User talk:Gregcaletta

Hi, I'm Mr G, and this is my talk page. If you leave a message here, I will typically respond here, unless you otherwise request.

Eckhart Tolle article

Hey Greg, nice edits on the Tolle article. You are doing really nice work there. I'm glad we are working together to make it even better. All the Best,-- — Kbob • Talk • 02:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome mate. I've got some bigger changes that I eventually want to make in the layout but I'm looking for some more information sources first. Gregcaletta (talk) 03:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Great! -- — Kbob • Talk • 20:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Reception

Hi Greg, Hope you don't mind. I did some reading on Tolle and was fascinated by the range of opinion expressed in the media about him. At first it was only dismissive and off-hand, but digging further I found more thoughtful consideration. It seemed to me worthy of a section, and I can't think, offhand, of any better title for it than "reception." KBob seems to think such a section is not completely out of character for Wiki, so I thought I'd give it a whirl. Please let me know what you think, if you have an opinion. And thanks again for the numerous improvements you have made to this article over the past several months (I had earlier said so in response to your RFc). Best to you!--Early morning person (talk) 12:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC) PS Thanks also for the addition of the section title, "Inner Transformation." Very sound editing. --Early morning person (talk) 12:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Greg, Thanks for the kind comments on the Reception section. I did put a fair amount of work into it. Someone recently made a nice edit when they divided that section into two, the Christians and the others. And I spruced up on paragraph today today (just Bloom's comments). Best to you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Early morning person (talk • contribs) 15:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Oops, forgot to sign:--Early morning person (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

External Links

Hi Greg, I put a notification on the Eckart Tolle talk page but also wanted to put a message here. If you have a moment please give us your input at this noticeboard discussion. [1] Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike article

ITN for July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike controversy

On 6 April 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike controversy, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Citing

Thank you for you contributions to the July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike article. When refering to an existing citation, please use the <ref name="existing-name"/> format, rather than copying and pasting duplicate entries. Please also remember that "blogs" do not generally meet the requirements of WP:RS. Once again, thank you for your contributions. —Sladen (talk) 07:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Arrest of Bradley Manning article

good work Decora (talk) 20:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

cheers. Gregcaletta (talk) 02:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Long plagiarism discussion with Yakushima

