User talk:Samanthadecanta
2
Image copyright problem with Image:N630806210 6404.jpg
[edit]Thanks for uploading Image:N630806210 6404.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 00:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Darren Meade
[edit]As you apparently noticed, a page existed under this name before you started making your edits. You simply eliminated the old content and started a bio about a completely different person. This is not in keeping with usual Wikipedia procedure. You may notice that there are plenty of cases where multiple people have the same name, and have separate Wikipedia entries. There are two ways to handle this. One is to have a "disambiguation" page under the main name, with pointers to the individual pages. See, for example, Steve Austin. The other approach is to give the page to the best known person by that name, and put a link at the top of the page to either a separate disambiguation page, or to other pages on people with the same name. An example of this approach may be found at Ted Kennedy. The first method is the probably the best approach, unless one person is exceptionally well known, as Senator Kennedy is.
In any case, I restored the old Darren Meade page as Darren Meade (soccer). Your newer page is at Darren Meade (bodybuilder), and Darren Meade is now a disambiguation page. fbb_fan (talk) 02:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Please know that the spelling on Darren Mead (soccer) and Darren Meade (bodybuilder) are different spellings. The soccer player uses Darren Mead without the letter (E) at the end.
Darren Meade (bodybuilder) has the letter (E).
- Emails were sent and a correction requested. None took place. Again the spelling of the name is different. Actually someone created a page with the correct spelling of the soccer players name (Mead) then later created a duplicate page with the last name (Meade).
As I do not know all the ways to edit a page, I thank you for not deleting what I worked so hard to create.–—
The preceeding unsigned comments were added by Samanthadecanta on Oct. 17, 2008
- First of all, please try to remember to sign your comments with four tildes; that makes it easier for other editors to follow a discussion and keep track of who said what.
- Regarding the name of the soccer player - a Google search for "Darren Mead" Millwall OR Bohemians returns four matches (Millwall and Bohemians are two of the teams mentioned in the WP entry for the soccer player). Of the four, three are references to Darren Mead, the Australian rules football player (and note that this Darren Mead is a different person from the Irish soccer player); I couldn't determine why the 4th match was returned. On the other hand, a search for "Darren Meade" millwall OR bohemians gives 42 matches. All of the matches I have looked at spell his name as "Meade" - here are some examples: [1], [2], [3], [4], and [5]. I could list more, but I think this is enough to make the point - these were just the top five matches (other than a match to the WP page). So unless you can provide a concrete reference to back up your claim about the spelling (just saying "I know it's spelled that way" isn't enough), I think it's clear that "Meade" is the spelling that should be used.
- And once again, for future reference - regardless of whether or not you sent emails, you should not hijack a page. The existing page should have been preserved, and you should have used one of the approaches I suggested to create the new page. Just because nobody replied to your emails, it was still not proper to wipe out the existing page contents and replace it with something about a different subject. fbb_fan (talk)
- Once again for future reference, I disagree with your opinion. As for stating some of your matches shows it is spelt Mead, which provies our point, or that when we tried to create a dialogue about such and we had no responses, shows are intention was pure.
- As for your suggestion that I create another new page, I will simply state I do not know how to do such. This seems to be more of an argumentative excercise. While I have no issue providing additional documentation, what will that solve? Do you have the authority and can we commence it to writing that if I took the time to provide what you request, that the Darren Meade page would be exclusive to the Bodybuilder and Homeless advocate? If as you state multiple people have the name, that they each could create their own page? My only request is simply to know that this is not an argumentative process, and at the end of the day, we have a written agreement of how to rectify such.
- Thank You, Samantha.
22:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC) The preceeding unsigned comments were added by Samanthadecanta
- Which "opinion" of mine are you disagreeing with? Are you referring to my statement that it was inappropriate to take over the existing page? This is not just my opinion - it's established Wikipedia procedure. You might want to familiarize yourself with some of the policies and practices around here before charging ahead and doing things like this. The fact that you say that don't know how to create a new page suggests to me that you have not learned the basics of Wikipedia editing yet. I think it's interesting that you thanked me in your first reply for "not deleting what I worked so hard to create" - yet you deleted someone else's hard work when you created your initial Darren Meade, and apparently you don't see why this is a problem. For more on disambiguation (so you can see that this isn't just my opinion), please refer to WP:DAB.
- As far as the spelling is concerned - which of the links I cited shows his name spelled as "Mead"? Going through the five I specifically cited one by one (and remember, these were simply the first five matches that came up - I didn't "cherry pick" to make my point):
- 1. There's a white box about 1/3 of the way down the article that says: Darren Meade (all out of contract).
- 2. The 2nd paragraph says: It was widely anticipated that the former Barnet manager would be shown the New Den door and he is now joined by Gilkes (pictured), Bobby Bowry, Jamie Stuart, Phil Smith, Darren Meade, .... Then in the 3rd paragraph: Perhaps the biggest surprise to Lions fans will be the news that talented young striker Darren Meade has been deemed unworthy of a new contract.
- 3. In the section labeled "Angriff", the second player listed is named Darren Meade.
- 4. Well down into the page it says: The Irish manager announced last night that he had called up the following six players as replacements, Ken Oman (Rivermount Boys), Robert Grimes (Tolka Rovers), Wesley Houlihan (Belvedere Boys), Darren Meade (Millwall),...
- 5. Under "Forwards", he's listed again as "35 Darren Meade".
- I'm not going to walk you through each of the additional Google matches that I found. But perhaps you could produce some sources that confirm what you so emphatically state to be fact. If you are indeed correct, it shouldn't be that hard to produce a few as I have done. And maybe you misread what I said earlier, but the only matches I found that showed it spelled as "Mead" were referring to the Australian Rules Football player. Again, this is a different person from the soccer player, born in 1971; the soccer player was born in 1982 (and you do realize that Australian Rules Football is not the same sport as soccer, right?), so that does NOT prove your point. To emphasize, if this isn't already clear enough - there are three people relevant to this discussion: Darren Mead, Australian Rules Football player; Darren Meade, Irish soccer player; and Darren Meade, bodybuilder.
- And again, please sign your comments using four tilde characters. This will automatically be replaced with your user name and a date/time stamp. If you don't know what I'm talking about, see Wikipedia:How to edit a page - this is explained in the "introduction" section. fbb_fan (talk) 00:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- And again I disagree, While you wrote a very long and detailed explanation it was not what I questioned you about. You want me to read all that you write, but once again the soccer players last name is Mead not Meade. I did a search on Yahoo which proves my point. Now perhaps when based on geography when you search on Google and I on Yahoo, different items appear. As I shared from the start, this is over a misspelling of the name Mead vs. Meade. At some point someone created duplicate pages with both spellings causing the confusion.
I offered to play your game of citing referenced if in fact you had the authority as a paid employee of Wikpedia to correct matters. Or does the cite work on self-policing. For instance if I went onto the female bodybuilding section and began to change pages and so forth citing I went on Google and found errors to what you wrote?
As for citing a reference why don't I simply use Wikpedia : http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:NaaFpA5b5fIJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meade_(surname)+darren+mead+soccer&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us
You will find this is a SOCCER player born in 1982. This is not the Australian Rules football player.
Or, perhaps you will take a news paper article speaking again of the veteran soccer player Darren Mead, you can read that spelling in the fourth paragraph:
Once again Darren Mead and Darren Meade are two seperate people. While I did thank you on the first communcation, your condescending comments and words which seem to only wish to argue, cause this reply. Yes I am new to Wikpedia. While I endeavor to learn, I am not going to continually argue with you on a subject to which I am right. Regardless the issue is already resolved.
