User talk:76.248.151.159

Hello, and

and make constructive edits on Wikipedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard
  if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Recent changes patrol
• Anti-vandalism tools

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but many editors recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (76.248.151.159) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! ⁓ Hello71 11:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I partially reverted your edit on the climate data because the values should be from daily/monthly normals from the NWS source, not the ones from monthly avgs. The reason is that this is more accurate (states that it excludes stations where temperatures have not been routinely recorded). On the other hand, the monthly avgs might include stations where temperatures have not been routinely recorded and calculates it (not as accurate). Ssbbplayer (talk) 13:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note, which is polite beyond necessity; I regret that I removed your good faith edits while reverting copyright violations. Cheers, 76.248.151.159 (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the section "Faculty and staff" is entirely sourced to http://lcm.touro.edu/faculty/ linked in footnote [7]. Per

, self-published sources are accepted under five conditions, which this case meets. I have not seen a guideline that forbids such listings, but please let me know if one exists.

I agree with you that much of the article, including this section, uses promotional,

]

Self sourcing wouldn't be an issue if the numerous cited faculty were all notable, that is to say, were each subjects of separate articles on Wikipedia. Once the peacock language is removed, there's still little justification for listing an institution's faculty. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 02:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article already cites both Newsweek and the University of California at Berkeley as sources. What more is expected? User:GRUBBXDN

In the scheme of Wikipedia biographical entries, that doesn't constitute much in the way of multiple sources. I don't think this is Newsweek [1]. Much of the personal life background is unsourced:

In 1969, after graduating from Harvard University majoring in economics, Norton married Erica Black, known as Rikki. The couple became elementary school teachers in Baltimore, Maryland for a year before returning to Harvard where Norton completed his course work for his Doctorate and Rikki graduated from the law school. They relocated to San Francisco when Norton accepted a position as a researcher at U.C. Berkeley and Rikki joined the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC) as an attorney.

This, in addition to the text I already deleted that summarized each of his books, suggests some cause for concern. I think it may be helpful if I seek further assistance at the COI Noticeboard. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about a distant cousin .... everything in this article appears in numerous sources on the internet and elsewhere. However, I do not want to get into an ethics debate. Unless there is an objection, I will simply remove the article.(User :GRUBBXDN) 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I've responded at Talk:Warner Norton Grubb III. Please remember to sign your talk page posts with the four tildes seen at the Wiki markup below. Thanks, 76.248.151.159 (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's too big a job for me. We almost need to delete the whole thing and start over. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Understood; I cut it back to its pre-copyvio version, and left a note with Moonriddengirl. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 01:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, and I'll try to keep an eye on it too. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If you've got the stomach for it I've also come across DJ JT. I'm sorely tempted to request speedy deletion as spam. Any thoughts? 76.248.151.159 (talk) 01:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the middle of adding links and sources for info on that page. Why did you just delete what I was doing? I was also putting info in chronological order. This is a major composer, why did you just reduce his article to totally unsourced stuff? Who the heck are you to delete somebody's hours of work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iful (talk • contribs) 01:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage you to read Wikipedia's guidelines re: copyright violations and promotional tone. You may well have been making constructive contributions--I've requested further input on that--but you were adding to a piece that was a blatant copyright violation, and baldly non neutral in tone. You'll notice that this has been discussed on the article's talk page, going back over 2 years, and now at the BLP Noticeboard. Thanks, 76.248.151.159 (talk) 01:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I fully agree that the subject merits a far better article than what's there now, but it can not be a violation of copyright law, nor a press release filled with admiring quotes. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 01:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted almost the entire page. If you had an issue with a specific part of it you should have edited that. The article said at the top that it needed citations, I was adding those. I didn't add copyrighted material, I added links to quotes from the New York Times, the New Yorker, etc, the quotes were already there, I expanded a couple of them so that they were more clear, but the quotes were already there I just posted links. I was putting the page in chronological order and was in the middle of working on it when you deleted almost the whole thing so now there's almost no source for anything there. Who would look up 2 year old Wikipedia issues in order to edit an article? This is a major composer and there's almost nothing written about him here now. I spent hours on this. Why should I add anything to Wikipedia in the future? If you had an issue with the info in this article before I started trying to add links well maybe you should have fixed it before and not just deleted someone's work. I have nothing to do with this composer and have nothing to do with advertising or promotion and I have nothing to do with what was previously posted in this article before today, so I don't know what you're talking about. Why should anyone post on Wikipedia? This is ridiculous.Iful (talk) 02:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your frustration, though to vent at me is misplaced. Perhaps I'll repeat myself here, but I'll ask that you refrain from continuing the discussion at this page, and use the article talk page instead in the future. You were, unfortunately, adding cites to an unacceptable version--it ought to have been apparent that the version you were editing was grossly inappropriate for an encyclopedia. This was discussed at the article's talk page, and is easily viewed in the article's history. In coming across it this evening it took me not more than ten seconds to realize that the bulk of the article was a pressrelease in tone, and another minute or two to review its history and suspect copyright violation. You are welcome to add properly sourced content to any Wikipedia article. If you still don't understand the issue I'd encourage you, again, to read the site's guidelines and speak with an administrator. Thank you, 76.248.151.159 (talk) 02:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to post on the article talk page before but it didn't work and you probably wouldn't have seen it. I'm offended that you posted on my talk page that I posted copyrighted material and I would like you to delete that. If the page already contained copyrighted material how would I know that? I didn't post it. The page asked and still asked for sources which I was providing. It would be one thing if it said it was scheduled for deletion, but it didn't say that. Please delete that statement from my talk page along with the threat to block me. Thank you. And if anybody thinks that quotes from good music reviewers don't belong in a review of an opera composer, that's unrealistic. Classical reviewers like Alex Ross of the New Yorker are tough, if you get a good review from them that's like an Oscar. There are no Oscars or Tonys for opera composers, the only way you know somebody is good is if they get good reviews from tough reviewers.Iful (talk) 03:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry--you restored mass copyright violation text after I offered a clear edit summary with explanation here [2]. You're always free to remove warnings and discussion from your own talk page. I've asked you not to post at my talk page again--I don't think you get it, and any continued discussion appears to be for naught. Good luck, 76.248.151.159 (talk) 04:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to answer his questions over at the article talk page. I can understand his frustration and hope we can get him engaged in the right way. As for DJ JT, what a mess! Where do you find these things? Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the effort. It was generous in spirit. At this point there's little need for me to continue on the subject--the threads both here and at the article talk page are sufficient involvement on my end. Cheers, 76.248.151.159 (talk) 18:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was a bit snippy with you on my talk page. For some bizarre reason, I attributed your post to Fact Reporter1. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note here--in such crossfires that's bound to happen. I misinterpreted specific claims by FR1, so there's plenty of 'oops' to go around. In the interim my rural connection was cut, and I'm apparently reincarnated as a different 76. More complications. Cheers, 76.248.144.216 (talk) 20:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the refimprove template you added to Slow Club. I believe that you'll agree that the page is now sufficiently referenced. (I think it's over-referenced, but that's for someone else to decide and select references.) Ross-c (talk) 09:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]