User talk:Usgrant7

Welcome!

Hello, Usgrant7, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Johnuniq (talk) 03:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Kony

I removed your edit at Joseph Kony because mediation templates are not put in the article, and I don't think an editor directly uses {{MedcabStatus}} anywhere. I am not sure how that is handled; if wanted, please ask at WP:HELPDESK. I have not followed the discussion on the talk page, but are you sure the conditions at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal are satisfied by this disagreement? It's very tricky working out how to get help for an issue like this; some notes are at WP:DR. One useful approach is to post a new section at the talk page of an appropriate WikiProject (perhaps here), and ask for advice. Do not post a long message with a lot of details (they are ignored). Do not use emotional language (just briefly describe the situation using neutral language). Johnuniq (talk) 03:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2012

Your recent editing history at Joseph Kony shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 15:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:CCTV LossPrevention.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:CCTV LossPrevention.jpg. 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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

You have a significant conflict of interest in respect of Retail loss prevention (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and your point of view is not neutral. You should restrict yourself to proposing changes via the Talk page. You should also not characterise edits by others (including administrators) as vandalism. I am sure you don't like the views of the Citizens Advice Bureau, but as far as Wikipedia is concerned they are a hundred times better as a source for this than random industry insiders.

I have mentioned this at the administrators' noticeboard. Guy (Help!) 15:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are now on two reverts and still have a conflict of interest. Now would be a great time to stop your promotional activities and let us get no with being an encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 15:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Usgrant7/RLPSandBox

User:Usgrant7/RLPSandBox, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Usgrant7/RLPSandBox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Usgrant7/RLPSandBox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Guy (Help!) 15:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Things you don't understand

1. vandalism does not cover administrators removing PR content. Calling administrators vandals for doing so is (a) uncivil and (b) stupid.

2. You have a conflict of interest. I told you what that means and how to handle it. At least show some sign of having read that, please.

I am an admin, I do know our policy. OK? Guy (Help!) 16:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Things I am TRYING to understand

This whole blanket removal of people's hard work on a very specific article just because a non-expert on the subject decides to cowboy a rule into a subject matter he knows nothing about.
I am trying to see how this is not vandalism.
What you are saying is, a brain surgeon has no place to write about brain surgery on Wikipedia? Is that it? He is certainly an insider, right?Usgrant7 (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Things I DO understand

You have no clue what retail loss prevention is or why your content is so malformed on the subject, that you actually do people a disservice.
Your content relates to CIVIL RECOVERY and not to RETAIL LOSS PREVENTION. And you whining about how you or someone you know was mistreated in some shop-lifting case is not going to support your point of view in this discussion.
Your insistence on removing the whole article because in your opinion, it is advert in nature and smacks of POV and insider whatever violates another rule at Wikipedia. Everyone has input. You are suppressing the truth on this subject and I don't think that's ethical.Usgrant7 (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Things I AM going to understand

Just how many rules, as an admin, you are violating.Usgrant7 (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a little late for this, but it would be a good idea for you to peruse the Wikipedia policies on conflicts of interest, promotional activities, and maintaining a neutral point of view. While you and your colleagues may indeed have put a lot of hard work into your revisions to Retail loss prevention, the revised article appears to run substantially afoul of many of these basic policies. Ultimately you may not agree with the large scale revisions being made to your work, but at least then you will understand where these other (very experienced) Wikipedia editors are coming from. JohnInDC (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JzG's rambling reply

The first heading is very easy to explain, but much harder for you to comprehend; this is not your fault, it is cognitive dissonance and is ubiquitous.

OuchUsgrant7 (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I started off by trying to rewrite your text, with the intent of making the Statesman's commentary a second paragraph. Bear in mind that leaving the article alone was not an option, the Statesman was absolutely correct to call it out as obvious industry puff.

Usgrant7If a segment of society explains it's own inner workings, it would be of great benefit to know exactly how one goes about writing about it.

