User talk:Warrior4321/Archive 2

arabic article
I understand that it doesn't belong in wikipedia English. However I cannot create it as a new article on the Arabic site due a bot problem. I only want to leave it on the English Wikipedia for as long as it takes and Wikipedia Arabic editor to read it and realize that it isn't problematic. Please if you know another way to allow an editor to read it without it being posted I'll happily do that. I just need for an editor to see it. Thanks for your help. Emranalmudeer (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What is the problem that is happening in the Arabic Wikipedia? Try going here and asking for help in the editing of an editor that you require as well as what problems you are experiencing with the Arabic Wikipedia. Persian Warrior Contact Me!  20:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

My barbaric girlfriend
Hi! I've removed your G1 tag from My barbaric girlfriend, because the article definitely doesn't meet the criterion for patent nontense (it's not incoherent text or gibberish). I've prodded the article instead. I hope you understand. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My mistake. Thank-you for correcting me. Persian Warrior Contact Me!  20:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyright
"It is not under free use and in the public domain, and you did not attain permission from the site for copying their work either. "

How is it that you know I do not have permission to use what I placed on Wikipedia? I in fact DO have permission to use it. Is there some central repository for permission to use text on wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rs232 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You would need to prove that you have received permission for the information that you have copied . Persian Warrior Contact Me!  21:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Article tagging
Hi. I've noticed a couple of articles which you have tagged with things like "orphan", "deadend", and "wikify", which is a good and useful thing to do, but it seemed to me you had not tagged the most important problem - "unreferenced"! Verifiability is such an important principle that I think that should be the first tag to put on where necessary. Even where there are references they are often things like Myspace or the subject's own web-site, in which case the "primarysources" tag is useful (it's not asking for primary sources, it's saying they are not enough). In fact I often prefer to use "primarysources", because if you just put "unreferenced" the non-notable garage band or whatever simply add links to their Myspace and Youtube pages and think that's enough. "Notability" is often a useful tag to add, too, which helps spur the authors to find independent references if they can. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright, thanks for the heads up. However, I do not tag these templates on the articles manually, but rather use AWB. AWB proposes templates to be added, and after verifying that those templates do belong there, I allow it. However, I will try to add notable, primary sources and unreferenced tags. Persian Warrior Contact Me!  21:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I'm not familiar with AWB. Maybe you can tweak it to check for references? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Vinnie Brand
I just posted on Vinnie Brand's page how I am not sure how to proper source the page. I have some sources that I can use but not sure how to edit it so it will not be deleted. thanks for any help. I read the page but i'm still confused. thanks matt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wearepulse (talk • contribs) 21:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Replied on talk page Persian Warrior Contact Me!  21:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Chimerica
Chimerica is not a weasel word. It is a part of the current lexicon describing the current financial crisis. You might want to do a bit of research. Poliphile (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Placed PROD on other policies. Persian Warrior Contact Me!  23:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Major contributor and articles created
I was wondering if there is any Wikipedia Tool, that can tell me which articles I created and/or am a major contributor in. I would like to put this information on my user page. Thanks Persian Warrior Contact Me!  03:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thus tool (when it's working, which it doesn't seem to be at the moment) lists pages started by a given user. I'm not aware of a tool for finding "major contributor"s; it seems too fuzzy to automate sensibly. Algebraist 03:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There are also the following, but as noted above the toolserver is broken at the moment.
 * Pages made
 * General edit breakdown tool
 * Breakdown of an articles top contributors
 * not sure how long until they're working again. -Optigan13 (talk) 03:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Give it a rest
I just posted some content and you've already got the bleeding thing marked for deletion.

Why don't you check to see WHO IS CREATING the page before you decide to delete it??????

Varlaam (talk) 04:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference between a page created by somebody with 3 edits and somebody with 15,000. Wouldn't you agree?

CHECK FIRST. DO YOUR HOMEWORK FIRST.


 * That doesn't make a difference. When you create a page, it should be complete, with at least some information. Yours had absolutely none. That is why I tagged it for deletion for having no information. Anyhow, you could have placed a tag underneath my tag. As well, you should check out point number 6 on Writing your first article. Persian Warrior  Contact Me!  04:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * And is it safe to say that a lot of people at Wikipedia are just a tad too hung up on rules?


 * In 4 years I have never heard of a hangon tag.


