User talk:Halda/Old talk (2007)

Idema

I'm new to wikipedia and have been editing the article on Jonathan Idema alone for a couple of days. I was wondering if you could take a look and tell me what you think. It has a long way to go, but I think it is moving in a good direction. It had issues with neutral point of view and lack of source citation, and still does. I've been adding references and have neutralized some wording.

I'd like to add one of those "TF7 not for release" photos you see here Google Image results. The photos come from an ABC website, but I don't know who holds rights to them.

Thanks, Xpanzion 04:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for everything you did for the Idema article. I really appreciate you bringing your wikipedian experience to the article. I'm proud of the progress we made! Xpanzion 17:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That's what it's all about. :) Alcarillo 18:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's pretty funny that someone listed your username as an alias of Joseph A. Cafasso. It would be obvious to this blogger that you aren't Cafasso if they looked at your history, they would see that you were not involved in the article until moderation became necessary. They would also see that your edits are not acrimonious, like much of the material in the old versions. Xpanzion 21:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll work on getting rid of those bullets sometime. Xpanzion 21:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, there's a lot that should be obvious to person like this blogger. Oh well... Alcarillo 00:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

In the past couple of days, the Idema cult has made around six bog posts concerning the minor point of my argeeing with Jossi that your references to them in the Joseph A. Cafasso entry should be cut. Jack Idema himself makes an appearance in the Caosblog comment section to insult my 9-year-old son over the matter and to threaten me with a lawsuit. Just how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? --Pleasantville 22:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I ceased paying attention to that particular circle jerk for some time now. They just like to talk among -- and to -- themselves. Alcarillo 23:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		I hereby award you with the Copyeditor's Barnstar for your diligent and meticulous work on the Idema article. Xpanzion 06:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you in that there has been a shift in Idema's allegations. He no longer claims to be as connected with the government as he did during and before his 2004 trial; however, I think he has always questioned due process in his trial. As far as I can see he has always claimed the government is withholding documents that prove his connection with the government, more specifically documents of correspondence between him and the pentagon, CIA, and FBI. He has also consistently complained about other aspects of the trial including torture and outside influence on the judges. Overall, I think it's fair to say that the allegations Sullivan is paying attention to were first raised in 2004. Also, I don't recall seeing any changes in 2005, maybe you could give me a link.Xpanzion 21:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I was going by the news articles sited that say Idema filed suit in 2005; they may have done so earlier, but the only mention I've found is 2005 [1] and [2].

As for his accusations that the government is "withholding evidence", these are more of Idema's bogus claims intended to obscure the truth rather than prove his case. I'm pretty confident there are no documents to begin with, and Idema continually brings these phantom docs up in order to avoid being caught in the lies he's woven. Alcarillo 15:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Military brat

Two threads archived here: User talk:Alcarillo/Military brat

St. Simons

I'm pretty sure it is "Mallory". I'll try to check the street signs sometime when I'm over there. The phone book has Mallory. Bubba73 (talk), 05:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! That was my inkling as well. Then I found this [3]; no "Mallory" at all (??). And same the US Census -- only "Mallery". I'm wondering if it's just a peculiarity that in local custom both are acceptable but in "ofishal" circles it's Mallory. I've some family on SSI -- I'll check with them, too... Alcarillo

It is "o" on the roadmap too (as well as the phone book). I live about 15 miles from there, but I'm over there a couple times per week. I'll try to look at a road sign. Bubba73 (talk), 17:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the feedback I got from one of my family members:

"ANSWER: BOTH! Yes, it is one of the unique and charming features of the St. Simons Village...some parts of the road are spelled with the "o" and others with the "e". I read the folklore on it some time ago, but can't remember what the hell it is all about. Makes for some interesting small chat."

