User talk:Justice all the way

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] License tagging for Image:DORIS DAY.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:DORIS DAY.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:La_lobato.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:La_lobato.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Nelida_Roca.jpg

[edit] License tagging for Image:Princess yasmin aga khan.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Princess yasmin aga khan.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] April 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the external links you added to the page Baldness treatments do not comply with our guidelines for external links. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Gwernol 19:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Fake hair. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policy for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Gwernol 19:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Hair. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Gwernol 19:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know, now I've read the wikipedia external links policy. I am very sorry. {{subst:Justice all the way}}

Thank you for the apology and the message on my talk page. Sorry if I cam across harshly, but we take a pretty strict line against spamming here on Wikipedia, since it can seriously impact the integrity of articles. The particular site you mention http://haironpieces.com/ is a problem because it is primarily an advertisement for the services of Rodolfo Valentin. If the site merely contained information about hair pieces, it might be acceptable, but the testimonials and contact us pages make it quite clear that it is intended to drive traffic for the service Mr. Valentin provides. If I can help further, feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Gwernol 20:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You know, I'm trying to be tolerant here and help you out, but this edit is completely unacceptable. Stop disrupting Wikipedia articles in an effort to promote Rodolfo Valentin. If you continue I will block you from editing. This is your final warning. Gwernol 22:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rodolfo Valentin

Two things; first, I don't believe Bikeable is an administrator, but whether he is or not it's irrelevant as administrators don't get the final say simply because they are administrators.

Secondly, please don't remove legitimate tags placed by other editors. The wikipedia templates are not spam and are used to inform all editors what still needs to be done for an article to improve. The article *does* need to site it's sources better as per wikipedia guidelines, so I would therefore encourage you to do just that and add references before removing the tag. Thank you. — Dorvaq (talk) 15:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

My first piece of advice is to take the time to read the Wikipedia Guidelines (← click here to read) that you have been redirected to on numerous occasions. There's plenty of great information found there that can help you in your endeavor to make the article a Good article.

Secondly, discard your belief that Rodolfo's competitors are the culprits behind the edits you are disputing as I doubt very much that's the case. Regardless, even if it were the case, the edits made were legitimate. If you are truly trying to improve the article, listen to what other editors are telling you and allow them to make the edits. Despite being the creator, you unfortunately do not own the article. (← Read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles for more information)

Also on the topic of making the article better, you need to cite your sources; that's why the tag specifying This article or section does not adequately cite its references... was placed. You have to keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All good encyclopedias cite their sources. You can't assume that everyone will accept your points as true simply because you know they're true. Remember; integrity goes hand-in-hand with verifiability.

Lastly, regarding the image deletion, I suspect it had something to do with the copyright information, or lack thereof, found. If you indeed created the image yourself, you still must tag the image with copyright information. Please read Image guidelines for more information.

I hope this helps. — Dorvaq (talk) 20:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Justice ,

I'm not really sure what you're asking me to do - I understand that you are frustrated by the editing process on Wikipedia, but that is part of the nature of Wikipedia: everything must be verifiable and nobody 'owns' a page. Just as Wikipedia does not tolerate pages created about non-notable people, so all information on Wikipedia must have references and sources so that other people know it is reliable. I also know that it is frustrating to have an article that you have created edited substantially, but there is a warning on the Edit page: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it."

The sources tag ("This articles does not adequately cite its sources") is appropriate in this case - the article does not have many references. Compare it to Chana School and Adam Gilchrist - all the references lend credibility and authority to Wikipedia as a resource.

The photos - from the look of the article on Rodolfo Valentin, the problems have been sorted out, but if you remember to put the correct copyright information on when you upload a photo there shouldn't be any problems.

I'm sorry you have had a frustrating time so far on Wikipedia. Some things you could do which would be very helpful would be to add references to the Valentin article, also possibly to expand it a bit?

I hope this is helpful - if you have any more questions, please let me know.

Cricketgirl 20:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Justice, I'd recommend that you use the talk pages for the articles concerned to air your views and sort out problems. Also, you can sign your posts with ~~~~, which then makes a link to your page, and makes it easier for people to find your page. If you add the references as you add the information, you shouldn't have any problems with 'unreferenced material'. Cricketgirl 22:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Look, I genuinely want to help you and, like Cricketgirl, I am displeased to hear of your frustration, but you refuse to help yourself by not listening to what I and others have been telling you. I'm sorry, but Walker42 is making valid points as per Wikipedia guidelines so I suggest you take his advice.

I've pointed you to several sources you can use at your disposal to make your article better, such as finding out more on image tagging and citing your references, but you continually show me you are avoiding the read.

