::No they do not support the claims he have written, there is no branch, nothing in the sources say its a branch, one mother and her 3 children (all of them dead) is not a branch of a clan consisting of thousands of people. Listen, me and this guy have been arguing over the Asmahan article for almost half a year (thats right) we have been through 3 mediators (him not listening to the first two and going against what the third mediator/administrator has said on several issues) and rfcs, I'm not gonna take it to the talkpage cause he doesn't listen to common sense or other peoples opinions, only engaging in edit warring. I was the one that told him several times that he couldn't plagiarize in the Asmahan article and he didn't listen. So I would really appreciate it if you yourself do not want to get involved in this at the talkpage and mediate, that you do not interfere when I remove this false information from the article.--[[User:Supreme Deliciousness|Supreme Deliciousness]] ([[User talk:Supreme Deliciousness|talk]]) 21:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
::No they do not support the claims he have written, there is no branch, nothing in the sources say its a branch, one mother and her 3 children (all of them dead) is not a branch of a clan consisting of thousands of people. Listen, me and this guy have been arguing over the Asmahan article for almost half a year (thats right) we have been through 3 mediators (him not listening to the first two and going against what the third mediator/administrator has said on several issues) and rfcs, I'm not gonna take it to the talkpage cause he doesn't listen to common sense or other peoples opinions, only engaging in edit warring. I was the one that told him several times that he couldn't plagiarize in the Asmahan article and he didn't listen. So I would really appreciate it if you yourself do not want to get involved in this at the talkpage and mediate, that you do not interfere when I remove this false information from the article.--[[User:Supreme Deliciousness|Supreme Deliciousness]] ([[User talk:Supreme Deliciousness|talk]]) 21:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
:::If you want to end the edit war you should lock the article at its original state at 2 August.--[[User:Supreme Deliciousness|Supreme Deliciousness]] ([[User talk:Supreme Deliciousness|talk]]) 21:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
:::If you want to end the edit war you should lock the article at its original state at 2 August.--[[User:Supreme Deliciousness|Supreme Deliciousness]] ([[User talk:Supreme Deliciousness|talk]]) 21:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
::::What I see is an [[Atrash|article]] which has been entirely unreferenced since its creation. Now that one editor is adding some sourced information for the article, your only contributions have been blanket deletions. If you actually want to improve the article -- than get some references. If you have problems with the language (like the word "branch") -- than reword it. Your blanket reversions are outside of [[WP:STATUSQUO|process]] and your persistence in doing so is [[WP:EW|edit warring]] (After your previous block, I would expect you to be familiar with this.) I am peripherally familiar with the long-running disputes and litany of complaints between you and the other editor. It appears to me that this continued petty bickering and POV-pushing from both sides is becoming disruptive and may require a topic ban for each of you. My advice is: learn to cooperate or find some other articles to edit. <span style="font-family: tahoma;"> — [[User:CactusWriter|<span style="color:#008000">Cactus</span><span style="color:#CC5500">Writer |</span>]] [[User_talk:CactusWriter|<span style="color:#008000"><sup>needles</sup></span>]]</span> 07:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
The June 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Susan Hutchison
I made the Susan Hutchison page and am trying to get rid of the copyright violation, I got the two organizations to email wikipedia granting permission to use the text, yet it is still there, How can I get rid of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spamd (talk • contribs) 21:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Spamd. Reading Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials#Granting us permission to copy material already online will give you a brief overview for getting permission to use the copyrighted text. If the organization sent permission to use their text, it doesn't appear to have been received by Wikipedia WP:OTRS. An administrator would have posted the OTRS permission on the article talk page showing that permission had been mailed. Because it wasn't there, I went ahead and removed the problematic portions and briefly rewrote the introduction. In truth, the easiest method for you to deal with copyrighted text is to rewrite the information from scratch (Simply use your own words without the benefit of looking at the original text. Then add citations for the source). If you have further problems, feel free to ask. Your efforts in dealing with this are appreciated. — CactusWriter |needles21:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (File:Babettesfeastphoto.gif)
