User talk:Rollingwagon

Hello, Rollingwagon, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Snowysusan (talk) 21:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christopher Johnson journalist.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 02:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your feedback[edit]

The reviewing editor thought it was a test page....... Possibly they didn't think he was notable, see: WP:N and particularly WP:Author.

Study how to do foot notes (cites). I hope the below is useful:

There is a "Cite" toolbar at the top of the edit window which allows you to automatically generate the required wiki code.

You click one of the templates, e.g. "book", and fill in the details.

More information can be found in Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or the citations tutorial (the below video will play best in Firefox or Chrome):

Hope this helps,

Ariconte (talk) 06:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your assistance. I've received comments on the Help Desk page from Huon. Some comments have been helpful, while others are factually incorrect and somewhat off-topic and not relevant to the main issue of why the entry was rejected. Huon has claimed that an article in The Economist is not a reliable source worthy of Wikipedia. The facts prove otherwise, as I have stated on the Help Desk. The article was originally rejected by Kelly Marie 0812 because she claimed it was a "test edit" suitable for the sandbox, not main page. There was no mention of dubious sources or issues about "notable person". However, Huon is citing these issues as reasons for Kelly Marie 0812 rejecting the article. (Kelly Marie 0812 did not, however, cite these reasons.) What is the procedure for resolution of these issues? I am indeed interested in learning more for future submissions. Thanks again for your assistance to a newcomer.Rollingwagon (talk) 08:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you see WP:Dispute for some suggestions. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 10:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions. Huon has rewritten my entry, and claimed in a note at the top: "In fact, I don't think there's a single truly reliable source among the bunch that's not written by Johnson himself and covers him in appreciable detail. Huon (talk) 10:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)" This is a rather strong and damaging claim. In other words, Huon is claiming that articles about Johnson by the Committee for the Protection of Journalists, The Economist, Reuters, BoingBoing, Bangkok Books, Amazon.com, and many others (noted on at least 10 pages of Google search results for "Christopher Johnson Japan journalist) are not "truly reliable sources." In fact, Huon has no proof that any of the points in the entry, originally backed by 53 references, are false and factually incorrect. Huon's edited version also has spelling mistakes, such as "Bagkok" for Bangkok, and links to a video removed by youtube. One would almost think that Huon has personal issues with the subject of the article. In keeping with Wikipedia's policies of civility, what is the best procedure to deal with this? Thanks again Rollingwagon (talk) 11:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a misunderstanding. I didn't say Kelly Marie 0812 rejected the article for problems with the sources or for a lack of demonstrated notability, but those are indeed problems that should be resolved before an article is accepted. I thought it more helpful to point out problems in the draft before you re-submit it instead of just telling you "it's not a test, resubmit it, wait a few weeks and see what happens", just to then see it declined for reasons I was already aware of.

Also, I don't need proof that statements are false; firstly, the burden of evidence is with the editor who wants something included, and secondly, Wikipedia's standard is verifiability, not truth. Even more relevant: Our coverage should roughly follow the coverage in reliable secondary sources; if an article devotes much space to content that isn't based on such sources, that's considered undue weight. But in fact I do have proof that at least one of the points in the entry is factually incorrect. The draft says: "In 2002, the Committee for the Protection of Journalists reported that Abu Sayyaf fighters based on Basilan island tried to kidnap Johnson and Swedish freelancer Urban Hamid in Zamboanga, the Philippines." The source says: "Philippine military authorities claimed the incidents were kidnapping attempts by members of the Abu Sayyaf, according to local press reports. These claims have not been independently verified." So they don't report that Abu Sayyaf fighters tried to kidnap someone, but only that those are unverified claims by the military.

You're right about the "Bagkok" typo; I fixed that. If I made any other typos, please go ahead and fix them instead of just pointing them out. The removed YouTube video, however, was your original draft's reference no. 11, removed before I edited your draft. That wasn't my fault. Huon (talk) 15:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Huon for your replies to my questions. I am indeed trying to learn the rules and formatting procedures for Wikipedia, since I'm a newcomer here. However, I find your lofty standards almost impossible to attain, and your questioning of the reliability of 53 sources cited in the article raises questions about paranoia and a deep distrust of wikipedia users and newcomers who submit articles on an unpaid, volunteer basis. Huon's comments are largely based on opinions, not verifiable facts supported by evidence. If you applied the same high standards to every Wikipedia article, how many articles would be rejected? Hundreds, thousands? How many entries has Huon rejected? Can Huon be transparent about that, and cite sources? It's not clear what Huon would consider a reliable source of information. Johnson has written a number of articles for the New York Times. Should these be cited? Do New York Times editors find Johnson's work "unreliable"? If so, why have they published his articles over the past decade?

