User talk:The Authenticator

Welcome!

Hello, The Authenticator, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as An Inconsistent Truth, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard. Thank you.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! I42 (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of An Inconsistent Truth

The article An Inconsistent Truth has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NFF: future film which fails to establish notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I42 (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I demand to know who is editing our contribution for this motion picture and why. This seems to be a deliberate case of sabotage. An Inconsistent Truth is a REAL movie with a REAL release date of January 27, 2012. It was the top-grossing movie per screen in the country for two weeks. It is one of the 50 top-grossing independent films of 2012, has won one film festival award and is nominated for another. All of this was in the article and someone DELIBERATELY deleted it. They also deleted our article on the group Chadwick Station which debuted on the soundtrack of the movie.

This is all very serious business to us and we demand an explanation from whoever is responsible.

---Re: above--I've been wanting to say that for years and at a hundred articles! LOL! – Lionel ^(talk) 09:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You've quoted a number of interesting facts about the film there. You should add them to the article, making sure to cite them properly. Please avoid adding your own analysis and commentary to your contributions. Wikipedia should present information neutrally and should only contain the cited opinions of notable authorities and recognised experts, not those of contributors.

Could you also explain who "we" is? Accounts shared or operated by more than one private individual is not permitted. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I posted mutiple reliable sources at the AFD so it shouldn't be deleted. If it is you can always recreate the article but make sure you include the sources so that it doesn't get AFDed again.– Lionel ^(talk) 09:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Chadwick station

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Chadwick station requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. JoelWhy (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There WAS no button labeled 'click here to contest this speedy deletion.' Who has the authority to do such a thing. Chadwick Station is a new group that debuted on the soundtrack of the film An Inconsistent Truth. The soundtrack is selling on iTunes and Amazon.com right now. There is absolutely no reason why anyone should delete this article and we demand it be reinstated immediately.

Try WP:Deletion review, if you think the group passes the notability guidelines. I see, though, that the article had no reliable sources, and violated the Wikipedia is not a crystal ball policy by discussing an upcoming album.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. We will wait until the first album is completed and submit a page then. Although they have a single on a soundtrack we would rather include more information about them than just that so we'll wait. Thanks for the info and guidance. Fairly new to Wiki so a little sensitive about people haphazardly deleting our work but we're learning. The Authenticator

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Still learning. --The Authenticator (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on An Inconsistent Truth. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Valentine. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Ravenswing 02:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Valentine

Phil may be in trouble. A cursory search didn't turn up much. I did find this about his book [1]. Find a couple more about Phil and he'll be kept. Note: find a couple more book reviews and you can create an article about the book.

Important: If Phil gets deleted you should ask that a copy be placed in the Conservatism incubator. There are about 100 editors at WikiProject Conservatism and some of us may be able to help fix up the article. Questions? Just ask me or leave a message for someone at Conservatism. And be careful... a lot of people here have bought into the whole global warming thing. – Lionel ^(talk) 09:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help and advice. I'm pretty new to this. I'm a talk radio junkie and started seeing some misinformation out there and decided to join. Tell me, when is the decision made whether or not an article gets deleted and who makes that decision? --The Authenticator (talk) 11:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion stays open for 7 days. Then an uninvolved administrator closes the discussion. Note that it is not a vote with a tally. The admin weighs the arguments and determines the overall WP:CONSENSUS. E.g. if someone votes but does not explain themself, their vote doesn't count. The admin is supposed to take into account changes in the article since the AFD opened. Phil & Inconsistent have been noticably improved and they should be Kept. The Tax group getting merged would not be a bad thing. – Lionel ^(talk) 12:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk radio, huh? Check out this category that I created and populated: category:Conservative talk radio. Those articles need a ton of work... – Lionel ^(talk) 12:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checked out your Conservative talk radio category. Very nice. I'll try to contribute some to those. I guess the best way is to back into the process by finding reliable sources then including that information in the articles and sourcing it. --The Authenticator (talk) 19:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A note on copyright

The material that you added to Phil Valentine's article, now removed, was in violation of our policy on copyright. I realise that you wouldn't have known this when you wrote it and that it was done in good faith, but it is only right that you should understand that it was against our policy. I raised this with one of our experts on the subject, and I am copying her response for you:

Even if language is different, there may be infringement if other creative elements are duplicated - such as selection and structure of facts. (If it were solely a question of language, it would not be copyright infringement to translate something from Mandarin to English, as every word would be different. Similarly, you can switch out every word in a sentence for a synonym and still infringe your source.) Factors to consider here include how creative the selection and structure of facts are and how closely and extensively we follow the source. Chronological order counts in our favor, since the facts belong to everybody and organizing them in the order they happened is not creative. Choosing them still can be; for instance, everyone is going to include in a bio the date the subject was born, who his parents are, where he went to school, etc. Not everybody is going to think that the death of his Aunt Sally from creeping worm fungus was a significant factor in his development and give it a paragraph. The more such subjective detail we take, the more at risk we are. My general observation is that the more detailed our source is, the more likely it is to include subjective detail. This won't always be the case, though, obviously. A bio that includes exhaustive detail on release dates of an author's books may not be any more creative in selection than one that says, "John was born; he published books; he died." :)

Generally, I find it safer when relying on one source with considerable subjective detail to distill it to the obvious and essential facts - the ones that are inarguably going to be common to most biographical works about the subject - and to make sure that they are presented in as obvious and ordinary a fashion as possible (chronological is a good one). Better if we can find multiple sources that incorporate a variety of details so that we are building something more transformative rather than simply recasting our original source into new form, but when this isn't possible truncating an overly detailed article may reduce the risk of creating a derivative work. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)"[reply]

I hope you find this useful. Dougweller (talk) 09:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who are 'we'?

You refer to 'we' and 'us' several times above. I need (speaking here, unlike above, with my Administrator's hat on) you to explain what you mean and to confirm that only one person is using this account. I note you were asked before. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"We," I was raised to believe, was a more polite way to phrase things than "I." Consider it the king's way of saying things, ie: "We were not amused." If it bothers you "we" can stop but I don't see it as a big deal. --The Authenticator (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to WBZK, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to WCRU. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]