Thanks for uploading File:Babettesfeastphoto.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help. As I explained to the bot father, I copied the material from another (unflagged) Wikipedia article, not from outside material. I never looked at the outside material; particularly afterward when I was afraid I would unconsciously mimic it, there being so few facts in the article anyway. I have 20,000 edits and 30 articles and am well aware of Wikipedia's policy on copyright violations. Thanks for your assistance in cleaning up this article. Student7 (talk) 12:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since I am currently talkstalking CactusWriter, I have left a note clarifying licensing issues in copying from one article to another at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops -- I had read through the talk pages, but didn't even notice that a temporary page had been created. Thanks for pointing that out to me. MLauba and Student7, you both did a much better rewrite than I did, so I'm going to delete the old version and replace it with your temp version. — CactusWriter |needles14:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those temporary pages used to be easier to see before Stifle created the "don't delete this" header (which is useful enough to be worth the hassle, since before that header those pages were sometimes speedily deleted by admins who didn't understand why they were there). I've missed a few myself, so I usually try to remember to click on it even if I don't think the blue link is blue enough to suggest it's been filled out. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)10:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Well, on the copyvio template, it appears blue even when empty as soon as I place the template, at least in my two browsers of choice, so it is indeed darn easy to miss. Oh, and thanks for the kind words, CW :) MLauba (talk) 11:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ow, my eyes. You are right - there is a difference between the Really Blue and Really-Really-I'm-Not-Kidding-It-Got-Bolder Blue. But I think it's better for me just to click the link without trying to figure out which blue it is. — CactusWriter |needles15:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! I've just noticed another difference, too! :O There's an arrow when there isn't a page; there's no arrow when there is. That's probably the easiest to detect difference! --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now the arrow I can see. What is this -- one of those "find five differences" puzzles? And in these puzzle games, drinking probably couldn't hurt. — CactusWriter |needles18:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hahn
Cactus Writer..you seem to be taking a real interest in certain issues
For the record, Hahn has never worked for Freedom Magazine..she is a freelance writer.
Shall we conclude based on your logic that you work for Wikipedia?
Secondly, the story she wrote exposed the connection between mind control experiments and the Orphans.
The story never claimed to expose the case of the Orphans..try reading for a change
What it exposed was the connection--previously unknown--between the Orphans and mind control experiments
done in the 1950s and 1960s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theshadow17 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the rules concerning verifiability -- especially on biographies of living people -- adding information to an article requires citing them with a reliable source. The article's only source states that Hahn is a "journalist with Brabant Newspapers." If you have a reference which expands on her being a freelance journalist, please add it, otherwise the information cannot be used. Additionally, as I wrote on the talk page, the text that was removed said:
It was Christine who broke the story of Duplessis Orphans scandal[1] by publishing it in Freedom magazine, a Church of Scientology publication. Later on, stories about the huge abuse and fraud case appeared in Canada TV News[2]and other major news outlets, such as the New York Times.
This was a clear misstatement since the major news stories (like this [1]) and the NY Times article appeared years previous to Hahn's. Again, it was requested that the statement be sourced or removed. It remained unsourced and was finally removed. If you have references for the above statement, please add them. If you wish to discuss this further, I suggest that it be continued on the article talk page, so that other interested editors might weigh in. (By the way, you may not have realized it, but it is improper to blank or delete other editors comments from the article talk pages -- that is why I reverted your edits there.) — CactusWriter |needles15:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Grant received for research from the Fund for Investigative Journalism in Washington DC which gives grants to FREELANCE WRITERS.
Now, please remove that statement as it is NOT accurate or true. Hahn has never been employed by Freedom Magazine and has submitted stories as a freelancer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theshadow17 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only after the truth about the Duplessis Orphans began to emerge in the 1990s did Clarina share her story with her husband and, ultimately, with Freedom.
If the story was claiming that Freedom unearthed the Orphans story, why would it make reference to the truth emerging about the Duplessis Orphans in the 1990s?
Thus, what you have stated here is incorrect and requires correction. You are referencing an inaccurate description of the work posted by a radio host.
If you want to post information about this story, reference the story please and not a radio host's inaccurate description of it.