plagiarism in re Daniel Ellsberg You seem to believe that even a slight variation of text copied without attribution means it's no longer plagiarism. The Wikipedia article on plagiarism defines it as I would: "use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work." (Note the quotes around that in the article, and the footnote.) I don't know whether u-s-history.com copied from Wikipedia Daniel Ellsberg or vice versa. The copying I pointed out meets the definition. It's a serious problem either way [2]. Read up on what plagiarism is. You might be unwitting committing it. Yakushima (talk) 03:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC) I din't mean to say that a slight variation was not plagiarism. I meant that if you change the text to make it identical and place it in quotation marks, and provide a citation and an attribution, it is not plagiarism. Also, if the language is merely a factual statement based on a factual statement in the cited source, and if the language is very similar because of this, it is not plagiarism, because you are not representing it as your "own original work". However, I have no problems with the edits you made. Thank you. Gregcaletta (talk) 03:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC) If you did not mean to say that a slight variation was not plagiarism, why did you begin that sentence with It's not quite plagiarism when a citation is provided .... without ever qualifying the statement? After all, what you say just afterward in the same sentence if the wording is very close you can always make it identical and use quotation marks. is a separate assertion, about how solve the problem, not about what constitutes plagiarism and whether that's the problem here. You made made it sound like somebody could be falling short of plagiarism even when copying verbatim, so long as that person refers to a source. In other words, "It's not plagiarism if you have a link", just as I said. Why would anyone think you were saying otherwise? As for this: if the language is merely a factual statement based on a factual statement in the cited source, and if the language is very similar because of this, it is not plagiarism, because you are not representing it as your "own original work"' that's false. It depends on the degree of resemblance, and "very similar" wording has brought charges of plagiarism repeatedly, and especially in the last decade [3]. In this case, we're talking about a difference of a mere two words in two sentences containing about 45 words. That's unquestionably crossing the line. Students have been expelled for writing papers re-using Wikipedia article structure plus a handful of not-very-probable phrases. [4] Pretty obviously, they just copied Wikipedia articles and then reworded them until they forgot which words they'd rearranged or substituted. That's not original work. In any case, I've now substantiated about as firmly as is currently possible (the Internet Archive has been used as a source of admissable evidence in court) that u-s-history.com copied from Wikipedia, in this case. See my discussion of this issue on the Talk page. But perhaps before that: read up on plagiarism. You seem to have the kinds of misconceptions about it that have led to serious embarrassments of Wikipedia in the past. [5] Yakushima (talk) 06:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC) The statement "if the language is merely a factual statement based on a factual statement in the cited source, and if the language is very similar because of this, it is not plagiarism, because you are not representing it as your "own original work"' Is clearly true. All the examples you just gave showed that a statement has to be presented as the authors "original work" to be considered plagiarism. If you provide a citation, you are not presenting this as original work. When you say I "seem to have the kinds of misconceptions about it that have led to serious embarrassments of Wikipedia in the past" are you referring to specific edits I have made to articles which you believe are plagiarism? If not, I don't see why you should assume I don't understand what plagiarism. In fact, in order to understand plagiarism, you need to first understand the difference between presenting someone else's work as you own original work, and basing a factual statement on another factual statement in a cited source. You don't seem to understand this distinction, so perhaps you should "read up on plagiarism" a bit more? In any case, I don't have any problems with any the edits you have made, so I don't really understand what your problem is. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC) You seem to believe there is only one possible instance of original work involved when citing a source to back up a statement. In fact, there are two. One is the cited source itself. The other is the wording you choose based on the cited source. If the wording you (ostensibly) choose based on that source is 45 words, only two of which differ from the source, obviously it's vanishingly unlikely that your wording is something that you thought of independently. And yet, this case precisely fits your criteria of being "very similar", and "based on a statement in the source" (clearly based on it, since it's virtually identical except for those two words.) Explain to me how this would NOT be plagiarism. According to basic common sense, it is. According to any more formal definition of plagiarism you can find, it is. According to your rule, it's not. As for this: In any case, I don't have any problems with any the edits you have made, so I don't really understand what your problem is. That's disingenuous, to say the least, since you restored a bad cite that I'd deleted for good reason: it was a case of supporting a statement with a citation to virtually identical wording in an earlier version of the same Wikipedia article, at a spam site that didn't even credit Wikipedia as legally required (thus itself plagiarism). So obviously, you do have problems with edits I've made. My problem with you should be clear to anyone: it's that I'm working on the same article with someone who doesn't understand these ethical issues. For that matter, and as a further reflection of that ignorance, you don't understand the spirit or letter of this guideline [6]: you recently copied [7] stuff from Daniel Ellsberg that I had contributed, together with the errors I'd left in it (which you did not correct) and without saying where you'd copied from. In fact, with no edit summary at all. Do you see the implicit deception you could be accused of? This can make it appear that you did that hard work of identifying a useful source and putting together a half-way decent citation for it. Only someone closely tracking changes to both articles would see that I was the one doing the real work for you there. Now, perhaps I've sloppily done similar things, but look at what this is coming on top of: I've got you clearly saying on the Talk page for Daniel Ellsberg that it's basically OK to copy wording verbatim so long as there's a link, I've got you here, arguing to identical effect, and you have a statement on your own Wikipedia user page reducing all copyright law to childishness, as if copyright law never protected authors of original work from plagiarism. Somebody could be forgiven for adding all that up in a certain way. Past a certain point, Assuming Good Faith is just asking for serial violation. Yakushima (talk) 04:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC) In the heat of the moment, a lack of clarity on my part: sans an edit summary for citing R.W. Apple's 1996 piece about the Pentagon Papers in Pentagon Papers, I meant that your slapdash treatment adds weight to some argument that you don't much care who gets credit for work, or how. Clearly, you supplied the original quote and a citation of sorts, though a messy URL too often masks the reliability of a source. [8] I put it into terms that made it clear that no less than a New York Time editor was putting his own journalistic credibility on the line with a fairly strong POV statement about the Pentagon Papers. That took work (see the multiple edits I did just trying to get the authorlink right.) There's still a POV issue with this quote, because the NYT was under legal threat at one point over publishing the Pentagon Papers; it's hardly an absolutely unbiased source (R.W. Apple was there at the time, and had covered Vietnam). Citing the NYT as if it were definitive is questionable; citing it as a statement made by a person who worked there (as I did) softens the implied assertion of a final verdict. Putting it into chronological context was also important, because what an NYT editor might say now might be different from what present or future editors might say. "The New York Times says ..." is not an appropriate lead-in for such a quote. This isn't a movie review. Parsing out all those problems, and providing all the context they cried out for, with appropriate Wikilinking, was quite some work. Just marshalling all the quotes you can, in favor of some POV, suported with whatever source (u-s-history.com isn't too cheesy for you) as you seem to prefer, is easy. Editing Wikipedia as it should be edited is hard. I'm still learning how to do it, after several years. If you think you already know how, well, check out the Dunning-Kruger effect. Yakushima (talk) 08:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC) "When you say I "seem to have the kinds of misconceptions about [plagiarism] that have led to serious embarrassments of Wikipedia in the past" are you referring to specific edits I have made to articles which you believe are plagiarism?" No, obviously I'm basing it only your very clear statements, on the Daniel Ellsberg Talk page, and here. "If not, I don't see why you should assume I don't understand what plagiarism [is]." If somebody hasn't done something wrong, you think it's necessarily because they already know it's wrong? That's pretty strange logic. If a 3-year-old hasn't yet taken candy from a store shelf without paying, I don't assume it's because he already knows the definition of "theft". You seem to be at a similar level of innocence about plagiarism. Here is the evidence, again: (1) You looked at a passage apparently taken almost verbatim from a source (u-s-history.com - a source that you defended as legitimate when it's rather obviously iffy after two seconds of glancing at it). (2) You saw that the version in Daniel Ellsberg didn't have quotes around it, despite being almost identical. (3) You shrugged, saying basically that there was really no problem, despite the lack of quotes, saying that it was OK because the statements carried a citation of the source from which over 90% of the statement's wording was taken. Apparently you didn't know it at the time, and it seems to me you still don't, but you were defending plagiarism. Do you want to take it up with WP admins who adjudicate this kind of thing? At least so that you'll be clear on the distinctions in future editing? Yakushima (talk) 05:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC) Why would I want to take it up with admin? There is no editing dispute to be "adjudicated". There is only your arrogant and patronising belief that I need to be educated on plagiarism. While at the same time, you seem to not understand that someone else's original work has to be presented as one's own original work before you can make the accusation of plagiarism. This is why I stand by the statement "it's not quite plagiarism when a citation is provided and if the wording is very close you can always make it identical and use quotation marks". I did not make the statement was "no real problem", no did I "defend the source as legitimate". I merely meant to make the point that you should not be so quick to accuse other editors of plagiarism. Now I am also making the point that, before you attempt to educate others on plagiarism, you should understand the distinction between presenting someone else's original work your own original work, and making a factual statement based on a source while providing a citation. I would also like to make the point that you are not really achieving anything with these comments, other than perhaps to attempt to convince yourself of the indemonstrable superiority of your as yet unverified understanding of plagiarism. Gregcaletta (talk) 08:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC) "... you seem to not understand that someone else's original work has to be presented as one's own original work before you can make the accusation of plagiarism." Oh, I understand that perfectly. What you don't understand is what constitutes presenting someone else's work as your own, on Wikipedia and in fact in almost any piece of writing. As this statement of yours, If you provide a citation, you are not presenting this as original work. makes clear, you believe that all you need to do is provide a footnote on the statement you copied, to clearly present your wording as someone else's work. That's from lalaland. The following is from reality: WP:PLAGIARISM This page in a nutshell: Don't make the work of others look like your own; give credit where it's due. All wording in Wikipedia that's not clearly quoted from other sources is assumed by readers to have originated directly from Wikipedia contributors, whether footnoted or not. Therefore, not clearly quoting material you copied from non-Wikipedia sources "makes the work of others look like your own", regardless of whether there's a footnote. How could it be otherwise? When done on purpose, it's usually based on a calculation that nobody is likely to notice. Is that a ridiculous assumption? Hardly. After all, the passage we're discussing provides ample evidence that such similarity (to the point of being nearly identical) can pass unnoticed for quite a while, even when the violation is egregious. Undoubtedly, Daniel Ellsberg had thousands of readers between the time the tell-tale footnote was added (and the WP:FRINGE wording substituted) and when I came along noticed that this slightly questionable passage was being supported by ... nothing but thin air. When it's done by accident, well ... I'm pretty sure I've done that myself at least once. But IIRC I caught it and corrected it within a day, noting in my edit summary that it was inadvertent plagiarism (yes, I used that word). At least I knew that such copying was a mistake, and not allowed on Wikipedia (nor in any publication worthy of the name.) You, apparently, do not. If you don't believe that this kind of thing is plagiarism, you might end up doing it all the time. Hey, it's so easy -- copy, paste, maybe diddle with it a little if you like, and "It's not plagiarism if you have a link." If you are unable to understand why this is nevertheless plagiarism, you might keep doing it, despite the efforts of other Wikipedia editors (and eventually, admins) to educate you. And if you keep doing it long enough (or perhaps not very long at all, if there's enough supporting context to indicate that you're dismissive of relevant law, e.g., copyright law, about which you've declared yourself on your user page: you think it's just greedy and childish, nothing more), Wikipedia, in order to protect itself from litigation under copyright law, will shut your account down. As it says just below this textedit pane (the very first thing, in fact): "Content that violates copyrights will be deleted." They mean it. I did not make the statement was "no real problem" .... But you have yet to make any statement that would convince anybody that you DO, in fact, see what the various problems are here. And you keep asserting points of view that are provably false (if you'd only look at the evidence I provide.) DO you see that not using some sort of quoting style for material taken verbatim (or nearly so) from a source is plagiarism? Not your "not quite plagiarism", but actually plagiarism? Your answer here [Y/N]: DO you see that the citation you restored after I deleted it was, in fact, to a previous version of the same Wikipedia article, just hosted on another site? (Did you even bother to look before restoring that cite, to check my claims?) Your answer here [Y/N]: DO you see why that kind of citation is circular, and disallowed? Your answer here [Y/N]: DO you see that the website cited was violating Wikipedia's own terms about acknowledging Wikipedia as a source? Your answer here [Y/N]: DO you see that the statements in question aren't simply "true" (as you asserted unquestioningly) but still require support from a more reliable source, in order to not to violate WP:POV or WP:SYNTH (without which, one can only perhaps quote someone's sentiments to the same effect, while being careful to avoid violation of WP:UNDUE)? Your answer here [Y/N]: DO you see that the statements, which are primarily about the Pentagon Papers and not Daniel Ellsberg per se, are not made in the main article, Pentagon Papers? Your answer here [Y/N]: DO you see that the failure, after so many years of polishing and improving Pentagon Papers, to include these flat statements of particularly egregious outrages (if only they could be established as fact), together with the