User talk:Dbiel/Archive 2

Hello Dbiel, I wrote the esplai article, thanks for categorize it correctly. Can I request you that You review the text? I'm using an automatic translator tool to correct my mistakes, but I am not sure that it serves. Thanks. --Loquetudigas 16:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I will see what I can do. Looking at the link to the article in Spanish, it looks like this article can be expanded greatly. I am a bit short on time just now. But I have added it to both my to-do list and my watch list. Dbiel ^(Talk) 01:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for changing the format on the footnotes to the National Civilian Community Corps page. My first attempt at compiling material for Wikipedia. I added a fair amount of material in an attempt both to balance the unwarranted Criticisms that appear and to update the site and make it more comprehensive. The added material was moved off the page and marked for potential deletion.

If you have a moment, perhaps you could take a look and see if you feel that it would be unfair to delete everything.

Best wishes.

Please see discussion at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCCC_Accomplishments

Here is What The National Civilian Community Corps Page Looked Like on 7 Sept. 2007

If editors are going to be asked to comment on the material marked for potential deletion, they may want to compare it to the previous version (below). You will notice the absence of any accomplishments and the presence of a Criticisms section. The information is skewed, out of date, there were no footnotes. While it may seem that I added too much, rest assured that I had to select from (leave out) much additional positive information.

If an editor wants to discuss any of the specific topics added, that is fine: Program Accomplishments, NCCC Disaster Mitigation, Emergency Preparedness, Disaster Relief and Recovery, NCCC Fire Fighting and Fire Mitigation, NCCC and Environmental Conservation, NCCC and Education, NCCC Work for People With Disabilities, NCCC and Veterans, The NCCC Experience, NCCC Photographs and Videos. These are not "irrelevant" quotes.

Deleting all of the added content would be a disservice to Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Civilian_Community_Corps&oldid=156185378

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 128.172.143.124 (Talk) at 02:07, 7 September 2007. It may differ significantly from the current revision. (diff) ← Older revision | current version (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Example Of An AmeriCorps*NCCC Team- Aged 18-25 (Source: Team Eagle 2, Perry Point, MD Campus: Service Year 9, 2003)

AmeriCorps*NCCC, or National Civilian Community Corps (NCCC), is an AmeriCorps program in which 18 to 24-year-olds dedicate 10 months to address national and community needs. 1,200 members are trained annually at and operate from one of three regional campuses, located in Sacramento, California, Denver, Colorado, and Perry Point, Maryland. They travel with their team throughout a multi-state region to a series of service projects, each typically lasting six to eight weeks. Projects fall in the areas of the environment, education, public safety, unmet human needs, disaster relief, and homeland security. Teams frequently work with non-profit organizations such as Habitat For Humanity and the American Red Cross, tutor students in public schools, and build trails for various national and state parks. While in the program, members receive room and board, a modest living stipend of approximately $13 a day, health coverage, and, upon successful completion of the program, a taxable education award of $4,725. Members are required to complete a minimum of 1,700 hours of service, including 80 independent service hours. As of 2006, NCCC cost $27,859 per member for each 10 month service year. $4,725 of this is accounted for via the taxable education award, with the balance going toward salaries and operating/living expenses across the four campuses and numerous project sites.

History

The NCCC program was loosely based on the depression era Civilian Conservation Corps, although in practice, the differences between NCCC and CCC projects were quite marked in both practical intent and outcome. The Civilian Conservation Corps focused its efforts on substantial, necessary domestic works projects (Building bridges, paving roads, constructing buildings, etc), whereas the NCCC model trends more heavily towards the "social program" archetype. The program was created in 1993 by Bill Clinton as a demonstration program charged with determining: [1] Whether federally funded residential service programs can significantly increase the support for national and community service Whether such programs can expand the opportunities for young men and women to perform meaningful, direct, and consequential acts of community service in a manner that will enhance their own skills while contributing to their understanding of civic responsibility in the United States Whether retired members of the armed forces can provide guidance and training under such programs that contribute meaningfully to the encouragement of national service Whether domestic national service programs can serve as a substitute for the traditional option of military service. While some of the primary motivations cited in the 1993 inception of AmeriCorps*NCCC changed and evolved over time, the basic focus of the program has remained the same (environment, education, public safety, unmet human needs, disaster relief, and the addition of a "homeland security" heading in 2002/3) In 2005, the Office of Management and Budget issued an assessment citing the NCCC program as being "ineffective", leading to drastic cuts in funding for the program. [2] Much of the Fiscal Year 2006 and 2007 funding issued to NCCC was directly specified as being intended for hurricane relief in the Katrina impacted upper-gulf region. In 2006, The Office of Management and Budget announced the campuses in Charleston, SC and Washington, DC would be closed due to cost inefficiencies inherent to those campuses. 50% of the remaining NCCC will be deployed to the Gulf Coast to aid with Hurricane Katrina relief until at least 2010.

