Jump to content

User talk:Bxzooo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

[edit]

Hello, Bxzooo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I notice that one of the first articles you created appears to be an article about yourself. This is a common mistake made by new Wikipedians—as this is an encyclopedia, we wouldn't expect to have an article about every contributor. Your user page, however, is a great place to write about yourself, making sure to stay within user page guidelines. Just click your user name at the top of the screen when you are logged in, and edit it normally.

The page you created about yourself has been or will shortly be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, but if you want to use the content from it, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Dougweller (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Be aware that the page from 123people.com that showed in Google as a copyright violation also causes my anti-virus program to pop-up and recommend I leave immediately. Editor, you may not only have a Wikipedia issue with copyright, but your own computer may have been compromised by 123people.



Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Peggy Ann Adler, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from www.123people.com/s/peggy+adler, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Peggy Ann Adler saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing!

98.210.208.107 (talk) 03:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Peggy Ann Adler

[edit]

The article Peggy Ann Adler has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Safiel (talk) 04:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

[edit]

Hi, I deleted your recent article because it did not provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts or show that it meets the notability guidelines. It is now wikipedia policy that biographical articles about living people must have proper references. Autobiographies are rarely a good idea; your views do not constitute a reliable independent source, and lack objectivity — we can't even verify you are who you claim to be. We are told that you proved that the "October Surprise" was hoax, but not what the surprise was, or whether your opinion was accepted by everyone.

We are told you were a researcher for best selling author Ron Rosenbaum, but there's no link to any article about him. Why are your books notable? Typically for an autobiography, the tone is uncritical and what we have is essentially a vanity piece. If you are notable, someone will write a proper sourced article sooner or later. If there aren't enough independent sources, you are not notable. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the emails. It's pointless asking me to chase up the links, your independent verifiable references need to be in the article so anyone can verify the claims. Self made pages like Facebook are not independent refs. Biographical articles about living people must have proper references Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your userspace

[edit]

Hi - I've added a couple of templates to your userspace draft - don't be concerned, they are routine. I've also added a welcome message above which might give you some help. Dougweller (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Email

[edit]

Thanks for email. Although it's fine as a user page, the first problem is that your references are not standard Wikipedia format. I've added a references section, and fixed the first one to show you how it's done.

There are also large chunks that lack references. If they are supported by the items in your citations section, they would be better used as references, formatted as in the example above. Publications like newspapers, books and magazines should be italised New York Times, and items in them in quotation marks "Bush and BCCI". it's also usual to lead with the author and year, eg Melanson, Philip H. (1990) Spy Saga: Lee Harvey Oswald and U.S. Intelligence pp. 79 & 200. I wouldn't bother with redlinking authors or books without their own articles.

Hope this helps Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm happy to do what I can if you need help or input Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For real publications, you don't have to have a link, although it helps if one is available. If you look at Water Rail, you will see that I've used a mixture of web pages, real article with a web copy, and real articles or books with no on-line version. The point is that any real publication can in theory be checked by someone with access to a university library, a newspaper archive or a national collection like the Library of Congress or the British Library. The only real problem is a web-only site which has gone dead. What you can't do is upload copyright text.
I think the main problem now is the lack of visible references for the main text. You mostly have your sources, you just need to attach them to the relevant text, using "ref name". I made this edit to the skulls and bones stuff, attaching the Rosenbaum refs to the bit in the main text. If you could do a bit more of that, it will give the page more chance of a clear run when it's thrown to the wolves again. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Hi again. I don't mind emails, but I check my talk page more often than my email, so it's probably quicker to post there. The only files you can directly add to a Wikipedia page are media files, not text. You would have to scan as images, and add the image file. I would strongly advise against this. You know how picky Wikipedia is about copyright? Well, since all the documents are written produced by someone else, they own the copyright (the subpoena might be OK, since it's presumably a federal government document and therefore public domain). Letters of commendation might also be seen as self-promotion, and some of the things you are referencing are fairly trivial anyway, and unlikely to be challenged. I would have thought that some of the information, like the police commissioner bit, would be available on a public website? Do you have your own website you could reference some of the background stuff to? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember all sources need to have been published somewhere and conform to WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. Letters can't be used for instance. Dougweller (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Zeldin Letter.pdf

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Zeldin Letter.pdf. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Clinton Police Commission ID.pdf. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.


If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Eeekster (talk) 22:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