There you have it! :D Alcarillo 20:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I crossed the street today and I intended to look, but I forgot to. Bubba73 (talk), 20:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Another interesting thing with streets is Demery Demere on st. Simons. People who live here pronounce it "DIM ir ee". Outsiders invariably say "dee MIR". So if they say the latter, we lean over menacingly and inquire "you're not from around here, are you?" Bubba73 (talk), 16:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I know -- it happened to me many years ago. I just received a shake of the head and a fairly polite chuckle. (It's "Demere", BTW... ;)) My guess is that it's a French word in origin, spelled "Demeré" at one time. Alcarillo 17:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP Violation warning

Regarding this edit:

You have made an edit that could be regarded as defamatory. Please do not restore this material to the article or its talk page. If you do, you may be blocked for disruption. See the blocking policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

How silly. I've replied on your talk page. Alcarillo 22:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

moved from my talk page

I'm puzzled why you would label this edit to Joseph A. Cafasso as defamatory. I'm not accusing him of anything, just pointing out that his name comes up in many blogs, and that it's not favorable. Anyone googling his name can see that clearly this guy is drawing fire for some reason. Alcarillo 22:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not familiar with this person, but your edit is in violation of WP:BLP. Blogs are not considered valid sources, (See WP:ATT#Reliable_sources). If you find such allegations described in reliable published sources, you can attribute these allegations to these sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The point of the paragraph was that Cafasso is drawing substantial ire from certain quarters on the web. The article never made any assertions that what was being said about him were true or not. It's like posting information on Henry Kissinger that some people believe he should be tried for war crimes. Alcarillo 00:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This was your edit:

Recently, Cafasso has been the subject of numerous blogs attacking him for his activities, even labeling him a con artist. He has also drawn negative attention from websites sympathetic to convicted mercenary Jonathan Idema. Although prior to Idema's incarceration, there appears to be no direct relationship between the two. It is currently not known whether Cafasso has been prosectuted for criminal offenses.

You are asserting on that edit that he has been called a "con artist" by some blogs. But blogs are not to be used as sources for controversial material about living persons. You also added: It is currently not known whether Cafasso has been prosectuted for criminal offenses. that is in contradiction with our policy of original research. You are a good contributor, don't take me wrong. Just please be extra cautious when editing biographies of living people. That's all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Granted. Still, I would have preferred you raised this with me here before issuing the warning. Alcarillo 00:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

But I did.... here ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I've never had to deal with Wikipedia admins before, and I'd like to bring in some other voices because frankly, we are at an impasse. What are my options to seek redress of your actions regarding this article? Alcarillo 03:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If you have concerns about the actions of any admin, you can place a notice at WP:ANI. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

But if your concern is about the edit itself, you could place a request for comment so that other editors can weigh in. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Alcarillo, WP:BLP is a policy that is taken very seriously at Wikipedia, and it explicitly excludes blogs as a source for negative claims about living people. Unsourced speculation about whether someone "has been prosecuted for criminal offenses" is also clearly prohibited. Jossi has been kind enough to gently point that out to you, rather than taking stronger action. What other action do you feel needs to be taken at this point? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It's just more of circular policy logic from the WP Politburo, unfortunately. Alcarillo 18:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

That was not nice, and not useful, Alcarillo. Is there anything that you need clarification about that I help clarify? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

No. We're through here. Alcarillo 21:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Public record re: Cafasso

I sourced a non-speculation that Cafasso has spent time in the Middlesex County NJ jail with a link to the phone number of the jail's records room. Speculation as to whether Cafasso has a criminal record (he doesn't) does not come out of the blue. Sourcing with the records room phone number was deemed unacceptable. (Original research, maybe?) Pleasantville 15:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think that would qualify as proof. It would have to be records made public and published somewhere (I have no idea whether court records are available to anyone but people in the courts system), or if there was a newspaper article that referenced the case. Alcarillo 16:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

A lot of this stuff is just plain public record, but one has to deal with whatever kind of bad website the govenment agency throws at you. In the case of the Middlesex County jail, members of the general public can call the records room and obtain information (or confirmation of information), but to get it in writing from them requires a court order. Also, they will not tell you the reason for incarceration. Why these restrictions? I don't know. But the basic info is available to the general public. As nearly as I can tell, Wikipedia considers making a phone call original research, whereas Googling isn't. Also, voyaging into government public records databases is considered original research, whereas citing the smallest hometown paper isn't, as long as it's on the web.

