Yesterday (a couple days ago?) this page I created was speedily deleted for being "unambiguous advertising" and/or lacking notability. I didn't log in until after it was deleted. Could you point me to the admin who deleted the page so I can retrieve its contents and improve it? Thanks. Takinzinnia (talk • contribs) 05:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I found out who it was. Takinzinnia (talk • contribs) 06:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm not sure that I'm writing in the right place, but I'd like to say that your comment about autobiography is wrong. I'm actually writting about my aunt, and she contributed to the world fashion industry a lot to be here. Thanks! --Poustovit (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Poustovit: Yes, this is the right place. ...OK.... All I have to go on is the user name. While your aunt looks like an interesting lady and passes out notability criteria, you should familiarize yourself with out conflict of interest guidelines.

Right now the article needs some trimming to make to make it more neutral. I understand it can be hard, she is your aunt and you are proud of her and it shows through. The problem is it should not show through. If you would like, once you get the draft finished, I would be happy to look it over. Try to watch the superlatives when your write for example:

Lilia Poustovit (Ukrainian: Лі́лія Григорівна Пустові́т; born 9 December 1968) is one of the most successful Ukrainian fashion designers, founder of POUSTOVIT brand, the President of Ukraine Fashion Syndicate.

Written more neutrally would be:

Lilia Poustovit (Ukrainian: Лі́лія Григорівна Пустові́т; born 9 December 1968) is a Ukrainian fashion designer. She founded the brand PROUSTOVIT in 1998. She is currently the President of Ukraine Fashion Syndicate.

I know the prose is dry but do dry first then make it flow. You want to avoid is anything that sounds like promotion. When you write about your subject think of what Encyclopedia Britanica would say and how they would say it. Cheers. JBH (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Poustovit: I have done a quick run through on the first part of the article. Down to 'Creation of brand' I would suggest a re-write like I did with the lines above with the lines below. The stores listed in the lead (in my version) should be moved down into the body and end the lead with "...concept stores." They should go in a "History of POUSTOVIT" section. My edits can be found in Draft:Lilia Poustovit/Suggested Edits so they do not mess up your AFC review. JBH (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I followed your advice, hope it'll be Ok! Poustovit (talk) 10:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Poustovit: Glad to be of assistance. I hope it helps. I would suggest that you work through all of the "In..." disconnected sentences and make complete paragraphs. It will help a lot with readability. Jbh (talk) 14:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I moved a draft article from User:Samira Koppikar to Draft:Samira Koppikar using the button on the AFC tag. The associated talk page was moved as well. I was able to remove the redirect on the user page but not the talk page. Draft talk:Samira Koppikar only needs to be moved back to User talk:Samira Koppikar.

If this is something a regular user can do please leave me a note on how to do it if I run across a similar situation. If not how do I just get to the User talk page to remove the redirect? I tried undoing the edit that placed the redirect on the talk page but that did not work. Thank you for cleaning up my error. JBH (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "undo" links don't work to undo moves (or page creations), but you can manually move a page back if the redirect created by the original move hasn't been edited in the meantime. If the redirect's history is non-trivial you'll indeed need an admin to delete it before moving back the page; {{db-move}} is the appropriate speedy deletion template.