 * Just look at who is creating the page. Look at what it's linking from. I linked it from another page of mine called List of films based on war books. Sheesh.


 * It is not a crisis if a crappy little page stub survives for 10 minutes instead of 2. It really is not a crisis. Relax. You can always zap it a little later. Right?
 * Varlaam (talk) 04:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Now I have a headache. And like a lot of other Wikipedians, I like to work on the data to relax and unwind.


 * I was going to do some more data, but I'll get it later.


 * Good night. Vigilance is a good thing in general. But it's ok to be a little circumspect. Not everybody is a villain after all.


 * Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 04:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The tag is mentioned in the speedy deletion tag. If you had read it, you would have seen it.
 * What do you mean Just look at who is creating the page? You have no exception from everyone else.
 * Please go and look what a stub is, what you had created was not a stub.
 * No, it cannot survive on Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, per it's policies and guidelines, you are supposed to create an acceptable version before you click Save page. Creating an empty page that just states, X type of movies will be listed here is not an encyclopedic article, and will be tagged for deletion. Persian Warrior Contact Me!  04:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

AWB
Sure thing. First question - you signed up for AWB? -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 04:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes I did, I have even downloaded, and have used it. I have only done the general cleaning up, and tagging. I was wondering how you created articles with it. Persian Warrior Contact Me!  04:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, what I do is first find a list of redlinks to be filled. Once I upload that into AWB, I simply fill in the pre-made template I've prepared.  Instead of actually manually filling in the title each time, I put  ; that will automatically be replaced by the page title whenever a new page is generated.  That help? -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 04:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * How do you create a list of redlinks? Persian Warrior Contact Me!  05:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Depends on what kind of list you want to work off of. What kinds of articles are you looking at creating?  I tend to be better with specifics than with hypotheticals. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 13:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

If you do create articles using AWB which I welcome, please ensure you give a reference and reliable source and that they contain some info. Also be careful with starting articles on living people to ensure they are referenced. I echo the question Ser Amantion asked, what articles do you intend creating? Dr. Blofeld       White cat 13:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I want to create pages on names given to adherents in Zoroastrianism. There are hardly any pages with the given names. I already have sources and references, and I was planning on creating them manually. However, I have AWB, and AWB always does tedious tasks faster and therefore, I wanted to know how. Is this an acceptable group of articles to create? Persian Warrior Contact Me!  15:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, here's what I'd do. Go ahead and manually create a list of redlinks from whatever source you have handy.  Once that's done, you can plug it into AWB the way you would any other list of articles and set it up; you can tell AWB to ignore articles that exist, and you can tell it to "append/prepend" text; if it's appending it to a blank page that means there'll be nothing else there, so it will generate like a normal article.  Just fill in the template with the proper references and categories, etc., and it should be fine. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed speedy deletion tag: Jason Womack
Hi Warrior4321! I just wanted to inform you that I removed the speedy deletion tag you placed on Jason Womack- because: the article makes a credible claim of importance or significance. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. decltype (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There are no references. Please do add references, or I will have to put it up for proposed deletion. Thanks Persian Warrior Contact Me!  15:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, it does not meet the criteria, specifically this criteria. I have put it for proposed deletion. Persian Warrior Contact Me!  15:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. The article did not meet criterion A7, and was therefore not eligible for speedy deletion. As for the subject's notability, I do think he passes criterion 6 of WP:BAND, because at least two of the Juliette and the Licks members are notable (Craig Fairbaugh and Juliette Lewis). You still have the option of listing the article at AfD. Regards, decltype (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The article is not about about Juliette and the Licks, it is about Jason Womack. He does not meet any of the criteria in WP:BAND. Therefore, the article can be deleted through WP:PROD. Persian Warrior Contact Me!  16:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and WP:BAND criterion 6 applies to a musician "... who has been a member of ... an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians". That doesn't mean he's notable, but it means that he may be notable. Regards, decltype (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You need to read it again. Is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles, or an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians. The second part is if you are creating an article about an ensemble, it is not talking about the musician. It is saying that an ensemble or band which contains two or more notable musicians is a acceptable article OR a musician who is part of two or more notable ensembles or bands is an acceptable article. Persian Warrior  Contact Me!  16:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely right about the first part. My mistake. However, the subject meeting or failing WP:MUSIC does not automatically make the article "acceptable" or "not acceptable", but it does imply that the subject may or may not be notable. Note also that if the proposed deletion is contested the article may not be deleted through WP:PROD. Regards, decltype (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I would like to sincerely apologize for the above comments, which were not intended to deliberately mislead or mislead you. I have struck them out accordingly. Regards, decltype (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed speedy deletion tag: Frostfeuer
Hi Warrior4321! I just wanted to inform you that I removed the speedy deletion tag you placed on Frostfeuer- because: Articles in foreign languages are not nonsense If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. decltype (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This is an english wikipedia. Foreign language articles must be taken to their encyclopedia. Persian Warrior Contact Me!  16:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Foreign-language articles are not eligible for deletion under CSD G1. Please do not reinstate the tag. Regards, decltype (talk) 16:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a heads-up: CSD A2 does not apply either, because the article did not exist on de.wiki. Your work with patrolling new pages is appreciated, but please ensure that you are familiar with the criteria for speedy deletion before db tagging pages. Regards, decltype (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Foreign languages cannot be put on the English Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia is the English Edition of Wikipedia. Articles completely in english, cannot be put on the English Wikipedia.
 * If you encounter an article in a foreign language, you should tag it for translation (pnt) and list it at WP:PNT. It may only be speedily deleted if it meets criterion A2, or if an English-language equivalent of the article would also be eligible for speedy deletion, typically an attack page or a copyright violation. decltype (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Farrell's Ice Cream Parlor
Hello Warrior4321, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Farrell's Ice Cream Parlor has been removed. It was removed by Aboutmovies with the following edit summary ' (rm prod, source some, move stub tag to proper location) '. Please consider discussing your concerns with Aboutmovies before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Question about WP:V and deletion
helpme

