If you need help with something, feel free to ask. To leave a message for me, press the "new section" tab at the top of the page. Remember to sign your message with ~~~~. I will respond to all civil messages.

If you are requesting administrative help and I am not currently active, here are some other options for you:

• If you need to get a repeat vandal blocked, report them to Administrator Intervention against Vandalism.
• If you need a page to be protected from editing, use Requests for page protection.
• If you would like to request rollback rights or account creator rights, ask at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions.
• If your problem does not fit into any of the above criteria, and your issue is urgent, make a post on the Administrators' noticeboard, the Incidents noticeboard, or one of the other noticeboards.
• If you want to ask for help, you can ask at the help desk for questions about Wikipedia, and at the reference desk for more general questions. You may also simply ask a question on your talk page and add {{helpme}} before your question. This will attract the attention of experienced users who will most likely be able to help you.

Archives

Apr-–July 08 Aug–Dec 08 Jan–Apr 09 May–Aug 09 Sep–Dec 09 Jan–Apr 10 May–Jun 10 Jul–Dec 10 Jan–Apr 11 May–Oct 11 Nov–Dec 11

It appears that my husband's page has been deleted. He is a legitimate scientist who works for Yale University and is quite established in his field. I apparently made a mistake by copying content from him website onto wikipedia. Sinec I wrote the content I felt that it wasn't a copyright infringement. Aside from writing original content, what else should I avoid in the future when working on his page? Should someone other than myself author it?

18:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)Miriam Schroers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miriamschroers (talk • contribs)

Hi, Miriamschroers. The Jan Schroers page was deleted because it was created using non-free copyrighted text -- which is a violation of Wikipedia copyright policy. However, even if permission had been granted to use the text, the wording on that website would not have met our encyclopedic criteria for non-promotional and neutral point-of-view text. This is not unusual. It is a common result when an editor attempts to write about a person with whom they have a close personal relationship. It is extremely difficult to maintain a neutral voice. And is the reason we strongly discourage individuals from writing about themselves, their family or their colleagues. Please read our conflict of interest guidelines for an expanded explanation of this issue.

Should someone other than yourself write a page on your husband? In my opinion, the answer is always: yes. If someone is notable enough to pass Wikipedia's notability criteria, than someone else who is independent of them will notice and write an article. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the 10th of January you deleted a wiki called American Journal of Preventive Medicine, all of the information provided was cited and I had the permission of the publishers and the editors who hold the copyright for the Journal and all Information pertaining to the Journal. Is there something I didn't do that I could do to get the site put back up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajpmeditor (talk • contribs) 01:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ajpmeditor. The article American Journal of Preventive Medicine was deleted because it was entirely copy-pasted from this external website -- which states on the bottom of its pages: "Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved." That is a copyright violation. Please note that permission for Wikipedia to use that text can only be granted by the website which must first contact the Wikimedia Foundation OTRS office in writing. (A note was left on your talk page describing this. In particular, you may wish to review this link: Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials#Granting us permission to copy material already online.) The simple alternative is to create the page using your own original writing. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Appreciated your contribution to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visions-Partiet. Ifnord (talk) 04:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ifnord! I'm happy I was able to help there. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that my page for Clarence and the Whatnows was deleted for lack of significance, but I would like to argue that was clearly stated in the context. With the popularity of The Muppets film and the burgeoning market for Muppet products as well as volume of Muppet Whatnot performances on YouTube, the fact that Clarence and the Whatnows are the first Muppet Whatnot "band" is significant.

It is just a matter of time before others mimic the idea of creating their own Muppet bands and it is my intention to document Clarence and the Whatnows as the original.

I am just curious what additional content would need to be provided to further legitimize the content of the page I submitted.

Thank you.

