User talk:Ezwider

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Ezwider, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 18:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cathedraltown, Ontario, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018[edit]

Please stop adding unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the material you added was copied directly from other websites, and thus was a copyright violation. Please don't add copyright material to Wikipedia. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of problems with your submission. You cannot post copyright material on Wikipedia even if you are the copyright holder, unless special licensing permissions are in place. That is because Wikipedia aims to be freely distributable and copyable by anyone, and all content must have the appropriate documentation in place before that can happen. Please see Wikipedia:donating copyrighted materials which explains how it works. Regardless of the copyright issue, we don't accept advert-like or promotional content.

The second problem is conflict of interest. Writing an article about your own organisation or that of a client is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required neutral point of view. According to our terms of use, paid editors and people editing on behalf of their employer are required to disclose their conflict of interest by posting a notice on their user page or talk page. I have placed some information about conflict of interest below.

If you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa, Thanks for getting back to me. In reviewing the Wikipepia guidelines, I can see how my submission would be at variance, and my future edits will stay within the guidelines. Also, given your explanation regarding conflict of interest, I will declare a long-time, on-and-off relationship with members of the Roman family and with some of their businesses. The intent of my submission, however, was not promotional, but rather informational. I wanted people to have the facts about Cathedraltown, both as to what it is physically and about what inspired it. I have just made edits to the opening section, the geography, the history and the first paragraph of the architecture and art sections, which I hope fall well within the Wikipedia guidelines. I appreciate the guidance you have already given me, and look forward to any future advice you might offer. Regards, Ezwider Ezwider (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa, I think I'm getting the gist of editing Wikipedia articles (I am new to this), and recognize that I probably gave too much information in my earlier versions, making the article too long and detailed, given the relative importance of Cathedraltown to the rest of the world. Please review the article as it now stands and let me know whether it violates any Wikipedia guidelines. If you are satisfied that it does not, would it be ok to remove the notation at the top of the article? Regards, Ezwider(talk) 22:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All content you add to the encyclopedia needs sources. Most of the material you've included in the article Cathedraltown, Ontario has no sources whatsoever. The only thing that's adequately sourced is the content about the cow statue. I've added "citation needed" tags to some paragraphs. Unsourced material is subject to removal. Similarly, you should review Cathedral of the Transfiguration (Markham) and add sources for any unsourced statements. Please see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for more information. Your own personal knowledge is not considered a reliable source; that's why the page has an "original research" tag on it right now. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa. All material has now been sourced as you advised, leaving no original research in the Cathedraltown article. Is it therefore ok to remove the "original research" tag? User:Ezwider Ezwider (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC) I'm very new to Wikipedia and therefore greatly appreciate your comments and advice. And I am beginning to get the hang of things, especially with respect to neutral language, as you'll see from my latest edits to the Cathedraltown article. The problem of citation with respect to both the George Dickerson and the Cathedraltown articles, however, seems to have existed from the very beginning. For example, the reference in the version that predates my edits to Richard Widmark in the Dickerson article was never referenced, so that original statement had never been substantiated. It is impossible to prove that George Dickerson never had a friendship with Richard Widmark as is would be impossible to prove that he never had a friendship with your or me, unless you or I claimed that we did not know George Dickerson. But if we were to follow your logic that first-hand statements are not valid for inclusion in Wikipedia articles, then neither you nor I could delete a reference that claimed we were friends with George. The problem, therefore, seems to arise with the initial statement that George was friends with Widmark. In this case, the solution would be to delete that reference in the article, which is what I, in fact, had done. The same would hold true for the statement in the original article that George wrote an "uncompleted" novel. As such, the work would never have seen the light of day and hence there would be no secondary sources confirming its existence, and therefore should not be included. As for some of the unsourced references in the Cathedraltown article, the description of Georgian architecture existed in the original article before I made my edits. As for Donald Buttress's (unsourced) mention of his involvement in developing the concept for Cathedraltown, would inclusion of his original drawing (which is in his Wikipedia article) would serve as sufficient historical proof. The other unsourced statements regarding the vision for Cathedraltown are contained in materials produced by the developer and are also in the Cathedraltown website. Would these constitute valid references? If so, I would be pleased to insert them. As a final thought, I think the best histories are those based upon original research and primary sources. Distortions usually arise in historical writings when the author seeks to interpret the original sources, which are tool distant from the readers to enable them to form truly accurate points of view. Just a thought! Kind regards Ezwider Ezwider (talk) 01:32, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

your contributions to George Dickerson[edit]

No matter how well you knew him, you cannot use yourself as an authority in updating the article. Find books or similar sources and cite them, but we don't know you, and we cannot verify you as a reliable source.

The same thing applies to Cathedral of the Transfiguration (Markham) and Cathedraltown, Ontario, and in addition you need to adjust your tone. In particular, your contributions concerning the former cathedral are not writing that your English and history teachers would ever have accepted as appropriate for a report on the place, and that is the tone you need to aim for. Phrasing like "Among the Cathedral's most awe-inspiring features" are inappropriate for a reference work.

