Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:07, 15 October 2012

• ♪ Main
• Talk
• To do
• Tools
• Contributions
• Userboxes
• Awards
• Email me ♪

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. Please click here to leave me a new message.

This is Mr. Stradivarius's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? 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: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Page Curation update

Hey all :). We've just deployed another set of features for Page Curation. They include flyouts from the icons in Special:NewPagesFeed, showing who reviewed an article and when, a listing of this in the "info" flyout, and a general re-jigging of the info flyout - we've also fixed the weird bug with page_titles_having_underscores_instead_of_spaces in messages sent to talkpages, and introduced CSD logging! As always, these features will need some work - but any feedback would be most welcome.

Request for page to be undeleted

Hi there, I've noticed that there's no page for the UK company Amigo Loans, but there was one, before it was deleted on the grounds of lacking notability (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amigo_Loans). Reading the deletion page, I see that the only argument for notability was that the company had television adverts, which clearly doesn't make them notable, but after a google search of the company's name, I found multiple articles referencing, quoting and presenting research carried out by the company. (see: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/money/city/4305275/No-profit-loans-provided-by-credit-unions-are-on-the-rise.html, http://www.shropshirestar.com/shropshire-business/money/uk-money/2012/09/04/one-in-five-give-up-on-dream-job/, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/borrowing/mortgages/9395294/Payday-loans-could-cost-you-a-mortgage.html etc - there are more but as far as I can see these ones establish their notability). I think this page should be reinstated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.216.105.12 (talk) 08:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello there. I've had a look through the sources you posted, and I don't think that by themselves they would be enough to support a new page. We require a certain depth of coverage in sources before companies can pass our notability guidelines, and these sources don't seem to have that depth. The Sun article only gives a few sentences to Amigo, and the other two articles give quotes by Amigo, rather than including material about the company itself. If you have any other reliable sources that cover Amigo in more depth, you are welcome to post them here, however, and I will take a look at them. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 13:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, I didn't include the main article that I found which was the main point of my post: http://www.lovemoney.com/blogs/credit-cards-current-accounts-and-loans/loans/16885/guarantor-loans-an-alternative-to-payday-loans — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.104.104.8 (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi again. I agree that the article you link to above has significant coverage of Amigo, but I'm not sure about their editorial processes and whether it could be considered as reliable per the guidelines on identifying reliable sources. It is also a specialist publication, which editors may consider as having less weight than a general publication when interpreting the "depth of coverage" section in the notability guidelines for companies. If you have any other sources then I can also take a look at them, or you can submit a new article using the articles for creation process if you think that article fixes the problems that were raised in the deletion discussion. Also, if you have a conflict of interest (COI) with respect to Amigo Loans, you need to read the guidelines on having a conflict of interest and declare your COI when you write the article. Let me know if you have any more questions. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour 04:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I'm really unsure how the site being a specialist money publicist would make an impact on the depth of coverage side of things. It's one of the UK's largest finance sites, their journalists are mainly freelancers, most of them also writing for the finance sections of some of the UK's largest newspapers and the editor of the site (who also seems to have written this article) has worked for some of the UK's largest news corporations. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.104.104.8 (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

In my experience, deletion discussions can go either way if the sources are specialist sources like the one you linked. However, ultimately, it's not a matter for me to decide, but for the Misplaced Pages community. If you have an account, I can move the article to your userspace so that you can work on it there, or if not I might be able to send it to the article incubator. Once you think that the issues raised in the deletion discussion have been suitably addressed, you are welcome to move it back to the main article space. Be warned, however, that there is nothing to stop an editor from starting a new deletion discussion on the subject, so it would be wise to get good proof of notability before you try and submit it again. — Mr. Stradivarius 15:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again. If you can, I think moving to the article incubator would be the best move. It can then be re-worked to include the article that I found which raises criticism of Amigo Loans, which should help balance the article, also I feel that article goes further than anything on the previous page to establish notability. I'll do some more digging for further sources over this week too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.104.104.8 (talk) 07:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I've just had another look at the sources, and at what's available online, and I'm sorry but I'm going to go back on my offer to incubate the article. This is because I think an article written with the sources that you have listed will almost certainly get deleted again, and I couldn't find any other sources online. So this is really to stop you from spinning your wheels and trying to get an article accepted when there is actually very little hope that it will be. Basically, it looks like Amigo Loans just aren't notable at the moment. You are perfectly free to disagree with my judgement, however; if you would like a review of my decision, you can start a new request at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review where other experienced editors will comment on it. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius 12:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Need "special" help with an image

Hi.

How do you do? Sorry to bother you but I am looking for help about a somewhat peculiar status of an image. I feel I am not wiki-experienced enough to understand. I know all sorts of venues of review, appeal, dispute resolution and such in Misplaced Pages but choosing one and then saying the right thing in them is the main concern. Besides, I do not want to cause unintended harm to anyone. So, I thought maybe you would care to help me assess the situation and understand it. I'd be grateful if you did. Do you have time? (If you don't, I understand.)

