User talk:Todd Volker

Welcome!

Hello, Todd Volker, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for registering with us. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Melchoir 07:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln Bicentennial Bike Tour

Lincoln Bicentennial Bike Tour has been proposed for deletion. An editor felt this information might not be verifiable. Please review Wikipedia:Verifiability for the relevant policy. If you can improve the article to address these concerns, please do so, citing reliable sources.

If no one objects to the deletion within five days by removing the "prod" notice, the article may be deleted without further discussion. If you remove the prod notice, the deletion process will stop, but if an editor is still not satisfied that the article meets Wikipedia guidelines, it may be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for consensus. NickelShoe (Talk) 17:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Volker book.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Volker book.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ERA, article uses CE style, not AD

Per WP:ERA, where it says "Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors", do not change date styles as you did here and here on the Cahokia article. Thank you. He iro 16:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original date style for that article was BC/AD. Your edits were not only okay, but necessary. The issue is now being debated on the talk page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cahokia it is also, and more importantly being debated on the dispute resolution boards http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Cahokia.

Primus is using a statement that was removed fromm WP:ERA that sid the original style has priority. That was deliberately removed and if an article has been stable for some time then any change needs justification. Dougweller (talk) 06:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 2012

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Kathleen Sebelius. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC) This is untrue and an overstatement. People call themselves pro-life. No one made this up; this is the contemporary term for the group.[reply]

Cahokia DRN thread

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Cahokia". Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ERA again

Per WP:ERA, where it says "Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors", do not change date styles as you did here and [1] on the Dickson Mounds article. Edit war over this and this account will get blocked. He iro 17:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Arrow

Hi Todd Volker,

I undid the addition of your note to the citation in the article Order of the Arrow because your note describing the source did not match the contents of the source. If you would like to discuss this, please let me know. Perhaps we can use the talk page of the article. Dkreisst (talk) 23:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused what you're talking about. The OA criticism contained in the Indiana University student newspaper consisted of comments by a professor who---merely walking past an OA event---came to summary and incomplete, and incorrect, conclusions. In any court of law, this would have the status of hearsay. Was Brantmeier biased?

The radio show's contents were a confused mix of subjects, since it featured a number of people calling in, chipping in various feelings and confused views. Call in shows are like this. The predominant criticism was centered on the Koshare group, and I agree with this criticism. But the paintbrush tarred the OA, which is a different thing from the Koshares, although the talk show participants seemed to not recognize this.

So it goes. I would hope in Wikipedia land that there would be some critical assessment of critiques, as well as assertions.

Hi Todd Volker,

Your edit inserted into the reference for the radio program and solely about the radio program, so if you have a critical assessment of Brantmeier, I hope you bring it up. I suggest using the article talkpage.

I believe your statement that the radio program had a number of people calling in is incorrect. The closest thing that could be considered a call-in was the section titled "Firehouse Feedback". It is common for news programs on community radio stations to provide their listeners with an opportunity to speak out on political topics, similar to how newspapers provide the service of publishing letters to the editor. On the radio program, this section is clearly separated from the newscast, as it should be, by being described to the listener as being separate from the news. If you can provide an example of someone calling in during the program, please let me know.

As for the program being a mix of subjects, I suppose you could let the radio station know that you would prefer them to store their news items by subject instead of by day.

And, as I mentioned in my edit summary, there is no mention of Koshare in the newscast. If you have more information with a source, please bring it up. Dkreisst (talk) 08:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your comment in this same article. You can contact Dkreisst by answering their comments right here; I'm sure they will come back to this page, or you can leave them a note on their talk page. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dkreisst: don't be harsh; I'm trying to clear up confusion and remedy an injustice. It's clear that Brantmeier didn't know much about the organization he so quickly can, nevertheless, criticize. I hope he reads this article! :) With respect to the radio show, one must listen to it: the speakers talk about a "museum" and all associated with it, the scouts doing shows and such: this is the Koshare group, not the OA, which HAS no museum and does NOT do dancing that interprets Native religious ideas or themes; the Koshare do (or did), and patted their conscience by styling it an "interpretation". So it's important to view these things clearly. I can appreciate someone who is sensitive to PC concerns wishing to offend no group, and jumping to the conclusion that the critics here are in the right. They are not.

It is worth pointing out to you that non-Natives ("white people") are often allowed to participate in dancing at pow wows. It's pretty standard. I feel it serves a good purpose; certainly the OA better acquaints its members with the checkered history of US-Native relations. I think Native criticism of non-Natives for participating is rare and unusual in the present day.