User talk:Popartpete

Image copyright problem with Image:Hc1.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Hc1.JPG. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}. If you have not already done so, please also include the source of the image. In many cases this will be the website where you found it.

Please specify the copyright information and source on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Peter O. (Talk) 00:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Notability of Nicholas "Nicky Buck" Piccolo

A tag has been placed on Nicholas "Nicky Buck" Piccolo, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you feel that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Mmoneypenny 18:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. 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. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name 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) 03:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Template I promised

Hello Popartpete, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! CliffC (talk) 05:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

May 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages, as you did to Haunted Castle at Six Flags Great Adventure. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" is strongly discouraged. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

If you have something to say to me regarding Wikipedia editing, please put your messages on my user talk page. Do not e-mail me for this sort of matter. I will not acknowledge such e-mails now or in the future. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Popartpete. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is e-mail abuse by POV-pushing user?. Thank you. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for harassing other users via Wikipedia's email system. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

-Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 04:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I have been harassed relentlessly by these people via email, and I am the one blocked? They do this because they have the power, somehow. This is the type of abuse I got from Drew R. "Christon" Smith: Your book is not part of the history of the haunted mansion. It merely tells the tale of what happened. If you can provide something that would prove your book is reliable it can be used as a source, but it has nothing to do with the article itself. BTW Mendaliv reffered you to WP:ANI#e-mail abuse by POV-pushing user? I'd be careful what you say to other people if I were you. Nothing is private anymore I SAY,"What about the policy on threats. This is a threat of the FIRST RANK!" So I told him to get a life and call him guppy boy, and he replies... Ok. This coming from the guy who wrote a fake book about an event that nobody gives a shit about. I SAY, "Guppy Boy gets you suspended indefinitely. This is an out and out PERSONAL ATTACK but nothing is done." Then he writes: This is what One, your book isn't published. Its fake. Two, I don't give a shit about the "high road" when you attack me at my e-mail. This is what I got from I'll be civil on wikipedia. Not here. Here, I rule. Not admins, not beaurocrats, not jimbo. This is my email address, and if you hit me here i will hit back. Hard. That being said. No one gives a shit about your "credentials". You cant add an advertisement for your book to an article. Even if you aren't selling your book, you are still using the article to get people to read your book. Thats not the way things work on wikipedia. One other point. Don't call me guppy boy. If you look at my contributions, which I'm sure you haven't, you would see that I have never contributed to an article about guppies. I SAY, "This is not harassment via email. I've been PERSONALLY ATTACKED, THREATENED, AND HARASSED VIA EMAIL. None of my emails did the same. So this begs the question::: WHY DON'T you editors criticize and punish your own? The guy is mad because I called him guppy boy and told him to stick to guppy articles and not to edit articles he of which he is ignorant. For that I should be suspended indefinetly? THIS IS A JOKE. No wonder wikipedia has such a poor reputation! It's because of PEOPLE LIKE THIS! I have asked you people for help in regards to how I should approach my articles, and instead of help, I get abused. I might not know every rule on wikipedia, but I know this: if I did, and did see somebody struggling, I'd offer advice, rather than to cut somebody's TRUTHFUL statements that are ADVERTISING NOTHING, except a free link on a website and WOULD NEVER THINK to LIE and have them blocked for rules they themselves have egregiously violated.

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  • understand what you have been blocked for,
  • will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  • will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Also, see WP:TLDR and WP:NOTTHEM. —Travis^talk 22:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

Look, maybe you people are not thrilled with me, but I have no quarrel with anyone, really. The block is kind of an overkill. I am not horrible person, I just want help with adding to the article in the correct fashion. I need help. I think I have a place in that article, and should be able to add it. Instead of arguing, why cannot the editors in which I am in dispute help me to add to it in the proper fashion? I simply do not know enough wiki rules to do it myself, and that's where the problems arise. I think I could be a valuable contributor, but as a journalist who is not often questioned, I fully admit I get angered and incensed when people change my ideas. Maybe if we worked together, it could happen for all of us. Please let me know.