This is exactly the problem I warned about. Copyright ownership is assumed to be retained by the author unless they have explicitly stated that the text or image is in the public domain. There are ways that they can donate the material, but, even if they are willing to do this, it's barely worth it, unless the sources satisfy WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. Note also that any items you release to Wikipedia can be used by anyone for any legal purpose, including commercial use. With regard to the book jacket, it depends whether the copyright is held by you or your publisher. If you own the copyright and are prepared to allow public domain use of the image or text, I can tell you how to do that. Your status as a police commissioner can be satisfactorily referenced to these minutes or similar Clinton docs. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the top of any wikipedia page, you should see a "move" option, so just go to your user page and use that to transfer to the new title. Once it is at article space, remember that anyone is entitled to edit the page, so you may have to be prepared to accept constructive edits. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the redirect from your user page, so it's now a blank canvas again. You can obviously add a link to Peggy Adler if you wish. If I've misunderstood you, let me know. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You need a short lead section, just a couple of sentences summarising your life Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two of your cats started with |[[ instead of [[, that gave the two lines, now fixed. The cats I checked, you appear, don't know why there is a problem Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can edit any article. You know the ropes, so go ahead and do it (your Dad's article). I've removed the stray symbol. Images are normally stored on Commons, not sure what the problem is. It's pointless removing tags, they are monitored automatically. It's been reinstated and should be left, since it creates the wrong impression to remove it yourself. It's just a warning at the moment, not a deletion debate.It's undoubtedly an autobiography, which isn't banned, but obviously raises questions about impartiality; however, I would have thought you were notable enough for an article. I would suggest that you contact the editor who added the tag, and ask what more needs to be done in terms of either establishing notability or neutrality; I think they should be encouraged to clarify why they have added the tag. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that removing the lists, as you suggest, so you just have "proper references", is a good idea. As I said before, anyone can write an article about anything, including themselves.

The reason that autobiographies and other conflicts of interest are discouraged (but not bannned) is that it's difficult to be objective about something if you are too close to the subject. Other examples are people writing about the company they own or work for, or fans writing about their favourite band/actor/singer. The article is too well referenced to be speedy deleted, so it would have to go to WP:AFD if someone really felt that it should go. I'd avoid that if possible. If you can get the tagging editor to clarify, that would be good. If she/he feels that that some wording could be tweaked to avoid the appearance of bias, that should be OK.

Notability is trickier. There's a whole spectrum, ranging from a band created in someone's garage yesterday to Barack Obama. If push comes to shove, that can only be resolved by a consensus at an AFD debate, but you have plenty of references, which helps, and as long as you are prepared to engage with tagging editors, you should be OK. Avoid WP:OWN — although you're the main editor, if people make reasonable changes to the article, or suggest "improvements", that's their right. Glad you've mastered the talk page system! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, I've removed a lot of the list items, but have left some. Do you think I should remove more? Or have I abbreviated it enough? Regards, Peggy Adler (user/bxzooo) Bxzooo (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Again, I've removed even more from the lists. Don't think anymore can come off without damaging continuity. The irony is that the Wikipedia Adminstrator stated "I'm not seeing evidence of significant coverage of her either as an author/illustrator or as a police commissioner. Angr (talk) 23:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)". I can't believe that he could have made this statement after looking at my list of publications. And I didn't include them all. I even deleted the diagrams I did for the mathematical & scientific journals. You'd think that having 18 books copyrighted by well known publishing companies, at the Library of Congress, would be more than enough. And as far as my work as a Police Commissioner -- what does he want me to write? We hire. We fire. We promote. We discipline. Our budget is one of the biggest in town. We even recently hird a new chief, because ours of the last 19 years is now the United States Marshal for the State of Connecticut. Would adding a photo of me with Vice President Biden make me more notable? Sorry to sound like I'm complaining -- but I've gotten such constructive feedback from you, all along the way, that this person's comments, containing no constructive suggestions, is off-putting. Regards, Peggy (user/bxzooo) Bxzooo (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Wikipedia:Notability (people) again. It isn't what you wrote, it's what others have written about you that the editor is trying to find. What you think of as notability and what we call notability are probably quite different. Dougweller (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doug, Thanx for the input. Yours, along with JimfBeaks's has always been most helpful! There are newspaper aricles that have been written about me. There are books that mention me in the text and acknowledgements. They are in the list in my article @ "citations". There are others, but I thought that these would be sufficient. Please advise. Regards, Peggy (user/bxzooo) Bxzooo (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Doug, today I wrote the following to user/angr: "Good Morning Angr, Based upon your comments, I have deleted most of the line item entries and put all of those items' reference points into the text. So now the article should no longer look like a resume. The only major list that remains is that with the titles of books and magazine articles that provide proof that "other people have commented significantly on the work (I've) done, in writing, in publications that (I) have no control over." As for my work as a Police Commssioner. We hire. We fire. We promote. We discipline. We oversee the entire department and it's budget -- one of the biggest in our town. Last year our police chief of the last 19 years retired after being appointed by President Obama to become the United States Marshal for the State of Connecticut. As a Police Commissioner, I, along with my four colleagues, interviewed and hired a new chief, from with in the ranks, and subsequently promoted members of the department to major, sgt. & corporal, respectively, to backfill newly vacated positions. We also interviewed and hired new cops and sent them to the Academy for training. They are now on the road here in Clinton. At amost 70 years of age, despite all of my work and civic activities, I have lived a very low profile life in a number of small towns here in Connecticut. Most of the people where I live (and have lived) 'til now, have had no idea of what I have done, because I do not normally promote my self. For years, most of my high profile energy was spent single parenting my two daughters, who are now adults, one with children of her own. And now, with Power of Attorney, I am looking after the affairs of my 98 year old Dad - along with all my other responsibilties. I hope that this addresses all of your concerns. Respectfully, Peggy Adler (user/bxzooo) Bxzooo (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