The article History of Bulgaria (1878-1946) has no references since October 2005, which is plenty of time to provide references. Therefore, I placed a proposed deletion on the article with "no references" as the reason. However, a user, Youngamerican has removed my PROD, thus contesting it. Should I now take it to AFD, or what should my next steps be? Mr.TrustWorthy Got Something to Tell Me?  00:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, you have stumbled into the wonderful world of frustration that is attempting to enforce verifiability in some way that has teeth. You can't. Not in the present climate and culture. Since the article is already tagged with unreferenced, your only choices are to source it yourself, or try methods to get people to source the article, though you can remove any statements from the article you have reason to believe are false or controversial that are unsourced, per WP:BURDEN. This article has no possibility of being deleted at AfD and would be considered a bad nomination. There is strong (wrongheaded) consensus that articles should only be deleted if they are unverifiable, rather than unverified, i.e., that sources do not exist in order to source, as opposed to requiring that sources actual appear in the article. We have tried in the past to do something about this. See Requests for verification and Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles. Now, of course, this is an interpretation without a bit of pragmatism to it, and I believe we have created a terrible problem which can only be addressed by a change in the culture, where we don't just require the hypothetical ability to be sourced, but actual sourcing on some type of a time frame, or deletion will follow, but that is the way it is right now.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed PROD for Heat-Ray
I have removed the prod tag from Heat-Ray, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks!

The article already survived a discussion at AFD. You can relist it there, but you can't PROD it. --Chris Johnson (talk) 02:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not see the AFD discussion. My error. However, even the AFD points out interesting sources. Have you considered adding them? Mr.TrustWorthy Got Something to Tell Me?  02:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not an article I care that much about, and my editing energy is limited. I dePRODded it first, as there was a clear procedural problem.  However, I do plan on adding sources to some of your other PRODs.


 * You've PRODded a bunch of articles about clearly notable subjects because they lack sources. The deletion process is for articles about non-notable subjects; it's not for encouraging clean up of articles.  This is especially the case with WP:PROD, which is for deletion nominations you expect will be uncontroversial.


