User talk:VQuakr

This is VQuakr's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives

/Archives/2009 /Archives/2010 /Archives/2011

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Wow, that was fast, before I could press save page you had already put the template up! Beat me to the punch. 128.61.23.52 (talk) 07:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page had existed for more than 30 minutes when I nominated it, but cheers. VQuakr (talk) 07:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you placed a COI tag on the Brettina article. I'm not sure whether I'm the only major contributor the template refers to, but I have 12 edits, which account for about half of the article's character count. I confess to editing with a close connection in the past. (And yes, I should have known better.) However, while actively editing the article, I made an effort to maintain a neutral point of view. Am I the offending contributor, or was the tag aimed at the more recent editors? I see that most of the more recent contributors are sloppy editors, with broken tags, shaky citations, original research, and inattention to Wikipedia policy. — Steve98052 (talk) 10:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The basis for the COI tag was this edit, which makes it pretty clear you have COI. If there are WP:BLP violations in the article (negative, unsourced content) by all means remove it immediately, but in general it looks like many of the edits to the article are by editors with an interest in promoting the subject. VQuakr (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the guidance. Incidentally, it seems that a lot of the edits in the article deal with points of fact that are unsourced or poorly sourced, but neither negative nor positive. One or more unregistered users have made edits that add information (apparently original research), and a series of users apparently registered only to edit that article have removed the information. Consensus seems absent, and as you note, quality sources remain scarce. I don't want to enter into an edit war, since the contribution I could make (other than cleaning up sloppy edits) would be to add my own original research.

One additional question: it is my understanding that it's bad form to remove anything from someone else's edits on a discussion page, unless it falls into the category of negative unsourced WP:BLP, or to archive old discussions. Is that correct? At least one of the users with the throw-away registrations has done that. — Steve98052 (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, the article is so poorly sourced right now that it really barely meets the notability guidelines. The article needs secondary sources; I am not convinced that any of the sources qualify as independent and secondary so far. Yes, refactoring other people's talk page comments is frowned upon with a few minor exceptions, see WP:REFACTOR. VQuakr (talk) 02:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch for the pointer to WP:REFACTOR. I thought I had read such guidelines, but didn't recall where. It looks like the throw-away registrations (the subject's sock-puppets, I would guess) have on several occasions violated those guidelines.

To clarify my understanding of refactoring, am I right in thinking that it would be within refactor guidelines to merge the two "Qui Tam Relator" sections on this user-talk page?

— Steve98052 (talk) 10:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New developments have arisen that nullify the four month old AFD.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. A segment on a cable TV show, taped during his 15 minutes and only recently aired does nothing to contest his status as a BLP1E which was the primary argument for deletion/merger in the AFD's (as I recall). Please review WP:BRD, and if you wish, start a discussion in an appropriate location and allow a consensus to be reached before re-creating this content. Regards! VQuakr (talk) 04:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello VQuakr,

I am attempting to create a page about an energy drink that I have had in existence for the past 3.5 years. I am wondering if there is anyone that I can get to write it for me that is familiar with the Wikipedia guidelines. I was stating the basics about the beverage and providing documentation on the company that owns the product, trademarks, and listing ingredients in the beverage with internal wikipedia links about those ingredients. I am still getting the page deleted. Can you direct me to someone who may be interested in creating the page for me?

Please advise

Thank you! rexhymen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rexhymen (talk • contribs) 20:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is essentially impossible to write a neutral article about a subject which which you have a conflict of interest. What is the name of the company that makes the drink? I did see the article on the drink, and I do not think the subject meets the notability guideline for products. VQuakr (talk) 03:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this article does not have an AfD notice raised on it, presumably you were raising the AfD by hand rather than Twinkle. Could you finish the notification to make the AfD validly raised? Thanks Fæ (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done This actually was a Twinkle nomination, but it seems to have hiccuped on the article template. Regards! VQuakr (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello VQuakr, thanks for intervening and preventing a revert war by reminding BRD cycle.

Third-party references I checked (listed on the discussion page) talk about micropsychoanalysis as a form of psychoanalysis. Of course I didn't consider autobiographical references.

I found no third-party references saying that micropsychoanalysis is not a psychoanalysis.

