Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:37, 2 April 2013

George Komsky

Actually lots of problems.

• Just changing the odd word doesn't make it any less of a copyright violation, a close paraphrase stills violates the original copyright. Although the page was tagged by a bot, I'm content that it was a close paraphrase of copyright text. The lack of wikilinks is a clear indicator that it's not your own work.
• You did not provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. It is now Misplaced Pages policy that biographical articles about living people must have independent verifiable references, or they will be deleted.
• It was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. Examples of unsourced claims presented as fact include: world-renowned... was mesmerized by the beauty... immortalized... the great... much sought after... celebrated... lead soloist... internationally acclaimed and so on
• You have an obvious conflict of interest when it comes to editing articles about this subject. Thank you for declaring your interest. If, after reading the information about notability linked above, you still believe that your client is notable enough for a Misplaced Pages article (and that there is significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources), you could, if you wish, post a request at Misplaced Pages:Requested articles for the article to be created. See also Misplaced Pages:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest.

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

You don't have to go through requested articles, it's just an option. The fact that the article has been deleted once doesn't affect recreation. Titles can be blocked from recreation, but that's not the case here. If you do recreate, best not to post links to YouTube etc videos, they aren't counted as reliable sources, and will be deleted because of concerns about copyright infringements. Make sure your sources fit the definition above (Not self-editable like Facebook or blogs). Just bear in mind that it's an encyclopaedia article, not a fanpage. If you want to have another go, you could write a draft here and let me know when you are ready, but that's up to you. Good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I've moved the text to your sandbox, I'll comment there Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

If you make the changes I've suggested, let me know and I'll have another look. Let me know if you need help, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I made these changes, mainly minor fixes such as only linking to a Misplaced Pages article once, no space between punctuation and ref. To add an image, go to Commons and follow the upload image link. This is a copyright minefield. If an image has been published other than with an explicit public domain licence, it will be deleted. Effectively, you need an unpublished image to which you own the copyright, or to release a published image following this complicated procedure. When you are ready to publish, use the "move" button, don't copy and paste. No guarantees (there are 900+ other admins), but it looks much better, good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Just a couple of things you need to do

• Add categories to the article (see Botti's article at the bottom if you're not sure what I mean), format is ]
• Similarly, add categories to the image page on Commons
• It reads as if the October gig is to support the winery, I assume that isn't the case, but that's not clear
• I have no idea on the Google stuff, except that the new page will eventually replace the old

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• I've deleted your sandbox, but you should realise that Google isn't instantaneous. The two deleted pages will show for some time, but eventually they will go Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
• Same way, see the end of this image page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
• I've activated the category. The image link you gave me is the Misplaced Pages transclusion of the Commons image. It can't be deleted unless the Commons image is deleted. If you want the commons image deleted, I'm not an admin there, you would need to add the tag {{speedydelete|Uploader request}} to do that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• Who knows? I don't think that it will be speedy deleted, but it could always be sent to a deletion discussion on notability grounds Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• I've restored the coi tag since it's clearly correct. It doesn't otherwise affect the article, but you shouldn't remove it yourself. Any "fans" editing the page will have to abide by the same rules; if an edit is unsourced or non-neutral it will be removed. I did say the Youtube stuff was vulnerable, and although you might not like the new edits, they are all justifiable. For an article like this, sourcing ot good references is paramount.Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013

Hello, I'm Theroadislong. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Seth Riggs, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

George Komsky

The AfD has to run its course until a consensus is reached, the only exception is if the article is speedy deleted. You are, of course, entitled to comment and vote to "Keep" if you wish. I've commented, but not voted since I've indicated that there could be notability issues. If you do comment, try to justify how the article is notable, don't get drawn into personalities Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, the people who have commented so far are not admins, anyone can participate. The only admin requirement is to close the AfD when a consensus is reached Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't understand why you can't contact Redpenofdoom here, works for me. That user isn't an admin, but he has gone through the references and removed those that he considers not to be sufficiently reliable. If you disagree, you should discuss with him. Make use of your opportunity to contest the deletion at the AfD, as the main editor you have every right to state your views and vote to keep. Note that "keep" votes from new editors (like Mike Soyf) with no or few edits elsewhere are likely to be ignored unless they can be seen to have contributed to the article prior to the Afd Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello, Ngoesseringer, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Content requires reliable sources

Please do not restore content without providing reliably published third party sources to support any claims. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013

Your recent editing history at George Komsky shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)