Criticisms

The NCCC program has met with sharp criticisms from some fiscal conservatives who accused it of being a "boondoggle". [1] Most notably, Libertarian pundit and commentator James Bovard has been one of the most vocal Americorps NCCC opponents, calling it a "waste and fraud" [2], in addition to dedicating an entire chapter of criticisms of the program in his book "Feeling Your Pain: The Explosion and Abuse of Government Power in the Clinton-Gore Years"

External links

Official Website This article about an organization in the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. Categories: United States organization stubs | AmeriCorps organizations Categories: AfD debates (Organisation, corporation, or product) | AfD debatesCoterminous 18:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The Administrator who moved the positive material about the National Civilian Community Corps off the main page evidently contributed to the Criticisms section on the same day, according to the History at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Civilian_Community_Corps&action=history

(cur) (last) 00:09, 28 September 2007 LoverOfArt (Talk | contribs) (9,978 bytes) (→Program Accomplishments) (undo) (cur) (last) 00:08, 28 September 2007 LoverOfArt (Talk | contribs) (9,986 bytes) (Criticisms addition- former director of the NIE) (undo)

Is there a way to request that another, possibly more objective administrators, oversee - or at least join - this process?

Thanks.Coterminous 18:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I much appreciate your taking the time to offer your opinion about the NCCC page and the review process.

Best wishes,Coterminous 22:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have added the comment below to the discussion about the NCCC page. Don't want to impose on you, but in case you want to glance at it.Coterminous 21:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the quotes could be concentrated and worked into a more-encyclopedic narrative. They started out as a separate section, ""Accolades,"" meant to balance the Criticism section. A collegial effort to rework this would be fine. Instead, the positive material was removed and marked for deletion.

A number of comments have been made during this process to the effect that the quotes added are "fluff," or superfluous, etc. Until this month, NCCC was characterized at Wikipedia - a guaranteed quick hit on Google - by quotes calling it "ineffective," a "boondoggle," a "waste and a fraud." Accomplishments, praise: nonexistent. This sort of incomplete and misleading information can have serious and destructive consequences.

There is a great deal of meat on the quotes newly posted, from a variety of senior officials and elected officials, which runs directly counter to the image portrayed by the pre-existing Wikipedia entry. A few quick examples:

The highly respected former director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, James Lee Witt, wrote that "members of AmeriCorps (part of the National Civilian Community Corps, or NCCC) have responded to every national disaster since its inception in 1994. As director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) from 1993 to 2001, I saw firsthand how the young men and women of the NCCC helped to rebuild communities and lives. What made the NCCC critical to our disaster response is that it provided us with disastertrained and certified volunteers who could be mobilized at a moment’s notice."

A 2006 letter to the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, signed by fifty-two U.S. Representatives, stated in part: ..."Americorps*NCCC members are 100% disaster trained and available for immediate deployment in the event of a natural disaster anywhere within the United States. Trained in CPR, first aid, disaster response, and firefighting, NCCC teams have responded to every national disaster since the program was established."[18]

In Sept. 2007, an editorial about NCCC by the Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper, the Sun Herald, stated: "Among the many who wear the name "hero" in our book of golden deeds performed here, the Americorps volunteers will forever have a place of honor in our memory - idealistic young people, and seniors also, who came here and lived in Spartan conditions for month after month, in military tents, going out day after day to help the people of South Mississippi pull themselves out of the debris and rebuild."

"Habitat for Humanity has participated in the NCCC since 1994, and the members of the NCCC have been instrumental in working towards Habitat for Humanity’s goal of eliminating poverty housing across the United States. Over 5,100 NCCC members have participated in more than 500 individual Habitat for Humanity service projects, and they have served with 142 Habitat chapters in 43 states."

I welcome good-faith efforts to update the content and incorporate 

historically valid sources of information about topics like NCCC disaster relief work, etc. in search of a fair, comprehensive entry. Coterminous 17:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your recommendation:

Keep but it does need a lot of work. Merging it back into the main article is probably not the best choice due the its length. The quotes should in many cases be edited to only include the most important points with a link back to the original source for those wishing to read the entire statement. There may be some question as to the inclusion of this type of data in Wikipedia, but that is over my head and needs to be discussed and explained by those who fell it does not belong. One more point to keep in mind is that this article and its parent are the work of a very new editor. It would be wrong to delete it with out first providing guidance on how it can be improved. Dbiel (Talk) 20:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You may have seen the Strong Delete recommendation that was posted (below). I have added the response that follows. /Coterminous 15:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC) ...