 * I'm going to try to source some of these articles (it'll take me a while, as I'm slow), but in the future I suggest you review WP:DEL and particularly WP:BEFORE, which says, "When nominating an article for deletion due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist."--Chris Johnson (talk) 04:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you'll go one section above, the same information was told to me, when I asked for help. If you look at my more recent contributions, you can see that I have already started to add sources to certain articles that I had previously prodded. I plan on continuing to do so. Mr.TrustWorthy Got Something to Tell Me?  04:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Copy to Wikitionary
If I placed this tag on a article, is it permitted for another user to remove that tag with leaving a blank edit summary. Mr.TrustWorthy Got Something to Tell Me?  17:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As with any other edit, the best thing is to discuss it with them. Of course, they should have left an edit summary - but many people forget. You might politely mention to them that it would be good to do so in the future. And then...ask 'em why they removed it. See if you can come to an agreement. If it's a debatable point, start a discussion on the talk page. Build consensus, etc. If you need another opinion on it, leave a note on my talk page with the article link. Hope that helps?  Chzz  ►  18:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

 Chzz  ►  19:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

"unreferenced" is not a reason for deletion
"unreferenced" is not a reason for deletion by either PROD or AfD. -- go look for some, a/c WP:BEFORE. I see from the above I am not the only one to have reminded you of this: The advice Fuhghettaboutit gave you is correct (though I do not agree with him about what the policy should be). DGG (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Peer review
I will be glad to take a look at it. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Since Ruhrfisch has kindly reviewed the article, I will pass. So little time, so much to do. Finetooth (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Shahrivar and other months
Though the month is named after the spirits, it warrants a separate article just as much as do January and Janus. I've reverted the prod on what is apparently the modern Persian name. You seem to have just consistently gone through and made these changes. Straightening it out is a little difficult for me, so I am asking for help at the workgroup. DGG (talk) 23:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I can agree about the Shahrivar article, however the other articles do not have their own article and are therefore redirected to the divinity that they derive their name from. Mr.TrustWorthy Got Something to Tell Me?  23:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * the solution is to write the other articles at least as stubs. How long would it take you? I'd have to verify every word and spelling--you could go right ahead. DGG (talk) 04:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sir, please understand the concept. Months are dedicated to the divinity with the same name. The only difference with some Wikipedia pages and some of the links in the Zoroastrian Calendar is the difference in language. The pages in Wikipedia are in Avestan, while the links in the template are in Middle Persian. Therefore, a small section on the page of the divinity is fine, rather than an entire new page. As well, the redirects to the divinity are good as they currently are. Mr.TrustWorthy Got Something to Tell Me?  02:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, the concept is found in many different languages and most Indo-European calendars. My example using the Gregorian Roman Calendar with the English versions of the names, was Mars and March, Janus and January, Mai and May, Juno and June. The month is named after the god. (and in some cases for a man who was later considered to have become a god, Julius and July, Augustus and August. We have articles on both. We should here also. The spiritual being and the month are not identical, even when the same name and even the same spelling is used for both. Etymology is not meaning. The month, a span of time, is named after the being, even when there is considered a mystical relationship between the two. In any case, the links you made referred to a general article on the beings that did not mention the months.
 * I was clever enough to see the complication posed by the Avestan and the Persian names, (and the Iranian and the Zorastrian calendars). That's why I did not make the articles myself, or harmonize them with the templates, for we'd have to decide which set to use. The articles on the months would then give the names in the various languages and scripts. I could figure most  that out also, I suppose, with a little study, but only in roman transliteration.  When things are complicated or multifaceted, they need to be explained more fully, not combined into a simplified syncretic form.   DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

what's up
you can view my article! User:NightMoonXD

it is real
I realize that my article on the "422nd Military Police Company" has no sources or information proving that it exists but in fact it does. But here are some references that should help out a lot. They are an actual US Army Unit, I am a member myself of the unit so don't tell me that they don't exist.

