User talk:Shem1805/Archive 3

It just contains information about the company?

I barely wrote a paragraph. Whats wrong? Please guide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JK-RULZ (talk • contribs) 09:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see the article talkpage - and please remember to sign your talk page entries. Shem (talk) 10:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. Please do not worry. It would surely be taken under consideration while editing this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JK-RULZ (talk • contribs) 10:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• I appreciate what you did for the article Shesh Paul Vaid but I just want to correct you on one simple thing that, User:Vaiddauji is not Shesh Paul Vaid. If don't believe me just search the later name on web. You'll get to know. Thank You 117.198.131.11 (talk) 13:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• And yes, I almost forgot, that is not a Gov. of India (GOI) IP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.131.11 (talk) 13:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to assume that Vaid is the name of both S P Vaid and of User:Vaiddauji, without them necessarily being the same person. COI requires that you state there is no conflict of interest, which you have not done. If you're related to Vaid, then you need to say so, in accordance with WP:COI. Meanwhile the COI tag warns readers that there may be an undeclared COI. When it is established that there is no COI, or that the COI is declared and there is NPOV, then the tag can go. The Indian IP that started editing right after JK-RULZ retired isn't an Indian Government IP? My mistake - but it hardly alters the facts. Are you saying you are not JK-RULZ? Remember that an Admin can check a user's IP... Shem (talk) 13:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm I'm not quite sure what I'm doing wrong...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohnonono123 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

One would think I would be a bit better at it... being a journalist. But, yes... I removed all copyrighted material... what I had initially posted was a revision of that material with factual corrections. If you can get me started I will make edits after comparing it to other wiki pages. I appreciate your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohnonono123 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all. I'm making some changes now - and I can assure you there will be errors of fact - this is way off my area of understanding - but you should be able to correct the text easily. Yours, Shem (talk) 10:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(Moved by Shem to correct section) Yes, I was in the band. I have updated my userpage to reflect that. What would be the next step in that process (tagging as semi-biographical)? Ohnonono123 (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it looks much better now. I was in the band (Simon Brody) so how do I resolve that conflict of interest? All of the material is factually supported by the citing references. I just clarified information currently in circulation elsewhere on the internet. I will work to fix the stylistic suggestions and I corrected the issues you pointed out. Ohnonono123 (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohnonono123 (talk • contribs)

Simon (can I call you Simon, or would you prefer "Ohno"?)
I've had a quick look through and fixed some broken links, style, formatting, etc. This needs more work to fix the COI, but I'll be back later. I'm afraid some of the pure Simon Brody stuff will need to go (quotes, link to the blog), but it will end up a really good article, and accurate to boot. Well done. Chat later. Shem (talk) 09:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

And one more thing - do you have a photo that YOU own the copyright to (ie you took)? If so, we can upload it, which will improve the article no end. Let me know. Shem (talk) 15:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Simon it is. Yes, I will make more changes as time allows. Law school finals season is upon me. I thought this would be a nice little distraction/project. Rules everywhere I look... Oh and yes, I have plenty of photos to which I own the copyright. Not that I took myself because that would be quite difficult but promo pictures for which the photographer was paid and we were given rights to use the photos in all press material. How should a photo be linked to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohnonono123 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Simon, thanks for getting back to me. I know what you mean about rules, but they're there to protect the encyclopaedia (but you're a lawyer in training, so I hardly need to explain.) I'm afraid owning the rights to use the photo isn't the same as owning the copyright. Unless you've purchased the copyright, you can't put it on Wikipedia (there are some exceptions, but not worth pursuing at the moment). This isn't promo, remember - think of it as an analogy to putting a Drowningman photo in a printed encyclopaedia. Have a think and see if you can come up with a photo taken by you, which will be simple. If not, perhaps you know someone who took a photo and would be willing to set up an account on Wikipedia and upload it. Either way, I'll guide you step-by-step. It's not that hard, I promise.

On another subject, you yourself are probably notable, and therefore deserving of a Wikipedia article. You can't write it yourself, but if you point me in the direction of some useful sources, then I can. The articles you can write are the albums - see Calculating Infinity for an example. Just remember to declare your COI on the talk page.

I think the end result of your nice little project/distraction will be a good article on Drowningman, which WP didn't have before you started. If you feel like doing me a favour, you'll hang around WP for a while and apply your expert knowledge to improving other articles. I'll always be glad to help, but sometimes my job takes me away for long periods. Don't be offended if I don't answer, and if you ask any other editor, 90% of them will be delighted to help. Yours, Shem (talk) 09:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't make my intentions clear. I intended the exact opposite of what you redirect. I split the old Ala (Roman military) article up into 2 dedicated articles, to reflect its quite distinct components (1) the Republican ala, a largely infantry formation (with some cavalry) of 5,400 men, now Ala (Roman allied military unit) and (2) the imperial ala, a purely cavalry unit of 500 men, now Ala (Roman cavalry unit). So please can you cancel your redirect. Regards EraNavigator (talk) 14:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. You could easily have reverted the change yourself, but I was pleased to do so on your behalf. I've also amended the disambiguation page Ala to reflect, and put the {{seealso}} template on both Ala (Roman allied military unit) and Ala (Roman cavalry unit). Please check and make sure they are correct. Shem (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)