powerful odor of POV in the statements themselves, suggests pretty strongly that you're unlikely to find a non-POV source to support them as fact? (At least not in their entirety; I suspect there's factual merit to some of it.) Your answer here [Y/N]: "I have no problem with your edits" does NOT mean "I believe your edits are aimed at correcting serious and outstanding problems." In terms of conveying any understanding of the ethical issues raised here, "I have no problem with your edits" is about as content-free as "I'm cool with it, dude -- you do your thing, I'll do mine." I'm looking for acknowledgement from you that there were (and are) real problems here. That's a minimum required for cooperation on improving Daniel Ellsberg, though we might reasonably disagree on the extent and seriousness of the problems. But I've seen your response: you repeat a statement about plagiarism that I've shown repeatedly (with reliable sources) to be false. Worse, you suggest that I, who have provided you with plenty of citations (and quotes from them) to back up my claims about these problems, am the one who is ignorant of the relevant issues. You're sure you don't want to see what an admin would make of all this? You're really so sure that you're right that you think seeking independent opinion would be a waste of time? Yakushima (talk) 12:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC) What do you want the admin to say? Do you want the admin to come in and say "Yakushima is right; and Greg is wrong"? What would that achieve? Admins are very busy and don't have time to mediate personal disagreements. Again, I defend the statement "If you provide a citation, you are not presenting this as original work". As WP:PLAGIARISM points out, depending on the how close the wording is, it could potentially be copyright violation. But, as I said, it is not quite plagiarism. And I stick by the statement that you should not, particularly until you yourself understand the distinction between copyright violation and plagiarism, so easily accuse people of plagiarism or accuse people of not understanding plagiarism. Gregcaletta (talk) 00:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC) "What would that achieve?" Education. Specifically, yours. I'm not sure you understand the difference between copyright violation (a legal issue) and plagiarism (an ethical one that can also have copyright consequences.) If, for example, you write a copyrighted book, and I take it verbatim and publish it under your name, giving you full credit, I'm still violating your copyright if I didn't get permission from you. The ethical issue here is: credit where it's due. From what I understand, you think a two word difference out of 45 words across two sentences, otherwise verbatim, without quote marks around it, is still "not quite plagiarism," provided there's a footnote to the source the words are ripped off from. You fail to notice where I've pointed out that people have been suspended from colleges for plagiarism when they copied far less into their papers, even with sources cited. A corrective note from an admin might make you finally sit up and question your judgment here. And that might save you from far more serious accusations in the future. (Not that I exactly expect gratitude.) If you actually believe what it seems you believe, and you put that belief into practice as a labor-saving device in editing articles, how long do you think you can maintain the defense that you were never informed of what constituted plagiarism, or were never shown any sources that confirmed the definition? Once you get a confirming note from an admin, you've been served. No claims of naivete will be accepted thereafter. Yakushima (talk) 12:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC) If the examples you gave really did citations for all of the material, then it is copyright violation not plagiarism. If any admin really wants to dispute with that, then I would be happy to hear there arguments, but the definition of plagiarism is fairly clear, and I find it unlikely that their arguments would be any more convincing than yours. Again, administrators are busy, and it is unlikely that any would have time to discuss this. Also, they would not see the point of a "corrective note" if none of my hundreds of edits on Wikipedia comes even close to copyright violation, not to mention plagiarism. They would also not issue any "corrective note" simply that I suggested that you "make [the text] identical and use quotation marks", rather than coming on to the talk page to make hasty accusations of "blatant plagiarism". Both "plagiarism" and "copyright violation" are legal issues, but plagiarism is far more grievous in law and in morality, so accusations should not be made so wildly. Gregcaletta (talk) 02:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC) "simply that I suggested that you "make [the text] identical and use quotation marks". "Simply"? Disingenuous. What about the words that started that sentence? How can you forget? Here they are again: It's not quite plagiarism when a citation is provided .... Pressed on this point, you have never said that you were wrong. In fact, it's plagiarism if it's copied into Wikipedia from another source, without clear indication that you're quoting. (And, as it turned out in this case, if you copy from Wikipedia into another source without giving due Creative Commons credit to Wikipedia.)] Again, from WP:PLAGIARISM Readers will assume that the unquoted running text of an article is contributed by Wikipedia editors, using their own words. In this case, I found that someone had made "the work of others look like" something in another source -- almost identical, in fact. Why is that not plagiarism (in one direction or the other)? It meets all the criteria, doesn't it? If you don't think so, tell me which one it misses. As for "corrective note" from an admin, it needn't correct any of your behavior, but it could correct your misunderstandings. Yakushima (talk) 06:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC) Admins would only take the time to "correct misunderstandings" of an editor, if that editor had made particularly bad edits demonstrating that misunderstanding, which I haven't. I have not said i was wrong to say "it's not quite plagiarism when a citation is provided" because that statement is correct. Again, if you provide a citation, you are clearly not presenting another's work as your own, although you may still be violating copyright. You may have noticed that some of editors at your discussion on Village Pump have now made this same point, referring to it as "copyright violation" not "plagiarism". Gregcaletta (talk) 07:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC) Taking it up a little further Starting with heat turned down to "Low" [9] Of course, anybody who's really curious will figure out who I'm talking about within minutes. But for now, you are not directly identified. Yakushima (talk) 13:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Ok mate, I'm not really interested in this discussion, until you actually have a problem with some of my edits. Gregcaletta (talk) 03:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC) I've already told you (more than once) that I do have problems with some of your edits, but particularly: when I took out the citation to what turned out to be just an earlier version of Daniel Ellsberg copied from Wikipedia without the required attribution, you did this: [10] which is just a way to pretend you're not reverting my edit. Now you're claiming at Village Pump that you never reverted any of my edits. And that's not the end of my problems with your edits, as you can tell if you actually read very much of what I write above. It's just the one where you're most clearly dishonest. Yakushima (talk) 06:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC) Well if you had a problem with that edit, we can discuss it, but that particular edit had nothing to do with plagiarism. You added a citation needed tag. I then added the old citation alongside the citation needed tag, which was not a reversion; it was attempting to build consensus by compromise. After that, you did some research and showed that the citation was circular, at which point I accepted your removal of the citation. If you have problems with any of my other edits, we can revert them, or we can discuss them on the Daniel Ellsberg talk page, but none of my edits come anywhere near plagiarism. Gregcaletta (talk) 07:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC) From the Village Pump (from the Village pump) Gregcalleta says "Nor was it a reversion; it was attempting to build consensus by compromise." The place you build consensus by compromise is on the Talk page, not by making an edit that amounts to reverting mine, restoring the original cite (already sniffed out and reported as problematic, on the Talk page, at that point), then adding the non-sequitur tag, and only commenting on what you did in the edit summary. It would only be an attempt to 'build consensus' if you had proposed that change on the talk page. Smarter: go actually read the external biography cited, see where it's identical (or nearly so) to the BLP, note that there was no credit to Wikipedia on site, then come back with a report corroborating what I'd observed, asking (if you didn't know) just how we might proceed. All of which is, of course, real work (as I know too well from having done it, and more) as opposed to just making quick, easy, high-handed edits and asking me to go look for good sources after simply reverting my edit (in effect) and leaving the sourcing a non sequitur. Yakushima (talk) You might have noticed that I did actually go and find a very relevant New York Times quote to include in the article. I think that constitutes "real work" and it is certainly much more useful than accusing people of plagiarism on the talk page. Also, you must understand that compromise is an essential component of building consensus (see WP:WHATISCONSENSUS and WP:ENEMY). A series of edits are made in an attempt to find a solution which both editors can agree on, and only if agreement cannot be reached, does the consensus building need to move to the talk page (see this excellent diagram [11]) did not see any reason why you would problem with including the citation, as long as the "citation needed" tag you added was left alongside it, particularly because removing the citation would have conclusively placed the text in the category of "plagiarism" if the language had not already be changed by you (changes which I accepted). At the point when I added the citation, while leaving tag "citation needed" tag, the language was no longer close enough to the source to constitute copyright violation, and you had not yet conclusively established that the cited source was circular. Gregcaletta (talk) 10:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC) After you explained your decision more clearly, and made further constructive edits, I left the citation out. Gregcaletta (talk) 10:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC) "You might have noticed that I did actually go and find a very relevant New York Times quote to include in the article." Oh yes, I notice it. I noticed it so much that I commented on it above. In particular: See where I point out that (ref Village Pump discussion) you shouldn't be copying from one article to another without saying so in the edit summary? Did you notice that I'd noticed? "A series of edits are made in an attempt to find a solution which both editors can agree on". INCORRECT. Negotiation necessarily involves a series of comments made on the Talk page. An edit to an article is not an element of negotiation. Each edit to an article is a unilateral action by one editor. This is elementary. Yes, an editor might look at a new and undiscussed edit and think, "I'm OK with it," even if (during discussion of improvement) it hadn't been brought up on the talk page. But a series of edits cannot, in itself, constitute a negotiation of differences between two editors. Restoring a citation that's circular, after I'd pointed out that it was probably circular on the Talk page, while adding a tag isn't "a series of edits ... made in an attempt to find a solution which both editors can agree on". It's just high-handed and moreover flatly contradictory use of known problematic source. Real cooperation would be to help me verify the circularity, and help me determine the direction of copying, and help me find a better way to say what might need to be said there, rather than how it was left: to the effect of "the Vietnam War was known from the beginning to be unwinnable by the people who pushed U.S. intervention." WP:FRINGE, if not flatly insane. "... only if agreement cannot be reached, does the consensus building need to move to the talk page (see this excellent diagram [12])" That is an excellent diagram, but it doesn't mean every edit made is part of consensus building. It depends on intent. It also depends on the degree of conformance with the procedure flowcharted. You might seek cover under the argument that you did this step: "Think of a reasonable change that might integrate your ideas with theirs". A {[fact}} tag plus restoring a citation to an article that had already been sniffed out as simply mirroring the sentences in the WP article is NOT "a reasonable change that might integrate" my ideas with yours. It's a contradiction in terms. Somehow, you didn't notice the nonsensicality of it? If I change that back to making sense again, it's not because I'm negotiating with you. It's because I'm tossing out garbage. To give another example, if somebody makes an edit to an article and I don't even notice it, how can I be said to be agreeing with it or not? If I do see it, and I have an opinion, I am not necessarily in the process of negotiating with the person who contributed the edit by simply changing the text. If somebody's violating copyright, I'm not negotiating with that person by reverting their edit. I have no desire to negotiate with them. If the person knew it was copyright violation (or can't be educated to that effect), nobody should be negotiating with them. They should be kicked off Wikipedia. Similarly for plagiarism (which can include copyright violation -- they aren't two different things, they are two categories with possible (indeed frequent) overlap.) And someone who changed the text isn't necessarily making a statement in a negotation toward consensus. It could be they just hope any possible objectors don't notice (whether the change is conformant with policy or guidelines, or not). I.e., the opposite of a statement, the opposite of negotiation. When I revert vandalism, I'm not trying to arrive at consensus with the vandal. "... particularly because removing the citation would have conclusively placed the text in the category of "plagiarism" if the language had not already be changed by you". Bzzzt. Wrong again. You might think this was true if you thought merely adding the cite containing the same (or nearly identical) text makes such WP text "not quite plagiarism". And that's apparently what you DO think (amazingly, to my mind). Unshakeably, it appears. In fact, a footnote wouldn't soften that verdict in the least, if the text is copied from the source cited. I'd go further and say (as I have said, several times already) that a cite can even camouflage plagiarism further, depending on the situation, making it look even more to unwitting readers that the wording is the editor's own, rather than from the source cited. Yakushima (talk) 11:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC) Not only do you continue to demonstrate your non-understanding of plagiarism, you are now also demonstrating your non-understanding of Wikipedia policy and practice. I have no interest in being lectured by such ignorance. I have been reading your comments with growing disinterest, and I will now stop reading altogether. I no longer have any interest in attempting to reason with you either, as you have shown yourself to be quite unreasonable, so I will stop replying to your comments, so as not to encourage you further. I would appreciate if you would now stop wasting space on my talk page. Regards, Gregcaletta (talk) 02:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hi. I'm not here to cause trouble. :) But I did want to stop by, in light of the latest communication from Yakushima, as an uninvolved admin, to clarify that Wikipedia:Plagiarism does indeed define copied free content as plagiarism unless it is noted that the content is duplicated. Specifically in Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public domain sources it notes that such content should either be put into quotation marks or block quotes, tagged with an inline citation that notes that content has been taken verbatim or labeled with an attribution template (there's six or seven billion of these at Category:Attribution templates). The passage quoted at the latest communication linked above is close enough to the original that it probably should have been marked in its longer stretches. Please try and just keep that in mind for the future.