The article being written on the base of verifiable sources, I wonder how a user can come in, say "Have nothing to see with psychoanalaysis" without any valid source and impose his version based solely on his saying.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks, Bluebird33 (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

This message is in response to your inquiry on the AtHoc page which now cites that a major contributor to the article may have a close connection to the company. How can we resolve this and the other items cited at the outset of the article?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Young US (talk • contribs) 13:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, and thanks for your contributions. You refer to the company as "our" company [1], and you are the copyright holder of images created by the company [2]. As for how to get rid of the tags, I would like to see a consensus on the talk page that they are not needed. Specifically, that will probably require someone without a COI rewriting the article and use of reliable secondary sources rather than press releases. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks VQuakr. We have decided to remove the article at this time. At some point in the near future, perhaps we will resubmit a revision that incorporates your suggestions, and better meets the qualifications for full objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Young US (talk • contribs) 15:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of an article with multiple authors such as this one is a community decision; speedy deletion at the request of the author only applies if there is a single contributor. VQuakr (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. It is not likely, however, that there will be much discussion and/or consensus on the requested deletion either way. The thinking was to take the updates and edits offline in the interest of Wikipedia deserving fully finished content rather than a series of live, ongoing revisions. If that is what you would prefer of if you feel that approach better meets Wikipedia guidelines, I am happy to comply...Thanks again for your attention and clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Young US (talk • contribs) 15:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, Wikipedia actually has a policy on perfection. If, having read WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY you think your company is notable, feel free to make your case here or on the article talk page (not at the AfD because of our policy on conflict of interest). If the article is deleted, you should not re-create it due to that same COI. VQuakr (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. ThanksAndrew Young US (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"AtHoc's base product, IWSAlerts™, uses the existing Internet Protocol network to send audio-visual alerts of current conditions and mission-critical information to targeted recipients via their desktops, handhelds, mobile devices, and telephony, giant voice systems and more." Your recent edits to this article, not limited to this sentence, lead me to believe that you still have a gross misunderstanding of the purpose of an encyclopedia, and specifically the policies on conflict of interest and advertising. This article is actually worse than it was when I nominated it for deletion; if I were to come across it for the first time, right now, I would request its speedy deletion as unambiguous advertising. VQuakr (talk) 04:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given your feedback above, perhaps it is best to simply delete and I will work with Qwyrxian to create a compliant version on my userspace. One question though: In addition to Wikipedia rules, I looked over several other notification providers for examples of successful articles. One of these was Reverse 911. I thought that what I wrote here was at least as objective and pragmatic as theirs. What am I missing? Thanks Andrew Young US (talk) 04:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably not missing anything, though I honestly do not see anything quite like the quote above in that article. There are many articles needing attention, which is why we judge them based on an external scale (policies) rather than each other. To be fair, Reverse 911 could really only be called a successful article in the context that it is not currently being discussed for deletion; a true success story might look more like Norwegian Public Safety Radio. VQuakr (talk) 04:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Norwegian Public Safety Radio article is excellent. Thanks for pointing me to it. Andrew Young US (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm... ones and zeroes... Thanks for that, I really appreciate it. Apterygial ^talk 00:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't eat too many of the ones - they have all the carbs. And no problem. VQuakr (talk) 00:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I posted an article on Crescent Tours. I do not really understand what is your problem with it. How different it is for example from Balkan Holidays article. I am just trying to do the same article as Balkan Holidays — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheArticleEditor (talk • contribs) 01:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Existence of another similar article is not a great argument for notability. I referenced the applicable policies, WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY in the proposal for deletion; can you explain how this company meets those guidelines? VQuakr (talk) 01:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should remind that Crescent Tours is a pioneering company in the new tourism sector called Halal Holidays, and thus carries general knowledge importance and thus needs to be included in Wikipedia. The references like The Guardian are very reliable sources.TheArticleEditor (talk) 02:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making changes to the article. I am ok with the changes. If I make a change I will clearly explain the reason in the title box. PLease, advise if we can remove the "Deletion" message at the top of the article?TheArticleEditor (talk) 03:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The claims such as "pioneering company" need support from reliable sources. You mention the Guardian article, but this is about halal vacations in general and only has relatively trivial discussion of this particular travel company. I do suggest that you make your case for keeping the article at the AfD linked from the template at the top of the article page (provided that doing so would not violate the conflict of interest policy). I have not made any changes to the article other than templates. I think using the edit summary is a great idea. You may want to review WP:OWN in the context of being "ok" with the changes, not saying this is a major issue with your contributions so far but mostly an FYI. Deletion discussions typically run for at least a week before they are closed; the template should not be removed before then. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 03:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello VQuakr,

