Talk:Danny Casolaro/Archive 1

Archive 1

Notes and References section

• I added a category labeled "Footnotes" in order to create a more pleasing interaction between the article and the reader (i.e. clicking a number produces the referenced object in the lower portion of the page). For further details see:Wikipedia:Referencing_for_beginners. After further corrections have been made, "Footnotes" should be relabled to read: "Notes and References". Hag2 (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, again, Hag2. I altered your subsection titles in References to avoid any misuderstanding about the meaning of notes and footnotes and references. I hope that you will consider these alterations as minor (as I do). ThsQ (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

If I need to go into too much discussion on this, I will have to come back to it later on today due to family commitments for Thanksgiving, but I'll try to give a brief run down of my viewpoint. (I've discussed the article quite a few times with Hag2, although I've largely left the editing of the article to him (her?). Essentially, I changed the headings back because they didn't exactly represent what the sections were. The section covering the inline citations weren't a bibliography and that was part of my issue with it. If you feel they need to be better identified, I'd suggest using the Inslaw as the example, in that the main heading of References be removed altogether and use either Notes or Footnotes for the first section and the inline citations section be called References. Also the project is mostly trying to move away from using the <small></small> coding, so lesser subheading sections should be noted by adding the next lower tier markup by adding another equal sign (=), and the first word of the title of a section should always be capitalized. This article differs from Pericles in the sheer number of notes, citations, references to primary and secondary sources and external links. I think a good article reviewer would criticize the organization of the sections as it was with "explanatory notes". That mostly covers my reasoning and I apologize for not explaining it here before. I hope that explains my thoughts on the section titles. If you want to discuss anything further, I'll be available after around 4:30 pm EST. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

No. Thank you, Wildhartlivie for your point of view. I believe that you have answered my concerns well. I will leave everything as is until I hear from Hag2. Until then, I will examine your suggests about the Inslaw example, and draw Hag2's attention to this discussion. ThsQ (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, ThsQ (and Wildhart too). I have no objections to any alterations in the structure of Danny Casolaro (or any other articles to which I have been an editor). I would like to point out that I have been only a researcher of material on this entire story (Inslaw), and that I am unhappy at the moment with a great deal of what has been written. For example, Danny Casolaro fails to mention anything about Peter Videnieks, or the Office of Senator Byrd. Elliot Richardson's "Bua Report Rebuttal" goes into details which need to be addressed, be verified, and be presented. To date, the surface material of Inslaw, Danny Casolaro, Earl Brian, and Michael Riconosciuto is fraught with too many loose ends for anyone to be concerned too much over structure. I have noticed that you have been persuing some of these details throughout Wikipedia, and I appreciate your endeavors. I have been in the background due to ugly innuendoes [1] [2], and will continue my research until a more accurate story evolves. It is terribly difficult to get to the truth when there is so much dubious misinformation. When an investigation is compounded by hysterial people who are blinded by only their own interpretations, the work becomes increasing more difficult. I think that we need to reclassify Danny Casolaro downward, to be more in line with a C-classification until some of these mysterious surroundings are more clearly presented (that is, the current version is under-developed.)

This brings me to another point. Much earlier, I wrote in the request for a preview that "My major concern is whether or not this article is an encyclopedic article. In my opinion, it may be little more than mainstream background detailing the final days of Danny Casolaro's life."

I am not entirely certain if Wikipedia is the proper place for editors to try to unravel a mystery. Hag2 (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Dixie, I am embarrassed to say that I have mistaken your gender. Please accept my apologies. I have no real dispute with anything which you have researched so far and I applaud you on your research. I was tickled to see how you uncovered Anson Ng Yong's true identity and I think that the mistake in repeatedly printing his name incorrectly for the past decade goes to the heart of bad journalism and the need for due diligence. If you want to downgrade this article on Casolaro, I have no objection. Did you see the Reguly article I found on Earl Brian? I've been adding a few things over there to his biography. Please call me Theo. ThsQ (talk) 14:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:MichaelRiconosciuto.jpg

[The following information has been moved here from Hag2's talkpage. It has been collapsed for improved usability.]

