User talk:Hotcop2/Archive 1

Hotcop2 Archives

Archive 1

Hi My name is Lucy, I wanted to let you know of a correction the the May Pang Page but cannot access the discussion as it is locked.

According to May Pang's book, John and May lived in TOGETHER LA as follows

Sept 1973 Oct 1973 Nov 1973 Dec 1973 Jan 1974 Feb 1974 March 1974 April 1974

8 months in LA together in May 1974 John returned to NY alone and left May in LA for 4 weeks.

From June 1974, through January 1975 they lived in NY 8 months in NY

This is in May pangs book, I can provide the pages numbers when I get home, I am at work now.

May pang states at least 6 instances of Lennon being drunk and violent, not just the two widely publicised ones. Again I can provide the page numbers her book states this in. Additionally, May cites 4 accounts of John running off with other women that suggest he enagaged in some form of sexual activity.

I am writing here to let you know of these errors as with the war going on over this page I do not want to edit anything and be accused of vandelism. I am letting you as a moderator know of this so that the page can be accurate and factual.

If you would like to, you may email me at LucyLennon4me@yahoo.com if posting these corrections on your page is in any way a rule breaker. I want to be helpful.

May Pang removal

I do not think you want to push for the inclusion of unsourced info in either the May Pang or the John Lennon articles. I have responded on both pages, offering you direction if you wish to bring the matter up to either the good folk at WP:BLP or an admin noticeboard. I would only ask that if you choose to go the latter route, you inform me upon doing so, as I don't typically watchlist that page, and would like the opportunity to respond - if it even becomes necessary to do so. Before you take that step, I urge you to confer with an admin familiar with the policies, and get their feedback. I am not trying to stick it to you, bud. I won't allow anyone to add uncitable cruft into an article whose provenance is shaky at best.
Let me know if I can be of any further assistance to expanding your wiki knowledge base. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, as per your email, I am responding here, as it might assist others in understanding what sort of stringent citations are necessary for a BLP. The Larry Kane book, Lennon Revealed is prefaced by the author himself, in a nod to the idea that his recollections may not be pure or accurate:

"My reporting of Lennon and his adult life will no doubt vary from others," Kane aptly notes, "but it is mine." (1)

By his own words, he has removed himself from being consdered reliable. With that, we are forced to look at the references he provides in his book. By following those citations, we can certainly cite at least some of the statements made in his book (avoind those endnotes that recount a personal discussion that cannot be verified). What we are looking for here are newspaper articles, interviews and the like.
And to reiterate on this end, while the only person disparaged int he article is May Pang, it is - by Wikipedia's strictly enforced policies - one person too many. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere Man

"He's as blind as he can be, just sees what he wants to see, isn't he a bit like you"

Larry Kane isn't removing himself from being reliable. As one of the few biographers he actually knew him, he's saying that his unique insider's status differs from other biographers, which it does. Hotcop2 13:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I realize that you are new to Wikipedia and all, but please follow the idea that your responses shouldn't be the beginning of a new subject, but instead should follow the natural pattern of a conversation. Jeez, if you don't know these things, you can save ypurself a lot of time and embarrassment and just ask.

I am not saying that Larry Kane doesn't offer a unique perspective. Citations from him are to be considered noteworthy, but not exclusive. I am just pointing out that he himnself notes that his perspective might be skewed by his proximity to the subject. I also pointed out that seeking other perspectives is not only the intelligent thing to do, it is required by wikipedia policy.

Lastly, the actual line from the song is:

"He's as blind as he can be, just sees what he wants to see, isn't he a bit like you and me."

I can see why you chose to avoid including it. Nowhere Man, indeed. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Now you're disparaging Larry Kane

Hotcop2 13:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No, disparaging would be like calling you an ass clown for not being able to see reason enough to create a better article about Lennon and Pang. Since I am not really into disparagement, I wouldn't say that. I feel that Larry Kane cannot be the only source you use, for the reasons noted above and before on other pages. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

POV

I used other sources, all of which you deem unacceptable. Larry Kane, the most recent, is the only biographer to really explore this period and is the only person who has ever had both Yoko Ono and May Pang talk about it. By the way, Ms. Pang's autobiography, Loving John, was her memoire. For you to decide it's an incredulous "tell-all" is pretty opinionated for this venue (not that I believe it's you who thinks that way). Finally, the instamatickarma site is up. the "coming soon" refers to the book, not the website. 18:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, I see you aren't really one of those folk who learn things quickly, or take criticism well (referring to your rather incorrect method of thinking your responses within a single conversation deserve their very own new subject header). Because of that, this is probably going to be my last post to your User Talk page, barring some grand display of ineptness on your part (which I actually hope isn't forthcoming).

