User talk:William Meyer/Archive1

Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome!

Hello, William Meyer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! --Nevhood 18:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:William_Meyer/Archive #1

Deletion of Two Pages in Process

{{helpme}}

I am a first-time editor in Wikipedia.

I object to the two pages I am editing being removed while I am developing them. The problem is that I don't know how to make the changes necessary to keep the pages alive.

Please send me specific suggestions about how to prevent the deletion of the pages, and I'll get to the editing lickety split.

Thanks

William Meyer 19:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)William MeyerWilliam Meyer 19:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

_ _ Hi, W'm, i'm the nasty deletionist whose ProD you complained about.

_ _ First, i feel obligated to make you aware that no one will respond to your {{helpme}} as it stands. (That may show a problem in how the instructions abt it are stated; if i don't leave you a note saying i've "dropped a flag on the play" it would help if you remind me to.) If you want more help than what i'm about to offer, do an edit where you put the 4 braces and the 6 letters between them alone on a line (ignoring all the stuff in pointy brackets). Both the way the welcome msg codes it, and the way i did in the first sentence of this graph (in each case, what you see in the edit pane), are ways of telling you, on the rendered preview or non-editing page, how to call for help, without saying it "out loud" in the course of telling you. By copying it from the edit page (instead of from the rendered version of the page), you kept it "wrapped in cotton", or never turned off the safety level.

_ _ More directly to the point, the edit summaries you made since sound to me like they are aimed at making a joint bio for the two (IMO pointlessly), probably due to my expressing myself obtusely. My point about together or apart was less significant than it sounded, and in any case is not about how the article(s) should be written or organized: i wanted to make it clear that, to save everyone time, i counted all of the Web refs that refer to either person, combining those for one with those for the other but counting each in the overlap only once.

_ _ Your removal of the ProD tag is appropriate and can take the pressure off, since i don't think forcing a deadline (5 days of discussion) is urgent, and since i'll probably be the one to add the {{AfD}} tag (which you wouldn't be allowed to remove), if we don't reach agreement abt this. AfD is the gold standard for deletion criteria, in the sense that that is where everything stated elsewhere as policy is converted from general principles into claims as to which policy principles mean something applicable to the article in question. In this case non-notability (insufficient significance) is what's likely to be considered, and while i don't want to take on the project of tutoring you on the subject, i'm willing to suggest that the ideal cram course for you is to look on WP:AfD,

on one hand, following some of the lks that appear (identically) at the top of each discussion, and
on the other, looking at the arguments made for and against, in biographies previously challenged re notability.

(AfD discussions in progress, on WP:Afd itself, are more exciting, but the AfD archives will show the outcomes, which are more important for you than excitement.)

_ _ I'm hesitant about saying WP:CoI is probably also worth your attention (even tho two editors appeared to be instances of it, and you may be asked whether you are free of such conflicts). When CoI gets mentioned, it's hard to keep it from sounding more important than it should be. I mean that the issue in contested deletions is distinct from the then-current content and from the authorship, and rests properly on a single question: is an encyclopedia-worthy article feasible under this title. If the article is written wrong, or a predominant author is hopelessly biased, the remedies are not deletion, but further editing and/or more, less biased, editors. The significance of that goes beyond CoI, and, for example (even tho such cases are quite rare), the principle is admirably illuminated by imagining an article Mud, about boots and mud pies: that article would pretty surely be found un-encyclopedic, but the title is not, and the article should be, rather than deleted, rewritten from scratch, to adequately cover the erosion of rock into mud, adobe, delta formation, metamorphosis of mud into classes of rock, and conceivably, if Drilling mud were too small a topic for its own article, a section on that topic. In our case, it's not worth considering keeping these titles as bios of different people; still, the fact that discarding the content without a deletion is an occasional AfD outcome serves to dramatize the important distinction, between the content at hand and the potential of the topic it addresses or hints at.

_ _ (Ah, good; i wasn't sure of any title, but my guess was good, and may save you some browsing:) WP:NN certainly is also worth your attention. And, especially if i was too terse this time, WP:Google test should offer some insight at least into what i was getting at. Hope this'll at least get you started.
--Jerzy•t 06:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

W'm,
_ _ Yes, wikis are crucially a tech innovation, but IMO WP is even more crucially also a product of developing the social institutions that enable the tech to do something worthwhile.
_ _ I'm not the touchy-feeliest of editors (e.g., i didn't drop anyone a ProD notice in this, nor have i any confidence that i've ever done so). But even tho i remain skeptical abt the articles, your note made it clear you needed & deserve some help getting on your feet, not least for the sake of keeping WP striving in the right directions.
--Jerzy•t 22:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Deletion of Jock McKeen Page

Hello William Meyer. It seems another administrator has already done so for you. The reason why the first version of the page was deleted was because the author did not indicate the necessary notability to pass the WP:BIO guideline. Often subjects are encouraged not to write about themselves due to the difficulty of referring to their biography in a third person style. Thank you for rewriting it. At least now it meets the standards much better than its previous state. If you have any other questions feel free to contact me at my talk page again.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 17:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 2007

Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles, as you did with Haven Institute. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please do the following:

Place {{hangon}} on the page. Please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag(s).
Make your case on the article's talk page.

Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. Leuko 01:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haven InstituteDeletion

I am editing the Haven Institute webpage, which has been marked for speedy deletion. I will begin by removing the external links to the Haven.ca webpage in the body of the article. I expect this is what has prompted the sudden reaction from the editors.

In addition, I will certainly correct anything that will interfere with this article's integrity for Wikipedia. I am learning as I go ... but I am honest and earnest. Please do not remove the page until I have had a chance to correct it. Thanks. William Meyer 01:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It really isn't the links, it's the whole article and its purpose in WP. I don't actually determine when it gets deleted. An admin will take a look at the reasoning on the article's talk page and make a decision from there. Leuko 02:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I will put my thoughts onto the article's talk page. I appreciate your feedback. Thanks. William Meyer 02:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the process of adding my reasons for why it should be kept (and my willingness to edit the page) on the Talk page when it was suddenly deleted ... all this took only five minutes ... I would like the opportunity to talk about this ... the Haven Institute page is very similar to the Esalen Institute page, ... they are both nontraditional educational institutions ... I would like the chance to edit this page into a form that is acceptable to Wikipedia. I respectfully request that it be undeleted so I can get to work to do this. I have placed this request in the Deletion Review process. William Meyer 06:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Haven InstituteREASON FOR REQUEST TO UNDELETE

I have pasted the following sections from the Talk:Haven Institute page to keep the communication trail clear in my Talk page.William Meyer 07:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

from Talk:Haven Institute

I have put in a request for a DELETION REVIEW for the Haven Institute page.

I am relieved that I can now access this Talk:Haven Institute page. When the Haven Institute page was deleted by speedy deletion, the Talk page vanished for me, and I could not access it.

The Haven Institute is an alternative educational institution that has existed since 1983. It has a good reputation, and attracts students from around the world. It is roughly similar to Esalen Institute in that it is a nontraditional school that utilizes seminars and group process in its teaching environment. Since Esalen is listed in Wikipedia, I believe it is appropriate that the Haven Institute also be included.

