This is an archive of past discussions with User:Senra. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
While it is indubitably always useful to help a noob...
... I really don't understand why you encouraged that person on the Help Desk to think that how many twitterers follow a C-list celebrity constitutes encylopedic content. Could you please explicate your reasoning? --Orange Mike | Talk16:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Well. In this case, I did my own search prior to posting and was unable to find any reliable sources stating how many Twitter followers Kirsty Strain's has. The likelihood is low, therefore, that this new editor will be able to add reliably sourced Twitter follower information to the Kirsty Strain article. Nevertheless, the editor should be encouraged to try, otherwise how else will they learn? All new editors need to be encouraged to add material content. This editor is no exception. Incidentally, I find the word noob offensive --Senra (talk)17:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I certainly didn't mean to give offense; nor to insult a category of editors who are to be cherished, not disparaged. Nonetheless: I disagree with the idea that "number of Twitter followers of X as of date Y" could be encylopedic content except in the most incomprehensibly unforseeable of circumstances. --Orange Mike | Talk18:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
No offence taken. I accept your premise that unsourced Twitter follower numbers are trivia. I have explained why I felt it appropriate in this instance. I will take more care in future --Senra (talk)18:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Great news Jonathan. Images would be superb but we need to be sure of the copyright status and I am not an expert. Copyright is a complex area. You can ask a question at our copyright noticeboard. Tell them all you know about the image(s) and they will advise. I need to read up about sound and video clips. As far as I recall, short segments can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Leave this one with me --Senra (talk)17:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Images: If you or a photographer you know took the photographs, you or your photographer can donate the images to Wikipedia or better still our sister project Wikimedia Commons by uploading the images via uploading images to Wikipedia or contributing work to Wikimedia Commons respectively. Otherwise, someone else owns the copyright and you cannot upload such images without the copyright holders express permission
Sound clip: The BBC owns the copyright of their own broadcasts; even for recordings made by you. In this case, ask the BBC if they have a link to an online version of the clip. We can then link to the clip from the article. If the BBC doesn't have the clip any more, offer it to BBC archives. They may be pleased to receive it. Ask them if they would publish it online
Video clip: Same as the sound clip but in this case, Central TV no longer exists but ITN archives may be able to assist
There will be no reliability problems (in the Wikipedia sense) with the BBC nor Central TV interviews, providing your recordings are from their respective public broadcasts. The contents of the recordings can be accessed—presumably by you—and parts can be paraphrased (not closely of course) or directly quoted into the article. You would also add a citation (using perhaps {{cite interview}}) to the source. Whilst our verifiability policy makes it clear that it should be possible for all readers of the encyclopaedia to verify cited sources, the policy allows for the possibility that not everyone can access all sources. That would be the case here. In short, feel free to add transcribed contents from these sources into the article. Note that your own un-broadcasted personal sound or video recordings are not, in the Wikipedia sense, reliable sources.
All read above. The images are all over 50 years old and photos by Hawkers or Hawker staff (by Camm actually) but have no company stamps on my prints. I understand that copyright expires at 50 years.Ill ask about the 1982 sound and video clips.
Sorry about not being logged in last time and the untidy double signature.
You asked earlier about Dad as an AFRAeS being elected FRAeS. I would be pretty sure that this process is private to the RAeS and not accessible, even if archived. It may be that only an AFRAeS can become a FRAeS. I never got further than Graduate membership myself.
Our UK copyrightquestion has been answered. According to editor George Ho (talk·contribs) "photos by Camm are still copyrighted for life + 70 years" and thus do not expire "until the end of 2016 2036". If your father took any of the photos, they can be released by you under one of the creative Commons licenses. Other photos can be similarly released by their copyright holders, such as your fathers colleagues or surviving family --Senra (talk)14:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
We will see. Wikipedia has a very large number of policies and guidelines. Frankly some of the guidelines, at least, conflict within themselves. It is not surprising new users have difficulty understanding them all. I hope he/she isn't blocked because I see some reasonable content being added --Senra (talk)21:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)I prefer to ask COIs not to edit the page[1] Even as a PR person, I get irritated at having to repeatedly clean up after them, seeing them disrupt my editing or when they argue with me. But mostly every interaction I've had from Talk has been very pleasant for both parties and usually results in improvements. I prefer to make my own COI contributions this way as well.[2] Anything COI contributed could - at the very least - use a second pair of eyes before article-space anyway. CorporateM (Talk) 01:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
New editors
Senra, I'm going to be coaching a PR editor EdWalker58 through improvements to Chartered Institute of Marketing as training wheels of sorts. I noticed somewhere that you were active in Help. If you identify any PR editors willing to make a commitment, I have a debt of sorts to those that have helped me to help others and I think I've gotten half-decent enough at coaching companies through it to help pass on my knowledge sort of speak. CorporateM (Talk) 01:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
That is, regarding PR editors that would likely make repeat submissions and would be interested in coaching, as oppose to a specific one-off situation. CorporateM (Talk) 01:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Of course. If I come across any, I will pass them your way.
I do understand how irritated an experienced editor might feel at repeatedly having to answer the same queries; this is clear in the brevity of their responses. We must, nevertheless, remember that new-editors are potential customers of Wikipedia and that it is the duty of experienced editors to provide an excellent customer service; even when such customers appear to be rude! I admit that my own recent responses, such as here and here, could be more succinct. I am sure I will get better with practice.
Very well said. COI compounds the problem, because good-faith and bad-faith COIs often have similar editing behaviors and it's impossible to tell the difference. I see some editors being very polite and welcoming late last year to an editor where I have real-world knowledge they have bad intentions to undermine Wikipedia for their benefit. Meanwhile, Ed was treated rudely and I just helped give him some perspective and I could see him becoming a productive participant.
