User talk:Champ 7FC

Welcome!

Hello, Champ 7FC, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Fiddle Faddle 07:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Champ 7FC, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Champ 7FC! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

North American F-86 Sabre

Hello, I'm Bzuk. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to North American F-86 Sabre because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Champ, as to answering your query regarding reference formats, the typical style that you see in the North American F-86 Sabre article is to have full bibliographic notations given in a Bibliography (in this case, using the Modern Language Style guide for bibliographic notations) and the Harvard citation style for the Notes/footnotes that are cited. It's a fairly steep curve you have entered into in contributing to this Wickwackyworld, especially if you are not familiar with the referencing guidelines that are common to academic works. In another life, I was a librarian, so I am, as you may say, conversant with the vagaries of referencing and use of sources. So, in brief, duplication of sources is not usually accepted, which is one aspect of the contributions you made to the F-86 article. Even so, the following are the corrections I made:

Hoover, R.A. "Bob" (1997). Forever flying : fifty years of high-flying adventures, from barnstorming in prop planes to dogfighting Germans to testing supersonic jets : an autobiography. New York: Pocket Books. pp. 184–185. ISBN 0-671-53761-X. was re-written as:
- Hoover 1987, pp. 184–185. The other aspects of the style that was chosen for a bibliographic record is, as follows:
  - Hoover, R.A. Forever Flying: Fifty Years of High-Flying Adventures, From Barnstorming in Prop Planes to Dogfighting Germans to Testing Supersonic Jets: An Autobiography. New York: Pocket Books, 1997. ISBN 978-0-6715-3761-6.

Note that I did not use a template as the referencing style for the article was already established and there were already a number of issues with the citation. These include the author's name "Bob") was not given in the book; the title should be written out in "title style" which requires capitalization of all main nouns; the ISBN should actually be written in ISBN-13 style: 978-0-6715-3761-6, rather than the defunct ISBN-10 format. Secondly, the original book was not attributed to: Yeager, R.A., "Bob" Hoover with Mark Shaw, but was written by R.A. Hoover. I know this must sound completely pedantic but are based on contemporary referencing styles, although there is a great variance in what is acceptable on Wikipedia. I can certainly elaborate on any of the above. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bzuk,

I will try to learn the standards.

Meanwhile... I once lost a prop, but I made it down to a good forced landing in a farmer's field. A few years previously in 1969 my sister and I stumbled upon a new years party in Miami for sons and daughters of GM executives. The band?.... Led Zep. Yup... that's how we spent 1970 New Years Eve. So teach me Wikipedia. thanks!

Your submission at Articles for creation: Indonesia Corruption Watch (August 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Flat Out was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the general guideline on notability and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Indonesia Corruption Watch and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Flat Out (talk) 08:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Indonesia Corruption Watch (August 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Timtrent was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Indonesia Corruption Watch and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Fiddle Faddle 07:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Indonesia Corruption Watch (August 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Wxidea was:

You are getting close. Good job. I'd suggest tightening it up. Don't include any details which you would not expect in an encyclopedic entry about any other organization. Also, nominations are not notable unless the nomination is very hard to get (e.g., an Oscar nomination), though being a finalist is. Try cutting a third throughout. That will make it read better.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Indonesia Corruption Watch and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Wxidea (talk) 04:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Indonesia Corruption Watch has been accepted

Indonesia Corruption Watch, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Wxidea (talk) 03:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Allard Prize for International Integrity (March 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the general guideline on notability and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Allard Prize for International Integrity and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns you raise at Talk:University of British Columbia Faculty of Law

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Specifically see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Legal consequences of page naming. Andrewa (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please don't refer to anything legal or the legal situation while working on Wikipedia, as you can be blocked from editing if any legal action takes place. Wikipedia will generally use a name that most people are familiar by, unless there are particular exceptions. For example, Cat Stevens is now legally called Yusuf Islam, but our article is still the former. See our guideline for official names. If we can find ample sources that confirm that most people will refer to it as Peter A. Allard School of Law, then it can be moved. I hope that's of use. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ritchie333. No offence meant or taken I hope. My research shows that at the moment more people and media use the full 'Peter A. Allard School of Law' name. My point is that whatever Wikipedia chooses will impact the public use, and in that circumstance I believe that Wikipedia should use the full brand name.