Cheers, Unsigned comments were added by Samanthadecanta
- If you read the newspaper article (the one you pointed me to) carefully, I think you'll find that this once again is a reference to the Australian Rules football player. So all you have so far for a "source" is the Meade (surname) page. You need to come up with something more than this, since Wikipedia articles are not primary sources for other Wikipedia articles. fbb_fan (talk) 03:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- No, I don't. You are incorrect and it truly does not matter what sources I provide, or explaining again, that Darren Mead and Darren Meade are two distinct people and that errors and suplicate pages were created, for Darren Meade soccer and football, which then spread to adding an (E) to the last name.
- I noted the quick edit you did to the Wikpedia source we provided which had the correct birthdate for Mead you had referenced before.
Below is the search result which use to be for Darren Mead and I believe the Fbb fan is yourself and this was started on 17th, October 2008. If I am incorrect and this is bot you I apologize. However it seems you are going to great lengths to discredit and create a censorship on what has been explained to be duplicate pages.
1.) Darren Meade (soccer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) by Fbb fan (talk · contribs) started at 02:45, 17 October 2008
However the search result of Darren Mead soccer still shows the correct birth date of 1982 - even though you made edits to the entry - I've explained this to you in detail yet you ramble and write about matters I do not bring up. Even when I cite Wikpedia, you say it is not a primary source. While that may be true, the point was to show even on Wikpedia your argument is incorrect. We have a difference of opinion. Much like I visited the female bodybuilding section you created, and saw numerous items I could address, correct and so forth. Rather than go Tit for Tat with you, I simply wish you the best.
The preceeding unsigned comments were added by Samanthadecanta
- Dear Editors*****
Please know that my conversations in talk and also the discussions pertaining to the deletion of the page Darren Meade are being deleted. Therefore I am pasting my last reply which was deleted on October 19th in the deletion discussion. I've also personally written the three negative comments so that they can at least review my opinion. I do apologize for writing so much, but again my comments are being deleted.
- My name is Samantha and I noted that all my previous comments on the above were deleted. I believed this was an open forum for discussion. Please allow me the decency to respond to the allegations.
- In order to take others opinion into matters, the page has been edited and I thank you for your feedback. I trust the edits done in good faith will make the community feel better. Now I would like to address matters which I believe to be patently false.
1) All initial disagreements steamed from one person. In those talks, I shared that multiple pages were created utilizing different spelling of Darren Mead and Darren Meade. That I tried to correct such, to no avail or reply. At that time we cited references to that point and at times used Wikepedia as a source. That person then went in and began to edit entries to fit his argument and to change that which we cited as evidence I offer the follwing search result:
Darren Meade (soccer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) by Fbb fan (talk · contribs) started at 02:45, 17 October 2008
Fbb fan is to whom I reference and ask the editors or Wikpedia to perform some diligence perhaps an IP search and/or see within his own category if those making comments above frequent his pages and perhaps be friends. This I believe would show bias.
2) Dsreyn talks writes that because I have not edtied more articles my entry should be deleted. I find that unfair, as I just found out about Wikpedia. Why would I edit others work, as I am trying to learn and understand the site and how it functions.
Dsreyn then states : "marginal for notability - though apparently successful, he doesn't really seem notable as a businessman, and his bodybuilding career consisted of a handful of amateur level contests." I respectfully disagree. Let's begin with the patently false claim that Darren Meade only had a handful of amateur level contests. Mr. Meade represented the USA in international bodybuilding events. Amateur bodybuilding in the USA is under the NPC (National Physique Committee) and professional bodybuilding under the IFBB (International Federation of Bodybuilders). Mr. Meade won the IFBB North American middleweight class. The show was in Mexico, I cite this to show that this was an international event, to which he had to travel outside the USA. The title itself is called the North American Championships, thereby indicating Canada, Mexico and the USA. That particular year, it was drug tested by the International Olympic Committee. Again showing the level of the show. Mr. Meade has a plaque congratulating him by the IFBB and signed by Ben Weider who was the President of the IFBB.
