User talk:Fuhghettaboutit

This user may have left Wikipedia. Fuhghettaboutit has not edited Wikipedia since 5 January 2022. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

ATT HD TH EAR HM AH AIV CSD NEW PER ESP RM VPR TSD AFD

/Private watchlist
????
/template testing spot
/Teahouse posts
/Release to us
/Welker Cochran
/Mingaud
Translation
Useful language dump
/sandbox
/Wikipedia:Time machine
/List of pocket billiards games
Archive 1: March 27, 2006
Archive 2: June 26, 2006
Archive 3: August 11, 2006
Archive 4: November 1, 2006
Archive 5: March 30, 2007
Archive 6: June 24, 2007
Archive 7: September 13, 2007
Archive 8: December 22, 2007
Archive 9: June 16, 2007
Archive 10: March 27, 2009
Archive 11: December 20, 2009
Archive 12: November 23, 2010
Archive 13: January 9, 2012
Archive 14: October 3, 2012
Archive 15: August 18, 2013
Archive 16: March 10, 2014
Archive 17: September 8, 2015
Archive 18: June 4, 2017
/Black Desert
/Finger billiards
/Maurice Daly
/Reisman
/list of userfications
/AfC language dump

---

If you leave a comment for me here I will likely respond to you here as well, but I might also duplicate my post on your talk page, depending on context or if you request that I do so. Please sign any post by placing ~~~~ at its end and please note that new posts belong at the bottom of the page. Thanks.

Hi ...

I would like to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement ... and Merci ... It is nice to receive your next email soon ...

Thankfully ... Yasir I. Kashgari 00:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ykashgari: – email sent. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fuhghettaboutit. In view of the huge and sudden backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed since mid 2016, the WMF has begun a dialogue in a quest to examine the situation and possible solutions. Please consider commenting there if you have not already done so. It is highly recommended to read it all before it becomes too long to follow. The project is at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Analysis and proposal, and its talk page, with a lively parallel discussion at Wikipedia talk:The future of NPP and AfC#Moving forward. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you very much for explain the errors in it to me.
• An example When we approach a horse, we hide a riding crop, to respect horse's feelings - probabaly should be When we approach a horse, we hide a riding crop, to respect the horse's feelings?Xx236 (talk) 13:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• However lack of freedom of press was only small part of the totalitarian censorship system, which included any printed matter and removal of books from libraries and individual collections. Xx236 (talk) 13:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Xx236: Yes! that sentence absolutely requires the "the". However, there are some other problems with it as to grammar, syntax and awkward phrasing/non-standard usage.

The tense feels off, especially because "we hide a" in the surrounding context would not be said by a native speaker, whereas "we hid..." works better. But it's still slightly off because it implies each of the persons — plurality having been established by the use of "we" – did the hiding. Only one person would normally hide a single item like this. Again, it's not 'wrong', but when a reader feels something off, even if they cannot pinpoint it, it interrupts the flow.

Likewise, the use of "respect" is not exactly 'wrong', but it would not normally be used like this for a non-human. The first "a" in the sentence should be "the". So I would rewrite this as something like: "When we approached the horse, I hid the riding crop we had brought with us so that the horse would not become spooked." It could end with "by seeing it" (after spooked), but I think it's sufficiently implied.

Regarding the second sentence, I would place a comma after the opening "However"; the institution is usually referred to as "the press", not just "press"; there must be an "a" before "small". Thus → "However, lack of freedom of the press was only a small part of..." The balance of the excerpt reads fine to me. Also, it may have just been a typo, but given the topic we're on: probabaly → probably.

Lastly: yes, you correctly added "it to me" between "explain" and "me", but now your use of the verb explain is in the form of a present participle, and so it must be "explaining". Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the horse, I have wanted to use an impersonal form, which should have been you or one, not we. I wanted to say that politicians (including Lenin) don't respect, but they go as far as they are allowed to (can ?), but I failed.

My dictionary doesn't even list hid.

Thank you very much for the lesson. I hope you'll need some day a little help in Polish.Xx236 (talk) 08:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was my understanding that when a user is asked to change a username, as I did with User:EngineHouse16, placing {{uw-username}}, it is normal not to block that user for an improper username until the user has been given some time to act on the request, unless further disruptive or promotional edits are made. Certainly this pause is mandated by the instructions at WP:UAA where it says: Do not warn someone about their name and then immediately report them to UAA. The entire point of a warning is to give someone a chance to stop doing something wrong. Don't ask someone to give up their name willingly if you're going to ask an administrator to block them. Either discuss or report.

Is this convention followed when not going through UAA? Should it perhaps be? Particularly for softblocks where no current harm is in progress? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey David. I know we're not talking about policy per se here, but the instructions at UAA (where they are about names that have promotionally edited already and their names are clear violations, as was the case here, rather than about clear violations but who have not edited yet or promotionally) in my view are about not taking up the time of responders, rather than a mandate not to block. But the reason I blocked was because at the time you noted the username problem, the page had not been discovered to be a copyright violation. After I saw it was, and noted that in the deletion log for the deleted page, I saw this as much more serious violating user, as coupled with the clearly inappropriate name. I feel that if a username block is possible within policy, and the user has posted copyright violations, they should be. But I apologize if this feels like I stepped on your toes.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you have the sequence slightly incorrect. It was just after I discovered that the deleted page had been a very blatant copyvio (including the copyright notice yet), and posted to that effect on the teahouse, that I issued the warning. My reasoning was that here was a classic clueless but well-intentioned newbie, the kind that warnings and friendly instruction might actually reach.

I quite agree that your block was within policy, nor do I feel my toes in any way stepped on. My concern is entirely with WP:BITE or perhaps we should say the penumbra of bite. If I am correct and this is someone who could be reached by warnings, a block won't help. This is not a sly, deceptive vandal -- posting the copyright notice makes that clear. This is not someone doing as much damage as possible all over the wiki. This is not a corporate promoter. This is someone who wants to draw attention to a beneficial community structure and its uses, and who badly fails to understand how Wikipedia works. That is why i thought a warning the better choice. I did rather expect that this would in effect preempt a block for, say 24-48 hrs, assuming no further negative acts by the user. I do see how you looked at it, and i can't say that you were surely wrong. Can you see how I was thinking and why I acted as i did?

I do patrol UAA quite a bit, and it is common for responders there to say, more or less: "you (or someone else) warned the user and asked for a change of user name, and so our hands are tied until the user has had a reasonable time to act. Report dismissed." I have done very little username blocking outside the UAA context, and so i was seriously asking if the conventions (not the policy) was different in that sequence. (And UAA does get quite a lot of reports about users with zero edits.) DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Db-revise has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Train2104 (t • c) 21:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Fuhghettaboutit: could you please reply to my message on Talk:Datone Jones. Thanks! --UCLAgirl623 ^{(Whats up!)} 04:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey UCLAgirl623. I am happy to help out with some things, such as providing the review I did. But when it comes to the nitty gritty of rewriting an article, adding significant content and the like, I have my own interests. I am simply wholly uninterested in football players. Hopefully you can drum up some interest at that talk page or maybe post a message to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League or another related wikiproject. Once you're done, you could ask for a copyedit, and then a peer review. Best regards.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aww thank you so much! I am glad you told me. Love you! --UCLAgirl623 ^{(Whats up!)} 15:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuhghettaboutit: you told me a couple days ago the article lacks a lead section. Could you explain to me which parts of the article lacks a lead section (like giving me examples of which and how I can fix it)? --UCLAgirl623 ^{(Whats up!)} 17:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Not answering b/c above user was blocked as a sockpuppet (not by me).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

User:Tictocdocs ignored your message on their talk page and edited Eddie Rosenstein again. They obviously were either paid to create that article and to keep it maintained and updated, or they have a close personal connection to Rosenstein. Tictocdoc's user page even says the account is used by "Passionate documentary filmmakers", the industry Rosenstein is in. Also, I don't know if it's allowed, but the ONLY reason the Tictocdocs account exists is to make Eddie Rosenstein edits. Every one of their edits is for him. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:44A2:2F56:E172:3C6 (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up! Agreed. I have added a second level template to the user's talk page ({{uw-paid2}}). However, I would note that the template messages I left on the article may have had some effect because the user's recent edit reads to me as trying to tone down promotional wording. Regardless, disclosure is easy to place and mandatory.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page quotes mainly IMDB, which isn't relaible, so it's almost unsourced.Xx236 (talk) 08:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my edit on that page with the edit summary Not an imporvement.. Aside from the typo, would you mind explaining to me why it is not an improvement? —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 12:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some haven't been blocked:

• [1]
• [2]

Since you seem to be going after them. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

:-) Nihonjoe I was just in special list users (gmta), and had blocked Badri Vishal 3 (created today), and I was looking for others started with Badri created nearby in time. Some of these are so old the person probably doesn't have the password and I'm not sure the name could not be coincidence. But Badri K Vishal is certainly another, created this month plus their one edit is extreme quacking evidence (see User:Badri Krishna Vishal).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U.S. federal jurisdictions has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've just discovered that the glossary link for "moults" doesn't work from the "Wing bar" entry — I'm guessing it's because it's plural, but I'm unsure how glossary pipes work, so I'll let you do the honors! ;) MeegsC (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As always, thanks for looking! I'll report back.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

@MeegsC: Yep, I missed it in the moult entry's anchors; as simple as this. Thanks again.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, page Petra Pudova was deleted unreasonably. Someone has tagged this page this page "Speedy deletion nomination of Petra Pudova". So we used "Contest this speedy deletion", have explained that we are the holders of all rights and also send attached permissions by email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org [Ticket#2017070210006526]. I am a creator of this texts and holder of the rights and I would like to grant permission to Wikipedia to use their own previously published work. I am author of all published texts on the website www.petrapudova.com a wiki page Petra Pudova. What we can do more so that the page is restored? Panther PRG (talk) 20:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Panther PRG. It was not deleted unreasonably because we need the release first and any release you attempted to provide by assertion on Wikipedia is a waste of time because on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. It sounds like you may have done what you needed to do for the content to be undeleted, once the release is reviewed and accepted by the Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team.