Ajkuehn (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ajkuen. The significance -- and subsequent notability -- of a topic is determined by the substantial coverage it receives in independent reliable sources (e.g., books, peer-reviewed journals, national newspapers and magazines, national television reviews, etc.). YouTube is composed of user-submitted content without editorial review. Of itself, it is not an independent reliable source. Please read Reliable Sources to learn the types of references required by an encyclopedia. Also, please note that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Regards. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, can you please bring back up my page "WealthTrust-Arizona"? You deleted it because it violated "A7" (No explanation of the subject's significance) and I'd like to see about revising it so that it can be published. Ibulnes (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. I have placed a copy of the article for you to work on at User:Ibulnes/WealthTrust-Arizona. Good luck with you editing. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incompetence rather than malice I'm afraid. I saw an obvious unreffed blp text-dumped from who knows where, failed to actually read the history. I've restored now. My apologies, I never deliberately reverse another admin's actions Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am Jeremy S.L.Shuler. Just because it's from an unfinished series plan does not mean that it is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JErEmY sHuLeR (talk • contribs) 05:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted because there was no context to identify it. Please read Wikipedia:Your first article before creating another page. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 05:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why you removed the Sandbox version? I know I named it wrong... shouldn't be under talk. Bgwhite (talk) 07:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bgwhite. I was just writing a note to you on your talk page -- but I'll reply here. I realize that you were only trying to be helpful when you created User_talk:Dborase/Sandbox with a copy of their soon-to-be-deleted copyvio article. However, Wikipedia does not allow incompatible copyrighted text anywhere -- that includes user pages, talk pages and sandboxes. Copying the text to a sandbox is actually a violation of our copyright policy. Therefore, it was necessary for me to speedy delete the sandbox. If a user wishes to recreate an article deleted as a copyright violation, than they must start from scratch. I just wanted you to know. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 07:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't know. Thank you for the explanation. Bgwhite (talk) 07:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. :) — CactusWriter ^(talk) 07:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear CactusWriter,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cactus Writer, I created the article about Sneh Chakraburtty and it has been delated because of the copyrights. When I received the warning, I sent an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org to request the permission to use the content of a website and I sent another email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org to request the permission to use a photo. If the wikipedia's team agrees, will I be able to recreate the article about the author? Regards, RachelGB — Preceding unsigned comment added by RachelGB (talk • contribs) 12:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, RachelGB. Yes, once the permission to use the text has been approved by Wikimedia's OTRS office than you will be notified and the text will be free to use. (However, please remember that an article -- especially a biography of a living person -- will still need other reliable sources independent of the subject to verify the text. Otherwise it may not pass Wikipedia's criteria for WP:BLPs and WP:V.) Good luck with your editing. And thanks for following our copyright practices. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you CactusWriter for your answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RachelGB (talk • contribs) 09:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted this page 2/9/2012 citing that the article doesn't no mention significance of real person, although the article clearly does state that his importance, given that he is a prominent leader in the youth section of the Syrian American Council, in particular given the prominence of the current Syrian crisis in world news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roamingkurd (talk • contribs) 20:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Roamingkurd. The criteria is that there must be a credible assertion of significance. None of the links on the page supported any assertion of significance to this person. (Note that user-uploaded YouTube videos are not a reliable source nor provide any significance.) If you wish to improve the article by adding independent reliable sources which discuss this person, I can temporarily recreate it in your user space. Otherwise you may wish to use WP:Articles for creation. Regards. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please. I will continue to add more sources. Please note however, the youtube video does display the person in question in fact leading a rally as stated in the entry and I don't see anything there that casts doubt on its legitimacy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Roamingkurd (talk • contribs) 21:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. The article has been moved to User:Roamingkurd/Ali Muhyaldeen Dia. Please read reliable sources -- YouTube does not qualify as a reliable source for encyclopedic information, nor is that video about this individual. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Will continue to work on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roamingkurd (talk • contribs) 22:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore this page until consensus is reached on it's deletion. 108.82.190.79 (talk) 02:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but a consensus was reached at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Dia (Syrian-American) (not even including the three separate editors who previously requested deletion per speedy deletion, prod and prod endorsement). If you disagree with the decision, than you are welcome to state your case at WP:DRV. Regards. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 05:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CactusWriter,