Your local knowledge is appreciated, but you need to find sources which we can verify, and and write in a dispassionate and academic tone. Mangoe (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mangoe, I provided verifiable sources where indicated in the Cathedrdaltown article. As for the Cathedral of the Transfiguration article, I see that the former version has been installed. There are numerous inaccuracies and omissions in the article as it now stands, and some of the references cited also contain incorrect information - e.g. that Donald Buttress designed the Cathedral. He did not; he created the conceptual designs for Cathedraltown. The citation was an article in The Toronto Star by Noor Javed. I have followed her reportage closely and have found numerous errors in her coverage (her statement, without citing any sources, that Buttress designed the Cathedral being one). In one of her articles used as a citation in the Wikipedia article on the Cathedral of the Transfiguration, in giving reasons for the closure of the Cathedral in 2006 that "it is believed that" there were two causes, which she then names. One was correct, the other was incorrect and the principal reason for the closure (namely, ongoing construction work) was not mentioned. Just because something is printed or broadcast by the news media doesn't make it so. Indeed, during my university days, admittedly many decade ago, one of my history professors saying that historians do not accept newspaper accounts as valid sources, with the exception of The New York Times. Indeed, as Deputy Editorial Editor of The Toronto Star, I would caution the editorial writers not to accept as fact what they read in our own newspaper, but to independently verify every fact they wish to cite when writing an editorial. I also understand that you ought not to accept the word of someone you do not know. So it might be helpful if I said something about myself (all of which can be verified). As I mentioned above I was Deputy Editorial Page Editor for The Toronto Star. This was my last full-time position as a journalist, although I have periodically written freelance articles for The Star and other publications. I started out as a news clerk for The New York Times News Service, working my way up to copyeditor and slotman (a term that is archaic today, but which entailed choosing which stories by Times reporters to syndicate and then handing them off to the copyeditors). Subsequently, I was a reporter for the Baltimore Sun; the Reuters correspondent in Copenhagen; Copenhagen-Based stringer for The New York Times, Newsweek and several other publications, and writer, editor and newsreader for Radio Denmark before moving to Toronto to work for The Star. Regards, Ezwider Ezwider (talk) 06:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018, redux[edit]

Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is your final warning. Further copyright violations will result in you being blocked from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa,

Please let me know which material you identify as having violated copyright. All my edits are accurate and have been sourced.talk Ezwider (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa, Once I know of the specific copyrighted text in the article that you see as violating copyright, I can obtain a waiver from the copyright holder. If you are referring to references to caathedralofthetransfiguration.com, I thought a copyright waiver regarding that website had already been issued.talk Ezwider (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was not watching your talk page and did not see this question. As far as I know there's been no permission received for you to copy material from cathedralofthetransfiguration.com to this website. Please stop adding it, or I will block you from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa, I did not copy material from cathedralofthetransfiguration.com. I sited it as a reference for information in the same way that every Wikipedia article cites published material. Also, it is my understanding that the copyright owner of the website has sent Wikipedia a copyright waiver. All of my edits are accurate, relevant and properly cited, which cannot be said for the original Wikipedia article that I edited. The material for which I cited the website, deals with the content of the mosaics in the Circle under the Dome and in the Pendentives. The only published reference to that material is on the Cathedral website, and it is highly relevant because of its use of Canadian content, and I know it is accurate because of the photos of the mosaics that are also on the website. I am following Wikipedia guidelines, journalistic principles and standards and common sense in my edits, which I strongly believe should be respected.User talk:Ezwider Ezwider (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I checked your additions this morning, and they were almost identical to the wording on the copyright webpages http://cathedralofthetransfiguration.com/Cathedral and http://cathedralofthetransfiguration.com/Blog. Here's an example:

The source says:

Mr. Roman died in 1988, and did not live to see the Cathedral completed. His funeral service was held in the still-uncompleted Cathedral, with about 1,600 people attending.

Your addition:

Roman died of a heart attack in 1988, and did not see the cathedral completed. His funeral service was held in the partially completed structure, with 1600 people in attendance.

These passages are almost identical, and a copyright violation. If you don't understand what you are doing wrong, I suggest you stop editing until you have a better understanding of copyright law and how it applies to Wikipedia editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk)

Hi Diannaa, Actually, I did not add the reference to Stephen Roman's death and funeral; it was made many years ago by the original creator of the article and is now in the version of the article that you restored. I made a minor edit of that, by deleting that Roman died of a heart attack. So, if anyone violated copyright, it was the original author of the article and, by extension, you for restoring that article.

My wording of the mosaics was not copying, it was paraphrasing. If some of the phrases were the same as the phrases used in the website, it is because certain things cannot reasonably be reworded. In any event, the material was properly cited and, even if a case could be made that the paraphrasing was too similar to the original website text, the website copyright holder has issued a copyright waiver. But the more important issue is the accuracy of the article. The restored article contains many falsehoods (for example, one sentence says that Roman design the Cathedral, later the article claims that Donald Buttress designed it.) Roman did the design, and the reference cited to substantiate the statement that Buttress designed the Cathedral did not include such a statement. Also, the article says that the Cathedral was fully opened to the public a month after the Melkite church began to worship there. This is not only false, but the article cited did not make such a statement. My edits have been correcting false, outdated and improperly cited material, something for which I would think that Wikipedia, its editors and administrators, and the general public would be grateful.User talk:Ezwider Ezwider (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know about this mistake. The content that overlaps with http://cathedralofthetransfiguration.com/Cathedral has indeed been in the article for a long time, so I have restored that edit. However the material from http://cathedralofthetransfiguration.com/Blog does indeed appear to be copyvio as far as I can tell, so I am leaving that part out. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC) Adding: If and when we receive and process an email from the copyright holder regarding the material about the mosaics, it can be restored. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa, Many thanks. As for the copyright regarding www.cathedralofthetransfiguration.com, Permissions - Wikipedia Commons acknowledged receiving the copyright waiver form from the website copyright holder on March 26, so I would think that it will be processed shortly. When that is done, will the edits on the mosaics be restored automatically, or will I need to take some action?User talk:Ezwider Ezwider (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Usually the OTRS clerk who processes the email will let me know on my talk page that the content can be restored, and then I do it. The OTRS team is experiencing some severe backlogs right now, so please be patient. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Diannaa. User talk:Ezwider Ezwider (talk) 23:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Ezwider. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]