User talk:Tim Osman

Image tagging for Image:Plame Memo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Plame Memo.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:

I am the source of this image, having copied the original and then used Photoshop to circle the passage at the top. How can I identify something as my own?

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Plame Memo.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Plame Memo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Plame Memo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Plame Memo.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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BetacommandBot 11:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ONCE AGAIN, YOU ARE NOT LISTENING! OPEN YOUR EARS! THAT IS MY IMAGE, SCANNED FROM THE CONGRESSIONAL REPORT IT APPEARED IN - WHICH IS CITED. I THEN ADDED THE RED BORDER. SO IT IS MY IMAGE. IT IS NOT A FAIR USE IMAGE (WHATEVER THAT CRAP IS) AND IT IS NOT SOMEONE ELSE'S IMAGE. IT IS MINE. SO STOP WITH ALL THE NEEDLESS TYPING OF MESSAGES WHICH I DO NOT UNDERSTAND AND ACCEPT THAT THIS IS MY IMAGE. GOT IT? GOOD!

YOU ARE ALSO NOT ALLOWING EDITS TO THE PAGE. I HAVE SHOWN SOURCES FOR ALL OF THE EDITS AS YOU DEMAND, BUT SOMEONE IS CHANGING THEM BACK. WHAT'S WRONG - DO YOU WANT ONLY ONE VIEW OF WILSON AS THIS INNOCENT NICE MAN? CAN'T HANDLE A DIFFERING POINT OF VIEW?

License tagging for Image:Plame Memo2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Plame Memo2.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:

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. 20:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Scans

Scanning something and altering it does not make you the copyright holder. It is a derivative work at best. MSJapan 20:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

48 hour block

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. 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. LessHeard vanU 21:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider both your use of language and tone. You might also consider turning off the CAPS LOCK function. LessHeard vanU 21:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You betcha I am protesting this "block." It is censorship, plain and simple. You asked for sources - I gave you sources. You asked for the image I scanned to be removed - I removed it. I posted citations from congressional reports, The New York Times, and the Chicago Tribune - but you removed them.

I can only conclude that you wish to have liberals contribute here to your effort, and not have any differing voices. If you did, you would show an argument to your vandalism rather than destroying my ediys altogether.

I want the block removed NOW, and I want the edits I made - with the citations remaining as they are - to be reinstated ASAP, or I will wait the 48 hours and re-edit them myself.

And if you decide not to, I will conclude that your site is just another shill for liberals to feel better about rather than the truth.

Unblock me now. Do it. Now.

Hi, First, you should be aware there is an AN/I thread, here, about you and your uploads and actions. Second, telling us that if you don't get yoru way, you won't be our friend anymore is not an effective means of resolving your problem. Finally, rearranging an article into an entirely smear oriented piece, one which is clearly biased to make Plame look like a complaining criminal instead of a covert CIA operative, is going to anger and upset a lot of people here. Not because their politics don't match yours, but because there's enough citation and evidence that it led to congressional hearings and a major trial. Your edits, some of which is fairly obvious synthesis, are going to fail wikipolicy at that point. Anyways, please follow the thread after you've cooled off. Hope you can continue to edit Wikipedia in a constructive manner after your block. ThuranX 21:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, it appears that you need to read your own garbage before lecturing me. One of your readers agreed that my edits were sourced - if they make people angry, that encourages debate. Encouraging debate should not be met with censorship, which is your strategy, and which is not what freedom of the press is all about.

Second, I posted an image of a memo clearly backing up my assertion - one that many in the media (including several newspapers) - that Ms. Plame lied, which one of your minions said was not able to put on Wilson's site. Again, one of your readers agree with me - a link to something you posted, not me. here

Now, you can do the right thing and unblock me from this juvenile "you can't post that, nah nah nah nah" nonsense, or you can continue to show me that you would rather be a liberal than tell the truth.

Heck, if you want to be a censor, at least don't couch it in nice terms for me. I am 58 years old and have a long history of being in the room with people who are blantant HSA's. If you wish to push HS, do so somewhere else and don't waste my time. HS smells funny all of the time, and so does your excuse for not allowing the truth to be told about Mr. Wilson and his blatant lies.

License tagging for Image:Bankhead, William H..JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Bankhead, William H..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:

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. 05:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I replied to your question relating to this at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Photo of William B. Bankhead. In short, the photo is not acceptable for wikipedia. BTW I also fixed the tagging for your Plame memo images. Calliopejen1 07:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is "not acceptable?" What does that mean? This is my photo. I uploaded it. If you do not like it, show me why it is "not acceptable" from your crummy rules.

