User talk:Betsythedevine

• Material from 2005 archived w:User_talk:Betsythedevine/Archive_2005.
• Material from 2006 archived w:User_talk:Betsythedevine/Archive_2006.
• Material from 2007 archived w:User_talk:Betsythedevine/Archive_2007.
• Material from 2008 archived w:User_talk:Betsythedevine/Archive_2008.
• Material from 2009 archived w:User_talk:Betsythedevine/Archive_2009.

For future reference: Links to useful Wikipedia resources

• WP:EITW : Resources for editors.
• WP:G : Wikipedia glossary
• Templates for Vandalism warning messages
• FeydHuxtable: Search Techniques

Luboš Motl

As a person who has made significant contributions to this article, you may be interested to know it has been nominated for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luboš Motl (3rd nomination). Robofish (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:OocitiesKatolskvision.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:OocitiesKatolskvision.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I tried to fix the omission by tagging the image as fair use. betsythedevine (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:OocitiesKatolskvision.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:OocitiesKatolskvision.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Betsythedevine. You have new messages at Tim1357's talk page.
Message added 14:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hey Betsythedevine, just letting you know that I responded to your question on my talk page. Cheers, Tim1357 ^talk 14:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

And again. Tim1357 ^talk 16:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:OocitiesKatolskvision.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:OocitiesKatolskvision.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 04:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi there -- just for the record, this picture was a screenshot I took of a page at an ad-supported site, a screenshot showing many Google ads, as part of a discussion where some had claimed that the website in question did not have ads on it. That discussion is over, so I am quite content for Wikipedia to stop hosting the image, which is no longer needed by anybody. betsythedevine (talk) 22:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Your accusations hypotheses

Here is my response to your accusations on the Jack Conway talk page, your words are in green.

Let's talk a little more about the recently outed paid intern for Rand Paul, Thomas Kubica, and his Daily Kos identity "Huey Long." On July 25, Huey Long joined Daily Kos and posted his first diary, referencing a video he had "found" on the internet -- said video was also posted on July 25 by an also-anonymous "demfromny" who exactly like "Huey Long" was a liberal fan of Daily Kos. Demfromny: "I've been reading a lot about Jack at Daily Kos, so I decided to research his positions." (wow, and not just research them but post a professionally edited video of every non-progressive quote available on tape, going back to 2002). Huey Long in his first diary on Kos: "I had been meaning to research Jack Conway, so I began today by searching for some of his videos on Youtube."

I agree that it was probably a Paul supporter, however it wasn't me. It could be Kubica, but both he and the Paul campaign are completely denying it.

And just one day, on July 26, later Wikipedia gets a new editor with an interest in adding material about Jack Conway.

Pure coincidence. I added one item about his foreign policy views upon signing up that day, then waited an entire month to add anything else significant, and my edit was based on material that had already been published before I first signed up July 26. In the meantime I edited a few instructional articles as I learned how to use Wikipedia and made newbie mistakes like forgetting to sign my name. Don't you think Rand's campaign would have someone who has used Wikipedia before to make these edits?

And this new editor is also a very professional video-editor who has by now posted 5 YouTube videos, every one of them attacking Jack Conway for not being progressive enough.

Thanks for the compliment on my video editing skills, but I don't know what you think is so professional about it. I made all my videos with amateur video editing software Windows Movie Maker, which I just recently learned how to use. I do have an attention to detail, but none of them are professionally done like you could say the "Is Jack Conway a Progressive?" video is. They are pretty much just straight clips of Conway talking, nothing fancy.

And what a coincidence -- one of the 5 videos Thomas6274 uploaded under the name Derek5141 on September 6 is exactly the same video uploaded by demfromny on July 25. Any comment about that video and how you got permission to upload it?

So what? Does that mean I am demfromny?. You know it is possible to download any video from youtube and then re-upload it (which I did), right?

Also, if I was working for the Paul campaign and doing activities that could shed a bad light on the Paul campaign, I would be a little smarter than to use my real first name. And if I did use my real first name for Wikipedia, why wouldn't I then use it for youtube? Obviously, at least one of the name's is not my real first name, so there is no reason to believe either one of them are. In fact, neither of them are, I am just not creative enough to come up with good usernames, so I chose those generic names. And if I really was Kubica, I am pretty sure my boss would prevent me from commenting further on Wikipedia after this whole "controversy" broke out.

Sorry, but you are badly mistaken. Thomas6274 (talk) 20:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Whether the concern troll who hit Daily Kos is named Thomas, whether you are that same Thomas/Huey, or whether you are some other person targeting hot-button progressive issues (Patriot Act, Bush tax cuts, marijuana, etc.) and over-simplifying Conway's statements about them ... WP articles are supposed to give a fair and NPOV account of the article topic. You are entitled to have your own POV, as I am entitled to mine, but the Conway article should be about him and not us. My concern was that the Conway article seemed to have been subjected to the same distortion that Thomas/Huey was trying on Kos. betsythedevine (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it is fair to point those things out, I don't really know, I'm new here. No hard feelings. Thomas6274 (talk) 11:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I can see how my remarks could feel like a personal attack, so I appreciate your thoughtful response. betsythedevine (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Betsy!

Thanks a lot, Betsy, for your protection of Novoselov and especially "my" article - which I just saw in some history. Not that I would care either way whether an article about me exists ;-) but it is still infinitesimally better.

You don't have to worry about Novoselov too much. A somewhat longer article already existed under his nickname Kostya Novoselov - a typical Russian way to say this name - and Konstantin Novoselov was reasonably redirected to Kostya.

I hope that you're doing fine - and also that Frank is not yet too old a Nobel prize winner if you observe younger ones such as Novoselov so carefully. :-)) Yours Lubos --Lumidek (talk) 10:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Lubos -- I got a good laugh from somebody being so quick to try to remove the article on Novoselov, so you are in good company. There was a Nobel-funded symposium on graphene this spring, where both Novoselov and Andrei Geim spoke; Geim gave a general talk that I went to myself and it was very interesting --he has a great sense of humor too. Frank is still full of energy and fun--we ran into Dudley and Georgene Herschbach recently as they were heading off to the beach with a boogie board, so don't pre-imagine us old folks into rocking chairs. :-) Hope you are also doing well and happy. betsythedevine (talk) 10:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: BIPAC & Yudanashi

Hi Betsy, Thank you for the heads up about the WP:COI on the BIPAC article. I went to work on changing it to make it more neutral only to find it speedily deleted. As I am not a wiki pro, how do I go about creating the article again, only even more neutral than my previous attempt? Thank you. Yudanashi (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

If your organization is "notable" in the Wikipedia sense, then an article could be based on what newspaper articles said about it. If BIPAC does not meet that notability guideline, it should not be the subject of an article here. The WP:COI guidelines are pretty clear that it is not a good idea to create articles about your own company or organization.betsythedevine (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Betsy, I think that the rewrites provide a much more encyclopedic POV as, instead of based on our internal history documents, is based on newspaper and online journal articles. As for the Alabama connection you added to the article, that was not BIPAC but BIPEC, the blog you linked had it listed incorrectly. We do not work in state house races, only state-wide races and congressional candidates. The [Talk:BIPAC|BIPAC Talk Page] has a fuller description.Yudanashi (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)