The story provides plenty of documentation/evidence on what was uncovered, when and by whom.
Why the sudden interest in a story published in 2005? Seems odd. Visit the Freedom Magazine website, search for The Dark Mystery of the Duplessis Orphans —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theshadow17 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think a reference to The Fund for Investigative Journalism would be a great addition to Hahn's bio. (This link is actually a clearer mention). Although, unfortunately, Hahn is not mentioned as a recipient at the fund's website and she seems to say that the fund withdrew her grant in 2001 while she worked at W-FIVE. The real problem here is that this is supposed to be a biographical article about Hahn and yet there are almost no independent references for her. A few bi-lines and a brief interview by a fringe (and, as you say, inaccurate) radio journalist do not provide much substance for a WP:BLP article. If you can provide some good references which describe Hahn's career and background, than that would be helpful. At the moment, there doesn't appear to be enough reliable sources for an article about her. — CactusWriter |needles07:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Films July 2009 Newsletter
The July 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BEE
Can you please userfy Buereau of Energy Efficiency for me? I created that article, and I would like to re-create it and this I would like to add some details and make sure it does NOT violate any policies. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, come on now... I figured you were looking forward to learning all about America's first serial killer. That video was a wonderful accompaniment to my morning yogurt and muesli. (Meh, okay... who am I kidding? You didn't miss anything.) — CactusWriter |needles17:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! I've actually read a book about the guy some time back. But, no, I'd rather not see it. :) It was next on my queue to be mailed, and I removed it posthaste! --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright violation banner cannot be removed until permission to use the text has been received at WP:OTRS. This can take a few days to process -- that is why we allow 7+1 days for processing -- so please be patient. On the other hand, as is mentioned on your talk page, the text can also be released by simply changing the copyright information on the website with a note that states that re-use is permitted ''under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), versions 1.3 or later and Creative Commons Share Alike (CC-BY-SA), versions 3.0 or later, under CC-BY-SA, versions 3.0 or later, or that the material is released into the public domain. If we don't have permission in time, the article will be deleted. However, don't worry because the article can and will be restored if or when the permsission arrives.
Concerning sentences in the article with are not encyclopedic: here are just a few examples.
Dave’s warm and engaging stage patter, audience participation and obvious joy of performing that makes for an enjoyable evening, a veritable folk festival unto itself
Dave has excited and energized whole schools with his songwriting residencies
Dave is a wonderful entertainer of the preschool set
Dave's friendly introduction to the joys of acoustic guitar... continues to encourage beginning guitarists all over.
These all contain Peacock wording and come across as advertising copy. Equally important is that the article contains no inline citations which substantiate the text. This is a typical problem of articles which are created by the individuals themselves or family members -- and it is why WP strongly discourages editors from creating articles about themselves, family or friends. The guidelines for Neutral point of view can provide you some help on how to improve the article. Cheers. — CactusWriter |needles08:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Locking Susan Hutchison
There have been several defamation attempts and counterfactual statements made on her page such as "She is also known locally by the nickname: "Princess Skunk Cabbage"." and "Upon the unsealing of her settled lawsuit, it was revealed that her demotion stemmed from fraudulently using sick days for a canoeing trip over the 4th of July" which were based on unchallenged and unsubstantiated rumors and were represented as fact on her wikipedia page. Though they were quickly changed by vigilant wikipedia users, we would like to request that this page is locked.
Spamd (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the edit history for Susan Hutchison. There have been very few edits in the past month and only two recent instances of blatant vandalism [2][3] -- and both were reverted within one minute. The edits by the other IP are not vandalism but rather constitute a disagreement about content. For example, this edit was a correct attempt to neutralize the language (following WP:NPOV policy) as well as a poor attempt to add information about a dispute (biased and poorly sourced). But these are content disputes and should be discussed on the talk page. I notice there has been no attempt to engage in discussion and would encourage the editors to do so. At the moment, there is no reason for protecting the page -- but I'll keep it watch listed in case there are future problems.. (The Wikipedia:Rough guide to semi-protection helps explain when semi-protection might be considered.)
