User talk:Stesmo/Archive 3

Thanks from Joseph Harn :3

Thanks for finding a better way to organize my See Also's for Wiki articles. Is there any way you can help me do any editing with Draft: Shanna Malcolm?

 PLEASE AND THANK YOU :3

Complaint

Why are you deleting Draft:Shanna Malcolm from the See Also's. Put it back please! :M — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph B. Harn (talk • contribs) 18:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Response to Joseph B. Harn

Hi, Joseph B. Harn. I removed the Draft wikilinks because the articles were still drafts. Feel free to add it back when you have moved the article out of Draft and into WP:MAINSPACE. Thanks for stopping by my Talk page. Be sure to sign your Talk comments by using ~~~~, like this: Stesmo (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Reply from Joseph B. Harn

Oh. Okay
Thanks for being nice about it and I wish you best of luck in the future!!

Reply from Sandu Alexandra

I was supposed to edit the wikipedia page Mozilla Devveloper Network by adding informations and also 10 legitimate sources. I saw that the references that already exist are also from the mozilla developer network site, so I don't understand how should I add information without referencing it from other sources. Please help!AlexandraSandu (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Pasted from: Talk:Mozilla Developer Network:

Thanks for coming to the Talk page, AlexandraSandu!

Your requirement for "legitimate sources" hopefully matches with Wikipedia's view on reliable, third-party, published sources (click here for more info). If you're referring to the External Links (links that go outside of Wikipedia), those shouldn't be in the body of the article and aren't the same thing as references or citations. Usually, there are few External Links in an article while there may be dozens or hundreds of references and sources (in the really big articles).

One of the problem you seem to be facing here with this assignment is "There isn't much information on the internet about the mozilla developer network". Wikipedia is mostly interested in things that can be verified in books, newspapers, magazines, online, etc. This is briefly covered at Wikipedia:Training/For_students/No_original_research and in detail at WP:NOR. If there isn't information about MDN coming from outside of MDN itself, perhaps that information shouldn't be in the Wikipedia article.

Part of verifying what is being added is where the source comes from; if it is coming from the company/person involved, it may not be correct or may be one-sided. So, Wikipedia prefers sources that aren't coming from the company or people being written about (not from Press Releases, the MDN website, CEO's blog posts, etc.). And, your edits are more likely to survive other editors if the claims / facts can be backed up with reliable, third-party, published sources.

I'm not sure any of this will help you in your assignment, but I hope you can find a way to complete your assignment while still working within the Wikipedia policies and guidelines as we try to improve Wikipedia. Good luck! Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to continue the conversation here or on the Talk:Mozilla Developer Network page, AlexandraSandu! Stesmo (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gernatt Family of Companies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Republican. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Notification of Deletion Nomination: Kianor Shah

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kianor Shah is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kianor Shah until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. I noticed you contributed to the notability discussion on the article and wanted to inform you of the nomination. Aytea (talk) 13:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kianor Shah

The arguments are invalid and a personal opinion of two individuals. Just because a confidential settlement is not covered in the news, it does not mean it does not merit notability. There is nothing to report on. The idea that it is self and business promotion is completely out of line. Multiple parties have contributed to this article. Over 20 independent reliable =sources without incentive have written about the person in question. Several domestic and international articles were removed due to Wikipedia policy. The original individual that prepared the article was not "KianorShah" but the user name was used as such. Multiple individuals have contributed to the article. Every instruction of an administrator was met by those whom have contributed. The article was prepared by an independent neutral party, and it should be verified before claiming otherwise. Insinuating that all 20 sources are "press releases issued by the organization of which Shah is listed as chairman and are clearly paid publications" is ludicrous. The number of times Walmart has been sued in the United States is completely irrelevant to this person's notability contention, article, or focus of the article. There has been coverage on NBC, DTI, Registered News, Hufftington Post, NY Post, USA Today, WIU, SIU, The Beacon, scientific journal and on and on the list goes - none of which are owned by "KianorShah", nor were there any affiliation whatsoever, nor is it all about the Walmart case (there are only four article referenced per administrators prior requests). The suggestion that these are paid articles is untruthful, without merit, and offensive, at best. Several topics, which have no bearing or relationships to the Walmart case, carry their own merits of national and international recognition (academia and business). For instance, if making the ALL USA Academic Team is not noteworthy, then what is? The list of reasons for notability are rather long and not about Walmart. It is very clear that these two editors have not read all the article and their arguments are without merit and solely based on personal opinion. If Wikipedia allows its editors to attack notable people based on personal biased or lack of knowledge on the topic (which is a national debate), then how can Wikipedia have double standards for independence and neutrality. The page was modified numerous times by administrators to clearly assure that full compliance is met including notability (numerous times over) and independence. It was accepted by Wikipedia and reviewed numerous times. There is no explanation for the behavior of these two administrators against all policies set forth by Wikipedia, which have clearly been met. 66.102.196.235 (talk) 05:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, 66.102.196.235. I'm one of the "these two editors" you accuse of not having read the sources and attacking "notable people". However, I'm not an administrator and those terms are not interchangeable.

