User talk:Jball65

Terry Moran[edit]

I have placed the Duke lacrosse player portion of the bio back into Terry Moran's bio for several reasons. Despite Bigtimepeace's assertion to the contrary, Mr. Moran's article has caused controversy already. There are literally hundreds of blog postings responding to Mr. Moran's article. The substantial majority of these responses are disfavorable. Further, there are literally hundreds of articles dealing with this topic on the Web. The fact that CNN or ABC news has chosen not to cover it does not mean there is no controversy.

I apologize for having misspelled a word. I will be more mindful in the future.

As for the article being poorly written, that is purely a stylistic point of view on the part of Bigtimepeace. I will continue to place the Duke Lacrosse players portion of this article back up each time it is taken down. It is relevant and deals with current events. Further, this website is not controlled by one person based on one person's opinions of what may or may not be news (or of what constitutes poor writing). The purpose of allowing this website to be edited in real time is to allow for current events to be reported as they are happening. This portion of the article conforms with all wikipedia standards.

Hi Jball, I was just writing you a message here asking for a comment from you when you wrote this. Can you move this text over to Talk:Terry_Moran? It should be over there. Also be sure to sign your post at the end by using the signature button. I will post a reply.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I posted the below note on Talk:Terry_Moran but wanted to post it here too. Feel free to delete it obviously)

I'm not going to revert this again because I don't want to even approach violating 3RR. For Jball65, you should know that under this rule editors cannot revert one page more than three times in a 24 hour period. You have already reverted this page three times. The reason for this rule is to prevent edit wars. When you say "I will continue to place the Duke Lacrosse players portion of this article back up each time it is taken down" it suggests you will not abide by this policy. It also suggests you are not willing to work with other editors and listen to their opinions. You have only made a few edits on Wikipedia but I hope in the future you will be more open to other editors ideas about content, rather than insisting that your way is the right way.

Someone else will hopefully look at this, but in my opinion the section as written clearly violates Wikipedia's very strict rules about Neutral Point of View (see WP:NPOV). The entire section is quite negative toward Moran. It makes it seem as if everyone responded negatively to his post, when in fact some folks clearly agreed with him. Also you do not quote Moran in his own words, or fully explain his arguments in his blog post. As the criticism (little as their is) has only just developed, there has been no time for Moran to respond to his critics. Thus the paragraph reads like a hit piece on Moran. Also Moran is notable in this encyclopedia because he is a well-known journalist, yet the way the article is now this tiny, largely unknown controversy is given as much play as his entire journalistic career. It is completely disproportionate.

Despite Jball65's claim on his talk page, there are not "hundreds" of articles about this Moran blog post on the web. Hundreds of blog posts maybe, but a google news search on the words Terry Moran and Duke only turned up 15 articles. Most came from conservative news sites with a strong bias against Moran.

In short--this is not a big story yet and perhaps it never will be. Articles on well-known people would be really terrible if they included every minor controversy associated with that person. We try to decide what is notable, and just because you view this as notable and some bloggers have discussed it does not mean it belongs here.

Again, the best thing to do is to take this out for now and if the story becomes important in the next few days it's quite easy to put it back. With developing stories whose significance is unclear, there is no rush to put them in wikipedia (unless one has an axe to grind). So I think we should keep it out and see what happens with the story. Does this sound reasonable Jball65? If someone else wants to take this down right now I'm all for that, or I might do this in a day or two.

As for the paragraph itself, "ibid" appears in the middle which it should not, there is a link in the middle which there should not be, "site" is spelled "sight," and the extremely odd sentence "Many of the blog responses posted have made inevitable references ["inevitable?" why?] to shock jock Don Imus's statements regarding the Rutgers Womens Basketball Team" with no explanation as to what that means.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - I have removed the portion of the article dealing with the Duke Lacrosse players as per Bigtimepeace's suggestion. While I still believe it is a relevant topic, Bigtimepeace has a legitmate point that the size of the paragraph dealing with the lacrosse player flap makes it appear it is a bigger situation than it has become to date. I will follow Bigtimepeace's suggestion of waiting to see if this turns into a larger story before placing this portion back on the page. Otherwise, it could be read as being a hit piece. However, I disagree with the citing critiques about the article.Jball65 14:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jball65, I appreciate your willingness to hold off on this for awhile. We might well still disagree about it in the end (nothing wrong with that!) but hopefully we'll come to some kind of consensus if and when the story develops further.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome. I should have been less obstinate in the first place.Jball65 01:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jball65. You have new messages at Ttonyb1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

File copyright problem with File:File-Daud.jpg[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:File-Daud.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 file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. — neuro^(talk) 22:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Daud.jpg[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Daud.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 file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. — neuro^(talk) 22:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with upload of File:Caption.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Caption.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

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

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with upload of File:General Daud with the Northern Alliance.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:General Daud with the Northern Alliance.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

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

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:Taliban.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Taliban.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

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

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:Acid attack.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Acid attack.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

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

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:General Daud Leading Northern Alliance Forces.jpg[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:General Daud Leading Northern Alliance Forces.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, 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, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

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 20:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 20:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Daud.jpg[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Daud.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, 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, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

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 00:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 00:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Caption.jpg[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Caption.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, 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, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

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 00:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Opium 2.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Opium 2.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:File-Daud.jpg[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:File-Daud.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, 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, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

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 00:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

You do not supply sources, copyright information (every image must have the appropriate copyright tag). You stated that a friend "provided you" the image in question - which means that you most likely are not the (c) holder of the picture, and therefore do not have the right to upload here without the photographer's permission. Various links are provided above regarding various ways to rectify the problems with the images you have uploaded. Skier Dude (talk) 02:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Daud.jpg[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Daud.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 file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Radiant chains (talk) 06:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better source request for File:Opium_2.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Opium_2.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Radiant chains (talk) 23:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Opium 2.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Opium 2.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 file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Mosmof (talk) 05:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:General Mohammed Daud Daud.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:General Mohammed Daud Daud.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 website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. 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 per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 05:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Mosmof (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]