User talk:Zeamays: Difference between revisions

Hi there! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions, keep up the good work! I hope you like it here and stick around. If you want, you can drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log to introduce yourself.

A few tips before you start doing a lot of editing:

Thanks for uploading Image:W-TN diocesan seal color.gif. 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 within a couple of 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 (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Word Pro.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 within a couple of 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 (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Parkes-Gargoyles-Poster.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 within a couple of 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 (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a couple somewhat random points -

Regards your edits to Orange (fruit) in December, consider using citation templates. It's not mandatory, but it's also easy to do and produces a more useful, standardized template that's auto-formatted. There's a bunch of tools that can help, though unfortunately none that I've found for websites (the {{cite web}} template).

• Citation templates (again)
• Reference generator (uses filling fields)
• pubmed/isbn template generator (using a pubmed or isbn, will automatically generate a template for you, very handy!)
• Google scholar autocitation (uses a google-type search engine to find scholarly articles)
• tools (various others)

Also, though it's not mandatory, archiving is preferrable to outright deletion of information from a talk page.

Thanks,

WLU (talk) 14:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Elvis publicity photo.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 '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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Dinah Shore.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 may be deleted within a couple of 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 (talk) 14:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found in necessary to revert your edit to Homeschooling. The Patrick Henry College example has nothing to do with criticisms of home schooling. Dbiel ^(Talk) 19:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk for why this is relevant. --Zeamays (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be acceptable for the article, but not in the criticism section. It appears to be more of a critism of the college, not of homeschooling. Dbiel ^(Talk) 21:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you not move it rather than deleting? --Zeamays (talk) 12:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving it would imply that I knew it was acceptable, which I did not. Deleting it and leaving you a note here allowed you to fix the problem. I am still not sure that it is acceptable or not, but it is no longer out of policy so that I feel any need to address it personally. I will leave it to others more involved in the article to determine if it should remain or be removed. Dbiel ^(Talk) 14:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving it where it was was totally unacceptable, which was why it was deleted. Leaving a notice on your talk page was being nice to allow you to correct the problem if possible. Dbiel ^(Talk) 19:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is highly irresponsible to delete material if one is not expert enough to know if it is correct information. --Zeamays (talk) 12:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to my revert of your edit to Darwinism the following link (inaccurate) is misleading as Pangenesis has nothing to do with the word inaccurate. It is a misleading link. Yes it relates to the topic. There is still a problem with your revised edit as Wikipedia articles are not to be used as references. Try rewording it as something like "also know as" to make use of the term in the sentence. Then the term Pangenesis may be linked. Dbiel ^(Talk) 21:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC) expanded reply: work the word Pangenesis into the sentence and then link it. My example above is not very good. Dbiel ^(Talk) 21:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note this with your edit on Homeschooling. Wikipedia policy says that you can not use Wikipedia to cite itself. You need an external cite. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but critics who delete text, rather than editing it, when they desire small changes are not working in the true spirit of Wikipedia. --Zeamays (talk) 12:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That may be one way of looking at it, but deleting and posting on the user's talk page is also a way of teaching users to work within and to understand Wikipedia policy. Dbiel ^(Talk) 14:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded reply: an additional issue is that to edit it one has to agree that the edit is valid. I am not an expert on Darwin, so to edit it into something that would be acceptable for Wikipedia would be wrong for me to do as I am unsure that it is a true statement, but written properly, I would not delete it, as it appears it may be correct. Dbiel ^(Talk) 15:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have used other articles as citations before with no one objecting. A citation of a different article is no different from a link, just a different format. I looked at the policy you cite and did not see any concern with self-citation. Obviously one cannot use circular citations. --Zeamays (talk) 12:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you read the following:

Articles and posts on Wikipedia may not be used as sources.