http://people.bakersfield.com/home/SnapGallery/1286399

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=USARC+Bakersfield,+CA&fb=1&split=1&gl=us&view=text&latlng=9081281679986839816 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpt22 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I said the topic was not notable, I never said it did not exist. Even the links you have sent me are just images and a map which contain, no information whatsoever. Please refer to WP:NOTABLE for more information. Mr.TrustWorthy Got Something to Tell Me?  01:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Missing Introduction Tag
Hello Warrior4321. You tagged my article, Ethiopian Mapping Authority, as missing an introduction. You were quite right, of course. I am still a little new to this, so I am still learning. I have since added an introduction and therefore I removed your tag. Thank you for your assistance, and for helping me to learn. Armysurveyor (talk) 23:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. [[Image:Smiley.svg|20px]]. You're welcome.! If you need any other help concering anything, feel free to ask me. Mr.TrustWorthy  Got Something to Tell Me?  21:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Josh Lattanzi
Hello Warrior4321, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Josh Lattanzi - a page you tagged - because: The article makes a credible assertion of notability, sufficient to pass A7. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. decltype (talk) 22:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you tell me what crieria in WP:MUSICBIO, he meets? Mr.TrustWorthy Got Something to Tell Me?  23:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have not researched the subject thoroughly enough to determine if he meets any of the WP:MUSIC criteria. However, the article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, a lower standard than notability, and the article is therefore ineligible for speedy deletion per criterion A7. Regards, decltype (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright then, I'll prod the article. Mr.TrustWorthy Got Something to Tell Me?  23:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Dorood
Glad to see some Parsis in Wikipedia. Another Iranian..--Nepaheshgar (talk) 04:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Glad to see you too. [[Image:Smiley.svg|20px]]. Are you Zoroastrian? Mr.TrustWorthyTalk to Me! 23:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I did not have the luck to be one. But I definitely admire Parsis and Zoroastrians.  Thank you for upholding the Iranian heritage.  --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the Welcome, really appreciated, look forward to providing some educated contribution, Wikipedia rocks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesNS (talk • contribs) 06:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. If you have any other concerns or need help on anything else, please feel free to ask. Mr.TrustWorthyTalk to Me! 23:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sharton
Hi!

Actually it is Shart that is a comman variant or Shit - not Sharton, this article presents Sharton as a new slang-term and in no way represents the company Sharton International.

Kind regards,

Request for Rollback
Hi. I've added the rollback flag to your account. Any questions please ask me. Full information is at WP:ROLLBACK Pedro : Chat  08:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thunder Birds
There is no need for two different plot summaries. I removed one and moved the quote to the end of that summary. 66.108.95.79 (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Walker County Humane Society
The lawsuit section that someone posted about the Walker County Humane Society involves an on-going lawsuit. The judge in that case has entered an Order restricting the parties from discussing the case. Therefore, the "Lawsuit" section needs to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.182.144.210 (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

How could INFORMING a reader that information they are reading is NOT objective be UNCONSTRUCTIVE. RE: Abramhason. Please enlighten me as to how keeping readers informed is not constructive. I would really like to hear that since I spend half my life teaching colege students the difference between what is objective and what is subjective so I would like to hear your take on it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Gardner (talk • contribs) 20:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

How can informing readers be unconstructive
I would like you to explain to me how informing a reader that an entry is not OBJECTIVE would be unconstructive. I would like to hear your take on this since I spend half my life teaching students to learn the difference between objective and subjective information. The Abrahamson information needs a disclaimer showing it is NOT objective and was posted by the author. How could INFORMING readers be unconstructive? Thank you. John Gardner (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Gardner (talk • contribs) 20:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This is due to the fact that this is an encyclopedia with articles which contain information about the person, not on the style of writing. While, there is nothing wrong with informing readers about the style of writing, just adding a sentence where information should be, can be considered unconstructive and possibly even vandalism, which was what I suspected it to be. However, I assume good faith that you meant for it to be constructive and just inform other readers. If you would like to inform, check out templates that you can add to the article or add a invisible comment to the page. Hope this helps, ask me for help if you need any. Mr.TrustWorthyTalk to Me! 21:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

More on how disclaimers should be visible to the readers
Thank you for getting back to me in a timely manner and I apologize for the brouhaha this caused.

This came about via a student assignment. In this day and age with so many outlets of information for students (college) to choose from there is an emphasis on understanding what is objective information versus subjective --what is fact and what is opinion.

The idea that subjective means it isn’t true --isn’t true. Subject means there is a bias to the information.

That is my contention. Having the person the entry is about posting the information is subjective. It is no different than Fox News claiming the health care protestors are patriots. “Consider the source!”

I am sure you are aware that wikapedia is banned as an academic resource in most colleges and universities. My suggestion was a simple one to help readers who might use it: add a disclaimer so the reader can decide whether the information is fact or slanted. Objective or subjective.

My suggestion doesn’t seem to be working here but I can tell you this: there are at least 25 college students now who have been assigned to follow this who have formed their own opinions not only about wikapedia but about the worth of this particular poet. I can tell you this: Almost all the students saw through this obvious charade.