The enclosed information concerns details about uploading a non-fee use image of Michael Riconosciuto into the Danny Casolaro article for background detail.
The following conversations took place from well-meaning advisors. Feel free to add further comment; however, the File:MichaelRiconosciuto.jpg was deleted eventually—after a lengthy conversation with Mendaliv on the Image talk:MichaelRiconosciuto.jpg-page before I thought to copy it—on 14 October by Administrator Stifle so the issue of a 'non-free use' image must be resolved by securing copyright permission. Hag2 (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Replaceable fair use Image:MichaelRiconosciuto.jpg Replaceable fair use Thanks for uploading Image:MichaelRiconosciuto.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please: Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all. Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself. If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? J Milburn (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Well, right at the moment your notice confuses me greatly and I will need to read it over again many times. If you have a image similar to the one that I found, where is it? All that I see at the moment is a notice from you that says "that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information." I would like to see whatever image you are talking about. Lastly, I do not understand what you mean by "Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?" Thanks for explaining this for me. Oh...and who are you? Hag2 (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC) I'm a student from Cumbia, in England. Doesn't really matter who I am, the notice is an automatic one that you were sent using Twinkle- you can opt out of receiving notices like that from other Twinkle users, if you don't want to see them. The reason that the image was tagged for deletion was because the subject is still alive, meaning that someone could take a picture of them and license it under a free license. As the non-free content criteria state that any non-free image used must be irreplaceable (thus, the image is being used as a last resort) non-free images of living people are generally not allowed. Do you understand now? The automatic notices can be a little confusing- they're written in such a way as to include all needed information and be in the appropriate tone. J Milburn (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Fair enough. I see what you are saying. The bot provides me with several options. So I will persue those. Hag2 (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC) After reading your arguments, I am fairly convinced that the image is not replaceable (for now). I have written a more standard fair use rationale from the information you have provided, which you are welcome to expand upon. J Milburn (talk) 16:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Thanks for writing that "standard fair use" platform. It looks very good to me. What do I do now, wait for the next 48 hours until I hear from someone that everything is satisfactory within Wikipedia? Hag2 (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC) I've removed the deletion notice, as I am now satisfied with the image use. Unless someone else tags the image for whatever reason, it should be fine. J Milburn (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Unfortunately, as of 21:30 (UTC) it does not work.... Does this mean that someone else has tagged it? Will I be hearing from that person too? Hag2 (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC) I don't understand what you mean? The image is no longer tagged. I have added it back to the article for you. J Milburn (talk) 21:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Everything is ok now. Hag2 (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC) The image Image:MichaelRiconosciuto.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article. That this article is linked to from the image description page. This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC) FairuseBot, not too sure how to comply??? Does this mean that I should insert the following template into the article somewhere, and fill out the various parameters?? Or does it mean that I must go to the page which contains the original upload and rework the details, there? {{Non-free use rationale | Description = | Source = | Article = | Portion = | Low_resolution = | Purpose = | Replaceability = | other_information = }} Thanks for explaining. Hag2 (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC) Wow, come on, that's a bit of an overreaction. I removed one image, once, and that was because it didn't meet our non-free content criteria- namely, it wasn't absolutely necessary, meaning that the reader's understanding was not massively improved by it's use. Non-free media must be treated with extreme caution, and used only as a last resort- please see the non-free content guidelines. I'm sorry if I seem to have bitten you- it certainly wasn't intentional. I'm actually trying to step back from the realm of non-free content, as I feel my time will be better spent elsewhere. If you do feel that the image has a place, you're welcome to reinstate it, and I will ask on the relevant talk page for a third opinion. J Milburn (talk) 18:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC) Hello Hag, (Hag requested my opinion on this matter [3]) This is a question of copyright, and it is taken quite seriously by Wikipedia. I am not very experienced with Fair Use issues, but this is my understanding: Fair use is about resonable use of copyrighted material for the purpose of discussing, criticising, studying, etc, of that specific material. In general, fair use does NOT cover the use of copyrighted material for mere illustration purposes. In this case of Image:MichaelRiconosciuto.jpg: I do not believe that its use meets the fair use requirements. To do so, I would expect that there be meaningful and appropriate content in the article that discusses that specific image. The image itself, not the subject it portrays, must be the subject of discussion in the article. Looking at the summary information provided: Source http://www.newsmakingnews.com , suspected to be a screenshot from the German television station ZDF The fact that the source is uncertain makes this a very shaky case to start with. Portion used Screenshot cropped to remove watermarks and all unneeded material Removal of the watermarks makes this look like you are trying hide the copyright owner. Not maintaining the watermark from a cropped section is OK, but if the watermark is part of the image for which fair use is claimed, then the watermark is part of the story and should stay. If not, then I guess that you are trying to claim fair use for the image behind the watermark, which means that you are trying to ignore the copyright of whoever applied the watermark. Purpose of use To provide an image of the subject of the article This is not a sufficient rationale. Other information This image was first published on an obscure website (circa 2004 according to the commentary at the website), and has been there for several years without incident. This implies that the copyright holder (who is unknown) has no objection to the image appearing online. I don’t think that this is good enough. If the website is obscure, then you cannot assume that the unknown copyright owner is aware of the use of the image. You do not even seem to know that the copyright owner has contacted to owner of the obscure website. In short, I suspect that you will be unable to make use of this image. I think your best bet at doing so is to add a section discussing the image. However, to do this, you’ll need to know the history of the use of the image, who took it, and why, and you should assert something special about this photo. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC) appropriate images You wrote: Is there a department (or collection of Wikipedians) who specialize in helping others find appropriate images, or helping in securing premission of copyrighted material for same? Hag2 (talk) 15:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC) I thought there would be, but I have been unable to discover anyhting useful. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC) Thank you for uploading Image:MichaelRiconosciuto.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale. If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. —/Mendaliv/2¢/?'s/ 08:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The above is an extended post that has been collapsed for improved usability.