Decline reason:

This does not address the reason given for your block.  Sandstein  14:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

NOTE: I don't see any evidence that you have even attempted to build consensus for whatever change you are proposing - you have only one edit to an article's talk page, and the tone of that edit is anything but cooperative. If I'm missing something, please point it out. The way things are supposed to work around here is neatly covered by the BRD editing cycle. In other words, Boldly make an edit; if it is Reverted, Discussion should ensue on the article's talk page before making the change again. Regards —Travis^talk 00:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

However, I think it may be appropriate to extend a "last chance" to this user provided he agree to abide by appropriate Wikipedia policies. It may be necessary to restrict his use of the email user feature as well, to force him to keep things on-wiki. While I typically would prefer to see WP:SO observed, this editor's unfamiliarity with Wikipedia policy may be a sufficiently extenuating circumstance given what appears to be an honest unblock request. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I entirely agree, but am awaiting a response from the user before contacting the blocking admin. If this user is watching, they may wish to refactor their unblock request per my earlier note. —Travis^talk 02:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I blocked this user because of abuse of the email feature; specifically, he was issuing personal attacks to another user and vowing to edit-war (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive535#e-mail abuse by POV-pushing user?). Any unblock request must address the email concern, since it's not technically possible to segregate blocking editing privileges from blocking email privileges. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 03:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

After a bit of research, including the above ANI thread and this thread, I have concluded that this user is a single-purpose account used for self-promotion and promotion of his original research documentary and online book. With only one exception, the user's mainspace edits have been entirely self-promotional, so I do not think that the user has a legitimate role here. —Travis^talk 13:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

{{tlx|unblock|How long should I expect to be banned}

Please note the differences between being banned and blocked. You have been blocked, not banned. In either case, though, please use only one unblock request at a time. Thanks. —Travis^talk 02:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked status

As I said before, I have no quarrel with anyone. I'd like to be unblocked. I'd like help with my editing, so that it is proper to wiki standards. I had no idea that it wasn't proper to email the editors directly. I looked, but didn't see any other contact info, so that's where I went. I did not think of or really know to much about the discussion pages, etc., at least not as much as I do know. I see now that if you dispute an edit, simply go to the discussion page and hash it out there and a third party will intervene. In this instance, I know tempers and emotions went overboard, but there really was no threats or real harassment or either end. If you look the night that I made the update, I contacted Cliff C, another editor I'd dealt with in the past, to look over my adjustment, and to see if it fit correctly or was inappropriate in anyway. You see, Questioning The Report was there for years, and Cliff and I worked to get it a way that it fit. When the book went online, I added another small section in this area. The change alone was not removed, but the entire section, which ticked me off, as I worked to get it there. So I ask to be unblocked, so I can work with these editors again in a beneficial way in the future.

You personally attacked other editors via email, PTP. While it is sometimes legitimate to need to contact another editor via email, calling them douchebags and vowing to continue to edit-war via email is flatly unacceptable. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 15:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

You did not answer my question.

You did not answer my question.

How long will this block be expected to last?, is still my question.

Horrible things were written to me, yet why is that permissible? This seems very one-sided.

Are these buddies of yours? Sounds like it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.138.123 (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Check your block log by clicking on your contributions (found in the toolbox section on the left side of the page) and then clicking "Block log" at the top of that page. At present, this block has no specific expiry set because your unblock requests have thus far been declined because they do not address the email abuse you've given. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 15:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

As an indefinite block, it has no set duration. In other words, it will last until it is over. —Travis^talk 15:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Self-promotion