Strong delete (and merge back the small amount of properly sourceable material) as a classic POV fork. To make a separate article for the accomplishments, in order to remove it from the contamination of an article with the criticisms, is as improper a use of wikipedia as can easily be imagined, and a complete violation of the letter and spirit of NPOV. This is made even less defensible because the criticisms section in the main article is a mere paragraph, and the material in the new article is an extensive and uncritical accumulation of human interest testimonials mostly from the organizations own website. The editor responsible for most of this material is a SPA ip, 71.166.147.45, which resolves to Reston Virginia. The editor responsible for splitting it also has admitted COI, and an apparent atitude of WP:OWN. There have been previous edit warring over the existence and extent of material on the attempt of the present Administration to destroy this admirable program, (yes, I do have some feelings on the subject myself--but I express them by advocating a single NPOV article with content from RSs). DGG (talk) 05:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: "RSs - This presumably refers to Reliable Sources. Quotes with verifiable links may present difficulties for the Wikipedia guidelines, but they at least have this advantage: they can be used to evaluate the source of that information -- not the editor who posted it; rather, the qualifications of the original source -- and whether or not material should be accorded weight.

You write that "the material in the new article is an extensive and uncritical accumulation of human interest testimonials mostly from the organizations own website." I want to provide one example to show just how incorrect that description is. One of the newly added quotes is:

In Sept. 2007, an editorial about NCCC by the Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper, the Sun Herald, stated: "Among the many who wear the name "hero" in our book of golden deeds performed here, the Americorps volunteers will forever have a place of honor in our memory - idealistic young people, and seniors also, who came here and lived in Spartan conditions for month after month, in military tents, going out day after day to help the people of South Mississippi pull themselves out of the debris and rebuild."[8] http://www.sunherald.com/editorials/story/141099.html

I could have -- perhaps should have, except for concerns about violating "fair use" -- included this quote from that Sun Herald editorial:

" .... the thousands of Americorps volunteers who quickly came to the aid of South Mississippi following Katrina were among the very best representatives of our federal government, living proof of tax dollars that were effectively and efficiently expended in the behalf of a shattered region." http://www.sunherald.com/editorials/story/141099.html

The Sun Herald, in Biloxi, Mississippi, shared the Pulitzer Prize (for public service) in 2006, ""For its valorous and comprehensive coverage of Hurricane Katrina, providing a lifeline for devastated readers, in print and online, during their time of greatest need."

Now, if this paper and its editorial board, who must know more about this than any Wikipedia editor, would print that editorial, Wikipedia editors might then consider whether obliterating references on the NCCC page to accounts of NCCC's effectiveness, while retaining statements that NCCC is "ineffective" represents objective editing or something entirely different.

It doesn't seem to make much sense to conclude that the Sun Herald would write that editorial if it saw evidence that NCCC was a "boondoggle" or a "waste and a fraud," as quoted at the main Wikipedia NCCC site for years.

So perhaps this discussion can try to focus less on the suspected or apparent motivations of contributing editors and more on how to facilitate a responsible and comprehensively revised and balanced entry for this organization, and thereby remedy the evident ill-advised skewed POV of the existing content.Coterminous 15:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Dbiel,

The quotes that refer to NCCC as a "fraud" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Civilian_Community_Corps are not substantiated by the footnotes provided.

It seems to me that Wikipedia should insist on a verifiable source for that serious a quote or remove it.

Can you run this up the flagpole?

Sorry to involve you - yours seems like a voice of reason.Coterminous 04:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The Criticisms Section reads:

Criticisms The NCCC program has met with sharp criticisms from some fiscal conservatives who accused it of being a "boondoggle".[4] Most notably, Libertarian pundit and commentator James Bovard has been one of the most vocal Americorps NCCC opponents, calling it a "waste and fraud"[5], in addition to dedicating an entire chapter of criticisms of the program in his book "Feeling Your Pain: The Explosion and Abuse of Government Power in the Clinton-Gore Years." Robert Sweet, the former director of the National Institute of Education, labeled it "a fraud". 4) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188385,00.html 5) http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1000americorps.htm

The article referenced by Footnote 5, the supposed source of comments that label NCCC a waste and fraud, nowhere mentions NCCC or the National Civilian Community Corps or AmeriCorps NCCC. The article is about AmeriCorps in general - not the same thing.

NCCC consists of about 1200 corps members per year. AmeriCorps is a large umbrella covering the following: (See http://www.americorps.org/about/ac/index.asp )

"AmeriCorps is a network of local, state, and national service programs that connects more than 70,000 Americans each year in intensive service to meet our country’s critical needs in education, public safety, health, and the environment. AmeriCorps is made up of three programs: AmeriCorps*State and National, AmeriCorps*VISTA, and AmeriCorps*NCCC (National Civilian Community Corps). AmeriCorps*State and National: AmeriCorps*State and National supports a broad range of local service programs that engage thousands of Americans in intensive service to meet critical community needs. Learn more about AmeriCorps*State Learn more about AmeriCorps*National AmeriCorps*VISTA: AmeriCorps*VISTA provides full-time members to community organizations and public agencies to create and expand programs that build capacity and ultimately bring low-income individuals and communities out of poverty. Learn more about AmeriCorps*VISTA. AmeriCorps*NCCC: The AmeriCorps*National Civilian Community Corps is a full-time residential program for men and women, ages 18-24, that strengthens communities while developing leaders through direct, team-based national and community service. Learn more about AmeriCorps*NCCC."