I also want to note that deviating from a guideline is not a mortal flaw and certainly not a moral one. :) As I actually helped draft the guideline as well as the Signpost essay on plagiarism (Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches), I know very well that your definition of plagiarism is a common one, held by a very vocal minority, which is why the guideline also recommends that people discussing the issue remember that Wikipedians may start with a very different definition than that derived by consensus. (There were crazy arguments about how plagiarism should be defined on Wikipedia. Oi. :/ That particular one spilled less ink than the intentional/inadvertent debate, as I recall.) You clearly had no intentions of pretending to have authored that content.

Anyway, guideline clarified, perhaps we can all move on, perhaps for tea. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

There does seem to be quite a bit of confusion about whether the particular example was plagiarism. The partly arises due to the fact that the definition of "plagiarism" is pretty vague. WP:PLAGIARISM says it is "the incorporation of someone else's work without providing adequate credit". In this particular example, an inline citation was by the editor, so the question was whether this counted as "adequate credit" for a passage of identical text. As Yakushima later found out, it was actually a case of circular sourcing rather than plagiarism. We then preceded to have a hypothetical argument about whether the inline citation constituted "adequate credit" in the example title. My argument, was that although the citation was not "adequate" to avoid claims of copyright violation, it was at least adequate enough to avoid the more serious charge of plagiarism. This is certainly debatable. Yakushima brought it up at the Village Pump, and most editors referred to as copyright violation, which I agreed with, rather than plagiarism. You can joing the dicussion there if you would like to clear it up with the other editors who agree with me. I would be interested to hear of any examples of anybody being convicted of plagiarism rather than copyright violation after providing inline citations for copied text. I would have thought a conviction of copyright violation were much more likely. If indeed there are examples of copied yet cited passages leading to plagiarism convictions, then this needs to be made clear at WP:PLAGIARISM. WP:PLAGIARISM does not yet make a clear distinction between copyright violation and plagiarism, though I am sure there is a distinction in law. It says "If the external work is under standard copyright, then duplicating its text with little, or no, alteration into a Wikipedia article is usually a copyright violation". WP:CITINGSOURCES says that including citations "avoids claims of plagiarism and copying". It is certainly true that you are much less likely to be convicted of plagiarism if you provide a citation than if you do not, although it does not save you at all from copyright violation. Even if Yakushima is right about this particular example, you might like to advise him not to make accusations of plagiarism so easily. It's only going to get him into long arguments like this one. I'm always keen for a cuppa. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I've already taken part in the discussion there. I think I may have been the first responder. :)

There may be a basic and very common misunderstanding here: plagiarism and copyright infringement can co-exist. Plagiarism is not a legal concept, so the law has no definition of plagiarism. One of my favorite external sources on the subject (I like it so much it's linked from my user page) is this, written by an attorney,which explains where they intersect and where they do not pretty well, I think.

Our guideline on plagiarism doesn't much address copyright, because we have a policy that handles that: WP:C. Policy trumps guideline. :)

But, yes, plagiarism refers to not "providing adequate credit"; Wikipedia:Plagiarism explains what adequate credit is, according to our current consensus:

In addition to the edit summary note, be sure to attribute the material either by using blockquotes, or quotation marks, by using an attribution template, using an inline citation and/or adding your own note in the reference section of the article to indicate that language has been used verbatim. For an example of the latter, see the references section in planetary nomenclature [1], which uses a large amount of text from the Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature. Whether adding text verbatim, summarizing, paraphrasing or making explicit quotations, regular referencing should be added to provide both attribution and verifiability.

Adequate credit means putting copied text into quotation marks, indicating in your inline citation that language is used verbatim or using an attribution template. Confusion on this matter doesn't help anybody. Do you believe that needs to be further clarified in the guideline?

Our guidelines do address how the matter should be discussed, too: Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Addressing the editor involved. It's important to remain civil, especially because (as I said above) definitions of plagiarism vary widely outside of Wikipedia and even among some of our contributors. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The reason confusion arises is that WP:PLAGIARISM is really a (very good) description of how to give "adequate credit" in order to avoid both "plagiarism" AND "copyright violation". While the guideline is very good for explaining how to avoid "both" (which is what we need to do at Wikipedia) it does not resolve the argument about when the word "plagiarism" should be used. As you pointed out, copyright is more clearly cut cut legal issue, whereas plagiarism a serious moral issue and an issue of avoiding serious discredit to Wikipedia and other unpleasant consequences. There is obviously no clear community consensus on when the word "plagiarism" should be used, as demonstrated by the discussion at Village Pump; most called the example "copyright violation" but very few were willing to refer to it as "plagiarism". I believe the word should not be thrown around quite so easily as Yakushima was doing on the Daniel Ellsberg talk page. Gregcaletta (talk) 02:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the term plagiarism is a very loaded one. The guideline does not really say not to use it, but it sort of suggests it when it says, "An accusation of plagiarism is very serious. When dealing with plagiarism, take care to address the issue calmly and civilly. Focus on concerns about proper sourcing to give due credit." And later, "Please use care to frame concerns in an appropriate way, as an accusation of plagiarism is a serious charge." In fact, it says, "Even in blatant, conspicuous cases," (which, imo, this was not remotely; that's when people don't cite their sources) "it is important to remain civil." I don't know if we could get consensus for when the word should or should not be used; the guideline used to be somewhat stronger, noting that "Making a charge of plagiarism towards another editor is a serious statement, and may be regarded as uncivil if the situation is not blatant", but it was altered in 2009. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 03:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd definitely agree with guideline here. It may be useful to use the word "plagiarism" in some extreme cases (like as grounds for banning an editor for repeated violations despite warnings) but generally, as long as WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:CITINGSOURCES are followed carefully, I believe one can usually avoid using the term "plagiarism" altogether, and thus also avoid arguments like the one above altogether, which have the tendency to violate another important policy, and one of the five pillars, WP:CIVILITY. Regards, Gregcaletta (talk) 06:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Current Events Portal

It was on my own initiative, simply being bold. I realized there was a problem with the CE pages, in that it was way too disorganized. Like it or not, the CE page is a news aggregator, so I believed a sectioning of the CE lines was needed. I am, of course, open to discussions on this matter! Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 05:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I like a conflict section, as it cuts down on the Current Events section too. However, with current events (or news, as I originally envisioned), I envisioned it to be a place for all news of significant impact, which affects everyone. Yes, it is a catch-all, but then, big news transcends everything.

What about an economics section as well? In these times, there are bound to be a lot of economic news. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 05:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid we might get back into the problem of disorganization, which defeats the purpose of the sections. What do you think? Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 05:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I like your idea! I changed "Armed conflicts" to "Armed conflicts and incidents" though, because people getting killed in a Finland McDonalds shooting is not an armed conflict. That way, we have more flexibility. Good job! Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 06:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I also took the liberty of amending one of your ideas: instead of dividing the portal itself into continents, I divided the armed conflicts section into continents. I hope you don't mind! Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 06:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yea, and I would admit the system would not be perfect, as with everything here. However, I would agree on one thing: the sorting of conflict stories by continents should be done later on in the day, when more stories come in. What do you think? Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 06:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yea, there are slow days and big news days, and the system needs to adapt. We came up with a guideline, not a rule :D. I'm glad we were able to work it out together! Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 06:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I am still open to the idea of sorting the mish-mash of news into a current events category, however, I am open to discussions. Can you elaborate on why you think we can do without it? Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 04:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It surely makes sense, as long as that unsorted pile does not get out of control. We need to prune it frequently... Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 04:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I have decided to set up a page for us to coordinate our actions. For starters, the page is within my userspace. We can make it a WikiProject if we can. Please visit the taskforce page, and join in on the discussion! Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 21:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks article

The linked source, here, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100617/ts_ynews/ynews_ts2677_3 says:

Knight Foundation spokesman Marc Fest disputed part of WikiLeaks' claim, saying "WikiLeaks was not recommended by Knight staff to the board." Fest said the contest employs an advisory panel of outside experts to winnow applications down to a manageable group. After that, staffers take over and conduct "due diligence" on the finalists. Those staffers, he said, make final recommendations to the board, and WikiLeaks "didn't make the cut."

How is that not a direct quote? That's as direct as it gets, short of the article writer endlessly quoting the interviewee. It's completely direct!

Further along in the article, he says:

"Every year some applications that are popular among advisors don't make the cut after Knight staff conducts due diligence. That's not unusual."

And WikiLeaks didn't make the cut, hence they failed the foundation's due diligence process. This is an important point to make in the Wikileaks article. The Wikileaks article, as written without my addition, doesn't tell the full story: simply saying "didn't make the cut" is insufficient because it doesn't shed any light on the fact that there's a process involved, and that Wikileaks failed the process. Namely, the same sort of due diligence process any foundation must make when granting: ensuring that funds will be accounted for properly, used for their intended purposes, and that the organization they are granting to is trustworthy and professional. United States based foundations have strict requirements when making charitable grants.

I'm guessing you're thinking I was referencing the other article, http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/17/knight-foundation-hands-out-grants-to-12-groups-but-not-wikileaks/, but I'm not. I added in a reference to the correct article (the news.yahoo.com one), but perhaps I should have reversed the order? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.144.249.93 (talk) 02:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I looked at the Yahoo one. It does not actually say what you included in the article, that is "Wikileaks failed the due dilegence criteria". The articles seems to be attempting to heavily imply that without actually without actually stating it directly. The reason the article does not state it as a fact, is that when they asked the Knight Foundation, the foundation replied with ""In terms of how popular certain applications were among advisers, we don't comment" according to that same article. When I said "direct quote" I mean you can include a short direct quote from the yahoo article in the Wikipedia article (placing it in quotation marks of course), but it might still be a violation of WP:SYTH depending on which quote you chose. Gregcaletta (talk) 02:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not "heavily implied" - it's directly implied! There is a direct quote from a spokesperson of the foundation stating that they did not pass due diligence. It's not sneaking anything! Re-read this!-

Knight Foundation spokesman Marc Fest disputed part of WikiLeaks' claim, saying "WikiLeaks was not recommended by Knight staff to the board." Fest said the contest employs an advisory panel of outside experts to winnow applications down to a manageable group. After that, staffers take over and conduct "due diligence" on the finalists. Those staffers, he said, make final recommendations to the board, and WikiLeaks "didn't make the cut."

