User talk:BlueAzure

Welcome!

Hello, BlueAzure, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  MastCell ^Talk 14:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. --Punkmorten 10:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

List of first black Major League Baseball players by team and date

My apologies for deleting your cited entry. Wknight94 fixed it back. I'm a little too sensitive to the User:Ron liebman host-of-sockpuppets problem. Thanks for finding the citation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Conflicts

I am trying to learn the ins and outs of Wiki and your message is confusing to me. Though I have an interest in the entertainment industry, I am not employed by it nor do I have any personal relationships beyond some myspace messages with the people in the articles I have contributed to, with the exception of one actress I met once at a premiere. I really want to learn and read all that you sent me, but I still don't see a conflict, and you don't have an email attachment to your profile. Please advise. TalkHollywoodFan1 (talk) 22:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have responded to you at the Conflict on interest noticeboard. BlueAzure (talk) 05:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

COI response

Hello user BlueAzure, is it a conflict of interest for publication of a person place or thing? As a disclosed publicist who wish to write factual information about a actor, athlete, organization, and or company. Is it a conflict of interest?

If this is the case then one may say that the Wikipedia article written about NBA athlete Michael Jordan, actor Michael Cera, and singer Britney Spears or even singer M.I.A. (artist) are all conflict of interest. All are informative information of living people.

If you can please be more clear in regards to COI. I wish to avoid making the same mistakes.-SJR2008 —Preceding unsigned comment removed by HollywoodFan1 (talk from User and placed under talk • contribs) 22:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

A conflict of interest is caused by the actions of an editor. Using Michael Jordan as an example; Michael Jordan, his publicist or another related party should not create an article about him. They should carefully follow the COI guidelines if they are to edit an article about him. If an unrelated person were to create or edit an article about Michael Jordan there would be no conflict of interest issues. BlueAzure (talk) 03:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello BlueAzure. HollywoodFan1 has asked for the case on Metaphor Entertainment to be closed, at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. You are welcome to add your views there. In particular, if you want the case kept open, please explain what steps you are requesting. EdJohnston (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I have responded at the Conflict on interest noticeboard. BlueAzure (talk) 03:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello BlueAzure, you opened a COI complaint against me and there has been a lot of activity since your last post. I think it's important to complete what you start. Please review and take the appropriate steps to clean up your complaint. Or at the very least step up to the plate and tell us why you won't.HollywoodFan1 (talk) 20:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I have responded at the Conflict on interest noticeboard. BlueAzure (talk) 03:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello BlueAzure. If you have any further comments to add to the WP:COIN report, it is still open. Otherwise it may be archived. EdJohnston (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

I have filed a request for arbitration which involves you. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.HollywoodFan1 (talk) 20:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC).HollywoodFan1 (talk) 20:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I have responded at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#BlueAzure. BlueAzure (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

SSP

See Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Archive/January_2008#User:MetaphorEnt. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Tagging Lindsay MacFarland for further review

Hello, BlueAzure … I recently encountered the article about Lindsay MacFarland and in my opinion, it either lacks sufficient Attribution that it satisfies the Notability criteria for Biographies, or it may violate the Conflict of interest guideline, or perhaps it violates a copyright.

I am considering tagging Lindsay MacFarland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for deletion according to the Deletion policy … I do not have time to examine the article in depth at the moment, and it may improve over time, in which case this warning was premature.

I have created this initial entry on your Talk page because you are either the original author of the article, or else a recent contributor to it; I will leave more detailed information regarding my specific concerns about the article on its Discussion page … please respond either there or on this Talk page, instead of on my Talk page, in order to avoid fragmenting the conversation.

I do not mean to imply that your contribution is unappreciated … perhaps you should read Your first article … and remember, there was a time when I knew less about how Wikipedia works than you know right now, and I am always available to help you become a more proactive contributor. —72.75.72.63 (talk) 04:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

User:BlueAzure will be charmed to hear that he is now considered the defender of the Lindsay MacFarland article. If you have the patience to learn the background, there is a gigantic thread over at WP:COIN#MetaphorEnt that explains things. EdJohnston (talk) 05:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Lindsay MacFarland redux

Hello, BlueAzure ... we seem to be tracking the same articles that all have Image:Brien Perry Elle Travis2.jpg in common:

• Brien Perry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Elle Travis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Lindsay MacFarland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

