Biography", "Career" and "Role in scholarly publishing" are entirely unsourced, and, as said previously, don't conform to the verifiability policy of Wikipedia. The Awards and Honours part is just a list, when you should instead try to talk about things in prose (relevant guideline). The Research part does not seem to follow the neutral point of view policy, as well as presenting some unsourced claims such as "These two terms have been generally adopted in subsequent research". Lastly, you may wish to look at the external links guideline to see where and if the external link should be included. Hopefully, this gave you some ideas on how to improve the proposed edit request and increase its chances of being accepted in the future. Regards, VB00 (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Deborah Dwork
Hi VB00,

Thank you so much for bringing my concerns about the Deborah Dwork page to the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard. I just noticed that the discussion has been archived by a | bot.

I'm pretty novice here at Wikipedia, so I'm not sure what the protocol is, but seems to me like this issue won't get much notice in the archives. I don't want to make this a personal crusade of mine -- still, my initial concerns remain. How would you recommend that we go about cleaning this up? (I've got a message out to Zaereth, who replied to your post on the BLPN, as well.)

Thanks for your time,

Bruckner5 (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I have now nominated the page for deletion. Feel free to give your input here. Regards, VB00 (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Sefaria COI edits
Hi VB00 -

You reviewed and declined a pair of COI requests that I made, on Sifra and Sifre, since there was not yet a consensus of editors and subject matter experts on how to handle my requests. Since that time, the COI has been adjudicated at COIN#Sefaria_requested_edits, and all voices concurred that the requested edits are allowable. Should I be asking you to rethink the Sifra and Sifre edits, or is there a better path?

LevEliezer (talk) 13:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have now implemented the edit request at Sifra, but the proposed link at Sifre leads nowhere. Could you provide a working one? Regards, VB00 (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah! My mistake. This is really two works with a shared name.  The correct links are Sifrei Bamidbar and Sifrei Devarim.  I updated the talk page of Sifre as well. LevEliezer (talk) 10:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Talkback
The editor with a conflict of interest has rewritten his request. Please review it when you get the chance. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Request
VB00, can you do the necessary clean up mentioned on the template on the Carol Smallwood?Carol Smallwood (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Globe Life Insurance Company of New York logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Globe Life Insurance Company of New York logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Greenfield Community School logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Greenfield Community School logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Northcentral uni.png
Thanks for uploading File:Northcentral uni.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dubai English Speaking College.gif
Thanks for uploading File:Dubai English Speaking College.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Coordinators and help needed
Hi, if you are active on Wikipedia and are still interested in helping out with urgent tasks on our large Schools Project, please let us know here. We look forward to hearing from you. Sent to project members 13:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC). You can opt of messages here.

Orphaned non-free image File:Cambridge International School Dubai logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:Cambridge International School Dubai logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)