The reason for the speedy deletion was stated (on the banner that I was able to quickly read before the deletion occured) to be "Blatant Advertising." My intent in writing this article was certainly not to "promote a company, product, group, service, or person" ... Indeed the Haven Institute is owned and operated by a nonprofit society, whose aims are educational in nature. So, this is not a profit group ... it is an organization dedicated to promoting nontraditional educational approaches in a responsible and respectful manner. I believe that their undertaking is worthy, and merits inclusion in Wikipedia.

Please consider my request, and give me the chance to craft the article within Wikipedia's guidelines. I want to "play ball" ... I just want the chance to finish the job that I started (I have hours into this process at this point). Thanks for considering. Sincerely William Meyer 07:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:William Meyer/Haven Institute

Your blank page is at the above link. Please take care of WP:N and try to include as many sources as possible as well as writing the article in a encyclopedic tone without bias. Good luck and feel free to ask for another pair of eyes whenever you feel like it.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see a lot of references but can you tell me whether you have any conflicts of interest here? You clearly know the subject very well. For such a long article, and for the others you have written you need to include citations in the text to show where the information comes from. This is a good way to make sure that information is properly sourced because if you can't cite it, you can't include it. Also, I think for a marginally notable institution, this is a very long article and citations will be helpful to you to get the balance right. Remember that this article has already been deleted because of concerns that it may be advertising so its important to get this nailed down before you try and restore this to the main space. Let me know when you have made the citations and I'll have another look and make some pratical suggestions for any required changes. Finally, how specialist are the references? Are the national or local? That's important for verifying notability. The more widespead the coverage the better. I hope this helps - this is much improved and definately on the right path. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Spartaz

Thanks for your reply. Glad to hear you think I'm on the right track.

I do not have any conflicts of interest. I am not involved in this Institute other than to write about it. I do know the people involved reasonably well however.

I thought I had included citations in the text in my articles. But apparently I have not done this to your satisfaction. Please show me a place where I am derelict here, and I'll fix it. I have tried to follow Harvard Referencing, and then add a (Smith 2003) indicator in the body of the text that refers to a 2003 article or book by Smith. What am I missing?

You mention this is a very long article. Good information for me. I will cut it down.

I'll let you know when I have cut down the articleand made the citations so that you can offer any further suggestions.

How specialist are the references? Most are reports from journalists who have done articles on The Haven Institute, in newspapers and magazines.

Two articles are from Gabriola Island's newspaper; one more is from Nanaimo newspaper (nearby) and three are from Vancouver/Victoria publications .... both cities are in the same province, but at quite a distance (their coverage is province-wide). Finally, two articles are from a publication in Taipei, Taiwan to back up the international coverage.

William Meyer 21:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to come back to this another day as I am busy with something else at the moment. I hope that is OK. {you can reply here btw I have the page watchlisted). --Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Humbug

I appreciate your telling me that you are onto something else so I won't think you have disappeared. I have shortened the article considerably, and I have placed the citations in the body of the text ... have I done this correctly?

How does this article look to you now? Better length? Citations correct?

I want to be squeaky clean with these citations/references ... once I know I am doing it 100% properly, I will fix up the other pages I have written to the same standard. So, I value your tutoring.

Many many thanks for your human interaction with me.

William Meyer 21:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Humbug re: William Meyer/Haven Institute

I have a draft done now that I think might be okay. My questions:

1. How is the length? I could shorten the section "The Haven Institute History" (or remove it completely) if you think the article is still too long.
2. Are the citations correctly done, and appropriate for this page?
3. Any other suggestions?

Thank you for handholding me through this. William Meyer 01:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To --Spartaz ^Humbug!

Perhaps you are too busy to deal with my request for help ... if so, please just say so, and I'll seek help elsewhere. I have redone the Haven Institute page, and I would appreciate your eyes on it to see if it looks acceptable.

1. Is it ready to resubmit for use on the Wiki pages?

2. If it is ready, how do I go about putting it on the regular pages? Just do it? Or do I need to ask permission of the review committee that reviewed the original pages that were deleted?

3. Any other comments or suggestions?

Thanks. William Meyer 17:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the references on the article are a little weak and they are rather dated. Is there nothing more recent you can cite? Otherwise you have done a good job with the rewrite. I think its still a work in progress but we have no deadline for getting this thing done. :-) If you wanted to have it restored to mainspace, I would suggest that you took it back to DRV with a request for consideration. You could just restore it but there is a danger of it being speedied again as recreated content - ideally you need a few more recent sources if you wanted to just restore it without going through DRV. Good luck and let me know what you decide to do. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me. Your comments are very helpful. I agree that there is no deadline ... I want to get it right the first time. I will find some more recent references ... I don't think this will be difficult to find ... just will take some leg work to get them. I'll get more recent references, and then get back to you when I think I have satisfied what you suggested. Best wishes, ... William Meyer 23:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To --Spartaz ^Humbug!-- References Enhanced and Updated

I have added more recent references, and cited them in the text. I believe I have satisfied your recent suggestions. How does this look now? Is it ready for mainspace now? William Meyer 23:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV

Do you think you are ready to try and have this restored in main space? There are lots of references now. If so, I'll list it for you at DRV. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please. I am ready to try to restore this to main space now. Please list it at DRV for me. What do I need to do? Is there a page I should be watching? Thanks for all your help. William Meyer 16:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your page is now in main space - I discussed with the deleting admin who had no objections to my dispensing with the DRV. Congratulations on your good work fixing the article. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your help. Can I simply delete the material from the my User Page now? I have learned a lot, and I am eager to continue working with Wikipedia. I have begun to assemble some more biographical material in anticipation of adding more pages of noteworthy people. I have appreciated working with you. If I can help you sometime (my area is psychology and biography) I would be happy to return the favour William Meyer 17:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:William Meyer/Haven Institute

Your page is now in main space - I discussed with the deleting admin who had no objections to my dispensing with the DRV. Congratulations on your good work fixing the article. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. Try WP:TALK#When_pages_get_too_long for guidence in what to do with your old talk page messages. Good luck. You know where to find me if you need any further help. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check it out ... thanks again. William Meyer 14:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Gomori

To: Spartaz Hi, it's William Meyer again, on another matter. I just created a page for Maria Gomori that was immediately marked for speedy deletion. I thought I had done my homework with the references, and was confident in putting it up. Indeed, I put up another page yesterday on Albert Trueman which went onto Wiki mainspace with no issue. Please have a look at the page for Maria Gomori and give me any suggestions about what I can do to fix it. She is indeed a noteworthy person ... but the editor seemed to question this. Thanks in advance William Meyer 18:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Its mareginal but you need to clearly state in the article why she is notable. Tighten that up and its, at worst, an afd. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To:Spartaz Thanks for your quick reply. I appreciate your suggestion. I have beefed up the text to show Maria Gomori's importance and notability. Is this enough to satisfy what you suggested? Do I simply wait patiently now for someone to adjudicate and (hopefully) remove the tag on the article? Or should I be more pro-active? Thanks for your advice. William Meyer 20:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took the tag off but generally you should wait for tagged articles to be reviewed by an admin. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To:Spartaz

Thank you! I appreciate your help. "I owe you one ...." (again).