Since I have other venues of publication, I won't even go as far as saying that this is disturbing to me, since I don't have to live by these standards. But there is plenty out there that is quite verifiable that doesn't meet the standards of Wikipedia editors like Jossi with whose positions on citation I disagree.

There's a lot of patent nonsense that makes it into the mainstream media; citations of court cases, public records, etc. should trump random newspaper articles. But often the public records databases are the worst implemented on the web. (This is especially true of things like corporate registries. Ever tried to use the Panama corporate registry?!? And then there are the Florida and Nevada registries. Yuk.)

From my standpoint, public record = verifiable. I think if you are dealing with matters of public record, even of records that are difficult to get at, Admins should be gentler in their tone. Pleasantville 18:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not an issue of "admin gentleness". It is an issue of complying with our content policies. That's it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Public records are "primary sources" and so need to be handled with great care, if at all. Secondary sources are much preferred for encyclopedia writing. Typical problems with public records include not being sure if the person mentioned is the same as the subject, taking single episodes out of context by not including the outcomes, etc. If the topic is notable there will be secondary sources available. -Will Beback · † · 00:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• rolls eyes; tears hair out* Pleasantville 20:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been accused recently of actually being Cafasso by one of Idema's wannabe minions. If that were the case, I could definitively say whether or not Cafasso has a criminal record, but it would still be of no use b/c it's a "primary source." LOL!!!!! Alcarillo 21:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I saw that. The conspiracy theories never stop in that orbit. Welcome to the conspiracy. (If I am simultaneously stalking JC and his co-conspirator, wouldn't -- like -- know if you were JC? Maybe you are sececretly JI impersonating JC impersonating Alcarillo . . .) Pleasantville 00:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Alcarillo. Wanted to point out somethng amusing: Cafasso strikes back: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kathryn_Cramer&diff=next&oldid=122126023 He threaten to sue me yesterday and vandalized my entry. Heh.Pleasantville 16:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The real Cafasso has registered a user ID. See User talk:Peppetters.

Yeah, I noticed that. I don't know whether it's Cafasso or not, nor do I particularly care. These kinds of wikipedians come and go like the breeze. Alcarillo 16:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

He recycled the legal threat he made in an email to me a couple of days ago. But I don't think he'll be back under that user ID since he got banned almost immediately. Pleasantville 16:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No, that user's not banned. Admins would've tagged the talk page accordingly. Alcarillo 20:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[[4]]Pleasantville 22:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I thought they'd also put a notice on the user's talk page... Alcarillo 23:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a new article out on Cafasso from a paper so small it doesn't have a website. I have sent them a $3.00 for a copy. I'll fill you in when I have more detail. --Pleasantville 23:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Gary Gordon/Randy Shughart ribbons

The tables look good to me. Betaeleven 15:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Robert Young Pelton

Actually... it is a puff piece written by the subject who has been using it as a linkfarm for articles he has written...--Isotope23 19:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure it is the actual guy, though. Anyone could have set up that 'RYP' username and populated Wikipedia with Pelton's PR. As for why someone would do that, if it wasn't Pelton himself, just take a look at all the kookiness going around the margins of articles related to the subject of Pelton's License to Kil. Alcarillo 20:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Alcarillo/browncoat

Please see WP:USER#Images_on_user_pages. It's not so much bureaucratic idiocy as common sense - we are permitted to claim fair use on copyrighted images to use them in building an encyclopedia, not to decorate personal pages. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan Idema

I left some comments at Talk:Jonathan Idema/Comments. Errabee 11:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Moved from my scratchpad

Alcarillo

Hi "alcarillo" once you again you need to understand that it says RIGHT BELOW this box that "content that violates any copyright will be deleted" I am telling you a) you are violating my copyright and you need to delete this material. The material I deleted is from page 21 of Licensed to Kill, Hired Guns on the war on Terror and you do not have the right to reproduce, publish or reuse these material. I don't care what you want to, or think you can do with it.