I have moved back the user talk page to its original location. Huon (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon:Thank you for the information and help. JBH (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just noticed this accidently, while surfing thru. As far as I am aware only users with reviewer rights can accept or decline any AfC submissions. But [User:Mahensingha] does not have reviewer rights - see link - [1] - he only has rollback right. Just for you information. How can he decline or comment on for any AfC? May be you would like to educate him on this. Thanks! Jethwarp (talk) 02:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jethwarp: Thanks for the comment. Actually the reviewer right is for reviewing edits to articles protected by WP:Pending changes. The people allowed to review AFC submissions are listed in WP:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Participants. Mahensingha is listed there and is able to review AFC requests. They are certainly qualified to do so and seem to pretty good at it. We just happen to disagree on how Draft:Samira Koppikar was handled in particular and we have worked together to solve the issue. Cheers. JBH (talk) 03:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info - I was not aware of it. But I think Wikipedia should change the policy about, which editors should qualify for such a serious job and increase the total no of edits or total no of articles created by one user - who can enlist oneself at WP:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Participants. Anyways, it was nice to talk to you. Cheers!!!Jethwarp (talk) 13:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jbhunley. Thanks for patrolling this article. But I'm wondering about the tags. Has anyone disputed the neutrality of the article? It doesn't even have a talk page yet. About the written like an advertisement, I was afraid that might happen. But the first thing a client wants to know a law firm is, how is rated in Chambers? So I wrote the rating in Chambers. And the fact is that this network selects the top-rated law firms in each country. That's how they get in, and the network's reason for being. Don't you think we should mention that? Thanks. – Margin1522 (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Margin1522: That you even consider "...the first thing a client wants to know..." is what makes it an advertisement. That is why it was tagged as such. As the editor who patrolled the page I am the one disputing the neutrality. You should not be thinking about customers at all. When you write about a subject think of what Encyclopedia Britanica would say and how they would say it. Jbh (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I realize from discussions at AfD that many editors on Wikipedia have an extreme aversion to saying anything good about organizations engaged in profit-making activities. Let's ask another question. Are they any good? The legal profession has a well functioning ranking system for recognizing the best firms. General reputation, outcomes, service... These firms are good. Chambers has 150 researchers who investigate these things, and that's what they say. It seems like we should be able to mention that they are good. I could have loaded the article up with cites to the effect that they have cooperated with this or that organization and published this or that study, for the purpose of getting the requisite three cites from independent reliable sources. But I like the system we have for academic journals. There is a rating system, and if they rate high enough they pass, and if they don't they fail. It's a better indicator of notability and makes for a cleaner article. – Margin1522 (talk) 00:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Margin1522: The text is not as bad as I thought on first reading. I have removed the tags. I did remove the direct competitive comparison starting "Unlike..." though. If you want to compare it to other types of firms please find some sources that make the comparison.

On the down side, I took a closer look at the sources. You need to find several reliable sources to verify their notability because the ones you have not are not sufficient.

• The Chambers and Partners is a WP:SPS per "Firm profile submitted by Ius Laboris"
• The FT source is just a list.
• The Legal 500 ref is a marketing guide so looks like not WP:RS

If you have been hanging out at AfD I am sure you know why the above issues are a problem. As it it I seriously doubt it would pass an AfD. Jbh (talk) 00:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is true. Part of the problem is that the two leading directories both allow firms to contribute descriptions of themselves. I have toned it down a bit more, as I now see that it was likely to trigger the "spammy" reaction. Thanks for the comments. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your encouraging comment Weglinde (talk) 08:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did see him/them mentioned in the players not paid love of the game article that was referenced — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jholky (talk • contribs) 15:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was a passing incidental mention that said the new owner had a stage name. About the only thing it is good for is that the guy owns the team. It does nothing for notability but if you want to use it to say he is optimistic about his ABA team go for it. Jbh (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your review of Guththila Kavyaya. Pradeep583 (talk) 11:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of PNAC Members associated with the Administration of George W. Bush is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of PNAC Members associated with the Administration of George W. Bush until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. GabrielF (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you may not be using your time on this wisely, see [2] Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Alanscottwalker: Thank you. I did rename the article to Political appointees in the administration of George W. Bush that were members of PNAC yesterday. DHeyward noted a problem with the new name by removing Dick Cheney from the list and Ubikwit changed it back to List of PNAC members that served in the administration of George W Bush I guess that change did not get noted on the AfD page.Ubikwit noted the change at the top. I missed it. I will make note of it there. Do you have any suggestions for a proper name? I think we are pretty much stuck with 'member' backed up by WP:POVNAMING. Jbh (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am rather at a loss to understand, how those of you who put the work in won't bend on that and creatively find a more acceptable terminology also consistent with the facts and that will not hand those who want to throw your work away a club. You know the sources and what varying ways you might refer to them ('connected', 'were signers of PNAC documents' or something, perhaps). As for those who do want to throw your work away, probably best to take the advice of those more sympathetic to the position you are in - I repeat, policy allows you to change the name now, and until you get it "right" enough. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We're working on it. "Connected" might work; it isn't very different from "associated". I think that the current version is succinct, and I see that you have thrown your support behind the term "members", which seems to be what is under assault. If we don't use "PNAC members", then it seems you wind up with "People connected to/associated with PNAC that...", or something along those lines, which seems to dilute the import of the relationship.

One alternative approach might be "Members of the Bush administration that were associated with/connected to PNAC".

