User talk:Propol/Archive1

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome

Hello Propol, and welcome to Wikipedia! Here are some recommended guidelines to help you get involved. Please feel free to contact me if you need help with anything. Best of luck and happy editing! Alphachimp talk 18:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting help
Getting along
Getting technical

Oberweis

Hi Propol,

I know you want to include the information about Dennis Hastert's comments regarding Oberweis in 2004, however I've been doing research into that race (for various purposes, class being the main one) there is no reference of Hastert saying anything to that nature in any of the articles in 2004. There is a slight reference to something in 2007, but the attribution has proven to be false. Therefore, I have deleted that information. If you think it should remain, please let me know. Thanks.

And I agree with you on the deletion of Kevin Burns (Mayor) as he is only the mayor of a small city and has not done anything of note. --Jnshimko (talk) 01:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

roskam

Hi Propol,

I'm wondering why you oppose adding the Josh Marshall text to the Roskam article. Feel free to reply here — goethean ॐ 18:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Roskam

I was asked, as I set out, in a bit more detail, at Talk:Peter Roskam, to act as an advocate for Joehazelton relative to the Roskam article, and I have attempted to delineate precisely those issues about which Joe is concerned and to frame several questions rather clearly in order that a focused discussion might be undertaken. On Joe's behalf, and in view of my appreciation for the advancement of the project, I'd ask that, at your leisure, you offer your views at the Roskam talk page. Thanks very kindly in advance! Joe 05:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a response at Talk:Peter Roskam. Thanks. Propol 18:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing my ill-made link. I have since learned how to do it correctly.Arcayne 08:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Arcayne, with your enthusiasm, I'm sure you'll become a very good editor. Propol 15:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your ANI posting

Propol, I've responded to your ANI posting. I hope both parties will be open to dispute resolution and that both of the articles will become balanced. — ERcheck (talk) 12:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reponse. I also provided an update there. Propol 15:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moving this conversation from ANI to your talk page. On blogs — Can you verify that the Zorn blog does have editorial oversight/fact checking? While I do agree that a Chicago Tribune columnist is likely a reliable source, the distinction between blogs may be a difficult argument to make when you are trying to convince other editors. — ERcheck (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

email

Propol, could you send your email address here? — goethean ॐ 20:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Salvi Roskam Maher.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Salvi Roskam Maher.png. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}. If you have not already done so, please also include the source of the image. In many cases this will be the website where you found it.

Please specify the copyright information and source on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. rogerd 01:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a response on the talk page for image itself. I think there is a template already specified (newspapercover). It was used under fair use, with a copyright held by the Chicago Tribune. I also provided the original source link. Please help me retain this image. I have attempted to follow all of the rules. Am I missing something? Thanks. Propol 04:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see that an anonymous editor removed your tag the day after you uploaded it [1]. I have restored your original text and tag. However, I am not sure that this use qualifies under fair use criteria. Wikipedia is very strict about the use of fair use content, to avoid legal problems for the foundation. According to that criteria, fair use images can be allowed for various reasons, the applicable one for this case is likely: "Other promotional material. Posters, programs, billboards, ads. For critical commentary." My understanding is that by critical commentary, it means that they are referring to criticism of the content of the ad itself. As I understanding it, your use of the image is to illustrate that one of the attorneys in the ad, who is also a politician, is a personal injury lawyer. I don't think that qualifies.
To give you an example of how strict this fair use policy is, the Peyton Manning article is not allowed to show a Sports Illustrated cover that features Manning's photo, because it not used for critical commentary of the image itself. I know it sounds silly, but that is apparently how it works.
Another thing that I noticed, is that the link you provided is no longer active, so it is no longer verifiable. Perhaps you can see if the Chicago Tribune moved the image to another URL, or perhaps they removed it because they considered it to be a copyright violation. I hope this helps. --rogerd 05:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
rogerd, thanks for your response, and I understand your point. However, I do still think the picture qualifies under fair use. The advertisement itself (not just Roskam) was the subject of an article in the Chicago Tribune. Here's a link to the article, including the picture in question. Thanks. Propol 16:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<indent reset>
Actually, that is a different version of an ad for the same law firm. In this situation, I believe, the copyright is not held by the newspaper, but the law firm that paid the newspaper to publish the ad. And you must state the fair use criteria you are using:

To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information.

You must state the fair use rationale for each article you include, i.e.:

== Fair use for [[ARTICLE NAME]] ==
# rationale #1
# rationale #2
# etc....

Again, I apologize if this seems like a lot of hoops to jump through, but wikipedia has a rather strict interpretation of the fair use laws. --rogerd 17:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Greetings, in reviewing the Peter Roskam article, I saw the ad for Mr. Roskams Law firm and wonder if Propol has recived permission to put it up in wikipedia by either the Chicago Tribune and Roskams Law Firm. If said permission is not obtained, and since this ad seems not to fall under fair use, I feel that this Image, per stated Wikipedia policy regarding image copyright should be removed, forth with, from the Wikipedia image database. Thanks. 69.220.184.132 23:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This image is listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 September 15/Images. I don't feel that I am enough of an authority on copyright and fair use issues to say whether or not this image is legitimate fair use and who holds the copyright, but perhaps someone more experienced can help clarify this. --rogerd 01:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rios-montt-weller.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Rios-montt-weller.gif. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. -- Chowbok ☠ 00:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism

Your user page seems to get vandalized a lot. Would you like me (or any other admin) to semi-protect it for you? It would stop anonymous (IP) and new (user id's less than 4 days old) from editing your user page. We can do it to your user talk page also, if you like, but it would keep anon and new users from communicating with you. --rogerd 03:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rogerd, I would appreciate it if you would semi-protect my user page and my talk page. It has gotten out of hand lately. Thanks. Propol 04:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done --rogerd 15:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Propol 00:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roskam Part Deux

What a mess, eh?  :-( --BenBurch 05:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is an indefinitely banned user Joehazelton that has used so many sock puppets on the article that I can't even count. You should take a look at his user page. I wonder if this Dino is a friend / meatpuppet. I honestly want a high qaulity article for Peter Roskam, that means adding the positive and negative as long as there are reliable sources. It's obviously not easy with some people. Propol 06:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Reverts

You have separately reverted all four of my edits to Peter Roskam in a 30 minute period. I would appreciate it if you self-reverted back. Thanks! --Tbeatty 05:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I admit we have been butting heads a bit today, but my edits have been made in good faith. I assume yours have too. Also, I have not reverted all of your edits. I agreed with your deletion of Bob Kerrey's quote about the VFW endorsement. I have also tried to explain my thinking in the edit summaries. I promise that I will work with you if you cooperate with me. Thanks. Propol 05:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I put my concerns on the talk page as the edit summaries are a bit small to make good justifications. Please read through them and comment. thanks! --Tbeatty 05:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Government Source

Hello Propol! I noticed you have reverted my edit in Jan Schakowsky, the reason you stated was "personal site, not reliable information. However, the fact is Govtrack is indeed a reliable source on tracking Congressional record, and is even featured here in US Department of Labor. Please reconsider your deletion of legitimate materials. Thank you! Wooyi 17:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is from the Govtrack website:
This site was created by Joshua Tauberer in 2004. I'm a graduate student studying linguistics. GovTrack isn't affiliated with the government or any other group. It's just a pet project of mine.
After having reviewed the site, I believe there is some interesting information there, but I remain uncomfortable that it qualifies as a reliable source. As best as I can tell, there is no editorial review, peer review, or fact checking. Also, the information you included would qualify as original research until it is published elsewhere. Propol 04:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Salvi Roskam Maher.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Salvi Roskam Maher.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images 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. Addhoc 13:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You deserve every barnstar on Wikipedia

... for rooting out that "Willie Peter" is Joehazelton's sockpuppet. I was absolutely sure he was a sock to begin with, in cahoots with two other editors. Thanks for solving the mystery!

Would you mind notifying "Chaser" [2] of your experience with this sock? Chaser has extended every benefit of the doubt to this sock, and needs to hear the truth. Thanks again! Eleemosynary 04:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The Joehazelton sock has removed your tag from his page[3], screaming "harassment," just as these socks always do. Chaser has created a section for commentary about this sock. Here's the diff.[4]. I'd appreciate any thoughts/evidence you can contribute. Thanks.
Evidence is far preferable to thoughts.--Chaser - T 06:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's reverting you again. I'm going to ask Luna to block his Talk page. --Eleemosynary 07:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That guy has sent me a couple of pretty wild pm's at CU since he's been banned. I forwarded one of them to Chaser. He's got quite the tinfoil hat. - Crockspot 19:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from the "other side"

I noticed in Political positions of Barack Obama that you removed all of the criticism, citing the reason that the article is about his positions, not about other people's opinions or criticism of those positions. That actually makes a lot of sense to me, and I would like to apply the same standard to other "political positions of..." articles that I watch, such as Political positions of Fred Thompson. Can I count on your support in this? I would even back you up on the articles that you care about, and would hope that you would do the same for me. With the election season kicking into gear, I think it's important that we develop standards that are consistently applied to all candidates, and that editors who may disagree politically try to work together to apply a standard that treats all candidates fairly. While you and I may have a bit of partisan blood flowing in our veins, it is nothing compared to the fanatics who are going to flood this wiki over the next year and a half. What do you think of this proposal? - Crockspot 19:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the Political positions of Fred Thompson article and noticed similar things that concerned me about the Obama article. For instance there were grades from groups on Thompson's immigration stance. From my viewpoint, that is someone else's opinion. It can be notable information and have properly cited sources, but that doesn't mean it belongs in an article titled "Political positions of Fred Thompson". I almost wonder if there shouldn't be another whole article Opinions towards Fred Thompson, or something of that sort. Such an article could include ratings from interest groups and / or analysis of his positions by others (assuming reliable sources). I'm struggling a bit with the best solution. Would another article be an appropriate spinout, or would it be considered a content fork? Wikipedia:Content forking offers some insight, but I remain uncertain. What are your thoughts? Propol 23:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I think the Fred Thompson article has far too many direct quotes. I find it more encyclopedic simply to state a politician's positions, rather than offer their quotes that are frequently POV. Propol 23:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that some ratings are reasonable to expect to see in a positions article, like the most notable rating groups that cover each topic, NRA grades, Sierra Club, NOW, that kind of thing. (I think it would be pretty impossible to keep those kinds of things out, and not much easier to keep criticism/opinion out.) I've always seen the GOA as a bit of a fringe group, and their "ratings" tend to be a little rantish, with juicy quotes. I would prefer to see ratings that are a quantifiable letter grade or number rating, without any commentary and opinion. Some group that no one has ever heard of would be easier to exclude. The forking issue is a tough one. Let me look at some of the other articles in the positions category, see what we're working with, think about it, and get back to you. I've got some obligations this weekend, so it will be a few days. - Crockspot 03:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect your userpage?

Do you want some help to stop the vandalism from Willie Peter socks? I can set it to expire whenever you want.--Chaser - T 05:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you would please semi-protect my userpage, that would be appreciated. I'm not sure for how long. Does a week seem reasonable? Thanks. Propol 15:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
S-protected for one week. Leave a msg on my talk page if you want it renewed.--Chaser - T 17:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

68.75.*.*

This range has been vandalising your talk page as well, don't know if you want this page protected for a week or so as well. Momusufan 18:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please protect the page. I appreciate your help. Propol 18:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've protected it for a while. We can review it when it expires. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another Hazelton sock?

Based on his date and method of account creation, and comments re: Wikipedia, I'm pretty sure this JoeBonham is a Hazelton sock. The contentious, though non-political, edits are all Illinois-related (just like Roskam). Can you recommend a good admin for a checkuser? --Eleemosynary

Checkuser confirmed it's a sock, and it's been blocked. --Eleemosynary 08:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion...

Are you tired of getting the "new messages" bar only to find out you've been attack/trick by some abusive vandal (not named per WP:DENY). I have a suggestion. First, request semi-protection to your talk page. Then after your talk page gets semi-protected, open up a subpage on your user talk page that is solely used to contact/communicate anonymus users (User talk:Propol/IP). In that subpage, direct a link that teaches them how to revert vandalism from some vandal socks (recommend watchlisting that page since sockpuppets can remove that link and get new messages). Hope this suggestion helps!--PrestonH 02:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You should check the history of your user page/talk page because it has been vandalized in quick succesion.

Semi-protected

I semi protected you talk and user page for 2 weeks. Let me know when you want it removed. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Jill Morgenthaler

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jill Morgenthaler, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Morgenthaler. Thank you. Toddst1 17:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Screeching Weasel - Bark Like a Dog.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Screeching Weasel - Bark Like a Dog.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Philip

Please review WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT. An article which consists of basically nothing but criticisms clearly fails BLP. Corvus cornixtalk 06:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to get into an edit war with you over this, so I've listed it at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard where more eyes can review it. Please be aware that I never even heard of this guy before, so I don't have any position one way or another, but you're violating WP:WEIGHT with your repeated additions of these criticisms. Corvus cornixtalk 20:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propol, if you have evidence that account is a sockpuppet, please e-mail it to me, but posting a sockpuppet tag on his talk page with no evidence is provocative. Please just focus on getting that section written in a fair way, and the dispute will soon be over. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can ask for a check at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser or you can e-mail anyone with checkuser access. A list is here.
Regarding that section, it really does seem to be a violation of WP:UNDUE. Could you please try to rewrite it on talk in a more disinterested tone (and using only mainstream published sources)? The problem here is that you want the section exactly as it is, and the other person wants it blanked. You both need to compromise. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 23:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People obviously want to keep on editing this, so I'd like to unprotect it. Can I ask you please to stop adding that section and allow other editors on the page to decide how it should be written? If you agree to that, then I'll be able to unprotect without further admin action. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 17:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:David-McSweeney.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:David-McSweeney.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Kirk

What is your deal? Why do you continue to re-add a section that is nothing more than guilt by association. All you are doing is creating a coatrack and not improving the article at all. John Asfukzenski (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me remind you one more time that creating a section to guilt someone by association is a coatrack. Biased and malicious content about a living person is against policy. John Asfukzenski (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The contributors section in the Mark Kirk article is not a coatrack. The donations mentioned cite multiple reliable sources including the Chicago Sun-Times, ABC News, Amarillo Globe-News, and of course the Federal Election Commission records. Multiple reliable sources have reported on Kirk accepting these donations, establishing their relevance to the Kirk article. If no third parties had reported on the topic, it might be a different situation, but as it stands it's inappropriate to continue deleting relevant and properly sourced information from the article. Propol (talk) 13:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you add defamatory content, as you did to Mark Kirk, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Showtime2009 (talk) 02:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Propol/Archive1"