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being self promotional. Every person in Hollywood, even the President of the United States, is self promotional. There's an entire machine behind every public person, whether they hire professionals, or they run that team themselves. If you don't believe in yourself, who will? That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. When you apply for a job, you are being self-promotional. Are you ashamed to go on job interviews or write a resume. However, I am not trying to promote myself in this case, but the story, dedicated to the memory of the dead, for free. I have edited stuff for years which had nothing to do with self-promotion, so I beg to differ that there is only one occasion. However, you needn't bother reply, for I am giving up ever trying to post on wiki ever again. It's only as good as the people who control it, and they all seem to be in co-hoots, and be just as bad, or worse, than those they punish for nothing. As far as publicity, at 2 p.m., I am being interviewed on camera about my "fake" book for a statewide news telecast, today being the 25th anniversary of the fire. I will mention that wikipedia editors have also been successful to keep the Haunted Castle truth in the dark, with agendas of which I can only imagine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.138.123 (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Spam, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Undue weight before you start accusing us of anything to get an idea as to the issues other admins have raised regarding your self-promotion or lack thereof. The threshold for inclusion is not truth, but verifiability. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 15:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

You did not answer my question AGAIN.

QUESTIONS: Why I am blocked?_{You are blocked because you abused the email feature}
Why are others not blocked, if your policy forbids threats and personal attacks in emails? That's what was done to me, with no sanction, except to me._{I did not seek you out and personally attack you. I replied to your email.}
Why I am singled-out?_{See above}
Are these your buddies?_{The only people here I am even aquainted with is medaliv and that is because we both work at EAR together.}
I'd bet they are._{see above}
All I get is roundabout answers from you people._{They already told you. You did not say why you should be unblocked, but why we should. In order to be unblocked you need to tell them you won't abuse the email feature again, and will not make any disruptive edits. An apology to medaliv for the douchebag comment would go a long way toward gaining favor with the unblocking admin.}
How do you could determine what they sent you (supposedly sent by me to them) is even legitimate. I could forward a bunch of words to you that I wrote myself and claim they came from anybody._{Not that it has already been done, but we could simply forward the message to the other editors, and they can see for themselves that it is legitimate.}
Fool._WP:BITE

Threshold of truth

Let's just print a bunch of lies, and stomp on anyone who dares to offer an alternate opinion. My word is good enough for ABC World News Tonight, but not you lot. Let's "verify" our information based on statements made by morons, totally ignorant on the subject matter. My work is called, "shit" and "fake", but yet, you do nothing to your buddy. You shameful, power-hungry little people with no lives.

SOME SANE EDITOR, WHO IS NOT BUDDIES WITH THESE PEOPLE please help me.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

There must be some editor out there that sees I am being unmercifully attacked by these people, all in co-hoots. I have offered every sincere attempt to work with them and begged for their help, but they arbitrarily block me. If I am blocked for email wrongdoing, so should Drew R. Smith. Why is he not? Is calling my work "shit" and "fake" not attacks on me personally via email. I think so. HE KNOWS THE RULES, whereas I really do not, BUT it seems he is above the rules. Is being told I am on a soapbox not a personal attack? That is an insult, by every definition I could find. Who is qualified to make such a statement? Is being called self-promotional not an attack? How does Travis know what my motives for things are. He doesn't, and never will I am portrayed as an evil villian, and people like Drew, Travis and others walk on water, and turn water into wine while doing the same damn thing. WHERE IS THE NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW you people proclaim to hold so near and dear? Why is something done by one the subject of punishment, and worse done by others totally okay? The double standard is laughable. This is a KANGAROO COURT, where I am automatically found guilty without a fair, objective weighing of the evidence or even consultation! Being told my ban "while last until it lasts" is unacceptable and VERY SPITEFUL and EXTREMELY UNFAIR. Doing things for spite is a million times worse than anything I may have done. If am not unblocked, I will sign up under a different name and use another IP address, as I can log in on a variety of wireless networks available at my disposal 24/7, so YOU'RE STUCK ME WITH, LOCKED TOGETHER IN HATRED, unless someone comes to my aid. WHO is not afraid of the little, not so bad wolf???