The journalist is summarizing a conversation he had with the spokesman. He even quoted "due diligence" to convey the fact that the spokesman used that phrase when talking to him. I'm not sure it's possible to have more concrete, referenceable evidence than this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.144.249.93 (talk) 02:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

As you say, it is implied, not stated. Nowhere is it actually stated in the article that Wikileaks specifically failed the due diligence criteria. The said that "WikiLeaks was not recommended by Knight staff to the board" and that "Wikileaks did not make the cut". He also made the comment that all of the finalists a tested for due diligence, and when asked whether Wikileaks were rejected for this reason, the spokesperson says "we don't comment". However, the reporter arranges the statements together in an order which implies that this was the reason, but then article never actually states that Wikileaks specifically were rejected for not meeting the due diligence criteria, because the spokesperson refused to verify this claim by responding with "we don't comment". Gregcaletta (talk) 04:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It is specifically stated in the article that Wikileaks failed the due diligence criteria! Being recommended by their advisory panel, and then failing to be recommended to their board ==> failing their due diligence criteria. That's completely obvious from reading the article.

You're also taking "we don't comment" entirely out of context. Here is the __exact__ quote:

But Fest did confirm that the advisory panel uses a Web-based system to rate applicants, and he declined to say whether WikiLeaks was indeed the highest-rated project. "In terms of how popular certain applications were among advisers, we don't comment," he said. "Every year some applications that are popular among advisors don't make the cut after Knight staff conducts due diligence. That's not unusual."

His "we don't comment" is a reference to not commenting on how popular the application (Wikileaks') was among advisors! He makes it __completely__ clear that Wikileaks was not recommended by staff to their board, meaning that they failed the due diligence criteria set out by the foundation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.144.249.93 (talk) 06:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed what he was saying by "we don't comment", but will still cannot included the statement that "Wikileaks failed the due diligence criteria" unless that is explicitly in the cited source. You say "Being recommended by their advisory panel, and then failing to be recommended to their board ==> failing their due diligence criteria." It does not say that this is only criteria on which the staffers make their recommendation. It is extremely unlikely that it is the only criteria. The article means to imply that it was based on that particular criteria that Wikilleaks was rejects, but the article avoids stating it explicitly, probably for very good reasons. If the article avoids stating the conclusion to its argument, then it is not our job to state it for them. Please read WP:SYNTH. Gregcaletta (talk) 06:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Gregcaletta. You have new messages at Talk:Wikileaks.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re "On the RPG" [13]

I was trying to engage (um, as it were) Randy2063 on the level of facts, which he might yet bring forward to improve the article. I posed it in American juridicial terms: establish for me, beyond reasonable doubt, that the non-journalist men killed in the first engagement were insurgents, operating with deadly intent against coalition forces.

Then you bring in your opinions about war in general. No thanks.

Look, I was opposed to invading Iraq. Then (like bare majority of educated liberals at the time, believe it or not, by some polling measures), I supported staying in. After all, as bad as Saddam had been, toppling a somewhat-functional government but then leaving could ultimately do far more damage to Iraq than the invasion itself. I hated supporting this war for a long time, because it was pretty obviously being run by the wrong president and the wrong Secretary of Defense. I supported it hoping for change. But I also supported it with no illusions about what war is.

It is unavoidable that war will make people bad. One can only hope for degrees of evil. This war should have been avoided, but since it wasn't, continuing it became (I believe) unavoidable. I have my own "moral" reasons for believing so: about half of Iraqi society is 21 and under. Leaving their society in ruins with chaos brewing is a fate those young people could not have done anything to deserve, even if all of their elders were somehow culpable. And I believed that walking away, from a responsibility that became ours when we went in, would create a power vacuum into which virtually unlimited armed force might rush, as a civil war developed. Whatever your horror at the bloodshed in the case of this article under debate, it would be but a minuscule red droplet compared to Iraqis in full-on civil war, able to arm themselves beyond RPGs and up to their own helicopter gunships, bombers, missiles, tanks and (one can't rule it out given the precedents) even chemical weapons. Walking away from a power vacuum in a country like Iraq would have been asking for that.

This Randy2063 guy has been told (ad nauseum) what your opinions are. I'm trying to get him to produce some facts with RS to back them up. Which he might yet do, as long as he sees me sitting on the fence, not unsympathetic with his POV, but waiting to be convinced. Please don't confuse matters. Yakushima (talk) 06:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Um, it's perfectly acceptable for me to present my opinions on Randy's talk page, particularly as it was partly a continuation of series of a cordial discussions which I had been having with him before you arrived on the scene. I even placed my discussion in a separate section to yours, "On the RPG", at which point you replied to a series of points that I was directing at Randy. In any case, Randy does not seem to have any objection. Gregcaletta (talk)

On the matter of the Iraq war (on which you have now presented your own opinions) it is up to the Iraqi people to decide if it is in their benefit for us to be there; it is not up to us to decide. I'm not sure for how long they have wanted us out of the country, but at least since 2007, if not since 2003. I would support the war only if the Iraqi people supported it. The reason they do not support it, is because of the way our troops have been behaving, and they behave as they are trained to behave, so there is a problem with the training. Gregcaletta (talk) 07:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and as for whether these particular attacks were legal, I presented the only "facts" that were necessary; that is a flowchart from the military itself which is used to determine legal procedure. Any other facts that you may have presented are periphery. All one needs to do is apply this flowchart to the video evidence to determine if the attacks were legal. Any reasonable application of the flowchart to the video shows that at least the second and third attacks were illegal. The first attack is debatable, but only because the flowchart is not clear, which is a result of the law not being clear. Gregcaletta (talk) 08:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

tolle pic

Thanks for workinh to provide a pic, as it is now the copyright is unclear, in such situations as I have encountered, the copyright owner has to them selves formally contact the wiki them selves and specify the release details, as all this seems quite unclear for the time being and until it is clarified I have removed the picture. Off2riorob (talk) 11:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Eckhart Tolle side.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Eckhart Tolle side.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

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 - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), 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. Eeekster (talk) 02:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Gregcaletta. You have new messages at Off2riorob's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TFOWR 08:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Picture

Hi I see you again replaced the picture, I think you have added it three times now, and I still do not see any confirmation that it is a free picture with a commons licence, please do not again replace it unless it is cleared up. We don't need pictures of doubtful origins, we add commons pictures with applicable licenses. Off2riorob (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I have sent the permission to Wikipedia. This is the correct procedure. What kind of "confirmation" are you looking for"? Please do not remove the photo until you can explain under what policy or under what authority you are doing so. Gregcaletta (talk) 00:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I have told you my doubts on more than one occasion and you have done nothing or shown me anything to support the clear copyright compatible with commons situation so far and yet you insist on repeatedly stuffing it in, please do not insert it again without administrative support. Off2riorob (talk) 00:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I have followed the Wikipedia policy by sending the permission to the appropriate e-mail address. I don't see anywhere in the policy that says I also have to provide evidence to you personally as well, but I can forward the e-mail to you if you like. In any case, it's up to the permission's team to decide whether the permission I have sent is adequate, and if it were inadequate, I imagine they would have notified me by now and specified what extra needs to be obtained. Gregcaletta (talk) 00:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Please do not remove the photo again without support from the permissions team. Gregcaletta (talk) 00:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Very amusing but the commons copyright is disputed by me and I have removed it as a good faith attempt to protect wikipedia from copyright violations, so what we do is keep it out until it clearly is a free commons compatible picture, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 01:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

You haven't yet explained to me what would make it "clear". It is up to the permission team to determine if the permission is adequate, not you. If the permission is inadequate in some way, they will notify me, or they would have notified me already. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Rather than repeatedly adding the picture and having me remove it you should get it sorted, get it moved to commons with an email directly from the person that owns the picture releasing it under a commons license and that will be great. Or find an experienced image copyright admin that supports you adding it. Off2riorob (talk) 01:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Uh... Nothing in Wikipedia policy suggests I need to do that. I can find nothing in Wikipedia policy which suggests the permission I have provided and the steps I have taken are not adequate. It is up to the permission team to determine if the permission is adequate, not you. If you want to take it up with them, you can. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Have the permissions team told you it is good to go? Off2riorob (talk) 01:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

No, do they need to? Is that the procedure? When I uploaded the file, I studied all the correct procedures. It said I had to obtain permission from the photographer and then send the permission to [email protected] and then I could upload the file. It did not say anything about having to the receive confirmation. On the contrary, I believe they would contact me only if the permission I obtained were in some way inadequate (which I doubt because I used one of the official permission templates). Even if it were inadequate, and they have not contacted me to say that it is, it would be a matter of Wikipedia policy on exact licences, not a copyright violation. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is the way to go...get the owner of the copyright of the picture that wants to donate the picture and give him the contact details and tell him to contact the team and donate the picture with the correct commons license, easy really. Off2riorob (talk) 01:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Well that's pretty much exactly what I have already done, except that the e-mail came through me, and I don't see anywhere in the policy that says this is inadequate. And it has not been easy actually but very difficult to obtain permission, taking at least a month of slow correspondence. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you see any time limits? I am tired of this issue, just get confirmation that the picture is free for the world to use or don't put it back, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 01:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