It also may be, though, that you have not, because you use the words: "I would like to grant permission to Wikipedia to use..." You might have just been speaking in shorthand, and your "OTRS email" contained a suitable release (such as by following the Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries), but the wording I excerpt makes it sounds like you may have only provided a one-time license for Wikipedia to use your material here, while retaining its non-free copyright elsewhere, which is also worthless. The way copyright licensing works here, you have to release the content to the world, irrevocably, under a suitably-free copyright license (or into the public domain), which would then allow anyone to reuse the content, even for commercial purposes. Methods of verifiable release include:

i) posting the release of the content at the external website (i.e., replacing the current copyright notice with a suitably-free license notice), or

ii) (as aforesaid) demonstrating you are the owner by sending a suitable release from an email address associated with the domain name and it being archived through the OTRS system.

iii) For more detail on the exact methods you might use and instructions, please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, and specifically the subsection of that page known by the shortcut WP:DONATETEXT.

However, please note that clearing up the copyright issue does not necessarily mean the content is appropriate for use here for other reasons (I don't know if it is or isn't; just trying to give you full disclosure). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fuhghettaboutit, thank you for your response. I sent from official company email to email permissions-commons@wikimedia.org this (attached the copy on the letterhead with signature and stamp) - written according to the pattern (the copy was also sent from the email address listed on the website www.petrapudova.com): I hereby affirm that company Millennium CZ is sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the picture Petra Pudová.jpg and all website petrapudova.com content (image/text/design) – a parts of the text were used on the page Petra Pudova - and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work.  I agree to publish the above‐mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution‐Share Alike 4.0 International.  I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.  I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.  I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder.  I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project... I hope this is right and the page will be restored soon. Panther PRG (talk) 21:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Hey Panther PRG. It looks like you did it correctly. When an OTRS volunteer gets to it, and barring some problem with the form, it should be undeleted then. I have no control over that, nor ability to hurry it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fuhghettaboutit. I hope I am doing the talk correctly. You made an incorrect comment on [Admiral Edward Middleton]. I can see how you might be confused. However, this content is already in the references. The book you are pointing to is a copy of Edward Middleton's original obituary. This was written by Edward's wife, Elida who is being referenced in your link. I may have done it wrong, but the obituary ran in the San Francisco Evening Bulletin is a source and is already referenced. Thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Edward_Middleton

Hi Leeburbage153. You copied the words without indicating you were quoting, through the use of quote marks. We cite sources to show where we obtain information not words and sentences. If you use someone else's words, you must indicate that. For a public domain source like this, there is a compromise. You can avoid using quote marks by indicating in the references that the article incorporates text from a particular source that is in the public domain. For example, using a filled out {{PD-old-text}} template. By the way, on talk pages like this (but never in articles) you should sign your posts by placing four tildes after the post (~~~~) which will automatically format as your signature with a time stamp when you save. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, NJMobster person. I think I've cleaned it all up. Have a good one. Leeburbage153 (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have completed all the asks you had including the photo. Let's show the world. Leeburbage153 (talk) 00:13, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Leeburbage153: Fuhgedaboudit, whatever the spelling, is an ethnic Italian expression of great commonality. You apparently only know it from introduction through the Sopranos, and assume (incorrectly in this case) that it is my intention to invoke that association, rather than because of its commonality, or that I might have an affinity long predating that show.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Leeburbage153: No you did not fix it. You are still listed as the author, and you have listed unknown as the source. The source is not unknown, it's where you got it from. It could be family memorabilia if you're related. It could be some book you took it from. Only you know. If you don't know who took the photograph then the author is unknown.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:33, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, i also think i fixed all the minor edits you taught me like where the punctuation goes. And added an important missing page number in one of the references (It's a big book). thanks again for your guidance. Leeburbage153 (talk) 14:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/123.119.73.43 made various edits to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_district-level_leaders_of_Beijing. Are these edits accurate? Should he be blocked?

This user, who you recently blocked indefinitely due to repeated copyright violations, has appealed in UTRS appeal #18688. They were asked to compose a paragraph of original prose to see if they now understand how copyright works on Wikipedia, which they have now done. The text below is what they posted in the ticket. At the moment I'm neither supporting or opposing the appeal, just conveying the message to the blocking admin. Please let me know how you would like to handle this request.

Ok, thank you for the clarification, The Wordsmith

My edit on Sinn F?in:

Sinn F?in believes that Northern Ireland should be given special status within the EU because Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU. Remaining part of the Common Travel Area is also a position Sinn F?in takes believing that border checks on Ireland goes against the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. The party also supports continuation of access to the single market for the North and protection of Northern Ireland's EU access to employment, social security, and healthcare. Sinn F?in also argues that Brexit would cause a loss of an average of ?10,184 per farm in Northern Ireland which could be avoided with designated special status. Due to Brexit, 73 MEPs must be signed to other nation Sinn F?in argues that least 3 more MEPs for Ireland should come from that.

Sources http://www.sinnfein.ie/brexit http://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2016/The_Case_For_The_North_To_Achieve_Special_Designated_Status_Within_The_EU.pdf http://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2017/Brexit_Rural_Doc_May2017.pdf

-The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Any opinion on this? The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Wordsmith. I know we do this—ask people to compose some text to demonstrate some understanding of the reason for the block and can avoid falling afoul of the same issue—but I've not seen this used in the context of a user who engaged in serial copyright violations, and I'm not sure it tells us much. This user apparently did not understand the issue despite my explanatory text to him, essentially defended his copyright violations, certainly dissembled, and demonstrated in response to a number of follow-ups and attempts at further explanation that he continued to not understand the issues involved. I can make little out from the above. We have a link to a 24-page, PDF rather than a pinpointed page from it using a well attributed inline citation, placed to show which part of the text comes from which part of which document. So, determining whether this is a proper paraphrase is quite burdensome.

Strike that. I composed the above before looking at the more manageable, 3-page second source, The answer is very clear to me now. The user should remain blocked because he could not have more effectively demonstrated he does not understand, or at least cannot be trusted to paraphrase. That is, in this composed text, in which he would be expected to absolutely make sure he copied nothing word for word:

"...loss of an average of ?10,184 per farm"

and from the second source (first bullet point, page 2):

"...loss of an average of £10,184 per farm"

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I wasn't the admin who asked him to write that, just the one who handled the next ticket he filed. I agree that declining the appeal is the right course of action. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Fuhghettaboutit ! Your review on Zotezo is much appreciated. I am thankful to you for taking time. I would like to inform that Zotezo is a prominent eCommerce company in India, like Amazon, FlipKart, Nykaa, Paytm etc.It is in business since 2014 and has 1500+ brands & 100,000+ products listed with it along with 100s of Small & Medium Business, directly or indirectly promoting it. A couple of independent links/business listing sources are listed below for reference: CashKaro TrickyTime.in Keyursavaliya flipshope CouponRaja CouponDunia BeautyAndHealth

And hundreds of more 3rd party sites are available on which Zotezo has no control. Zotezo is well known and trusted brand in India especially for beauty, personal care, and wellness segment. It has also launched a beauty box for Indian female audience, called Zobag. You can search on Goolge to know about it. I would request you to please reconsider the deletion of Zotezo. Your views, comments, and guidance would be much appreciated. Iwikihero (talk) 08:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Iwikihero. Your post above is written in blatant advertising language. I deleted it as blatant advertising as you can see from the deletion summary in the deletion log. So what you're saying about is being prominent, and notable and all that had nothing to do with the basis upon which I deleted it. It had been deleted previously by other admins as failing to assert importance (when it had different content). I did not delete it on that basis (nor did Onel5969 tag it on that basis). You sound exactly like a corporate shill for this company, and probably are, and cannot write about it in a neutral manner, or certainly have not thus far. In that regard you have not complied with mandatory paid editing disclosure.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fuhghettaboutit,

