User talk:Brianrodgershfx

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Brianrodgershfx, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 15:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ViperSnake151 Talk 19:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Cindy Day[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Cindy Day requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/meet-the-hosts-of-ctv-news-at-5-1.880905. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. reddogsix (talk) 23:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image use[edit]

Hi Brianrodgershfx. The licensing of each media file you see used on Wikipedia is determined by it copyright status and not every file you see on Wikipedia is licensed the same. Some files are licensed as public domain or licensed under a free licensed suitable for Wikipedia and these are often collectively referred to as "free images". Other files are licensed as non-free content because of their copyright status and these files are commonly referred to as "non-free". Non-free content use on Wikipedia is highly restricted and each use of such files must satisfy Wikipedia's non-free image use policy. One of these restrictions is WP:NFCC#9, which says that non-free content can only be used in the article namespace. For this reason and as explained in WP:UP#Non-free files, non-free content such as File:Fx1019halifax.png, etc. cannot be used on your userpage. Perhaps you didn't see the edit sum I left when I removed the files the first time; therefore, I'm posting this here to provide more explanation. You may add links to non-free files using the colon trick if you wish, but the files cannot be displayed. If you have any questions about this feel free to ask them here, at WP:MCQ or at WT:NFC, but please don't re-add these files. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What?[edit]

WP:MCQ That makes no sense. I didn't add files you mentioned, they are already on Wikipedia. Non free files would suggest they are copyrighted therefore can not be on Wikipedia at all for that reason. Only two were "removed" byt not the rest, why? Brianrodgershfx (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MCQ is a shortcut link to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Non-free content is allowed to be used in Wikipedia articles as long as the use complies with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy; however, non-free files can only be used in the article namespace, which means no user pages, no talk pages, no template, no noticeboards, etc. The files are currently being used in articles, and this may be allowed if their respective use is deemed to be policy compliant; this, however, does not mean you can add them to your user page.

I did not remove the other files because they are not licensed as non-free content; therefore, their use on Wikipedia is not subject to the same policy. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask them here or at the Media copyright noticeboard. Just for reference, you don't need to open a new discussion thread each time you reply. You can simply add your response to the ongoing thread as explained in Help:Talk pages. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianrodgershfx (talk • contribs) 11:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Cindy Day[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Cindy Day requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. reddogsix (talk) 03:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it then instead of posting the notice! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianrodgershfx (talk • contribs) 12:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017[edit]

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Cindy Day. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. reddogsix (talk) 03:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't intend to do that, I thought I deleted everything I put on there. Delete the page, and I won't create any pages at all.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianrodgershfx (talk • contribs) 12:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I want to delete my Wikipedia account, how do I do that? I'm finished with this website.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianrodgershfx (talk • contribs) 12:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brianrogershfx. You seem to have found yourself in the middle of a perfect storm where everything is going wrong at the same time. Lots of new users often find themselves in similar situations and have a hard time getting used to Wikipedia at first. Figuring out the dos and don'ts can be quite a daunting task at first, but many new users do overcome their early struggles and end up becoming very productive editors. You've only been editing for about a month (at least with this account) and Wikipedia has lots of policies and guidelines. It can take some getting use to some of the more important ones, but some editors still make mistakes even after years of editing. Mistakes are inevitable, in fact they are par for the course, and making them if fine as long as they are made in good faith. Mistakes only become a problem when they are repeated over and over again to the point were they become disruptive. So, try not to let what's happening get you down or frustrate to the point of quitting because that's certainly not the intent of those posting on your talk page. The warning templates some have added to your talk page might seem intimidating, but they are just part of normal Wikipedia processes and were added just to notify you of a possible issue which may need to be addressed.

If you really want to stop editing, then there's nothing anyone can or will do to stop you. However, once an account has been created it cannot be deleted because a record needs to be kept of all edits made with it to ensure proper attribution for copyright purposes. (See Wikipedia:Username policy#Deleting and merging accounts and Wikipedia:User pages#"Right to vanish" for more details) The easiest way to stop editing is to simply to just stop and don't log in anymore. The account will remain unused/dormant and nobody else will be able to edit using it as long as your password remains secure.