Just for my information ... you said that I normally "should wait for tagged articles to be reviewed by admin" ... would this simply mean waiting and watching the page to see what happened? William Meyer 20:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The system is that user A reviews article and tags it. Author B is prohibited from removing the tag but may contest the speedy with hangon followed by explanation on the talk page. Admin C then comes along and reviews the tag and your comments. If they agree with the tag they delete the article. If they disagree they remove the tag and leave a message in the edit summery indicating whether afd is merited. You can read up on the creiteria at WP:CSD but I guess you mostly will have issues with notability - try to assert notability in the articles from the get go to prevent the speedy in the first place. Its not usual for a drive by editor to remove speedy tags and it might have been considered bad form for me to remove the tag because you asked me to review the article - it could have been seen as author removal by proxy. In this case, the speedy was marginal in the first place - the idea of notability was there even if not clearly stated and the tagger has a history (looking at their talk) of not thinking their tags through properly. By the time you had properly asserted notability the article was clearly not a speedy in any shape way or form so taking the tag off was a mercy to whoever is doing the backlog at csd. I wouldn't want to make a habit of it and I'm sure it won't be a problem again now you understand the importance of asserting notability. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very clear ... thanks for taking the time to spell this out. I have more tools in my belt now, thanks to you. Best wishes, William Meyer 22:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:JackSchwarz2.jpg

Unspecified source for Image:Jackloisschwarz.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jackloisschwarz.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 01:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:JackSchwarz2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 01:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:JackSchwarz3.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:JackSchwarz3.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 01:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:JackSchwarz1.jpg

Image:JockCross.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:JockCross.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 23:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added to Discussion page:

This image appears to be uploaded (by me) twice ... I recall that I had difficulty getting the image to "take" in the upload, which could explain why there seem to be two instances of this image and why it is "orphaned" ... this image is a useful addition to the text on this page Jock McKeen to illustrate the current dance project of Dr. McKeen .. so, I would like to have the image maintained for this Wikipedia page. Thank you. William Meyer 17:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No longer orphaned. howcheng {chat} 00:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything else to do? Or can the image now be allowed to stay? Please advise. Sincerely William Meyer 16:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Havenlogo.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Havenlogo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 23:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Satir images

Hi, I see you uploaded Image:VirginiaSatir.jpg, Image:VirginiaSatir1.jpg, Image:VirginiaSatir2.jpg, Image:VirginiaSatir3.jpg, and Image:VirginiaSatir4.jpg as {{PD-self}}, which means you are the creator (i.e. photographer) of all these images and release all rights to them. Is this the case? Since other languages' Wikipedias have articles on Virginia Satir, I'd like to move the images to Commons, but to do so I need to be sure that you actually have the authority to release these images into the public domain. Thanks! —An gr 13:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am the photographer for these images. Please feel free to move the images to Commons. William Meyer 17:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

just to be sure... did you make a photo of Virginia Satir directly (that would mean you saw the living Virgina Satir through your camera), or did you make a photo of a photo or an image (e.g. in a magazine)? If you didn't make the photo DIRECTLY you have no rights to publish these pictures - then please delete the pictures from wikipedia/commons --BambooBeast 18:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through the camera at Virginia ... William Meyer 23:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! its good to have a picture of Virgina now! --BambooBeast 07:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

Are you familiar with the citation method at Wikipedia? The article Death of Eugene Ejike Obiora is an example of a correctly referenced article - the only example I can think of right now. The general rules are at Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Also Wikipedia:Footnotes, although there seems to be some argument there, mostly I think about whether the reference note should go before or after the period in a sentence.

Additionally, the Arbitration Committee has ruled recently that any science-related (including Psychology) must follow this standard.

Proposed decision/Appropriate sources

All this means that, looking at your article, you have not referenced the article correctly. It takes a while to learn Wikipedia standards. It is important to remember that any editor can removed an unsourced statement from an article. The burden of proof in on the editor of the article to provide support for the validity of the statement. Perhaps you could get someone to collaborate with you and help out. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative effort anyway.

Regards, --Mattisse 18:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in looking at the article more closely, you are not writing it like an encyclopedia article but more like a personal essay. I should put other tags on it for that reason. I urge you to seek some help from other Wikipedians. Perhaps submitting your article to the Good Article review would give you a list of things to work on, Wikipedia:Good article candidates or ask someone from the Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors to help you. The latter may be the best way to go. They will help you and you can learn from them. Regards, --Mattisse 18:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate your suggestions. I will look into this, and decide which way to go to get help ... I want to learn about this so that my articles will have the quality that Wikipedia wants. William Meyer 04:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: Thank you for your suggestion to add the proper citations to this article. I have learned a great deal in this process, and appreciate your suggestion to improve the standard of this article. I will follow this protocol in all my future writings for Wiki.

I removed the "citations missing" tag from this article today, since I have completed the upgrading of the citations to Harvard referencing standard. William Meyer 21:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for Image:WongMcKeen7.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:WongMcKeen7.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 MifterBot. 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. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 21:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source/license for Image:BennetWong7.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BennetWong7.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 MifterBot. 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. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 21:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:WongMcKeen7.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:WongMcKeen7.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. 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 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 OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joann Peterson Cleanup Template - Request for Removal

To: Mattisse (talk) You tagged this page Feb 2008 for cleanup. I have done an extensive revision of it now, with inline citations. Can the Cleanup Template be removed from the page now? Thanks. William Meyer (talk) 20:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to understand what you have done in this article regarding the footnotes. They are not working as they are supposed to and they have no page numbers to reference. You must have page numbers for anything that has pages. If you have the page numbers for each reference, I can help you figure out the format.

Just as an example of how the reference style you have chosen to use is supposed to work, look at Albert Speer. If you click a footnote in the article, you immediately jump down to the footnote section and the citation to that footnotes with the page numbers. If you click the link with the page numbers, you immediately jump to the Bibliography where all the information for the book is listed.

Do you see what I mean? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt reply. I appreciate your willingness to help.

I guess I'm not as smart as I thought. I had understood that the Harvard Reference form would jump to the Reference in question (and it could be to either something in "References" or in "Publications", and if the reference had a page number, then it would show in the body of the text of the article (as in the first footnote Wong and McKeen ... the citation jumps to the Wong and McKeen document, and the page reference is in the body of the paragraph itself). But maybe I'm really off base, and I'm not using this properly. I had understood (it appears "I MIS-understood") that I could use either the form of the Speers article, or the form that I used. To pull my part of the load, I'll study up what I can so that I am an intelligent student of what you want to show me.

Anyway, I'll study this further and try to bring myself up to speed on what you are showing me. I'll start with the Harvard References page, and begin reading. Any suggestions about Wiki pages to study?

