User talk:DelosHarriman

Image copyright problem with Image:Thiel.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Thiel.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Jmanus.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Jmanus.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rr on Rod D. Martin[edit]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.--Wildnox 17:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rr explicitly does NOT apply to biographies of living persons. DelosHarriman 17:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you should help revert. The user is adding negative, uncited information about a living person, and deleting NPOV information that is cited. These actually are violations. DelosHarriman 18:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does apply when it is a content dispute over terminology. The dispute revolves largely the user of the terms Aide or Intern, this is a terminology dispute, and the source provided uses neither term in this case, the other user has been reported, and will likely be blocked, I suggest you don't go his route. I will revert the current changes, as the consensus is agaisnt him, but if you revert you will violate 3rr. --Wildnox 18:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I think it's about more than that, but I will defer to your judgment (I will say that on the terminology issue, "intern" is too specific to be supported by the cite, and the intent of the change is pretty clear in the context of what else is going on). Thanks for your help. DelosHarriman 18:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think intent is arguable, but that is beside the point in my opinion. Maybe seeing Wikipedia:Resolving disputes would help, I suggest some mediation or maybe RFC on this. There is probably some way to compromise for this article. --Wildnox 18:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation may be a good idea. Thanks. I doubt there's a good compromise, though. I see that the same couple of people have gone after a very specific group of articles all at once: this one, TheVanguard.Org (his group), Eric M. Jackson (his publisher and PayPal friend), Aman Verjee (his co-author), and the Stanford Review (where those last two guys were editors-in-chief). This looks awfully personal to me. DelosHarriman 18:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing else I can really do here, usually he should of been banned, but it appears my 3RR report went unnoticed, as it was not denied nor was it accepted. I'm not going to get involved in the actual edits, firstly, as I don't want to be involved an edit war on a subject that I don't have much backround on, secondly now that school and sports are re-entering my life I don't have the time to devote to watching over this article, or the majority of the other articles I have been involved with. The user has left me a message trying to convince me to help him in this matter as well, I will also decline that, but in both situations all I can suggest is to follow the steps in dispute resolution. --Wildnox 05:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delos, I am not sure you understand what is going on here. When a group of people start spamming wikipedia by placing unverifiable content on it, it makes sense to eliminate all the unverifiable puffery, not just some of it. The fact of systemic correction of the violation of wikipedia rules is not personal; it is wikipedia operating the way it is supposed to.

How amusing coming from an anonymous user who has never edited anything except the three or four articles he's attacking. Your agenda is clear enough. DelosHarriman 16:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delos, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia rules. Please avoid personal insults. It is OK to discuss the reasons for or against changes, ON THE MERITS. It is not OK to draw conclusions about the editors; rather, you need to discuss the changes on the merits.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rod D. Martin[edit]

Thank you for helping resolve this matter. While you are at it, could you please also remove the notices regarding notability and importance. I do not want to do this myself (it would just spark another edit war, and I don't think I have authority to do so anyway), but since the whole point of the AfD vote was whether the subject was notable/important, the consensus has pretty clearly resolved that and both tags should go away. (Any thoughts on how to resolve the other two tags at the top would be appreciated also, and the consensus was against them too, but I am not qualified to say whether those tags should disappear or not.) Thanks. DelosHarriman 16:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The tags have now been removed. (aeropagitica) (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rr Violation on TheVanguard.Org[edit]

Please help. Anon user 68.51.8.88 has just violated 3rr on the article entitled TheVanguard.Org. In the process, he has also removed a valid citation to an outside source regarding the erroneous point he's pushing and ignored repeated attempts by numerous users to point that out. He's the same anonymous user who was also the main antagonist against the Rod D. Martin article (Martin being the group's chairman), which situation you resolved. Your help would be most appreciated: I cannot revert again without violating 3rr myself. DelosHarriman 16:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Were you aware that you can report WP:3RR violations at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, rather than posting to an individual admin's Talk page? It is better to post there rather than anywhere else in case I or another admin miss the posting or are away from our computers for the evening. (aeropagitica) 21:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rod D. Martin article[edit]

Would you please consider removing the neutrality and compliance templates from the Rod D. Martin article? These were also added by 68.51.8.88 after he lost his bid to have the article deleted, and in fact, everything in the article is sourced, and it just doesn't make any special claims about the guy. It's only not neutral from 68.51.8.88's perspective because he wants the guy deleted entirely. DelosHarriman 17:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that the requirements for these tags have been satisfied, you can remove them from the article. When you do so, please include a justification in the edit summary and/or place a statement to the effect on the article Talk page. Every editor is allowed to be bold! (aeropagitica) 21:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppeting[edit]

You are blocked for using multiple sockpuppets for the purpose of vote fraud. If you still want to contribute to Wikipedia, feel free to do so after the block expires. --WinHunter ^(talk) 12:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Thiel.jpg[edit]

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Thiel.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.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. 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:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

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 11:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —An gr 11:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jillian Manus[edit]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Jillian Manus, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Pastordavid (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]