User talk:Drewrau

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Drewrau! Thank you for your contributions. I am Marek69 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Marek.69 ^talk 10:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011

Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. -- Cold Season (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The additions I made were made with permission from the copyright holder, as I work for the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs, which enjoys a partnership with the State Administration for Religious Affairs of the People's Republic of China. Cold Season's charge of copyright violation is inappropriate. --Drewrau (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By writing it here, you acknowledge that it is released atleast under CC BY-SA 3.0. If it's true, I will hereby retract my previous statement. Also, why are you citing information (with that specific site) if that specific information is not reflected or found in the citation? It is bordering on link spamming, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. You may find the site getting blacklisted for spam. You seem to have a possible conflict of interest and all your edits basically consists of adding that site. -- Cold Season (talk) 23:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The information is released under CC BY-SA 3.0. I very much appreciate the retraction. As for what you believe to be inappropriate citations, I apologize. I added the citations because I felt the cited articles supported uncited information in the articles, and felt the Wiki articles would be made stronger by having citations for the claims made therein. I personally felt they were appropriate and lent credence to the information, but if you felt that the information in the cited articles did not support the information with enough specificity, I apologize and will be more careful in ensuring that citations unambiguously support the information they are supposed to. --Drewrau (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying and clearing it up, I have to give my apologies and hope your further contributions will be an improvement to the wikipedia project. Have a good day, -- Cold Season (talk) 00:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Quebec sovereignty movement, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Anglophone (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Casanova and Thomas Banchoff

I've deleted the articles as copyvios--and promotional Even if you own the copyright and are willing to give us permission according to WP:DCM, the tone will not be encyclopedic and the material will not be suitable. (Thus, there is generally no purpose in giving permission; it is better to rewrite.) You cannot start a WP article with the phrase, ... is one of the world's top scholars ..

Rather, describe what they has done, list the awards they have received with 3rd party references to them, list the books they had written, -- and don't just call them classics, cite reviews of them by third parties. Please do it right.

I am very sympathetic indeed to articles on academics; I am one of the admins who tends to specialize in them. But they have to be done correctly according to our standards.If you need any help for this, ask me on my user talk p. DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs

The same applies here, regardless of permission, it's promotional. You must rewrite it, and the best place to start is to remove the adjectives of praise. Let the references speak for themselves. Phrases like "These initiatives have given the Berkley Center a diverse portfolio of opportunities for student engagement" are pure PR talk, not encyclopedic writing. And " Through research, teaching, and service," is academic jargon of the most trite variety. I'm willing to do the necessary cuts myself, but you can do it better, and it's really your responsibility.

Thanks DGG. I'll make the cuts. I definitely see what you're saying with the "These initiatives..." line; I think it's objective and verifiable, but not written in proper encyclopedic tone. As for "Through research, teaching, and service...", I wasn't trying to be trite; it was just a sentence in the top overview paragraph meant to be broad in order to introduce the basics of what is expanded upon in the rest of the article, as I thought the details of the research, teaching, and service would be out of place in the top paragraph and fit better in the more detail-oriented meat of the article that follows. However, I'll be editing to remove/avoid such phrases. Appreciate the feedback. Drewrau (talk) 06:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a good deal more was needed.I removed the list of student reports, and a description of the various resources hosted on their website--many of them third party resources not produced by the center. Neither is conceivably appropriate content for the article: where they belong is where people will naturally look for them: on the center's website. . More is needed:

The reference list consists almost entirely of links to the various parts of the center's projects on its own website. These are not true 3rd party references: what is need is publications by other people about the center and its work.
The list of sponsors of the various programs is material for the website, not an encyclopedia. Of course you need to thank your donors, but the encyclopedia isn't the place for it.
Faculty mentioned if notable according to WP:PROF should have WP articles. A very useful thing you could do is write them, if they meet WP:PROF, as many will. Give their basic biography and list of book length publications, with reviews of them which show the notability of the authors.
And I remind you of the point I already said below. This sort of addition of links is called linkspam. It is unacceptable, and people have frequently been blocked for it. It's your responsibility to do the work of removing them. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for letting me know what still needs fixing. Regarding changing more of the first party sources to third party sources, that is something I will do. Regarding the "sponsors", I'll delete them. Regarding the linkspam, I apologize for the trouble that caused, as I was not then aware that I was violating any regulation, as I was making sure to source WP content in need of a reference to a relevant, supporting source; I thought it was fine because it was all relevant, but obviously I didn't know that adding too many sources across too many articles was a violation. I will remove them. I hope you will be kind enough to give me a few weeks with all this, as I'm in the final push of planning my wedding and have time for little else beyond that and my actual work. Drewrau (talk)

I'm somewhat concerned with the links youy have added to the centers web site in various articles. such as [1]. It would be better to cite an actually published peer-reviewed book or article for such information. We do have a rule that one should not add references to one's own publications to Wikipedia, but suggest them on the article talk p, and other people will add them if they consider them the best sources. You seem to have added quite a number of them back on Dec 16, 2011. Please see what you can do towards upgrading, because if they remain, I shall need to remove them as promotional linking. DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for this. See above. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]