Thank you for sending reply. I have tried to put my wordings as per the data, my research report and by following wikipedia pages as mentioned in my above reply. It may be that the wording should be more natural. I have gone through some of your pages and I know that you are a very valuable contributor to Wikipedia. I would like to request you to guide for creating this page. I will try to put a nutral tone in the wording for Zotezo. Waiting for your reply. Iwikihero (talk) 12:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah good. First comply with paid editing disclosure, linked above. Then please read neutral point of view and WP:PEACOCK. Then in any entry, mercilessly remove anything evaluative, flowery, hawking, etc. ... just the facts, while citing to published, reliable, secondary, independent sources that have written about the topic is substantive detail.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thank you in advance for your time! I work for the Zoological Society of Washington (ZSW) which is the governing body (501c(3) non-profit, tax exempt, charitable organization) for Cougar Mountain Zoo. We would like to update the Wikipedia article on Cougar Mountain Zoo. However, when I edited in all the new text (logged in as user CougarMZoo) all of it was removed and switched back to the old text along with postings in the talk page and messages about COI and NPOV. So then I tried posting the entire edit on the talk page attempting to explain that I work for ZSW. Once again denied. I believe you can see all of what I put on the talk page. But if not, I can email you with the proposed new article (less pictures and an updated info box). My email is misty@cougarmountainzoo.org. I realize now that while I am employed by ZSW I was only paid to upload the material, not to come up with the material. The ZSW Board came up with the new text and they do not receive any compensation for their efforts from ZSW or Cougar Mountain Zoo. Can you help? Thanks again. Misty Cougar Mountain Zoo 21:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Misty. I am more sympathetic and willing to help a zoo seeking to have a better article, than I am that of a pure commercial venture (which constantly post commercials here), but the prohibition against the misuse of Wikipedia as an advertising platform is in no way limited to commercial organizations, and the edit you posted was a blatant commercial—promotional in tone and content and reading very much like an advertising brochure touting the virtues of the subject and written to convince readers to visit this wonderful place, and very much not like a neutrally-written, encyclopedia article.

I gather from your talk page and above, you now understand some of these matters, including that article subjects, rather than having control over articles about themselves, are considered to have conflicts of interest in editing articles about themselves, and such edits are scrutinized for self-serving content and the like. That does not mean those with vested interests cannot suggest edits, ask for misinformation to be removed, and so forth – and successfully have their suggestion acted upon – but I think you (and/or the ZSW Board) need to know more to do so effectively. This is actually easier to do for this not-very-well-developed article, than it would otherwise be.

Let me provide a rundown of specific problems with the reverted edits you made, that might help with your/the ZSW Board's next effort. I will get into the procedural aspects of what to do near the end. Up front, please understand that this text was so unsuitable and lacking in certain conditions precedent for inclusion, that there's no easy path from looking at it, to making any changes to the article. You (and/or the ZSW Board) need to put in time to understand what would be needed, and do the work to make suggestions that can be acted upon. The balance of this post is my advice to make that task, if taken on, more likely to succeed.

First one technical issue. Your username is a problem and I would not be surprised if you were blocked soon in the ordinary course, with a note advising you to change it (I will not do so). It is a violation of WP:ORGNAME and WP:ISU. I suggest you change it before doing anything else, so that this is not an issue later. You can create a new account with a username that represents only yourself as an individual, or more formally request a change of username. A name like Misty at CougarMZoo is allowed. On a related note, your signature is also a violation. Sorry. It must contains a link to your user page, talk page, or contributions. Here, I think all you need to do (or will need to do for a new name, if the same issue crops up) is go to your preferences and take the checkmark out of the box for "Treat the above as wiki markup".

• 1) Take a careful tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial. It will teach you some of the things I mention below and others in a guided fashion.
• 2) Probably the most crucial and overarching point to understand, Wikipedia runs on reliable sourcing. Expanding on that:

• Content must be verifiable in reliable sources and we cite sources using inline citations to verify content additions.
• To learn about how to cite sources, see Help:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1, and then seeing Wikipedia:Citing sources for a more involved treatment, noting that each contains see also sections linking to additional help pages, guides and tutorials.
• The 's share of content should be cited to secondary sources that are entirely independent of the subject of an article. Primary sources can be used to verify information, but their use is limited because the content they can be used to verify must not be unduly self-serving, and can only be used for straightforward statements of fact, rather than any analysis, evaluation or synthesis, where secondary sources can be used for those puposes.

• 3) In your edit you cited no sources whatsoever, and also removed some sourced content (this will trigger a near knee jerk revert in many editors).
• 4) Use resources like Google Books to your advantage to hunt down independent reliable sources, e.g., maybe some of those found here. Then write what can be verified from those you locate, rather than writing what you known or what is contained in unpublished sources (which cannot be used).

  This is much easier than trying to back into proposed content you've written first by trying to locate sources for it later, if they even exist. (Remember, do not copy the words, which outside of short quotes, marked as such, would be a copyright violation; sources are used to verify information, that editors write in their own words.) The former approach is what makes writing a suitable Wikipedia article so difficult for many. In short: gather sources first; digest them; and only then put 'pen to paper' (fingers to keyboard).

• 5) As I've already mentioned, the edit was replete with promotional language. It contained touting, empty buzz words and peacock adjectives and puffery. Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It also contained much evaluative content in Wikipedia's voice. An example: "The manifestation of their deep devotion to all creatures large and small..." This is pure evaluation, appropriate at, say, the Zoo's own website or Facebook page, but never here except possibly as a quote from a secondary and independent source, using quote marks, and cited to the source using an inline citation. (Side note: much of this type of material violates the principle of effective writing, show, don't tell). Anyway, Just. The. Facts... and only those that are verifiable in the right type of reliable sources, depending on what is being verified. Maybe this will help:

• "The Cougar Mountain Zoo is centrally located in the friendly alpine City of Issaquah, Washington. Nestled on the north facing slope of Cougar Mountain, the scenic grounds offer a breathtaking view of Lake Sammamish and the rugged Cascade Mountain Range."

  The Zoo is located in the alpine city of Issaquah, Washington on the north facing slope of Cougar Mountain, providing a view of Lake Sammamish and the Cascade Mountain Range.^{[1][citing a reliable source]}

• "Visit this magical place where art and the beauty of wildlife merge to speak a common language. Enjoy the view, great photo opportunities, feed the animals, sit and relax and admire the largest bronze animal collection of any Zoo in the Country."

I can't do what I did for the one above b/c almost everything is wrong here not just in its adjective-filled, evaluative wording, but in content. An encyclopedia article does not urge people to visit anything or postulate what enjoyment people might get out of doing proposed activities.

This exhibit _______ and houses the largest bronze animal collection of any zoo in the U.S.^{[2][citing a reliable source]}

• 6) Some more minor style notes:
   • At the first mention of the subject in the opening sentence it is placed in boldface (by enclosing it in three '''apostrophes''' – which you removed in your edit). BTW, please read WP:LEAD.
   • After the first mention of a subject we do not repeat its full name at every subsequent mention.
   • We generally do not use html markup: ===Magic Forest===, not <b><u>Magic Forest</u></b><br/> (see MOS:SECTIONS).
   • Wikipedia uses sentence case for headlines, so only the first word and proper nouns are capitalized in them: "Notable animals", not "Notable Animals".

PROCEDURE:

• 7) Once you have composed suitable text, open a section at the article's talk page (the article's talk page, Talk:Cougar Mountain Zoo; not your talk page) and lay out your suggestions. If it does not follow what I've advised about citing reliable sources (among other matters), it will surely be rejected.
• 8) Place above your suggestions this template, to draw users to your request: {{Request edit}}. Read that linked template's documentation for other instructions. Please do not expect a response within an hour or a day, and maybe not even within a week. Wikipedia is a slow motion place.

I am going to copy this thread to the article's talk page (so if you're reading this response there, the request edit template, and suggestion for content would go in a new thread at the bottom of that talk page). I think it best if discussion of the article takes place on the page that exists for that purpose. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for taking the time to review my submission and also for the helpful feedback. I understanding the issue of sourcing and demonstrating significance/impact in an entry, but am a little confused about how to do it. For my resubmission, I consulted the Wikipedia pages of two linguistics whom I also represent (Mark Baker (linguist) and David Pesetsky) and provided what I thought were comparable sources and citations. Specifically, for the Kandybowicz resubmission I added 1) a link to WorldCat to reference the author's books in libraries and other public holdings (reference #2); 2) an independent peer-reviewed review of Kandybowicz's influential book "The Grammar of Repetition" (reference #5); 3) links to the author's various books by their respective publishers (references #4,6); and 4) a number of Kandybowicz's most influential scholarly journal articles with links to the publisher's web page for proper citation/sourcing/documentation.

If I understand you correctly, these are insufficient sources. This is the point I find myself confused about. As I mentioned, for this edit I consulted the Wikipedia entries for Mark C. Baker (linguist) and David Pesetsky. In the case of Mark C. Baker, there are absolutely zero references. The only piece of citation is a link to his website. How was that entry allowed and Kandybowicz's denied, when Kandybowicz's submission contains far more citations, links, and sources? In the case of the Pesetsky entry, I found two sources (notes 1 & 2 on that page). All other supporting information in that entry consists of citations of scholarly works/papers (as was provided in the Kandybowicz entry) and a link to his works on WorldCat (also as in the Kandybowicz entry).

As a representative of Dr. Kandybowicz, I have been tasked with creating and maintaining a Wikipedia page. I would appreciate any insight you could provide as to how I can revise the submission so that it conforms to Wikipedia's sourcing standards. However, when I look to other similar entries, as mentioned above, I do not find the help I need to adequately address your requirements.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Badwin goodminton (talk • contribs)

Thanks in advance for any insight you can provide!