So, I started going through it para by para. And after I removed the puffery and weasel words, there was literally nothing usable. Seriously. It was written like a brochure or advertorial. Here's an example:

For decades, retailers employed security personnel to help protect the investments that they had in their stores and provide a visual deterrent to would-be shoplifters. Uniformed officers would monitor the stores, providing the perception of a secure shopping environment where shoplifting and other criminal offenses would not be tolerated. This highly visible security posture offered an image of authority and enforcement to curtail potential threats to the business. Often perceived as a necessary but unattractive and largely unwanted cost of doing business, the value of such a defense was contrasted by the extent of its potentially negative impact.

In Wikipedia style, this should be something like:

Retailers had long employed uniformed staff to deter and detect petty theft, and to provide an image of security for customers.

Usgrant7Oh my gosh, you hit that one right on the head. If only you could have just changed that paragraph instead blanking the whole article. Then we could have had a constructive dialog instead me sitting in limbo land and you typing a novel on why you didn't want to edit the article. If you expended half the effort you took to write this crytique, and just edited a few sample spots, preserving the spirit of the contribution, you might have gained a fan and did something constructive in the process.Usgrant7 (talk) 22:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We do allow brain surgeons to write about brain surgery. We do not allow them to paint brain surgery as a miracle cure for all disease, or to promote brain surgery associations, or to remove material critical of brain surgery, or to enforce a narrow definition of brain surgery which is favourable to their agenda. When they are writing about techniques they have invented or which they promote, we require them to check their biases at the door - but truly pioneering brain surgeons (i.e. not Stanislaw Burzynski) are generally scientists and given in any case to couching things in language which informs the reader of the uncertainties and risks involved, so you did not choose a very good example there. It's more like letting wheel clampers write the article on wheel clamping, or estate agents write the article on gazumping. They aren't going to be "writing for the enemy" as it were.

Usgrant7Okay, fair enough, writing from your perspective. You have turned an article about [retail loss prevention] into an article about [torts] in [small claims court]. In alagory, you have taken an article about wheel clampers and turned it into an article about the proper tire pressure for P205R15 Goodyears during the harsh winters of [North Dakota]. Help me, please, to understand how global retailers loosing billions of dollars due to all manner of man caused losses, people getting laid off, and small business owners in Chicago are going going to benefit from knowing all about the proper tire pressure of a Goodyear P205R15 winter tire in [North Dakota]? I am very ready to hear your reply.Usgrant7 (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The second heading is also easy to address: yes I do, I was formerly an assistant manager of a shop and have given evidence in court against shoplifters. The line between civil recovery and retail loss prevention is blurred not by me, but by the industry (that would be you). Employing a store detective is not controversial, but this article is not about store detectives, nor is it about the kinds of measures businesses take to protect goods from theft (I have also been first on the alarm list at an Apple dealer, handling three break-ins in 48 hours, staff thefts and so on).

Usgrant7Wheel clamping has several different players in the whole chain of wheel clamping. The engineers who design the machine. The fabricators who make the parts. The assembly people who put it together. The technicians who set them up in the garage. The garage owners. There is a whole economy involved in wheel clamping. The guy who supervises the wheel clamping is a great example of an effective assistant manager of a retail shop. Where as retail loss prevention is more along the lines of the whole business case for why we have wheel clampers in every national automotive service franchise in the country. A brain surgeon is the guy who invented the metal, rubber combination that holds air in round donat shaped rubber toob. When business people talk about retail loss prevention, they are most certainly not talking about the highly complex task of running a "shop" as an assistant manager.Usgrant7 (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The third heading made me smile. Here is the number of admin policies I have violated: none at all. I have taken no administrative actions whatsoever. All I have done is ask for help and more eyes, which is what the article needs. I was in the middle of trying to reword your puffery to make a more comprehensive article but was edit conflicted by someone who has looked independently at the two versions and would rather we start from "mine than yours" - I have no real caring either way, the important thing is that we are not a laughing stock.