I was also amazed at the vitriolic response especially by one of Abrahamson’s associates making very foolish claims touting that he had been in Poetry. Well I got some news for you: SO have I. No big deal.

This poet is not going to win a Pulitzer Prize and he has one small book by a non-big league publisher and because he is allowed to post unregulated entries or at least let people know he is the one posting these things then wikapedia as a silent partner as just as culpable. In essence wikapedia is endorsing the right of people to self-promote. Isn’t this what they used to call vanity publishing?

In conclusion. As experiments go this was interesting. I think I learned a lot. I think the students who viewed this learned a lot. I am just sorry Abrahamson and his associates didn’t learn anything. I relabeled this reflects poorly on him and any accomplishments he might think worthwhile. John Gardner (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand. Sorry for the whole mix-up. I see so many users vandalizing Wikipedia everyday, failed to see yours might have been in good faith. I have currently placed a template concering the factual accuracy of the article, if you feel any other templates are more suitable, please see WP:TEMPLATE. Thanks. Mr.TrustWorthyTalk to Me! 21:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Warrior. Under WP:AGF I am asking "John Gardner" to cite which aspect of the article is inaccurate. The tag added has a WP protocol attached which I have (per protocol) posted on the entry talk page. I think John Gardner may be misunderstanding your tag and thinking the tag just stays up there forever. This is the first WP activity for John Gardner and he has not read WP:NOT, WP:NPV, or WP:NOR. So he believes his speculation on sourcing of the article can lead to a permanent tag. I have tried to explain to him that the tag means that the sourcing is in question- meaning the article is believed inaccurate or without proper sourcing. I hope you will explain this to him b/c he ("he") won't listen to me. Unless someone shows which part of the article is inaccurate I will be removing the tag per WP guidelines. But because of WP:AGF I will definitely wait for John Garder to make a case. Warrior if you have questions about sourcing please see my recent note on the talk page. Every item in the article is cited from an independent source, dozens of editors have worked on this article over 2 years, it passed AfD unanimously, John Gardner has had no WP activity except to edit this single entry, John Gardner has no proof of any bias and therefore is violating WP:NOR- all reasons why this user was flagged by both myself and two others as a vandal. Again: per WP:AGF, I'd like to hear what he says.216.26.97.159 (talk) 22:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Amen. Too much time is wasted on those who cannot or will not read WP:NOR and WP:NPV. And on those who have only ever edited one article--let alone making a complaint on that article (with zero proof) which could be made against any one of thousands of artists' articles on WP.  Associates of a subject often start WP articles.  That's why we have AfD, WP:NOTABILITY, multiple editors for each article, and WP:NPV/WP:NOR--which require independent sourcing for all information.  The gall someone has to have to come on WP and start making demands without having read any of the guidelines for WP is amazing.  This man is a vandal unless he can comply--even once--with any of the WP provisions above-referenced. And if he doesn't or can't, the tag must be/will be removed by someone.Burks88 (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed, my error in placing the template without taking some steps into account. While John Gardner's claim is valid, it wouldn't make sense on Wikipedia, as all articles on Wikipedia should be cited. The best solution for the current issues are to add more sources and citations and place citation needed wherever one suspect's that original research or self-promotion has occured. Even if self-promotion has occured, if it meets Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, then the article is still a valid, notable article. I have removed the template of dispute from the article, and added an infobox. A non-licensed image in that infobox would be great. If anybody else still has any other concerns, please feel free to state them. Mr.TrustWorthyTalk to Me! 23:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you mr. Trustworthy. I will try to assist in fixing the article. It is not hard- I just googled this person and get 47,000 hits, even using the google phrase function (ie quotes around the full name to restrict hits).216.26.97.159 (talk) 23:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well this certainly has been a snarky adventure. I think this person's credibility has already be diminished because of his self-promotion. I have a hard time imagining how it couldn't have been. This "vanity posting" is fairly transparent to most. Without the disclaimer they appear to be fradulent. It reminds me of those protestors who go to health care reform town meeting and shout. Evn if you did agree with them, knowing where they came from diminishes their credibility. So it goes. And just for the record, no one in our entire English department at the university I teach at has ever heard of this guy. I told them to check out wikapedia and that they could get all the information they needed from the horse's mouth (or thereabouts) Thank you. John Gardner (talk) 00:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC).