Mr. Meade also has 14 plaques by the National Physique Committee. These are not for titles won, but thanking him for his improvements of bodybuilding and recognizing him for his accomplishments. While these are from the NPC which handles amateur bodybuilding, they again recognize bettering the sport itself.
As for business acomplishments, how do I explain that without it being construed and self promotion of Darren Meade? The first company he partnered in was sold for $180 Million dollars, it created a new market category within the sports nutrition arena and the history of such is being covered in a book titled Muscle, Smoke and Mirrors by Randy Roach. He has been retained by the Autralian Government, and Hong Kong Public exchange. The area I believe that he is most notable was that he was homeless for 3 years as a teenager and rose to fame in bodybuilding and later business. Within the page I created are link to particles that were press releases and Darren Meade's original article that when he was told that he was dying on April, his out look on what he has learned.
Many of is other published writing found on the internet have to do with God and religion. Therefore he does receive threats upon his life and attacks because of his unique view on God. While I list my name and that of Darren Meade, the other user are announymous and I am not sure if the attacks of censorship come from other published articles. None of those articles are linked to the Wikepedia page. I believe as cited above though, and explained that all my previous written comments have been deleted show that this is more than a routine concern for the page. It is an attack which can be validated by reading the talk section.
Darren Meade is notable for business and his bodybuilding titles, which include success in the NPC and IFBB. He won both titles in the USA and Internationally.
As a business man he has paunched both private and public companines.
Philanthropy - Through his work with Feed The Children and other groups to feed the hungry and inspire other homeless children.
Politics - They are not linked of referenced on this page, however, the Orange County Register, interviewed Darren Meade each week on the historic recall campaign in California for Governor. Darren worked on Arnold Schwarzenegger's campaign through out the campaign. Again showing notability.
In closing one last attack was simply one of copyright infringement. I believe this to be false. I added a link to an article written by Darren Meade. When I went to the page I created, it said I should add links to help verify, which I did. If I placed this in the wrong location, please let me know where it should go. I will gladly change such. However I do not believe a link to an article by Darren Meade to be a copyright issue. It is his article, he wrote it and irrevocably agreed to release his contribution under the terms of GFDL.
Samantha Decanta
Possibly unfree Image:N630806210_6404.jpg
[edit]An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:N630806210_6404.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Dsreyn (talk) 04:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- The image was tagged as a copyright infringement of http://www.prlog.org/10121336-attachment.jpg. As such it is eligible for deletion as per WP:CSD#I9. — Athaenara ✉ 08:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Writing good neutral biographies
[edit]The tips at User:Uncle G/On notability#Writing about subjects close to you apply equally as well to subjects that aren't close to one. Don't use autobiographies, for the reasons given at Wikipedia:Autobiography and several others. Find good, reliable, independent sources that have covered the subject in depth, and write in your own words based upon the information that those sources give. If one cannot do that, one shouldn't write. Uncle G (talk) 09:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Dear Uncle G,
That was done, and the revisions still deleted. Therefore can you kindly provide specifics? If I take past newspaper articles, press releases and stories, write them in my own words, and then cite those within the biography, how is it then they are deleted?
The original did take heavily from an autobiography so you are correct. However the rewrite yesterday did not. Certain events, such a championships won by Darren Meade, charity events and so forth cannot be rewritten as they are statement of facts and events.