Thank you for your guidance regarding the Vikram Dhillon article. In my attempts to conform to your requirements undoubtedly some mistakes have been made but that shouldn’t deter from the value and significance of the individual and his achievements making the article worthy of placement in Wikipedia. To that end, I’d like you to consider the following as we work towards a finer tuned article. Of the twenty four references cited none have been published by Dhillon for his own promotion. They are each independent sources included amongst them sites such as the National Film Board of Canada, online versions of reputable print magazines and Newspapers such as Indian Today and The Economic Times as well as the lynchpin monitor of the Film and Television Industry, IMDb. References 1-10 and 12 clearly state Vikram Dhillon by name, some additionally have photographic evidence to substantiate his involvement. References 11, 13-16 may not clearly list his name but they serve to authenticate the project that he was involved in. The remaining references indirectly, but firmly, corroborate the project or association to the project giving Dhillon’s claims legitimacy. As a registered member of Association of Motion Pictures & TV Programme Producer of India (AMPTPP), Dhillon is a working professional in the Film and Television industry, I’d ask you to consider that many of his achievements that are currently referenced or highlighted in the Wiki article are listed explicitly in IMDb and IMDB Pro. As it’s the go-to source that industry professional’s reference, I’d ask you consider their extreme, stringent screenings as a reliable confirmation of his credits and noteability. With respect to the photograph, all copyrights are held by Vikram Dhillon and it is posted with his permission.

Thank you

(Vikramdhillon (talk) 06:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Please review WP:AUTO and WP:V. Any source with an "edit this page" button is not a webpage with "extreme, stringent screenings." VQuakr (talk) 07:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please revisit this discussion? Thanks, CTJF83 21:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did follow the developments on the deletion discussion, but part of the problem is that as I noted in my nomination I do not really have adequate background in the subject matter to know what constitutes a reliable source. Based on Wikipedia's own articles on the publications, Out magazine appears to qualify as a RS, but The Sword appears to clearly not be since it is run by a porn website (therefore not mainstream media). Xtra appears more dubious and I can't find a Wiki article on Next, but again I am having trouble getting a read on how much so. As such, I don't really feel ready to revoke the AfD nomination, and posting a comment at the AfD similar to what I am saying here doesn't seem to add much to the discussion. What are your thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out is the only one I had heard of, and you agreed that is a notable magazine. I guess you make good points, I'm not sure how notable the other sources are, to be honest....CTJF83 11:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm writting to inquire as to the problem with the inclusion of Blazing Star Cinema to the wiki article "List of Cinema and movie theater chains". We are a legitemate company operating as a drive-in and outdoor cinema and do not see a reason why we are not being allowed to add ourselves as other cinema companies have.

Thanking you in advance your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdepaola (talk • contribs) 05:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a message on your talk page linking to the Wikipedia policies on shared usernames and conflict of interest just now. Based on your use of the plural first person it appears that you are editing on behalf of the company. VQuakr (talk) 07:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The shared username policy has no relevance, the username cdepaola is not shared and I don't understand what would have made you think it was shared. Cdepaola is my first initial and last name, not the name of a company or group. Also what precludes an individual from posting a listing of a legitimate cinema on a page specifically designed to contain a list of cinemas? Thanks... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdepaola (talk • contribs) 13:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, it sounded like it was a shared username based on the use of the word "we." As for the list of cinemas, Wikipedia is not a directory, and that entry did not appear to be notable. VQuakr (talk) 17:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now I remember why I decide to never contribute to wiki. The comment that "Wikipedia is not a directory" flys in the face of the entire article that we are currently discussing. The whole article is nothing but a directory and I would challenge you or anyone else to show me how it's not. I thinks time to start hunting down obvious directories within Wikipedia and placing comments on them. So this article which is obviously a directory isn't really a directory? Ok, I can see this discussion is going to go no where. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdepaola (talk • contribs) 21:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not cause disruption to prove a point. Lists are very common, and they are not the same as directories. For one thing, they do not attempt to be exhaustive (about most subjects). In the case of lists of businesses, inclusion criteria are generally established for the specific article. Each entry being individually notable is the most common criterion. VQuakr (talk) 02:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear VQuakr,