In addition, the comment of NCCC that "Robert Sweet, the former director of the National Institute of Education, labeled it 'a fraud'." is unsupported by any footnote at all.

These are flimsy reeds to support this level of comment about the National Civilian Community Corps, a highly regarded organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coterminous (talk • contribs) 02:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Dbiel. "loverofart" mistakenly assumed that your qualifications to the Criticisms quotes about NCCC, [making clear that they were generally about AmeriCorps and not quotes about NCCC, as stated] was posted by me. He undid your revisions. I have subsequently tried to re-clarify them myself as an interim step.

I would like to request that Wikipedia administrators / mediators have the critical quotes in general about AmeriCorps that are posted at the NCCC site considered as to their suitability (or not) for the Wikipedia AmeriCorps page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americorps) and removed from the NCCC page.

I saw your note that the criticism of AmeriCorps was not irrelevant to NCCC. Let me suggest an analogy: Let's say a reviewer expressed in writing criticism for a university overall -- and you were compiling an encyclopedia entry for one program at that university (the medical or business or law school, take your pick). A careful and intellectually honest editor wouldn't dream of transferring a negative quote about the university as a whole and attributing it directly to a particular program at the university. The medical or business or law school would be rated largely on its own merits. A Criticism section of NCCC should be about NCCC, plain and simple.

Otherwise, you have a sort of "guilt-by-association" effect at work: Someone said AmeriCorps was terrible / NCCC is a part of AmeriCorps / NCCC must be terrible. This is poor logic and poor editing -- in fact, it is a classic technique of propaganda -- and unnecessary, except, perhaps to placate an irate editor.

There are more important issues at stake than that.Coterminous 02:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The quotation claiming to state that NCCC was a waste and a fraud: "conservative pundit and commentator James Bovard has been one of the most vocal Americorps NCCC opponents, calling it a "waste and fraud" [2], is, as I have already noted, a false quotation.

Nowhere in the article footnoted does the author refer at all to AmeriCorps NCCC, nor is he quoted as calling it a "waste and fraud." Just for the record, that content was introduced by LoverOfArt on 13 June 2007. (at 23:26 the Criticisms section was absent. at 23:32, he added it.

He did the same thing with the quote from Mr. Sweet, attributing a quote about AmeriCorps as if it were specifically about NCCC. (I have added a qualification clarifying that point at the site.)

Falsely quoting someone as stating that a nationwide program like NCCC is a "fraud" is an incredibly profound editing error, done once. Done again, in any reasonable editorial environment, that editor would no longer be on the case.

I request that LoverofArt be frozen from editing the NCCC page

Here is the History:

"This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LoverOfArt (Talk | contribs) at 23:32, 13 June 2007. It may differ significantly from the current revision."

Criticisms The NCCC program has met with sharp criticisms from some fiscal conservatives who accused it of being a "boondoggle". [1] Most notably, conservative pundit and commentator James Bovard has been one of the most vocal Americorps NCCC opponents, calling it a "waste and fraud" [2], in addition to dedicating an entire chapter of criticisms of the program in his book "Feeling Your Pain: The Explosion and Abuse of Government Power in the Clinton-Gore Years"

No Criticisms section here:

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LoverOfArt (Talk | contribs) at 23:26, 13 June 2007. It may differ significantly from the current revision.Coterminous 04:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not a simple accident by an editor unfamiliar with the program. LoverofArt repeatedly states personal familiarity with the program -- states he could write a long paper about it -- and clearly knows the difference between AmeriCorps (an umbrella organization comprised of numerous parts) and AmeriCorps NCCC.Coterminous 12:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Say a college had an open enrollment policy and someone criticized it writing "that university as having 'no standards at all.'"

However, say the graduate program at the university -- the medical school -- has a fine reputation.

Someone comes along and changes the quote to "that medical school has no standards at all," places it in quotes with a footnote, posts it at the web where it will likely be seen by potential applicants and funders, where it remains for months.

When questioned about such practices, the same person repeats the practice.

This is completely out of bounds. It places Wikpedia at some risk.

I request that LoverofArt be frozen from editing the NCCC page.Coterminous 10:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

LoverofArt placed the words "Robert Sweet, the former director of the National Institute of Education, the premier federal education research agency" in his Criticisms section and removed quotes. He must know this is from the article he cites at http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1000americorps.htm - (I quoted this line to him and gave the source; he then added the words "the premier federal education research agency" to this section but without quotes.

This gives the impression that Wikipedia is making this statement.