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 21:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Codename Lisa! Sure, I'd be happy to help you out. What seems to be your trouble? — Mr. Stradivarius 00:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I sometimes mark free files to be moved from Misplaced Pages to Commons. I am taking it slow and cautious for now but I am getting started. Today, I visited VirtualBox article, which is about a free and open-source product. I checked its logo and it still is on Misplaced Pages. But surprise: Not only it is tagged as non-free, but someone previously tried to move it to Commons and got rejected.

That pretty much concludes that matter but just out of curiosity, I decided to find out why. So, I looked up the history: Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files/2012 February 14#File:Virtualbox logo.png and commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Virtualbox logo.png came up. Now, my problem is: None of these make sense. The former is frankly frightening. The latter is frightening and puzzling. Drama aspects aside, the only part of it that makes sense is "Steps to test if the image is freely licenced". (Why didn't they do it in the first place?) So, it seems they dissected the software license, decided that those part made by Oracle are GPLv2 (Commons compatible) and those parts developed by third parties are under other licenses (Commons-phobic). They started discussing whether the logo can actually belong to a third party not credited in EULA but at this point, the whole matter is abandoned. Six month later, an admin said delete. (Six month!?)

So, to sum it up, I make neither head nor tail out of all the discussions. I can tell that some people don't think this image is free and Commons-compatible but what exactly is the objection, I can't tell. I do not intend to poke the hornet's nest yet, but if I am to work in the field of images, perhaps there is probably no evading such issues.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 02:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The Commons community is quite different from the English Misplaced Pages community, which is something that also surprised me when I first encountered it. From my limited experience there, it isn't unusual for a deletion discussion to be open for six months. Looking at the deletion debate, I see the salient points as follows: a) software licences don't usually cover software logos, b) no-one found any evidence that there was an exception to this convention in this particular case, and c) because there was no good evidence that the image was released under a free licence, it was deleted under the precautionary principle. If you have some good evidence that the logo is in fact released under a free licence, then I assume Commons will undelete it. I'm not sure exactly how you go about doing this, but leaving a message on the deleting admin's talk page is probably a good start. In fact, I'd also go to Denniss's talk page if you have any more specific questions about why he deleted it - his answers will probably be a lot better than mine. I hope this reply helps a little bit, though. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 05:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the kind description. It was clear enough although I am not exactly sure if (a) is supported by current practices (consensus and policy). For example, look at File:The GIMP icon - gnome.svg, File:Avidemux-logo.png or File:Official Linux Mint logo.svg. Please correct me if I am wrong but in these two cases, there are no official statements about the logo, so they are assumed to be under the same license that covers the whole package. On the other hand, File:Blender.svg is copyright protected because there is a statement about the logo. So, I was thinking: Isn't this the case about VirtualBox logo as well?

Now, there is also another thing. Let's assume that Commons is really different. Can't Misplaced Pages keep this image as free either?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Misplaced Pages can keep the image as free, and if you haven't already come across it, there is Template:Keep local for users who don't want their files to go to Commons. However, I am thoroughly unqualified to make any judgements about whether software logos are automatically covered under the licences the software is released in, and so you're going to have to post somewhere else to get a good answer. In fact, this might well be the kind of issue that needs a community-wide RfC to settle. In any case, I recommend making a post at WP:MCQ and advertising your post at WT:PUF and any other suitable project pages you can think of (in line with WP:CANVAS). If there is significant disagreement about it then I community-side RfC looks like the next step. — Mr. Stradivarius 15:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr. Stradivarius. I appreciate your help. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry to bother you again but I thought asking you would be the last step of caution in the interest of Misplaced Pages before taking an action that might be potentially controversial. After all, you are more experienced and by the virtue of more experience can read between the lines.

In my MCQ post, Graeme Bartlett told me that "if the logo is included in with the software the supplied copyright license applies". When I specifically asked why File:Virtualbox logo.png was held exempt from this rule, no one gave me an answer. Stefan2 (User:Stefan4 on Commons) just re-emphasized that logo must be included with the package. I tried inviting all interested parties but Magog the Ogre did not respond, and Fastily and FleetCommand are retired.

So, given all this, do you think it would be a wise move to go ahead and reinstate the GPL license tag on that file?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any clear consensus from that MCQ thread, and given the Commons deletion discussion, I wouldn't change the licence on the English Misplaced Pages version just yet. I think the next step would be to phone or email Oracle and see if you can get an answer about the copyright status of the logo directly from them. If they are releasing it under the GPL, then we could ask them to send an email to OTRS as specified in Misplaced Pages:Requesting copyright permission and Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials. Alternatively we could ask them to include a specific note about the logo in their next release, if they are open to that, and then update the licence page when the next version comes out. How does that sound? — Mr. Stradivarius on tour 05:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

p.s. Fastily is still active on Commons. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour 05:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Mogog just responded. I should see what happens. But as for contacting Oracle, that is what I am in no capacity to do. Contacting them would a violation of my current NDA contract and believe me: Unlike Misplaced Pages, most organizations do not have WP:IAR. Still, if anyone is to contact Oracle, he or she must take care not to use the term "logo". It is our Wiki-mistake. "Computer icon of VirtualBox" is the correct term. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk)