Now, as far as the content dispute goes: a quick google news search shows Hutchison's dismissal from KIRO, her subsequent lawsuit and the recent court order about sealed information are significant events. These are not rumors, but are reported in the large metropolitan newspapers [4], [5]. Yet, her WP bio doesn't mention these events at all. Biographies of living persons should include both criticism and praise when it is significant. I think a couple of sentences about these events, written in a neutral, encyclopedic tone, should be added to this article. — CactusWriter |needles07:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
William Coaker
Thank you very much for reverting the article to pre-copyvio status. I should become more familiar with the type of tools you use such that I can apply some corrective measures to the 4,700+ articles I monitor. Again thanks for your help, --HJKeats (talk) 12:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not so bad, all the articles I keep a keen eye on (whenever I can now mind ya) are of a common theme "Everything Newfoundland" :-) --HJKeats (talk) 13:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! You answered it already. I was just in the middle of researching a response to that one. Glad to see it was a lot easier than I thought. (I actually found a PD text that the contributor could use to fix it). Oh, well. Learn somethin' new... — CactusWriter |needles13:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CactusWriter! I just wanted to let you know that I reused your "close paraphrasing" message here. I hope you don't mind. By the way, I noticed that you live in Denmark. Kan du prata svenska? :) Theleftorium22:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No bother at all. I appreciate you asking. In this case, the bot wasn't wrong because the text was copied -- however, it appears to be in the public domain. The website shows the source as Source - A Compendium of the War of the Rebellion by Frederick H. Dyer. It's a book published in 1908 which places it in the PD. Here's the online version at the US Park Service. It appears most every Civil War website uses the same source. So its use is okay. — CactusWriter |needles15:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User Hemant17 keeps removing stuff from my talk page and user page and despite warnings, he says he has full right to do whatever he feels with his contributions. Please Comment.--Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I am sorry that you have had problems with this editor -- especially after you tried to help him. I see that he hasn't reverted any edits or touched your user page since your last message to him. I have had a discussion with him today. It is probable that it all stems from his rough introduction to article writing, which has been a series of problems and deletions - and appears to have left him frustrated. I'll keep a watch and take action if there is any return to uncivil behavior. — CactusWriter |needles19:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much..
CactusWriter, Rsrikanth05 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
This is ridiculous. Nothing in those sources say that there is a branch of the Atrash clan in Egypt, he have made it up himself. The only thing it says is about Alia fleeing Syria with her children to Egypt, this is not a branch nor has it ever been a branch. These people are dead. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From what I read, each of the sources appear to support the claims as written in the text of the article -- that some members of a Druze family named Atrash emigrated to Egypt. You will need to refute those sources. As I said in the edit summary, take the discussion to the talk page. I have no interest in the matter other that to see an end to the edit war. — CactusWriter |needles20:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No they do not support the claims he have written, there is no branch, nothing in the sources say its a branch, one mother and her 3 children (all of them dead) is not a branch of a clan consisting of thousands of people. Listen, me and this guy have been arguing over the Asmahan article for almost half a year (thats right) we have been through 3 mediators (him not listening to the first two and going against what the third mediator/administrator has said on several issues) and rfcs, I'm not gonna take it to the talkpage cause he doesn't listen to common sense or other peoples opinions, only engaging in edit warring. I was the one that told him several times that he couldn't plagiarize in the Asmahan article and he didn't listen. So I would really appreciate it if you yourself do not want to get involved in this at the talkpage and mediate, that you do not interfere when I remove this false information from the article.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I see is an article which has been entirely unreferenced since its creation. Now that one editor is adding some sourced information for the article, your only contributions have been blanket deletions. If you actually want to improve the article -- than get some references. If you have problems with the language (like the word "branch") -- than reword it. Your blanket reversions are outside of process and your persistence in doing so is edit warring (After your previous block, I would expect you to be familiar with this.) I am peripherally familiar with the long-running disputes and litany of complaints between you and the other editor. It appears to me that this continued petty bickering and POV-pushing from both sides is becoming disruptive and may require a topic ban for each of you. My advice is: learn to cooperate or find some other articles to edit. — CactusWriter |needles07:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
){kind=link}