Hi Badwin goodminton, Please read WP:WAX by analogy. In short, you can't generalize from the fact that you can find similarly situated articles that "made it through". Because of the decentralized way material is reviewed, the fact we have bad content that shouldn't have made it through, or should be deleted, or rewritten, or was poorly reviewed, or was written when standards were looser, etc., is no reason to allow new content that does not meet our policies and guidelines. Did you understand the part I wrote about the types of sources being so important? Reliable sources entirely unconnected to him, discussing him or his scholarly impact in substantive detail? Try to find some, add those to the article, with statements they support and resubmit (probably someone else will be the next reviewer upon resubmission). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review of my submission for Stephanie Martin (writer). I understand that you believed there was a copyright infringement but I own the copyright to all of the materials and was in the process of editing and resubmitting. You deleted my work-in-progress page, so could you please advise if it can be restored so I can continue working on it? It was hours of work and I have no copy. I'd like the opportunity to continue working on it so it does meet all of Wikipedia's standards and guidelines.

Thank you for your response in advance.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Skmartin111 (talk • contribs)

The way copyright works at Wikipedia, any material you want to copy and paste and use here would have to have it's copyright irrevocably released not for use here but to the world, under a suitably-free copyright license (or into the public domain), which would then allow anyone to reuse the content, even for commercial purposes. This has to be done in a verifiable manner, Not by your assertion. Methods of verifiable release include:

i) posting the release of the content at the external website (i.e., replacing the current copyright notice with a suitably-free license notice), or

ii) demonstrating you are the owner by sending a suitable release from an email address associated with the domain name and it being archived through the OTRS system.

iii) For more detail on the exact methods you might use and instructions, please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, and specifically the subsection of that page known by the shortcut WP:DONATETEXT.

However, please note that clearing up the copyright issue does not necessarily mean the content is appropriate for use here for other reasons (I don't know if it is or isn't; just trying to give you full disclosure). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted User:Fuhghettaboutit/common.js entirely, so now you should be able to leave edit summaries; please restore it as you see fit :-) Nyttend (talk) 23:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: Much appreciate the help! (Re: your note at WP:AN, the good intent involved is everything; matters not at all whether it resulted from a misunderstanding.:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuhghettaboutit, thank you for your explanation of an orphaned article. I have found some articles link to my article. So what do I do with them in order to de-orphan my article Whiteplains British School? Could help me do the de-prphaning it?--Nwachinazo (talk) 00:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nwachinazo. Another user has already taken care of this. For future reference, please read Help:Maintenance template removal. Thanks--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted my article Professor Valentine Joseph beacuse you said I was violating copyright. I have got the authors permissions and I will re-write it /remove it. Please can you undelete this article so I can amend the violation. Thank you. Heptanitrocubane (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This post is responded to at Wikipedia:Teahouse#How do you improve the tone and neutral point of view of an article?.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice on the teahouse. I have some questions (apologies if they are slow :) ). Just to confirm, I cited/referenced that pdf in my article, and that needs a suitable free copyright notice (The date 2016/06 marks the time when the article was first created in word). I will add "The text of this document is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)." to the document and try to get that uploaded onto the original link (apologies, mistake - I wrote it). Also, do I need to specify who is releasing the copyright, or can I just write "The text of this..."? However, if I can't get it uploaded on the original link to that website, what should I do? Should I get that article removed and my altered one uploaded instead? Should I follow your second piece of advice? I am confused about what you mean when you say "email from an address associated with the original publication". Thank you very much in advance. Heptanitrocubane (talk) 08:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Heptanitrocubane. Since the document is where the material appears, your ability to edit it alone is a verifiable method to demonstrate your authorship. In short, I think adding a suitable release to it, without your name – "The text of this..." – is fine. The other method I went into from Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, indicates that a release should come form an email address associated with the publication, to demonstrate authority. It makes sense right? If content is taken from a website, say, widget.com, and then a person provides a release from JohnDoe@widget.com, that demonstrates the person's association with that entity and is verification of their authority to provide that release. I'm not part of the OTRS team, so I don't know how they view releases where that's not possible. That is, if there's no way to do so here for this PDF's source URL (e.g. Heptanitrocubane@cufsaa.com). But if you post the release in the PDF, I will undelete, as soon as you tell me you have and I then view it. If you can't do any sort of verifiable release, I'm sorry, but you would have to start writing a draft with new text, not copying from your previous writing, that has been posted to the world under as non-free copyright license, and which you can't prove was authored by you. I would, however, be willing to provide to you a "skeleton" from the draft to start that, but not the copied text. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fuhghettaboutit! I am going to try to update the pdf. However, if I can only upload a second updated pdf, so there is one with the copyright release notice, and one without, would that be sufficient? Or would I have to replace/remove the old version of the pdf? Thanks again, Heptanitrocubane (talk) 13:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anish Mariathasan: Ah, very good idea. Smart. I think if you can upload it to the same site, that's also fine. This is not a court of law.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fuhghettaboutit. I have managed to get it uploaded and have got the link, you can find it here. Thanks for the help, Heptanitrocubane (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Hey Heptanitrocubane.  Done, Draft:Professor Valentine Joseph restored, with text release noted in log. Cheers--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fuhghettaboutit! Heptanitrocubane (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Fuhghettaboutit - I fixed my problem so I removed the previous message that was here. Regards Heptanitrocubane (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, that weird stuff about thyroids was added in this edit, years ago. Note the misleading edit summary; that was quite a bit more than a copyedit. Needless to say, I think it should stay gone. Reyk _YO! 14:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Reyk! Hmm, added by a very experienced user. Anyway, almost every part made no sense there. Almost by definition, if an article is being nominated at AfD, then the basis for the nomination we would be informing "interested people" of would never be "recommending that [the] article be speedily deleted"! It's sort of alarming that such very obviously incongruous text can persist in a prominent page like that for 8 years.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

	The Original Barnstar
	Your explanation in the Tea house was super. Thanks for taking the time to explain so well. Rhadow (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fuhghettaboutit

I'm seattle singer songwriter Jill Cohn and over the 20 years I've been an active touring musician, my fans and other sources have added to my Wikipedia page. Last night, i noticed that it's been entirely deleted and so I reached out to "info @ Wikipedia" and they said that YOU were the responsible party for deleting my page?

here is a COPY of my page and if you would kindly restore it (UNDELETE) I would appreciate this so very much. thank you! Jill Cohn

Here is my page PLEASE RESTORE IT OR TELL ME WHAT IT VIOLATES AND I'LL fix it! Thank you!!!!!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jillcohn (talk • contribs)

<article text removed; the title is all that's needed to locate and posting it here presents a copyright problem>

​ Hi Jill. The page at Jill Cohn was proposed for deletion because it was a subpar article in many ways. It was nominated by someone else, and I implemented the deletion on January 1, 2015. You can see the deletion log entry here. This is not a reflection on you, but on the poor quality of the write-up on you, which, by the way, is very much not "your artist page" but was a poor attempt at an encyclopedia article about you. That distinction may seem trivial, and of course I'm aware it can just be a manner of speaking (and also, based on context, that you are likely not very familiar with Wikipedia policies, guidelines and jargon), but what that language implies can be important.

Please be aware that Wikipedia is not a social networking site; is not to be used for marketing or promotion; subjects of articles have no control over them; no one is entitled to an article; and because of our policies and guidelines, the nature of an encyclopedia, and the fact that it is impossible for someone to write about themselves or things close to them impartially, we strongly frown on people directly editing any articles that are about themselves, their family and friends, their businesses, or otherwise are on topics they have a personal stake in. See the conflict of interest behavioral guideline.

Getting back to the substance: the basis for the deletion nomination was "unref blp; doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG". Let me unpack that for you.

"Unref"=Unreferenced. This refers to the fact that this article did not meet Wikipedia's most basic standards for an article: it was not corroborated by citations to any reliable sources that verified the content it contained;

"blp"=biography of a living person – for which sourcing standards are stricter than for other types of topics: we cannot have articles on living persons with just unsupported, anecdotal content. Please read that policy. It is actually there to protect people like you; and

The two links, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG are both notability guidelines. The first is specific to musical artists and the second is the general guideline. In short, not every topic in the world is suitable for an encyclopedia article, and the notability guidelines attempt to set forth standards to determine which topics do (far too permissively in my view).

Sometimes notability issues comes down not to whether a topic actually warrants an article, but rather, whether the current write-up demonstrates that they do. Once again we're back to reliable sourcing, the lifeblood of a Wikipedia article. You might be notable, but the write-up did not demonstrate that by citing 1) published, 2) reliable 3) secondary, 4) entirely independent sources, that 5) discuss you in substantive detail (not just mere mentions), in order to demonstrate that an article is warranted.

That being said, because this was deleted through a PROD for which undeletion is usually granted fairly freely, I will restore the article. But it needs a lot of work, and this does not mean it will not be deleted on the merits upon a deletion discussion, e.g., at article for deletion. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a continuation of our discussion at the Teahouse on this topic.