"Editor" and "administrator" are two different roles here. An editor is someone who has edited Wikipedia and there are millions of us. Administrators are ~1300 experienced editors who have been granted superpowers and can leap over tall buildings with a single bound. And, ban editors, delete pages, etc. I am an editor, not an administrator.

I actually read all of the press releases, the media accounts and other sources. I don't think I read the wedding announcement, though.

One other thing: In my Talk comments, you'll note that I've said "I'm sure he's a good dentist and businessman". This is because while editors have discussed if he is Notable, it's not a judgement about Shah, his skills or abilities. The question is: Is he Notable-Per-Wikipedia's-Policies-Enough-to-Have-an-Article-on-Wikipedia. And, that's what the discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kianor Shah is about. If the WP:Consensus of the editors at that discussion is Keep, the administrator will keep the article. If it is Delete, the administrator will delete it. But, it will all come down to consensus of the participating editors and not just "these two editors". Stesmo (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I would like to point out that this editor is jumping to numerous conclusions based on assumptions and makes unfounded allegations without the proper research. It demonstrates that the editors did not properly read all the references in the article deemed to meet all notability guidelines. The fact that there was confidential settlement is public information and anyone with internet access can find this information out on the court docket (reference #11) within seconds. The editor conclusively states 66.102.196.235/Shah must be Shah because only Shah could have known of the settlement of the case, which demonstrated the authors inability to comply with Wikipedia rules – it is indeed public information. Same conclusion is reached by the editor who claims that the article was written by Shah because the user name by the author was “KianorShah” even though there have been several contributors and the author was clearly not Shah himself, so the idea of an autobiography is flawed. Further, he or she provides an erroneous argument about other public figures who do not meet notability standards, which is not applicable to the arguments he or she makes based on the Walmart issue and one press release. This editor constantly makes unfounded and biased allegations without merit, whatsoever. A comparable unfounded allegation would be if it was stated that these two editors have been influenced by third parties to protect dental management service organizations and deprive the leader of the opposition movement the ability to have a Wikipedia article for the people, and by the people. This is a nationally covered topic (reference 12, 14). There is fine line between free speech and libel. These individuals falsely assure that all due diligence has been made. Please reference all the other articles (i.e. DrBicuspid – reference 13 – a prominent independent national dental news outlet article, calling Shah a leader in dentistry based on notable accomplishments, the scientific journals reference # 20, 21, the vast number of news publications, domestic and international coverage, and so on). These two editors refuse to accept that more than several administrators have worked on this article and have brought it to complete compliance per Wikipedia rules. They refuse to acknowledge that it was accepted after many the corrections were made for compliance and keep referencing Walmart, which is a fraction of independent third party coverage. The proper Wikipedia action for a press release that does not meet criteria is to remove the press release/reference – not an entire article or the existence of an individual on Wikipedia. What becomes a more important question of interest is why are these two editors so persistent, judgmental, and are not exercising the rules set forth for an editor by Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.211.148.132 (talk) 18:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Chief Innovation Officer page

Hi, you sent me message saying that I added some advertising content on this wikipedia article but I don't understand where you find some adversing. I have to edit this page for a coursework so it's not finished yet, it will be in a few days but please stop deleting my content without explaining clearly why. Thanks (unsigned comment added by Axelamer (talk • contribs))

Hi, Axelamer. I mentioned why I reverted your edits in the edit summary "Reverting promotional edits. Do not add back without taking this to the Talk page." and by posting on your talk page. I'm glad you've stopped by my Talk page to discuss it in more detail. I mentioned taking this issue to the Talk page so we could avoid an edit war where you might run afoul of the 3 Revert Rule.