P.S. If you have the time and inclination -- I respectfully request that you check out my sources. I think that they will establish notability. user/bxzooo Bxzooo (talk) 13:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)"

Regards, Peggy (user/bxzooo) Bxzooo (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, How come there is a 1 in front of the pdf icon @ reference #12. I've looked everywhere @ "edit" to see if I could remove it, but cannot find the source. Unless this is because there are 2 of the same document and this is "version" 1. P. (user/bxzooo) Bxzooo (talk) 19:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • You had a hyperlink within a ref, now combined which looks neater and is more user friendly

Jim, Doug & Angr, I just uploaded a photo of my with VP Biden. Should leave it or remove it? Please advise. I'm happy to do whatever you recommend. Peggy Adler, user/bxzooo Bxzooo (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday I took my first close look at the Wikipedial page that my late step-mother's grandson (Martin Benjamin) created for my Dad, Irving Adler, and found that it lacked verificaiton(s) and had some serious factual errors. So I spent a good part of the day correcting the errors and creating reference points/links to verify Dad's history, career(s), accomplishments and awards. Also put in some pix. user/bxzooo Bxzooo (talk) 10:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I may now done all of the things recommended in the ! at the top of my article. So how much longer does the ! stay there?? Same query regarding the ! at the article about my Dad, Irving Adler. Regards, Peggy Adler Bxzooo (talk) 11:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User page

[edit]

I'd keep this user page separate, changing it to your real name just emphasises that it is an autobiography, and makes the encyclopaedia article more of a target. Just keep it minimal, don't copy over the Peggy Adler stuff Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx for your timely response. Should the bxzooo User page you so kindly deleted for me be brought back to life? Accordig to Wikipedia, it does not curently exist. If so, do you have the power to undelete it???? If not, what next? Best, Peggy User bxzooo Bxzooo (talk) 19:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Zeldin Letter.pdf

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Zeldin Letter.pdf. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When Michael Zeldin wrote the letter in question, in 1995, he gave me oral permission to re-use it as I see fit. Thus, I uploaded it as proof of my having worked for the U.S. Houseof Representatives' October Surprise Task Force. Since you need verification from Michael that I have permission to use the letter, I have just now sent him an e-mail requesting the necesary, written permission, so I can forward it on to you. Hopefully, his e-address has not changed! Please, please await his reply before deleting!!!!

Regards, Peggy Adler User=bxzooo Bxzooo (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But you don't need the file here anyway. Why would we add somebody's non-public letter of recommendation to our Wikipedia articles? If it is important for your biography that you worked at that place, find a reliable published source that says so. If no reliable published source talks about your work at that place, you should consider the possibility that your work there wasn't really that important in the grand scheme of things. In fact, no offense, but you might consider the possibility that you yourself aren't that important in the grand scheme of things. I believe somebody has already pointed you to our rules about not writing your own autobiography, right? And finally, as a technical matter, we don't use uploaded files that are merely used for conveying text. Files are meant for images, videos, multimedia etc., not for text content. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Future Perfect at Sunrise, No problem for me to remove the Zeldin quote from the article. I still have Congressman Charlie Rose' letter to Congressman Lee Hamilton, on U.S. House of Representatives' Stationary, which proves that I worked for the October Surprise Task Force. And as for my notability -- my article has taken care of all of "Angr"'s suggestions and there are many who disagree with your assessment and do think I am notable. BTW, most of my personal friends and family members in Wikipedia either wrote their own article; had someone else close to them write it for them; or had to correct multiple mistakes if it was written by a stranger. Respectfully, Peggy Adler User=bxzooo Bxzooo (talk) 10:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If you have the time and inclination -- I respectfully request that you check out my sources. I think that they will establish notability. Peggy Adler user/bxzooo Bxzooo (talk) 10:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re the Zeldon letter: I just received the following e-mail (see below) from Michael Zeldin and have forwarded it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Michael writes:

"See edits in red. Otherwise, I am fine with the text and give you permission to quote me. Hope all is well. Michael"

"PS As I have a Wiki page, for some unknown reason, you might want to hyper-link my name in your page. Up to you."

“Subsequently, Adler Robohm was asked to work as a consultant to the Task Force during the summer of 1992[31] and later that year assisted in drafting and editing a significant portion of the Brenneke section of their final report. And according to Task Force’ Deputy Majority Counsel, Michael Zeldin, Adler Robohm’s work there “met and exceeded every expectation”.”