At the risk of violating WP:CANVAS, perhaps you would care to add a {{Prod-2}} to the Lindsay MacFarland article? ... I've already weighed in at the AfDs for the other two. :-) Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 21:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

<Sigh!> Some Other Editor removed the seconded PROD from this article ... would you be willing to list it for AfD along with those other COI artycles? (I'd rather not have to come out of the closet to do it. :-) Thnx! —72.75.72.63 (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As I previously stated in the COI case thread, I felt that Lindsay MacFarland was notable, if just barely, so I would not nominate it for deletion right now. Since you left your message, a probable meatpuppet of the company behind the COI has added references to the article. I placed a message on the talk page of the article detailing the issues with the references added. Unless they provide some better references, I will nominate the article for deletion based on the fact that there is not enough reliable source material to make an article. BlueAzure (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thnx ... as long as I know that Some Other Editor has it on their radar, I can just MOVE ON ... Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 19:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Lindsay MacFarland article

Hi, BlueAzure! I am Lindsay MacFarland. I was not the original creator of this article, but I did make some random edits to it once, and you strongly urged me against it. So, I don't want to cross that line that might be considered a conflict of interest. However, I was wondering if you could help bring this article up to meet the Wikipedia guidelines? Not that I haven't sincerely appreciated all of the help from previous editors, but I believe that you are the only one amongst them that has the Wikipedia knowledge to properly source it. I can help find sources, and send them to you, if you'd like. Please let me know. Thanks in advance... -Lindsay ;-) Linzmac78 (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I am going to nominate the article for deletion unless you can provide one of two things. A published secondary source article discussing your acting career which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the you. An example of what this would be is http://www.jewishexponent.com/article/13356/, the article does not need to be available on the internet. Or, reliable source review(s) of your performance in A Lot Like Love and or Lucky You. If you can provide one of those, any other reliable source material you can provide could be used to add information to the article. Please post the sources on the talk page of the article. BlueAzure (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

<Sigh!> Thnx fer taking this to AfD ... I've voiced my opinion there. —72.75.72.63 (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Request that article Larry Mullins be removed

Hey Kids:

Stop the presses. This is an amazing ball of confusion. One of my employees (RentraBar) thought it was a neat idea to do an article about his boss. I saw it, and I added a couple of pictures, info about my achievements etc. And Blue Azure, you're right.. I did not read your rules about who can send what etc. Wasn't my idea guy.

I also saw the request for verifications etc. Again, trying to assist, I thought that I did that with the GFDL update page. Plus, if someone takes a picture of you out on a story or at a party or whatever with your camera, how does that make the picture the property of the fella who clicked it? It's not even a "good" picture :) ...

I also sent you articles and actual video's from my former employers website, clearly confirming that "I am who I am". I'm not so sure how else to confirm or verify, outside sending you a check stub or maybe my w-2? Don't mean to be facetious, but all this for a community info site with a multitude of editors? Also, certain photo's were attributed to my former employer (though reading your road rules after the fact I realize that it still has to be a written permit).

Anyway, sorry Blue Azure; I thought it might be fun to contribute to this since somebody started it.

And as for my awards, I don't have anything except pictures of the awards ceremony, the program etc. How otherwise do you prove an award? How did everyone else who received an award prove it? Perhaps I could track down ABC's John Quinones, who presented one of the 6 awards that I received over my career to send a letter. See guys, not all awards have electronic/internet validation. Heck, we didn't even have the internet back in the early 80's and 90's like we have now. I think my mom might have taken a picture that I could send you ;).

Seriously though, Blue Azure your comments seem so negative, almost like you're trashing me. For example, your reference to "probably a regional Emmy". Well there is no "probably"; they were listed as Regional Emmy's in the article. And FYI, my tenure at NBC, including its owned and operated station was more than 10 years collectively, but only 2 as a National Correspondent/Producer.

I'm not sure how all this is supposed to work. It's very confusing on even "how" to respond; there is no TYPE IN YOUR MESSAGE, CLICK SEND format here. So I never know who/where these notes are going to.

All this to say, with all the confusion, you don't have to nominate it or pitch it or suggest it for deletion. I am REQUESTING that you end the confusion and delete it. Period.

Like I said, one of my guys thought it was a neat idea, seeing all the other articles which appear involving folks who haven't amassed anywhere near my achievements. He thought it might be a neat little tribute. But I don't need to do this to validate me. I would rather it be removed immediately.

