User talk:WashingtonIsBroke
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Richard Pait, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://fl.912candidates.org. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Richard Pait[edit]
A tag has been placed on Richard Pait, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Passportguy (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
File copyright problem with File:Dr Marion D Thorpe Jr Head Shot.jpg[edit]
Thank you for uploading File:Dr Marion D Thorpe Jr Head Shot.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FASTILY (TALK) 20:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Hopefully I have cleared up this violation. Dr. Thorpe has his photo available for use from several sources, plus he is the one that created his page Marion_D._Thorpe,_Jr. under the user name User:Doc2008.
WashingtonIsBroke (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Re: 9/12 Candidate[edit]
The article does not indicate how the subject is notable by Wikipedia's standards. Please see WP:N for guidelines. ... discospinster talk 02:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Notability is starting. Would adding a quote from this page help with notability?
http://teamronmiller.com/reflections/?p=97
WashingtonIsBroke (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on your user page, User:WashingtonIsBroke, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person, and which is a violation of our policies regarding acceptable use of user pages: user pages are intended for active editors of Wikipedia to communicate with one another as part of the process of creating encyclopedic content, and should not be mistaken for free webhosting resources. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam, the guidelines on user pages, and, especially, our FAQ for businesses.
If you can indicate why the page is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the page in question and leave a note on this page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Calton | Talk 14:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Whatever. The links were to 9/12 candidate related sites and wiki page, not my own sites. I know wikipedia is not a hosting service.. I have my own 23 web sites... I have no need to host on wikipedia. I was just trying to have something other than a blank user page.
Your userpage is for anything that is compatible with the Wikipedia project. It is a mistake to think of it as a homepage: Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site. Instead, think of it as a way of organizing the work that you are doing on the articles in Wikipedia, and also a way of helping other editors to understand those with whom they are working.[1]
So by your own guidelines, I had links to our wiki project page and my user page was deleted because it was promoting a project on your site? OK, if I bother to recreate one, then I'll type up a detailed plan for our project that you keep deleting. WashingtonIsBroke (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
All we are trying to do is create a tie between people that already have wiki pages and the 9/12 Candidates organization.. that actually gets signed contracts from politicians. They sign contracts to promise they will follow the values and principles pointed out by Glenn Beck. The organization is all volunteer and there is no money involved, not even donations. So how can it be classified as advertising? This is nothing more than INFORMING people as to who signed the contracts, and organizing the candidates in such a way that they are easy to find. WashingtonIsBroke (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
WashingtonIsBroke (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Not a spammer or advertiser
Decline reason:
No indication you're here for any purpose but to promote your political positions, which is not the purpose of this encyclopedia. --jpgordon::==( o ) 20:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
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.
No, 912candidates is not my site. I was asked to help keep their wiki page updated. I am not promoting a political position, I'm simply updating links and announcements as new candidates are presented. I haven't even written any articles. 912candidates.org is a new blog site. They are not allowed to have a reference on wikipedia but dailykos, Raising Kaine and huffingtonpost, which are very political, are allowed? I'm confused. I'm not trying to be a smartass, I'm just trying to understand why and what the difference is. Maybe if you can point out to me why Michigan Liberal is allowed, then we can make corrections. They have broken references and most of the working references only go to a news sources' main page, not any actual article. If 912candidates is here only to advertise, then Michigan Liberal is even more qualified for deletion then we are. And Green Bloggers and and and a dozen or more other examples. WashingtonIsBroke (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
WashingtonIsBroke (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I'm just an editor
Decline reason:
As you state above, you are editing on behalf of 912candidates. You therefore have a conflict of interest, which is introducing a severe bias to your edits. We strive to keep all of our articles as neutral as possible, and heavily promoting a single point of view to the exclusion of others is seen as disruptive. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
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.
What bias? I'm not authoring anything! I receive an e-mail announcing a new 9/12 Candidate, I add ONE LINE to the 9/12 Candidate page and link it, with reference, to the persons page, I.E.
- Dr. Marion Thorpe (FL) :: 25 June 2009 :: U.S. Senate candidate from Florida [2]
We then add a little blurb to the persons wiki page stating
On June 22nd 2009, Dr. Marion Thorpe, Jr., Florida’s former Chief Medical Officer, promised to uphold the 9 Principles and 12 Values as stated in the 9/12 Candidate philosophies. As a 9/12 Candidate.[3], Dr. Thorpe recognizes both the responsibilities and the limitations of office and that he is, first and foremost, a voice of the people.
That's it. No bias, just simply helping Mr. Roecker out as he's too busy to do the updates. You want us to to provide verifiable 3rd-party references, we have one, a partnership with the America's Independent Party and now I can't add it to their pages. Just explain to us, in simply English, what we have to do to keep from constantly having our entries deleted, and me blocked. Obviously you allow politically-biased articles (Green Bloggers, Michigan Liberal, Daily Kos, Raising Kaine, etc.) that are "heavily promoting a single point of view", some of which have no notability, so what are we doing wrong? WashingtonIsBroke (talk) 13:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- No bias. Right. This is campaign promotional talk. "Recognizes that he is first and foremost a voice of the people." As opposed to all those other candidates who don't recognize they are first and foremost voices of the people, as proven by claiming to adhere to Glenn Beck's particular formulation, correct? That's not what Wikipedia is for. If there is other inappropriate stuff in Wikipedia, we deal with it by removing it, not by adding more. Thank you for understanding. --jpgordon::==( o ) 14:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
WashingtonIsBroke (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I still don't understand why I'm considered a spammer/advertiser. All I was doing was creating links from the 9/12 Candidate page to existing candidate wiki pages and vice versa. Yes, I did copy and paste paragraphs that some considered biased. I did not author those statements, simply used someone else's text. Is this example better than the existing article? Does it clear up any problems? If it's better and will avoid deletion, please unblock me so I can do the re-write. WashingtonIsBroke (talk) 01:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You've given us overwhelming evidence that you're not here to edit in a dispassionate manner, but rather to do the bidding of others (by acting as agent, you're no different than whoever tells you what to do). You do not appear to understand our guidelines with respect to notability and collaborative work or our policies with respect to copyright. I agree with others...your goals and intents are out of line with what Wikipedia is. DMacks (talk) 03:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
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.