A few weeks ago you speedily deleted my wiki entry on the North London Self-Employed Lunch Club (NLSELC). I'd like to have another go, this time making the notability of the NLSELC more obvious and including references to press coverage. Would this be acceptable to you? I hope that I can avoid speedy deletion this time! Chd27 (talk) 11:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Chd27. A temporary copy of the article has been placed at User:Chd27/North London Self-Employed Lunch Club. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CactusWriter. Thanks for allowing me to make some changes to the page. I've now made the edits and saved the changes on the user page that you created for me. What is the next step - how do I go about putting the page back up on wikipedia? Thanks again for your help. Chd27 (talk) 11:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chd27, I'm sorry but I have been busy and have had little time to advise you on your article. I have moved it to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/North London Self-Employed Lunch Club where other editors will review it and leave notes on anything the article lacks. I did look at it briefly and can say that it is not ready for Wikipedia mainspace. The article currently does not address notability -- it lacks any independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the subject (e.g., magazine or newspaper articles that are independent of the club or its members and describes/discusses the club in significant depth.) As well, any names must be referenced to quality sources, otherwise it is a violation of WP:BLP. I think other editors will give you some needed guidance on this once the article is reviewed. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of the promoters of the product comparison site Snoffer.com . I created the wikipedia page for the same but it has been deleted. Please help me with the changes and steps to be taken care of to ensure the page is restored, because as far as infringement of copyright is concerned, there is none. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apoorvishu (talk • contribs) 19:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Apoorvishnu. The Snoffer article was deleted for copyright violation because I confirmed that it was a direct copy-paste of http://www.snoffer.com/ -- and as such it required immediate removal from Wikipedia. The article was also tagged for WP:A7 speedy deletion because there was "no credible assertion of significance". (IMO, my review and a quick online search also supported that.) I encourage you to read WP:SPAMMER -- in particular, Wikipedia is not a space for personal promotion or the promotion of products, services, web sites, fandoms, ideologies, or other memes. If you are here to tell readers how great something is, or to get exposure for an idea or product that nobody has heard of yet, you are in the wrong place. If you wish another opinion on the deletion of your page, than you are welcome to request one at Deletion Review. If you have further questions, please ask. Regards. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This company is relativley new so theres not much, dirt on there shoes yet(g11), so theres really any negative taint to it.And to address "a7" it may not be important to you as youre not a local croftoner, but people who live in the area where the company covers may want to learn more about it, and whether or not mr.trevor is trust-worthy, and could do so by looking at a biography section i was hoping to add.(I have no sources as i am the parent of 1 being tutored so i am the source) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor0000001 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Editor0000001. I am sorry, but your comments only confirm the page was properly deleted per both WP:A7 and WP:G11. To pass Wikipedia G11 criteria does not require that there be negative information included -- it requires that the information provided is written neutrally and non-promotionally. (This typically will mean coverage by outside reliable published sources). The article also does not make any credible assertion of significance. Please realize that this is not a reflection of the quality of the company. There are millions of local businesses which provide good services, but this does not qualify them for encyclopedic articles -- particularly in the case of "relatively new" businesses without significant coverage in independent sources which describe their importance. I would also suggest you read Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest. If you have further questions, please feel free to ask. Regards. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help, if we get mentioned in our local news paper or something like that, and were more developed, i'll come back and put it in the experimental pages section(or whatever it is) thanks again. editor0000001 96.244.253.105 (talk) 03:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)editor0000001[reply]

No problem. (It's Articles for creation). Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello CactusWriter. I noticed you deleted the living person article for Charles Kelley Stevenson citing A7. I am uncertain if you read the talk page associated with the article. The talk page clearly enumerated evidence showing that A7 does not apply to the article. The talk page proved this case with more than sufficient evidence citing Wikipedia's own guidelines. Of primary significance in regard to A7 that the subject "has received coverage of any kind in possibly reliable sources" User:SoWhy/Common_A7_mistakes Your deletion under A7 is unsubstantiated. Examine the wording, "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." Please revert your deletion since the article does not violate A7 and had numerous credible claims of significance and importance from books cataloged in the Library of Congress and industry recognized websites. Corezion (talk) 23:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Corezion. Yes, I did read your talk page comment and looked at every outside source you added there as well as on the article page. However, the key issue here is credible claim of importance -- and I found neither the page nor your statement to substantiate it. In fact, IMO, the article reads like a promotional autobiography. I strongly suggest that you read our Wikipedia guidelines on conflict of interest and autobiography. We welcome and encourage new editors to edit in their area of interest -- however, self-promotional writing violates the primary function of the encyclopedia. If you have further questions, please ask. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CactusWriter. Thanks for responding and for your efforts to maintain Wikipedia's excellence. After reading the guidelines on conflict of interest and autobiography and reflecting on my own intention for creating the article I feel somewhat snubbed and at the same time humbled. I'm undecided as to what action to take. The first seems, and I imagine this is your hope, that I would accept your decision and completely let go of the article. A second seems to be requesting the article for Deletion Review. I'm assuming you see no merit in the article. Your mention of promotional autobiography and conflict of interest seem tangential to credibility with respect to the noteworthiness of the article. Not withstanding the published book reference performing a Google Search for "'Charles Stevenson' + Exploit" and teasing out the false positives yields thousands of independent references including multiple in the CVE® database which is "international in scope." Another is an article in The Register (UK). And those references only cover a portion of the full article. The article can be objectively edited to remove traces of bias. Is there any room for compromise? Am I wasting your time and being selfish? Corezion (talk) 06:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Corezion. Your not wasting my time. I am only one editor -- and a single editor's decision on Wikipedia is never final (nor necessarily correct), so I have no problem with a deletion review discussion. I'll restore the article and open it up for discussion so that other editors can weigh in. This will also give you a chance to provide a claims of significance and notability. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, CactusWriter! Corezion (talk) 03:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! We both use en.wiki more than Commons, so I'm leaving this message here.