"Michael Zeldin Principal Deloitte Financial Advisory Services LLP 555 12th Street, NW-Suite 500 Washington, DC 20004-1207 +1 202 378 5025-Office +1 202 661 1818-Fax +1 202 258 2770-Cell MZeldin@Deloitte.com"

Regards, Peggy Adler User=bxzooo Bxzooo (talk) 17:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid since neither the original letter of recommendation nor this e-mail are published documents (i.e. published in reliable sources), we can't use either of them. In any case, I don't think it's very appropriate for an encyclopedia article to stress that the subject worked to her employer's satisfaction. It's not supposed to be a resume, you know. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was told that an e-mail from Michael Zeldin giving permission to use the quote from his 1995 letter was the route to go. I got the permission from Michael and now you are telling me that I can't use the quote? First of all, Michael was NOT my employer. My employer was the USG -- in particular, the United States House of Representatives' Task Force that was invesitgating certain allegations concerning the holding of American hostages in Iran in 1980. Michael Zeldin was the Deputy Majority Counsel for the Task Force, also an employee of the USG. And BTW, are you saying that the e-mail from Michael is not reliable? Regards, Peggy Adler User=bxzooo Bxzooo (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not making myself quite clear perhaps. There are two separate issues here: one of file copyright, and one of sourcing of encyclopedic content. For the copyright issue, yes, the e-mail would be the correct thing. However, the text of the e-mail you quote doesn't actually contain the required license – he is giving you permission to quote his text (or a modified version of it? I'm not quite sure what that thing about the "edits in red" is), but he's not placing the whole letter under a liberal license for full free re-use such as {{cc-by-sa}}. But then there's the second thing, about content sourcing. In order to support claims of fact in the article, you need things from "reliable sources" in the sense of the WP:Reliable sources guideline (I'm not saying the e-mail is not "reliable" in the everyday sense, but it's not a source of the kind we accept here, such as academic publications, high-quality newspapers and the like.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx for the constructive comment. It really helps. Since I have independent verification of my work for the Task Force, in the form of the link to the letter from Congressman Charlie Rose to Congressman Lee Hamilton, I will delete the Zeldin quote. BTW, have you had the opportunity to check out my reference links? Each is verification of what is stated in the text of the article and I believe can verify notability. BTW, when/how do I find out if/when my page is accepted? I will happily make any additional, reasonable revisions. Best Wishes, Peggy Adler User=bxzooo Bxzooo (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


P.S. I've deleted the Zeldin quote. Is the way that the paragraph reads more acceptable now? Regards, Peggy Adler User=bxzooo Bxzooo (talk) 23:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with upload of File:Sets & Numbers Book Cover.pdf

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Sets & Numbers Book Cover.pdf. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I just got your e-mail that says that when I uploaded the book cover for "Set and Numbers for the Very Young" that there was "no source or license information". I don't under stand, because I selected the licensening information and wrote detailed source information, as follows: Graphic design for the book cover for "Sets and Numbers for the Very Young" is by Peggy Adler, the owner of the copyright for the book, illustrations and cover. The book, published by the John Day Company of New York in 1969 is currently out of print and at that time, all rights reverted to Peggy Adler. What didn't I do during the process that lost that info and how can I correct this? Regards, Peggy Adler User = Bxzooo Bxzooo (talk) 16:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Sinebot, Thanks for the timely reply. That's what I've done with every post. I've added four tilde(s) after my name and user name. Yet each time it says after I save, that my post is unsigned. How come? Best Wishes, Peggy Adler| User|bxzooo Bxzooo 23:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

your reversions of Peggy Adler

[edit]

dear Bxzooo: we're discussing the appropriate method for citations in the article Peggy Adler, but it seems that maybe you haven't noticed the discussion, for rather than participating, you're reverting. this is mildly disconcerting. this also goes for the bit from alexandra robbins. it seems to me that it is in fact relevant, so i've asked the community for input, and yours would be welcome. see Talk:Peggy Adler. thanks! — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear alf.laylah.wa.laylah So sorry if I did something the wrong way. I am on an upward learning curve and am perfectly happy to participate in the discussion. Since Robbins was inserted without dsicussion, I thought that it was OK to revert it -- with the reason why. Again, so sorry if this was incorrect. The reason I feel that the Alexandra Robbins insertion seemed inapporpriate at Peggy Adler is because Adler has no knowledge of Robbins other than a problem that arose between Robbins and Rosenbaum when Robbins' book was in the pre-publication stage. Following review copies being sent to the major newspapers, one contacted Rosenbaum to alert him to some rather nasty references by Robbins about Rosenbaum. In particular about the filming of Skull and Bones' outdoor segment of their rituals, which Rosenbaum had written about and was prominently aired by Peter Jennings on "ABC World News Tonight" and subsequently by "60 Minutes". As I recall, Rosenbaum got the worst of Robbins nasty words retracted by legal means. She claimed that what was taped was a "set up" to make Rosenbaum look like a fool. But this could not have been the case, because the same rituals were audio taped the year before and were fairly similar -- and Rosenbaum was nowhere involved in that recording. I can go into more detail if you like. In short, though, this is why I feel that the Robbins reference is more approprioate at Ron Rosenbaum's page than at Adler's. If the reference is placed there, then perhaps a link can be made from Rosenbaum's page to Adler's. Regards, User:Bxzooo 01:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

thanks for answering. i'm going to move your comment over to the article talk page so that everyone who's editing the article can see it. i'll answer there, and maybe others will chime in. this is at Talk:Peggy Adler#alexandra robbins opinion regarding rosenbaum articles. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oh, and also, maybe you could comment at Talk:Peggy Adler#citation format regarding the citation style in the article? — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'ts late here. I'll try to find the time tomorrow. User Bxzooo 01:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

thanks, i look forward to discussing it with you. you might want to look over these guidelines if you haven't already: WP:OWN, WP:COI, and WP:SPA. these might help you understand where i, and possibly others who've reverted your edits, are coming from. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