I have no horse in this race. I am not employed or directed by UBC or Peter A. Allard School of Law. I have never taken a course from them. I don't even live in British Columbia. I'm new around here, it's true.

My point is that Wikipedia's rules and policies in naming of pages to other than a (fairly new) brand name, seem to be out of line with Wikipedia's power and influence. Should new brands consult with Wikipedia and Google first to see if the name will be 'approved'? Wikipedia has that much power.

(and sure this is not the proper forum for discussing changes to Wiki policies and rules)

Apparently bringing up this point is heresy.

Especially early in the life of a new brand, where the brand name can be shown to have extensive use, even though there are other common names used, where the usage is not clearly favouring any name, shouldn't the brand name be used?

Thanks for your advice. Champ 7FC (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a point. It's a nonsense trump card that pollutes all intelligent discussion as a chilling effect. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

The policy is against legal threats, not legal threats by you. Until you retract your legal threat reasoning at Talk:University of British Columbia Faculty of Law, I'm going to keep you blocked. The point is you don't get a trump card over all discussion by arguing that Wikipedia itself or administrators or editors or anyone else could be sued if they disagree with you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Dear Ricky81682,

I did not realize the consternation that my thoughts on page names / brands etc would cause, and with my low experience level I did not realize that my thoughts that Wikipedia’s legal advisors should take a look at the issue would be perceived / misperceived as a threat to launch legal action. It was certainly not intended as such.

I carefully read the ‘no legal threats’ page…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_legal_threats

…and now appreciate how sensitive the community is about this issue and the reasons for the sensitivity - of which my own experience is an excellent personal education. I assure you that I will in the future stay far away from any language that could be misperceived as a legal threat. My comments about how Wikipedia page titles impact the outside world and subjects were well intentioned but I now realize should be had in some general discussion forum and not within a specific editing issue.

I see that someone has removed my references to the legal department, and this seems to have refocused the conversation, which I appreciate.

As there was no intended, or real legal threat, and the offending references have been removed, I would appreciate it if I could be unblocked.

I will take no further part in the page title discussion as there seems to be lots of interest and discussion and I’m sure that the community will sort it out according to the standards.

I will then move to address the Conflict of Interest concern expressed by Jytdog, as I have none, but simply took an interest in Sergei Magnitsky (murdered Russian lawyer) anti-corruption work and activists which took me to the Allard Prize and to create a page for Indonesia Corruption Watch (that did not have one) and then to the misnamed UBC Faculty of Law page etc. Perhaps if I did up major edits offline, instead of composing online, it would not look like so many edits, because when you divide it up into topics, you’ll see that this is only one of my areas of interest.

That said I’m new and still learning and will try to conform to the Wikipedia culture and rules.

Thanks for your (relatively) gentle guidance. Champ 7FC (talk) 09:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest in WIkipedia

Hi Champ 7FC. I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia. Your edits to date are pretty much all about the UBC law school, which makes your account what we call a single purpose account (please read that to see the community's experience with people who edit in this pattern).

If you should get unblocked and want to return to editing, we should address COI/Advocacy issues. I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below.

Hello, Champ 7FC. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you.

Comments and requests

Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by our WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some connection with the law school? You can answer how ever you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection, please disclose it. After you respond (and you can just reply below), perhaps we can talk a bit about editing Wikipedia, to give you some more orientation to how this place works. Please reply here. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 04:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Champ 7FC (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please see above comment in Blocked section where I added an explanation, acknowledged my review and new understanding of 'no legal threats' policy and assurance of no repeat. Also will not further participate in the current page renaming discussion and leave it to more experienced community members. Request unblocking. Thanks! Champ 7FC (talk) 09:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

That seems like a pretty unambiguous withdrawal of any legal threats (real or unintended), so I have unblocked your account. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Champ 7FC. 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]

Your draft article, Draft:Allard Prize for International Integrity

Hello, Champ 7FC. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Allard Prize for International Integrity".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Champ 7FC. 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]

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]