Thank you for your guidance regarding the outdoor cinema article. It was not my intention that the article was written like an advertisement and i do not think that it sounds like one. If I wanted to write an advertisement I would have named only one company/event and not several in the citation/references. If you have any suggestions how it could not sound like advertisement i would be pleased if you could help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunderbrush (talk • contribs) 15:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think what made me concerned that it was being used to promote a company or a few companies was the lack of reliable sources. It looked like most or all of the references were to blogs. I notice an IP addy removed the advert tag, I am fine with leaving it off while the references are improved. VQuakr (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. cheers! - The Elves Of Dunsimore (talk) 04:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any time. VQuakr (talk) 06:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir or Madam:

I have talked about 3 different awards that Kenexa Corporation has won on their Wikipedia article, with 4 more awards to add in the coming days. These awards come from Forbes.com, Human Resources Magazine, Software Magazine and others, who are more than likely reliable. Salary.com is widely used by individuals and organizations to determine employee compensation. Based on this information, I feel that I have added reliable second/third party sources, and that Kenexa is notable enough to be on Wikipedia. What would you like to see added to this article?

Thank you very much for your attention to these matters.--Jax 0677 (talk) 05:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the notability guidelines at WP:COMPANY and WP:GNG. Awards a company has won can be important information, but substantial coverage in secondary sources are needed for writing a neutral article. For example, the Forbes "award" is just a ranking based on EPS growth and the only mention is in a table - clearly trival coverage. The majority of the sources in the article are press releases; these do not establish notability as defined in the GNG and if possible should be replaced with secondary sources. Feel free to call me VQuakr or "hey you," BTW. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 06:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon VQuakr:

According to Wikipedia:COMPANY#Publicly_traded_corporations:

"However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage, analyst reports, and profiles by companies such as Hoover's (a commercial source)."

I have references from Bloomberg Businessweek, HotStocked.com and Hoover's Inc. among others. Is this sufficient?--Jax 0677 (talk) 00:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the notability tag; the article is still based primarily on press releases so I left the primary sources tag. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 00:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello VQuakr Hope all is well with you. It seems a shame that the Ramsey Clark Complaint I have is not used on Wikipedia. The reason I say this is there is nowhere else you can obtain this 1986 complaint on the web and the numbering of the pages was done by Ramsey Clark himself. Yes I had wrote on it after his law clerk Jackson had sent it to me but this is an original from Clarks desk and has historical reference to it. I never did hear back from you regarding three (3) words to be added to the bio on the list of whistleblowers and I'm assuming that even if it's says in court documents that I did work under-cover with federal agents for eighteen months the folks at Wikipedia does not like that terminology and will not grant me three words so I will leave it alone. I wish you would reconsider both the Ramsey Clark Complaint and my three words. Thank you for listening to me. Oh by the way someone has given me a gift of a new I-Pad2 so I will be looking to you for your approval on my input of Gravitt, Maudal the old Dell computer crashed and died but out of the ashes emerges a new device and I am thankful for that and your past help and tolerance. Hope to hear back from you.Qui Tam Relator 17:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qui Tam Relator (talk • contribs)

Greetings, I hope you are enjoying the new IPad. My concern with your request for addition of the "Ramsey Clark complaint" is that as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original source material. If this complaint cannot be independently verified, then even if the information is true it may not be suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Can you refresh my memory on the three words you wanted added to the bio? VQuakr (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for getting back to me.

Hi VQuakr

I would like you to help me put into my bio that I spent 18 months working under-cover with the FBI and DCIS. In the Bio now it says helped the FBI with no mention of the DCIS and helped seems a little vague for the sacrifice that I had made. If you could somehow help me with this issue VQuakr I would be eternally grateful to you for doing this. Also how could I convince Wikipedia that the Ramsey Clark Complaint is the original source, please give me a direction or some hints do he Wikipedia accept this complaint as original.