And I wish you well.Rentrabar (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I have PRODed the article, barring any objections the article will deleted in approximately five days. BlueAzure (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I seconded the PROD. —72.75.72.63 (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Additional Larry Mullins request

Also Blue Azure, I tried to remove this article myself, but your Spybot or Robot or something Bot put it back? How do I remove my information from you guys? What's really weird,the author just pointed out, is that the information you're requesting be verified (My job, my company, etc.)...if you Googled me, it's all right there...on NBC's website, on Gogo mag's website...on the BBC...on Cuellar Video??? I don't think it was possible for me to "sneak" on the air and pretend that I was a reporter. Brokaw might have noticed, not to mention 6-million viewers you reckon? :). Just joshin'... this Wikepedia thing is funny. Good luck friend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rentrabar (talk • contribs) 18:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

peer review

I was wondering if you could take some time out of your schedule to head over to the Heroes (TV series) talkpage and give us an honest peer review. The page has gone through some major changes in the last few months, and it would be fantastic if a prominent editor/contributor like yourself, could head over and give us at the Heroes Wikiproject some sound opinion and ideas on improvements for the page. We have all worked very hard at improving the page, and we need great outside, reliable and trustworthy users to come over and help us improve. I you are interested in joining the peer review discussion with other prominent users/contributors, much like yourself, please follow the link. Thank you very much for your help and your continued effort to improve Wikipedia and its quality! Wikipedia:Peer review/Heroes (TV series)/archive2--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 04:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jsb394

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Great job on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jsb394. It's been obvious to me from the the time that User: Mosquito0016 appeared that they were socks, but your diligence in identifying Austin Bonner, seems to be the key piece of evidence to press the case. Nicely done! Toddst1 (talk) 05:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. BlueAzure (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for improving my citations

Thanks for improving the citations that I added to the Mills page. Espertus (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

RE:R. J. Danvers

Hi there. Well, consensus was to keep, as I was leaning towards that too; however, you're right that there are no sources confirming his appearance in the movie. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 19:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that WP:PORNBIO was satisfied; specifically, he starred in a blockbuster feature, acknowledged by those awards the film won and also because there are a few sources stating his participation in the film. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 22:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

fredrwewick

There was a mistake on the fredreweck image.It was supposed to be licensed as fair use .How do I cahnge it now ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roaring Siren (talk • contribs) 16:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The image appears to be replaceable, so I don't think it can be used under fair use. If you think it can, replace the current information on the image page with a fair use rationale. BlueAzure (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

More suspect images from New Rochelle

See Special:Contributions/JONJON78 -- the images uploaded are obviously not "self-made" as claimed, but I'm not sure how they should be handled. Note that I also added this user to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (2nd). --Orlady (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I've taken care of the images. BlueAzure (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability of sources (CNN's Young People Who Rock)

You have deleted numerous uses of CNN stories on individuals as 'non-notable' press coverage. I question these deletions, and would like more of an explanation for your rationale before I amend and update the references. First, however, allow me to state the reasons, under Wiki policy, that these references are at least arguably notable and deserve further consideration, if not outright inclusion.
(please note that I have copied a large section of the WP:N guidelines to this discussion page to facilitate our discussion--apologies for making such a long posting)

The WP:N guidelines are for topics rather than individual references and coverage. While I believe that these notability standards are therefore MORE STRINGENT than is required, the Young People Who Rock coverage meets this additional, heightened standard. Indeed, according to the notability standards, "Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles (with the exception of lists of people). The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines ; instead, article content is governed by other policies and guidelines, such as the policy requiring Verifiability and the guidelines covering the use of reliable sources and of trivia sections." (emphasis ADDED)

According to the WP:N guidelines: (numbering added for discussion purposes)

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.

• "(1) Presumed" means objective evidence meets the criterion, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors. Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable.
• "(2) Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.
• "(3) Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
• "(4) Sources," defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.
• "(5) Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.

A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article.