I think that JBH has done an excellent job in explicating what the individuals on the list have been doing to earn their RS "members" designation, and Fyddlestix and me have contributed to elaborating that as well. If you have any suggestions, by all means, please join in. Until we have something better, I'm inclined to think simple is potentially the least problematic.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Alanscottwalker: The naming issue seems to have been a problem dating back to when this was a list in the PNAC article. The problem is that there are no terms which someone will not complain about. 'Signatories/Signers' is too loose (50 or so people). Connected is too loose (huge list of 'people who signed a letter or contributed a paper). Both of which Collect objects strongly and continiously to. 'Signatories of the 1998 Letter to Clinton on Iraq and/or PNAC Statement of Principles' is unwieldy. Other names that is has actually been moved to are.

• List of Members of the Administration of George W. Bush who are strongly associated with Project for the New American Century
• List of PNAC Members associated with the Administration of George W. Bush
• List of PNAC members that served in the administration of George W Bush
• Political appointees in the administration of George W. Bush that were members of PNAC

There is no obstinacy here, I and, I believe, the others are truly at a loss. The only title that has not been tried that has been suggested on the talk page is:

• List of PNAC members that served in the administration of George W Bush

I just can not see a good way to avoid 'members' or 'associated with' particularly since, as far as I can tell, all of the strong sources use one or the other. The issue seems to me to be one particular editor will use quite literally any pedantic claim to keep this table out of the encyclopedia. Take a look at the 5 previous times this material was discussed on the PNAC talk page and at BLPN.Diffs exist near the top of the page in Fyddlestix first comment at AfD. He was recently joined by a long dorment account ODear Not saying one is a SOCK of the other, not even by implication who, if I were less involved, I would tag as an SPA. Maybe you can see something that we can not. That is the value of new eyes. Jbh (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Continue working, but while yes, 'members' passes for deletion as renaming articles is another process, it obviously will not fly, so don't take my 'just policy' support at AfD to heart - it appears it will not get you anywhere, you're not dealing with one editor anymore. Paraphrase is what we try to do. And actually, no, signers who went in the administation is a subset - not the whole set. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)By his own admission, Dear ODear apparently was an alternate account of Is Not A. The latter having been blocked when that came to light, it's just Dear ODear now.

On naming: my two cents are that we should limit the table to: people who either founded/staffed PNAC, people who signed the statement of purposes, and people who signed the Iraq letter. Those are the only criteria that the more reliable/reputable sources use to tie people to the group, and I think we should stick to that. If we stuck to those criteria, the table could be titled "signatories of key PNAC policy statements with ties to the Bush Administration" or some such. Everyone currently in the table signed either the Statement or the Letter, so I think that's all that's needed. Note, however, that Ubikwit is currently trying to expand the scope of the table, using some less-than-stellar sources. I don't think that is helping the case for keeping the table. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably a moot point anyway, the AFD discussions seems to be headed for a "delete." Fyddlestix (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Milosevic letter may not be "key", but the Rebuilding America's Defenses certainly was, and the contributors are described as "Participants" on the last page of the doc, etc. They weren't just "signatories", they helped produce the document, and that is an important fact. Some of them also signed other documents, increasing the weight for their inclusion as "members". That report also seems to be the most substantial document they produced, it seems, and generated as much controversy as the Clinton letter. Recall that it is the only document that has its own dedicated section in the main article.

I'm not sure what to think about the "War on Terror" letter, but I've only seen one source tying one administration member to it thus far. I think signing multiple letters speaks in favor of inclusion, but we should defer to secondary sources, I suppose.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is debatable who he is the 'alternate account' of since when the ODear account started editing after the is_not_a block it had about 10 edits and had last edited in 2012. The claim that is_not_a was the alternate of a nearly three year dormant account is not, in my opinion, supportable. I have no idea who the original account was but ODear it was not.

On the naming issue as Alanscottwalker noted, the discriminator is 'served in the administration..' not signed a document. So I suggest we try:

• Signers of PNAC policy statements or letters who served in the administration of George W Bush
  Jbh (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That might work, but let's make a new list if we're going to brain storm this here.

If delineating the subset is deemed to be an issue (which I don't see with the current title), then inverting the application of "members" would seem to be more direct, so let me list that again.

• Members of the Bush administration that were associated with/connected to/members of PNAC

In light of my awakening to the import of the aforementioned report[3]--which was not signed by anybody but produced by a large number of participants (who are listed on the last page), six of whom (that I know of) went on to become members of the Bush administration. They all seem to have signed other letters, but since this was a document they participated in producing, it is significant in an additional register.