Here is all I want as change in my bio:

Filed a Qui Tam suit against defense subcontractor Genisco Technology Corp. after working under-cover for 18 months with the FBI and DCIS to uncover the company's fraudulent test methods which were being used to pass key components off on the HARM missile. The FBI and DCIS case resulted in a plea-bargained $725,000.00 fine and three Genisco executives were sentenced to federal prison. Gibeault was subsequently fired. [11] [12] In 1989, Gibeault and fellow employee Inge Maudal also filed a continuation Qui Tam action against Genisco's parent company, Texas Instruments. [13]

VQuaker it might be a few more then 3 words but I just want this to be clear to the general public without it being so vague. This is not much to ask of Wikipedia and I know that when I leave the planet it will be clear for the next 50 years when the general public looks at the contribution that I had made not onlymfor the armed forces but the American taxpayers that pay for these weapons systems. You will see that it's not much more that's there now but it's much more clear and concise for the reader and my reputation as a honest person. I will not ask Wikipedia for anymore changes in the future after this I think you can appreciate my concerns and someday when my family looks back on what I had done in the 1980's it will be clear. Thank you VQuakr for your time and patience you have already been a tremendous help to me in the past and hope that you will consider this version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qui Tam Relator (talk • contribs) 19:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not totally sure I understand your question about the Ramsey Clark complaint, can you rephrase? As I read it, the request change is the addition of "with DCIS" in two locations. I realize that you know this as fact, but can you point me towards a source that can be used to verify this? Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 04:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello VQuakr. One of many verifications of DCIS involvement is the 60 minutes interview, Steve Miller Special Agent was the DCIS investigator for the Inspector Generals Office that I had worked with for 18 months along with Bill Pemberton Special Agent from the FBI. Special Agent Steve Miller is the gentleman who was interviewed and introduced my name in that 60 Minutes Segment. There are many more Documents but I believe that is one of the best sources. I have other verifiable documents if needed. Thank you for getting back to me VQuakr Please let me know if you need anymore information I have thousands of verifiable documents that I have not yet posted anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qui Tam Relator (talk • contribs) 18:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seperate issue, I'm wondering VQuakr how can I convince Wikipedia and yourself to publish the 1986 Ramsey Clark Complaint, in other word what would it take to satisfy Wikipedias guidelines and what do I need to do or prove the authenticity of this complaint in order to have it put into Wikipedia. Let me be clear VQuakr I don't want this to be linked to my Google site I just want to put a very historic document into Wikipedia even if I photo shop out the little piece that I wrote on. Keep in mind Ramsey Clark was the one who hand numbered the pages and that's why I believe this makes this such a unique document.

Also the message I sent you regarding the List Of Whistleblowers bio on me is different then what is already there I had just replaced a couple of words and added in some of the changes that I would like you to consider, sorry it's a little confusing. But if you compare what I had sent you to what is already on Wikipedias site you will see what Im' talking about. There is a difference between what I sent in my message to you and what's on the bio right now, not much of a change but never the less a small change in wording and add ons. If you could see your way to put into the bio what's in your message I'm done and will not ask for any changes in the future but take s look side by side and you will see what I'm talking about, again sorry for the confusion. I believe the 60 Minutes source and Steve Millers interview is good as a reference for the DCIS (Insector Generals Office). Thank you VQuaker — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qui Tam Relator (talk • contribs) 19:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For Wikipedia to have an article about the complaint, the complaint itself would need to have been the subject of multiple secondary sources. This is unusual for most mundane documents; individual documents are often not notable. If the complaint is in the public domain, it might be a valid source for posting at Wikisource. I will go ahead and modify the text at List of whistleblowers here in the next day or so, I think the 60 minutes source is fine for such a minor change. VQuakr (talk) 03:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You very much VQuakr you are a Gentleman and a scholar.

