User talk:RicoCorinth/archive1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

To create User_talk:RicoCorinth Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Manual of Style
If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 00:04, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Image:Attachedh.gif

Image deletion warning

The image Image:Attachedh.gif has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it will be deleted. If you have any information on the source or licensing of this image, please go there to provide the necessary information.

Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 00:05, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Burger:

You ask me, "If you have any information on the source or licensing of this image, please go there to provide the necessary information."

Well, I obviously do -- and if you had bothered to look at what I wrote on the image description page -- you'd be aware of that.

Moreover, you leave it vague where "there" is.

Young man, I spend hours on the image description page, and you type seven characters on it, but provide me with no additional information? You have given me no indication that you even looked at what I provided!

How many "Wikipedians" have stopped contributing, after you ran roughshod over their contributions without considering their feelings!? Is that easier to do on the Internet, than it is to do in person? Do you think that makes it okay? What kind of a place do you think people with that attitude make the Internet into? Is the volume you achieve in your haste worth the waste? I have only contributed in the area in which I am a published, nationally-recognized expert.

I haven't overlooked the fact that you contacted me here, but "always contact the user who uploaded the image on their talk page" is a strongly emphasized requirement.

I think I -- and others like me -- deserve more respect than that.

Sincerely, Rico 06:19, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Please do not bite the newcomers

WikiLove

Image copyright

Image copyright is probably the least understood concept on Wikipedia. I don't even really understand a lot of the really in depth things. On Wikipedia we have fairly strict requirements for image copyright, and the reason that I listed Image:Attachedh.gif is that I don't think they meet them. Basically, Wikipedia needs images that can be freely distributed, edited and sold. There are few licences that meet that requirement, and I don't think that the Microsoft clipart one does.

Now, as for contacting users, I do. I edited the PUI page to have that restriction. I am sorry if you felt that my way of contacting you was offensive. It is not meant as such. I use it because there are thousands of images to have their copyright verified, and as can be seen here, some of them take a long time to do so.

So moving forward, given the ambiguity surrounding this image, and the fact that something similar can be easily found/created, I say that we let it get deleted. You might be able to find something good on the Open Clipart Library, which is public domain, and thus perfectly acceptable you use in Wikipedia.

Hopefully that clears up some questions for you. If it doesn't, give me a holler on my talk page. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 15:17, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

community association

I see that you've made this a redirect to homeowners association. I submit that the term community association is much broader than that of homeowners association; I am a participant in just such a civic group, and there is no requirement that members be homeowners; they just have to live within the confines of a certain geographic area. But community associations don't necessarily have to even have a residency requirement, although that's the usual practice. At any rate, I wish you'd discussed this before changing the page to a redirect, willy-nilly. If you'll look at the homeowners association page, you'll see that it is written specifically with regard to those who own homes and are concerned with covenants, preservation of property values, etc. Thus, it's only one, limited type of community association. It shouldn't be the main entry for all types. Deirdre 06:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

community association

Deirdre is correct - HOA is only one type of community associations. Today is the first day I have seen this article, however. It does need help, and I might make this an effort. I represent homeowners and community associations. My interest developed from my own experience with an HOA. Since that time, I realize that "property values" usually have nothing to do with community associations. The first part of your username may well become more associated with community associations than property values.Governing documents are written by developers who have no interest in protecting homeowners. They are usualy badly drafted. Community association law and property management have become a big business, in an industry which is very poorly regulated. Invariably, the homeowners suffer. Jance 03:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

homeowner association?