Fionnuala Collins Irish artist

Hi there,

This is Ciaron Davies, film maker and writer

I have been trying to write a wikepedia article for Fionnuala Collins the Irish artist but it has been declined and I am unsure what to do

I am a huge fan of her work. I think she is one of the freshest painters to come out of Ireland and deserves recognition for her talent. Recently, I even created a video of her 'Film Icons' collection free of charge. It can be found on youtube under "Film icons gallery You can find some of my fictional writing by searching for ciaron davies hubpages

the article for Wikepedia was written by my self and I set up the account for her. I'm doing it because I would like to see her on Wikepedia. She is an excellent artist, a very kind person and a very hard worker.

Do you have any advice on how I might get the article published? Or would you be interested in re-drafting it your self?

Hope that your day is great! Any help would be greatly appreciated,

Ciaron Davies

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fionnualamarycollins (talk • contribs) 10:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ciaron. From what I can see it looks like you have got a lot of good advice from the reviewers at Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Fionnuala Collins. If there are any specific points you aren't sure of, then I can help you to understand what's going on. Any general advice I gave you now would just be repeating what the reviewers said. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 12:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 14:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr. Stradivarius, for your responses. Best, 76.248.149.47 (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome - I'm glad we got it all sorted out in the end! Feel free to let me know if there are any more problems at the article. — Mr. Stradivarius 16:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi there

Hi! Sorry I'm fairly new to Misplaced Pages, so thanks for giving me advice. For InMobi I do believe the controversy section should be left as Internet board messages can be valid sources of references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dongito (talk • contribs) 16:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dongito. Actually, Misplaced Pages doesn't allow Internet boards as references - if you are interested, the details on what is and what is not acceptable as a reference is outlined at Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources. If you have a disagreement with an editor about whether a particular source can be used or not, you can post at the reliable sources noticeboard to get outside opinions. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 16:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, so is it possible to mention the existence of a Internet board message about this topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dongito (talk • contribs) 17:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Not unless it has been mentioned in a source that we accept, no. — Mr. Stradivarius 17:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

inre Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Flight of the Butterflies

Just to let you know... the film had its premiere at the Smithsonian on September 24, and is now beginning to screen world-wide. I did some work on the incubated article and the moved it back to mainspace. I do not think any could claim now that it misses on WP:NF or WP:GNG. Best regards, Schmidt, 23:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Nice work! Thanks for letting me know. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour 01:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Well... like I said at the AFD, I had the thing on watch. The nominator was well-intended, and I can understand his thinking... but when a film is completed so as to not meet NFF, and has coverage approaching the requirements of GNG and NF, and is that close to release, we usually do not send to AFD. See Exceptions. Cheers, Schmidt, 05:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Just when you thought it was safe to look at the Verifiability policy again...

Hi, I'd like to ask a favor of you, in your role as an uninvolved administrator who is also well trusted by editors at WP:V. Please take a look at WT:V#Summing up and the discussion that follows it, and determine the consensus and close the RfC there. Unlike the lead discussion, I'm pretty sure this one is non-controversial and the consensus will be easy to see, but I think it's best to have a by-the-book closure process. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 13:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be glad to. I'm feeling a bit wiki-zonked at the moment, and I might not be able to get round to it until tomorrow evening, but I'll do it. If you find someone else to do it in the meantime, I won't mind at all. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour 05:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

That would be fine. It isn't urgent. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, it looks like I won't be getting round to it today either... — Mr. Stradivarius 14:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tryptofish. I've pretty much got over my WikiFunk now, and I just had a look at the RfC you linked to above to see the state of things. The conversation still seems to be going strong, and there's only another six days to go until the usual 30-day limit, so I think it would be best left until then before anyone closes it. I've read the conversation over a few times already, so the one who closes it may as well be me, but I shall wait until the 15th before I do so unless there is a sudden outbreak of silence. Ta muchly — Mr. Stradivarius 12:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that sounds fine. I apologize for bugging you at a difficult time, and I know from my own experience what that can feel like. As it happens, I'll be on a WikiBreak when you do make the close, but I'm sure that whatever happens will be fine. Some of us in that discussion had discussed closing after two weeks, but I see your point about letting it go for 30 days now. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 October 2012

• Paid editing: Does Misplaced Pages Pay? The Founder: Jimmy Wales

• News and notes: Independent review of UK chapter governance; editor files motion against Wikitravel owners

• Featured content: Mooned

• Technology report: WMF and the German chapter face up to Toolserver uncertainty

• WikiProject report: The Name's Bond... WikiProject James Bond

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Some help

Hello! I just sent you an email - I'd like to talk to you for an article I'm working on. If you could get back to me when you have a free moment, I'd much appreciate it :) Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itinerantgirl (talk • contribs) 10:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