(begin discussion)
As stated in the footnotes, "Non-notability is a rebuttable presumption." If it can be shown that the material (in this case the articles from Young People Who Rock) meet these criteria, then they ARE notable.
(1) Under the Wikipedia:Reliable sources standard: "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market," where CNN ('fair and balanced' concerns notwithstanding) qualifies. While this may not, by itself, establish the notability of the TOPIC, it is relevant and, if it follows the other precepts, be notable for the purposes of sourcing and reference.
(2) These sources constitute significant coverage in that the entire article (and accompanying video interview) is focused on the TOPIC. I don't thinking watching a five minute interview constitutes a requirement of original research.
(3)-(4) I believe we can take CNN as a reliable source, per discussion at (1) and any browsing of a significant portion of wiki articles.
(5) The articles are independent of the subject

I look forward to your response. Regards, Bullcat99 (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not a listing of non-notable press appearances. In this case, it was already decided that Young People Who Rock is non-notable as its article was deleted at AfD for lack of notability. Whether or not those blog entries are otherwise a reliable source, they are not a reliable source for what they were being used to cite. They were being used to cite that a person or group appeared on the blog, making them a primary source. Reliable sources have to be from a third-party, for example if article was written about the fact the person or group appeared on the blog. BlueAzure (talk) 23:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The press appearance are not non-notable. I'm glad you are continuing to use the standards of a topic as the standards from press inclusion and choosing to ignore that, per notability guidelines and BIO guidelines, information from reliable sources that is on point and independent IS notable in these instances. The blog entries are not being used to suggest that the source itself is worthy of its own topic--they are put into topics about subjects that they directly featured and provide more information about. They were not being "used to cite that a person or group appeared on the blog"--they are links to actual video interviews of these inviduals. They are primary, reliable sources. I need a secondary source to mention that, say, the New York Times ran an interview with George Michael? I think any objective Wikipedian would much prefer--demand, in fact--that rather than a secondary reference to a primary source, I provide the primary source. In these cases, Young People Who Rock--a series that is on the CNN Networks--featured an interview with the person they are linked to. You can see the videos for yourself. As an example, see the use under the reference section for Michael Sessions. Watch the video.

This clearly meets the Wiki standards laid out in WP:EL, namely under the section of "What Should Be Linked" : "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues , amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts , or online textbooks) or other reasons. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.

Not only does the CONTENT meet the formal Wikipedia guidelines for linking and notability of sourcing, it also adds a fair amount of insight to the articles and makes them richer. Wouldn't it be great if all Wikipedia biographies actually had links to video footage and intervies with the subjects carried out by a professional news organization? Again, I ask you to please justify and engage, beyond what you have said in terms of Young People Who Rock not, itself, being notable enough for its own topic.

Regards, Bullcat99 (talk) 00:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

PS, on a second reading of your response, it appears we may be talking past one another. Please view my external reference linking under the Michael Sessions topic. This would be the style I would recommend for the other references. Is your objection to the manner in which the previous links were inserted? My suggestion and rationale are meant to support the format used in the Sessions topic. Bullcat99 (talk) 00:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That would not be appropriate, as articles should generally not have a list of references as the Michael Sessions article does. Also, number 3 of the How not to be a spammer of WP:SPAM states that "The References section of a Wikipedia article isn't just a list of related works; it is specifically the list of works used as sources." It is considered spamming, for one user, or a group of users, to insert external links from one site into a number of articles. BlueAzure (talk) 02:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Please address how your comment reflects the standards laid out in "What Should Be Linked." You would prefer it under the heading of external links? The content is meaningful and relevant. Many wiki pages use a similar format (some call it external links). see, for example [Jon Stewart]. If I go around adding IMDB references to actors that would make me a spammer? Bullcat99 (talk) 03:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

External links and a list of references are two different things. We have a template for IMDB, so it seems that is considered an appropriate link and not spam. What you are proposing is considered spamming and it will be reverted. BlueAzure (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

What am I proposing is considered spamming by who? Your interpretation of the guidelines leads you to one conclusion, mine leads to a different one. I am more than happy to differ to the judgment of seasoned wiki moderators as to the relevance of the links and what they add to particular pages. Your tone is quite confrontational, and frankly unnecessary. I am sorry that you disagree with my interpretation of the wiki guidelines. I am also sorry that you have taken it upon yourself to impose your view of the guidelines on my edits. Let's get a third-party in here, since we seem to be unable to come to a consensus. Bullcat99 (talk) 04:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No amount of WP:wikilawyering by you is going to override WP:SPAM. BlueAzure (talk) 03:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