Usgrant7I am glad we got you to smile, at least.Usgrant7 (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add another thing you need to understand: Wikipedia is not a billboard or paid content site. You have precisely no control over what happens to content you contribute. When you click Submit you consent, there and then, for it to be edited mercilessly. This is a feature, not a bug.

Usgrant7Getting an education. Which is good.Usgrant7 (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so, I read your comments above. You missed the point quite badly. For example, in respect of the example para, the point was that the majority of the wording was either superfluous or promotional, and that it's a non-trivial exercise to distil the actual encyclopaedic content. A lot of paragraphs contained nothing of any merit at all, they were just bigging up the industry. You're not the first to have this problem. Your content was, not to put too fine a point on it, obsequious. It embodied an assumption of great respect and significance and not only the tone but also the content were non-compliant.

So I am emphatically not saying that changing that one paragraph would have meaningfully fixed the article. What I am saying is that the majority of what you wrote was completely unusable. Sorry, that's how it is. It's fine for a press release, for your own website or whatever, but it ain't Wikipedia content, which was exactly the point the New Statesman article was making.

You appear to be a member of the industry body, it is very clear that you are a passionate believer in this industry, but that is not what Wikipedia is about. And the same applies to just about every point, really: you are looking for reasons why you are right and I am wrong, but actually I am right and you are wrong, at least as far as Wikipedia is concerned, and several people who have been here a long time have told you that. Your response has been to assert conspiracies. I can tell you from long experience that as a line of argument on Wikipedia, that never works. All it does is get you dismissed as a crank.

You now get to choose: work with people who know Wikipedia much better than you do, or carry on as you are and get yourself banned. It's very much your call. Guy (Help!) 11:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still, I'm happy that you are at last starting to talk to people rather than just revert warring. That's a good sign. I suggest you read our manual of style and write a couple of good paragraphs about the history of the industry, without sounding like you're evangelising, and drop them on the talk page for review. Then everyone's a winner. Guy (Help!) 16:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Usgrant7I instructed the team to do a piece by piece rework of the subject. Thank you. However, I continue to claim that your version is much more POV than you are willing to admit.Usgrant7 (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My version is incomplete. The only section I could write form good sources was about civil recovery, which I boosted with additional sources. I am not at all opposed to adding historical context and other factual information, but although I tried for some time I was not able to distill usable content from what you had written. I did try, but gave up. As a source, I am more inclined to trust CAB and the New Statesman than any spokesman for Retail Loss Prevention Ltd., who are the main alternative sources at the top of the list. Yup, the world is presenting a skewed impression, sorry, I did not make that happen. Guy (Help!) 12:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

my choice to restart the editing at the shorter, more comprehensively cited version is that it is in my experience generally better to build up based on what we find the sources to say rather than attempting to search out sources to validate particular content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

Your recent editing history at Retail loss prevention shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked' from editing for a period of 60 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=your reply here~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ADMIN who has targeted this article for destruction, has engaged in a deliberate campaign to remove content he knows nothing about in favor of an article he (or she) thinks complies with POV and ADVERT rules. To ask an expert on the subject to stop writing about the subject, in favor of someone who clearly knows nothing of the subject matter. (Writing about civil recovery is a completely illegitimate application of the subject of retail loss prevention across the globe.) This admin, started picking on this article because by removing the entire article and refusing to give a accurate reason for doing so, he avoids displaying a high level of ignorance on the subject. Where in academics, dose a hack ever get to publish in a professional journal? We had PHD's and people who have been in retail loss prevention for over three decades contribute to this article. Fully cited. If Wikipedia is all about cloaking topical articles dealing with security and capitalism, why not come right out and say it?

We, at Wikipedia have admins who's job it is to suppress certain topics that our admins find politically objectionable. At no time did anyone speak to the specific point of views they had a hard time with.