Thank you for your feedback. The preceeding unsigned comments were added by Samanthadecanta on Oct. 20, 2008
- You didn't do that. Comparing the most recent version of your purported rewrite with the subject's autobiography:
| Your most recent version | Subject's autobiography |
|---|---|
| However, it was after the very painful experience of my his father committing suicide six months after getting off the street that he began my personal journey into spiritual growth and began questioning how I could … | However, it was after the very painful experience of my father committing suicide six months after getting off the street that I began my personal journey into spiritual growth and began questioning how I could … |
- As you can see, you didn't use your own words. You copied and pasted the autobiography and changed the pronouns. You didn't even change all of them. Uncle G (talk) 14:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Introduction for new users
[edit]Samantha, as a new user, I strongly that you read some of the introductory material on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Five pillars would be a good place to start, and you might also want to check out How to edit a page. As examples, I see you have accused other editors of acting beyond their authority, and it looks like you don't understand Wikipedia's policies on proper sourcing. Given some of your comments in the AFD discussion, I think you might also have a look at Assume good faith. Rather than accusing more experienced editors of being condescending or conspiring against you, you should familiarize yourself with standard policies and practices, and then you might better understand why these more experienced editors have taken the actions they have.
And another thing - I see this has already been mentioned to you a few times, but it is considered proper to sign your comments on talk pages and in AFD discussions. It looks like someone (above) already pointed you to information on how to do this, but you've continued to ignore the advice. Again - PLEASE spend some time reading up on these things. If you want to continue participating in Wikipedia, you will find that the time is well spent. Also, people will become increasingly less tolerant if you continue doing what you've been doing without learning the ropes. 71.233.6.118 (talk) 02:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Dear Talk,
Let me start by saying the only slander which has taken place was by Fbb_Talk. I received personal attacks to my email and then had complete comments with cited references and details deleted.
Therefore, to now accuse me of what you and your friends did in order to cover your tracks shows what has taken place. The wonderful thing with small claims court is that it is local and open to being able to present facts, not opinions.
As for your hate filled comments and saying I believe the rules do not apply, is again patently false. I've requested detail on where the page I created which deleted did not fit the guidelines?
Further I edited the page to appease people, yet it was deleted again. My comments were deleted when we were to have an open dialogue about the actual page. I am open to allowing a judge to simply look at the guidelines and say what he believes to be the facts. Just because Darren has written about God in a fashion you do not like, is no reason to delete my comments and pages. It is no reason to email me directly threats and call me derogatory names because I am a woman which is what Fbb_talk has done and we have documented— Unsigned comments added by User:Samanthadecanta
Revising comments by other users
[edit]Samantha - you should not revise or delete comments left by other users on your talk page (as you did recently). You might think that this is allowed, since it is "your" talk page, but the Wikipeida policies are very clear on this. Removing or changing comments left by other users disrupts the flow of the discussion, and runs a high risk of misrepresenting what the other user was saying. Please refer to WP:TALK; this is discussed in sections 1.4 and 1.5. Again, PLEASE take the time to familiarize yourself with the procedures around here. If there are things you don't understand, ask someone more experienced for clarification. Continuing to operate as you are without learning the rules is going to give people the impression that you don't think the rules apply to you. 71.233.6.118 (talk) 02:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
== Why are my comments Deleted and/or changed? ==—
Interesting...Fbb_talk deleted my comments often. Yet when I requested why this was allowed everyone was silent. So someone more established may delete my comments, speed delete my page etc.
If I then recreate the page and it is deleted again, and I ask for specifics of why and am told to simply read again the introductory pages, which I have and no specifics have been offered how is this ever going to work?
I believe this is religious persecution because of Darren Meade's past articles on God. That being said the only economical way to combat this is simply to file a small claims suit here and have a Judge decide if this is censorship and abuse. Then this week I will do such. It should be noted I not only have kept all the edited comments, but I also have the other threats issued by one member of Wikpedia. –
Unsigned comments added by User:Samanthadecanta
- Can you show me where Fbb_fan deleted your comments? I have looked in the revision history for your talk page, and I see no evidence that this happened (I assume you realize that there *is* a revision history that we can check to verify your claim). Fbb_fan has made a total of four edits to this page; all of them consisted exclusively of additions to the page - there were no deletions or revisions of any of your comments. So please, stop the conspiracy / persecution theories until you have some solid evidence. I think it goes without saying that slandering other users is considered to be bad form (putting it mildly) around here.