I totally agree with you about right-wing "alternative facts", and about confusing fact with opinion, but the reliability of the Daily Caller is a separate question. After posting to the Teahouse, I looked around, and found the Reliable sources noticeboard. A search on "daily caller" there revealed this discussion, which concludes that "At best, it's reliable but should be avoided in favor of more neutral media whenever possible, just like with any other blatantly partisan source." On the other hand, the topic appears to have been highly contentious, with repeated, lengthy Noticeboard discussions.

To me, the critical question for any opinionated source is whether or not it can itself keep opinion separate from fact. This question affects far more than just right-wing sources; I see it as a fundamental problem for Wikipedia's current policies and guidelines. For example, I don't see why WP:RS would say that editorials and opinion pieces are "rarely reliable for statements of fact", or why WP:NOR (in a footnote!) would classify them as primary rather than secondary sources. An editorial or op-ed in an otherwise reliable source is not much more likely to get away with misstating basic facts than a news story in the same publication, no matter what inferences it tries to draw from them.

To be concrete: My current draft on Documenting Hate cites this opinion piece. Under present policy and guideline regime, it would probably be disqualified as an unreliable primary source, useless for establishing notability, rather than a reliable secondary source, simply because it argues for a conclusion as a matter of opinion. But it appears to me to be meticulous in its separation of fact from opinion, and I would trust its factual assertions no less than if it were purely descriptive reporting. I feel it ought to be classified as a clear-cut case of secondary-source analysis of the primary sources it links to — not even a gray area. If Wikipedia's current policies and guidelines dictate otherwise, then they need to change.

The present policy and guideline regime appears to make it nearly impossible to classify news sources, other than very lengthy ones that approach the status of scholarly sources, as reliable secondary sources. If they stick to the facts, they're primary, even if reliable, because they do no analysis or synthesis. If they do engage in inferential analysis or synthesis, then they're supposedly unreliable opinion pieces — and, as such, again they're primary sources. Heads I win, tails you lose.

I feel this has to change.

—Syrenka V (talk) 22:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, a heartfelt thank you for your detailed notes! I have been occupied with other pressing projects and am now getting back to the Zoo's Wikipedia page.

I have requested a change to the username CougarMZoo to Misty@CougarMountainZoo. Waiting on that before I attempt to do anything else. I have also sent in an email to try to get the jpg of our new logo uploaded. That was also deleted. Once I hear back on these two things then hoping to try suggesting some edits to the Infobox as a start to fix incorrect info. and add a couple of things. Also have your notes on what to do once the username has changed to also help try to avoid issues.

In reading through some of the articles I have come across it seems once the username has changed I need to create my user page. And it also sounds like I need a paragraph there outlining my relationship with the Zoological Society of Washington (ZSW) and Cougar Mountain Zoo. Or is just this enough on my userpage;

When I request an edit on the Zoo's talk page I'm trying to understand how to best disclose my COI. I'm not paid to come up with the information; just try to get it on there. So would I use the connected contributor (paid) template as follows:

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. Misty@CougarMountainZoo (talk · contribs) has been paid by Zoological Society of Washington on their behalf. diff to disclosure on Misty@CougarMountainZoo user page

The ZSW Board has gone through and re-written everything based on your comments and example to remove NPOV. Still severely lacking sources (don't seem to be any out there, even in Google books as you suggested) other than the Zoo's website. Those are used in the current accepted Wikipedia article. But per my research that normally isn't allowed, right? Or am I mis-interpreting something? Are Yelp and TripAdvisor reviews allowed as sources? Guessing no, but it never hurts to ask :)

Two more questions; 1) Do you think it is better to try to get everything in all at once or a section at a time? Can you point me in the right direction to find the Zoo Infobox template so I can see the list of allowed parameters in there?

Thanks again for your continued help!

Misty Misty@CougarMountainZoo (talk) 21:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Misty. Yes, simply posting the filled-out {{Paid}} template and {{UserboxCOI}} to your user page (once the name change goes through) will take care of mandatory dislcosure. Really nice to work with someone willing to read and comply with these simple matters. (You can probably hear my frustration; I spend a lot of time dealing with people unwilling or incapable of complying.) Thank you. However, you need to repost your name change request. It was rejected, and you were advised to choose a different name because while I said you can use a name like "Misty at CougarMZoo", you translated this into a request for a name with the actual at symbol @, which can't be part of a username (an actual technical restriction of the software; it's not possible).

Most templates have documentation with all parameters given and explained at the template page itself – here Template:Infobox zoo – {{Infobox zoo}}. You might also visit, say Bronx Zoo, and look at the template's display there, and also click edit to see the code resulting in the display.

Regarding use of the zoo's website: please read the policy at WP:PRIMARY and the supplementary essay at WP:PRIMARYCARE. In short, I think you'll be glad to know that it is not correct that the Zoo's website cannot be used. However the use of primary sources like this are limited in a few ways. They do not provide evidence of notability which is not really germane here), but what is highly relevant is that they can only be used for straightforward statements of fact, and cannot be used for any evaluation, synthesis, interpretation, and, especially with a primary source that is completely connected to the subject of an article (i.e., non-independent), use will be scrutinized for clearly self-serving purposes. Primary, connected sources are not bad, and often are needed to fill in fact gaps that only a connected source will have, they just must be used with these restrictions in mind. (I don't want you to hamstring yourself bending over backwards. You're doing great so far and are the rare person actually following-up; I am glad to help).

In that regard, while I told you the procedure for posting at the article's talk page, placing the requested edit templates there and the like, I am offering to handle this directly, so no need. Once you think the sandbox is ready for a final look, drop me a message here. (There's also no need to start a new thread; you can just post within this thread--and I will receive a notification for any messages you leave me on this talk page [just as you've probably noticed you get informed whenever anyone posts to your talk page].) Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fuhghettaboutit Duh on me about the name change; request resubmitted. At least I got the new zoo logo uploaded. Once step forward, two step backs :) I've been doing doing the revamp on the CougarMZoo sandbox page; should I move it over to the Cougar Mountain Zoo sandbox page instead? Having trouble referencing a previous reference; supposed to be able to from everything I've read but nothing shows up in "Named references". This would be for both the History page of the Zoo's website and the book. Can't figure out what I'm doing wrong. Andy ideas? Google Books doesn't show the page numbers for referencing. Will that be a problem? And many thanks for your continued help and your kind words of encouragement and support! Misty@CougarMountainZoo (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CougarMZoo: You never defined the reference name at its first use, and then tried to use it with a name that had never been defined. You also you gave it a name that included spaces but without quote marks (which won't work; you can only avoid quote marks in the cite name if there's no spaces).

Here's an example of first use of a cite, giving it a name, that I added to the draft as an example of a source I found through this simple Google News search (nudge, nudge, wink, wink).

The next time you wanted to use that cite (though here, it probably wouldn't be useful to cite again), you'd just type <ref name=Pattycake /> and if you wanted to name it Patty cake, with the space, you'd have to have named it <ref name="Patty cake">...

Page numbers are important for transparency of references. You can only do what you can though. Usually, when you can see any text through Google Books, even through its "snippet view", you can see the page number. Sometimes, it's an e-book, though, and there is no true page number. I'd have to know exactly which you're referring to to advise further. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fuhghettaboutit, Thanks for the tips on citing refs. I think I'm getting the hang of it now. Have it all fleshed out with Wiki and external links and refs to Zoos website. Starting to look for more refs that could be added. Now if those refs have text that is not NPOV, is it still best to avoid using any of that? And thanks for finding that online "patty-cake" article. We knew the picture went viral on Facebook thanks to George Takei. Not sure if anyone knew about the article though. Misty@CougarMountainZoo (talk) 00:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fuhghettaboutit, Name change has gone through. I have created the userpage for Misty at CougarMountainZoo and added in the Paid and UserboxCOI to it. Can you take a look and see if I did them correctly? Still researching more references. Yes, one of the books that comes up in Google Books is only an ebook. Weird, today it's not showing up.... So in your opinion do I have enough references to try this yet? Thanks!!! Misty at CougarMountainZoo (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, someone named Eagledj has been editing the "old" article the last couple of days. Nice of them to find me a new source :) What they have done and their reasoning makes sense. Sounds like the section on Hours may be objectionable to seem even though we don't have it explicit like what was removed from the "old" article. Misty at CougarMountainZoo (talk) 22:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Misty. I am going to look very soon. I have a lot going on right now (in the real world).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Misty, Since the Cougar Mountain Zoo is a nonprofit, and it's mission and motives are fairly clear, it is getting a huge pass for an article that otherwise would have been deleted as being promotional, being written by an employee of the subject of the article, at the request its board of directors. I have tried to help the article by discarding promotional language, and adding some references. I too am a pupil of Fuhghettaboutit, who has been a patient mentor to me, as he is now being to you. It would be helpful to state the number of individual animals the zoo has, and the number of species; also the annual attendance and whether or not the zoo is accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, etc.. An example is Nashville Zoo at Grassmere, and, of course the Bronx Zoo as suggested. As yet, I have not found those facts about CMZ in any published source. Surely the Seattle papers must have more articles about the zoo. Please look at my contributions on the "old" article HERE before trying to paste an entirely new one over it. Fughettaboutit can guide you here. We welcome you to Wiki, happy editing !. --Eagledj (talk) 00:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fuhghettaboutit, One of your pupils has done a lot of editing on the Zoo's page (his name appears in the paragraph above). He introduced some typos and incorrect information. And of course I did everything totally wrong in trying to fix them. You can find more information about all of this on his talk page and the talk page of the Zoo. Subsequently I asked him to add/change/fix a couple of and not all of them got done. So there are still a couple of things in the article that are wrong or mis-leading and still some things missing from the infobox. Since the items I asked him to add to the infobox (website; was there and now isn't and list of major exhibits) are in just about every other Zoo infobox that I have looked at this seems a little discriminatory to me. Am I being overly sensitive? I was planning on combining several of the sections into the lead paragraph like he did. And overall I like most of what he did. But the last sentence of the lead paragraph is to me very mis-leading. One might think Peter Rittler had nothing to do with the Zoo between 1990 and 2009. It would sure be nice to get that sentence deleted. When I asked he revised it instead of deleting it. But then maybe my request to him was not clear. Anyway, thanks for listening and any further advice you might have! Hope you aren't anywhere adversely affected by the nasty weather.... Misty at CougarMountainZoo (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did request a couple of edits on the talk page today. Hopefully it won't tick off anyone. I think I did it correctly other than had a couple of things wrong and had to go back in and edit them. Sigh... so many little details. I really admire everyone who can do things correctly on their first effort in Wikipedia! Misty at CougarMountainZoo (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Fughettaboutit, Please refer to the article's talk page HERE for my responses to Misty's comments. Regards,--Eagledj (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fuhghettaboutit. I would really appreciate it if you could give me your opinion on my article Draft:Professor Valentine Joseph. Thanks in advance, Heptanitrocubane (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Heptanitrocubane. You have it in the review queue on re-submission. I am not going to jump the queue and I don't generally do AfC reviewing.