Judging by the hit list this particular admin has - he uses proxies and multiple accounts to work around killing content he objects to. If it is the policy of this website to suppress certain information, be honest about it and stop hiding under "the rules". We are honest, and will not create 100 accounts just to keep content political, like this admin has done. If your users don't want an honest presentation of the facts on subject matter people happen to know a lot about, then just say so, and we will publically disavow and explain to the world of loss prevention why Wikipedia is an unreliable source of information on this subject. And one more thing. Deleting a sandbox??? Really? A sandbox? Does that really fall into the rhelms of an admin's responsibility? Just saying...Usgrant7 (talk) 17:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your response above suggests that you didnt read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. You may wish to strike your response and try again. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barek has reformatted your comment as it interfered with the block notice template. If you wish to make a request for early unblocking, you will need to do so with the appropriate template. In the model below, replace the YOURREASONHERE with your reason, sign your reason with 4 ~ (four tilde marks), and remove both sets of XX and save. This will activate the template and place your request into a queue to be answered by an admin. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:14, 22 October 2012 (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).

Usgrant7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

How and why the block was reviewed.

1. The block condition was initiated by an “admin” who has a “bad user name”. JGz. 2. The content that was totally deleted was deleted because it was flagged for being two things: a. POV – Point of View b. Advert - Advertisement

Request I be Unblocked

I understand what I did. I overwrote the content of someone too fast and from the same account.

This is an honest attempt to show why.

The block is unjustified.

I understand the reason for the block. (As stated earlier.) However, I feel I was in the right. Because, what I saw was a Bad User Name, claiming to be an admin, over-posting an entire article we took over a year, and 100’s of hours of many people’s valuable time to compose. With warning to the business editors and the admin staff, well in advance, telling all what we were wanting to post and when.

A good reason for your unblock

1. Wrongfully accused of conflict of interest: We are a not-for-profit 501-6c and we are not PAID to edit Wiki articles. 2. Wrongfully accused of POV: I fail to understand how we can talk about retail loss prevention and not talk about the organizations and people who influence the subject matter, globally. 3. Wrongfully accused of Advertising: This article was written NOT to advertise, but a broad sweep of the subject matter. Still don't understand what the advert accusation entails.

Blocking Admin’s Concerns

1. Chief concern was that I not undo the edits like I did. Lesson learned, wont do. 2. Second concern, that this article was a possible large unwikified new article. We were attempting to work with people’s concerns, and didn’t intend on violating any rules. 3. Conduct issues: My conduct is justified, because I never engaged in any speech that was not warranted. 4. Edit warring: I honestly know what edit warring is, and I genuinely thought I was right in defending against section blanking. I am open to re-assessing that opinion.

Key information

1. It qualified as Vandalism because it was the removal and change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. We had PHD’s and Vice Presidents of Retail Loss Prevention contributing to this article. 2. The content that was used to blank out the we researched content didn’t even qualify to be under the main heading of retail loss prevention. And further, the article starts out like this: Retail loss prevention is historically the prevention of theft from retail establishments (colloquially known as "shrinkage"[1]) but in recent years has expanded to include "civil loss recovery", the controversial practice of demanding substantial and often unjustifiable sums for the administrative processing of alleged theft claims, generally without any criminal charges having been brought, let alone convictions secured.[2] a. Factually, this is not accurate. b. The references used are not even Wikified. The violate the core principle of reference by being over ambiguous on a narrow subject to redirect the conversation to another person’s point of view. Generally, that the Civil recovery system is wrong.

Block Admin’s Concerns

The difference between my history and the history of the admin are quite staunch. I have a history of wanting these articles to contain truth and be informative. The JzG legacy is that there are certain topics he doesn’t care much about. It is clear that JzG has an axe to grind by his personal narrative on the same talk page as this response:

Acting in Good Faith

I will accept full responsibility for this incident and if you wish to block me, then I am willing to take that. I am sure JzG had the best intentions and he’s writing about retail loss prevention because he has a substaintial interest in making a protest statement about civil recovery in an article about retail loss prevention. His call.