[edit]

I've restored your page. You may want to make it look less like an article (remove references, reduce text). You seem to be having trouble signing. Just copy and paste the following ~~~~. When you save, the software should automatically change the four tildes to your name, talkpage and date. If yo want to make you signature look different, just go to the preferences tab on every page and amend the user profile tab. You can play around with the other options too. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to 'your recent edits'

[edit]

Hi Sinebot, I have been signing all my posts with four tildes and when I look at the preview my user name,time and date are all there. Aren't these appearing for all of you to see as well? Bxzooo 15:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC) (talk)[reply]

email

[edit]
  • How come the history section only runs thru 9/6, when there have been edits/revisions since then?
I'm not sure what you are seeing, the article history goes up to my edit a few minutes ago
  • My Dad's name at the reference section for "Hot & Cold" reads Irving Adler rather than Adler, Irving. I assume this is a typo and that all the authorship credits are supposed to be in the same format.
Yes, fixed now
  • Will the dates of retrieval ever be removed from the references at "Peggy Adler"?
Web-only sources should have a retrieval date, since the contents of a web page might change. You can always look again at the sites and re-date if you wish. Web versions of "real" publications such as books and journals do not need retrieval dates.
  • I now know that Wikipedia does not want folks writing articles about themselves. But for a total stranger to do it can lead to a lot of misinformation, which hopefully will some day be corrected. Would it be possible to team up a biographee with an editor or administrator, so that they can work together, constructively, on a neutral yet accurate article?
Collaborations are encouraged on Wikipedia, so that's not a problems. As you probably realise now, biographies, let alone autobiographies, are a real minefield for new editors.

best wishes Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • History — I'm just not seeing what you're seeing, can't imagine how it's possible
  • Even featured articles have to have retrieval date for web only sources, although you can check that the links are still live and update the retrieval. Some of the links clearly are copies of paper documents, like the Clinton Town report from 2004. You don't need retrieval dates on those

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx for the explanation Jim. Because of the terminology used, it was not clear to me that this was the reason for that text. Is it possible to use another set of terms? i.e. "Internet link as" of and the date? And put it into parenthesis? This way it might not detract so much from the actual link. BTW, the Clinton Town Reports are on the Internet. Is it still OK to remove the retrieved wording? And what about the LOC references at my books? And who does the removal? I don't want to "get into trouble"! Bxzooo 16:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC) (talk)[reply]
Ooops! I just noticed that the book links are now all to Google Books, no longer the LOC. But same query re wording. Bxzooo 16:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC) (Talk)[reply]
If the town reports exist as paper as well, you don't need a retrieval date. It's only needed for stuff that exists on the web and not in real life. You can remove the links where they aren't needed. "Accessed on... " is an acceptable alternative to retrieval. You don't need LoC, they are never used since isbn is enough and more international Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanx Jim, Since I now know it's OK with you, I'll delete the retrieved at the town annual reports and revise the wording at the others, where it seems appropriate. If I screw ti up, please do let me know!! Bxzooo 17:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC) (talk)[reply]
Jim, I did the first reference point and am much happier with the wording and the overall appearance of the reference, itself, than what was there before. But I will not revise any others unless you say this format is OK. Bxzooo 18:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC) (talk)[reply]
Jim, I'm a bit confused. I made one change as referenced above. The news article's publication date and all other info remained intact, so I do not understand why Killiondude reverted it by saying I'd removed the original publication date. Did you get a chance to see the forat I used? If not, please do take a look (I assume it's on the History Page) and give my your input. I have also written at Killiondude's talk page and told him how/why I made the change and to look at our talk at this site. And that I did not remove what he said I did. What next? I do not want to get caught up in any battle between editors and administrators. I've been trying to cooperate with whomever contacts me. Now I have different folks contradicting each other, so now I don't know whose instructions to follow!!! Please advise. Regards, Bxzooo 21:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC) (talk)[reply]
Ooops. I screwed up. Killiondude was right. I accidently removed the news publication date. I will try again if that's OK. I've already notified him. Hope all is forgiven. Regards, Bxzooo 21:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC) (talk)[reply]
OK, I think I did it correctly this time. The news story date remains intact. Is this format OK? Bxzooo 01:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC) (talk)[reply]

Redirect of user page Bxzooo

[edit]