If you have something specific you don't understand with the step-by-step guides, let me know and I will do my best to help you. But, I will not rewrite the step-by-step instructions on your talk page here when the information is already readily available elsewhere. You have to do your part as well. — Dorvaq (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hair Infusion

I plan to, but not right away. Building consensus in Wikipedia is just as important as editing itself, especially on contentious issues. The point in question has been deleted by different editors several times. You can't just go and revert something simply because *one* person agrees with you or doesn't have a problem with what was written in the first place. I opened the point up for discussion and now I'll wait for other editors to respond, which is the wisest means to proceed.

Also, you shouldn't let this experience dissuade you from contributing further. Learn from the situation and familiarize yourself with Wikipedia guidelines and you'll be editing without feeling persecuted in no time. — Dorvaq (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Justice, the link in question points to a Hair Salons Directory with Rodolfo's offered services summarized. You must also be careful on how you interpret what's written. To me, it does not explicitly state that the "hair-infusion" technique is his. Viewed another way the sentence simply illustrates that Rodolfo has his own technique when performing the "hair-infusion" procedure.

Also, clicking on "Rodolfo Valentin" brings you to his profile page on nymag.com. I can't find anything stating he's been selected as the "best of 2007". Not a very good supportive source in my opinion for your point in question. — Dorvaq (talk) 13:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid neither sources are explicit enough. In order for your source to be verifiable to support a claim, your claim has to be unmistakably clear in that source. Otherwise, your source is irrelevant. In other words, I want to see, "Rodolfo Valentin, selected best of 2007." or something along those lines written in your source. It could also be a section in your source titled "Best of 2007" with Rodolfo Valentin's name appearing underneath. Your source doesn't provide that information.

As for your second source, again it's not enough to support a claim that the *Press* has named him a Society Hairstylist. The Press is a very broad term that incorporates many media venues. You've shown me only 1 source, which does not score very well at supporting your claim.

I know finding good sources can be very hard, despite the truth of your claim, but keep in mind your sources don't have to be from the internet. As long as they are verifiable and reliable. — Dorvaq (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Your references can be from any verifiable and reliable source preferably in English, including, but limited to, magazines, books, newspapers, etc. — Dorvaq (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I can not add the "Hair Infusion" part as the only trademark I can find on the United States Patent and Trademark Office website belongs to Jorge Maria Perez. There is no mention of Rodolfo owning the trademark. I know you've mentioned this person is Rodolfo's partner, but it's neither enough to claim Rodolfo owns the trademark simply because his partner does, nor is it enough to merit an entry on Rodolfo's page. — Dorvaq (talk) 16:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sofia's Hair 4 Health

Please don't add unsourced assertions to Wikipedia articles. You simply cannot just make the claim that Valentino was the first person to make prosthetic hair without also providing an independent source that readers can use to verify this information. Even if this fact is true and you can source it, what relevance does it have to the Sofia's Hair 4 Health article? Gwernol 20:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Final warning: Spam on Hair prosthesis

This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, as you did to Hair prosthesis, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted as well, preventing anyone from linking to them from any site that uses the MediaWiki spam blacklist, which includes all of Wikimedia and Wikipedia. Gwernol 21:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Rodolfo Valentin added back a spam link to Hair Infusion Site. You cannot link to that site, its pure spam. Your edit to Hair prosthesis added spam links to numerous of your websites. You cannot add those to articles. Your edit to Sophia's Hair 4 Health added a claim that Valentin was "the designer of the first hair prosthesis in the world" with absolutely no source to back that up. You cannot add claims about Valentin without including independent verifiable sources. I, and several other editors, have been extremely patient with you and repeatedly explained the need for proper sources for claims and that you simply cannot add links to sites you own that promote the services of Valentin. If you continue to do this you will be blocked from editing. Gwernol 23:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at the edits made to the Rodolfo Valentin article. The parts removed by Walker42 amongst others, should be removed. None of what you wrote has sources. Take for example the paragraph:

At a very young age, Valentin was recruited for fashion shows in Europe by hairdresser Alexandre de Paris, known for his work with Grace Kelly, Wallis, The Duchess of Windsor, and Elizabeth Taylor. Back in his native Buenos Aires, Valentin has worked with Argentine celebrities such as Nelida Roca, Maria Concepcion Cesar, Susana Gimenez, Nelida Lobato, Ambar La Fox, Vanessa Show, Graciela Borges, Patricia Dal and the Italian Sophia Loren.