You have questioned the reliability of reports in The Economist, the Washington Post, the CPJ, and others. Is this fair? By Huon's lofty standards, is everything posted on Wikipedia therefore based on "unreliable sources", because it is a collection of links to online media, which are in effect self-published my those media? What sources would Huon consider more reliable than the New York Times, The Economist, the Washington Post, the CPJ, AP and Reuters?

One can easily refute Huon's opinions point by point.

The Economist article, by K.N.C (initials for veteran staff reporter and author Kenneth N. Cukier), quotes Amnesty International, the Justice Ministry of Japan, diplomatic sources, the well-known murder of a foreigner at Narita Airport, and other sources. The article was edited by Digital Editor Tom Standage and others in London. it is not an opinion piece, as Huon earlier claimed. This is a factual error by Huon, which I have refuted, yet Huon continues to cling to a unique and untenable position not based on knowledge of The Economist, or of common journalistic practices. Does it have to be a cover story, written by several staff reporters, in order to be considered "reliable" according to Huon's standards? Is the story an "opinion piece" simply because that is the opinion of Huon? There is nothing in the article by Cukier, edited by Standage, to suggest that the article is an opinion piece, Op-Ed, or anything other than a factual report, akin to thousands of other articles in The Economist. Huon has presented no verifiable evidence to support his claim. The number of comments is indeed relevant, because it supports the fact that the subject is a notable living person, controversial enough to generate several thousands of comments online. What percentage of notable persons approved by Huon and Wikipedia editors can claim the same amount of interest?

As for the CPJ article, the CPJ is indeed a news organization, with a large number of editors and reporters. Thus Huon's claim is false, lacking in evidence, and refuted by actual fact. Is Huon suggesting that Johnson and Hamid were not nearly kidnapped in Zamboanga in 2002? The point is not about whether the Philippine military is a reliable source or not. The point is that they, among other sources, reported a kidnapping attempt, which was widely reported by Philippine media, diplomatic sources, the CPJ and others. The Abu Sayyaf have kidnapped hundreds of foreigners and Filipinos. Does Huon have any evidence to refute that fact? Huon's claim seems rather like unnecessary nitpicking, and furthers the suspicion that there is perhaps a personal grudge or issue here, and unfair treatment of a newcomer.

The same can be said of Huon's comments about Cory Doctorow and Boing Boing. What evidence can Huon present to support the claim that Doctorow's work is not reliable? What is the relevance of Huon's claim that Boing Boing, "apparently" transforming from a magazine to a blog, as he claims, makes it less reliable? In that case, are Newsweek and the Christian Science Monitor less reliable because they no longer have print editions?

Huon has also not provided evidence to support his claim that Globalite Magazine, which contains hundreds of published, professionally edited articles with photos, is not a reliable blog. Does Huon acknowledge there is a difference between, say, a blog about pets, and a blog which is a collection of hundreds of published articles with verifiable information, supported with photos as evidence? Just because The Economist calls K.N.C.'s work a "blog post", does it mean that The Economist suspended its long tradition of fact-checking, accuracy, editorial oversight, and credibility for this particular article?

In order for Globalite Magazine to obtain well-known, widely-distributed photos of athletes such as Messi, Nadal, or Durant, the magazine's photographers would have to apply for, and receive, accreditation with FIFA, the ATP, and FIBA, which are endorsing the credibility, notability, and relevance of Globalite Magazine. In other words, the world's largest governing bodies for sports, which severely restrict the number of accredited journalists at events, have endorsed the reliability of Globalite Magazine, while Huon seems to be standing alone on a limb by dismissing it as a "blog", which seems to be a problematic concept according to his definitions of reliability.

This presents a catch-22. If Huon finds "blog posts" to be unreliable, then should my article cite print editions of the New York Times, TIME, The Economist, The Christian Science Monitor, Bangkok Books, and media carrying AP and Reuters? In that case, there would be no way to link to print editions. Hence the catch-22, making it impossible to supply such an entry.

As for Reuter's, the photos from Lhasa were credited to "stringers" in order to protect the identities of photographers vulnerable to retribution by authorities in China. This is a common practice in the media when concerning sensitive issues in conflict zones. Does Huon think this somehow makes Reuters a less reliable source of information? Does Huon have verifiable evidence to support the suspicion that Johnson lied about supplying those photos to Reuters and AP?

If Huon is going to make claims about the credibility of my proposed article, citing 53 references, shouldn't he have to provide verifiable evidence to support his claims? Or can anyone simply dispute any fact they want, without evidence, simply because they don't approve of a particular person, source, issue or worldview?