Agree to behave

I admit to trying to preserve this article, a great many people I respect worked very hard to write and inform Wikian’s about the subject. I admit that I did exactly what JzG did, but was honest enough to use my own account to do it with.
You have my word of honor that I will not engage in any edit warring ever again.

Why I am here

I care about this subject because of the millions of jobs world wide, that depend on the employers they work for, staying in business. People who steal, ruin it for every honest hard working person out there trying to make an honest living. I am a paid consultant of the LPF. I was not paid to write it, and only as a member of the foundation, did I post this article on behalf of the people who actually wrote it.

I Understand

I know this is a private website and we play by the rules of that site. Therefore, I have done my research, made my case according to the rules and will respect and accept the decision of the RedPenOfDoom. :-) Cool name.

Summary

I am formally requesting that page protection be put on this page, with the original “blanked” content, and that a reasonable dialog, point by point, would be had by all parties concerned.Usgrant7 (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You're blocked for edit warring. None of the rest of this request is even relevant. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:32, 22 October 2012 (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.

Since you are blocked you should email what evidence you have to back that claim to the arbitration committee. I suspect they could do with a good laugh right about now. Guy (Help!) 18:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: It appears that you were attempting to format an unblock request, but were having difficulties. I attempted to fix the formatting for you, but please review to ensure I correctly captured all the text you intended to utilize. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking to the Future

A couple of quick responses. You really need to read these two links: WP:COI and WP:ADVERT. Having a conflict of interest does not require a financial interest in the subject. Being considered Spam/advertising does not require you to again have a direct financial interest in the subject. Advocacy of a societal/political position can be spam just as much as pushing a product. In many ways it's a matter of tone and the *way* information is presented, rather than the specific information itself.
You *will* be unblocked sooner or later, whether it's actively unblocked or by the expiration of the block time. So the question is, what do you do then? You say you've learned to not revert-war. That's one thing, but I hope you can learn more than that. Your article now has a *lot* of eyes on it, between the external reporting and the internal Wikipedia reports, you have a lot of people paying attention to the article. It's pretty safe to say that the old version is not going to come back. But that does not mean that you cannot have individual data points returned. The best path forward towards that is to talk to the people on the article's talk page. Present specific data points that you want to have covered in the article, and work with the people there to get the information formatted in such a way that it meets Wikipedia's requirements.
Also, it's a safe bet at this point that the information critical of the concept is not going to be removed from the article. OTOH, if you are able to provide reliable sourcing to counter the criticism, that could possibly be included. More information, not less. Again, you'll need to work with the people now watching the article, not against them, and that likely means that you'll need to work things out on the talk page first again.
You know your topic, but most of the people you are now finding yourself interacting with know Wikipedia. They know the rules around here, know what is required, and what is and what is not allowed. Try to work with them, not against them. You're not going to get everything you want. You're not going to get back what was there. But if you work with instead of against, you'll be able to end up with more of what you want to see in the article than you'll likely get if you fight people over and over and get yourself blocked more or banned.
One last point, a word of advance warning of another thing that could trip you up again once you are no longer blocked. WP:NLT. No Legal Threats. This is very closely watched policy around here. Violating it is one of the fastest ways to get yourself blocked. (Violating 3RR is another, as you already found out the hard way.) NLT has two sides to it. First, if you are involved in legal action against the Foundation or any of it's editors, you are not allowed to edit until that is resolved. That's not the side that is as likely to bite you. More likely is the fact that you are not allowed to use the threat of legal action, whether explicit or implied, as a way to try to win arguments around here or as a way to intimidate other users. We cannot control legal actions taken outside of Wikipedia, but we can definitely prevent the threat of such from being levied against WP users. I know that threats of libel action have flown around this issue externally to WP, I just wanted to stress that they need to stay external. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article has seen a lot of WP:RANDY and WP:ROUGE activity recently, no doubt. Are you going to advise MDs to stop contributing to medical articles next? The have WP:COI too by your definition. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Usgrant7 I could not have articulated this point better. Thank you.Usgrant7 (talk) 22:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see JzG's response about Brain Surgery a couple of sections above. The same response pretty much covers your question. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, the Loss Prevention Foundation http://www.losspreventionfoundation.org/ is an American foundation. I doubt it has anything to do with the UK lawsuit(s). There were no legal threats made by this used that I'm aware of. That's just smearing by vague association. It one doctor sues for libel against claims of malpractice are you going to preemptively warn every MD on Wikipedia about NLT just in case? Tijfo098 (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I was trying to be helpful in advance there. He's already been majorly tripped up once by WP policy, I was trying to give advance warning of another. I never said that he made any sort of threats, just wanted to make him aware ahead of time of something that bits a number of uninformed users. Wikipedia operates in a way different from much of the rest of the world, and has a very low tolerance for certain types of action. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can respect this. Thank you for taking the time to help me understand.Usgrant7 (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the appropriate venue for this continued discussion? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For my originally intended topic, helping this user to know possible paths forward, and pitfalls to avoid, then yeah. It's the only venue currently open to this user. For 3rd party critiques of my comments to Usgrant7, then I'm not sure if this is the correct place or not. It's likely not the correct place for discussion of the article that started all of this. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:CCTV LossPrevention.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:CCTV LossPrevention.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page guidelines