In the meantime, it stays, or I will repost it. Don't remove it without my permission.{````Tim Osman````}

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Steve _(Stephen)^talk 11:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Steve _(Stephen)^talk 11:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Tim Osman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

your reason here

Decline reason:

see below. Mango juice^talk 04:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I ask to be unblocked. NYScholar repeated has been vandalizing my edits to the page on Joseph C. Wilson, and I have been forced to change them back to what others agreed were valid and well-sourced edits. No matter how many times I changed the edits back, NYScholar rechanged them. Sure, that is an "edit war," but what is one to do? Stand back? Do nothing? How about blocking NYScholar? After all, he has been warned and has been blocked for vandalizing the biography.

I ask to be unblocked. Thank you. Tim Osman

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. ...

I want the block on me to be removed, and for NYScholar to be warned to cease vandalizing the biography of Joseph C. Wilson, or he should be blocked permanently. Tim Osman

I'm inquiring with the blocking admin. But I must say with an attitude like that, and your belligerent manner of discussion over this issue has not been helpful, so I'm not very sympathetic. Mango juice^talk 02:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, having looked into this, I'm declining your unblock. You are blocked for a week. While you are blocked, if you want to return to editing without being blocked again, you need to get control of yourself, and familiarize yourself with some of the policies of the site. Most important:

Wikipedia:Vandalism: what vandalism is and what it is not. In particular, vandalism is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia, it is not someone disagreeing with you.
Wikipedia:Assume good faith: You are required and expected to assume that others are trying to help Wikipedia, as a base assumption.
Wikipedia:Civility: Treat people with respect. Don't engage in personal attacks. Comment on the contribution, not the contributor.
WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:NOT: the content policies. If you have a disagreement with someone, settle it with civil dialogue and relate your arguments to these policies.

If you continue in the vein you've been in so far, you will find yourself indefinitely blocked. Mango juice^talk 04:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Bankhead, William H..JPG

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Bankhead, William H..JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Joseph C. Wilson

I have done major rewrites of the biography of Joseph Wilson. The article as it appeared was far too long - someone even posted that it was way too long - and many parts of the article as it stood had nothing to do with Wilson. Also, many of the sources were from discredited blogs or partisan sites. I have replaced them with links to mainstream newspaper articles, from The New York Times, Washington Post, etc., as well as the Senate Intelligence Report. At the same time (as of July 30, 2007), I am working to resurrect the footnotes (which were also larded down with discredited sites and bad links), which I will do in the coming days. I would appreciate any changes anyone wishes to make to send them to me, or post them here, so that I can incorporate them into the finished product.

Tim Osman 00:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Tim OsmanTim Osman 00:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I'm glad to answer any queries you might have, and I'm glad to hear about your constructive response to the block. Best of luck. Mango juice^talk 01:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Because you have repeatedly removed the comments of others from Talk:Joseph C. Wilson and User talk:NYScholar, I've blocked you for 48 hours. Do not remove the comments of other people. I have also looked into your edits to Joseph C. Wilson and I think that you had best refrain from making such wide changes in the future. There was a phrase you added that said [1] "So, just for the sake of argument, let's stipulate that Joe Wilson is a Beltway mediocrity who has shamelessly gone from blowing the whistle to blowing his own horn." This kind of edit is blatantly inappropriate. If you want to improve the article, let me suggest, (1) find ways to improve the article incrementally - things limited to a couple of paragraphs at most, and (2) discuss your changes before you make them. The general Wikipedia philosophy is Be bold in updating pages, but that becomes deprecated when previous acts of boldness have been unproductive. Also, please do remember to sign your posts to talk pages using ~~~~ . Mango juice^talk 14:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ask for Unblock

Mangojuice, for openers I ask that I be unblocked. The user:NYScholar continues to attack me personally; I removed the comments because that should not be allowed. If I was wrong I apologize. But I was blocked for attacking one personally, and deserved it. Yet he attacks me and when I remove them I am blocked. It is most unfair.

Second, that sentence which you call "blatant" is from a source - it is not mine. I will footnote it correctly when I conclude the biography; if you want it removed please let me know but know that those are the sentiments of others and not me.

I still would like to know why the user:NYScholar has not been warned about yanking my entire revision out and replacing it with his own, with discredited sources. Has he not been warned? Or am I the only one who gets warnings and blocks?

I ask to be unblocked. That is all.