I am not sure what sources you supplied, but if they were from IMDB or some fanblog or whatnot, then no, I wouldn't have accepted them. Perhaps you should bring these "sources" to the discussion area. As for Pang's book, most autobiographies are two parts wishful thinking to 1 part fact. It has not gone unnoticed that you seem hesitant to bring the references from her book to the Discussion page for the article. Might it be that there aren't any? If so, then that makes her book a single source. And as her book is a primary citation of facts, we need confirmation of that. The same issue arises with Larry Kane's book as well. It isn't called opinion to evaluate them this way; its called policy. If you do not like it, I will repeat my suggestion that you work to change BLP policy.

Lastly, the website is not active, and gives no information. As such, providing an external link to an inactive site is not encyclopedic. When it does become active, it can be added again. Not before then.

I hope that clarifies matter for you. I won't be responding here, so please direct any future comments to the Discussion Page for the article. I am kinda tired of trying to educate those who would rather not learn. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

300

I reverted your addition of citation-needed tags to the lead section of 300 (film) because it is not imperative to equip them with references. The lead section is a concise overview of the article, which is adequately referenced. From what I've seen, one may reference an item in the lead section if it is potentially controversial. Also, can I please suggest that you refrain from personally attacking Arcayne? Wikipedia is not a battleground; we are all here to contribute knowledge for the benefit of all, and information should be verifiable. If you have an issue with Arcayne's conduct in terms of tagging items that need citations, please have a civil discussion with him on his talk page. Let me know if you have any other concerns! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm following Arcayne's lead from the May Pang page, in which he insists that every other word be "citated" -- One cannot have a civil conversation with him, as evidenced by the talk history (that is the talk history that hasn't re-edited or deleted by Mr. Arcayne) so I must insist that all these articles follow the same strigent guidelines. I'm sorry if I appear unreasonable, and I'm not attacking Arcayne, I'm just "citing" his standards.

You are not "citing" his standards in good faith; you are doing it with attitude. Please do try to start over and initiate a new discussion with him. I will speak to him as well to see if both of you can't renew this with a clean slate and just discuss objectively the merits (or lack thereof) of each other's contributions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hey, its nice to see you actually learning about citing material, Cop. I mean, if you want to stalk my edits to see how it's done, I am happy to allow you to do so. Even though some might consider it to be on the plane of stalking and/or WP:POINT disruption, I am sure you know what you are doing and won't go too overboard and risk getting blocked for disruptive behavior.
I am pleased that you want to copy me - imitation is indeed flattery. However, Erik is correct in that the Lead section doesn't use citations. As well, you will note that 300 is a movie, whereas the article you and I seem to find disagreement with are articles about real people, and in at least half the cases, living people. The criteria for citations is much higher in biographies than it is anywhere else. If you haven't read WP:BLP yet, you might want to study that. Your request for citations in the Reagan article is indeed appropo, and it was nice of you to point them out. Good job. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Pang had a lead-in paragraph that you cited the bleep out of. Is Erik right about that? By the way, the Reagan citations were a joke and Ms PAng was never sued ogver anything she stated in her book. We're going to go 'round and 'round on this, I'm afraid. Hotcop2 18:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed my error, and corrected it. Maybe you should have checked your facts before posting, Cop. As for the Reagan edits, I didn't realize that you were actually disrupting Wikipedia to make a point; you know you can get blocked for that, right? And you admitted to it right here....hmm.

As far as the Reagan edits go, you were right to tag that info for citation. Since you didn't actually mean to perform a serious edit, I guess the comment about a broken clock being right twice a day seems appropo here, doesn't it? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

So you're admitting that incessant citations are disrupting Wiki. Glad you're seeing things my way.

I'm glad, too. For a bit, I was pretty much of the opinion that you weren't going to ever get the idea about citations, and just disrupt other parts of Wikipedia in some puerile little tantrum over not getting to keep uncited info in the May Pang article. I am not sure why you felt this was an adequate method of dissent. Maybe you thought folk were going to rush to your aid against mean ol' Arcayne. Instead, you kinda got schooled in how you were wrong by others. Again.