Decline reason:

You were blocked for using the email feature to hurl abuse at another editor. This unblock, like your previous ones, does not address this, and the section below this unblock request and the section title this unblock is in is a personal attack, as are portions of this unblock request. Unblock declined, and the next time you hurl baseless accusations at other editors will be your last Wikipedia edit, period. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 04:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Popartpete 03:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Popartpete, please do not use some other IP and/or username to log in and get around your block. That's called "socking" and there are editors here that can find out and then you'll be marked as a socking user and it'll be very hard to recover from. I've seen editors that were very well meaning but thought socking was their only option and they are now banned from WP and no one will listen to them anymore because they have shown they have no respect for the rules. If you can hang-on and display some restraint and respect for the rules there are ways to operate within WP. I don't mean "gaming the system", I mean there are appropriate ways to act in WP and those will help people listen to you and respect your opinion. Screaming about secret cabals is not the way to get people to listen with respect. Please, don't act rashly and we may be able to clear this up and get on with editing. Padillah (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Woe is me...

Yes, I did say some things via e-mail, but 1)I didnt attack, but retaliated. When I am on wikipedia, or using a wikipedia feature the rules apply. When I am reply to an e-mail in my yahoo inbox I can bite as much as I want. 2)I didnt use the wikipedia email feature, but replied to a personal attack in my yahoo personal email inbox.
That being said, popartpete offered up a white flag via email, and so I told him, via email, how to get his stuff in the article properly and advice on the block. I told him to wait it out. I also said that if it was indef he should try to appeal the block, in an apologetic and unwhining tone. It appears my advice was only half taken to heart.

May I suggest a solution?

As I, like all editors im sure, wish to assume good faith let me propose a solution. Put an expiry on the block, say a week or so. After the block put him in mandatory mentorship so he can have a proper introduction to the rules and policies on wikipedia. I would be willing to mentor him, but don't force him under me, as I was part of the problem and while a mentorship may be beneficial, it would be lost if the student harbored ill feelings toward the teacher.Drew Smith What I've done 04:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like a good solution, I support. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 04:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I will put an expiry on the block provided he stops personally-attacking everyone who was involved - at present he's a bit too volatile. I've asked for neutral admins to weigh in on the situation at this thread at AN/I. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 04:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Question for Popartpete: In light of this, what area(s) of Wikipedia do you see yourself becoming involved with if you are eventually unblocked? —Travis^talk 08:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Not to butt in but I saw the thread at AN/I and have a soft spot for new users that get lost in the intricacies of the system. I've tried adoption/Mentor before and I'd like to help as much as I can in this case. 12.193.46.150 (talk) 11:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to log in, sorry. Padillah (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Popartpete has been here since late 2006. —Travis^talk 12:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, it's still only 37 edits (some of which are unblock requests). Any way you slice it 37 edits is a "new" editor. Unless you are accusing him of something (SPA would not be a stretch), is that what it is? In any case, my offer stands. I'd like to help inasmuch as I can. Padillah (talk) 12:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, he is still a good candidate for mentorship, and has replied in the affirmative via email (in questionable wording. Could be sincere, could be sarcasm.) "Very Good. I clearly need a mentor, as I do not understand certain aspects of wikipedia, even though I read it everyday!"Drew Smith What I've done 12:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit dubious about the value of mentoring someone whose contributions are, with one exception, self-promotional. He would have to completely steer clear of anything to do with himself, his film, his online book, and Haunted Castle at Six Flags Great Adventure to be a constructive contributor. Note that I'm still waiting for an answer to my question above. —Travis^talk 12:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand the need for caution but I disagree that they need to stay away from articles that they may have very specialized knowledge of. In fact I think this would be bad for WP on the whole. Please, don't misunderstand, Self-promotion is uncalled for and cheapens the message but if they could cite reliable third-party sources that added information to an article why would that be frowned on? They look to be in a very good position to add to these articles from the depths of research they have done and I wouldn't want to suggest WP doesn't want people that know what they are talking about. There are ways to add information to an article, and I think this editor needs to be introduced to those ways. Who adds the information is secondary to the information and the source. If it's citable, who cares who adds it? Padillah (talk) 13:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

←Fair enough, but he needs to understand that self-promotion, incivility, and email abuse are unacceptable. Best of luck. —Travis^talk 13:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I've lessened the block to end in one week's time. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 15:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not even know enough to respond to above thread...