Hi, I removed the redirect of your user page to Peggy Adler. You can put a link up if you like, but this account and the article are seperate entities. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx Mark. Is there any value in having the link? Or am I better off keeping them as totaally separate entities? BTW, do you live in Connecticut? Bxzooo 16:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC) (talk)[reply]
It's just your preference, really. Some editors (ie, User:Sgt. R.K. Blue) like to link to articles they do a lot of work on or feel close to, others (user:Markvs88) don't. Yes, I live in the greater Bridgeport area. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now a query: There are photos and documents I previously uploaded at Wikimedia Commons under "Peggy Adler" but it says that there is no Peggy Adler page. Should this be created? And if so, how? And should it link to my Bxzooo unified page? Bxzooo 16:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC) (talk)[reply]
Create a Peggy Adler page on Commons [1]. Don't copy your article to it, just put some content and link back to the en-wiki page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that'll work... or the other option would be to work them into the Peggy Adler article or the Bxzooo user page somehow. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 18:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mark, they once were (almost) all in the original Peggy Adler article. Some still are. Others were removed by one or another editor during & after the "delete" stage. ( i.e. the document filed at the LOC that states that the 1st puzzle book and Metric Puzzles and Math Puzzles were both written solely by Peggy Adler. That the publisher wanted Irving Adler's name there for marketing purposes, when, in fact, his only role was as a math consultant on the projects.) This document was established since the info at LOC has both names as authors and Irving Adler wanted the record set straight while he is still alive (he's 98 as I write this). The book jacket from the 2nd Puzzles book has reviews of the first on the back cover and on the rear fly leaf establishes Adler as having moved from NYC to New Haven, CT and being married to Walsh. And of course, there is the photo with the VP at the LL World Series. The only picture which I took and approved of being there, at the request of someone else, who then uploaded it -- is the one of Clinton's Liberty Green Historic Distric sign. This was done for the LGHD article at Wikipedia. I once had a link to this article, since I live in the LGHD, but someone removed it. BTW, I e-mailed as file attachments, to Killiandude, since has has been wondefully helpful AND I have his e-address, an entire series of news articles; book reviews; the US House subpoena re October Surprise; and other documentation, from the 1950s forward that verifiy everything that was in that original article. This includes my 6th and 7th grade report cards with my name before (6th grade) and after (7th grade) it was changed. I also thought it might be of value to establish a link to Wikipedia's fabulous Domestic Violence article, as I am a survivor of same, myself. I though that perhaps it could be worked into the sentence of my dropping the Robohm and resuming the use of my maiden name. Toward that end, one of the file attachments I sent to Killiandude had the 'Shore Line Times' Police Blotter with the arrest of Robohm for 3rd degree assault; my protection order from the Connecticut Court system and one additional Court document related to the attack. Many/most victims of domestic violence hide it. I believe it could be important to have a link from a biographee's page to the Domestic Violence page to let the public know that this is nothing to be ashamed of. Please feel free to share what I have written here with other editors and administrators for their input as well. Regards, Bxzooo 19:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC) (talk)[reply]

citation style on Peggy Adler

[edit]

please, please, if you're going to change citation style randomly away from the wp standard that was discussed and agreed on, can you talk about it on the article's talk page first? this is making people crazy. what you're changing them to does not seem better, and it's weirdly nonstandard. how is there a benefit to this? you might answer on the article's talk page so that everyone can participate. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alf, I only did what I thought Jim Bleak suggested I could try. And I only tried it on the 1st reference for feed back. Following is the converstion I had with Jim before I made that update:
"If the town reports exist as paper as well, you don't need a retrieval date. It's only needed for stuff that exists on the web and not in real life. You can remove the links where they aren't needed. "Accessed on... " is an acceptable alternative to retrieval. You don't need LoC, they are never used since isbn is enough and more international Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC) Thanx Jim, Since I now know it's OK with you, I'll delete the retrieved at the town annual reports and revise the wording at the others, where it seems appropriate. If I screw it up, please do let me know!! Bxzooo 17:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC) (talk) Jim, I did the first reference point and am much happier with the wording and the overall appearance of the reference, itself, than what was there before. But I will not revise any others unless you say this format is OK. Bxzooo 18:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC) (talk)"
So all I did was what was suggested. I'm sorry if it's creating a problem. There are many people giving me instructions. How do I know whose to follow? Please advise!!! Bxzooo 10:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC) (talk)[reply]

Children's names

[edit]

Hi Sarek, My older daughter, Tenney Whedon Walsh, is an actress with raves reviews both on & off Broadway. And though not the subject of a Wikipedia article, she can be easily found (as "Tenney Walsh") with a Google search. My younger daughter, Avery Dension Walsh's husband, Adam I. Lapidus, is the subject of a Wikipedia article and my original article referenced both Tenney & Avery in the text, itself, with a link to my son-in-law. Can I put my daughters and the link back into the text? Or at least have under my photo, "Two daughters" rather than merely "2"? Regards, Bxzooo 14:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC) (talk)[reply]

P.S. Not only would my younger daughter link to a Wikipedia article (her husband, Adam I. Lapidus), my older daughter would, as well, since her middle name of Whedon would provide a link to her cousins. Regards, Bxzooo 14:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC) (talk)[reply]

Domestic Violence

[edit]

I have tried to be patient and polite with the people who have made changes to my "Peggy Adler" article, but for Sarekof Vulcan to remove the FACT that I was victim of domestic violence, and then say that I cannot "accuse" someone of such without "proper sourcing" makes me realize how often some of you make edits without even checking out the facts!! When I added the domestic violence info, I was very specific in the "View History" section, stating that documentation (the police blotter with Robohm's arrest for 3rd degree assault & my protective order from the Connecticut Court) had already been e-mailed to Killiondude. But it would appear that Sarek just went ahead and made the change and then penned his own accusation. This, in and of itself is a form of psychological abuse! To tell a victim, whose abuser has been arrested and ajudicated for 3rd degree assault, that her statement is an unproven accusation, is outrageous!!!! And please do not tell me I'm too close to the subject to be objective. I'm the one who lived with the abuse for almost sixteen years. Bxzooo 21:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC) (talk)[reply]