Anyway, glad to see you beginning to learn. Getting blocked would have proably been a sucky experience for you. I would have hated to recommend it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't kid yourself. What you've done and continue to do to the Pang page "in the name of the greater good for Wiki" is purely personal and pretty transparent. You go into soliloquies as why everything has to be just so as to not hurt anybody still living, and in the next breath you call Pang's book a "trashy tell-all." You wipe out everything on her page except some irrelevant opinions (again, I'm sure, for the good of Wiki) and proudly wear your lack of knowledge of pop culture like a badge. I don't know if you play any musical instruments, but you'd have been quite at home in Lennon's two-faced band, Etc.

I took that method of dissent because it perfectly illustrates how one can overuse and misuse the 'citation" thing -- I believe we have to give readers some credit for having a frame of reference as they read something on here.

Does this conclude our dialogue yet? Hotcop2 22:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Warning

Hello. If a copyright holder would like to release an image to Wikipedia, they should provide their permission with verifiable contact information to the OTRS queue. Otherwise, please do not upload images that you claim to have permission for. And definitely do not upload images that have been previously deleted. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea how to do this. Please let me know. Hotcop2 00:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The copyright holder must email WP:OTRS detailing which image they would like uploaded and that they understand the terms of the GFDL. Certain images specifically related to David Spindel and John Lennon are unlikely to be allowed, however, as those images have been repeatedly uploaded by a banned user and are copyright violations. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I emailed you privately. I went to that OTRS link you provided and still cannot figure out how to send them a file. Hotcop2 00:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I've forwarded emails from the copyright holders to the "permission" address, which include the images.

Hi Hotcop, I received your email, and I don't know if you'll be able to get the images uploaded in the time frame you requested, but I do have a step-by-step outline for uploading images you might be interested in (link to Free photo essay). If you already know the people in the photos, you can probably skip to step 3. This method of photo uploads uses wiki-commons, and I want to remind you that you're not supposed to put any photo in an article here on English wikipedia unless/until OTRS has reviewed your submission. This is an important point every time, but in the case of photos previously deleted, make sure you have permission before inserting into an article. If you need any further help, ask me at my talk page, or here, I've added your page to my watchlist. R. Baley 05:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you R. I managed to get in touch with on of the two Wiki subjects and obtained a "clearance of use" which I forwarded to the "permissions at wiki" email address. Still waiting for the other. I uploaded my own photo of Dave Winfield, and hopefully tagged it correctly. Thanks for your help. Hotcop2 13:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:DWHOF2001.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:DWHOF2001.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Since I've Been Away

Everything has been so loose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aisumasen (talk • contribs) 13:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Hotcop2 00:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The Quiz

You might be interested in this --andreasegde 15:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice work on the Bob Gruen photo. --andreasegde (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Kip

WormLickBone 02:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:LennonNYC.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:LennonNYC.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. The main purpose of the PUI listing is to get someone to check for that permission. If there is one, and it is ok, then fine. If not, the image will have to go. Lupo 09:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

And could you please clarify what's up with Image:Admrl willis.jpg, too? (Also at PUI). Image:DWHOF2001.jpg also appears to have a "wikipedia-only" permission, if at all.[1] Lupo 16:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Read your email Hotcop2 (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that both image description pages say three things on them. They say, (1) the copyright holder only allows the image to be used by Wikipedia, (2) the copyright holder allows anyone to use the image subject to the terms of the GFDL, and (3) the copyright holder allows the image to be used by anyone so long as they attribute the copyright holder. Those three statements are mutually contradictory. What we need is very simple - we need to know which of those three statements are true. If you have actual emails from the copyright holder that you can forward to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, that's great and would make it very easy to resolve the issue. If you can just tell us which of the three statements is true, that's probably good enough - at least it is for me - we can assume good faith that you are accurately relaying the information. But the problem is right now, there are three contradictory statements. If the actual license is that only Wikipedia can use the image (#1 above), then we cannot accept it. As long as the image is licensed under the GFDL or an attribution license (#2 and #3 above), everything is fine - we just need to know which. Does that help? --B (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I've sent the permissions to en@wikipedia back in November. I'll do so again. How many times do these photos require clearance? Hotcop2 (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