From WP:wikilawyering: "Some Wikipedians allege that the charge of wikilawyering is used, particularly by Wikipedians more influential than them, to avoid giving careful attention to their claims." There is a clear purpose to discussing controversial edits. Your edits are controversial. So are mine. That's why I choose to offer them on talk pages before making them, which is more than can be said for yours. There is clearly NOT consensus on your edits, and yet you continue to make them without discussion. This violates the spirit of wiki, and no amount of uncivil responses will change that. If you believe that your edits are so uncontroversial as to not require discussion, then submit them to a third party for verification and we'll be done with this debate. I do not claim a monopoly on consensus, and recognize the importance of the wiki process--which is to discuss articles and edits before making them. Show me where I have spammed. Find a neutral third-party reviewer to confirm it. That will be more than good enough for me.Bullcat99 (talk) 13:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

What you have done and now have continued to do is wikilawyer, it is more specifically WP:Policy shopping. Removing material about a non-notable blog that is sourced to the blog is not controversial. Wikipedia has a policy of WP:Verifiability, that requires material to verifiable by a reliable source and consensus cannot overrule that. The rest of what you are describing is not the way wikipedia works. In regards to "show me where I have spammed", you have only proposed spamming so far. Could you provide a diff where I have claimed that you have already spammed, otherwise this appears to be more wikilawyering. BlueAzure (talk) 23:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Read again what I posted at the beginning of this sub-topic. We are discussing the use of material from CNN.com for the external links sections of individuals. These are links to video interviews with the individuals. There is not a question about the verifiability of these interviews, nor is there a question about whether or not they come from a reliable source. You seem to feel they are not relevant to the individuals. That is your opinion, and relevance is something that can be looked at by consensus. I am sorry that you seem to have lost the main point for the policy. What I proposed was to include as sourcing under external links video footage/interviews with the subject of wikipedia article, as was done in the Michael Sessions article. You have said that this type of action "would be considered spamming and will be reverted." That discussion IS subject to consensus. Find me someone who does not consider CNN.com a reliable source for these articles. It is an issue to be DISCUSSED about whether or not they belong in the external links section. Don't take my word for it--we can agree to submit it to any number of dispute resolution mechanisms. Bullcat99 (talk) 03:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Your claim "Read again what I posted at the beginning of this sub-topic. We are discussing the use of material from CNN.com for the external links sections of individuals. " is not true. In your first message you brought up a series of edits I made (a few diffs [1] [2] [3]), which did not make any change to the the external links section of articles. You only mentioned amending and updating the references and made no mention of external links in that message. You only brought up external links later in the conversation as part of your policy shopping. I already explained that the references section in the Michael Sessions article is not how wikipedia articles are supposed to be. What you seem to be unable to grasp is that what you proposing is considered spamming. The rest of things you bring up are therefore irrelevant because they don't negate the fact that it is spamming. Your continued wikilawyering is not going to override WP:SPAM and it continues to reinforce the fact that your intent is to use wikipedia as a promotional tool. You still have not provided a diff where I have claimed that you have already spammed. BlueAzure (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Nicole Lapin, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);and you must always:

  4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest.

You should look at other broadcaster's pages Maria Menounos has no sourcing. You source www.debrober.com as reliable, but not CNN. Clearly you are the one with a conflict or a vendetta. Your discussion comments are unmerited. Please stop. Amberlights (talk) 04:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not reason for the Nicole Lapin article to not meet the wikipedia policy guidelines. Could you provide a diff were I ever said www.debrober.com was a reliable source and provide a diff where I ever said CNN was not a reliable source in general. I have said that not everything that is on CNN's website is reliable and that is true. BlueAzure (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Poor Citations

Veronica de La Cruz article almost no sourcing or citations since you add the tag. Candidate to be deleted?

Only one reliable source- http://islandzine.com/sections.php?i=78 Amberlights (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:Deletion policy. BlueAzure (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Finding copyvio sources

How do you find image copyvio sources? This image Image:PaulStanleyByPhilKonstantin.JPG is uploaded to the same page by the same user as one I just deleted and I am at a loss as to ho to find the true source. Can you search by pixels or something? Jeepday (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't see the deleted image, but from the name, the summary in the log, and the source listed on copyright problems page it appears to be a photo of a piece of art. That would make it a derivative work and photographer would not have right to release it into the public domain, so it should have been deleted. This photo appears to be a work of the uploader. Its high resolution, large file size, contains metadata, and according to uploader's talk page he is a reporter on a television station and that is how gets the pictures he takes. BlueAzure (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Jeepday (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Tao Hsieh Wu Shu