Sarekof Vulcan undid my change stating: "(cur | prev) 00:56, 21 September 2011 SarekOfVulcan(talk | contribs) (11,271 bytes) (Undid revision 451569691 by Bxzooo (talk) Those are primary sources, and not acceptable in this case. Check WP:BLP in detail) (undo)"
SarekofVulcan made this statement (and deleted the domestic violence reference, again) without ever asking about the sources. So I have undone his change (again) and responded:
"(The Arrest was in the newspaper's PD Blotter and the Protective Order & other paperwork are official State of Connecitcut documents. If Wikipedia accepts USG documents, then CT State ones should be accepted as well! Bxzooo 15:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)) (undo)" Since when is an account that was in a legitimate newspaper not allowed? I thought that is what you all relied upon, rather than actual documentation. And documents issued by the State of Connecticut's Superior Court system should be considered beyond reproach. Just tell me where to upload them to (same as what I've already sent to Killiondude) and you can use them as a reference linkBxzooo 15:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC) (talk)[reply]
(edit conflict)No, Peggy, I'm not saying it's an unproven accusation. I'm sure that what you've told us is accurate. I'm just saying that without secondary sources, like a newspaper reporting on the incident (not just reproducing a police blotter), it is a violation of our biography of living persons policy to accuse Robohm of domestic violence IN WIKIPEDIA'S VOICE. The very first line of WP:Verifiability is "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a WP:reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." If you continue to edit war over this, you may very well be blocked for it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have raised the question at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Peggy Adler for further input. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am morre than happy to import the documentation - again. Just tell me where. Bxzooo 17:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC) (talk)[reply]
What we do here is basically report what other people have reported, as such asserting notability. This issue is not as yet notable in such a manner, and possibly will never be, even though it is clearly important to you. Your husband is protected just as much by wikipedia policy and guidelines as you are, this is a clear example of why you should avoid editing your own biography. Regards.Off2riorob (talk) 20:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 2011

[edit]

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Peggy Adler. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please stop adding this without a clear reliable external source - better still - stop editing your BLP altogether - use the talkpage to request edits and additions, - thanks Off2riorob (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The documentation can't possibly be considered defamatory, since it is issued by the Superior Court of the State of Connecticut. It could only be considerd as such if there was no documentation to back up the statement. All of the documentation regarding this subject is already in the hands of a Wikipedia Administrator. I am willing to upload and send it to anyone else who wants to see it for further verification. And would be more than happy to have it added as reference point(s). Bxzooo 17:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC) (talk)[reply]
Peggy, I wrote this earlier today at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Peggy_Adler and am copying it here in case you've not seen it:

* Remove : It's a simple matter on this one: per WP:BLPPRIMARY, Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. The material must be removed until/unless Peggy (and I'm still baffled why she isn't blocked from "her" article...) comes up a valid third party source for the point. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thus the Court documents are *not* valid for citation on Wikipedia. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 18:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The documentation is not a transcript or other court record. It is a Protective Order issued by the Connecticut Court. This is similar to a Restraining Order. Both are to protect a person from further harm and can be inforced by any police authority. I know of no third party source that could be considered validation of this form of protection. What would you consider to be valid third party source? Bxzooo 19:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC) (talk)[reply]
Okay, let me phrase it another way:

* Remove : It's a simple matter on this one: per WP:BLPPRIMARY, Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. The material must be removed until/unless Peggy (and I'm still baffled why she isn't blocked from "her" article...) comes up a valid third party source for the point. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that's a little clearer?
As a Police Commisioner (or at the very least as someone who has HAD a Protective Order issued!), you should know that pretty much any court issued document (and this includes restraining orders) are ipso facto a court record and are thus a matter of public record.
A valid third party source would be a newspaper article, book, etc. "A third-party source is independent and unaffiliated with the subject, thus excluding sources such as self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, and promotional materials". Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mark, The police department that arrested Robohm was in Madison, where we lived at the time. And the arrest was over a decade before I became a police commissioner in Clinton, where I live today. Anyway, I guess I do not understand why a court order from a judge is not considered a source independent and unaffiliated with the subject. If that were not the case, such judge would have to recuse himself. The court order is in no way shape or form, "self-published material by the subject, an autobiography, and/or promotional material." I can send it to you, by e-mail, for you to see for yourself that it is an official Connecticut State Government issued form/document. Wikipedia has a fabulous article on Domestic Violence. And as someone who was a victim and is now a survivor of Domestic Violence, I am aware of how few women and men who have suffered through this are willing to air this fact publicly. Thus, I thought that by acknowledging that I, myself, was such a victim, it could link to the Domestic Violence section and thus perfom an educational purpose. Regards, Bxzooo 20:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)(talk)[reply]
Peggy, neither I nor anyone else cares why something happened to you. Please take a moment and instead of getting offended, let that sink in.
Okay, one more time: 10 years after the fact, as a Police Commisioner (or at the very least as someone who has HAD a Protective Order issued!), you should know that pretty much any court issued document (and this includes restraining orders) are ipso facto a court record and are thus a matter of public record.
You're also missing the point: the court order is not allowed per WP:BLPPRIMARY, as I've pointed out twice now. It's not a third party source, due to WP:BLPPRIMARY. You can not cite it per WP:BLPPRIMARY. Have you read WP:BLPPRIMARY? Do you see how I'm very subtly trying to get you to understand what WP:BLPPRIMARY means?
No, please don't send it to me nor to anyone else becuase per WP:BLPPRIMARY it is *not* useable as a source.
I've also crossed out your statement on domestic violence, you should also consider wp:soapbox as something you need to read. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why Not?