Tim Osman 15:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Tim Osman[reply]

First off, if you want someone else to review the block, please put an {{unblock|(your reasoning)}} tag. As I said to NYScholar when he also appealed by block of him over this same conflict, I'm not going to comment on his behavior, because that's not why you are blocked. Yes, you were wrong, you were very very wrong to remove comments like [2] from the talk page. First of all, there is absolutely nothing in what you removed that can be construed as a personal attack. Some of it may be something you might take offense to but he was commenting on your edits, not on you directly, and he was explaining why he felt your edits were bad, and it would serve no purpose to disallow edits like that. Second, you should note that removing personal attacks does not have especially broad support and has been used abusively, so you should really apply it only strictly and sparingly, and in cases when you do apply it you should remove only the portions of a comment that you take to be a personal attack. However, if I were you I would not remove any personal attacks any more, you have shown very poor judgement about what is and what is not a personal attack. In fact, just don't remove any comments from any talk pages, period. Furthermore, you were previously blocked for 3RR violation and you did it again: 3RR also applies to talk pages, and "removing personal comments" is not at all an excuse for such removals. It is particularly bad form to be engaging in revert warring with a user on their own user talk page, as you did at User talk:NYScholar.

As for your edits to the page, I read your revision, and there are some parts of it that are good. Most importantly, though, you completely rewrote the article, removing lots of text, replacing lots of other text, and so on. You have explained this as an attempt to reduce the article's length, but you were clearly interested in several separate issues. My advice is that you should try to make more incremental changes. The problem with a huge wholesale change is that it is very difficult for others to understand why the change was made, and even what the extent of the change is, let alone, for them to comment or dispute certain parts of the change. Given the difficulty you had already run into, I'm surprised if you thought no one would mind you rewriting the entire article. So, for instance, if you feel that too much detail is given about events that are tangential to Wilson, you should bring up those sections on the talk page and propose removing them or significantly shortening them. Be specific, and focus your changes on one issue at a time if that's possible.

I, myself, recognize that you have some astute criticisms of the article. However, you have to proceed more cautiously and slowly. Collaborative editing is not something that happens quickly. As for the specific statement I referred to, no, I hadn't realized that that was part of a quote. One of the problems with your version (and also, the current version) is the overuse of quotes - we should not let Wikipedia articles become a mouthpiece for particular statements certain editors choose to display (not to mention, there may be copyright/plagiarism issues from using quotes so much). Mango juice^talk 17:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph C. Wilson

Hi Tim, I see that you are still periodically implementing your changes in the Joseph C. Wilson article. (I just dropped back by after a break editing elsewhere.) I agree that the article is a mess, and I think that some of the changes that you are trying to make (though perhaps not all of them) are good. It seems to me that the article as it stands has some NPOV issues, and that your revision has some NPOV issues too. I think that if you just take one section at a time to try to edit you would make more progress, and I might even support you to be the "consensus" NYScholar is seeking if I could understand what you were trying to do better! So anyways please think about trying to edit more slowly and piece by piece, because then I think at least some of your edits would stick. i would be interested in cleaning the article up because at the moment it is pretty ridiculous looking, in tone, layout, length, etc. Calliopejen1 07:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ask for Unblock...Again

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Tim Osman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

( I have tried to be civil. I have tried to use care and caution to make changes to the article on Joseph C. Wilson. I have been told - see right above this - that the article needs to be fixed, and that my edits should go slow. I did just that. And yet all I get is having the article changed, and when I change it back, I get tossed off. Now, if you wish to block me - now for a month - that is your right. But since you feel it necessary to block someone who wants to fix things for the better, you are making the statement loudly and clearly that you would rather have biased articles, and that anyone who tries to fix them will be removed. I ask to be unblocked. If you wish to leave the block in place, I must resign from here. Enough is enough of being labeled a "troll," or someone who vandalizes, or be stalked by people who do not like what the truth is all about. This is the moment, folks of Wikipedia: which is it: truth or removal? Your call. I await your verdict. It is a verdict more on your behavior than on mine.)

Decline reason:

You have continued violating our policies. WP:3RR is not just a suggestion. You are well aware of this policy and have shown no evidence that you are even trying to abide by it. The block is entirely appropriate. — Yamla 14:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Tim Osman 23:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Tim Osman[reply]

{{unblock|(So, it is just plainly obvious that you and your ILK have nothing better to do but have a biased and disgusting policy. This is my end here. You have proven your totalitarian leanings to me. I will make sure that any friends and persons I meet know that this site is just a sham, a hollow pile of crap. Good riddance. You deserve the shit you post. It is just worthless.)}}