If you decide to stay, then maybe you should check out the Wikipedia Teahouse. It's a good place for new editors to go and learn about Wikipedia. You can also try the Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure since it's an interactive way to learn more about editing. There is also Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area where newer users can try to find someone more experienced to help them learn the nuts and bolts of editing and resolve any problems they are having. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been editing for more than a month, it's only recently that I discovered I've been exiting without being signed in. Yes, I'm still new to editing and a Perfect Storm is quite accurate as to my experience. While my first page didn't do as planned, the problem mainly is adding information that is factual and being deleted by a user for what ever reason. A few pages I have edited, some content while factual can not always be sourced as not every information is posted via a website or blog. Another example is, Evanov Radio Group addition I made included a sourced press release made by Evanov. That link I provided was deleted and changed to a link where a user has to subscribe to view paid content. The same user who did that, has been deleting content I have been adding, and I've had to undo such changes, not because I own a page, which I do not, but because information adds to the story or history of a radio station. I only edit pages that are in my local area, as I have little knowledge of companies outside my area. As a result, a user complained on some page that I didn't know existed, in an attempt to make me look bad and have some sort of consequence for my undo's if you will. A claim was made that some are not sourced, Not everything on a few of the pages I edited are sourced but are still factual. I was susprised to see a thank you notification for Weatheradio Canada, which by the way I have been exiting a lot because much of the content is provided via conversation with a Meteorologist at the service, as is a prime example as to why not everything can be sourced, but does not mean it is not factual. Do I want to leave Wiki? Of course not, but can't be apart of an open source platform if users behave in such a manner. Brianrodgershfx (talk) 05:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a collaborative editing project in which people from all around the world are free to participate. That does not, however, necessarily mean a free for all or anything goes kind of thing, and article content needs to comply with relevant policies and guidelines as much as possible. Part of collaborative editing is being reverted and it's something which happens to us all. It's OK to be bold and try to improve articles, but when something you added is revised or reverted, the thing to do is to try and understand why. The temptation to revert back can be great, but it should only be done in certain specific cases where the content is a clear-cut policy or guideline violation or an obvious case of vandalism. When reverted, it's best to look through the article's edit history to see if there's an edit sum explaining why. If the edit sum seems to be referencing some kind of policy and guideline, then probably the best thing to do would be to follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to try and better understand why the edit was reverted/revised and find a resolution through discussion. Reverting back and forth, even if you really think you're right, is edit warring and is something for which the Wikipedia community has very little patience. Nobody wins in an edit war, and most of the time both sides come out with either blocks or warnings. So, if you're having a content dispute with another editor, start a discussion on the article's talk page to ask for clarification. Try to keep things civil and stick to commenting on the relevant content. If you are unable to resolve the matter after initial discusison, then move to the next step in the dispute resolution process.

As for what is factual and what is reliably sourced, please take a look at Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. For good or bad, article content is, in principle, only supposed to relfect what information can be verified through citations to published reliable sources. Wikipedia has specific definitions for both "published" and "reliable source" that are particular to it, and this is the basic standard applied to all article content. The Meteorologist you spoke with is probably not trying to deceive anyone. If the meteorogist wants to write a book or have a research paper peer-reviewd and published, then perhaps he can be cited as a source; however, personal conversations between individuals, even if true, are considered "original research" and such content shouldn't be added to articles. The same goes for any content which might have been added to any article which can't be supported by citations to reliable sources. Moreover, not every factual detail needs to be or should be added to an article even if it can be supported by a citation to a reliable source as explained in WP:NOTEVERYTHING. In some cases, it may be necessary to edit by consensus to ensure that the article content is in the best interests of Wikipedia and not in the best interests of the subject matter. FWIW, I'm not taking sides in your dispute; I'm only letting you know that there are processes for resolving such disputes. Wikipedia editing is not really about winning and pretty much every article in the encyclopedia can be improved in some way; so, when things start to get too hot on a particular article, it sometimes can be a good idea just to move on to something else for awhile, and then revist the issue again at a later date after things have cooled down. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well okay than, I'll have to delete a lot from Weatheradio Canada then. Thanks for clarification and explanation.