Hotel or motel?

On 17 August 2008, I nominated Danny Casolaro for the Good Article category. This morning I discovered that the reference to Casolaro lodging at the Sheraton Inn in Martinsburg, WVA is incorrect, probably. This is based on two facts: currently there is no listing for a Sheraton Inn in Martinsburg, and secondly Heatherfields Cocktail Lounge is located in a Holiday Inn. (note also that the Heatherfields in the Holiday Inn is spelled without the apostrophe). These two facts are in dispute of the published references throughout the internet to Casolaro lodging in Room 517 at the Sheraton Inn in 1991. They need to be addressed. Thus, I am now in the process of withdrawing the above nomination until I can correct this inaccuracy. (Unfortunately, this inaccuracy was published throughout the internet from 1991 to present day. I believe that the root of the problem began with the Ridgeway and Vaughan article in the Village Voice. I will email the editors of VV for a response.) Hag2 (talk) 13:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Update: I emailed all of the following...but received no response: Village Voice; the curator of Casolaro's files at the School of Journalism at the University of Missouri; the Martinsburg, W.Va police department's public-affairs officer; and Heatherfields Restaurant. The issue of Sheraton Inn is a minor issue, although it should be reported accurately. Some mainstream 1991 newspapers chose to use the simple word hotel thus making it non-specific. Keeping this in mind, it should be noted that Holiday Inn lists only 127 rooms (or thereabouts), and that the Holiday Inn is located on U.S. Interstate 81 (it was reported that Casolaro stayed in something "on I-81"), and that the nearest Sheratons (plural) seem to be located in nearby communities. All of this means that it would be nice to find someone from Martinsburg who could explain all this confusion. Hag2 (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Update 2: Not being satisfied with this particular mystery, on December 4, 2008, I pursued the matter further and received a very quick and satisfying answer. With the help from the Director of Information Services for the Martinsburg-Berkeley County Public Libraries, he and I were able to determine:

• The last year that the Sheraton is listed in the Martinsburg City directory is 1994. Starting in 1995, the Holiday Inn is listed. The Heatherfields restaurant and lounge remained in the same location in that building.
• Maybe we should not assume that because there was a room 517 that there were more than 500 rooms. It is possible that there were not one hundred rooms on each floor. Perhaps there were only about 26 rooms on each floor. That would make about 130 rooms, less a few hotel utility rooms. Both the interior and the exterior of the building have been drastically remodeled within the last few years.
• Because Sheraton was located on an interstate, and because Sheraton's full title was Sheraton Hotels and Inns, Inc., it is possible that Ridgeway and Vaughan overlooked the hotel distinction and emphasised the vernacular of inn.
• A photograph (see middle image titled 'Hotel Exterior') of the existing building clearly shows a five-storied building.

Keeping all the above in mind, it is clear that Gary Lee's August 13, 1991, Washington Post article ("Area Writer Investigating Inslaw Case Found Dead") is a much better reference for the kind of building structure than Ridgeway and Vaughan in their October 13, Village Voice article ("The Last Days of Danny Casolaro"). Moreover, Elliot Richardson writing in The Bua Report [4], Section III, E (1) "Evidence that Casolaro...", paragraph 2, states: "...Casolaro was found dead in the bathtub of his room in the Sheraton Hotel in Martinsburg, West Virginia...."

Thus, I will alter the language of the main article to reflect the word hotel when refering to the structure.

In addition, as soon as I can secure a freely-acceptable-image for the building, I will insert it into the article in the area of the passages describing the police investigation into whether or not someone rappelled from the roof. Hag2 (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Image was added on 27 January 2009--Dixie Hag2 (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Old commentary 2005-2008

• Hi 205.118.16.153, thanks for adding all that material. I'm sorry if my edit summaries sounded harsh; I didn't mean them to. My concern is only that everything should be sourced, especially with a topic like this where there are so many rumors, and that we should be careful not to add our own opinion e.g. "Some of Riconoscuito's claims seemed accurate." Also, please try to explain who all the players are, because it gets very confusing.

• I added of the two writers who quote the waitress that they were "conspiracy-theory writers." You may feel that's too POV, so by all means find another expression. I used that one because one of them actually published (and may still do) a magazine or website devoted to conspiracy theories, so it seemed apt to call him that. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Archive 1