KingBernado invitation from Teahouse

Have you noticed this? Cheers! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/GG-J's Talk 07:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I saw it, yes, but I didn't see any need to do anything about it. Do you think it needs removing? — Mr. Stradivarius 08:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Probably not. It seemed odd to me that their welcome appears to be non-selective. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/GG-J's Talk 12:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the Teahouse people would have any way of knowing that it was a sockpuppet account, unless they were familiar with the history. And the invitation is delivered by a bot, after all. Now if we could make a bot that reliably detected sockpuppet accounts, that would be something to write home about. :) — Mr. Stradivarius 14:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Ha! Now that would be something. Glad to have met you. Sincerely, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/GG-J's Talk 17:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Category talk:Grandes écoles

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Category talk:Grandes écoles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 19:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

King Genovese

That was quick. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 23:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Interface: a journal for and about social movements (2nd nomination)

Hi, thanks for closing this AfD. I would greatly appreciate, though, if you could expand your closing rationale a bit. As far as I can see, the arguments for deletion were all policy based, whereas the arguments for keeping the article were almost a version of "I like it". So I'm curious what made you go for "no consensus". Thanks! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I was treating the arguments for keeping the article as valid, following DGG's comment that "unusual journals need to be judged other than by our usual standards". Journals are somewhat of a grey area with respect to policy. On the one hand, WP:NJOURNAL is an essay, not an official guideline, but on the other hand following WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG would result in most of our journal articles being deleted. In this area there is precedence for keeping articles that fail the official guidelines, and when you couple this with the fact that the journal in question is of a type not anticipated by the people who drew up WP:NJOURNAL, I thought that editorial judgement should play a greater role than other areas where the notability criteria are more well-defined. Does this make things a little clearer? Best — Mr. Stradivarius 09:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking the time to explain. Obviously, I don't agree, as I explained at length in the article. Note that NJournals did not make it to guideline because too many people thought that it was putting the bar too low. Admittedly, there were also some people who thought it was putting the bar too high... Personally, I'd be happy if we could just say that all academic journals, by definition, are notable. Unfortunately, the existence of trashy "predatory" journals makes that solution unworkable, as we obviously want to keep those out (unless they are so bad that they become notable for being notorious... :-) DGG and Piotrus' arguments are too subjective to my taste. Anyway, I'm not challenging your decision, I understand the reasoning behind it. I think it would be good, though, if you could copy the above rationale into the AfD closing statement. Thanks! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, done. I've linked here from the AfD discussion rather than copying my comment, though - I thought it would make most sense in the context of your question. — Mr. Stradivarius 10:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Excellent, thanks! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

It sounds a lot like your applying an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument to justify deleting the argument not because of any merits of this particular article which you appear to accept is not notable; but because you are thinking of the implications to other articles. Typically other journals that don't meet GNG often kept because they provide a blue link in references by WP:IAR. That doesn't apply in this case. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Sheez, will you guys stop pushing for deletion here? AfD has ended. Of course you don't agree with its outcome. Tough luck, EOT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

What the heck does "EOT" mean? (I don't speak "texting" :-). And just for the record, I was not pushing for anything, just asking for a clarification of the reasoning behind the closure, specifically stating that I am not challenging the decision (If I were, we wouldn't be here but at DRV). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you please stop making things personal. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie - almost, but rather than WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS I am speaking from experience of past AfD debates about journal articles. I agree that if there was no past precedent to keep journal articles that failed WP:BOOK and WP:GNG then the "keep" arguments in this discussion would have been pretty flimsy. However, in my experience, plenty of journal articles whose subjects fail these guidelines have been kept at AfD. I'm not sure of the numbers, though, so if anyone wants to do some research on the fate of journal articles at AfD that would be very useful. — Mr. Stradivarius 16:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Effectively this could have been the most non-notable journal with some of the strongest delete reasons around and you would have kept because of your personal experience. The journals that fail usually have other criteria that allows IAR to be put into play, but this was not demonstrated in this case. I've been at AfDs where IAR was used as a keep rationale, but it wasn't argued here. Rather here we had weak and contradictory claims to notability with an absence of independent sourcing. It sounds a lot like supervote territory. IRWolfie- (talk)

I intended the close as an honest judgement of consensus, and most definitely not as a supervote. If you disagree, though, you are welcome to take this to deletion review. — Mr. Stradivarius 01:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Autobiography of a Yogi image deleted from Commons

TatSat is edit warring on Autobiography of a Yogi page. The current cover was deleted by commons and Yworo said I should upload it through Misplaced Pages instead. TatSat has deleted it 3 times and I have written the explanation when I undid his edits. Also, he is vandalizing the article, even though Yworo gave clear guidance. See this page and scroll to the bottom of the page -

"The most we are really going to be able to include would be something like the following:

Ananda Sangha has detailed editorial changes in the text made by the Self-Realization Fellowship starting with the 1956 7th edition,(cite) including a change made to Yogananda's signature in 1958, inserting an "a" to change "Paramhansa" to "Paramahansa".(cite) SRF responded to these observations in a letter dated such-and-such, stating that all changes were done based on the wishes of Yogananda himself.(cite) "