Seems very clear to me. As far as being done in other articles, it is just something that has not been notice yet. There are far more editors that do not know the policy than those that do, so many times things like this are not noticed; but that does not make it right. Your revised edit is much better. Thank you. Dbiel ^(Talk) 14:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A footnote is not a source. The Wikipedia policy is about sources, not internal links. The Pangenesis article has sources in it. This is just a different format for a link. Since you have persisted in deleting it, I have changed the format. I have a prejudice against editors who don't like the format of an article and delete it instead of editing. I think it is bad form. --Zeamays (talk) 16:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that when marking the entry as a reference ie using the reference tag <ref>, and only listing a link, it is considered to be a source link. A footnote needs to be more than a link to another article. If you wanted to use Pangenesis as a footnote, then it should have been written as such "see Pangenesis for an explaination of Charles Darwin's hypothetical mechanism for heredity". That would be a footnote Also please note the edit history a bit more closely, when you say "you have persisted in deleting it" you are in error. I reverted one, another editor reverted it the second time. When the format and the content are questionable, deletion is the best option. Your intital edit implied that pangenesis and inaccurate meant the same thing based on the following link (inaccurate) which was the edit that I reverted. Dbiel ^(Talk) 19:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You would have to be very dense to think that pangenesis was a synonym for inaccurate. --Zeamays (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the point, it is an improper use of linking. It would be the same as Linking Toyota to Automotive industry ie Toyota It not the way links are use in Wikipedia Dbiel ^(Talk) 20:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC) See WP:EGG Dbiel ^(Talk) 20:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Wikipedia policy on intuitive wikilinking. The reader should not have to follow the link in order to understand where it will take them and why. Hope this helps. (In reviewing; what Dbiel has already said above.... )--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:L_gibba3.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People often add these tags to images they did not take. (Low-resolution images in particular tend to be things that have been copied and pasted from elsewhere on the internet.) Please just add a note on the image page saying that you took the photo yourself so there is no confusion, then note that at the AFD page. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry, there's no AFD... I mean just add the statement of where it came from and remove the no-source tag. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The project's content policies require that all articles be written from a neutral point of view, and not introduce bias or give undue weight to viewpoints. Please bear this in mind when making edits such as your recent edit to Sarah Palin. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. ThaddeusB (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This topic is already under discussion at Talk:Sarah Palin; you'll want to discuss the matter there before adding this material again. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the material again, as 1) It implies bad faith on the part of Gov. Palin, which is not neutral, 2) It is not about Gov. Palin or her actions, but the possible position of an organization, and 3) it is sourced to a Youtube video. Again, this subject is being discussed on the article's talk page, and I advise you to review and participate in the discussion there. Continuing to add the material may be considered edit warring, and doing so May result in your being blocked from editing. Please stop. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have twice directed you to the article's talk page, where the issue of Governor Palin's involvement with the AIP is under intense and broad discussion. Further, the material isn't even about the candidate, but about the organization, and is thus not appropriate for this article. Again, please discuss the matter on the talk page before reverting again. I would also note that accusing good faith editors of vandalism is usually seen as an incivil personal attack, which may constitute a violation of policy. Please refrain from such attacks in the future. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Threatening a good-faith editor with being blocked from editing is aggressive and has no place in Wikipedia. My informational and well-documented additions to the article have been deleted without good cause several times. This is a very controversial topic, so such behavior can be expected, but not excused. --Zeamays (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, the warning was for edit-warring, not vandalism - and re-adding the material again would bring you close to a violation of the Three Revert Rule. I apologize if I was a little harsh - you know, as I do, how controversial and heated this topic is becoming - but, unfortunately, Youtube is not a reliable source. And, as a Biography of a Living Person, the sourcing requirements for anything negative (such as the implication that Gov. Palin's motive in registering as a Republican was infiltration) must be well sourced - and, unfortunately, a youtube link is insufficient. If there is an alternative source, ok, but even then I would recommend strongly that you follow the discussion on the talk page before adding that claim, as I do not think it's appropriate to this article. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is your opinion. Wiki rules provide that differing opinions are to be given respect. If you will look others have been re-introducing the basic information I placed in there about this controversy. The justification for deleting it seems to be that it is controversial. --Zeamays (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to include the source, then go to the discussion page for the article and discuss why it should be included. If consensus is that youtube.com is a reliable source in this instance, then by all means, feel free to include it. You added it to the article - twice - without any discussion at all, which is a large part of why I removed it when I did. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 00:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. Notice that I didn't delete that she addressed the 2008 meeting. I instead added that she has also addressed a lot of other groups. If I had my druthers, though, I probably would delete it, because it's really not very notable. You haven't suggested that the AIP has ever turned down a speech by an Alaska Governor, and there's no reason to believe they have ever done so. Anyway, I hope this article will settle down soon. My head is spinning! Ferrylodge (talk) 01:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop inserting text that is pointedly POV. Discuss controversial edits first, please. Ronnotel (talk) 14:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Ronnotel, perhaps you're unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy regarding Well-known public figures reads, "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." --Zeamays (talk) 14:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue adding controversial material without consensus you may be blocked. Ronnotel (talk) 14:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are a supporter and have a reference to support that view, I suggest that you add what you wrote above to the article. Both sides of any controversy should be presented, rather than what you seem to want, which is no controversy at all. Your aggressive stance is not appreciated. I strongly suggest that you stop threatening editors with well-sourced material. --Zeamays (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to your question on my talk page. Shereth 01:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've uploaded Image:Image:Parkes-The Summitt.JPG, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Goldsmiths.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your "explanation", as requested:
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Memphis, Tennessee do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. - BillCJ (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to this message on talk. --Zeamays (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When a user chooses to remove messages from his/her talk page, please don't revert them. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The editor about whom you posted your message explicitly stated on his discussion page that he'd prefer messages to him be posted to his site. You seem to have a strong opinion. Is it Wiki policy that I can delete people whose opinions I don't like (as he did)? --Zeamays (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Refs were not valid and were removed for mostly WP:SPAM reasons. Steltman Galleries falls under ref-spam WP:SPAM, and is a questionable source since it is promotional in nature WP:QS. The Avalon Gallery Carmel link you keep restoring is flat out linkspam WP:SPAM. If this artist is notable as you claim then there should be lots of references you can use that are not questionable. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to totally misunderstand WP:V and WP:CREATIVE. Notability is established by what other people say about an artist, not what they say about them selves. What libraries hold his books is not notability, we need books by other people about him, not books by people who hold a commercial relationship with him or books he has published himself. The burden of proof lies with you being in the "advocate" for this article WP:BURDEN. "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." The article is lacking that. I have actually added sources that help in that matter but since there does not seem to be any major critical comment on this artist he will need "multiple independent sources (to) prove notability". Continually removing the NOTABILITY tag is counterproductive since it is there to let other editors know about the problem and maybe fix it. You should refrain from doing that. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Fountains, Please see my response on the Parkes talk page. --Zeamays (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have responded[[1] Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 06:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was told at Commons that you are the original uploader of this image. I was wondering if you had a copy of the original e-mail in which permission was granted to use the image. If you do, could you please forward it to OTRS? Thanks, Scorpion0422 (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do have it. There is no requirement for me to send you a personal e-mail, nor do you provide any reason. --Zeamays (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't have to send me a personal e-mail. I'm trying to use the image in a Featured list candidate, and I was told that the image needs to be verified through OTRS. All you have to do is read the instructions and forward the e-mail (and any other appropriate info) to the provided address. It's confidential, so you're e-mail will not be made public. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What accounts for your deletion of the Carolina Trailways and the Lakefront Trailways from the list of the Trailways member companies in the article about the Trailways Transportation System?
Do you have reason to believe that those two firms are no longer members of the Trailways association?
Even if they are no longer members -- and I question that -- then the deletion would still be incorrect.
The caption at the head of that section identifies that as a list of both current and former members.
Please explain.
Thanks.
Dr. D.B. "Doc" Rushing
DocRushing (talk) 01:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Rushing, you mis-identified who deleted that listing. I just fixed a bad link. An unregistered user deleted the listing. Best wishes, --Zeamays (talk) 14:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer.
Now I see what you mean.
That was my mistake -- obviously.
Sorry 'bout that.
Although I'm an old hand in academia, I'm a newbie at Wikipedia.
I've posted a comment on the "discussion" page attached to the article on the Trailways Transportation System.
Here's a copy:

    An anonymous user has deleted two items -- the names of two major long-time members of the Trailways trade association -- from the list of members.

    [I've undone the damage.]

    The same user has a record of having made numerous unexplained and unsupported deletions from various articles.

    His behavior appears to be disruptive and antisocial.

    He has received many warnings -- along with requests to refrain.

    Is it now not well past the time to bar the offender and his counterproductive antics?

    -- Dr. D.B. "Doc" Rushing

    DocRushing (talk) 15:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the authority, will you please consider barring the anonymous miscreant?
Thanks.
-- Doc.
DocRushing (talk) 15:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on the recent edits you did on the Volvox article. Much improved! Just stopped by to say thanks. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 04:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted most of three of your edits to George W. Bush regarding his military service. I see two issues:

1) the material you sought to include places undue weight on controversies surrounding a six-year period that comprises 1/10 of his life. So for a BLP, what is in there already re: the ANG is probably enough. If you feel differently, I encourage you to build consensus on the article's talk page first.

2) The material, while sourced, is contentious and controversial, and so more than a single source is needed here.

Thanks, and happy editing. QueenofBattle (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to re-insert your deletion of my properly referenced additions, which represent well-documented information in a new book. Just because the source is contentious, does not mark it for deletion. I chose some of the most well-documented and least contentious claims in the new book for my additions. The reason they are important is that they make the point that Bush was unqualified, and received special attention, a serious charge that others have made without all the heavy documentation provided by Mr. Baker's book. --Zeamays (talk) 00:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]