The InnovationLabs section is the issue that stood out the most here for me. That section is not written with a Neutral POV and reads like an advertisement and includes an external link to them in the body of the article.

While I understand that you are editing this page for coursework, it should still meet Wikipedia's standards and policies; what you are editing is live and visible by anyone visiting Wikipedia looking for information on Chief innovation officer. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 00:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of school districts in South Carolina

added links pointing to Fairfield, Union, Williamsburg, Marlboro, Pickens, Lee, McCormick, Mullins, Oconee, Saluda, Edgefield, Kershaw, Horry, Georgetown and Lancaster

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Please provide me with assistance regarding my entry

I would like some information from you as to how I can better accommodate the rules of Wikipedia regarding my update to the EWI (Edison Welding Institute) entry. I mean no disrespect in regards to my updates, and have compared my entry with other entries for corporate and nonprofit organizations and am confused as to why the EWI entry is promotional in nature compared to others, for example: TWI (The Welding Institute), BP Oil, McDonald's. I would very much appreciate your guidance. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.146.161.32 (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, 128.146.161.32 / RLG429(?). Thanks for stopping by my Talk page. Thanks for pointing out The Welding Institute as being promotional. I've since gone through that article as well and requested citations for claims made there. After some time has passed, I'll go back and remove any claims made by previous authors without reliable, third-party, published sources that allow verification of those claims. You can also see my edits yesterday to the TWI article where I removed promotional / peacock language and tagged the article as being written like an advert and using only a single source.

As to a good place to start when editing your company's article is here: What rules should I follow while editing Wikipedia articles?, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion (#5) and Am I allowed to edit articles about myself or my organization?.

Specifically to your edits, I'd note that you should look at WP:EL; External links should not be in the body of the article. Additionally, your edits over-wrote / removed previous, mostly reliably sourced content (and categories) and replaced it with mostly un-sourced, promotional content. To be clear, I'm not passing judgement on the quality of your work or the EWI. I'm merely pointing out where your edits and Wikipedia policies are conflicting. Thanks again for stopping by my Talk page -- Stesmo (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

BBLean

Hello. I am trying to understand how to enter the conversation about an article I edited. It looks like it's going to take me quite a while to figure out how to even discuss it. Is this a place to do that? My apologies for my shortcomings and newness. Thank you. (unsigned comment added by BBLean (talk • contribs))

BBLean, if you're trying to find the place to try and convince other editors whether to Keep or Delete Delhaize Group, visit this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delhaize Group. You can edit that page and add your comments to the bottom of that page (and sign it with ~~~~), matching the format others are using. As a note, though, it looks like the article is not in danger of being deleted as the consensus is heavily leaning towards Keep.

If you want to discuss the Delhaize Group article in general (instead of just the AfD process), give Talk:Delhaize Group a shot.

If you have questions about my edits or a question in general, you have the right place. Please 'sign' your comments on Talk pages with 4 ~'s (~~~~), like this: Stesmo (talk) 01:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of newspapers in New Jersey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Beacon. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Sharing Economy

Hi Stesmo, I am a first time contributer at Wikipedia. You edited my first contribution just now on the basis that it is promotional. Rather, it is factual information and in the context of the sharing economy it is critical that the record indicate that peer-to-peer transactions are not only for individuals but for organizations as well. Organizations are peers too. In addition, if you check the weblink you will see that it provides a good example of that element of the sharing economy. I went to change my user name to remove the flagged issue about the match. This was purely not being aware of this. I am happy to change the name but the process is not clear to me. So in summary, I would ask that you re-instate the edits. If you can please provide guidance on changing my user name that would be great. Cheers John/Sharely.Us (talk) 05:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey John Sharely.Us... Thanks for stopping by at my Talk page and welcome to Wikipedia. I reverted your edit because a user named after a website made an edit with a link pointing to that same website. Seemed promotional to me. I can completely understand why you or someone else would add an external link pointing to a non-wikipedia site in that article, as others had done the same thing before you on that article. I've since gone into that article and removed all external links in the body of the article to meet Wikipedia's external links policies. I make no judgement on whether or not the word 'organization' should be there or not; I personally would not revert a non-promotional edit, especially with reliable, third-party, published sources.