I have contested the speedy deletion of File:Karen M. Spence.jpg from Commons. I'm asking the question on Kmhistory's behalf of how she can document that she owns the image. One would assume that, by uploading the image to Commons, she has made it available under a free license. Do you know what the Commons process is that parallels OTRS? —C.Fred (talk) 01:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, C.Fred. That's fine if you wish to contest the deletion. OTRS is a Wikimedia Foundation office, so it covers all of the various individual wikis. The process is outlined at WP:Donating copyrighted materials#Granting us permission to copy material already online. I have left a message for the uploader on the file talk page. Good luck. — CactusWriter ^(talk)

Hello,

I'm distressed and confused by finding this new entry (Group (Film) deleted. I don't understand. Would you be kind enough to explain the problem to me? I am new to authoring on Wikipedia, and I tried carefully to abide by the guidelines. I didn't actually submit, or "move" the site from Sandbox. But, I was happy to see it had been moved, only to discover today, the whole thing is deleted. That's upsetting in part, because of the time spent constructing the wiki page. Is that lost now that you've deleted it, or can you restore it to my Sandbox?

I look forward to your response. Having never left a message like this on wikipedia, I hope I do it, and sign it, correctly - and will leave an email address with you for backup.

174.31.214.32 (talk) 23:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)zaiquezaique[reply]

aka marilyn@wovie.com

Hi, ZaiqueZaique. The article was deleted per our WP:G12 criteria as a foundational copyright violation. For example, the entire synopsis was plagiarized from this press release. Additionally, The entire review section consisted of large swaths of text copied from the Village Voice, TV Guide and the New York Daily News. Although you attributed the text -- (which was the right and necessary thing to do) -- that did not bring the text into fair use, because the proportional quantity of text used compared to the original was far too large. We cannot permit copyright violations to exist anywhere on Wikipedia, therefore I cannot restore the article to your sandbox. However, if you wish, I can create a sandbox with the small portion which is not a copyvio. The coverage in newspapers certainly establishes the film's notability. However, I suggest you write the entire article in original language. You also can review the manual of style for films for a idea on presentation. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - Wow, I messed up all sorts of stuff! Yes, please do put an edited, nonvio version in a/my Sandbox, and I'll rewrite it all. I used copy from the press release because I'd written the press release! Didn't think of that as a violation. I'm happy to review the manual of style for films and write original material about the project. Thanks for your patience and help with all this. 192.211.18.163 (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)ZaiqueZaique[reply]

 Done -- the article (without copyvio text) can be found at User:ZaiqueZaique/Sandbox. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CactusWriter. I believe that this is an unwarrented speedy deletion. The article Elijah juckett IMO does not fall under A7. It did indicate the person's role in colonial Connecticut, and while it was just a stub it was cited. Would you please restore it? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Markvs88. IMO the article did meet the criteria for A7 speedy deletion -- there was no assertion of significance -- in that it essentially stated he was one of about 100,000 individuals who participated in the American Revolutionary War and received a pension. However, it has already been recreated at Elijah Juckett. I won't tag it myself, but instead will leave it for others to decide. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again CW. I can understand your position, but I still feel that speedy delete shouldn't be used articles that are cited and obviously not vandalistic in nature. Anyway, I'm glad it's back and appreciate your not tagging it. Hopefully some more research will improve it as well. Thanks & Best, Markvs88 (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think everything had to be removed. Can't we keep the stuff that we learned about them from the show itself? Such as how old they are, the fact that Maddie & Mackenzie or Brooke & Paige are sister, the types of dance that they each excel at, how long they've been dancing at the studio, etc. Minor things like that. Things like what schools they are attending was never mentioned during the show so that's why I removed them but don't see why all of it has to go. For An Angel (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed everything so that thought be given to building those sections in an encyclopedic manner. Because as written, it was unsourced fancruft. I agree with you that the ages and sibling relationships is useful. The bios as presented on the official website can be cited -- otherwise information will have to come from other sources. For example, examine the way the featured article The Apprentice (UK TV series) handles cast members. (See "The Board" section) Each person has a mini-biography, written in an encyclopedic style, with in-line citations from independent reliable sources. I think reality shows like seasons of American Idol can be also be followed for style. What we must remember is that Wikipedia is not a fan website -- and fan-type trivia about 'who hates who', or 'who likes what' is inappropriate, especially when written in non-neutral POV style. The bottom-line is that these mini-bios need to conform to our standards for BLP. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never argued for the inclusion of fancruft of trivia. I asked why the show itself can't be used as a reference. Looking at the article that you suggested. "The Apprentice", one of the member's minibio looks like this:

• Karren Brady is best known for being the former managing director of Birmingham City Football Club. She was appointed in March 1993,^[1] when only 23 years old. She was responsible for the company's flotation in 1997, thus becoming the youngest managing director of a British plc. In 2007, Brady took part in Comic Relief Does The Apprentice where she was chosen as a team leader and took the women to victory, raising over £1,000,000 for charity. She has since made recurring appearances on The Apprentice's sister show, You're Fired!. In January 2010 she was appointed vice-chairman of West Ham United following a change of ownership of the club.

The only thing that is sourced in there is a date. I'm assuming the rest of the information was taken from the actual episodes themselves. I don't understand why the same thing can't be done with this show. For An Angel (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the sources for information in that minibio can be found in the article Karren Brady. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually most what is mentioned in her minibio is not referenced in her article, unless they're all in the wrong place. Some of the info in her minibio is not even mentioned in her article. For An Angel (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, For An Angel. I see your difficulty now -- you are pointing out the one name on The Apprentice (UK TV series) added after the FA review, thus it did not have in-line citations. Fortunately for us, the information there is easily referenced when challenged. Even this single independent reliable source suffices. But I have now added five others. The point is that the information of the cast names is treated as a small biography -- all the information is referenced to quality reliable sources per WP:BLP guidelines. Any information that occurs within a particular episode can be added to the synopses of that episode -- using the episode as a direct source. However, the cast bios must meet BLP. For example, you ask if it is proper to include the children's ages. IMO, it is not -- ages are time dependent and the person may not be that age when the article is written nor at a particular point during the year or thereafter. Therefore, birth dates are fine, but ages are not -- and birth dates should be sourced to a quality independent source. The official website can work as a valid reference. However, information should be restricted to the relevant encyclopedic facts, adhering to neutral point-of-view and verifiability. I hope this helps clarify things. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You keep repeating the same things over and over again but you keep avoiding my one basic question. I'm asking if it's okay to include in their minibios any information about the dancers or the moms that we learned from the show, as long as that information is relevant and encyclopedic. I know the official website can work as a valid reference and you have a point about how including their birthday rather than their ages is more appropriate because ages are time sensitive. But if, for example, one of their birthdays was mentioned in one of the episodes but it's not mentioned anywhere on the official website, can we still use the show as a reference? I'm only using birthdays as an example of one of the kinds of information we can mention about them. Others include: family relationships, the types of dance that they each excel at, how long they've been with the studio, etc. All of which is mentioned on the show all the time but might be difficult to find an online source for. I understand the need to have things referenced in BLP articles and the importance for adhering to NPOV and V. But if you reread my posts you'll see that my only question from the beginning has been if it's okay to use the show as a reference for that information. For An Angel (talk) 03:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, it is not okay to use information from a reality television show as a reliable source for a BLP -- this is because reality shows are notoriously unreal. (See articles on the subject like [1], [2], [3], [4].) Information and facts are manipulated and/or scripted for dramatic effect. The line between truth and fiction is blurred. And reality show participants are required to sign legal contracts stipulating that they will not reveal anything about how a show has manipulated events or facts. Therefore, I think we step onto a slippery slope when using an episode to reference anything other than information about that particular episode -- because it is difficult to determine whether something is true or not without relying on an outside independent reliable source, as required by WP:V. OTOH, I can understand referencing some simple facts like full names, hometowns and family relationships, although I expect that information can be sourced to the official website. I think your question is an important one -- and, as far as I know, Wikipedia has not established a hard and fast rule on sourcing factual information to a "reality" show other than to take it on a case-by-case basis. I think it would be a good idea for us to open this discussion for opinion from editors at WP:RSN and WP:BLPN. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a hard time understanding why there's such a big difference. For example, in one episode of Dance Moms one of the dancers broke her ankle on stage and had to be rushed to the hospital. You're basically saying that it would be okay to say "so-and-so broke her ankle during a performance and was rushed to the hospital" in the the episode summary section, but in that same dancer's minibio section of the article, we can't say, "In episode whatever, so-and-so broke her ankle and had to be rushed to the hospital". It's the same basic information, just in a different place in the article. Yet one is allowed and the other is not. I don't get it. For An Angel (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The television show as presented to an audience is a construct -- that is, it is not necessarily factual nor reality -- therefore it should follow our MOS guidelines for writing about television shows and other in-universe subjects. However, cast bios should not contain in-universe information, but rather follow BLP standards. I'll ask another editor who has some experience on the RS noticeboard to point us in the direction of previous discussions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Doug! The BLP quote and link to the Big Brother discussion helps a lot. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@For an Angel, the link that Dougweller provides is a discussion about the use of the Big Brother TV show as a reliable source for cast info. In essence, it covers the same ground we have talked about -- that BLP information like cast information should use reliable independent sources (i.e., secondary sources). I hope the comments from other editors helps clear up the confusion. If not, let me know, and we can take Doug's suggestion and open a new discussion at BLPN. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello CactusWriter,