I think we might need to protect the page??? Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Red Rose, as far as I can see, the image is copyrighted and uploaded to Commons by Tat Sat. I have proposed it for deletion. It could be uploaded directly to en:WP, which allows a fair use license, in contrast to Commons. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Stradivarius, a user called Guillaume has just removed the original cover of the book it took us months to correct. As you know, the curent image in (that was in) the infobox is not a copyrighted image. The book and its contents, including the cover, illustrations and photographs is in public domain. Red Rose will not allow the article to become neutral. We went through mediation and it took us months to insert the correct picture of the cover which was just removed. Who told Guillaume the image is copyrighted? Here we are again as we started. The only image in the page is the image of SRF´s version of the book. Besides Red Rose will not allow a neutral point of view. The page as it is advertises the version of the book published by Self-Realization Fellowship. I will tag the page as not neutral. If I keep being unable to edit the page with facts and the book history, we will have to ask mediation again. Mediation was just closed. Is that what Red Rose wants? Now the correct cover is marked for deletion. Thank you. Tat Sat (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Hello all. Guillaume2303 was quite right to nominate the image at Commons for deletion, as when Tat Sat tagged the image he claimed it was entirely his own work. Actually, it isn't just his work, but the work of three separate entities: Tat Sat, who scanned the photo; the Philosophical Library, who published the book; and the photographer who took the photograph that appears on the book's cover, whoever he or she was. I've outlined what I know about the image's copyright status in detail at the Commons deletion request. Please have a look there and comment if you have any new information. — Mr. Stradivarius 17:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

  Hello, Mr. Stradivarius, I read what you wrote. If a book is in public domain, it cover, its content (text, photographs and images), everything is in public domain. Since the reprint of the first edition is being published around the world for many years, the detainer of the copyright would have taken measures to stop the infringiment of rights. Nothing of the sort ever happened. So, the second point: nobody knows who took the cover picture nor most of the pictures of the book, since there is no credit in the book for them. So what should I write in the tag? I could upload the image again claiming fair use, as Red Rose did with the copyrighted cover by SRF, but this would be a lie, since the book is in public domain. I will be very grateful for your help. Best regards, Tat Sat (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

  The best thing to do would be to leave a comment at the deletion request on Commons, and to wait for an administrator there to close the discussion. Just because the image is being discussed doesn't mean that it will actually be deleted. The tags will be sorted out after the deletion discussion is closed, so don't worry about them for now. Any discussion about copyright should go on the deletion discussion page, because the admins at Commons aren't going to check my talk page, so they won't take it into account. — Mr. Stradivarius 18:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

  Thank you. Tat Sat (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Mr. Stradivarius. Here are two inks - among many - to online facsimiles of the Autobiography of a Yogi. The publishers - who has not been prosecuted for copyright violation - state the book is in public domain and offer the book for free download (including the use of the original cover:

1. The publishers states the book is in public domain.
2. Free download by Holy Books.

I am sorry for the length text but please bear with me for this is important to clarify the issue about the photographs were published in Bold textSRF´s maganize as you can verify. There is no mention of the photos nor the cover of Autobiography of a Yogi which was already ruled to be in public domain without any doubt, since 1991. Please Self-Realization Fellowship versus Ananda this information, since you recommended not only the cover but photographs that are in the book should be deleted. I quote:

"29 - The final category of works in which SRF claims valid copyrights are not works by Yogananda but rather photographs of Yogananda and another religious leader, taken by various third parties and published in SRF's magazine under its blanket copyright. For four of the photographs, SRF can identify no known photographer as the author. A fifth was taken by a man identified only by his name, Arthur Say, while the remaining photographs were taken by SRF employees Clifford Frederick and Durga Mata. The district court rejected SRF's claims that the photographs were taken as works for hire or by a corporate body, and held that SRF had not introduced a triable issue regarding assignment." Thank you and forgive me again to post in your page, but this is relevant information. Tat Sat (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Re- Urolagnia

Please read the discussion on the talk page, and look at the edit history. Am not happy at being given a warning. Have been trying to counter act POV pushing by andy the grump - that it is a perversion, and should clearly be labled as such. I have also read BLP and see nothing that prohibits mentioning widely publisised allegations, and criminal charges, even if there was no conviction - could you please explain. I feel that i am being discriminated against as an IP editior.87.194.46.83 (talk) 11:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. The part of the policy that is the most relevance is WP:BLPCRIME. I wouldn't try and claim that the person in question isn't well-known, of course, but putting him in a list of "notable urophiliacs" is obviously going to make people assume that he is a urophiliac. This is not directly supported by the sources you cited. (I didn't see anything about this on the talk page, either.) Your warning doesn't have anything to do with the debate about whether urolagnia is a perversion or not, by the way, so feel free to take that up on the talk page and to try and find a consensus. You might also want to create an account - there are lots of good reasons to do so. Let me know if you have any other questions. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius 12:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi! That says "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgements that do not override each other, refrain from using pithy descriptors or absolutes and instead use more explanatory information." - Since the musician in question is well known, I find this text hard to apply, and not black or white. The text I reinstated with sources not say that he was convicted, but that he was "famously accused", which was supported by the sources. It is not something I care deeply about adding to the article - someone else added it, and it was removed because of a lack of sources - so I added a source. Given the lack of any discussion on it, I do not understand why you support locking the page to stop me editing it,. so andy the grump cam push his paraphillia POV.85.179.140.200 (talk) 12:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Contribution.