I do appreciate Huon's attempts at perfection, and enforcement of standards which are not immediately apparent to a newcomer. However, it also raises questions about unnecessary bullying or harassment of a newcomer hoping to write dozens of articles for Wikipedia. Is this not a kind of online hazing? Is this proper behavior for a Help Desk? Is this likely to discourage, or encourage, a newcomer? If I had submitted an article with no references, then it would clearly deserve rejection. However, I submitted an article with no less than 53 references, about a subject who has been written about in hundreds of articles, and whose own work is well-documented in the world's most reliable media organizations. Johnson's work in music, contributing to gold and platinum-selling albums in several countries, would alone merit a wikipedia entry, wouldn't it? There are thousands of wikipedia entries about authors who have one published novel. Johnson now has two. This is in addition to a long list of notable, well-documented, achievements in the field of journalism. Thus it seems unusual for Huon to take issue with this particular article rather than thousands of others with much less verifiable information and fewer citations. Please do continue to reply to my comments. I am indeed trying to learn how to navigate these unfamiliar waters. Rollingwagon (talk) 18:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have indented the above for readability. I also suggest creating a new section for new comments.... this is not now about feedback. See 'New Section' tab at the top of the talk page. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 21:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ariconte, for your kind assistance. I am indeed trying to learn the Wikipedia system, in order to submit a number of articles, and I am sincerely hoping Huon, who generously reformatted my first entry, will reply in answer to my questions and concerns. Rollingwagon (talk) 23:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, thanks for your comments. I am trying to rewrite the article, based on your suggestions, but I can't find it. Where did it go? What proof is there of copyright violations? I have another question, concerning a number of damaging claims made in public about the reliability and credibility of senior journalists. Have Wikipedia editors ever been charged with libel, or defaming persons such as journalists? Or have they ever been charged with cyber-bullying, harassment, and being disorderly in public? What are Wikipedia's policies about senior editors bullying newcomers? Thanks again Rollingwagon (talk) 03:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC) Rollingwagon (talk) 04:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. The submission has not been accepted because it included copyrighted information, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christopher Johnson journalist.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 02:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for your comments. I am trying to rewrite the article, based on your suggestions, but I can't find it. Where did it go? What proof is there of copyright violations? I have another question, concerning a number of damaging claims made in public about the reliability and credibility of senior journalists. Have Wikipedia editors ever been charged with libel, or defaming persons such as journalists? Or have they ever been charged with cyber-bullying, harassment, and being disorderly in public? What are Wikipedia's policies about senior editors bullying newcomers? Thanks again Rollingwagon (talk) 03:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC) Rollingwagon (talk) 04:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to much of the above at the help desk. Given your complaints at Kelly Marie 0812's talk page, I assume you're talkig about me as the "senior editor bullying newcomers", a claim I empathically deny. The relevant guideline about behaviour towards new users is Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. You have already been pointed to WP:Dispute resolution if you want to pursue that venue. Since I'm apparently less helpful than I had hoped, I won't bother you any further. Good luck. Huon (talk) 04:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators noticeboard[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Since you wanted the issue brought to the attention of "the most senior editor available", I've raised the issue at the administrators' noticeboard. Huon (talk) 05:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your feedback[edit]

This will not help. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Copyright_and_legal_threats

Ariconte (talk) 05:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your feedback[edit]

I have looked at your interactions there, and I can not agree. You have been given ample advice, and with much patience. Not getting your way is not harassment.

Lectonar (talk) 07:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your feedback[edit]

see the comments above.

Lectonar (talk) 07:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your feedback[edit]

And according to Wikipedia policies, they are.

Lectonar (talk) 07:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christopher Johnson journalist.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Mephistophelian (contact) 23:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As per editorial instructions to increase NPOV, I've removed critical acclaim about Johnson's novel, and removed quotes by Ish Theilheimer in his story about Johnson. What next? Thanks Rollingwagon (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your comments and editorial advice. I can't find the comments about my case on the Admin notice board re: copyright/legal issues. Could anyone tell me where to find it, and where to continue the conversation? I was getting good advice there and want to read it again. Thanks Rollingwagon (talk) 06:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion at the noticeboard has been archived; it's now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive773#Copyright and legal threats. Please do not modify the archive. If you want to continue the discussion, I'd suggest the AfC help desk (where I, for obvious reasons, won't reply on the issues, but I'm not the only one around). For specific copyright questions there's also Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Huon (talk) 13:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Johnson[edit]

Hi there. I've been watching the discussion unfold on ANI and I'd like to help you out with the Christopher Johnson AfC. I've taken a look at most of the sources that you're using in the article right now and most of them don't cut it as reliable sources. Here's what I've looked at so far:

1. "Christopher Johnson". Amazon.com. http://www.amazon.com/Christopher-Johnson/e/B009LSI88I/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_1/189-3931580-1342002.

Not reliable. This is a self-published source.

2. http://www.globalitemagazine.wordpress.com

Not reliable. This is a self-published source.

3. "Rendezvous Dive Adventure". http://www.rendezvousdiving.com/aboutus.htm.