I am willing to be helped. That's all I ever asked for and needed. And I don't agree with Travis as far as not being able to change certain stuff, although I respect his other opinions. I have intricate knowledge of the Haunted Castle fire, and probably a hundred more third party articles to add to the bottom, but I don't know HOW to do it. You all see, don't you? Please forgive my ignorance. I spent the last two years slaving over trying to finish my book in time for the anniversary, when I thought it be released. I only added the information I did, because I think there is a lack of true understanding of what is the Haunted Castle, and my book offers alternate possibilities, and questions the official story. I thought that because I was providing the story for free online for those who choose to take the opportunity, how could there be a problem? When it is in hard copy, I am going to put that on Amazon, but I'd think not to put a link to it on wikipedia. I learned more about wikipedia this week than in any other. There still remains vast amounts I'm sure I don't know. Doesn't anybody follow? Can anyone explin. As far as my attitude, I was angered that my stuff was being removed, not understanding what I should do. You see, when I kept being re-changed, I emailed the editors with stern questions of why they had done it. It was on. Imagine the emotion of having to publish online, and have people read something it has taken ten years to develop? No wonder I am emotional. I have a lot going on with this.

Drew, I meant no sarcasm at all. I do need a mentor.

Ok. I believe you. We don't need to discuss all the rules and such here, but moreover a willingness to learn the rules. If it is ok with you I would be willing to be your mentor. If however you want someone else, I compeletely understand. Either way, I will be monitoring any future edits, at least for a while. I will alert the admins, and help you set up a proper unblock request.Drew Smith What I've done 13:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions

So far I have stayed out of this discussion because I've had past conflicts with Pete regarding Haunted Castle at Six Flags Great Adventure (HC). For anyone interested, these can be reviewed at Talk:Haunted Castle at Six Flags Great Adventure (Talk:HC), and on my user and user talk pages. Pete recently asked on my talk page here for me to review his latest additions to HC. In view of our past conflicts I passed the request on to WP:EAR and the situation grew from there.

When I first saw the HC article in November 2006, it had a "Media" section described by one Talk:HC user as "look[ing] like a god damn advertisement". As I worked on the article I looked at Smith's claims and his film, and decided to summarize them in a short final section named "Questioning the report". Most recently, it said:

An independent film titled Doorway to Hell? The Mystery and Controversy Surrounding the Fire at the Haunted Castle was produced in 2003 by Peter James Smith, a long-time patron of the castle. Smith's documentary questions the official report's finding that the fire was accidental. He speaks of an "emotionally disturbed" youth with a history of setting fires who "kept playing with a lighter in his pocket", and says the youth was seen exiting the Castle as the fire broke out, questioned but not charged.

Smith also says that two earlier visitors on the day of the fire reported seeing a chained exit door, but were not called as witnesses. He further says that diagrams of the castle and its exits used in the trial were inaccurate, and did not show a metal fence erected to protect employees from hostile guests, something that would have made escape more difficult.

As a new editor, and since I worded the section as a series of "Smith says..." statements, I didn't think of it as original research, as I probably should have. I retained the external link to the film at YouTube.

When the attention of other editors was recently drawn to the article, they regarded and removed as "unsourced adlike material" not only Smith's blatant new promotion of his online book and of himself, but the above two long-standing paragraphs.

What I'd suggest for the article, subject to comments and improvements by other editors

1. restore the "Questioning the report" section
2. change its second sentence to something like "Smith's documentary and an online book published in 2009 question the official report's finding that the fire was accidental."
3. depending on editor opinion here, perhaps tag the section as {{original research}} until such time as Smith gets some coverage in mainstream reliable sources. So far I haven't seen any, but it could happen.
4. retain the external link to the YouTube film
5. change the second external link to a 'deep' link direct to the book, not to Smith's home page.