(As it happens, the National Institute for Education apparently no longer exists: it was the "precursor to the Office of Educational Research and Improvement" (See: http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/edinvrev.pdf, p.41. fn13)), so referring to it in the present is a mistake.)Coterminous 10:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Re your comment: "Some of LoverofArt's edits may be controversial, but his method and cooperation are all within Wikipedia guidelines. ... From my POV it would appear that LoverofArt is working hard to present a NPOV working on both the positive and negative sides of the issue. It is actually hard to tell exactly what his personal POV is, which is exactly what Wikipedia is all about. One of the problems is that there have been very few editors willing to work on this article, which makes reaching a consensus that much more difficult. Dbiel (Talk) 01:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

1. I think a closer look at this dispels the notion that LoverofArt has a neutral point of view. The author whose work LoverofArt keeps featuring so prominently at the NCCC site wrote a book reviewed as a tremendous condemnation of President Clinton and "his" AmeriCorps program. There seems to be a definite bias against the idea that a government program could be effective and valued -- especially one associated with AmeriCorps.

2. I also doubt that LoverofArt's method is truly "within Wikpedia guidelines" -- unless in the Wikipedia world manufacturing defamatory quotes, and lifting sentence-length strings of text and appropriating them for oneself (isn't that the definition of plagiarism?) is fine and dandy.

3. His ugly rant below may be within Wikipedia guidelines, but they don't exactly qualify him as editor of the year, either.71.166.147.45 02:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"Borderline Lunacy

I have never, ever in my history on Wikipedia, seen a more incohearant, jumbled, senseless, excessively long-winded, foaming-at-the-mouth sort of reply as I'm seeing here with this person (Coterminous). This individuals responses in the discussion section are nearly impossible to comprehend and so schizophrenic in their continuity that I seriously doubt anyone else is able to decipher their meaning as well. ... -LoverOfArt 04:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)"

Do you mind if I join this conversation, as another cool-headed mitigating factor? I think I may be able to help. I realize, of course, that conversations on Wikipedia are more or less open, but I don't want to seem like I'm stepping on your toes or trying to disrupt your efforts, so I just wanted to let you know. - Che Nuevara 13:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally I would love to see you get involved, but I would hope that the conversation could be done on the article talk page rather than my personal talk page. Dbiel (Talk) 13:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course. I just wanted to check in with you before injecting myself onto that page. Cheers. - Che 13:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

First, is this where (and how) I should answer the note you left at my mytalk page? If not, sorry to clutter your personal page.

You asked:

"I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish by adding the "&" infront of the the image tag. I do not think that it is doing what you want it to do. You have added it twice and it has been removed twice as it only adds the & to the first line of the article. If you would care to expain what you are trying to do maybe someone could help with getting it done. Dbiel (Talk) 15:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)"

I have not been adding that mark, although I take you at your word that it is appearing under my sign-on. I spotted that mark and almost went in to edit it, but got busy on something else. I will keep an eye on it.

By the way, someone (I didn't have time to check) has been rendering the link to an OMB report at the NCCC page as a URL in the text (appearing prominently at the top of the article). I changed that once to a footnote and it appeared again as a URL, so it is evidently being done deliberately.

I have been studying the Wikipedia guidelines on Point of View, objectivity, etc. I'm sure you have seen this quote:

"Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information" [Wikipedia Founder] Jimmy Wales jwales at wikia.com Tue May 16 20:30:15 UTC 2006 http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046440.html

Of course, what seems misleading to a careful and educated person may seem good enough to another, who "thinks" the meaning of a statement is clear (or who knows what he or she meant). Editing or changing that text may cause resentment, but conforms with Wikipedia guidelines, per Mr. Wales.

From where I sit, if a writer or editor (like myself) well versed in the English language, with some training in logic and copyediting, reads a statement as clearly subject to misinterpretation, that may be enough for others to cast a sharp eye at the wording. Not that I write perfectly - everyone needs an editor.Coterminous 17:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Replied on users talk page Dbiel ^(Talk) 21:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Dbiel, this is Survir. I want to ask that my User:TALK Page is getting longer. Am I able to delete the old comments. If yes, how. Can you please help me cleaning up my user talk page. I will be thankful to you! Survir 07 October 2007. 10:07 (UTC)

Hello, Dbiel,

As also noted at the Discussion Page, I have added two new sections to the NCCC entry. Please let me know if you feel they are somehow outside Wikipedia guidelines for verifiability or tone.Coterminous 17:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Founding Directors Section

I have added a brief Founding Directors of NCCC section to the page, with footnotes. I noticed similar sections at the Wikipedia entries for the American Red Cross and the Peace Corps.Coterminous 13:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

New Section

After reviewing Wikipedia guidelines, I have added a revised NCCC and Education section. In a previous version, I had written the following: "The dedication of NCCC teams to their educational projects is illustrated by their accomplishments with the Harford County, Maryland school" Although I believe that the tone of that sentence was actually justified by the official statement of commendation from the school system, I have nonetheless tried to write with a more neutral POV. So, I have rewritten that sentence to read: "National Civilian Community Corps educational projects are illustrated by their work with the Harford County, Maryland schools."Coterminous 17:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Dbiel,

As posted at the NCCC Discussion site:

"In a previous version, I tried writing a section called "The NCCC Experience." Questions were raised about point-of-view. For example, I wrote "Other AmeriCorps NCCC members have compiled and posted their remarkable "Stories of Service" online." I thought that a fair reading of those stories made that statement an accurate one, not a biased one. However, since others may not share this conclusion, I have deleted the word remarkable so that it now reads: "NCCC members have compiled and posted "Stories of Service" online."Coterminous 20:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)"

Please let me know if you feel I have somehow violated Wikipedia guidelines in terms of tone or verifiability.