"Tired" meaning you can't respond do my points, or justify your actions, or explain why e-mail from the photographer in "confirmation" but e-mail from the photographer via me is not. Nor can you point me to any policies which back up your actions. Excellent. Yes, I think you need a nap. Gregcaletta (talk) 02:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Please don't personally attack me, you are the one repeatedly inserting a disputed picture into an article.What is your problem with attempting to clear up the issues before you insert it again? 02:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I have tried to clear it up with me, but you say you are "tired of the issue" while refusing to respond to my points. "You are the one repeatedly inserting a disputed picture into an article". Since we are apparently now using childish language and the word "repeatedly" to mean "twice", I can say that you are the one who has "repeatedly" removed the photo without pointing to any policy which backs up your claim that the current permission is inadequate. A nap is genuine advice, if you are tired, and not intended as a personal attack. Gregcaletta (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said, please concentrate on the content it is not your opinion to tell me to go get a nap, you seem to not want to get this correctly sorted out and not interested in my good faith issues, I am tired of you not doing that and repeatedly inserting the picture, please just take it to a media noticeboard or get as I said experienced support and great wikipedia will have a free picture of E Tolle to share with the world. I have repeatedly in this discussion pointed out things to do to sort this out but you don't do anything , you just attempt to ridicule me...a good faith experienced neutral editor with issues and worries as regards the copyright status of this picture, Off2riorob (talk) 02:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

You still have not pointed to any policy that implies the current permission is inadequate. If you want help finding such a policy, you should go to the media noticeboard yourself. Until you can point out such a policy, you have no justification for "repeatedly" removing the image. Gregcaletta (talk) 04:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia & GoodReads re: Eckhart Tolle article

Greg,

Regarding my edit of the Eckhart Tolle article: I can find no evidence that GoodReads uses Wikipedia as a source. Please help me here. -- Michael David (talk) 11:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation and reasoning regarding this matter on my Talk Page. I have no desire to challenge it. Just one thing: A little courtesy please. The next time you come upon an edit by an established WP editor that you disagree with; simply re-edit the article with a short explanation, as you did; and then provide that editor with your reasoning on their Talk Page. The "undo" botton is for deleting vandalism. My Best, Michael David (talk) 03:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Happy editing. -- Michael David (talk) 11:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Greg, for your last reply on my Talk Page regarding this. The fact is, you have done some excellent work on the Eckhart Tolle article. Please keep working with the Wikipedia project; we need many more like you. Once again, happy editing. -- Michael David (talk) 12:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC) MD - Michael David (talk) 18:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Current events

Hey, I've made a edit to the Current Events Taskforce page on finalizing the headings and having them automatically created, please take a look and leave your opinion. Thanks, Passionless (talk) 23:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem

No problem. Thanks for the work you have done on the article, and other articles related to WikiLeaks! --Skizzik^talk 09:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge request on Discrimination

You added a merge tag to Discrimination in June (!) and it is still there. Please can you deal with this (it seems to me that you can close the request on the Bigotry talk page (which I have just added for clarity) as no action and remove the tag. Thanks. – Mirokado (talk) 00:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You can do it right now if you like. Or I'll take a look some time in the next week. Very busy. Gregcaletta (talk) 06:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

OK I will do it in the next day or so. Thanks. Mirokado (talk) 12:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Tolle looking better and better

Hi Greg, I just had a look at Tolle today after many moons, and liked what I saw. Some nice additions, and several definite improvements in the writing. It is getting quite professional! Nice work. Best wishes, Early morning person (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm hoping to get it featured eventually, but it's hard with a BLP, especially as Tolle does not really talk much about himself. Gregcaletta (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Julian Assange

If the source says "hit back" that's fine. Just use quotations. It avoids any appearance of POV. Cheers! Hammersbach (talk) 06:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

Please do not remove the response from the U.S. government again. This is fully supported by every major policy and guideline on Wikipedia and I suggest you take your concerns to the talk page and/or the NPOV noticeboard if you won't discuss it. Viriditas (talk) 10:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

This message too could have been placed on the relevant talk page... Gregcaletta (talk) 10:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey there

Methinks we've gotten into several edit conflicts with each other, and that's with section-by-section editing! Nice work—the article is shaping up nicely, given the material available and the constantly changing scenario Assange is facing. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 03:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry for getting under your toes. Gregcaletta (talk) 03:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources noticeboard listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Reliable sources noticeboard. Since you had some involvement with the Reliable sources noticeboard redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Mhiji (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

re. Julian Assange

I just wanted to give you a heads up that the article for Julian Assange is currently in a very contentious state editorially. If you intend on making further changes to the article, I suggest you take them to the talk page first, especially if they're as drastic as your recent series of edits. Also, some of the info you added was quite recenty and also went against some of discussions on the talk page. Anyway, just some friendly suggestions! DKqwerty (talk) 06:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have an objection to any of my edits in particular? I can discuss individual edits but I'm not sure which changes you feel were contentious. I agree that the sexual charges are a case of recentism, but if they are not to be removed from the lead entirely then we need all the information including that which is most recent. Gregcaletta (talk) 06:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

bradley manning and synth

Yes, at least that some things are quite undue. ^walk victor falk ^talk 17:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Assange

Greg; we have strong consensus on the extent to which we are planning to record these events. Starting a content fork doesn't get around that. The article title is not very clear, and neither is the lead; but the emphasis is definitely on the extradition which is all we can really manage to report accurately at this time. I highly recommend not sticking that material back in, because not only is it disruptive, but at this stage it will prompt me to AFD the article. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You have every right to submit the article for AfD. However, I doubt it will go through, because the subject clearly meets the criteria for notability. Any material that it reported in reliable sources as factual material is "accurate" as far as Wikipedia policy concerns, and worthy of inclusion given Wikipedia's mission to be the sum of all human knowledge. I agree that the title is not ideal but I cannot think of a better one. Feel free to offer suggestions, but bear in mind that it must be broad enough to include all the material from reliable sources relating to these allegations. Something simple like Swedish allegations against Julian Assange may be appropriate. I avoided Sexual allegations against Julian Assange because it seemed pointy. Gregcaletta (talk) 10:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Greg; the main issue is that we have a widely established consensus to record this event as the portions become historical. Certainly minimal detail on the allegations till at the very least it goes to trial. Just because you can cite material does not mean you must put it in; that is the point of our previous lengthy discussions. I'm incredibly disappointed to see you reject the workable process we had established and create a POV fork of dubious merits. The "background" section alone is a mess of BLP issues, POINTY wording and dubious significance. I'm going to get frustrated about it, so going to leave it for now. But I strongly encourage you to help us refocus the article onto the hearing as was agreed by a number of editors. When I get back later I'll have to figure out the best approach, but right now probably revert and seek an RFC. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Any material reported in past tense by reliable sources is historical as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Gregcaletta (talk) 10:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

True. Doesn't make it automatically includable, or allow you to go around our established agreement... as I said, incredibly disappointed. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is our attempt to store the sum total of all human knowledge. Through policy we have defined "knowledge" as any factual material (past tense, not a quotation) appearing in significant publication with editorial review that is not directly contradicted by any other such publications. So yes, it is "automatically includable" in Wikipedia but not necessarily in every article. The question is in which article should the material appear? Gregcaletta (talk) 10:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

3rr on assange

You are edit warring to remove cited content , please take this as a 3rr warning. Off2riorob (talk) 11:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Hahaha. One revert does not warrant a three revert warning. My compromise was agreed upon with Errant on the talk page, so the edit warring is all you :) Gregcaletta (talk) 11:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Julian Assange

I wonder why you removed the section on Wikileaks Internal dispute. There was a dicussion on the talk page of the relevance of keeping that section. GreenEdu (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC).

I'm not exactly sure which edit you are referring to, but I did move some such material from the Julian Assange article to the Wikileaks article where it belongs. I never remove material altogether from the encyclopedia. Gregcaletta (talk) 04:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

There was a section titled "internal dispute" I think the edits were around 16th February. The section highlighted a aspect of Julian's personality so perhaps deserved tobe mentioned in his wiki page too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenEdu (talk • contribs) 07:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I remember now; I moved the whole section here: WikiLeaks#Operational_challenges. The section was mainly about Domscheit-Berg being fired from WikiLeaks so it belongs at the Domscheit-Berg article or at the WikiLeaks article. If you can find something that Assange himself has said about it (in an interview with a reliable source, not based on Domscheit-Berg's claims) then that might highlight and aspect of Assange's personality and you could put that in his article and then link to the relevant section at the WikiLeaks article. I don't think the material I removed really said anything about Assange at all. Gregcaletta (talk) 09:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge back?