What I'd suggest for Pete

1. spend the week you are blocked making a genuine effort to learn about Wikipedia. Click and follow the many blue links that have been left to help you, at Talk:HC and right here on your own talk page. Much time and discussion was spent developing these policies, guidelines and essays
2. broaden your Wikipedia interests beyond the HC article
3. understand that as a person with a conflict of interest you should not edit the HC article. Make any suggestions at Talk:HC for discussion and consensus
4. accept mentoring until you can better find your way around the project
5. try to stay cool and be WP:CIVIL to your fellow editors.

--CliffC (talk) 03:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately we cant leave Original research in articles. What we can do is put it back after his works gave been noted in reliable sources. Even still, it doen't belong as the article isnt about his book or movie. Once proven as reliable sources the book and movie may be used as citations, but I do not believe they will ever hve a place in the article other than sources and external links. I would also advise popartpete to stay way from anything that could be considered a conflict of interests.Drew Smith What I've done 04:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to agree. We'd need several more (and more credible) sources for this to overcome WP:FRINGE. I think that's where the information should start - is it more than just a theory by one guy? Or if the theory, and I mean this theory specifically not the fire, has been investigated by the police, that would lend it the air of significance to overcome WP:FRINGE. Padillah (talk) 12:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I will take all the advice given, however it is just not so that the Haunted Castle is a conflict of interest. I will gladly work with another editor, but I can see no conflict. I just happen to know a lot about it. Also, I only added the part about my book to give others a chance to see it. I wasn't sure if it was proper, so I called upon Cliff to help me. Not only have I been written about extensively in my own local newspapers, but I have been also featured on News 12 New Jersey as well as their national affiliates who picked up the story. I have spoken as an expert on the Haunted Castle fire many times: Ocean County College, The Pennsylvania Haunted House safety symposium, St. Leo University and next week, to the Honors Creative Writing class at Toms River Regional Schools, the largest school district in Ocean County, where I have worked since 2004 as a county-wide, well read and received journalist. My writing is a of a broad nature, not exclusively Haunted Castle by any stretch, although that is my most passionate endeavor. I also have broad interests in wikipedia articles. I don't know if there is a record of all the articles I have read in the past, but it must be thousands. This is done for research on other projects and areas in which I am interested. Furthermore, I am not "fringe". Things presented in my Haunted Castle book and some of the conclusions some believe are given with the disclaimer that they are just a possibility: most often questioning if something that was overlooked, or deliberately ignored and why certain things happened as they did. I invite you to all visit my site, popartpete.com, and read the PDF. It is only 150 pages in length. Judge it for yourself. What I just told you all is essentially what I added to the Haunted Castle article, the cause of all this talk.Popartpete 12:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I have seen the documentary, and the PDF. The documentary seems really good, and could possibly be used as an external link. The PDF on the other hand, looks more like musings than a real book, and does not seem like 150 pages either. If the PDF version on your site is all you have for your "book", I would keep working on it. As far as the Fringe thing goes. All you have done is "claim" to be in newspapers and talk at colleges and university. But you haven't shown us any of that. Give us links to some online versions of the articles, maybe a program that shows you speaking at universities. We can't just take your word, I'm sure you understand. But, either way, neither your book, or your movie will make it into the article as more than an external link. And I'm concerned over your wording above. "Also, I only added the part about my book to give others a chance to see it." That sounds like advertising to me. Even if its for a good cause, and not profit, it's still advertising, and its not allowed. You don't see "March of Dimes" advertising do you? All they have is a normal article about the history, and some current events. If your book ever goes harcopy and becomes a hit, even just in your area, and you can prove it, it may get its own article someday, but not as an advertisement. As far as the mentor goes. Have you thought about who you want to mentor you? If you don't choose, I'm sure one of the admins would be glad to choose for you.Drew Smith What I've done 22:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Even if you have news mentions that aren't online though, they can be checked and used as sources. I, and many other editors, have access to research utilities like LexisNexis and can verify quite a lot of things. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I just suggested online sources as they are easier to verify.Drew Smith What I've done 23:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Responding to Drew: If you like the documentary, then please do read the PDF thoroughly. It is essentially the same story, only in a much more detailed fashion. It might seem to you like "musing" if you just read the first portion, but I assure you that is not how it continues. It's length (Ok, maybe it's 147 pages or something) is really not the issue, it's the story. Read the entire thing, and then judge its value. If you'd like to verify the truthfulness of my claims about my speaking engagements and so forth, contact Kim Samarelli, Executive Director of the New Jersey Amusement Association at 732-240-0000, and she can vouch for all of the above. Thanks.Popartpete 13:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Popartpete (talk • contribs)