(for comparison purposes, at the Wikipedia Peace Corps site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_Corps) is a lengthy listing of "FILMS") Other sites have a POPULAR CULTURE section (for example, the Job Corps site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_Corps)

I have tried to focus mainly on sites that provide images/videos/narratives relating to historic events like national disasters.Coterminous 20:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

{{helpme}} The following user page: User:Ioeth/friendlytag.js is currently listed in Category:Category needed yet the page itself does not indicate that it belongs to any category. Any idea as to how to remove it from Category:Category needed?

Most scripts are enclosed in <nowiki> tags to avoid this sort of thing - this script isn't. The problem is caused by including the template code {{uncategorized}} in the script. If you checked, I'm sure you'd find this page in WP:WIKIFY and other cleanup categories as well. I'll ask the user to modify their script - I'm not able to, as .js pages are something users are allowed to claim ownership of, and so they're always protected for everyone else. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I userfied NCCC accomplishments to User:Dbiel/ScratchPad/NCCC accomplishments per this request. You also may post such requests at Requests to restore content to userspace. -- Jreferee t/c 14:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

A comment at my page is signed "Dbiel (Talk) 02:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC), and refers to me as follows; "The most laughable is "I have done an extraordinary amount of unpaid work". You may have put a lot of effort into the article, but it does not come anywhere near being extraordinary"

This comment does not befit someone touted as a natural mediator. You (or whoever posted that notice) have no way to gauge the years of pro bono research and writing and editing on this and related subjects that were required to be able to work on this article now. Your belittling my efforts and comments as "laughable" is beneath you.Coterminous 03:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I will not reply here as this is simply a copy of the same thing posted on his talk page Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Dbiel - See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Independent_sources for source of quote in title - full discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:National_Civilian_Community_CorpsCoterminous 12:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

per your request, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:National_Civilian_Community_CorpsCoterminous 13:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

See also, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:National_Civilian_Community_Corps (and http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/14/opinion/14tue3.html) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coterminous (talk • contribs) 13:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:National_Civilian_Community_Corps and http://www.abqjournal.com/opinion/guest_columns/465013opinion06-02-06.htm

Charles Moskos, "Professor of Sociology, Northwestern University": "They remain available at a moment's notice for deployment to any emergency in the country." ... "In light of the above, a robust and enduring U.S. domestic national service capacity should be considered indispensable. Yet, this is precisely the time that Congress is being asked to eliminate the NCCC, the "backbone" of our national service infrastructure." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coterminous (talk • contribs) 14:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Dbiel - don't know if this interests you, but it may show the relevance/seriousness of the matter at hand:

New Security Strategy Emphasizes Disaster Preparedness, By Spencer S. Hsu and William Branigin Washington Post Staff Writers Wednesday, October 10, 2007; A02

"The White House yesterday updated the nation's homeland security strategy for the first time since shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, acknowledging the need to prepare for catastrophic natural disasters...." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/09/AR2007100901026.html Coterminous 14:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Civilian_Community_Corps and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:National_Civilian_Community_CorpsCoterminous 16:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Civilian_Community_Corps, http://www.mcclatchy.com/, and http://www.mcclatchydc.com/staff/maria_recio/story/19661.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coterminous (talk • contribs) 17:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

When I saved the NCCC entry as a .pdf file, the dubious - discuss tag was not captured. If that is standard, it limits the usefulness of the tag.

"According to an article by James Bovard that did not mention NCCC, the former director of the National Institute of Education, Robert Sweet, labeled the approach of AmeriCorps to teaching a "fraud" in a 1999 interview.[57][dubious – discuss]"Coterminous 17:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

replied on users talk page Dbiel ^(Talk) 17:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Dbiel, I don't think you crossed the line. You probably haven't made a friend for life in him, but I don't think your response was disproportionate. He's been trying to shove all of us around, and the fact that you've kept your cool as well as you have is indicative of your good judgment. He's really pushing it. I think I will file a Wikiquette notice ... I don't have terribly high hopes for it working, but it would be irresponsible not to try another avenue at this point, I think. I do plan on sticking around, yes, and I hope you do too. I'm hoping there's an answer here somewhere. - Che Nuevara 18:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Added a quote from an independent source, the Washington Times newspaper. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Civilian_Community_Corps and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:National_Civilian_Community_Corps —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coterminous (talk • contribs) 19:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