None of the source you have given support these claims. Unless you have independent sources to back up these claims, you cannot include them in a Wikipedia article. Similarly, a claim like "Infusion is also considered a less aggressive hair extension technique" cannot be included unless you have a specific, independent, published source that says this. The article as you wrote it read like an advertisement for Valentin's hair studio. It was not a neutral, unbiased encyclopedia article and editors were entirely justified in removing the sections they did.

The fact that Rodolfo has a trademark on the term "Hair Infusion" doesn't mean anything. The article is about the technique, not the name of the technique. Even if he was the first to trademark the term in the US, this says nothing about whether he invented the technique. Once again, yu are making unsourced claims that seek to bolster the commercial fortunes of Valentin. You cannot use Wikipedia for these purposes. The hair infusion article was nothing but a set of inappropriate links to commercial websites promoting Valentin. Again, that is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The article was also written from a highly biased point of view and was entirely unsourced. Honestly its only purpose was to bolster Valentin, and you are lucky it was redirected rather than deleted outright. Gwernol 03:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:DORIS_DAY.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:DORIS_DAY.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 22:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EAR response.

Hello,

Responses to your request for editor assistance are available at the EAR page.

Please leave all replies on that page for consistency. Cheers. --Aarktica 21:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Generally, linking to an "official site" of the subject of an article is indeed appropriate. We certainly do so for Microsoft and Ebay, so I see no reason not to do so here, so long as it's verifiable that the site in question is indeed the subject's own. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC) (Edit conflict.) The last edit from the user in question – Walker42 – was on 2007-04-18; unless there are new incidents, I am uncertain why this would be an issue. In any event, if you ever start edit warring, you can always go to WP:3RR.

As noted above, "Editor assistance" of name Seraphimblade states that to link to an "official site" of the subject of an article is indeed appropiate. I am adding back to Rodolfo Valentinarticle the link to his official site. thank you!

If you have any future issues on this matter, please leave them at the EAR page, as opposed to my talk page.

P.S. The use of surrogates (e.g. ralicia) is unappreciated. --Aarktica 20:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rodolfo Valentin External links

Justice, if you're the one who keeps adding those external links via an anonymous IP, you're making this very difficult for me to want to continue to help you. If it's not you, disregard this message. Otherwise, please refrain from adding the links. Thank you. — Dorvaq (talk) 19:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Dorvaq: No please, keep going, it is very important your help for me!. you are really improving the article and I am learning more at the same time. I only added "Health & Grooming", and I will like to keep it if possible. thank you!

justice all the way 19:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)justice all the way

For on going discussion, See: here.

hi dorvaq! you are doing a great job in Rodolfo's article!. About the hair infusion, it is owned by his partner and also him.( I call them and asked them on the phone). Once you are in the US trademark page, and after search for "THE HAIR INFUSION" page, in that page click on "TARR STATUS" and at the end it will show you both names. Also if you click on the "TAR" tab, and then click on "specimens", it will show you the picture of the box of the hair infusion showing the hair infusion inside and the label showing: THE HAIR INFUSION by RODOLFO VALENTIN, exclusive technique. Also: in the first page of the [5]Hair infusion website, it is showing the same picture than is in the trademark office.

My Reply:

Following your directions, Rodolfo's name appears under the "Correspondent" section. That in *no* way shows that he owns the trademark. A correspondent and an owner are not necessarily the same person. All reference to the owner is listed as Jorge Maria. Plus, his name appears to be used as the company name of the correspondent and not as Rodolfo himself. For example, if I worked at McDonald's Restaurants and wanted to be corresponded with as a representative of my work, I would list my address in a similar fashion; or:

My Name

McDonald's Restaurants

1234 This & That Avenue

Toronto, Ontario

X8X 8X8

Does that mean that McDonald's Restaurants owns my trademark? Fortunately for me, no, but unfortunately for you, it doesn't show that Rodolfo also owns the trademark.

Lastly (regarding the trademark), a box created (or at least selected) by Rodolfo himself, I presume, indicating that "the Hair Infusion" is his exclusive technique, is not a reliable source to show ownership. That simply means that Rodolfo (or his salons) are the only ones able to use the "Hair Infusion" technique.

As for the official site link; first off, arguing that X article should have something because Y article has *that something* too, is not a good argument. See: Arguments to avoid. Now I know this article deals with "Articles for deletion", but the same principle applies to sections, and bits of information (and so on) of articles as well.

Moving on, in your request for editor assistance, Aarktica has explained that the link was "questionable", which I can only speculate as to the nature of his/her *questionable* remark. I think the issue with the website is that the website does not look like Rodolfo's (as an individual) official website but looks more like the official website of his salons. This can look like advertisement for some people seeing as the article is (or should be) about Rodolfo himself and not his salons. Anyhow, I will not override Aarktica's decision unless a consensus is reached with others. As a final note, you should perhaps ask this question to Aarktica to have a better understanding of his/her rationale. — Dorvaq (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding your source.