1. Stephen Cambone
2. Eliot Cohen
3. I. Lewis Libby
4. Abram Shulsky
5. Paul Wolfowitz
6. Dov Zakheim

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JbH: ::::::::Better, you could make it shorter by striking "policy", and perhaps "or letters" or "PNAC statement and letter signers . . ." But all of you strongly agree then do it, then present it at the AfD (you heard them). Ubikwit just cover that document in the main article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would work, as none of the six would be lost from the list, but let's ponder that title.

Do you see anything problematic with the sentence-inverted version I suggested?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the words "associated with/connected to/members" in a title? Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, those are selections of possible alternatives at that juncture in the title. I meant overall, but of course, if you have separate opinions on the use of those several alternatives, by all means, opine away to your hearts content.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JbH's has the chronology right, I can see someone arguing that 'no they were not in the admin and signed.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe I'm just to sleep-deprived and can't think straight, but it seems to me that such a reading would amount to a grammatically incorrect reading of the phrasing including "that", which definitely limits the scope (of the subset) in both the above-proposed version and the current version.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think, 'you are writing for the . . . ' and you should just keep that in mind. I don't have much more time to say anything on this. Good luck! Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I think 'associated with' has been roundly shot down by people at AfD so 'associated with\connected to' would face the same or worse opposition. per ASW what does everyone think of:

• PNAC statement and letter signers who served in the administration of George W Bush
  who served in the administration of George W Bush
  

I see no real issues with this particularly if the list is tied tightly to the PNAC article. Possibly someone could link the list into place in the PNAC article. Many complaints is that the list is a POV Fork while the intention is for it to be a sub-article. Jbh (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me or does "statement and letter signers" sound awkward?

I would favor something along the lines of simply "PNAC participants", assuming that members is considered a fail (I'm not convinced of that given the plethora of increasingly growing RS cites).

If the PNAC wants to portray themselves as a loose collective without members, we have to rise to the challenge to describe them as a cohesive group. I think we're on the way, but not there yet.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I am more concerned with addressing as many of the Delete complaints as possible. While I think we have policy solidly on our side the shear number of Deletes will possibly influence a closing admin. Also quite literally anything that would make the article look like a POV Fork rather than a sub-article-list might be an issue. A MERGE would be the best objective outcome but, from my reading of Collect's comments such as BLP is an "absolute policy" I think we will be right back where we started and fighting *what* to merge.

I find the perennial obstinate pedantic sophistry this content has been subject to incomprehensible. In a less experienced editor I would have dealt with it at ANI but in this situation it would turn into a drama infused political nightmare. It only took 3 minutes from the time I told Collect take the article to AfD and articulate his arguments there for another long term editor to pop up and do it using his SYNTH argument. My frustration with this is pretty high as I am sure it has become increasingly easy to tell. I guess this is nothing compared to the edit war last month at Danish pastry over what to call the bloody things.

Oh, to get back on topic. Yes it does sound a bit awkward. How about:

• People who signed PNAC's policy documents and served in the administration of George W Bush
  Jbh (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we need to beat the merge angle as well as the delete angle. There are 21 people on the list, so you're original concern about UNDUE is in play only because the table is too big and requires its own article so as not to overwhelm the main article.

I don't like the "People..." phrasing, as mentioned above, because it dilutes the import.

At present I don't have any better ideas than inverting the sentence...

I appreciate ASW's participation, but I'm not convinced that "members" is ruled out, because too many peer-reviewed sources use that characterization.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you are coming from. Right now I am exploring the ideas that ASW is bringing up because his view point to closer to those who must be convinced. It is a way for me to break out of my POV and prevent tunnel vision. Since this article and PNAC has been more confrontational than collaborative I try to keep from getting into a mental rut. Since I think this information belongs in the encyclopedia I am trying to look for ways that address the concerns of those who can be won over while I have ceased to care about the opinion of the obstinate few since they will not ever change their minds and contribute nothing to the solution. This has become a situation where politics and compromise are as important or more so than simply being 'right' so I think we should proceed as if 'members' is out for the title since so many have complained about the term. I have seen several admins vote Delete in this AfD with, in my opinion, a less than firm grasp of the policies involved. Like it or not my bet that the name is the linchpin issue. If that can be addressed many of those Deletes drop out. The next issue is the POV Fork issue, that can be mostly handled by placing a link to the list in the proper place in the PNAC article. I dropped it into 'See Also' when I created it but it needs a better, more integrated place, I just do not know where it would fit best. Maybe a sub-section or an in-text prose link. If those two things are addressed it will be very hard to close the AfD as Delete.