I will say though, without having done an analysis of whether the sourcing is suitable to demonstrate notability—that is, whether Joseph is the subject of substantive treatment in published, reliable, secondary and independent sources, without which no amount of editing will result in a suitable article—that though you've added content since the last review, including inline citations, large parts of the draft remain unsourced.

Any parts that you cannot source should be removed. Any parts that are cited to primary sources must not contain evaluation, synthesis or interpretation and should only be used for straightforward statements of fact, and every single fact in the draft should be verifiable in a source, and best actually cited to a source. The proper way to write a Wikipedia article is to gather sources first and then write (in your own words) only what they verify, citing the sources as you go for the information. Writing what you know and then. later, trying to back into sources ends up with content like we see in this draft, which was written first and possibly with original research included. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Fuhghettaboutit for improving the bottom of the article. I have removed the material which cannot be verified in the Early life part, is this suitable? I thought I have seen some Wikipedia articles without references in the Early life part.

I have cited links to blogs, but they are blogs of respected people, lecturers at Colombo University and the CUFSAA-NA. Thanks, Heptanitrocubane (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbsouthwood: Thanks! Your criticism was invaluable. It certainly is the article I'm most proud of (and which taught me the most in writing)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Writ Keeper: Per our discussion I'm just noting here that it's still not working. In the past three messages here, only one produced the orange bar. Not sure there's anything you can do, not expecting miracles, and thanks for looking the last time.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your thinking here, in terms of creating a redirect and then protecting it, in order to prevent article creation again. My only concern here is the target – while Timmins was on Wingin' It for 3 seasons apparently, I'd argue that she's better known for Ride (TV series), as she was the lead actor on the latter as opposed to just a second-lead, and the latter show aired internationally whereas I don't think Wingin' It did (or, at least, not to the same extent...).

Thus, I'd ask you to consider changing the target of that protected redirect to Ride (TV series). FWIW... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey IJBall. Done.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I... Don't myself even really begin to understand the legal series of flooded basements that is copyright law. But... "link plz" is usually sufficient to get the conversation started. Half of these logos don't meet COM:TOO anyway. TimothyJosephWood 01:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My attempt in response to most questions is to try to give maximum information that I think the person might be able to take in. This user was given incorrect and way oversimplified information, and was making guesses based on that that were all over the place. I gave them a bit of the copyright playing field that I thought was relevant in an area in which I am heavily involved. Sure, it's possible this doesn't meet TOO; I didn't want to get too far afield, trying to balance information with understanding. I'm not sure what you're getting at, but I'm reading your post as a chastisement, and an attempt to stifle and unless I'm reading that wrong, it's not appreciated.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fuhghettaboutit, the article LawzGrid is corporate spam and has been created twice in the last week. Could you salt it to block any further re-creation? Thanks, Loopy30 (talk) 12:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Loopy30: Done. It was also a copyright violation. I have cleaned up elsewhere, including Draft:First Article, which was also spam for the same company (and also a copyvio). I have left a final warning for the user here. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

I don´t really understand why my additions (both text and links) were reverted on the pancreatic cancer page?? It is not copy-paste from the corresponding webpage on pancreatic cancer at the Human Protein Atlas. It does add important information. Wrong format? wrong place on the wiki page? wrongly positioned links?? Please advise me so that I can add important information and relevant links to wiki pages dealing with the most common forms of human cancer!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Figgep (talk • contribs)

Hi Figgep. Having further edits also reverted, or good changes included with edits that also added copyvios, is a risk that is run when copying. When I see a clear pattern of copying, all from the same source, and have confirmed for 5 of say 15 similar edits that copying is taking place, I am going to use that sample as evidence of the whole. But, regardless, this too included a copy-paste. Source:

"...genes are suggested as prognostic based on transcriptomics data from 176 patients..."^[1]

Your edit:

"...genes are suggested as prognostic based on transcriptomics data from 176 patients..."

You seem like you have a lot of knowledge to contribute to medical topics. I don't want to discourage you and am glad you've acknowledged you understand the issue and seem to be taking this in stride. Best regards.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated Fuhghettaboutit, thanks! I am getting a bit more for every try + feedback, so please continue so that in the end my contributions will be of high quality and stick. Guess my early problem was that I am also the main author of all medical texts on the Human Protein Atlas, and thought that since we adhere to the "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License" for all copyrightable parts of our database, I was quite free to just take out parts of sentences from the sight and only slightly modify. Clearly related is the allowing of direct copied text from other sources such as RefSeq?? Example from Caspase 14: In wiki: "The CASP14 gene encodes a member of the cysteine-aspartic acid protease (caspase) family. Sequential activation of caspases plays a central role in the execution-phase of cell apoptosis. Caspases exist as inactive proenzymes which undergo proteolytic processing at conserved aspartic residues to produce two subunits, large and small, that dimerize to form the active enzyme. This caspase has been shown to be processed and activated by caspase 8 and caspase 10 in vitro, and by anti-Fas agonist antibody or TNF-related apoptosis inducing ligand in vivo. The expression and processing of this caspase may be involved in keratinocyte terminal differentiation, which is important for the formation of the skin barrier."

In Entrez gene (NCBI): "This gene encodes a member of the cysteine-aspartic acid protease (caspase) family. Sequential activation of caspases plays a central role in the execution-phase of cell apoptosis. Caspases exist as inactive proenzymes which undergo proteolytic processing at conserved aspartic residues to produce two subunits, large and small, that dimerize to form the active enzyme. This caspase has been shown to be processed and activated by caspase 8 and caspase 10 in vitro, and by anti-Fas agonist antibody or TNF-related apoptosis inducing ligand in vivo. The expression and processing of this caspase may be involved in keratinocyte terminal differentiation, which is important for the formation of the skin barrier. [provided by RefSeq, Jul 2008]"

Some redundancy with texts on other databases is apparently allowed, should also be possible with the Human Protein Atlas database!?!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Figgep (talk • contribs)

@Figgep: First let me just note that I am focused upon the copyright/plagiarism issue, and have not thought about or approached any of these edits from other viewpoints. What I mean by that is that sometimes text people want to use is okay to copy and paste here from a copyright/plagiarism view, if done in a particular manner, but does not belong for other reasons of encyclopedic judgment; conflict of interest; promotion; is placed in the wrong place; is not edited to fit here in a seamless manner, etc.

If you aren't aware, and you very well might be, plagiarism is an ethics concern, where copyright involves the law. To give an example, public domain text is by definition free of copyright. That means that you can copy and paste it anywhere and copyright is simply uninvolved. However, this can still constitute plagiarism, if you use a PD source's text without suitably acknowledging it is someone else's words (e.g., by the use of quote marks or set off coupled with citing the source, or a notice of incorporation of PD text in the references section). Citing the source alone is not enough, as it does not disclose copying. One has to acknowledge the words copied as someone else's.

This gets us to another issue: On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. What I am referring to is that you have said above that the content from the database was actually written by you. It's true that it is not possible to plagiarize yourself. If you are the author, none of your use, even without quote marks, etc., is actually plagiarism. The problem is that we are all anonymous people sitting behind keyboards, so while I believe you, it's simply not enough for anyone to assert it is their words. The same is true of copyright. For example, when someone says "but the content is mine and I release it!!!", we tell them, 'that's nice, now provide the release in a verifiable manner—by a method that evidences you actually own the copyright, and so have authority to provide the release (and to the world, not just for use here – into the public domain, or under a compatibly free copyright license" (such as by a method suggested at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials).