I have recently had the Tao HSieh Wu Shu page suspended for Copyright infringement. I have th permission of Master Joel Geniesse Creator of the style and the Shihon Council of Toa Hsieh Wu Shu. I will have a link on warriors-for-christ.com to the wiki as well as permission for Wiki to post and use said info. I also can have written permission e-mailed to Wiki with in the week. Ggama (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Permission on the original website will be enough, though an email is also acceptable. I have left a message at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2008_April_26/Articles, indicating that permission is forthcoming. BlueAzure (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Permission is now given on warroirs for chirst webpage thanks for working with me. It took longer to get the permission posted than anticipated and the wiki was deleted so I have re posted it from my user pages.

Ggama (talk) 11:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

New Commons contributor with images of New Rochelle

Have you run across KatieGrinn's work yet? FYI, that user name is on the latest request I posted at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jvolkblum. --Orlady (talk) 01:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The accounts at the Commons have been blocked and most of the images were deleted. BlueAzure (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI- The images from the contributer were of the village of Larchmont, NY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.126.210.127 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Natural Balance logo 2.jpg

I would personally argue that a picture of the packaging, in this case, could potentially offer a little more than a picture of the product. If, on the article talk page, you dermine that the picture of the packaging is not needed, and replace it with a picture of the product, you can remove the image and tag it as orphaned fair use. The image was still being used in the article at the time I came to delete it. J Milburn (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say this was an issue to decide on the article talk page. Determine whether the image is needed and, if it isn't, remove it and it can be deleted as being unused and non-free. J Milburn (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my assertion that your opinion would seem a little more valid if consensus could be reached to remove the image from the article, but IfD is not my arena, so I am sure another admin will deal with it. J Milburn (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm familiar with the fair use criteria, I just don't want to look into the issue in detail. I'm sure the IfD will come to a satisfactory conclusion. J Milburn (talk) 22:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The Rise and Fall of Chernobyl album cover

Ummm actually the album quite exists, I just haven't released it to the public yet but that changed today with The Day After's music video. If you don't believe me, go here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqITBR4A0g8 And if you REEEEEEALLY want to fight about it, then I can release plenty of other MP3s that are finished so far, so don't make me laugh. Corlen (talk)

Request

Jvolkblum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been banned. If you need any other help, you know where to ask. Regards, Rudget (Help?) 10:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. BlueAzure (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Adminship

Hey .After looking through your edits and talk page, you seem like a very competent user. We always need more image admins and ones that tackle other areas you look at. As a result, I was wondering if you'd like to try for adminship at WP:RFA, where's I'd gladly nominate you. Let me know of your decision. Wizardman 17:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the offer, but I am not interested in being an admin. BlueAzure (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Let us know if you change your mind. EdJohnston (talk) 17:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Redirection of your userpage

Hi there! I noticed that your userpage was blank, so I checked the history, and it appeared to have been created in error. I also noticed that all relevant information on that page was redirected to this talk page, so I took the liberty WP:BB to redirect your userpage to your user talk page. Hope you don't mind. Cheers, Razorflame 21:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It was created in error, but I prefer the page stay unredirected. BlueAzure (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

All right. No problems! Let me know if you need anything! Cheers, Razorflame 21:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. BlueAzure (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Castle, New Rochelle (including South Side, New Rochelle)

Two articles related to areas you have been involved in editing, Castle, New Rochelle, have been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Castle, New Rochelle. Thank you. --Orlady (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

New user

User:BonChicBonGauche, who registered at 09:36 on 3 June, looks familiar and is working in familiar surroundings, but I don't see anything solid. --Orlady (talk) 00:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Fawaz Gerges Article

Good afternoon. I am very new at this, but extremely interested in particpating in this wonderful process.

Can you help me understand why my edits and updates to the Fawaz Gerges article were nullified? I see there was an issue with the ownership of the photo...this was supplied by the subject via his website with authorization.

Since this is my first major contribution, I would like to understand how my work can be restored and how I might correct any issues with it.

Your patience and kind consideration is appreciated.