In my state, all HOAs organized after a certain dat are incorporated as non-profit corporations by state statute. I believe that is true in other states, as well. Historically, there were unincorporated associations, but I don't know if that still exsits. There may be some that are not incorporated, but I supsect they are extremely rare, if they exist at all.Jance 23:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:RicoCorinth/sandbox/Burgundavia deletion

I noticed that you tagged the subpage with {{db-blanked}}, but in this particular case, the better tag would be {{db-userreq}}. I went ahead and deleted the subpage for you. =) -- Gogo Dodo 19:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homeowner associations

Property ownership is ultimately defined the state. "Ownership" or property interests can be thought of as a 'bundle of sticks.' The interest can certainly be contractually limited. That is the case with property subject to restrictive covenants.Jance 03:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Web design & software

Do you write mac software or do web design commercially?Jance 23:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go away.

I'm rather annoyed by your incivil tone and accusations of vandalism. You're not welcome to post to my talk page any more, and I'm not going to take your complaints at article talk pages seriously. Argyriou (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged incivil tone

Your post (above) does not specify what about my "tone", you allege was "incivil". In the absence of any substantiation of something as nebulous and subjective as a "tone", I cannot address your accusation. However, making such an allegation — without substantiating it — could be considered "incivil" in and of itself. Nothing I wrote targeted you personally, just your edits.

Accurate accusation of vandalism

As for my "accusations of vandalism" — in the first place, I only characterized one of your edits as vandalism. So referring to it as "accusations", is a distortion of the truth.

More importantly, here is where I wrote that your edit fit the description of vandalism — accurately! Wikipedia:Vandalism states:

Wikipedia vandalism may fall into one or more of the following categorizations:
[…]

Improper use of dispute tags

Dispute tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that all stated reasons for the dispute are settled.

The {{Verify credibility}} tag produces "[this source's reliability may need verification]."

This tag is listed as one of the dispute tags.

Your edit summarily deleted the tag, with no discussion, even though there was no verification done of the source's reliability. You refer to the source as "a lobbying group."

Your edit summary merely stated that it "remove[d] redundant attempts to discredit [the] source."

What I wrote on your talk page was, "How can you possibly know that the intention of the editor, that tagged the external link, was to discredit the source? This allegation depends on your ability to know that the editor was not acting in good faith."

Since you cannot know that the intention of the editor(s), whose content your edit removed, was "to discredit [the] source," your edit summary assumes bad faith.

One of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia is that Wikipedia has a "code of conduct." "Respect your fellow Wikipedians," it states, "and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming."

Assume good faith states that it is "a guideline on Wikipedia ... that all users should follow."

Userspace vandalism

Adding insults to user talk pages is defined by Wikipedia as "userspace vandalism," yet:

You entitle your post "Go away"?
You post that you're not going to take my "complaints" at article talk pages seriously?
You post that I'm "not welcome to post to" your "talk page any more," as if posting that I'm 'unwelcome' bans me from doing so?
You write that I'm accusing your edit of being vandalism — as if I was doing something wrong — even though your edit fit Wikipedia's description of vandalism?
You accuse me of writing with an "incivil tone" with no substantiation?

Posting for me to "Go away" is insulting (but convenient).

You can take whatever you want seriously, but posting an announcement on my talk page that you are not going to take what I write on article talk pages seriously, looks like an insult. The only other purpose I can think of for it would be to try to dissuade me from posting on article talk pages, but that would not be a valid Wikipedia purpose (although, perhaps, convenient).

Intentionally making non-constructive edits

Your misguided, ill-considered, detrimental, undiscussed edits — both massive and seemingly minor — have added, removed, and changed content and compromised the integrity of Wikipedia.

Some of your edits border on sneaky vandalism:

Adding plausible misinformation to the homeowners association article.
Edits hidden within a massive edit and therefore not reverted when the massive edit is reverted.
Reverting legitimate edits, hindering the improvement of the homeowners association page.

This borders on sneaky vandalism.

Removing tags in order to avert deletion of an external link that may violate WP:EL may be considered avoidant vandalism.

-- Rico 20:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Your AMA case

I've taken a preliminary look at Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/February 2007/RicoCorinth; head on over there and see if you agree. I'd love to work with you and the others on this. —P ilotguy go around 20:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]