All the photos I uploaded are GFDL with required attribution. They can be used freely. If Wikicommons wants the images, fine. But I don't want Commons to abscond them and send me thru hoops getting all the permissions all over again. I spent two weeks straightening all this out back in November, and I don't want to waste another two weeks doing so again. I don't mean to be snappy, but the Lennon, Winfield and Willis photos are resolved issues. Hotcop2 (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Once someone from the permissions email address processes your email, they will tag the image with a note that the permission has been reviewed and is acceptable. Whether it is hosted on Commons or Wikipedia doesn't change anything and no additional work is necessary - that same ticket applies both places. You can see, as an example, down at the bottom of Image:Virginia Tech massacre Damiano photo from Holden Hall.jpg, there is a yellow tag and a case number that allows members of the OTRS office to access the permission. Once your email is reviewed, that permission is good for any Wikimedia site - Commons, English Wikipedia, Spanish Wikipedia, etc. --B (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, they should have tagged these photos back in November then. I just re-re-re-sent an email, not sure what else I can do Hotcop2 (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you get a reply from them at all in November? I know that they sometimes have a backlog, but I've never seen it take more than a week or two. (It's probably been 4 months since I've sent anything to them, though, so I don't know how long their backlog is now.) --B (talk) 19:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I just got a reply asking for a clear statement of permission. This was in response to sending them a clear statement of permission. If this were anything other than an "encyclopedia" (read: smart people) this would be laughable. Why don't you send me you email adddress so I can send you everything and you submit it correctly? I'd have better luck performing brain surgery than uploading three photos. Hotcop2 (talk) 20:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I've sent you an email --B (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't received it yet.... still waiting Hotcop2 (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC) Meanwhile, what's a free license?

That's odd ... usually, they are sent pretty instantly - I used the "E-mail this user" link over to the side, so it sent it to whatever address you have registered with Wikipedia. As for a "free license", "free" in this sense means the freedom to use or adapt the content without substantial copyright restrictions. Free content and copyleft are two good articles to read. Commons:Licensing gives a good overview of the acceptable licenses and tells what requirements there are. The whole idea is that Wikipedia wants content created here to be able to be reproduced in other languages, used in textbooks, or even used on other websites (under certain conditions). The GFDL (the licensing scheme under which all text contributions are licensed) is a great way of doing this. It permits others to use the content BUT at the same time, it ensures that whatever they produce, they have to make available in the same way. So, for example, there are other internet encyclopedias out there (like Citizendium and Encyclopedia Libre). Under the GFDL, they are both free to use Wikipedia content, but they in turn have to make whatever they use from Wikipedia available to us or to others willing to abide by the terms of the GFDL. The GFDL does permit commercial reuse, but the terms are such that most commercial content providers would not want to use it. For example, a commercial news paper isn't going to use GFDL content because they don't want to license their own newspaper under the GFDL. I know it's kinda rambling, but does all of that make sense? --B (talk) 23:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Forget it, I took the Lennon photo off. The idiots ruined a perfectly good page. Hope they're happy. Hotcop2 (talk) 23:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry this process has caused you stress. I have tried, as best as I am able, to explain Wikipedia's licensing requirements. I'm sorry I was not able to do so successfully, but please understand that the description page had information that was legally contradictory and invalid. If you would like to pursue this again at some point, please understand that we need for the copyright holder to release the image under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License and no other restrictions. --B (talk) 03:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi HotCop2, I've sent you an email. R. Baley (talk) 10:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

After that, check here and here.

After that dies down, you should - if you have not already - have someone like Shankbone or DGG or Bailey give you a list of steps to get your picture approved. Follow it to the letter, and when you complete it, as those folk to help you submit it and help it through the process. I can almost guarantee that, after the matter is complete, you will know a great deal about image approval processes, and people will susequently come to you for advice. Silver-lining, me pally. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Bailey's on the case. Meanwhile, we can try to beat that Lennon page into a respectable encyclopedia-like entry. John in the merriment. Hotcop2 (talk) 16:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Fab

Don't get dispirited, Hotcop2, the Wiki photo zealots have been on the warpath on two or three articles I've worked on. Don't give up, because yer Fab yer are, and you're much valued. :) --andreasegde (talk) 00:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Awwww, thanks A. Nobody does anything "for the good of Wiki," just for the power play. so I had the power to remove the best photo of J.L. ;-) Hotcop2 (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you big lug. Chin up. We'll help you out; we are all in this together for, as a very brave, very talented and very busy man once said: "Wherever you go, there you are." - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I need John's Nutopian hanky. i think i'm gonna cry. Tears of joy, of course. ;-) Hotcop2 (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:JohnMay1974.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:JohnMay1974.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Again, the point of this is to get someone to check up on that permission. Lupo 08:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, you could follow RBailey's idea (which I personally recommend, as nothing beats learning all by yourself), or you could keep the version of the TOC and archive box that I just put on your user talk page (call it an early Christm -Kwanza-Hannu--holiday present). The archive is the cut and paste kind, where you cut stuff from discussion and paste it in the archive. If you want to do it the other way, feel free. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)