Now, sorry, but some bad news about the copyright. I do see that the content of THPA is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0. This license is not compatible (for text; it is okay for images) with our (mostly) dual copyright licensing scheme (that is, CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License and the GFDL). You asked about RefSeq. By contrast, the parts of RefSeq that are actually written by employees of the U.S. Federal government, as part of their official duties (as opposed to content of others hosted there, work of contractors, or quotes used there), are in the public domain – see 17 U.S. Code § 105. This gets us back to the plagiarism issue though. To use such public domain works, they need to be quoted and cited, or a notice provided when used (see, e.g., Category:United States government attribution templates).

P.S. in all the posts above and below I have signed for you, using the unsigned template. For future reference, all posts to talk pages and other behind-the-scenes forums should be signed (as opposed to additions to articles, which should never be signed). Please read Wikipedia:Signatures.

I hope some of this is helpful. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for explanatory text on copyright and likewise! Also thanks for teaching me how to write, e.g. sign on talk pages etc. (will take some time to learn all tricks when writing on edit source pages)

The copyright/plagiarism ethical codes are as such interesting and how grey zones should be interpreted. I experience similar things as part of my work when approving student´s thesis, writing scientific papers, texts for the internet etc. Each community has a bit of its own flavor and I am trying to understand how I can contribute to wiki, and first hurdle appears to be copyright related issues. I can also feel that there are lots of more hurdles ahead regarding the things you mention, e.g. encyclopedic judgment; conflict of interest; promotion; is placed in the wrong place; is not edited to fit here in a seamless manner, etc. However, I think wikipedia is a great resource and as I have understood it is a community-based resource dependent on contributions from people that have time and knowledge to spend on creating this educational resource. As always, there are politics and one needs to learn how to interact to convey new and important knowledge into the correct format. What I know for a fact is that these last additions I have made, have been written off the top of my head without any copy-paste.

The background for why I am willing to spend time on this is that I have the last 15 years worked in an non-comercial academic project supported by a non-profit organisation. Over 1200 man years have been spent on this project and the outcome is made publically available without any restrictions at our web portal: www.proteinatlas.org. Aside from scientific data and interpretations of results, there is also vast descriptions of background, validation, organisation, downloadable data, licenses etc. etc. We receive up to 200,000 visits per month and the site is becomming one of the most used databases within the biomedical field. As for questions regarding validity of the scientific knowledge that I try to add, all given data has been published in absolute top, peer reviewed scientific journals, justifying qualification as knowledge that can be presented on a wiki page!

So, how does this relate to wiki.....well, I strongly think that the basic results presented at the Human Protein Atlas should be of common interest and importance. The summarized knowledge, with relevant links for deeper information, regarding the gene expression landscape in our normal organs and tissues provides the fundament for what makes a certain tissue type just that tissue type. It is the differences in global gene expression patterns that underlie the differences in anatomic appearence, histological composition and cellular functions, between different organs ind tissue types in our bodies. Moreover, this provides a basis to understand the different diseases that effect different organs. I will try to comment on all other comments I have received as others omit what I write. Not sure how to best proceed though....

Figgep (talk) 09:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why was my new text reverted from the REEP2 page? If this is a copyright violation, I need to know what more exact what in these 5 sentences that I added is considered as a copyright violation? For genes and proteins lacking much information as to function and expression patterns, I believe that descriptive sentences should be kept short and concise, which also means that there is a degree of redundancy with other databases. I can rewrite lengthy sentences, but this appears as a contra-productive strategy to avoid being reverted due to alleged copyright violations. Please advise— Preceding unsigned comment added by Figgep (talk • contribs)

See above. But also, the moment I drop a snippet into Google in quotes...

"...ability to enhance cell surface expression of a subset of G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs)..."^[1]

Your edit:

"...the ability to enhance cell surface expression of a subset of G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs)s..."

The descriptive text I had added with relevant references under "Caspase 14" were removed. Why? I do not understand what was wrong with the added information. There was no copy paste. However, the only text that is now present on the reverted page is a precise copy from the text provided by RefSeq in July 2008. I think it is OK with this redundancy in the form of short descriptive sentences. I need to understand why my added text was omitted!?!?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Figgep (talk • contribs)

Again see above. This one, alone, I did not see copying when googling, so I'll revert.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed like you could use this. Rest, relax, refresh... then back into the breach! GrammarFascist contribstalk 01:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

​ :-) Thanks! The entitlement in posts like that gets to me. "I'm here to promote... how dare you stop me from my improper purpose"--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I feel you, my friend, I feel you. We've had too many editors like that at the Teahouse recently. That one poster really crossed the line, too. Some people there's just no getting through to. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 17:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When I think about it, I'm not sure that this is a good idea. First-time users wouldn't even know there was an old rule, so they shouldn't be bothered with the new one. This is why we decided to take down the watchlist notice too. In fact feedback going back a while from new users tends to demonstrate that they always already thought this was the case. Even some admins were convinced that ACTRIAL had been permanently implemented back in 2011. I think this is probably due to the fact that when voters saw the huge consensus, they assumed it would be rolled out and never knew that the WMF had refused it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Kudpung. Maybe the information could be integrated into the page better but why would something that will actually affect large numbers of users' ability to create new articles, on a page dedicated to that subject, not be highly relevant if not vital information to include on that page?

To give you an example, we constantly get questions at the Teahouse from not-yet autoconfirmed users trying to move a page about the inability to do so that they come up against. Without this information, I would expect to leave lots of users in that same boat. Is there some underlying concern you aren't saying—like maybe that it would be good for us, for some unarticulated reason, to leave people ignorant on this?

I can postulate such an argument. For example, I could see someone arguing that by providing this notice, we inform users how to "get around" autoconfirmation (but by telling them what it is). They would still have to wait out the four days though, and find ten edits to make. And this is swimming upstream against our openness ethos.

Anyway, it it's something like that, you haven't said what it is, and I don't see why we wouldn't include something like this otherwise. The fact that some subset of users were confused about new users' ability to create articles immediately seems neither here nor there. Certainly, newpages itself shows us that that lots of new users created articles on their first edits.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I didn't expect you to shoot me down! I think you misunderstood my motivation. I've gone ahead and edited it to what I think is sufficient for new users to know. It reflects the current situation. As you and I both know only too well, people don't read instructions anyway. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: Ah, Total misunderstanding (though I think if you read your post, you'll likely see what I misunderstood). With the context of the edit you made, you meant that including the information about it being part of an ACTRIAL trial, was unneeded (rather than that the main information about autoconfirmation being needed to create articles, was unneeded which is what I read your post as saying). No, I have no problem at all with the edit you made to remove the trial information!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. Glad to get a second opinion on that, as their not-beginner editing proficiency is all I had to go on that I'm not WP:BITEing them. Are admins now being more proactive about paid? Your response impressed me. Widefox; talk 14:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Widefox. No, unfortunately, only me. I think it's the greatest failing of the community (after not having a pragmatic verifiability deletion process for all new unsourced articles, and not just for BLPs through sticky prod, and by allowing WP:COI to be a fangless, recommendation guideline). We finally have a way to actually enforce curbing promotion through mandatory paid editing disclosure (telling people "you have a COI, which does not prohibit anything, but we strongly recommend..." has done nothing) and yet we have not taken advantage of it.

That template series (I posted the first one at the talk page) was created for this purpose and no one is using it, because it's not in Twinkle, and not shown at WP:PAID, as rejected from both, resulting from the elevation of not biting and assuming good faith (principles I actually believe in, but not to the exclusion of any pragmatism) to such heights of near religion, that we are cutting off our nose to spite our face. I fear there's not much that can be done at this point.

We have all but given free reign to the promoters, and so hundreds of promotional articles actually make it into the encyclopedia every week (probably half of them copyvios), which I believe is ultimately a great driving force in the inability to get the numbers of new users we need to write and improve real encyclopedia articles, or to man new pages to keep out the dreck; a viscious circle. People who would be inspired and start to care about the encyclopedia for its noble mission never arrive and get hooked because we no longer resemble the aspiration of what we said we were building. People see commercialpedia because we are quite a ways down the road of becoming that. And the hole is so deep now... I'm not sure we can fashion a shovel that will save us.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel as strongly as I do about it when the consensus seems to be stuck on acquiescence. Views seem polarised and fundamental, plug my essay WP:BOGOF. Worth pushing for paid & Twinkle again? Regards Widefox; talk 21:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I started an ANI about Junopolo, and thought best to mentioned you, so obligatory notice...

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Widefox; talk 22:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if we change our copyright license in the Human protein Atlas to CC-BY-SA 3.0 for all copyrightable parts of our database, would that enable use of images, tables, figures and text to be displayed on wiki pages without infringment of any copyright restrictions? Figgep (talk) 09:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Figgep. In a word, yes! You still have to disclose the copying. Here, probably by a notice placed in the references each times you used a page from the site. For example:

{{CC-notice|cc=bysa3|url=http://www.proteinatlas.org/humanpathology/pancreatic+cancer|author(s)=[[Human Protein Atlas]]}}

Which would format as:

 This article incorporates text by Human Protein Atlas available under the CC BY 3.0 license.

Again, none of this has anything to do with integration of the text or others' views of its use for other reasons, but that would take care of the copyright issue.