If you have time, see brief note at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CheNuevara&action=submit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coterminous (talk • contribs) 19:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I do want to thank you for your efforts in moderating the NCCC page. You are correct- we may be able to reintegrate some of the most recent edits, but it will take time and cooperation. --LoverOfArt 21:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: the latest message by Coterminous, I've gone ahead and moved this forward to proceed with a user block. This has become a pointless effort. You can only be slapped by the olive branch so many times before you realize that there is no peace to be had. If this were simply a philosophical disagreement, I wouldn't bother, but it's a very simple rule issue. A new user is trying to unilaterally re-write wikipedia rules and refuses to accept that they are incorrect. There is no point in trying to "reason" with this person anymore. The article and the site is much, much better off if they are gone. --LoverOfArt 17:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you have said here, and yes it does need to move up the ladder. But I believe that you are wrong in the thinking that "The article and the site is much, much better off if they are gone." I will finish my reply on your talk page Dbiel ^(Talk) 17:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: Wikiquette: The link provided says "Place the tag at the bottom of the page". What is the "tag" that I need to place and what page to I need to place it on? Coterminous' user page, or the talk page? Thanks again. --LoverOfArt 17:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I am actually in the process of doing it right now and will provide a link to my entry as soon as I am done. Dbiel ^(Talk) 18:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Link to Wikiquette alert request: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#NCCC article editors

Good move.

I'm a little annoyed that he goaded me into chastising him, but such is the way of things, I suppose. - Che Nuevara 19:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

To Dbiel, CheNuevara, LoverofArt:

"Philippe, I don't know how much of the archived discussion you had a chance to review, to see what led to my post. You may not feel you need to, but had I posted the remarks and editorial tactics of LoverOfArt, he would be under consideration for blockage from Wikipedia, not me.Coterminous 12:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this issue: "What's going on? Coterminous is a new Wikipedia user and doesn't fully understand what is appropriate for this site. .... LoverofArt has posted false and misleading and defamatory information about NCCC at the Wikipedia site and resorted to repeated vitriolic personal attacks on Coterminous which finally prompted an angry response."

The above statement is not a wild accusation from a fool. I once helped copyedit for publication a book by Senator Moynihan of New York. LoverofArt shows blatant disregard either for editorial honesty or accuracy, with the net result being grossly negative and inaccurate statements about NCCC posted at the Wikipedia NCCC site by LoverofArt. His ugly rants against me, combined with the false and misleading information he has posted, combined into a toxic brew. Please tell him and his cohorts to back off the "chastising" of me, as Che Nuevera puts it, and focus on content.Coterminous 13:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)"

We are attempting to focus on content, but you are not making it very easy with edits like the following:

National Civilian Community Corps/Criticisms of the National Civilian Community Corps‎; 19:30 . . (-1,678) . . User:72.75.55.211 (Talk) (Deleted My Copy from this page - I consider it an Insult to be listed in the same company as LoverofArt (signed: Coterminous))

Apparently the only content you want to focus on is your own Dbiel ^(Talk) 19:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I have responded to your request at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:National_Civilian_Community_CorpsCoterminous 11:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was my talk page - the reason there wasn't a lot of talk on it was that I've been fairly inactive lately. The posts you saw were automatically-delivered editions of the Wikipedia Signpost, a periodical that updates its subscribers on Wikipedia goings-on.

You were lucky to catch me signed-in tonight; like I said, I've been super-busy lately and not doing a whole heck of a lot on Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I'll do my best to take a look at the link you left and post some comments on it, but I won't make any promises.

Thanks for keeping me in mind! I've enjoyed collaborating with you in the past. PaladinWhite 04:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering if I could impose on you to take a few minutes and review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional diseases. I seem to be of the minority point of view and maybe you could either add support to keeping the list or help me see where I might be totally off base in my thinking. Thank you in advance.

I actually disagree with a lot of the arguments that seem to have rough consensus among AfD-goers these days. Particularly, I think that, while important in principle, "notability" has grown into a monster. I tend to lean more toward reliable verifiability for my inclusion criteria. However, the community seems to be against me at the moment, which means I rather lose. So I keep making my arguments, hoping that eventually the pendulum will swing the other way, but ultimately I have to bow to the will of consensus. Lists are particularly tricky. I will take a look and see what I think.

Secondly I think I am slowly understanding what you meant by the moving the article that was attached to the sub talk page. But more importantly I would like to know it you support Philippe's POV that all discussion should take place on the main article talk page.

At some point it was decided that subpages in the mainspace were inappropriate, so they were disabled. This means that someone clicking "random article", in theory, could have come up with the page you created for article structure, because it wasn't technically attached to the NCCC article, even though it looked like it should have been. This is only the case in the mainspace -- in all other spaces subpages are possible.

I disagree with Pilippe, but I understand his objection. Most of the time when I mediate an article I create a mediation subpage so that unrelated discussion can continue without being dominated by mediation concerns. However, since there doesn't seem to be any talk activity on this article not related to the conflict at the moment, it's sort of academic.