Hey, Mr. Stradivarius. Please help contribute to my WikiProject. This WikiProject is about different cultures. If you can take some time and help contribute to it, that would be very nice of you. I am starting this project this week and would like to finish by next week. Please help me with this project. Thank you very much. Please answer on my talk page because I might not be able to keep track of who is contributing and who is not. I would like you to also share your culture. If you can give me a little summary about your culture such as, foods, lifestlye, holidays, traditions, e.t.c, that would be extremely helpful. Thank you. Pleas reply on MY talk page. Happy edits! Have a great day! DEIDRA C. (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Trishneet Aror

Hello Dear

I want to know about Trishneet Arora — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.116.180 (talk) 10:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. If you mean Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Trishneet Arora, the discussion should be closed by another admin on Sunday 14th or some time shortly after. I've relisted the discussion, so I won't close it myself. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 11:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 October 2012

• News and notes: Education Program faces community resistance

• WikiProject report: Ten years and one million articles: WikiProject Biography

• Featured content: A dash of Arsenikk

• Technology report: The ups and downs of September and October, plus extension code review analysis

• Discussion report: Closing RfAs: Stewards or Bureaucrats?; Redesign of Help:Contents

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The ONE Study_article deleted

Dear Administrator,

we do not agree with the deletion of the page of the article The ONE Study. We would really appreciate comments and explanation on the reason of the deletion. It would allow a fruitful discussion that could lead to a satisfactory solution. Our commitment is very high and we would collaborate in order to produce a publishable article of global interest, as we think that the page would be very interesting for the society, without any promotional scope and intent. The clinical study is lead by a German public Institution and the research project is funded by a public Institution, the European Commission (EC). The project is listed in the link of the EC:

http://ec.europa.eu/research/health/biotechnology/new-therapies/projects-fp7_en.html

Hope to have a positive and helpful feedback from you. Regards Surgery-ukr-geissler (talk) 13:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello there. I deleted the article because there was a consensus at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The ONE Study that it didn't meet Misplaced Pages's general notability guideline. To meet the guideline there need to be multiple independent secondary sources that have significant coverage of the ONE study. For a better idea of what this means, have a look at this simple guide to notability on Misplaced Pages. If you are aware of any such sources, then we may be able to have an article on the ONE Study, but if no sources exist then I'm afraid the study simply cannot be covered on Misplaced Pages. Let me know if you have any more questions after reading these links. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius 13:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Ryan Doyle article

Mr. S, would you kindly give a little justification if you're going to prune down something I insert. "More neutral wording" doesn't cover removing a fact entirely. If you thought my phrasing of Doyle's world tour was spun, you could have made it neutral without completely deleting it. At this point, if I insert something factual into the article, I'm not doing it on a whim. I could have written a two-paragraph blurb on the matter that you would have pruned down to half a sentence, so I took the lesson of your copy edit and simply started with the half-sentence. By removing even that, you're insulting me by supposing I haven't even been trying to pay attention to what you've tried to show me about brevity and proper summary. A world champion athlete's touring of the world wonders is perfectly encyclopedic enough to warrant a half-sentence insert. You don't want me littering the page with hippy youtube media references, so I gave a perfect epitome reference which documented both the win and the fact of his world tour, together. Obviously my exact wording is derived from a much bigger perspective. If you didn't trust the tone, fine, but removing the basic insertion entirely is uncalled for.

If you really think Doyle's recent world tour isn't encyclopedic enough to warrant a mention, or needs a particular level or type of reference strength to include, then please elaborate on this with something other than absolutely nothing. You can examine the footage yourself from his YouTube channel, it's the latest handful of uploaded videos. http://www.youtube.com/user/10055870 Squish7 (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Squish7! The reason I rephrased your sentence to start with was it's not really clear how parkour is "applicable" to the seven world wonders. You can do parkour at the seven world wonders, sure, but I don't think you can apply parkour to them. I agree with you that his world tour is perfectly worthy of inclusion, and the only reason I didn't put it back in was because I wasn't familiar with the references - I thought the world tour and Santorini might be connected somehow. By the way, if you really want to improve the article, you should put in all the information included in this New York Times article. There won't be any doubt about using that as a reference! Best — Mr. Stradivarius 13:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Put it in? I practically wrote the thing verbatim here before you and Cindy tore it to shreds again and again calling me hostile and non-compliant. The parallels between it and what I kept trying to write here are so tight it would be comedic if it wasn't infuriating. Now I can suddenly put it all back now that a NY Times author agrees with me? Can I also get a retroactive cancellation of weeks of having my personal character attacked, e.g. as grossly disrespectful of authority/policy? I spent so much time quantifying the precise manner in which Doyle's media fits into Misplaced Pages policy as reliable sourcing material that I even crafted a careful disclaimer explaining the use to other editors, which Cindy said simply served as a confession of wrongdoing. Now a NY Times author has recognized not just the general scholastic value of Doyle's video media, but has quoted the same videos in the same manners. One line of the article quotes the same sentence, from the same video, for the same reason, as I did, in the version that was up before your copy edit deleting everything extra I was working on. It just plain vindicates everything I was trying to do with the Doyle article on all fronts, efforts so vigorously and thoroughly blacklisted from Misplaced Pages that I couldn't possibly start "putting it all back in" without diving into potential account suspension/deletion territory.