For the name change, your Talk page now has a blue box with instructions on how to request a rename or you can just create a new account with a new name and use that one instead.

Please don't let this little reverting of your first edit stop you from editing Wikipedia. You've already started well with BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Everett Roehl

Hello Stetsmo,

Please help me respond to the request for deletion page for Everett Roehl. There is not a lot of printed material about Mr. Roehl, however the company he built has been in business for over 50 years and employees more than 2,500 people across the US. He's from a small town in central Wisconsin, and the company, Roehl Transport, is one of the largest in America http://www.ttnews.com/articles/basetemplate.aspx?storyid=35476. Mr. Roehl is relatively private, so I only listed items that have appeared in the news in the last few years (the Babbitt Award & the naming of the public library are examples). I'm not sure what else you're looking for to build out his page. Thanks in advance for your help.Lucasheart (talk) 19:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Lucasheart. Thanks for coming to my Talk page! First, I'd like to say: saying that I don't believe Everett Roehl is notable enough for a Wikipedia article does not mean that he isn't a great, successful guy. It's more about whether or not he is Notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia doesn't do any original research, so to allow for other editors to verify if things written here are true/valid, they need to be able to see what reliable, third-party, published sources are saying about that subject. Since private people tend to avoid seeking articles, books, etc. written about them, it makes it harder to show that a subject is Wikipedia-Notable.

My suggestions for you would be to:

1. Find sources that I'm not finding that would show he meets the criteria for Notability here: Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria. These should be reliable, third-party, published sources, and not press releases or other content provided by his company.
2. Participate in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everett Roehl discussion. The nomination for deletion there is just a nomination. Other editors can comment that they believe the article should be kept or deleted and why they feel that. A week or so from now an Administrator will review the discussion to see what the consensus is and decide to Keep or Delete the article. You may want to read the WP:How_to_save_an_article_proposed_for_deletion#If_an_article_is_sent_to_Articles_for_Deletion for tips on saving an article in AfD and/or the Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion.

Good luck and thanks again! Stesmo (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Stesmo. Thanks for replying. I think I understand. I'll look for additional sources, I'll add them to the original article, and then I'll also add them to the the proposed deletion page. I appreciate the help!Lucasheart (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Cell ID

I have no idea what is going on there so I've opened up a section at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive266#Cell ID. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

By the way I fixed the external link in the above section so that it doesn't cause a reference section at the bottom of your page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, CambridgeBayWeather! Essentially it looks like an issue over who should go first in the table. In a sortable table. Around 80 reverts in the last week... Very silly and pointless. Stesmo (talk) 21:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Yep a very strange sequence of events. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

hey stesmo

i apologize i wanted to make a joke. sorry if i offended you, i should use Wikipedia for its proper use. i do not thikn you made a mistake because you are being mature. it was my fault and it wont happen again. sorry for no being mature and thank you for making me realize that what i did was wrong and from now on i will use wikipedia appropriately. thank you and enjoy the rest of you day/evening (depending on where you live) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vbeautyqueen10118 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Regarding - Link remove on e-lancing

Hello Stesmo,

I am Liza. you removed my site link on E-lancing page why you felt it is inappropriate.

please check my link this is my site ans its better then other freelancing sites and this is not only my opinion although all my respective clients also give us such good feedback.

If you need more information about my site then please check it or in case of any query contact with my technical department on skype- geek_sudesh

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.70.185.145 (talk) 06:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Dick's revert

Thanks for the message. I think our edits may have bumped heads at the same time. The Field and Stream website I linked fell within guidelines for subsidiary company info as previously allowed with their Golf Galaxy subsidiary. So if Field and Stream is not allowed, then neither should Golf Galaxy be allowed, correct? Scrooster (talk) 22:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, Scrooster. I've already removed the Golf Galaxy link. Stesmo (talk) 22:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hollaback!, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Green Dot. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)