On a side note: we see so much problematic copying that sometimes, if the license is not clear, a site that really is licensed under a suitable free license or is PD will be tagged as a copyvio if the notice is not easily seen. What I mean by this is that at the HPA site, the only way to see what license the content bears is by noticing and clicking on the link for "LICENCE & CITATION". If each page in the Atlas, instead bore the notice, this problem I foresee would likely go away or be much rarer. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thanks again for valuable information! I will pass this on and we will have it in mind when we get to that part of our ambition to incorporate basic knowledge into gene/protein pages on wiki. Figgep (talk) 09:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fuhghettaboutit, the CCPA article was recently edited with material lifted directly off their website. I have deleted the offending material as copyvio, but could you erase the page history to remove the traces? 'Cheers Loopy30 (talk) 11:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Loopy30. Done. Ask me anytime.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...to forbid people like you from creating crap like that...

I'm not gonna lie. I got a chuckle out of that one. GMG^talk 18:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

​:-) But in all seriousness, it is a predicament of huge scope, and may be our downfall.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, ACTRIAL seems to be working out okay on some fronts, and frankly I was getting tired of so much NPP. So I'll mark it up as a small victory. GMG^talk 18:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenMeansGo: Agreed. In fact—imagine this—I've actually seen CAT:CSD being entirely empty more than once the past few weeks.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, after probably a five week uninterrupted string of doing little else but NPP prior to ACTRIAL, I've actually managed to make it back over to AfD for a change. I'm not complaining. GMG^talk 16:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Fuhghettaboutit,

I am the developer of VisualBash, and I am afraid I do not know as much about media wiki as you do.

I would like to get a small article on Wikipedia about VisualBash, but I am afraid I do not even know how to contact you correctly much less successfully submit an article.

My email address is flint@flint.com. I am very comfortable with ASCII email.

Sincerely,

Paul Flint Flintiii (talk) 11:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flintiii. The links I provided at your talk page are the places to learn about what is needed to make a suitable article, if that is possibly for this topic (sorry, but I suspect it's not possible, because no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability; the sources that are needed to demonstrate that a topic is notable and warrants an encyclopedia article either exist, or they do not). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fuhghettaboutit,

I am the developer of Cigniti page. A few years earlier, I believe someone tried to create a page with the same title Cigniti and it was deleted.

I have researched thoroughly about publicly available credible information and wanted to get a small article on Cigniti published in wiki. It would be great if you can review the page so that I can publish a correctly drafted wiki article which is of use to readers.

Sincerely,

Subhendu Pattnaik Subhendupattnaik

Template:Current-HCOTM has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit strong isn't it, when a paid editor not only has autopatrolled and New Page Reviewer rights, and believe it or not, also OTRS, starts wanting to rewrite the paid editing rules. And then people wonder why I sometimes have steam coming out of my ears... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: Wow. I had no idea, thanks for the heads up, and I'm... uh... not quite neutral on the issue.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fuhghettaboutit, could you hide this edit? I have restored it to NPOV but figure the racism part should be stricken completely from the history. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Loopy30:  Done. I didn't think of this as something I would have on my own thought of as grave enough for redaction, but I also don't think its outside the bounds, so no problem doing so.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fuhghettaboutit, allowing unreferenced statements claiming that a specific group of people have a higher rate of illegal activity than the general population feeds into the perception that the group is a detriment to society and not welcome. This in turn supports a climate where racism against the group can thrive. I appreciate your understanding and assessment of this. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Loopy30: There's nothing in your post I disagree with. I just think of this as registering as "obvious crank with agenda is obvious crank with agenda", and no targeted and named individual is tarred (which always elevates such filth to potentially actionable defamation).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Fuhghettaboutit. I'm just posting to let you know that Glossary of bird terms – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for October 27. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 22:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another set of copyvios to remove from the history. All edits from 11 Oct (today) are directly lifted from the institute's own website. Thanks, Loopy30 (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am wondering if you could return this page or send me the page content, so I can fix the parts which caused the article deletion. I now that I have made a mistake by posting this unedited content, and it will never happen again. I hope you could help me, thanks. --Semso98 (talk) 13:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, An editor named Billhpike appears to have edited scores of articles about U.S. schools inserting negative racial remarks such as "...established as a segregation academy" and other inflammatory statements HERE. The edits predictably involve insertion of a racially themed sentence, often out of context. Such statements do not appear to be good-faith constructive efforts to improve the articles, but rather to promote some sort of agenda to shock and to inflict shame on these schools. One of my articles, Harpeth Hall School, has been affected by his edits as have those of many schools in my city and elsewhere. I have read his cited sources, and I believe his conclusions are not entirely accurate or balanced. I have reverted his edits only to have him restore them so I am asking you to weigh in on the matter. Best,--Eagledj (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My edits are part of WP:DISCRIMINATION. The fact that some schools systemically excluded a substantial portion of the population is a significant part of the school’s history.

If you think my sources are inaccurate, please WP:BB and revert my edits. Please note any issues on the talk page, and I will reply and address your concerns. I may add additional sources or more detailed quotes to the article, such as I did with Harpeth Hall School.

Please also keep in mind WP:OWN and WP:NOTCENSORED.

Billhpike (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, Billhpike and I have found somewhat of a compromise— I've added a new section heading to Harpeth Hall School entitled "diversity" which addresses the issue of racial imbalance at the school. This time it is told from a NPOV. It's interesting that Billhpike and I used essentially the same citations to come up with markedly different versions. He complimented what I did, which I appreciate, and helped me by pointing out that I don't "own" the article; but what about the many other school articles on which his edits were used like a blunt instrument, without context, using pejorative terms like "segregation academy"? Billhpike regularly blanks his talk page, making dialogue less transparent. I do think we need some guidance from an administrator. Check his block log. I looked at WP:Wikiproject schools but did not find any help. Regards,--Eagledj (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Fans behind the eight ball over snooker tournament". Maybe a follow-up article will be "Pool hall snookered by zoning board over expansion plans".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  15:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Hey, Fuhghettaboutit. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day, Fuhghettaboutit, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! NikolaiHo☎️ 22:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Db-internet. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Db-internet redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Adam9007 (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to have a look at meta:WMDE Technical Wishes/Book referencing/Call for feedback (May 2018) (and in particular my comment block there).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fuhghettaboutit, in October 2017, you have added create protection for a film topic Jio Pagla (redlinked). As the movie has been released and new sources has been came out, so please remove protection from creating article, so that the article can be created. A sandbox draft has drawn by me here.

AnkurWiki (talk) 07:49, 2 June 2018

Introduction[edit]

Hello to all! I do not intend to write a regular peer review newsletter but there does occasionally come a time when those interested in contributing to peer review should be contacted, and now is one. I've mailed this out to everyone on the peer review volunteers list, and some editors that have contributed to past discussions. Apologies if I've left you off or contacted you and you didn't want it. Next time there is a newsletter / mass message it will be opt in (here), I'll talk about this below - but first:

• THANK YOU! I want to thank you for your contributions and for volunteering on the list to help out at peer review. Thank you!
• Peer review is useful! It's good to have an active peer review process. This is often the way that we help new or developing editors understand our ways, and improve the quality of their editing - so it fills an important and necessary gap between the teahouse (kindly introduction to our Wikiways) and GA and FA reviews (specific standards uphelp according to a set of quality criteria). And we should try and improve this process where possible (automate, simplify) so it can be used and maintained easily.

Updates[edit]

Update #1: the peer review volunteers list is changing[edit]

The list is here in case you've forgotten: WP:PRV. Kadane has kindly offered to create a bot that will ping editors on the volunteers list with unanswered reviews in their chosen subject areas every so often. You can choose the time interval by changing the "contact" parameter. Options are "never", "monthly", "quarterly", "halfyearly", and "annually". For example:

• {{PRV|JohnSmith|History of engineering|contact=monthly}} - if placed in the "History" section, JohnSmith will receive an automatic update every month about unanswered peer reviews relating to history.
• {{PRV|JaneSmith|Mesopotamian geography, Norwegian fjords|contact=annually}} - if placed in the "Geography" section, JaneSmith will receive an automatic update every yearly about unanswered peer reviews in the geography area.

We can at this stage only use the broad peer review section titles to guide what reviews you'd like, but that's better than nothing! You can also set an interest in multiple separate subject areas that will be updated at different times.

Update #2: a (lean) WikiProject Peer review[edit]

I don't think we need a WikiProject with a giant bureaucracy nor all sorts of whiz-bang features. However over the last few years I've found there are times when it would have been useful to have a list of editors that would like to contribute to discussions about the peer review process (e.g. instructions, layout, automation, simplification etc.). Also, it can get kind of lonely on the talk page as I am (correct me if I'm wrong) the only regular contributor, with most editors moving on after 6 - 12 months.

So, I've decided to create "WikiProject Peer review". If you'd like to contribute to the WikiProject, or make yourself available for future newsletters or contact, please add yourself to the list of members.

Update #3: advertising[edit]

We plan to do some advertising of peer review, to let editors know about it and how to volunteer to help, at a couple of different venues (Signpost, Village pump, Teahouse etc.) - but have been waiting until we get this bot + WikiProject set up so we have a way to help interested editors make more enduring contributions. So consider yourself forewarned!

And... that's it!

I wish you all well on your Wikivoyages, Tom (LT) (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-patrolled has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Danski454 (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]