Here are two epitome examples of what I'm talking about, two key drafts of the article that in sum demonstrate about where I'd like the article to be at now. I would greatly appreciate your careful cross-referencing of these with the NY Times article you're praising so highly.

This draft presents/recognizes Doyle's tutorials as notable publications, sureally similarly to the way the NYT article does.

This draft is the furthest I got extending the article from its base form, getting into philosophy and so forth. Note it quotes the exact same sentence of Doyle's at one point as the NYT article.

Squish7 (talk) 08:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi again. The difference is that journalists are allowed (indeed, expected) to use primary sources to write their articles, but on Misplaced Pages we are generally not allowed to use primary sources. So yes, you are right - you can indeed "suddenly put it all back now that a NY Times author agrees with ". Please only put back in the things that are mentioned in the NY Times article, though. I know that you have been pointed to the no original research policy before, so let me try a different tack. Have you ever read what Jimbo said on the subject? If you have a read about the history of the core content policies it might make things easier to understand. — Mr. Stradivarius 08:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The GENERALLY not is why I spent eons tediously pouring over every policy and clause mindlessly dished out to me to digest that could possibly apply to the situation. It's why I spent the equivalent of a full-time work week quantifying and justifying the encyclopedic value and Misplaced Pages- appropriateness of what was already brain-dead obvious to me by instinct. You and Cindy use "generally" and "largely" as if they mean "absolutely" and "totally" and "fully" and "definitively". You can't bind yourselves to the intricacies and precisions of encyclopedic documentation and not be able to be precise in situations calling for precision. WHAT IS GENERALLY? When is something an exception, and when isn't it? Specifically? Policy particularly and explicitly states that there are NO BLANKET SOURCE BANS in regards to YouTube and the like, that everything must take into account a whole sea of balanced factors. The only course of action, then, in unique scenarios qualifying as potential exceptions to typical treatment, is to do extra work evaluating from the more core, general, governing, and basic foundations of what should and should not be included/allowed in Misplaced Pages.

Every single objection that was made against my writings was under the argument "this generally isn't done". That's a good and solid reason for FLAGGING something as POTENTIALLY out of synch with policy. It's not a definitive reasoning for making the final judgement. Nobody ever disagreed with me on particulars, they only disagreed based on vague general structural analysis without actually looking closely. There's an abysmal difference between "original research" that can't be verified, and reference work of which the verification just happens to be extra tricky/tedious. I wrote up lengthy explanations on the talk page for Cindy/others to examine if they wanted explanations of what I'd done after very, very carefully digesting all the clauses she kept throwing at me. To continue to state I wasn't even reading them when I did ridiculous work to quantify and justify as demanded, was practical insanity, as is this idea of yours that only now I can stick it all back up. No, these similarities between my work and the NYT article call for a biblical apology from her and her incessant public defamation of me, not some paradox that I was continuously out of line and yet magically just happened to be right at the same time from a freak lottery-winning chance. The entire incident should be audited as an example of where administrator behavior failed miserably. Squish7 (talk) 11:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Where would the most appropriate place(s) be to tactfully ask for an informal audit and analysis of the situation? I'm not settling for "Now that a NYT editor agrees with you, you're right". My original founding reasoning and research was infallible, tedious, elite, and respectful, and I think anyone intelligent that actually looked carefully at it would agree. Policy and habit have to come from somewhere, yes? This incident should be a landmark for revising administrator recognition of elite editing/editors. Squish7 (talk) 11:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Merging articles of California State Polytechnic University, Pomona

Hi sir,

I think many articles of California State Polytechnic University, Pomona should be merged with the main article of California State Polytechnic University, Pomona . Articles such as these

http://en.wikipedia.org/Cal_Poly_Pomona_Department_of_Chemical_and_Materials_Engineering (should be merged with http://en.wikipedia.org/Cal_Poly_Pomona_College_of_Engineering)

http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_Cal_Poly_Pomona_presidents