As a note, while complete and full editing is allowed and encouraged on article pages; on talk pages, it is generally inappropriate to insert your comments within another editor's as you did here. Since this is your talk page, I will leave it here, but on an article talk page I would revert the edit and ask you to repost. More guidelines are found here WP:TPG. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the evil capitalist in this dialog, may I ask if the rule keepers are sharing the love with all parties, here, or am I getting the lions' share? Don't mind, I have big shoulders. Just saying. I have ninja assisins on my content, I am now getting obsene e-mails to my e-mail. One of them even threatened my children. It seems that someone is leveraging their passion for Wiki-clarity a little too.

Where are your *effing* children, now? USGrant So, I am not sure what that all means. But really? Usgrant7 (talk) 23:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment is not acceptable. There are some resources listed WP:DWH that may be able to help. (and yes, other users get pointed to information and policies that may help them learn the ropes). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of behaviour is utterly unacceptable. If you know the Wikipedia identity of the source you should send the information to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org, you should also include headers in case they can trace a user by IP address or other data. Guy (Help!) 12:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some more Wikipedia arcana

You speak repeatedly of text written by many people. That is not relevant to Wikipedia. All edits are the sole responsibility of the editor who makes them. We do not allow group accounts, we do not recognise external content generation processes. Your edits are, as far as we're concerned, just that: your edits.

You also speak of notification in advance. Another common newcomer's mistake, I'm afraid. Wikipedia has no editorial board, we have no process for formal approval of content, there is no recognised mechanism for approving a given version or wording. All edits are subject to reversion or re-editing at any time, without notice, you don't own the content and we're under no obligation to consult you or even notify you of changes.

Again, you are not the first to trip over these facts and I doubt you'll be the last. I reiterate: the best way forward is to propose neutrally worded content supported by independent reliable sources (i.e. wherever possible not industry sources committed to the cause). While you're blocked, you can do that right here. In fact, doing that is the thing most likely to get you unblocked, since it will give people some idea of how well you've understood issues of tone and neutrality. OK? Guy (Help!) 12:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retail Importance Assessment

Hi Usgrant7! Since you're listed as a member of WikiProject: Retailing, wanted to let you know we're currently discussing importance assessment criteria for the project on the talk page. Thanks! Tfkalk (talk) 23:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]