I would appreciate your help providing wikipedia the correct copyright notice for our website. I am the website author and the author of the content that was submited... what message do I need to create on our site that allows for our content to be displayed... I have searched for what I need to do and I have either not found it or am to dim witted to understand what to do... any help would be appreciated as I have a lot of information to provide and I want to do it correctly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onebigcelt (talk • contribs) 11:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

if you could also tell me how to provide permission on photos I would appreciate that as well

thank you for your time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onebigcelt (talk • contribs) 11:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Onebigcelt. Don't worry -- it isn't you -- navigating around Wikipedia is a daunting task even for every experienced editors. But the information you want is found at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials: One simple way to grant permission to copy material from your website is to put a permission notice explicitly on the site where that material is posted. This is commonly known as a "copyleft" notice. This notice, usually placed at the bottom of the webpage, must state that your site (or portions of your site) are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts) or that it is in the public domain. For text, a good statement of release might read:

The text of this website [or page, if you are specifically releasing one section] is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

If you do not wish to retain any rights to the work, you may instead release it under the Creative Commons Zero Waiver, which effectively releases your work into the public domain:

The text of this website [or page] is released under the Creative Commons Zero Waiver 1.0 (CC0).

If you verify text by placing a note at the website, you may wish to use {{Text release}} to make sure that your release is documented at the talk page of the article. Instructions for using that template can be found at Template:Text release.

Instructions for releasing photos to WP:COMMONS can be found here. If you have further questions, feel free to ask. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted Englisc patriotism as a blatant hoax. I don't know that I would categorize it as such. If you search on the term, you will come up with a number of forums and websites dedicated to the idea. I don't know that I'd call it a notable movement yet, but I wouldn't call it a blatant hoax. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 09:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On further reflection, it probably wasn't a blatant hoax. Although a search finds no use of that specific term, we can find use of the Old English spelling of "Englisc" in a blog and a t-shirt sales site. I agree that the page was more original essay than hoax. I'll be happy to userfy it if you wish to develop it. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to this medium. I prepared a quick description of the single largest fund raising event for prostate cancer research and intended to supplement it and place it in context. I find that you have deleted what I put up.

The intent of the posting is to further the public's knowledge of prostate cancer research. It is not to advertise and event.

I am happy to submit to you a more complete entry for your review and comment.

This event is to prostate cancer research what the Susan Komen events are to breast cancer. I did not post it before confirming that Susan Komen's events are listed on your publication. I also looked up Mike Milken and he is here with his prostate cancer foundation. They are supporters of the research at issue.

please provide direction on how I should proceed to meet your criteria.

thanks18:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)18:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellepark (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your support at my RfA. I will do my best to live up to people's confidence in me. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cactus, Thanks for the editing on this page. I am very happy to have help editing this material as I have done very little of this before. Your updates are very welcome! xoxo Laguna greg (talk) 19:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]