Unfortunately, no. The source is from Rodolfo's website making the claim somewhat biased and therefore, unreliable. A better source would be from the award committee in question. — Dorvaq (talk) 20:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Dorvaq: what about this link: http://rodolfovalentinsalon.googlepages.com/%22haircoloringtechniquesawardwinner%22 thanks! justice all the way 23:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)justice all the way

Again, no. The source is not authoritative enough to establish verifiability. — Dorvaq (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes you may add it, Justice, and the link is fine. We may be adding Rodolfo's official website within a bit as well... and good work on your sources. — Dorvaq (talk) 13:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:PRINCESS_YASMIN_AGA_KHAN.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:PRINCESS_YASMIN_AGA_KHAN.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 20:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Further to the above and your comment on my talk page, you are welcome to put the image into the article if you wish. The reason it was nominated for deletion is that it was not in use, it is of low quality (in my opinion) and there is no information about who the people in the image are so it would be impossible for someone else to use the photo. In reviewing the article you wish to have the image added to, I am not sure the image needs to be there. Again, I am not sure exactly who these people in the image are, but it does not seem like the article discusses them.--User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 15:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Based on subsequent edits, it appears you think the reason the image was nominated for deletion was because of a lack of believe you took the photo. Who took the photo is not and has never been an issue (at least with my nomination). The issue has been its lack of use and lack of information about the people in the photo, not who took it.--User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 15:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You keep seeming to want my approval in adding this image back into the article. As stated above, I do not believe the image is that great quality and also, there does not seem to be any mention of the people in the article. Also, the article is quite short and there really is not the need for all the images. the images should complement and add to the text, not compete with it for space. I see the image is still orphaned. You may also wish to comment on the deletion nomination at the nomination page, you will find a link in the red box on the image page. I am also going to edit out the comments you added quoting me on the image page, there is no need for that.--User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Here justice

I kind of agree with Bikeable. I'm afraid no matter how many sources you add, it won't change the feel of the article. The article still reads in a manner meant to sell Rodolfo Valentin and portray him in a positive light. If you wish to eliminate the ad feeling, then you need to change the wording. Keep in mind, however, Bikeable has mentioned that the article is doing much better and I agree with him on that point as well. — Dorvaq (talk) 14:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Just make sure you tag the picture appropriately and give all the necessary details. The picture will, however, not do for a source if that is what you are asking? Surely the issuing organization publishes the winners somewhere? Remember, sources do not have to come from the web. — Dorvaq (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moria Casan's image

Hello, I've seen that image in Moria Casán's english article... I've seen also it has a license that is compatible with Commons and Spanish Wikipedia. I know also you've uploaded it, so for this i came here.

I've many questions about the image. That is an image of more than 30 years, and it appears to be taken from a magazine. But you say that you're the copyright holder and the autor in that license. Is that correct? Perhaps it should have another license like PD-AR-Photo. Please, answer me in [:es:Usuario:Mauron:my talk page in spanish wikipedia].

I came here becose I'm interested in upload that image yo my wikipedia but I'm not about the license (and if the license it has is correct. --200.115.210.90 15:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

yes I took this picture myself. It appears to be taken from a magazine because it is a very old picture.

[edit] Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Justice all the way for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Pigman☿ 17:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It is very funny!...you have also accused me of being another person..a millionaire from Cuba.. I wish I am that person!!.justice all the way (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)justice all the way

[edit] Re: Justice all the way need your help!

Hello Justice. I'm afraid Pigman is correct in that unless you find better 3rd party reviews on Dennis Oliver, he unfortunately does not meet Wikipedia standards on notability. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which means that being an actor alone does not warrant an entry on Wikipedia.
Also, administrator Thatcher did not necessarily overturn the speedy deletion because he/she believed the article should remain, but did so because the article did not meet the speedy deletion criteria it was first deleted under, which doesn't imply the article is safe from deletion.
Furthermore, the articles for deletion process is being followed and all those in favor of the article's deletion are bringing up valid points. Remember, Wikipedia is all about building consensus.
Finally, sockpuppetry is frowned upon when used to push a discussion in favor of the puppeteer. You need not worry if you are not Ralicia's sockpuppet as this will easily be verified. I hope this helps you and good luck! — Dorvaq (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for using multiple accounts for disruption and to sway consensus. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

_GB^T/C 08:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)