The AGF/ABF line is blurry too, because a lot of PRs don't want to do any harm to Wikipedia, but they do want a better article, but corporate approval cycles make it difficult to add neutral content and include contentious materials. A lot of people presume that where I have a COI, that I wrote the content in a completely independent capacity, but my role is more of coaxing the company into being as neutral as they can be and guiding them through the process.
I prefer to abandon rule-based arguments entirely and focus on what's best for the reader; that is the basis for all rules anyway (I would hope). CorporateM (Talk) 15:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks
for your intervention. I don't work on Wikipedia every day, but I will come back to the review. It's past midnight where I am so I'd better leave it for now. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 00:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Your query
In reply to your query, no, I am not receiving any recompense whatsoever. My involvement and interest is due to having founded Wikipedia:WikiProject Gibraltar way back in 2007 at the same time as Wikipedia:WikiProject Spain - long before Gibraltarpedia (with which WikiProject Gibraltar has no connection) had ever been conceived. Unfortunately WikiProject Gibraltar, which has never been the subject of controversy in the past or for that matter now, has become collateral damage in the dispute over Gibraltarpedia. Prioryman (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
No problem. It's very frustrating that issues I've had absolutely no involvement with have resulted in "my" WikiProject being hit by the controversy over a completely separate project. Prioryman (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Senra. I see Thorpe has blanked the page. I'll hold off for now, but if he does not edit further for a few hours, I'll re-delete it. I (or any other admin) can always undelete it again in future. WormTT(talk) 10:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Just a thought but does anyone else think that finding and blanking that user-page was rather sophisticated for an editor with only four previous edits? --Senra (talk)10:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
It was clear from your talk page - which is easy to find - and from his watchlist, which he may have found. My partner is just starting editing and she would have been able to find and blank a page in that manner, I'm sure. I don't find anything suspicious in the matter. WormTT(talk) 10:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and deleted the page. Don't feel disheartened, you did your best and I can't see anything you could have done better. Good luck for the future. WormTT(talk) 13:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Senra. I've been patrolling for Wikipedia articles that mention the word "industry-leading." It is generally understood among marketing circles that this is a prolific marketing-fluff word, so I feel the phrase is a good indicator of spam, as oppose to good-faith/accidental promotion.
Afilias popped up, but since I provided consulting to the Public Interest Regsitry[3] to improve their article on a COI basis, I'm not comfortable trimming the article and was wondering if you would be willing to do a quick cleanup. CorporateM (Talk) 00:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I didn't check back on this until now. I would have just trimmed it up a bit, but I at least took off the "lead may not summarize" tag, because this is true of most our articles.
I've been doing keyword searches on promotional words like "industry-leading" and it digs up a lot of five-year-old spam. Puts things in perspective when you look at the level of scrutiny of a disclosed COI, versus the completely unsourced, promotion that fills the ranks of many of our company pages ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 01:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
For the record, I consider it down to the DYK nominator(s) to convince the DYK reviewer(s) of their compliance with DYK rules (in this case WP:RS from the Article within policy rule). As a courtesy, I have raised the issue at WP:RSN myself --Senra (talk)13:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I've replaced with a book source, I always prefer book sources anyway but I'm pretty sure that website is used as a source by many articles and considered a reliable and indeed valuable source on here for Scottish topics, I've addressed it the WP:Scotland.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld18:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
That may be so. In the specific context of that hook for your DYK, and in my opinion, that web site failed WP:RS. That was because the web site did not clearly disclose its sources. The fact that other articles rely on that same source is a matter for context within those other articles --Senra (talk)18:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! INeverCry19:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Ely riots
I've begun a review at Ely and Littleport riots of 1816, which looks very good to me so far. You can see my comments on the review page. Thanks for your work on this valuable topic. -- 17:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh yes, of course you should go ahead with the edits. In case of any questions/comments, we'dd discuss in the talk page.Thanks a lot for your sustained interest. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I have now added the polo, parade, race course info in the Sports section, based on the information you provided. Please have a look. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
For the RAF article it looks like it has been taken out of a report of some sort because i have seen the style before on other articles on Wikipedia within referenced pdf's. Gavbadger (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. Probably not, if my Friday reverts followed by their re-instatement today without discussion is anything to go by. Incidentally, I found the Haddenham additions poorly written and sourced but useful nevertheless; especially the Starfish site stuff --Senra (talk)20:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
It could have been worse--like a B-level report. Check out this definition of elegy (I just gave a midterm): "stories that are told about someone being put to a test. These stories tells if a character has the will, strength, and mindset to past the test." Drmies (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
He he. We learn from each other (and in this case, unlearn from others too!). I had never heard of elegy until today but it sounded like a lament of some sort; perhaps it is you who is being tested? By the way, A-level is a contraction of GCE Advanced Level, roughly equivalent (I think) to a High school diploma --Senra (talk)21:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Senra. You had previously commented on a first draft I had prepared of this article back in April. I've circled back (very belatedly) with a second draft based in part on yours and SmartSE's feedback here and I thought you might like to know in case you were interested in commenting. CorporateM (Talk) 04:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Hey Senra, thanks. I don't know what I did wrong: I was trying to copy the format from The Man in the Moone (that article is so good it's ridiculous--someone ought to give the writers a raise), and slowly do all the references that way. When I have the time to do them all (the next week or so--I'm teaching the poem and want our article to look good/better) I might call in your help again. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Mantle
The see also and ref looked like so many WP:MOS issues in one, have changed it into the text, a good catch btw, there seems nothing much about the hypothesis on wp despite being a 30 year old hypothesis - hopefully somebody will get around to doing a good art about it. cheers sats13:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Senra. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello Senra! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot IItalk20:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Senra. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Done I found it very promotional in tone and have tagged it accordingly --Senra (talk) 08:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