I'll get back to you when I have looked into this further. Thanks again ... your positive attitude comes through your words. William Meyer (talk) 23:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After I wrote the above, I discovered your helpful comments in my Talk Page. So, you have answered my question about where to look for information. I'll get to work. ~~

Almost! You need page numbers for anything that has pages. Also, you cannot use the subject of the article as a reference for herself, except for a quote from her book or something like that. Wikipedia goes by WP:V and WP:RS which requires reliable third party sources. So, for example, for this sentence cannot be reference by the article subject: "She taught seminars internationally, and was the first Director of Education at the Haven Institute."

So, for example, for the sentence, "She taught seminars internationally, and was the first Director of Education at the Haven Institute." Another example is the information under Contributions. For some of it you do have sources, but you cannot include the subject of the article as a source.

Also, you need to delink the dates and words like Spring, per Overlinking and underlinking. Feel free to ask me any questions.

Also, your footnotes don't quite work as expected. Take a look at the Harvard referencing in Albert Speer to see how they are supposed to work. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. See Wikipedia:Harvard citation template examples as it is essential that you use page numbers. See WP:Footnotes and WP:CITE. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from my talk page)

I have never used the Harvard style in an article I have written, and I know many editors would not even attempt it. By looking at articles that use it, I have confidence you can figure it out. Otherwise, Wikipedia:Citation templates offers two easily implemented styles: Citation and cite xxx. Many people prefer the Citation template. The Harvard is good for an article with lots of references to the same few books, but on different page numbers. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from my talk page)

Actually, I was looking at Wikipedia:Citation templates and it says at the top: "If there is a possibility that Harvard referencing will be used in the article in future, consider using the Citation templates (second row for each source) for additional linking functionality with Template:Harvard citation. This linking from cite to reference does not work with the other templates shown below."

Maybe your problem has something to do with that. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm .... I think I was kind of cavalier in how I used the templates .... I noticed I was mixing a reference for a book and one for a newspaper, but it seemed to work, so I let it go. Anyway, it looks like my design needs to have considerably more basic consistency than I had applied. I'm humbled by this ... I thought I knew what I was doing. William Meyer (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further ... I have re-read the Wikipedia:Citation templates after you pointed out the issue with Citation and future Harvard reference.

Do you think I can salvage what I have done in Harvard format by standardizing my Harvard references to the second row examples consistently. I would rather not start all over again ... I'd like to fix what I have. What do you think? Many thanks William Meyer (talk) 00:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from my talk page)

(outdent) In this Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Albert Speer, if you read down far enough, there is this discussion:

Comments: I believe there's something wrong with the Harvard referencing; the links in the citations do not seem to lead anywhere, when in fact they are supposed to link to the works under "Bibliography", yes? Also, per WP:DASH, dashes for page ranges in the citations need to be changed to en dashes. María (habla conmigo) 14:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just copied what was already in the article. Can someone point me in the right direction in fixing the refs? I'll fix the dashes after I fix the refs, just in case I totally have to redo the refs.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swapping the various {{cite web}} and {{cite book}} templates to {{citation}} seems to have solved the issue. - auburnpilot AuburnPilot

This leads me to think that you could salvage it as some of the books under publications are not using the citation template. Also, perhaps separating the References from the Publications has something to do with it. You do not have a list of clickable references as the Albert Speer article does. I tried putting {{reflist}} into your article, which usually generates the list of footnotes, but it didn't generate the list. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on this tonight and try to get some clarity on it. I can certainly fix the obvious problems right away ... overlinking, and the use of Peterson's own material. I'll get back to you. Thanks again. I'm eager to get this fixed .... William Meyer (talk) 02:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To: Mattisse (Talk)

Hello again. I have tried to be proactive and fix what I can.

I have removed the "overlinks" regarding dates, and I have removed any footnotes that refer to Peterson writings.

Also, I have tracked down page references for most of the footnotes.

There are no Peterson writings in the "References" section now.

Now it behaves the way I thought Harvard references would do ... click on the footnote reference, and the reader is jumped to the information about the source.

What do you suggest now? Thanks for your help William Meyer (talk) 04:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see the problem now. In Albert Speer, the editor has written the in-text references thus: <ref>{{Harvnb|van der Vat|1997|p=60.}}</ref>. He surrounds each one with <ref></ref> Whereas, you have written yous this way {{Harv |McNally|2002|p=2}}, If you format them with the <ref></ref> and add a footnotes section with {{reflist}} under it, it will work. I stuck them in the page and it works now! —Mattisse (Talk) 14:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed cleanup tag

I fixed a few things and removed the tag.

References always go after punctuation with no space
When there are more than one reference in a row, there are no commas.
In quote boxes, there are no quote marks or italic, unless they are contained in the original quote.

WP:MoS and its multiple subpages contain all the rules for wikipedia writing style. (They are sometimes difficult to understand, and maybe modified, so you have to check up on them.)

Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 14:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, thank you, thank you. I feel so relieved to having this put right. I am working on several other articles, and I can now use the detailed instructions and corrections you have provided to set the articles right from the beginning. I am grateful for your spirit of cooperation, and your dogged determination to get to the bottom of things. It has been a pleasure working with you. Best wishes. William Meyer (talk) 15:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:BennetWong7.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BennetWong7.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. 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 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 OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wong and McKeen Tone Cleanup Template

Sent to Cgingold

First of all, thank you for attaching this cleanup template to this article (August8, 2008). I have learned a great deal in working on the article to fit the criteria.

I have waited to contact you until I had completed much of the task. I have followed the related Wikipedia guides suggested by the Tone Cleanup template.

I believe the article now has a more appropriate tone and has been substantially improved. I would like to remove the Tone Cleanup Template from the top of the article now.

1. In your view, is it ready to have the Tone Cleanup Template removed? If you agree, I will do it.

2. Any other comments or suggestions?

Thanks. William Meyer (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note -- I'm glad to hear that the cleanup template evoked a constructive response on your part. I'm pretty busy right now, but as soon as I can free up some time I will take a look and let you know what I think. Cgingold (talk) 09:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your letting me know you received my note. I'll wait to hear from you William Meyer (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Wong and McKeen into Haven Institute

Sent to Sticky Parkin

You suggested merging these two articles. This is an interesting idea that I have contemplated in the past. When I first created both of these pages, I considered having only one entry, but I had difficulty in keeping what seemed like two topics clear of each other ... it seemed to be an excessively large sweep to try to include the Wong/McKeen development into the Haven Institute current state. As the the Wikipedia pages have developed, I can see how they could indeed be part of one entry now. However, I strongly recommend that this not be done for the following reasons:

1. Wong and McKeen have now retired from the Haven Institute, and have passed the ownership into a nonprofit charity (The Haven Foundation). So, as such, Wong and McKeen are now at "arms' length" from the Foundation and the Institute. There could be some possible confusion created by merging the two entries, implying that the Wong/McKeen collaboration is entirely within the scope of the Haven Institute. Wong & McKeen are "Emeritus Faculty" but are not part of the day-to-day operation or decision making of the Haven Institute or Foundation. The Haven Foundation/Institute functions on its own with its own Board of Directors. So, in many ways it makes sense to keep them separate. Wong and McKeen continue to be active on other fronts, with occasional input into the Haven Institute/Foundation.

2. The Haven Institute is only one of the contributions of the long association of Wong and McKeen, albeit a significant one. For example, their current work with Hua Wei University in China and Hua Wei Global Corporation worldwide is outside of the operation of the Haven Institute, and this chapter of their collaborative career is still unfolding.

3. Their books are being translated into other languages separate from the Haven Foundation, and they have been travelling and working in many other countries, but not on behalf of the Haven Institute.

So, in summary, I recommend against merging Wong/McKeen into the Haven Institute page on the grounds that they are now quite separate endeavours. They relate to each other, but one does not fall inside the other. I am interested in your responses to this.

William Meyer (talk) 06:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wong and McKeen both have their own articles so there's no need for an article on 'wong and mckeen'. You'll find nothing like that on wikipedia IMHO, unless it's a law firm or something. It's not encyclopedic in tone or nature. All of it can be covered in their own articles, or the haven one, and probably most of it already is. Sticky Parkin 14:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually,there is a similar situation with Simon and Garfunkel. There are separate articles for Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel and then a separate article for the duo. Indeed, I followed this prototype when I created these separate pages. In the Simon and Garfunkel situation, this works well to keep a clear distinction of their activities separately and together. Then, the parallel continues when Wikipedia deals with the creative contribution of the duo of Simon & Garfunkel. There is a separate page for the Simon & Garfunkel discography, which points to a "Main Article" on a separate Wikipedia page Simon & Garfunkel discography.IMHO, this works very well indeed.

Wong and McKeen is a unique duo, in much the same way Simon and Garfunkel is unique. The Wong/McKeen teamwork crosses the borders between art, science, and philosophy. If their work were simply subsumed into the container of one of their contributions, this wider significance could easily be missed.

If the main reason for considering merging is "duplication" or "overlap" I believe this can be handled with some clear and sharp editing, which I would propose to undertake. As an initial action, I would propose to remove almost all of the section from the Wong and McKeen article entitled "The Haven Institute" .... this is adequately covered in the Haven Institute article and should not be duplicated.

I want to deal with this respectfully and cooperatively. Will you give me the chance to clear up the duplication and edit it as I propose, and continue this dialogue? Sincerely, William Meyer (talk) 15:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simon and Garfunkel were a well known band or duo, these aren't. If you see how often this phrase is mentioned, you'll see they are not notable independently of their own articles, which already exist.[1] compare to simon and garfunkel [2] They're mentioned 10,000 times more, and about 5000 times more in newspapers [3] [4] so you can see it's not at all comparable. Let's turn the question around. I'll see what is not already mentioned in the other articles. That way we can see how much this article is needed.:) Oh and the pic, I would love it to be changed, it's just cheesy, but that's my personal preference and I have no other reason for it.:) Sticky Parkin 17:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Wong & McKeen are not comparable in terms of sheer numbers. But the structure of the articles is surely what is at issue. They are well known (although not superstars) and the references that are cited in the Wong and McKeen page prove they are notable; if you follow the list of references, the topics covered in these media articles are on many topics, not just what they have written ... and they are third-party. Indeed in the WM article, the references are from independent news and reference sources for the most part. Even though your Google search does not come up with a lot of "hits", The Alan Thicke show [Alan Thicke Show Archives] shows that they have been well known for decades.

I get your spirit of cooperation in your willingness to see what is not mentioned in the other articles to determine how much this article is needed. I appreciate your willingness to investigate like this.

In the meantime, it is clear to me that the mention of the Haven Institute in the WM article is a duplication, and I will deal with this forthwith.

I will await your reply. William Meyer (talk) 17:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Wong and McKeen

I have nominated Wong and McKeen, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wong and McKeen. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wong and McKeen - Another wrinkle - AfD nomination

Sent to Sticky Parkin

This article has now been marked for deletion by another editor, during the course of our dialoguing about what to do.

This is the note from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wong_and_McKeen

I have nominated Wong and McKeen, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wong and McKeen. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replied:

The timing for this nomination for deletion is quite timely. I am in dialogue with another editor concerning this article ... who proposed that the article be merged with Haven Institute.

This dialogue is on the Talk page for Haven Institute. I will copy it here so that others can see how this has been developing.

MY PROPOSAL: I would like to work cooperatively to edit this article so that it meets the Wikipedia standards that are eluding me. William Meyer (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to deal with Wong and McKeen

To User_talk:TenPoundHammer:

The timing for this nomination for deletion is quite timely. I am in dialogue with another editor concerning this article ... who proposed that the article be merged with Haven Institute. I see that this editor has contacted you.

This dialogue is on the Talk page for Haven Institute.

MY PROPOSAL: I would like to work cooperatively to edit this article so that it meets the Wikipedia standards that are eluding me. William Meyer (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Sticky Parkin:

I would like to continue to work with you to make the decisions about merge and/or edit before the deletion process takes place. How do we accomplish this? William Meyer (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete is unencyclopedic and unnecessary due to their individual articles and separate article about the Haven Institute that they founded. Not notable as a collective entity. Plus the pic is painful. Sorry WM.:) Sticky Parkin 20:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wong and McKeen Decisions

To Sticky Parkin: You wrote: delete is unencyclopedic and unnecessary due to their individual articles and separate article about the Haven Institute that they founded. Not notable as a collective entity. Plus the pic is painful. Sorry WM.:) Sticky

I yield ... you are intent upon deleting this page. I will not resist this further.

Will you put a redirect so that other links to Wong and McKeen will be redirected to Haven Institute? Please advise. William Meyer (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just underdid the other couple of links and put "Bennet Wong and Jock McKeen instead, so it should be fine.:) Sticky Parkin 21:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wong and McKeen Major Editing Completed

I have completed a major editing of the this article to respond to the criticisms from the editors, who are discussing deletion or merging of this article.

I believe I have addressed the criticisms of the different editors who have written about this article, and request that this article be retained, or merged with the Haven Institute article. William Meyer (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page was deleted Nov 10, 2008

This page has been deleted. The deletion log for the page is provided below for reference.

   * 01:40, 11 November 2008 MBisanz (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wong and McKeen" ‎ (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wong and McKeen)
   * 17:17, 19 February 2007 Tom harrison (Talk | contribs) restored "Wong and McKeen" ‎ (6 revisions restored)
   * 14:09, 19 February 2007 Tom harrison (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wong and McKeen" ‎ (promotional; no assertion of notability)

License tagging for Image:BennetWong8.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BennetWong8.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 06:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced with the proper tag William Meyer (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haven Institute Merge Tag

To Sticky Parkin: The Wong and McKeen page has now been deleted. The "merge" tag is still on the Haven Institute page. Can I remove this tag? Or do you want to do it? William Meyer (talk) 03:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed it. What are you going to work on next? Hope you stick around.:) My first article was deleted too. Sticky Parkin 03:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt reply, and for your encouragement. I'm not sure what I will work on next ... I see lots of pages that need tweaks, and I'll concentrate on that for a while. William Meyer (talk) 05:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Refining Articles for Bennet Wong and Jock McKeen

I am not convinced that either of them is notable, and I fear the articles might well not hold at at AfD. Would you consider trimming them down to size according to our usual criteria? McKeen's ballet dancing is not encyclopedic material until he gives public performances that are reviewed, and a list of journal articles and book chapters is not usually considered appropriate content. I am planning to ask the opinion of the community, and it would help you to strengthen the articles as much as possible by eliminating things like this. The multiple press notices from local papers does not strike me as substantial independent content--is anything among there actually of significance? Have any of their books been published by a major publisher? How many of the articles are in peer reviewed journals? How many people have cited them? I want to give them a chance, and this sort of material will not make a good impression. DGG (talk) 02:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your fair-toned note. Of course I will be happy to trim the articles on both people. My goal is to have them in Wikipedia, and I don't want my inexperience or ineptitude to be in the way of this goal.

I will remove the dancing material as you suggested, as well as other items that fall into similar category

I will also reduce the Publications List to feature the most significant

You mention "trimming them down to size according to our usual criteria" ... can you recommend an article or two in Wikipedia that fall within this guideline of "usual criteria" so that I can use them as a guide in my trimming?

I will get to this today ... any further suggestions greatly appreciated William Meyer (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our formal guidelines are at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies), which dont don't help that much for the matters here, but in practice our criteria are best seen by our practice in similar articles--otherwise worded as what would people expect to find in an encyclopedia like ours. for example, looking at McKeen first, they typically want not every award, but only the major ones, and Boards of director and the like are only indicative of important if major organisations, and even then not much , unless something like Chairman or president. As some matters of style, adjust the references so they show the title and publication details, according to WP:CITE, enter translations of his work following the individual work translated, just saying also translated into _ and _ , and material such as "therapist in private practice" gets mentioned as text, not listed in a formal fashion in cv. Tryto get a little more of it into prose format. Can you how that McKeen is actually notable as an acupuncturist? I'll look at them all in a few days. The way I informally think of it, suppose I asked you, tell me what he's done--as conversation, not a grant application. DGG (talk) 03:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these suggestions. They are very helpful.

I am at work on both articles to incorporate your recommendations. I am in the process of switching from the Harvard notation system to the WP:CITE style; this is in process and will take a day or two.

If you have a moment, please glance at the article for Jock McKeen which has had most attention at this point. Am I on the right track? I want to do this properly. In particular, is Footnote #2 in the style you want? Thanks. William Meyer (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been adding my comments as I go to the same subsection on your Talk Page ... is this the style you prefer? Or would you like a new note at the bottom of your page each time I communicate?

I have worked on the Haven Institute article, and I believe I have the footnotes as you suggested now. I am still working on the Jock McKeen article and the Bennet Wong article, but I think I'm getting closer to what you suggested. I hope to have the articles presentable by the end of the day on November 18. William Meyer (talk) 06:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

see talk p. on McKeen, and on Haven Institute. There is no deadline, as long as you are making progress, You can let me know here when to look.DGG (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

status for Haven Institute

1. The refs are ok , except for needing links to any online version that may be available.

... DONE William Meyer (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Is the institute accredited to give the degree it gives, and if so by whom? If not specifically accredited, is the degree accepted? I do not know if BC accredits specific degree programs.

Terminology ... in B.C., it is not "accredited" but "registered" ... see the new section "Institutional Registration and Credits"

3. It might be better to mention only the visitors who have articles in Wikipedia so readers realise they are notable.

... DONE William Meyer (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. try to give numbers rather than the word "many"

.... DONE William Meyer (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5. It would be very good to try to find some refs in national publications,, not just the local ones.

... IN PROCESS I am researching this, but so far, I have not found a national publication listing William Meyer (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check back in a week. DGG (talk) 09:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improving Bennet Wong, Jock McKeen and Haven Institute

To: DGG (talk)

I have given close attention to all three articles now, to address each item you suggested to improve these articles.
I believe the only recommendation I have not fulfilled is to find a national newspaper reference. I still am coming up dry on this; however, I will continue my search.
Have I satisfactorily addressed the issues you outlined?
Do you have further recommendations to improve the articles?
What is next?
Please note the trailer on the Haven article regarding "Category:Items to be merged" and "Category:Articles to be merged{{#if:"... I think it is a partially removed tag ... but I have left it, not knowing if it should be there or not. Should this be there?
I look forward to your feedback. Thanks. William Meyer (talk) 00:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: MCKEEN

as for this article, I'd suggest cutting back or eliminating the section on student achievements. For academic people, we usually just give the name of their undergraduate college & the date of their degree, and similarly for medical school. In this case, as there's some relation to his later career, perhaps one or two short sentences. The details are presumably in his posted CV. DGG (talk) 03:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have cut the section on student achievements as you suggested. Do you have further recommendations for this article or for Bennet Wong or Haven Institute? I appreciate your help. William Meyer (talk) 22:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: WONG

too much description of the general medical and social background.

I have by doubt about the reliability of any publications from Phoenix Centre Press or Science and Behavior Books, And the Fewster book is in almost no WorldCat libraries, so i wonder also about its reliability when used for evaluative comments.

The problem is going to be reliance upon self-description, about local sources which tend to express a Public Relations attitude to local institutions, and books written with a similarly promotional purpose. I would feel much more confident about the article if there were some national or internationally known sources. Doctors with a local reputation only are unlikely to be notable. e.g., was he known a the "hippie doctor" only around Vancouver? Even if he was very prominent there, there should be some source from outside the area that recognizes it..

Some of the notability is vague: eg., "consulted for", doesnt mean very much unless one knows the scope of the consultation. The BC Atty General presumably has hired hundreds or if not thousands of consultant over the years. similarly with addressing " teachers' conferences, schools and parent/teacher associations." Or "Lapierre credited Wong with helping him to discover his authentic nature." If he can be shown to be the main influence, there might be reason to include it. similarly, we usually don't mention mere memberships on Boards of Directors in an article, certainly not of local corporations.

There's circularity-- Wong & McKeen are notable for founding Haven. Haven is notable because W & McK worked there. You've got to find something from outside the circle. The critical article here is probably the one on the Insitute. I'll get to it in a few days.

And get full inclusive page numbers for all publications, because a medical article of 1 page is almost always a mere case report or letter to the editor.

DGG (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing Comments re: Bennet Wong

To: DGG (talk)

Thanks for your detailed response about the Bennet Wong article. I have taken your comments into consideration and worked on both the Wong article, and the Jock McKeen article.

too much description of the general medical and social background.

I have cut this down ... have I gone far enough?

I have by doubt about the reliability of any publications from Phoenix Centre Press or Science and Behavior Books, And the Fewster book is in almost no WorldCat libraries, so i wonder also about its reliability when used for evaluative comments.

I understand ... the Fewster has a lot of information about the men, so I hope I can keep this. As for the Phoenix Centre Press or Science and Behavior Books, should I simply remove these references?

The problem is going to be reliance upon self-description, about local sources which tend to express a Public Relations attitude to local institutions, and books written with a similarly promotional purpose. I would feel much more confident about the article if there were some national or internationally known sources.

This has turned out to be difficult. They have been noted in local newspapers on the Canadian Press wire service a number of times, which has resulted in a lot of local papers reporting about them; for example, when they were keynote speakers at the 25th Anniversary meeting of the College of Family Physicians of Canada, there were reports from papers in five provinces (which I can provide). However, there was no national newspaper that carried the story. The meeting was in Ottawa, and the Ottawa Citizen carried the story, with reports across the Canadian wire service in many provinces.

I do have one national source ... footnote 10 in Wong's article is for an article in The Medical Post, which is described as "A national, weekly tabloid newspaper serving Canadian physicians, featuring a mix of clinical and political news, opinions and feature articles written for and by doctors. (The Medical Post is a trade publication, and is not sold on newsstands.) The Medical Post, 777 Bay Street, 5th Floor, Toronto, Ontario M5W 1A7 Canada. P(416)596-5000. F(416)593-3177. Email: medpost at rmpublishing.com. Website: http://www.medicalpost.com. Joe McAllister, News Editor; Colin Leslie, Features/Opinions Editor. 40% freelance. " This article reported when Wong and McKeen were keynote speakers at the 100th Anniversary of the University of Manitoba Medical School.

Also, I think the South China Morning Post is a national newspaper in China/Hong Kong (footnote 8 .. McKeen)

But neither is the Washington Post or NY Times to be sure ....

Doctors with a local reputation only are unlikely to be notable. e.g., was he known a the "hippie doctor" only around Vancouver? Even if he was very prominent there, there should be some source from outside the area that recognizes it..

I could not find a source to confirm a broader picture ... although he was hosting a national CBC-TV program on youth at that time, and I expect that there were mentions of him on the wire service. I have simply failed to find something to corroborate this, except for Fewster's book, which you question. So, I have removed the reference.

Some of the notability is vague: eg., "consulted for", doesnt mean very much unless one knows the scope of the consultation. The BC Atty General presumably has hired hundreds or if not thousands of consultant over the years. similarly with addressing " teachers' conferences, schools and parent/teacher associations." Or "Lapierre credited Wong with helping him to discover his authentic nature." If he can be shown to be the main influence, there might be reason to include it.

I have simply removed these items.

similarly, we usually don't mention mere memberships on Boards of Directors in an article, certainly not of local corporations.

I have left the reference to Wong's work on the Board of Directors of Moffat Communications for now, because it grew increasingly into a bigger, broader company before it was sold. Although it originally was a family business with a local focus, it grew into a much larger entity owning the Winnipeg Jets NHL hockey team, and having operations in Texas and Florida, and beginning a significant television network, WTN. Anyway, if you still think this is not relevant, I'll remove the reference to his 25 years on Moffat board.

Wong's longstanding board membership with Moffat was not for business acumen, but in recognition of his understanding of people and their needs. The company was exemplary in how they dealt with their employees as people. I want to get this across in the encyclopedic way ... humanistic approaches in business. This is a vision of corporate culture that Wong has championed. Instead of a cold remote view, this company had heart. It was a kind of "corporate medicine."

There's circularity-- Wong & McKeen are notable for founding Haven. Haven is notable because W & McK worked there. You've got to find something from outside the circle.

I see what you mean ....

What is "outside the circle", I believe, is the work with east-west (especially for McKeen), their crosscultural work (medically, socially and politically) and working with businesses to bring their medical/psychological approaches into the business realm.

Part of my dilemma is that much of what they have done in recent years is outside of the reporting of the media, and outside of North America. Their work with business (Wong with Moffat and both with Hua Wei) are not reported in the general press, with the exception of short reports.

And the work they have done in China has been mostly reported in the Chinese language press (and I don't read or write Chinese, so this is inaccessible to me). The work they have done in meetings with Chinese government officials has not been reported in the English press ... but it has been considerable. They have met with the Chinese ambassadors to these countries : Cuba, Brazil, Ukraine, Emirates, Jordan, and Kenya (the meetings were in the countries in question).

I have a photograph I took of Wong and McKeen with former Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing at a private dinner meeting in Beijing, which was by his personal invitation to them. He was still in office. Does such a photograph fall outside of the encyclopedic notability ... or should I consider including this photograph as part of Wong/McKeen's article(s)?

Whatever was written in the media on this visit was published in the Chinese media. I know of websites with articles about their presentations in Beijing on one of these trips ... but again, only in Chinese.I also have photographs of these men with a number of the Chinese ambassadors I mentioned above. Is any of this relevant to getting "outside the circle"?

They have been involved in the humanistic training of over 2000 Hua Wei managers and executives in seminars in many of the countries where Hua Wei operates, in such different places as Moscow and Lima, Peru. Hua Wei is huge .... 83,000 employees in over 110 countries.

These guys have been at work on a number of fronts, and I want to find a way to show how significant they are. I hope they don't simply fall outside of the purview of the encyclopedic realm.

The critical article here is probably the one on the Insitute. I'll get to it in a few days.

DGG (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay ... I really appreciate your patience in helping me as I learn my way into this.

And get full inclusive page numbers for all publications, because a medical article of 1 page is almost always a mere case report or letter to the editor.

I now have this information. I have purposely only included "Selected Articles" for the men ... there are more of similar quality ... but I gather this would be excessive.

I look forward to your comments so that I can take the next iteration of improving this article. William Meyer (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: File:BennetWong8.jpg Proposed Deletion

commons:File:BennetWong8.jpg has been nominated for deletion. Regards. --GaAs (d) 10:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I gather this is because there is a watermarked acknowledgment of the photographer, Sam Mak. Sam took the photograph, and gave it to me to be used as I wished. I uploaded it to Commons after putting the watermark with Sam Mak's name on it. I have the original photograph without the watermark. Will it be acceptable if I upload the version without the watermark (which I own, since the photographer gave it to me). Will this work? Thanks. William Meyer (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I received no reply from GaAs who proposed the file BennetWong8.jpg for deletion and there are no other postings on the page in Wiki Commons concerning BennetWong8.jpg. So, I have cropped the file to remove the watermark, and uploaded it as BennetWong9.jpg. I trust that this is all in order now.William Meyer (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It would be better if you explained that at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:BennetWong8.jpg. Not in the image description ! --GaAs (d) 14:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moving it .... I have made my comments there where you moved the information William Meyer (talk) 23:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:BennetWong9.jpg will be OK, when the OTRS-mail is checked The other file (BennetWong8.jpg) has been Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: File:BennetWong9.jpg File Tagging

to use in Wikipedia is not a sufficient permission. Permission must be given so that everyone, at any time, anywhere, can reuse the image for any purpose including commercial reuse, redistribution or modification. Written permission from the copyright holder is required and hereby requested. --Martin H. (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice. I have done as you suggested. Sam Mak has sent the appropriate email to Wikipedia Commons.William Meyer (talk) 23:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:BennetWong9.jpg will be OK, when the OTRS-mail is checked The other file (BennetWong8.jpg) has been Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:BennetWong9.jpg was removed Oct 2010 ... it seems that Sam Mak's email did not make it properly to Wikipedia CommonsWilliam Meyer (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:JockCross.JPG