Responding to Mendaliv, can you tell me how I can submit my external articles to be verified.Popartpete 13:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Popartpete (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia vs. Reality

One thing I can see shaping up already is a conflict between Wikipedia phraseology and Real Life use of words. Popartpete, don't get discouraged when someone cites a policy you are not familiar with, believe me when I tell you Wikipedia does not use the same definition for words that the real world uses.

First off, when we say you have a Conflict of Interest, we do not mean you work there or are trying to represent the subject in a certain manner. We mean that you are personally involved with either the subject matter or the citations. Not to cast asspersions but, there are people that try to use Wikipedia to promote their books and films and such. This is what we call a COI. It would be more appropriate to call it "self-promotion". And yes, you are right, self-promotion is not, in itself, a bad thing. It's just regarded as inappropriate to do on WP. We have a hard enough time being taken seriously as it is, if we had pages full of shameless self-promotion we'd never get anyone to read an article.

The other thing that most people have a hard time dealing with is the difference between "Truth" and "Veracity". Oddly enough, truth is not good enough to get published on WP, it's got to be a verifiable truth. It's got to be written down somewhere (two or more somewhere's are even better) so people can check it out for themselves. As extensive and intimate as your knowledge is of these incidents we can't just take your word for it. We have to be able to double-check it. So please, don't take offense if we question your motives or information, we don't mean any harm by it. If we get too carried away you have a couple of policies at your disposal, Assume Good Faith is a big one here. We should assume you are here to help Wikipedia. If we question you we should do it delicately in a supportive manner.

One key to keep in mind, if you see a word or phrase you think is being used wrong, ask if there is a special Wikipedia way to use it and the other editor should point you in the direction of the particular policy. Hope that helps. Padillah (talk) 12:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thank you, yes it does help.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Popartpete (talk • contribs)

Removed edits

Why did you undo those edits? They seem to be good, if at times misguided, edits, and I would like to answer them. First. On your website the link to the PDF version of your book would amount to a mere two pages of real text, and its not even PDF. It appears to be a summary of a book. I haven't been able to find this 150 page PDF anywhere. Second. While it may be enough for me to contact someone, its not enough for wikipedia as a whole. Wikipedias sources need to be verifiable by anyone with access to a computer or a library. If you can provide links to the Universities web site that says you spoke for them, then it is verifiable.
Despite how verifiable your book is, I cannot stress enough that you're book, or your movie, have no place in the article as content. The movie can be used, as it is on IMDb and other sites, as an external reference. Once the veracity of your book can be established, it can also be used as a source, and/or external link.
As far as submitting external articles to be verified goes, it can't really be done. What, specifically are these articles? Are they original research? Are they newspaper articles? Are they primary sources (such as a photo)? If it's original research, you need to get it verified elsewhere. Wikipedia has no method of verifying original research. If they are newsaper articles, post the name of the paper, the date it ran, and the headline of the article. We have a newspaper viewer thingy at the library down the street, so that can be easily verified by anyone with access to a library. If they are primary sources, I would steer clear of that. While not expressly forbidden, primary sources are discouraged. I presume it is because of the relative ease with which primary sources can be faked.Drew Smith What I've done 13:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for answering me, Drew. I think you might not be getting the correct PDF. Please go straight to popartpete.com, and click onto the photo of the Haunted Castle on fire at the homepage, and it should give you an option to download the 150 page PDF. The statement I made is certainly not the book. I have a stack of newspaper articles that are from my local county library. How is it that need to be submitted? I can make a list by date and publication. One of the (now defunct) local newspapers gave me permission to copy their entire Haunted Castle file when they were in the final stages of going out of business. (I work in, and have many contacts in the Ocean County New Jersey journalism field) I appreciate all everyone has been doing for me, I have gotten a wikipedia education of tremendous proportions this past week. I have one question: I will leave the changing of the HC article to others, as that seems to be the concensus. However, I can add to the talk page, correct? That's good enough for me. This way I can constructively discuss my ideas and verify what I am saying via legit documents and a consensus of wp editors. Let me know. (Notice now that I have figured out how to answer threads!)15:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