Using someone else's text isn't making it better at all; in fact, it could be considered making it worse. There is no indication on your site that content there is available under a free license, therefore it is assumed to be under copyright. We do not accept copyrighted content on Wikipedia, as this is a free site, with all text content released under a CC-BY-SA license as well as the GFDL. And again, if your only purpose here is to promote your candidates/site/whoever, then Wikipedia is not the place for you. You have stated this several times, and I do not see this request being accepted as a result. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Just to clear up the copying of text issue. Notice on 8 June 2009, I added the text
On June 7th, 2009 Ron Miller was announced as a 9/12 Candidate.[4]
on Ron Miller (politician)'s page. Others said it was too bland. I told you I don't write/author anything. I'm terrible at it!
On June 15 2009, 67.190.239.142 changed it to
On June 7th, 2009, Ron Miller from Maryland's 5th congressional district, promised to uphold the 9 Principles and 12 Values as stated in the 9/12 Candidate philosophies. As a 9/12 Candidate.[5], Miller recognizes both the responsibilities and the limitations of office and that he is, first and foremost, a voice of the people.
So I assumed that's the statement the others wanted to use. That is the statement that Jpgordon didn't like and mentioned above. Notice that the same statement was added by 67.190.239.142 on Robert C. Smith's page as well on 17 June 2009 (deleted by Jpgordon). As you can see, I did not author it. I did copy it and add it to Marion D. Thorpe, Jr.'s page on June 25th (deleted by Calton) which was AFTER the first two edits by the original author 67.190.239.142. The ORIGINAL text by 67.190.239.142 on Ron Miller (politician)'s page is still there! My edits get deleted and I get blocked, but that one stays?
Tell you what.. from now on I'll stick with adding this style of statement to candidates existing wiki pages...
On June 7th, 2009, Ron Miller from Maryland's 5th congressional district, signed a morally-binding contract to uphold the 9 Principles and 12 Values as stated in the 9/12 Candidate philosophies.[6]
and link it to the 9/12 Candidate page, as long as it's still around, otherwise, no link. No bias, just stating a fact. OK?
I would also like to keep the Category:9/12 Candidates for the simple reason it provides visitors with a reference list of those (in wikipedia) that have signed the contract. I would discuss it on that talk page.. but I'm blocked.
Don't I get extra credit for adding the Infobox Officeholder on Marion D. Thorpe, Jr.'s page?
WashingtonIsBroke (talk) 14:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Just to clarify, there's a big difference between an objective, neutral and properly sourced article about a political weblog (which is what Michigan Liberal is) and an article that's simply the manifesto of a political movement (which is what, as written, 9/12 Candidate was.) The movement might very well qualify for a properly written, neutral encyclopedia article about it — but it isn't entitled to an article that simply asserts its own opinions and values as self-evident facts. And incidentally, I'm not sure where the meme that Blogging Tories constituted evidence of a left-wing bias on Wikipedia's part took hold, but it needs to stop: Tories aren't left. They're essentially the Canadian and British equivalent of Republicans. Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- You're kidding about Michigan Liberal, right? Let's take a look and see how it's "properly sourced".
- External links links to their own site.
- References
- Michigan Liberal::: It's coming links to thier own site.
- MIRS Capitol Capsule, July 17, 2007 has no link, so invalid reference, isn't it?
- The web site is regularly quoted in state news media. A few examples:
- all mention of "MIRS Capitol Capsule" are linked to the sites' home page, not the actual article, which you can't access unless you pay for a subscription. I wouldn't think you'd allow sourcing a non-public source.
- Detroit Free Press links = "page not found".
- Morning Sun = "page not found".
- So in the end, the only references that are verifiable is their own web site, unless you want to pay for a subscription. Hell, 912candidates has more references just from the candidates themselves when they mention 912candidates.org on their own web sites. But they don't rate?
- Re: Blogging Tories, I haven't said a word about them so I don't know where that's coming from.
- I mentioned Green Bloggers, which has NO notabilty as it has NO external references as your own administrators pointed out in Feb 07 and Aug 08. Even worse, their web site (the only reference) is out of existance.
- According to Alexa, 912candidates.org has gone from a ranking of 5,518,975 to a 3-month average of 1,523,674 (up 470%!), with a 7-day average of 803,578! Page views up 680%. Time on site a whopping 14.3 minutes (meaning people are reading). Green bloggers has a ranking of 12,044,526.
- As for bias... I still don't get it. All the article does.. er did, was say who they are, what their mission is, list the 9/12 values/principles (nearly the same as Glenn Becks') that are on the contract and list the candidates that signed the contract. All I was doing was updating the list when new candidates signed the contract and add a blurb on their existing wiki pages stating as much. And for that I get bannished worse than some vandals that I've seen re-instated. I feel like the Christian that was run out of the Arab Fest '09 in Dearborn, MI for asking questions. WashingtonIsBroke (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)