Could you please check the main article http://en.wikipedia.org/California_State_Polytechnic_University,_Pomona

thanks --Irani12 (talk) 15:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Irani12. I recommend proposing the merges on Talk:California State Polytechnic University, Pomona and seeing whether the editors there agree with your idea. If you get a consensus to perform the merge, just follow the instructions at WP:MERGE. Thanks! — Mr. Stradivarius 15:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Move Review Ends

As promised before I'm writing to tell you that the move review for the Tenedos article ended. Seems like the move review ended without creating anything constructive towards either way. I believe it was a major violation of administrator rights the way the closing admin closed it but that seems to be no longer relevant. Basically, the move review provided nothing for it to sink on anyone. So, what now? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as Drmies's close was endorsed, I think the best thing to do now would be to wait a few months. It can't be easy to find consensus over other aspects of the article if everyone is permanently engaged in heated move discussions. All that mediation would be able to do is to provide a structure for gathering evidence and for organising a community discussion; that community discussion would essentially be another requested move discussion. As there have been four move discussions for that article in the last 18 months, I think a nice long break is necessary before we consider mediation. How about letting it go for six months and then see how you feel about starting another move discussion? — Mr. Stradivarius 16:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem with that is that it has no real use. For example, you're talking to me at the moment. I could cool off for 6 months but that would be useless as I've never opened a move request nor intend to do so. The problem is move request opened by people who are not party to a discussion like this. The editor who opened the latest move request was an uninvolved editor. More like him is likely to come. The same will happen. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 16:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Ruben Canelo's page

Dear Sir, I find completely unfair your decision. Professor Canelo is a well know Transplant and Hepatobiliary Surgeon worldwide. Why you do not support professionals to be on Misplaced Pages? Please revert this decision. With many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbncnl (talk • contribs) 21:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Rbncnl. Actually, we do support professionals to be on Misplaced Pages. The only condition is that they must satisfy our notability guidelines for biographies or the notability guidelines for academics. At Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ruben Canelo the participants agreed that Canelo didn't satisfy these guidelines, and that is why I deleted the page. Let me know if you have any other questions about this. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius 11:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy

Hi Stradivarius. Please, could be possible, for courtesy, that these pages: 1, 2 and the others linked to it do not appear in search engines (Google, Bing, etc)? And could be possible it: 3 and it, too: 4? Thank you.--USAnne (talk) 08:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi USAnne. Deletion discussions haven't been indexed in search engines since 2006, so no worries on that front. I'm afraid that we don't blank or hide revisions from deletion discussions, though, as on Misplaced Pages we like the deletion process to be as transparent as possible. The deleted article should disappear from most search engines after they update their indexes. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 08:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Please, I ask, blank it. This is my argument: "Occasionally, completed deletion discussions (or other discussions) may be blanked for reasons of privacy or courtesy to individuals." 1. Thanks. --USAnne (talk) 09:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

It's true, the guideline does say that. I don't see a particular reason why the deletion discussion might be harmful to any individual, however. Could you give your reasons for wanting it to be blanked? If you don't want to reveal them publicly you can email them to me, using the link at the top of this page. — Mr. Stradivarius 09:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Please, check your email. --USAnne (talk) 09:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I can see no reason why the discussion should be blanked. There is nothing defamatory in it. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC).

The specific complaint was with this comment, and while perhaps it is a little off-colour, I agree that it is not actually defamatory. I blanked the discussion to err on the side of Misplaced Pages doing no harm, and also partially because of WP:BITE. However, if there is a consensus that blanking is not necessary I will restore it. — Mr. Stradivarius 11:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Userfying an article?

Heya! I've had a request for help from User:Ananyaprasad with the Rashmi Singh (author) article that was recently deleted. I explained that I can't restore it, but that I could request for a copy to be put into their userspace to work on until it passes notability guidelines. I figure that wouldn't do much harm for them to have a copy to work on for the time being.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've userfied it to User:Ananyaprasad/Rashmi Singh. Good thinking. :) — Mr. Stradivarius 13:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Bigg Boss

Tell me how should i make nominations visible? they have already been shown. How to add? where to get the source? My source is TV. Cant place that on wiki sorry. -- I'm Titanium  15:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

If you want to cite a TV show, you can use {{cite episode}}. If you cite Bigg Boss episodes then that would make it a primary source, so make sure you follow the policy at WP:PRIMARY. — Mr. Stradivarius 16:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Tanka prose

Not "preachy" at all, and I am always happy to get advice. I suppose part of the problem was that it was pretty clear from the start that one of the users was simply not here to build an encyclopaedia. His contributions might not have constituted "vandalism" in the "traditional" sense but were, in my opinion, a form of "intellectual vandalism". His whole focus, unambiguously so, was to WP:PROMO his preferred niche style of a particular art-form. While everyone behaved and no-one "outed" anyone, it did became fairly clear that the editor involved was directly connected to the subject and had a fairly clear WP:COI. Did I overstate my case? Probably; I sometimes get carried away in "defence" of WP's "honour" and this was probably one of those times. More than happy to take your comments on board - always appreciated. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)