In order to "submitt" your articles, simply list them here as you would if you were sourcing an article.Drew Smith What I've done 00:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's an example source citation. Edit this section to see how it's formed. It appears as

Signing this with 4 tildes, no more and no less, CliffC (talk) 04:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Drew, Cliff, you both rock! I will source the articles I've got over the weekend.24.187.138.123 (talk) 06:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Cliff, you know you can use the <nowiki> tags to show wiki tags right? The citation should be written like this : <ref name="NYT_19851221"> {{cite news |url=http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A03E0DE123BF932A15751C1A963948260 |title = Settlement in Fire At Park in Jersey |publisher = New York Times |date = 1985-12-21 |accessdate = 2006-11-10 }} </ref>Drew Smith What I've done 12:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Right, just trying to simplify for clarity and an easy cut-and-paste. --CliffC (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

<---keep in mind, the person we're trying to help isn't very wiki-literate, no offense popartpete. Telling him to "edit this section to see how it's formed" seems a little convoluted. I usually avoid the "edit this section" bit with the editors I have adopted, who have already advanced well beyond popartpetes (apparent) level of wiki-literacy. Drew Smith What I've done 13:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry Drew, I'm not offended. You're my teacher, and only poor students wouldn't listen to their teacher and/or take constructive criticism. I am the first to understand that I have limited knowledge. I actually understood you both, and will even more once I read it some more. I understand a little html...that's how I figured out how to respond to threads! Thanks to you and Cliff, both who are good to me. Before I undertake my first attempt, I will contact you first. Thanks. :) Popartpete 14:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it looks like you are in good hands, and we all know what they say about cooks and broth so... I wish you well and want you to understand, I'm not leaving, just stepping away (there's that whole broth bit). If you need any help, please don't hesitate to ask - I'll do what I can. Padillah (talk) 12:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Block expired

Congratualtions, you have waited out your block. This is, in my opinion, the first step to recovery. What you do now will largely determine your future at wikipedia. Contact me when you are ready to start your mentorship.Drew Smith What I've done 04:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't change too many articles, so I won't be too hard to assist. I'll try to stick to talk pages, and get other editors advice (yours of course first) with my proposed changes, etc.Popartpete 13:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Mentorship

As a first step in the right direction, could you please read and provide links to (so I know you did it) the policies on Civility, Point of View, Conflict of Interest, Reliable Sources, Original Research, and What wikipedia is not? (This isn't an attack, all these policies are key to success at wikipedia).Drew Smith What I've done 13:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Where are you?Drew Smith What I've done 22:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I have not gone anywhere, I have just been very busy. I am aware of all the things you spoke of, and for the time being, I am sticking to discussion pages, rather than changing articles. If I feel confident enough of something or another I believe incorrect in my reading (I read a lot of articles, far more than I ever comment upon) I simply add my two cents to the discussion page, rather to step on anybody's toes, and encourage other editors to sort it out if they can. This has seemed to work well so far. Is it on the right track? Let me know.Popartpete 01:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't want to suggest this before, but maybe you would be a good candidate for my adoption program. It is centered on learning to use the mediawiki software, with only a slight emphasis on policy. Once we have you caught up on the basics, we can start to work on policies and article writing.Drew Smith What I've done 03:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

List of Theta Phi Alpha chapters

Do you have any place that the 1995 date can be referenced to? School Newspapers or anything like that?Naraht (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)