[edit]

Why hasn't anyone directed their editorial skills at the article about Joyce Sparer Adler, written by her grandson, with no reference verifications. There is no proof of the validity of anything written there. There are other articles that have the same lack of veriufication as well. Why not concentrate on them? Bxzooo 19:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC) (talk)[reply]

I can't speak for others, but personally I don't work on New York or theatre/playwrite articles all that much unless they somehow overlap with Connecticut. What you're getting at is other stuff exists, which is of course true. OTOH, it's also true that you should not even be allowed a fraction of the input you've had on this article per many of the rules that have been thrown at you over the past few weeks. So I don't think you're going to get much traction if you're asking people to leave the Peggy Adler article alone. Also, since your article went up for deletion that also puts it on more editor's watchlists. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
She was not a theater/playwrite person and did not live in New York from the early 1960s 'til her death in 1999. She was a school teacher in New York who went to live & teach in Guyana. But again -- her article has absolutely no verificatons. And the obit cited there only contains information provided by/written by her husband. So that can't be considered impartial. Bxzooo 15:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC) (talk)[reply]
So... what are you waiting for? Go edit it! Just be sure to follow Wikipeida policy. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I do edit it, I will follow the Wikipedia policy. And if I do not start to edit it shortly, then maybe someday in the future, when it feels comfortable and seems appropriate. Though I'd truly rather someone else tackle this particular one. Best, Bxzooo 17:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC) (talk)[reply]

OK

[edit]

Now that most of you guys have accepted that I was, in fact, a victim of domestic violence -- and not making unfounded accusations or defamatory commments, though saddened that the reference cannot be at "Peggy Adler", I can live with it. As you already know from a previous "talk" post of mine, I'm pretty happy with what you all have editied the article down to. Thanks for allowing the opportunity for me to debate with you. Best Wishes, Bxzooo 13:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC) (talk)[reply]

I accept that you don't actually read the wikipedia articles I point at you... that's about it. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 13:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I read them. I just don't agree with the premise of all of them - only some. And I am a believer in constructive critism, not the destructive kind that some of the editors participate in. It serves no purpose other than to invigorate their egos. Bxzooo 15:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)(talk)[reply]
It's good to see that you clearly understand that since you don't agree with some of the rules, that those editors whom do work within the rules of Wikipedia will take issue with you. I agree, constructive criticism is the best kind and that's why I've spend so much time trying to help you reform your prior misunderstanding that the Peggy Adler article was a Facebook page. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[redacted]
Peggy, as laid out in WP:OUTING, it is not permissible to post editors' real names unless they have revealed them on-wiki, whether or not you are actually correct about who you think they are. Please do not do that again. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Bxzooo 17:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC) (talk)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peggy Adler, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Carter. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

[edit]

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) 16:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

[edit]

Hello, Bxzooo. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, Bxzooo. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, Bxzooo. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

[edit]
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) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

[edit]
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) 00:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How Do I Change Back My User Name?

[edit]

I mistakenly changed the user name of an article I just wrote (BearManor Media) when I went to move it. I thought I was giving the the article a title. Obviously I was not!! How do I change the current user name (BearManor Media) back to my user name (Bxzooo)? Bxzooo 02:44, 1 February 2023 (UTC)(talk)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of BearManor Media

[edit]

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 BearManor Media, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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 deleted 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. Liz Read! Talk! 01:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz,
No, this is not my first Wikipedia article. It's just been more than a decade since I created one and there have been many changes to the procedure. Can I get some help with the BearManor Media page rather than having it deleted? Also, there was a question about my use of their logo on the page. BearManor Media sent me the logo to use there and then supplied two trademark pdf files, which I forwarded to Wiki Commons. I find the wiki pages with instructions confusing. Can you help me finish this page to Wikipedia's regs?
Bxzooo 02:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)(talk[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:PandaLOGO.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:PandaLOGO.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The image is not in any article because some cruel, overzealous people deleted the page I'd just created on behalf of my publisher's company, BearManor Media ... even after I requested help in revising it, explaining that I'm almost 81 and had not created a page in decades and that a lot had changed ... all I got were mean retorts. At the same time, whoever they are, also told me that I'm banned until September 2024! Throughout, their rhetoric was cruel and threatening. [[User:Bxzooo|32.208.196.39 (talk)(talk)]] 32.208.196.39 (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

[edit]

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) 00:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bxzooo&oldid=1187208325"