Jdudemill (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

As stated in the edit summary of my reversion of your edits to Fawaz Gerges, the material you added was in large part a copyvio of http://pages.slc.edu/~fgerges/. Text cannot be copied from other websites unless it has been released under the GFDL or released into the public domain on the original website. The photo you uploaded was deleted because the required source and license information was not provided. Because Fawaz Gerges is alive and we have a free photo of him, any of photo to used in the article would have to be released under a Free license. There is no mention that the photo has been released under a free license on his webpage. BlueAzure (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

ETF Venture Funds

Thank you for noticing the copyvio in ETF Venture Funds. I stubbed the article rather than deleting it because I suspect that the company is notable. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Parakiet image

Thanks very much for putting me straight here! The non-jpeg is deleted now. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:T'Keyah Crystal Keymáh Leading Lady Headshot Small.jpg

Hi. Regarding Image:T'Keyah Crystal Keymáh Leading Lady Headshot Small.jpg, which you deleted (and Until(1 == 2) deleted previously - see User talk:Until(1 == 2)/Archive 11#Image:T.27Keyah_Crystal_Keym.C3.A1h_Leading_Lady_Headshot_Small.jpg for details), I thought I had justified the fair use of this image. This is a crop of the subject's one and only "Leading Lady Headshot". Please reconsider your deletion decision, or at least get me a copy of any changes since I created User:Jeff G./Fair use sandbox#Image:T.27Keyah_Crystal_Keym.C3.A1h_Leading_Lady_Headshot_Small.jpg in preparation for uploading that image. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I tagged the image as being replaceable fair use, but did not delete it. Melesse (talk · contribs) is the user that deleted the image. The image cannot be used under fair use, as the subject of the photo is still alive. BlueAzure (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

User:James Conoco

G'day. This guy left me a note here asking for help in his situation. I honestly don't care to get involved without reading over the back history, and don't have the time or interest to do so. But a quick note - if he is indeed a sock of a banned user, why is he not blocked? Edits like this one (erm... I mean, the edit you made which he's reverting... and I haven't checked the content; this is just per edit summary) would only be legit (IMO) if they guy has actually been blocked - not based surely on suspicion.

Anyway, just a random drive by comment (I've no idea why he asked me for help). Deal with this whole situation as you will - good luck regardless. (If you do want to reply to this, could you please leave me a ping on my talk if you reply here - I haven't watchlisted. Thanks.) Cheers, —Giggy 08:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:New Rochelle, New York

Hello, I have had a bit of a contact with a few of User:Jvolkblum's socks. I see that he created Template:New Rochelle, New York and added it to a few articles. The aditions have been reverted, but the template has survived a speedy and it will probably survive a TFD.

Shall we just oversee that it was created by a baned user and start using it just like any other template and add it ourselves to New Rochelle articles? --Enric Naval (talk) 02:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I reverted Jvolkblum's socks addition of the template (as well as their other edits), but anyone else can add it. BlueAzure (talk) 02:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think that the template is probably useful, so, I would go and add it to the articles listed on the template, and leave it up to the editors on the articles to complain if they consider that the template does not belong to a certain article --Enric Naval (talk) 03:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I added the template to a few articles and I'll continue tomorrow if no problem happens --Enric Naval (talk) 04:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Marble Collegiate Church. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Wanna know my story?}/ _{Share yours with me!} 02:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

As the edit summary explained I was reverting a banned user, which is not vandalism. BlueAzure (talk) 02:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

That user (User:Jvolkblum) was banned because he added a lot of unsourced unverifiable detail, based on personal experiences. The edits were reverted or redacted, and he was blocked, and then he created a literal army of sockpuppets when he was blocked. This sock was repeating the same behaviour that got him blocked, so it's very justifiable to revert him and inmediately block the sock. Every once on a while I see this sort of edits from socks, and I try to rescue as much useful stuff as I can, but I could also revert them wholesome if I saw nothing useful. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

File:Ellie Tribune.jpg

"The image is a cover of Chicago Tribune magazine, it is unlikely that the unrelated SKYSHAPERS Foundation is the copyright holder and therefore can release the image under the GFDL. BlueAzure (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)"

The photo in question is available for use in this page as it was ‘news’ so it is available to be used as such. It was also published decades ago so it is now in the public domain. Also the person in the picture is the Founder of SKYSHAPERS. If this is not enough to get the pic relisted please let me know what can be done for reinclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oshburg (talk • contribs) 20:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC) Oshburg (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

None of this explains why the SKYSHAPERS Foundation would have the right to release this image under the GFDL as you claimed they had done. Under U.S. copyright law, this type of works is copyrighted for 95 following publication and therefore is not public domain at this point. The image would probably not meet the criteria for fair use. BlueAzure (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)