I am adding the following wikapedia policy statements that I believe this particular entry violates inclding 216's changes since they are apparently an interested party. Coul you clarify how this entry does not violate these various polcies? Thank you.

This page in a nutshell: Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers, unless you are certain that the interests of Wikipedia remain paramount.

Autobiography For more details on this topic, see Wikipedia:Autobiography. It is not recommended that you write an article about yourself. If you are notable, someone else will notice you and write the article. In some cases, Wikipedia users write articles about themselves when the more appropriate action would be to create a user page. In these cases, the article is normally moved into the user namespace rather than deleted. If you believe you may be notable enough, make your case on the appropriate talk pages, and seek consensus first, both with the notability and any proposed autobiography.

Self-promotion Conflict of interest often presents itself in the form of self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links, personal or semi-personal photos, or other material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor, or their associates. Examples of these types of material include: Links that appear to promote products by pointing to obscure or not particularly relevant commercial sites (commercial links). Links that appear to promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages. Biographical material that does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article.

Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline strongly discourages editing articles that you have a close personal connection with, especially when the edits may be seen as controversial. If this is the case for you, you are advised to use place template on the article's talk page to suggest changes rather than making them directly. Editors browsing Category:Requested edits will notice your request and respond to it.John Gardner (talk) 00:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * How are you so sure that the IP adress user is Seth Abramson himself? Mr.TrustWorthyTalk to Me! 03:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

That is not the correct question. The question you should be asking is: Is that IP address Seth Abramson? Also let me quote again from wikapedia's own policies: "Conflict of interest often presents itself in the form of self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links, personal or semi-personal photos, or other material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor, or their associates." And this: with, especially when the edits may be seen as controversial"

Let me suggest that this IP address perform full disclosure. My instincts tell me this is either the person or a close firend. THAT is what you should be investigating to see if this vanity entry is in violation of the above policies that I noted.John Gardner (talk) 03:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me ask this: If indeed it is Mr. Abramson who has been posting this information or IF it is someone with a close personal connection, HOW does that NOT violate wikapedia's own policies? I think an explanation would be helpful. As 212 posted there are rules we need to follow. Isn't this one of them? Or are they abitrary? This should be discussed at length.John Gardner (talk) 03:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This comes from wikapedia's polcies."Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline strongly discourages editing articles that you have a close personal connection .." Tell me how this entry does not violate this policy? I don't think it is unreasonable to ask.John Gardner (talk) 03:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Several things should be pointed out :

That is not the correct question. The question you should be asking is: Is that IP address Seth Abramson? My instincts tell me this is either the person or a close firend.

Therefore, you do not know that the ip adress user is Seth Abramson. You are assuming that. I would like you to tell me specific events or information that the ip adress user added that made you think he was Seth Abramson. Either way, users can edit articles about themselves if they have reliable sources to back up their claims. Mr.TrustWorthyTalk to Me! 03:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Once again your response does not answer my question: How can this not be in violation of wikapedia policy? "Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline strongly discourages editing articles that you have a close personal connection .."

I would think it is YOUR job to identify users not MINE. Would you explain to me where in wikapedia policy it says the user must identify IP addresses? It doesn't. You are overseeing this entry. You are in command. You should assume some responsibility when a conflict arises as it has now. Show me how it ISN'T Abramson? Or have him come forward to set the record straight. That is easy enough.I can tell you this it is from a wireless router. That much can be confirmed.John Gardner (talk) 04:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let me try it this way: Suppose my sources who are rtacking this IP address and discovered it to be a wirelss connection come up with it as being Abramson? What exactly do you imagine the consequence of that would be in terms of credibility? I think it's worth thinking about.John Gardner (talk) 04:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You asked me if I knew this user was Abramson. The followin was uncovered:

HERE IS THE GEOGRAPHIC ADDRESS OF IP 216.26.97.159

SOURCE: www.ipligence.com/geolocation

This IP address is 216.26.97.159 City: Madison, Wisconsin Country United States

Now isn't Abramson attending college in Madison Wisconsin? Do you believe this is just a coinsidence? I don't. In any court of law this would be enough circumstantial evidence necessary. Your honor I rest MY case. I inserted the information you sent in my talk pages. Thank you. John Gardner (talk) 04:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright, you don't seem to understand what I am saying.
 * Once again your response does not answer my question: How can this not be in violation of wikapedia policy? "Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline strongly discourages editing articles that you have a close personal connection .."
 * What action do you want to take place agaisnt him? We do not know that he is Seth Abramson. You assume that. Assumptions are not facts.
 * I would think it is YOUR job to identify users not MINE.
 * How is it anymore my job than it is yours?
 * You are in command. You should assume some responsibility when a conflict arises as it has now.
 * How am I in command'? I am just trying to edit and improve Wikipedia like thousands of other Wikipedians.....
 * Or have him come forward to set the record straight.
 * That could have easily be down by yourself...? Just ask him? Mr.TrustWorthyTalk to Me! 04:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute I just gave you the location of the IP address and it is in the city and state where Abramson is. How much more do you need? Come on this is ridiculous. He's been caught red-handed and your responses are way off topic. John Gardner (talk) 04:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Those comments were for your previous comments above. The comments in green are yours, and my responses are in black. Mr.TrustWorthyTalk to Me! 04:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I get that. Green, black etc. You asked me how I knew the IP address was Abramson. I showed you where it came from. It comes from where he is going to school in Madison, Wisconsin. And you still DON'T believe he's posting his own vanity entries? Come on. Okay would user 216.26.97.159 located in Madison, Wisconsin please identify yourself so this matter can be finally resolved? Thank you. Okay so now I'm in command. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Gardner (talk • contribs) 04:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you and apologies again
Thank you. Once again it was not and is not my intent to in any way diminish his many worthwhile accomplishments. In fact a applaud them. But I do think your template helps a reader to be better informed in their research process and to be better able to "Consider the source!" Once again I apologize for not fully understanding how this all works (templates, sandbox etc). I actually just got an email from a student that I will share wiht you without attribution: "Hooray! There are fair peope in this world afterall." That I think is a wonderful commentary on your behalf. We all need to live in some sort of state of "grace." Fairness is a heck of a good state of grace by my thinking.Thank you and I will not further disrupt the proceedings. John Gardner (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Names of God
Further to your assistance no resolution was found. The editor keeps removing good a reliable sources that all have verification via Google Books and search due to POV. Could you please have a look at the article to prevent editwarring. Wikid as&#169; 00:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I have left sufficient notes on the talk page and nobody challenged even a single reference used. Thus removal of material is plain disruptive. Wikid as&#169; 00:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Why do you remove referenced material?
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Wikid as&#169; 00:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Form a consensus on Talk:Names of God. Furthermore, I did not blank out or remove content, I simply reverted the information to a previous edit. Mr.TrustWorthyTalk to Me! 00:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

THINKING ABOUT THE LACK OF OBJECTIVITY IN POSTINGS AND VANITY ENTRIES

 * I have thought about this a great deal, and have no dog in this fight.
 * Wikapedia is not used by most colleges or universities as a research source so engaging in “vanity entries” like this Seth Abramson entry, posted primarily by him in his own self-interest, is not of any consequence.
 * I am satisfied that the process is flawed and that most people realize it is flawed. Hence since no one uses it what is my beef? None.
 * I am satisfied that those people I am most concerned about (students and other English faculty) can see the obvious self-promotion that is attached to this entry. I is of no consequence to them and it is therefore of no consequence to me. None of those people will be using wikapedia as a source nor will they be reading or studying this person or his work.
 * I am satisfied that the trust I place in people’s ability to comprehend and identify on their own obvious biases and subjectivity is well placed.
 * The need of a disclaimer is not necessary a least based on those who read this exchange and saw this entry. They were able to see the transparent endeavor to vanity post. They didn’t need me to tell them and they certainly didn’t need a disclaimer on the entry. It was obvious.
 * My effort to include a disclaimer was misplaced. There is no need for it.
 * As an example, one needs little prompting or for that matter any disclaimer when one sees someone expousing hatred for the health care reform. It is easy enough to identify them as the fringe element. I believe the same holds true in this instance.
 * Most people have a firm grasp of the obvious. They don’t need me interfering.
 * But thank you for the opportunity to find out exactly how wikapedia works. It was a learning process for me and one I can use in the classroom.

Thank you.John Gardner (talk) 03:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, thank you for your contributions and I hope you will continue to do more constructive edits. Mr.TrustWorthyTalk to Me! 03:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)