- Or perhaps you are referring to edits that Fbb_fan made to the Darren Meade page? If so, you have no basis for a claim of any sort here. First of all, nobody "owns" a Wikipedia page (see WP:OWN), and other users are well within their rights to edit your contributions. If you want a page that you own and control, create your own web site; please don't mistake Wikipedia for a web hosting service. Second, as I recall, all Fbb_fan did was to move your version of the Darren Meade page to a different place, so that the page for the soccer player (which you unceremoniously clobbered, I might add) could be restored. And he had the decency to come here and post a message informing you of what he did, and why. Again, this was well within normal Wikipedia rules. Fbb_fan is not an administrator, so he could not delete the page; only admins have that power. From the AFD discussion, I gather that User:Rich Farmbrough was the one who deleted the page the first time; the second time, it was User:Uncle G. So if you have an issue with the page being deleted, I suggest you take it up with one or both of them.
- As far as your threats of legal action, well - good luck with that. I highly doubt that anyone here is going to be intimidated by your threats. I might point out that you're treading on thin ice here yourself. Your accusations of religious persecution don't have any basis that I can see, and I think someone could easily construe your various accusations against other editors as slander. 71.233.6.118 (talk) 01:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Legal threats
[edit]See Wikipedia:No legal threats. Rgds, Rich Farmbrough, 02:02 23 October 2008 (UTC).
'Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.'
Last resort: Arbitration
[edit]Further information: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, Wikipedia:Arbitration policy, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration If you have taken all other reasonable steps to resolve the dispute, and the dispute is not over the content of an article, you can request Arbitration. Be prepared to show that you tried to resolve the dispute by other means. Arbitration differs from Mediation in that the Arbitration Committee will consider the case and issue a decision, instead of merely assisting the parties in reaching an agreement. If the issue is decided by Arbitration, you will be expected to abide by the result. If the case involves serious user misconduct, Arbitration may result in a number of serious consequences up to totally banning someone from editing, as laid out in the Arbitration policy. Note that Arbitration is normally for disputes about user conduct, while Mediation is normally for disputes about article content.
As I have explained, I tried all channels of settling this issue and even went so far as to contact each person on the original dialogue page to ask for views and to explain how my page was created. During this time my comments were deleted on the discussion board. Thereby deleting all the citation and references I utilized on the page. Wikpedia itself write of arbitration as a last resort. I believe this would be more a matter for a Judge and small claims would be perfect for this format. I am not seeking monetary damages but simply stating according to Wikepedia's own guidelines, that I am being unfairly edited and censored, this is about use conduct.
I have tried all other avenues, and even redrafted and created the page, however it was deleted within the hour. Therefore rather than spend countless hours responding to entries I will prepare to present this to a neutral judge who can judge solely on the guidelines. I look forward to actually seeing in person someone defend their actions... Unsigned comments added by User:Samanthadecanta
- OK, read this carefully - this is from the policy you quoted: and the dispute is not over the content of an article. Maybe I have the wrong impression, but as far as I can tell, the "Darren Meade (bodybuilder)" page was deleted specifically because of the content (self-promotional material). Are you really finding it impossible to learn how Wikipedia operates? I think the introductory pages are worded fairly clearly, but you seem to have some sense of special entitlement, as if you think the rules and policies only apply to everyone else. But hey, feel free to keep inventing persecution theories and making threats...that's always a good way to influence people. 71.233.6.118 (talk) 11:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Also, you must retract the legal threat, or you will be blocked. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Blocked for making legal threats
[edit]
Please read and ensure that you understand the following important points:
- You threatened legal action against another user here: [6]
- You were informed about the policy which forbids you from editing Wikipedia until all threats of legal action have been unequivocally retracted here: [7]
- After receiving the warning, you repeated your legal threat here: [8]
This is the reason why you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia. If you wish to edit again, you must retract all threats of legal action. Please read the official policy on this carefully.
If you decide to retract all threats of legal action, you should also read all of the following information before requesting that your account is unblocked: