User talk:Adebter

National Association of Scholars[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of National Association of Scholars, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.nas.org/nas.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that just citing where the information came from is not enough to satisfy copyright law, if the text was copied directly from a copyrighted web site. The National Association of Scholars ought to have an article on Wikipedia (in my opinion) but it has to be written in our editors' own words, not taken from a copyrighted web site. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Stevebalch.jpg[edit]

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Stevebalch.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Peterwood.jpg[edit]

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Peterwood.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 19:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NAS page[edit]

Is there a way to retrieve the information from the NAS page and still use it without starting over from scratch? Can NAS donate material to Wikipedia to avoid copyright infringement?

That content is so blatantly partisan that I'd advise you to discard it and start over in your own words (properly sourced, of course). The present version is an advertisement for the NAS. A case can be made for the notability of the group, whatever we may think of them; but the present version is just an ad. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some changes to the page - is it ok now, or does it still read like an advertisement? If it does, which parts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adebter (talk • contribs)

Still does. The unquestioning quotes of their alleged ideals, etc. -- that's all advertisement. What actual ideological stances have they taken? What has been their role in the Culture Wars within U.S. academia? Where are the cites to books, magazines and newspapers that have been written about them? How do their critics describe them? This uncritical entry would never pass in a peer-reviewed journal. (And what on Earth is the justification for that painting at the top? Do they advocate hemlock for scholars who subvert the dominant paradigm?) --Orange Mike | Talk 17:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contributing copyrighted content to Wikipedia[edit]

Regarding your question on my talk page about the National Association of Scholars, if you are a copyright holder who wants to give Wikipedia a license to use copyrighted material, please see the instructions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Thanks for your interest. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I did look at those instructions but was still unclear as to what to do. I decided not to donate material, and instead to write an orininal article. --Adebter (talk) 14:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

Could you please put some effort into improving the citations presently in the article? As an example: compare the citation you gave for the NAS' denial of the "conservative" label, to the one I just crafted. The first cite was certainly better than nothing, and I commend you for it; but the second is much more useful, in my arrogant opinion. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A raw link to a Googlebooks result is not suitable as a footnote in a scholarly publication; neither should it be considered satisfactory here. Use APA, Turabian, or whatever; but cite the source, not just a URL. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your humble advice, Orangemike. I trust that the changes I've made and their corresponding citations are sufficient. --Adebter (talk) 14:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:TheAcademy1.jpg[edit]

Image Copyright problem

Hi Adebter!
We thank you for uploading Image:TheAcademy1.jpg, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on National Association of Scholars. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

Are you planning to discuss this latest revert, by for example addressing the list of concerns I left on the talk page? Please do. I will note that given your apparent conflict of interest in editing this page, you may wish to look at Wikipedia's related guideline as well. The gist of it is that you are not forbidden to edit the page by any means, but you should be doubly careful to ensure that you are not confusing Wikipedia with a venue for advocacy or promotion. MastCell ^Talk 21:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NAS Proposal[edit]

A few days ago I was surprised by rather strident opposition when I tried to change one sentence of the National Association of Scholars article. Such a vociferous reaction led me to more carefully review the article, and I realized it had more issues than what first caught my eye. At this point it seems like you would be an appropriate party to the conversation, if you're interested. I've proposed some edits that I think would improve the page. See if you have any comment. 129.49.7.125 (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely BARNSTAR Time[edit]

Know all ye by these presents that Adebter has been duly awarded:

		The Civility Barnstar
		Bequeathed upon one Adebter for admirable forbearance in the face of an onslaught of high-handed tag-teaming. 129.49.250.90 (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that's not all...

		The Resilient Barnstar
		Adjudicated to one Adebter for the steely backbone of a newbie in the face of inhospitable hosts. 129.49.250.90 (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, last but not least...

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Gladly accorded to one Adebter for good-faith engagement of due-diligence and untiring scholarship in the name of a fair article on a perfectly reasonable subject of interest. 129.49.250.90 (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After my own, fleeting foray into the besieged Wikipedia article known as National Association of Scholars,

I note that new user Adebter has worthily weathered withering assault by POV bullies far more experienced with Wikipedia. Indeed, one aggressor even wields Adminship, plundering an article to propound a particular negative opinion. It is a transparent cloak of pseudoneutrality. Yet I see that Adebter patiently carries on, undaunted, to politely defend said page against an ever-lengthening list of egregious, unduely weighted negative edits and other infractions. Hooray for resilience!

Battle fronts elsewhere demand that I shift my focus away from that mele. I am impressed by your fair treatment of the article's subject in spite of the way it has suffered under the yoke of relentless detractors, faux centrists, hatchet toting Fair and Balanced foxes. I encourage you to look up the true Wikipedia basis for every deletion, insertion, and haughty assertion that you encounter at the hands of any shifty shortchangers who should wish to spin the page. Be BOLD, and don't be discouraged by unethical POV editors, no matter how much more experience (and, strangely, time) they may have. 129.49.250.90 (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]