For possible titles how about -

• Signers of PNAC's policy documents who served in the administration of George W Bush

or inverted -

• Advisors and members of the George W Bush administration who signed PNAC's documents
  

Jbh (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer the first of those two. I think that it is short and compact, and addresses the issues.

Let's wait for Fyddlestix to weigh in on this.

I'll try and look at the link scenario tomorrow.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 21:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks... I'll ping @Fyddlestix: Jbh (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like the first one too, although I would swap "signatories" for "signers." Fyddlestix (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Jbh (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ubikwit: If you are OK with:

• Signatories of PNAC's policy documents who served in the administration of George W Bush

would you please make the move. Thanks. Jbh (talk) 11:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done.

Check this source (entirety of p. 15) in relation to the discussion at my Talk.

The number of figures associated with PNAC that had been members of the Reagan or the first Bush administration and the number that would take up office with the administration of the second President Bush demonstrate that it is not merely a question of employees and budgets.[4] Terror and Territory: The Spatial Extent of Sovereignty, Stuart Elden, Univ Of Minnesota Press, 2009, p.15]

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In good faith, I would interpret this not as a threat, but as a suggestion to "stop beating a dead horse". Now I don't think the state of the horse is clear yet (wether at AN/I or in the clip), but interpreting the edit as a threat seems to be a sign of the general lack of good faith in this conflict, and is unlikely to contribute to a constructive resolution. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephan Schulz: Thank you for the advice. Yes, good faith is pretty much gone at this point and I really regret that. Like I said here and when I posted, I would not consider it a threat from Collect or anyone whose online track record I was familiar with. ODear on the other is re-activated dormant account that started editing after the blocking of User:Is_not_a an 'alternate' account of an unknown user. I have no clue what is going through their head. I asked them to strike the comment for clarity, they are active now and have not done so. Threats of getting me with rules - fine, no worries. Even the faintest hint of RL from an unknown user I have zero-tolerance because things like that can spin badly out of control without the slightest warning. I have taken enough risks in my life to know that you mitigate the ones you can. I admit I am sensitive to such things. Jbh (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand that, but I'm not sure this approach is mitigating anything. In a pinch, you might ask for clarification in a less public place (like their user page). More heat is not, I think, what we need. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that you misinterpreted a joke.

Perhaps your exaggerated reaction may give you some empathy about the state of living persons who are targetted by Larouchites and troll armies, and who have had their kids' names etc. put on their articles. Consider what happened to Richard Flacks. Dear0Dear 19:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Consider the matter closed. As I said it was a funny video. Yes, I do understand their plight my opinion on BLPs is pretty strict but I do admit to not wanting to allow Public figures to PR manage their public acts. Anyway glad that's done with. Jbh (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephan Schulz: Matter is closed. Jbh (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Collect and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, - MrX 20:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you did not do proper research before putting this page up for speedy deletion. In any case, we have worked quite long and hard at developing this page from many sources and extensive discussions. Wikipedia is the original here. I write mainly because it is a curious problem, however - many external websites are copying wholesale from wikipedia, often without acknowledging this fact, which leads to the problem of citing these external websites that have been copied from wikipedia, etc. But thanks for your diligence! Bdushaw (talk) 23:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bdushaw: I was very surprised when the whole thing came up matching other sites because it is a great article. Since it showed as a recent new page I did not think to consider that Wikipedia might have been the source. Sorry if I caused any problems. Jbh (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The effort may not be without positive contribution in the sense it really raises the question about what to do with external articles that copy from wikipedia. One of the links you found does acknowledge wikipedia as the source, the other doesn't. The general question could get tricky to resolve in a happy manner; may just require more work to sort out the provenance of material. Bdushaw (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bdushaw: I guess it might be possible if enough authors were available or one person wrote a large chunk of the material for them to send a DMCA Takedown Notice to the non-attributing sites. I'm not sure how that works here but I have seen photographers on Commons handle it like that for their pictures. Anyway nice article, no wonder others want it. :) Jbh (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, Please take care not to add {{stub}} to an article like PNK College which already has a specific stub tag - it just wastes the time of other editors. Thanks. PamD 16:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: Sorry, I missed the Indian university stub tag. I make sure to double check going forward. Jbh (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 7, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. Jbh (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]