Thank you for all your help and patience VQuakr. I hope you get some hiking in and enjoy the up coming summer it should be a very radiating season this year, can't wait till next year to see what else can happen. I'll be seeing you in the sand box VQuakr Qui Tam Relator 06:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qui Tam Relator (talk • contribs)

Hello. Back last May, you tagged this article with the {{notability}} template. I agree that the subject is non-notable, and have nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Osler. Robofish (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up, I !voted. VQuakr (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am new and though I don't expect to get a "thank you" for translating vast swaths of Yiddish for Wikipedia, I wish I got something other than criticism. The reason I put the information in list form is that my source for this information (the yiddish theater lexicon) does not give any extra details about the work Lebedeff did, other than the names of the operettas and the people who wrote them and composed the music. Therefore I think if I were to break this down into a paragraph it would be far LESS readable. Please answer on my talk page if possible as I fear I may not see it if you answer here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jane Peppler (talk • contribs) 22:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I prefer to keep the conversation in one place; I will post a talkback template on your talk page. Thanks for your contributions. This is a collaborative writing environment; posting templates for highlighting ways that an article can be improved should not be interpreted as a personal affront or individual criticism. At the article Aaron Lebedeff is modified, I think it can be improved by focusing on his notable performances and contributions, rather than attempting an exhaustive or near-exhaustive list of performances he was in. Regards! VQuakr (talk) 22:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I listed all the performances, with writers and composers, is that this is information musicians need when researching projects and it's hard to come by. It will also help knit a community of Yiddish theater pages together - the composers, writers, and performers worked together and can be linked together via their work. This is the kind of information I was looking for - fruitlessly - when I began my most recent cd project and it's why I started writing for Wikipedia Jane Peppler (talk) 22:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've responded back to your posting on this talk page and I've got a couple of questions. Thanks! -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I like your idea for the title and I went ahead and implemented it. VQuakr (talk) 01:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 01:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi VQuakr

Thank you for your interest in the page 'Simon Corry'.

I note that you have issues with this page and on first reading the biographic nature of the content appears to cause you concern. However according to the Wikipedia guidelines on this matter although biographies are not recommended they are permitted particularly when the entry is of relevance to Wikipedia. Given the achievements of the artist and the significance of links to several collaborators who already have biographies I would suggest far more research is done prior to any hasty deletion.

It may be advisable to seek the expertise of a photography curator for example particularly if you are not familiar with the relevance to British art and photography of this period, the same for contemporary music.

I will be studying your concerns in detail and of course rectifying any information that is factually incorrect although this is unlikely as considerable time has been taken to research the page whilst keeping it concise.

Kind regards

Simon Corry— Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon Corry (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the comment, and welcome. Please refrain from creating autobiographies and similar self-promotion on Wikipedia; you may want to review WP:AUTO, WP:GNG, and WP:BIO. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further information on proposed deletion

Hi VQuakr

I have had another read of the reference articles you list and although the Simon Corry entry is autobiographical that should not be a hinderance to presenting unbiased and factual encyclopedic information. The entry is not self promotional in any way more than most other artist's biographies on Wikipedia and so if it is deleted on that basis the reason d'etre for much of the site becomes questionable.

The 'Simon Corry' section has been carefully written to ensure there is no bias whatsoever, relevant information has only been excluded if there is a security concern or at the request of a person or reputable organization. I expect there to be additions and amendments in time by the associates and users but not in a negative and destructive way.

I have re-instated the page subject to further checks and hope you can help amend the words you consider not relevant rather delete all the work that has been done to prepare this article.

Thanks again

Simon Corry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon Corry (talk • contribs) 05:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree that it is possible for someone to write a quality article about themselves. Note that the key for inclusion in this article, like any WP:BLP is verifiability, not that it must be positive. If you cannot stand the possibility that negative, sourced content about you could be added the article, this is another reason that creating an article about yourself could be a poor idea. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 05:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Content update

Hi VQuakr

I hope you are able to view the revised Wikipedia entry for Simon Corry including revisions to external links etc. If there are still too many or you would like to reduce the information on the page please inform my talk page. It would also of course be possible to expand it.

I note that you made a google search on 'Simon Corry' earlier which may have influenced your surprising page deletion request. Please note that most Google searches take you to an artist based in Falmouth who has no relationship to myself and whose quality threshold is questionable. This is frustrating for me but I have great respect for the integrity of Wikipedia and hope you recognize this.

If a personal reference would be useful to you in considering my autobiographical inclusion my cousin is Dan Corry who also has a Wikipedia entry.