A tag has been placed on File:JockCross.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Tim 1357 ^talk 20:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Bennet Wong and Jock McKeen

To: DGG (talk) Season's Greetings. Thank you for your attention to these articles. I can see how they are both much improved by your edits. Is there anything else you would recommend that I do to improve these articles at this point? William Meyer (talk) 21:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improving Haven Institute

To: DGG (talk) I have followed your suggestions for the Haven Institute article. When you have time, please look to see if this article can be improved more. Please note the trailer on the Haven article regarding "Category:Items to be merged" and "Category:Articles to be merged{{#if:"... I think it is a partially removed tag ... but I have left it, not knowing if it should be there or not. Should this be there? Thanks. William Meyer (talk) 19:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Schwarz

Hi. After quite a few years now as a contributor to, and user of, Wikipedia, I decided to plug in the name Jack Schwarz. I participated a seminar of several days with him, in Vancouver many years ago. Anyhow, I enjoyed and learned from your article about Jack. Did you know him? If interested to communicate about Jack, use the e-mail link on my user page... or leave a note for me on the "discussion" page at my user page.Joel Russ (talk) 05:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I met him only a few times with Bennet Wong and Jock McKeen. Ben and Jock had a warm relationship with him, and I was with them at conferences on a couple of occasions where I witnessed Jack's respect for them, and their enjoyment of him. He was an old-world European gentleman with a very open mind. I liked him a lot. William Meyer (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Bugental

Hi William Meyer,
as your image File:JimBugental1.jpg has been copied to Commons, I would like to know whether you shot it by yourself (if not, then who?) and the time (year) when it was shot. --Túrelio (talk) 10:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I shot the photo myself about 1998. William Meyer (talk) 17:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:IanMcWhinney.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I HAVE UPLOADED ANOTHER PHOTO TO COMMONS WITH NO RESTRICTIONS ... MY OWN WORK William Meyer (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:JoannPeterson.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:JoannPeterson.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This photograph is not associated with any page ... I will let it go to deletionWilliam Meyer (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:HavenLogo2.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:HavenLogo2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:VirginiaSatir3.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:VirginiaSatir3.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:JockDance.JPG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:JockDance.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:MariaGomori3.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:MariaGomori3.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:VirginiaSatir2.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:VirginiaSatir2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:VirginiaSatir1.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:VirginiaSatir1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Barr-murray2.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Barr-murray2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:JRWorsley.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:JRWorsley.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Barr-murray.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Barr-murray.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:MariaGomori.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:MariaGomori.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:AWTrueman2.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:AWTrueman2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:AWTrueman.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:AWTrueman.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:JockHeather8.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:JockHeather8.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:McKeen&Wong.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:HavenTotem.JPG

Thank you for uploading File:HavenTotem.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:HavenOceanview.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:HavenOceanview.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Havenlogo.gif listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Havenlogo.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:HavenLogo1.jpg needs authorship information

Dear uploader:

The media file you uploaded as File:HavenLogo1.jpg appears to be missing information as to its authorship (and or source), or if you did provide such information, it is confusing for others trying to make use of the image.

It would be appreciated if you would consider updating the file description page, to make the authorship of the media clearer.

Although some images may not need author information in obvious cases, (such where an applicable source is provided), authorship information aids users of the image, and helps ensure that appropriate credit is given (a requirement of some licenses).

If you created this media yourself, please consider explicitly including your user name, for which: {{subst:usernameexpand|William Meyer/Archive1}} will produce an appropriate expansion,
or use the {{own}} template.

If this is an old image, for which the authorship is unknown or impossible to determine, please indicate this on the file description page.

If you have any questions please see Help:File page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the media file to release it to free use. William Meyer (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia

Deletion of Two Pages in Process

RE: Deletion of Jock McKeen Page

March 2007

Haven InstituteDeletion

Re:Haven InstituteREASON FOR REQUEST TO UNDELETE

from Talk:Haven Institute

User:William Meyer/Haven Institute

Reply to Spartaz

Reply to Humbug

To Humbug re: William Meyer/Haven Institute

To --Spartaz Humbug!

To --Spartaz Humbug!-- References Enhanced and Updated

DRV

User:William Meyer/Haven Institute

Maria Gomori

Unspecified source for Image:JackSchwarz2.jpg

Unspecified source for Image:Jackloisschwarz.jpg

Unspecified source for Image:JackSchwarz3.jpg

Unspecified source for Image:JackSchwarz1.jpg

Image:JockCross.JPG listed for deletion

Image:Havenlogo.jpg listed for deletion

Virginia Satir images

Citations

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for Image:WongMcKeen7.jpg

Unspecified source/license for Image:BennetWong7.jpg

Image copyright problem with Image:WongMcKeen7.jpg

Joann Peterson Cleanup Template - Request for Removal

Removed cleanup tag

Image copyright problem with Image:BennetWong7.jpg

Wong and McKeen Tone Cleanup Template

Merging Wong and McKeen into Haven Institute

AfD nomination of Wong and McKeen

Wong and McKeen - Another wrinkle - AfD nomination

Proposal to deal with Wong and McKeen

Wong and McKeen Decisions

Wong and McKeen Major Editing Completed

License tagging for Image:BennetWong8.jpg

Haven Institute Merge Tag

Refining Articles for Bennet Wong and Jock McKeen

status for Haven Institute

Improving Bennet Wong, Jock McKeen and Haven Institute

Addressing Comments re: Bennet Wong

Re: File:BennetWong8.jpg Proposed Deletion

Re: File:BennetWong9.jpg File Tagging

Speedy deletion nomination of File:JockCross.JPG

Review of Bennet Wong and Jock McKeen

Improving Haven Institute

Jack Schwarz

Jim Bugental

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

File permission problem with File:IanMcWhinney.jpg

File source problem with File:JoannPeterson.jpg

File:HavenLogo2.jpg listed for deletion

File source problem with File:VirginiaSatir3.jpg

File:JockDance.JPG listed for deletion

File source problem with File:MariaGomori3.jpg

File:VirginiaSatir2.jpg listed for deletion

File:VirginiaSatir1.jpg listed for deletion

File source problem with File:Barr-murray2.jpg

File:JRWorsley.jpg listed for deletion

File source problem with File:Barr-murray.jpg

File:MariaGomori.jpg listed for deletion

File source problem with File:AWTrueman2.jpg

File source problem with File:AWTrueman.jpg

File:JockHeather8.jpg listed for deletion

File permission problem with File:McKeen&Wong.jpg

File source problem with File:HavenTotem.JPG

File source problem with File:HavenOceanview.jpg

File:Havenlogo.gif listed for deletion

File:HavenLogo1.jpg needs authorship information

To --Spartaz ^Humbug!

To --Spartaz ^Humbug!-- References Enhanced and Updated