I'm thinking of proposing to merge the trial article back into the JA article. I would like to hear you're opinion on that since you created it. I'm very concerned that it has facilitated the removal of material that should be included. ^walk victor falk ^talk 00:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I have done so now, thank you. Gregcaletta (talk) 00:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Re.Baghdad airstrike

I have endeavored to interact with you respectfully so please, lets not call for each other to be "blocked".V7-sport (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The kind of edits you have been making including series of agenda driven edits in one go borders on vandalism and if it continues I will request to have you blocked from the article. Controversial edits need to be made one at a time with justifying edit summaries given for each. Gregcaletta (talk) 00:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

That is simply not true. Again, the repeated insults out of nowhere are unacceptable. I am trying to remain civil in return. In terms of "getting me blocked" you have provably claimed things were stated by a source that were not stated at all, ie ""Ethan McCord, a member of the infantry company at the time, wrote that there was no action all day” which will get you blocked faster then anything. Again, I have treated you respectfully, characterizing my edits as "agenda driven vandalism" is untrue and uncivil.V7-sport (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The Ethan McCord source does say that quite clearly so, yes, you appear to be blinded by an agenda. It is clear that you are reading the reliable sources selectively. I didn't call your edits vandalism but did say it was not that far off in practice and I stand by that. What will get you blocked is consistently and stubbornly ignoring consensus. I am not the only editor that has been frustrated by your behaviour; there appear to be many. I have made no attacks on your person, not knowing anything about you. I'm sure you are lovely; but you cannot justify an entire series of unrelated but controversial edits by giving an explanation for only one of them. Remove the Ethan McCord statements if you like as long as you attempt a justification in you edit summary, but don't revert large quantities of unrelated edits at the same time. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

"Blinded by an agenda?" (next time we go to wikette) I pointed out where it stated otherwise. There is no consensus to make the sweeping changes you have made to the article and on Wikipedia verifiability trumps consensus. What I have posted is verifiable and what you have changed it to is not. Last time, stop with the insults. V7-sport (talk) 01:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

There is consensus that the changes you have made have nothing to do with adding verified facts to the article. You have removed factual material, not added it, and you have added undue opinion in the form of commentary. Gregcaletta (talk) 02:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

No there is not a consensus and on Wikipedia verifiability trumps consensus. What I have posted is verifiable and can be directly linked back to the sources. Stripping that out and posting Non sequiturs in their place with the same sources isn't going to fly. I'm going to ask this directly; are you an iqinn sockpuppet?V7-sport (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Hahaha. No. Your behaviour is just universally frustrating. Gregcaletta (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

List of current mixed martial arts champions

I understand your edit and while a more comprehensive description of the sport is possible I do not think it is warranted within the constraints of this article. Essentially the opening sentence is meant to liken MMA to other popular combat sports, not to actually describe the sport itself. I used Boxing, Kick Boxing, and Muay Thai, because these are popular combat sports practiced across the world, and most of them have a similar format (ring, point system, KO/TKO, referee, judges) to MMA. Wrestling and Jiu Jitsu are undeniably part of the foundations of MMA, but make for poor comparisons as sports, especially considering that neither have viable or popular professional mediums. Either way, thank you for your interest and I hope you continue to engage in the various aspects of this articles maintenance and improvement.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, I see; I thought they were an explanation of MMA not an explanation of combat sports. What do you think of removing the examples all together then? It's not really necessary to explain what a combat sport on this list article. The reader can always check the wikilinks if they really don't know what a combat sport is. Gregcaletta (talk) 00:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this information is slightly more than needed, but as it is only a small sentence (and not a section) I can see little reason to remove it. Do you feel that it's inclusion somehow detracts from the article as a whole. Mostly it's there, because, as you say, people could just go check wikilinks, but that would depend on them being not as lazy as I expect they are. I try to develop a page like this with the expectation that whomever might read it knows absolutely nothing about the sport and is too lazy to do any research. So I say "it's a combat sport", and then somebody says "what's a combat sport" and I say, "you know, like boxing, or kick boxing." and then they say "what's boxing" and then I hit them. If this falls against some wikipedia regulation or something similar, I'd be happy to rethink the intro. And having raised the question I will give it some thought, and I'd be happy to hear your continued thoughts about why this might need to change, and how it might be improved. The more you say about it, the better picture I can get about it's possible deficiencies.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 16:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. I just think the way it's phrased does not make clear whether the examples are supposed to act as description of MMA or as a description of combat sports so it would be good if you think of a way to make that clearer. You could use wrestling and kickboxing as the two examples because they are both examples combat sports while also acting together as a description of MMA. Gregcaletta (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Gul Mudin & the FOB Ramrod kill team

Hello. I wonder if you have any opinions on Talk:FOB Ramrod 'kill team'#RFC on appropriateness of "FOB Ramrod kill team" as title and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gul Mudin.jpg. Cheers ^walk victor falk ^talk 07:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Latest set of tags.

You have to engage in good faith discussion on the talk page or these are just drive by tags and considered vandalism. V7-sport (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You are not engaging in discussion on the talk page, therefore this IS drive by tagging and subject to removal.V7-sport (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

ANI

You've been mentioned at WP:ANI#July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike.—Kww(talk) 13:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Baghdad airstrike, V7-sport

V7-sport

Kww on blocking V7 You don't seem to grasp something: no one has an obligation to undo problems in your edits one at a time. There were several places in that edit that you removed citations and inserted {{citation needed}} tags. Replacing "'In the third airstrike" with "In separate attack that day, the "Bush" helicopter team made a third airstrike" is replacing grammatically correct English with grammatically incorrect English. The edit summaries you've provided earlier give no hint as to why you've made any of these changes. My blocking V7-sport should not be taken as any sign that I think he is the only one with edit-warring problems. It's quite permissible to do as he did, undoing your changes and restoring them bit-by-bit as they verify. I see that he restored about half of your original changes. There's nothing wrong with that, and it's permissible to do it. What I will caution all of you people to do is to use your "preview" buttons. That is a big part of the difficulty here. The history of this article is a stream of serial edits that there's no way to make sense of. Load the page up once, make your fixes using "preview" until you are happy, and then save it with a cogent edit summary. Don't make twenty small, unexplained edits and then expect other editors to pick there way through it one by one.—Kww(talk) 13:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC) Reversions That was your second reversion, Please stop edit warring. If you have a specific objection to the the article please take it to talk. I have addressed your objections there, please do me the courtesy of doing the same instead of reverting edits that have been on the article for months. Again, what is your SPECIFIC objection.V7-sport (talk) 03:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC) I've really had enough of this. Ether address the repeated good faith efforts that I have made to get you to be specific as to what the issue is either here or on the articles talk page or I will take this to either Wikiquette or an ANI. With the edit warring and the incivility and misrepresenting the content of the sources it should be a slam dunk. V7-sport (talk) 03:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC) It takes at least two to edit war, and I am not the only one who finds your edits to this article unacceptable. It appears you have not read my most recent edit summary. If you choose simply to ignore what I say then there is not point discussing anything with you. I will repeat myself here for the last time: make ONLY ONE controversial change to the article in any one edit, and give an edit summary explaining each change, otherwise discussion can not even begin to take place; start by making the least controversial change and work your way up to the most controversial change that you wish to make. Gregcaletta (talk) 03:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC) I have repeatedly outlined my position on the articles talk page. . I already explained the edits in the edit summaries and on the talk page where you responded with insults and "Go ahead and ruin the article." What you have posted now is a misrepresentation of what the sources state; The cardinal sin on Wikipedia. I have outlined exactly that on the articles talk page. Simply posting "some of these changes are OK but others are not. " is not an answer to what has been presented to you. It's disruptive and is in keeping with the thoroughly rude way in which you have behaved. Are you going to post specific objections or answer what I have written or do we take this to the next level?V7-sport (talk) 03:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC) Well?V7-sport (talk) 04:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC) You ignored what I just wrote so there is no point in me continuing this discussion. Gregcaletta (talk) 04:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC) I have NOT ignored what you have written, I have taken a lot of time to answer you here and on the articles talk page. You have responded with repeated insults and edit warring. I have posted what you have asked for and I have answered your questions and your latest objection is that some edits are ok, some are not... Well which ones? Seriously, how do you think it will look when an admin looks this over and reads "there is no point in me continuing this discussion" when I have practically begged you to act in good faith? (That and the above interactions with Yakushima and Randy2063, good Lord, this isn't even tin the news anymore, there's no need to continue spinning it)V7-sport (talk) 04:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC) Fine. I'll repeat myself again. Will it help if I put it in bold? Before I can tell you which ones (it's most of them), you need to make each change as a separate edit rather than by simply reverting a huge number of unrelated changes so that Iquin, I or others can revert the ones we object to and leave the changes that are acceptable. Gregcaletta (talk) 04:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC) I have made edit summaries as I have gone along. I have also addressed your previous complaints in talk. I'm not going to go through all that all over again so you don't have to read through what has been posted in order to determine what you object to. There was a list of your objections on the talk page that I had already addressed. Do what I did; Read through the differences and pick out what you are objecting to and formulate some kind of reason why you object to it.V7-sport (talk) 04:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC) By the way, the above is a tacit admission on your part that your reverts are arbitrary and without a specific objection.V7-sport (talk) 04:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC) Only in the same way the reverting vandalism is "arbitrary". I can't give a specific objection to an edit which is so clearly in violation of correct conduct. Imagine I deleted whole subsections while also making small productive change in other sections as part of the same edit and then asked you to be "specific" in your objections. No, it would be up to me to be specific in my editing before specific objections could be made. Gregcaletta (talk) 05:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC) So every edit I made was Vandalism... That is what you are stating. "Correct conduct"? My edits are sourced, verified and adhere to what the sources state. Yours have misrepresented what the sources have stated, as I have demonstrated on the talk page. I have been specific in my edits, you have simply reverted it and you are again, admitting that you do not have specific reasons for reverting the edits. (Other then the claim that they are "vandalism" and somehow not "Correct conduct". Please point out that "Correct conduct" policy.)V7-sport (talk) 05:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC) Haha no that's not what I said. You seem to read as if blind. This edit is not specific, it is a violation of proper conduct because in contains numerous unrelated changes. Pick ONE of these changes to make and make that change as an individual edit with a proper edit summary. If that gains consensus, you can then make another change. This is the proper conduct. I am tired of repeating myself and I will not continue to do so. Gregcaletta (talk) 06:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC) Please show me where it is a "violation of proper conduct" to include more then one change in an edit? You can't because there is no such policy. Regardless, I have asked repeatedly for you to provide specific reasons why you are reverting my edits, you haven't done so. I have taken the initiative and gone through the edits in question and posted reasons on the talk page. You answered that with insults and "Go ahead and ruin the article." I too am tired of repeating myself. Either provide specific, reasoned objections to the edits (as I have done) and drop the insults that you have offered from the first moment I attempted to engage you in discussion or stop reverting. V7-sport (talk) 07:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC) It is so obvious that I doubt it has been made explicit in policy, rather it is a basic assumption of all policy that consensus building cannot occur if it is not clear which change is being discussed. Make these edits individually and I will not have to revert all of them, only those I disagree with, and then we can discuss those changes. Gregcaletta (talk) 09:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC) It in't policy. Provide reasons for your reversions or it's obviously disruptive editing and will be viewed as such by any admin that gets involved. I'm going to unwatch this page as I think we are both clear on each others position. V7-sport (talk) 17:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC) New Yorker The first change, "At least 18 killed in total.[1]” is not backed by any citation. Indeed you created a cite error. "Cite error: Invalid tag; no text was provided for refs named totalfatalities; see Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text”" 12 fatalities confirmed and two children” is not backed by the source listed. The source doesn’t say anything about “the first 2 strikes”. It just says 12 killed. Nor does it mention the children. "In the 2nd attack (3rd strike): casualties unconfirmed: by some reports, at least 7 killed including at least one woman and at least one child" .. Is not backed by the source, it doesn't mentin "2nd attack" and it is also an editorial on the blog section and has to be attributed as such. So much for using the preview button. V7-sport (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC) Sorry, that's because you removed the citation previously tagged "totalfatalities" from the article. I'll fix it now. Gregcaletta (talk) 23:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC): The source doesn't mention anything about the second attack. It says "as attack" so it is referring to one attack, the first one. THere are sources elsewhere in the article for the wounded children. I will add them if you really want to challenge the factual accuracy. WP:LEAD explains that not all of the material in the lead needs to be cited as long as it is cited in the body, unless it's factual accuracy is frequently challenged. Are you challenging the fact that two children were wounded? Gregcaletta (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC) It's not an editorial section coming from the blog section. It comes form a section called "news desk" and it is already marked "by some reports" which is enough to show that it might be disputed, although as far as I am aware it has never been disputed by any other significant party. It is clearly referring to the attack on the building, which was the second attack. Gregcaletta (talk) 23:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC) I answered here.V7-sport (talk) 01:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC) Re latest message. This behaviour is unacceptable. You are perfectly welcome to reject my controversial changes, but in this edit you have also (1) reverted my fixing of your punctuation (2) introduced improper citations ("No secrets" instead of "Use of Force") (3) improper citation formatting (you replaced a short ref tag with the long ref which appears elsewhere in the article) and (4) made the grammar worse. THis kind of behaviour must stop. Make the changes manually or I will have to request that you be blocked from editing. Gregcaletta (talk) 07:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC) Firstly, I would appreciate it if you didn't behave like a finger wagging school marm. Declaring my "behaviour is unacceptable" for getting rid of original research sounds comical. Secondly, I haven't included improper citations, Use of Force is an editorial. I replaced the long tag pending changes and no the grammar wasn't worse. The Casualties and losses is not in keeping with the format of the article or similar articles. Stating that you are going to have me blocked for making an edit is also comical. I am trying to work with you, spare me the petulant attitude.V7-sport (talk) 07:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC) And, by the way, I did make those changes manually, there was no revert. V7-sport (talk) 07:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC) OK, you did a copy-paste of a whole section then, which is just as bad or worse. You replaced "No Secrets" (an irrelevant piece by the same author) with (Use of Force). "Result" is who won; "casualties" is who died: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_military_conflict). You also ruined punctuation, grammar and ref formatting. Gregcaletta (talk) 07:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC) Show me a copy and paste section that was identical to what I posted. Otherwise I await your apology. And no, I didn't ruin "punctuation, grammar and ref formatting" thank you. V7-sport (talk) 07:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC) OK then, explain why you replace "Use of Force" with "No Secrets"; explain why you moved a full stop to the incorrect place. You did this "manually" did you? Gregcaletta (talk) 07:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC) No you didn't make those changes manually. You copy-pasted from this version and then made a few slight changes to that reversion. Gregcaletta (talk) 07:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC) Too late, Iqinn alredy jumped the gun with the edit warring template. Next stop is getting the both of you blocked for WP:GANG Had I reverted it would say it on the edit page, and no, that was a new edit. I replaced "Use of Force" with "No Secrets" because, for the 80th time Use of Force is from a blog and has to be cited as such. OK? V7-sport (talk) 07:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC) The copy-paste you did is a way of reverting without it appearing as a reversion. You make yourself look silly by denying that's what you did. What does the "No Secrets" article have to do with the information in question? And you are telling me you purposely moved that period three places along to wrong the position? Gregcaletta (talk) 08:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC) So you don't have the class to apologize... Shocked. It wasn't a copy and paste. The no secrets article used the phrase "over 18" and was verifiable. That's why I changed it. Don't know what period you are talking about. V7-sport (talk) 08:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC) Hahaha Well anyone can see that this change you made is based on copying and pasting material from this older version, so you make yourself seem a poor liar. Gregcaletta (talk) 08:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC) The 2 edits are obviously different, so obviously I'm not the liar here. I did copy some of the wording from - Subh83s post on the talk page. That's not a reversion nor was it a simple copy and paste. Congratulations, this has gone nowhere yet again and you have once and for all proven yourself to be editing in bad faith. V7-sport (talk) 08:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC) No, I have forced you to admit that you copied and pasted that material from an older version of the article, which is a way of reverting without it appearing as a reversion. Gregcaletta (talk) 08:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC) That's a flat out lie. Perfectly in keeping with you seeing whatever the hell it is you want to see in any given source. I haven't admitted any such thing. Pretty amazing insecurity that propels someone to just claim whatever they want to see as fact even though the contrary is there in black and white. Sorry Greg, I didn't "admit' any such thing. V7-sport (talk) 08:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC) "I did copy some of the wording" was all I needed to here to know that you had not made the edit manually. Gregcaletta (talk) 08:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC) The edit was made manually, with new language that tried to incorporate other editors input. That is just the fact. You two need to get another hobby other then tossing around baseless accusations. (Lying) V7-sport (talk) 08:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC) It wasn't new language. The language clearly comes form that older version I linked to. Gregcaletta (talk) 08:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC) That's another provable lie. The versions are different. V7-sport (talk) 08:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Idea

Create a mini-project to bring the articles of Neda, Mohamed Bouazizi, Khaled Said, and Hamza Ali Al-Khateeb up to GA/FA status. Possibly expand to include others whose deaths became symbols of war and peace (i.e. Pat Tillman). Would you like to work on something like this? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 23:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/HistoryBioLife. Might need a new name, but check it out... Ocaasi ^{t | c} 04:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really spending any time on Wikipedia recently. I'm very busy with university study. But thanks for asking. Gregcaletta (talk) 07:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Granai airstrike

Hi Greg, i think you wrote parts of this story and there is now a discussion about the video section on the talk page. You might want to help us out there. All the best. Gaiisik (talk) 22:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Please contribute to discussion

Please comment on my explanation of why I reverted you. See Talk:Judaism#Lead. Debresser (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jérémie Zimmermann

The article Jérémie Zimmermann has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Ok, he appeared on a web episode. Big deal. I can find interviews and refs related to his interview with Assange, but having a hard time finding else. French only refs are getting in the way. There needs to be independent and reliable reference about him and what he does

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bgwhite (talk) 07:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

dispute resolution

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Granai airstrike". Thank you.

Nomination of Jérémie Zimmermann for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jérémie Zimmermann is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jérémie Zimmermann until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Bgwhite (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Would you please leave edit summaries? That way, if you are a known and respected editor, people don't have to check!

Cheers! Amandajm (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

House arrest

I popped a few links etc in here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Julian_Assange

I'm not going to bother to re-edit, but I'll leave it up to you. Pretty sure the definition of "house arrest" is clear from the links I gave, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.157.141.238 (talk) 13:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Changing SUL

You cannot change your entire SUL at once; you must request renames from bureaucrats on each individual project (or on Meta, if the project has none who are active). Pakaran 04:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request

Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Bertha Foundation

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Bertha Foundation requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 15:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

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

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

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

User:Gregcaletta/List of Recreational Drugs by critical dosages

Hello, Gregcaletta. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, User:Gregcaletta/List of Recreational Drugs by critical dosages.

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

GA Reassessment: Eckhart Tolle

Eckhart Tolle, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hipal (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Fringe scholarship and superseded theories

Hi Greg, I responded to you on the discussion page. --Tursclan (talk) 02:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)