Kind regards

Simon Corry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon Corry (talk • contribs) 07:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In-text citations should be avoided altogether in favor of footnotes, but that is a minor style issue. If you are aware of third-party publications that are unrelated to you, and have written substantial amounts of material about you, let me know and I can assist in getting the article cleaned up and including those references. Bare links to the home pages of a fashion magazine does not do anything to establish notability. A personal reference is not really helpful; we would need content that is verifiable. Incidentally, if you can avoid creating a new section for each reply I would appreciate it; I find the more standard talk page layout using indentations to be more readable. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 07:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have declined your speedy deletion here; the article is, while not appropriate, clearly not vandalism. Ironholds (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I considered it vandalism in the context of the user's other edits, but understand your point. Thanks for the feedback! VQuakr (talk) 04:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"In the context.." we don't judge content by other stuff the contributor has done unless they're a banned user or sockpuppet. Ironholds (talk) 05:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I should have been more clear in my response that I understood that it was a poor CSD nomination. Thanks again! VQuakr (talk) 06:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping me. I am trying to figure out the citation process, and would move the article to the sandbox while I finish it, but I can't figure out how to do that either. The term math mumble refers specifically to the attempts at mathematical discourse used in the primary grades in the classroom. The problem is, that even the term "mathematical discourse" isn't in wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pnorman1 (talk • contribs)

Just surround what you want to reference with <ref>citation</ref> tags. Don't worry too much about specific formatting or getting everything perfect; adding the sources and citations is much more important than cleaning up the citations. There may not be a page called "mathematical discourse," but there is one called Mathematics education. Regards! VQuakr (talk) 03:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you gave on my talk page about my change of Space Shuttle Columbia Disaster, did you say I did something wrong? 124.125.8.133 (talk) 08:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was a welcome message. I did revert your change though, and explained why in my edit summary. Looking through your edits so far, you may want to find sources for changes like updates to channel numbers. Again, welcome! VQuakr (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if your an administrator or an editor, here goes I have on my page a deletion tag on that 1988 Ramsey Clark complaint I put in and another one from an edit I had done back in January is there any way a person can get those two speedy deletions of my driving record at Wikipedia? I have seen the errors of my ways and will be a good boy! Oh there calling out for medication time over the intercom I have to go! Please see what you can do for me, thanks VQuakr Qui Tam Relator 05:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qui Tam Relator (talk • contribs)

Nope, not an administrator. However, there is no requirement for you to keep those speedy nominations on your user page; you can remove them at any time. They are intended to let the page creator know that the page was or could be deleted, not to be a badge of shame. VQuakr (talk) 06:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome message. I am trying to create a page for this book, which is the founding text for a whole school of music theory that is mysteriously unrepresented on Wikipedia. I am convinced that this is relevant information and that it is a good thing to get this information into the public domain.

However, the reason I think there is such a need for this information on Wikipedia is that it is hard to find related information elsewhere. A good Wikipedia article would be a great place to keep a synthesis of this information. It is hard to find information on the Lydian Chromatic Concept, just as it is hard to find information on musical set theory, neo-riemannian theory, or any newer school of music theory. Conservatory libraries have many relevant volumes, and I think that is why the pages for the aforementioned other schools of music theory are so well curated. It will take a long time for me alone to find enough relevant information online to round out this article. That is why I think it should be public, so that people with more extensive print resources can edit it too.

I have read Russell's book, but I do not own it. However, I am trying to get my friend's copy back again so I can cite right out of the book. This constitutes a primary source. In my experience, it is rare to find one music theorist simply summarize another's work without somehow changing it, so I am not sure if a summary of the book's concepts could be easily managed with second source citations. But, there are secondary sources about how other musicians have applied the theory. Do you think I could legitimize the article if I added a section for historical impact or something like that? It would be full of secondary sources that confirmed the relevance and applicability of Russell's theory, but it would not guarantee the validity of what is at this point basically a paraphrase of the book (would the paraphrase be better if it had direct quotations, or would that make it worse? I will look for a scholarly article summing up Russell's ideas, but it will probably be hard to find, just by the nature of the field.).

I am certain this article is necessary, but I am also certain it is an undertaking. The book creates a whole new paradigm in music theory with far reaching impacts, and I do not expect to be able to create a comprehensive page alone. Do you have any specific suggestions as to how I could get the page to a point where it would be acceptable for public viewing so others could aid its construction? Theadorerex (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a second thought here, would it be a good or bad idea to hyperlink mentions of this text in the pages of Bill Evans, Miles Davis, etc.? Theadorerex (talk) 18:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]