Thank you

RYP

You may contact me for permission to reprint excerpts at ryp@comebackalive.com

Image:Osijek Coat of Arms.gif

Hello Alcarillo, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Osijek Coat of Arms.gif) was found at the following location: User:Alcarillo/old. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 03:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:The Green Berets book cover.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:The Green Berets book cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Any desire to weigh in on the subject of Attack Sites?

I have used 4 sites cited in the Idema article as examples of attack sites which have not been banned under the (to my mind bogus) Attack Site policy.

Any desire to wade into that quicksand? (I'll forgive you if you opt out.) I thought I shoud bring it to your attention, since it is you that the Idemiacs claim to have outed. See Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks. --Pleasantville 22:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean... Is there a wikipedia discussion going on about attack sites? Alcarillo 05:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL

I wanted to inform you that I've struck part of your statement that you made back in April to Talk:Robert Greenwald. Although I understand that you may have made this comment several months ago, and that you may be better versed in Wikipedia policy and guideline, I want to remind you of both WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I agree that the article reads like an advertisement and still needs work, but there's no need to be rude. Play nice. :) María (habla conmigo) 12:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Freiheit_scrn.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Freiheit_scrn.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BigrTex 19:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It looked good. Thanks for taking care of it. I tweaked it a little. I think it's always best to put a link from any image here to the article you upload it for so that if someone removes it from the article, someone else can figure out where it belongs. ~ BigrTex 20:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ward Churchill

Please review the comments on this page concerning a Ward Churchill article and vote! Thx. Discussion on Ward Churchill that was deleted without discussion. --Getaway 00:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't be held responsible if I find the idea of someone who needs to display his personality and oponions with tiny pictures pathetic. I find it laughable that the Star Wars s ection is so big and yet some areas are so small. And you claim that Wikipedia has integrity. Let me ask you something, did you use your "objective viewpoint" when you edited the Dart Vader page?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.69.21.180 (talk • contribs) 30 July 2007.

What you fail to realize is that you are always responsible for your actions. And your spelling. I'm not the one making you feel pathetic, or type like a 5th grader. Alcarillo 22:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Commercial use of Image:Robin moore.jpg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Robin moore.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Robin moore.jpg has a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission, which was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19 or is not used in any articles (CSD I3). While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case[5][6]. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:Robin moore.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. If you have any questions about what to do next or why your image was nominated for speedy deletion please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 16:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Robin Moore

There are a couple of issues with Image:Robin moore.jpg:

• He is a living person, and therefore the preference is to find a free image to use. Someone who has taken a picture of him at a book signing for instance, could release the photo under a Public Domain, GFDL, or other free license. Robin Moore could also choose to release an image of himself (this one or another) under one of those licenses - which would likely be preferable for both sides if it could be arranged.
• We can't accept "for Wikipedia only" licensing. All of our images have to be able to be used by other entities (like answers.com), so his current release isn't really helpful.
• Per WP:NONFREE#Images, a fair use promotional image needs to support critical commentary about image. Somewhere in the article it needs to talk about this image, and the rationale needs to explain why the image provides information that cannot be conveyed in the text of the article. Free images do not have these restraints.

I hope that this is helpful to you. ~ BigrTex 16:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is, thanks. Looks like the image didn't pass muster. Oh well... I guess the only recourse for that particular image is to request that Robin Moore post it on Wikipedia himself. I'll see whether it's worth pursuing. Alcarillo 16:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Osijek Coat of Arms.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Osijek Coat of Arms.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Firefly CfD

There is a call for deletion on most of the Firefly character articles. -- Shsilver (talk) 17:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Characters of Firefly

Recently you contibuted to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derrial Book. There is now an ongoing discussion stemming from that AfD here if you wish to contribute. [[Guest9999 15:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)]]

AfD nomination of Republican In Name Only

An article that you have been involved in editing, Republican In Name Only, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republican In Name Only (second nomination). Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 20:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)