Cheers. - Che Nuevara 11:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Both lists and articles on fiction are areas that I have delved into and made mistakes with, so I have avoided the recent discussions on the subject. A precedent does seem to have been made, but, in this case, I think I am leaning towards keep. I have left a comment, but not a vote as such. Feel free to drop me a line if you ahve a response, or if I can be of help again. J Milburn 11:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Repeatedly linking Virgin Records does not improve the look of the article, and it's also pointless. If you're looking at the table, it's able to fit entirely in one's screen and all you need is one link; the other's become redundant. Multiple linking also does no constitute importance of a subject. WesleyDodds 21:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately there's no point to adding more Wikilinks to Virgin Records on that chart. It's already linked once in that section, and thus there is absolutely no need to link to it again. The whole point of the Wikilinks is to link to the article on that subject, and that is adequately taken care of by one link. WesleyDodds 23:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

was well within the boundaries of our policies and well stated. Unfortunately, he has exhausted my patience. I issued a 48 hour block for continuing incivility. He's welcome to come back and contribute positively, but he's going to have to change his attitude. Thank you for your patience in handling him. - Philippe | Talk 14:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey Dbiel, I know what you mean, you don't have to explain again and again. The image Image:Solahsingaarr.jpg, I downloaded it from the following source, http://www.saharaone.in/serial/solahsingaarr.jpg, but I edited it using Adobe Pictures software. So now can you help me with the "fair use" rationale. I will be thankful to you! your friend Survir, 24 Oct 2007, 12:47 (UTC)

Replied on Survir's talk page Dbiel ^(Talk) 20:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I do not see your reasoning for putting the following back into the article History Teachers' Association of Victoria (HTAV) "On Friday we had a pd." I reverted it again. I was wondering if it was simply because we were reverting at about the same time that you accidently reverted my revert as well. Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, indeed. That was not supposed to happen. I shall have to look into it. Thanks – Gurch 04:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking that might have been the case. Wikipedia does some strange things at times. Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I see what happened. I saw this revision, and reverted it, but because the previous revision was by a different user, I did not think to revert that one too. Of course looking more closely those are clearly the same person editing from within a narrow range of IP addresses. So you reverted both, then I overwrote that with my revert of only one of them; thus the net effect was to put the first edit back. Of course that is not what I intended to do. Sorry about that. Thanks – Gurch 04:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

What had me going was your edit summary (Revert 2 revisions by Dbiel and 203.33.133.31) Chalk it up to things just do not always work the way we want them to. Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes... I don't type in my edit summaries, they're automatically generated from the script I use (too much work otherwise). So it figured out who it was reverting, it was just me that didn't notice – Gurch 04:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making an edit to the article "Center for the assessment and remediation of reading difficulties." I am know to making contributions to Wikipedia. It is great!

Thanks again, David P. Hurford, Ph.D. 04:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)David

As an administrator, I find it strange that you converted your user page to a redirect to your talk page which does not indicate anything about your admin status. I did notice that you did have a lot of vandalism on your user page. Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, did not notice the change in status. With 45,000 edits, you been very busy!!!!!! Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been an administrator for ten months now. Also, I have 71,898 edits; the counter doesn't go past 45,000 – Gurch 05:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

If you'd taken time to read his userpage, you'd have seen that JM is a passionate atheist... :-P --Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 23:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Nah, Josh isn't the type to take offence at that kind of thing (or at least I don't think he is!)--Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 01:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dbiel, I've removed the speedy deletion template from the above image, as it wasn't really relevant. The image was uploaded by Yeanold Viskersenn, and he has released it under the GFDL. If he has taken the picture himself - as he no doubt has done - then there is no way in which he can prove ownership beyond stating that he does. Let's not get this all kicking off again - take it to RFC if you want, but don't try and delete the image by adding templates in retaliation for someone re-adding the image. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 02:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that a helpful note on his talk page regarding the requirements would have helped rather more than inflaming the debate with templates, don't you? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 17:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You are right on that point, but it was the lesser of two evils as I am still boiling over the issue and at least this way I was able to stay within Wikipedia standards; which was a challenge for me at the time. Dbiel ^(Talk) 19:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hanlon's razor and WP:COOL are the two pages I end up reading the most, you know :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 19:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the references, I will make a point of studying them. Dbiel ^(Talk) 19:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You claim that the image requires "permission from the unidentified subject that he also agrees to the stated license rules." Can you tell me what part of said license rules state this? Yeanold Viskersenn 20:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not address the issue directly. The rule covering it is that of who is the copyright holder. Wikipedia requires the release from the copyright holder. The subject of a photograph has a copyright interest in that photograph. As such, it is a common practice to obtain a Model release form from all models in a photograph. Failure to obtain such a release subjects the publisher to possible liability.

Publishing an identifiable photo of a person without a model release signed by that person can result in civil liability for whoever publishes the photograph.

One of the main purposes of the Wikipedia rules is to avoid such liability.Dbiel ^(Talk) 00:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry but I'm quite certain that is utter balderdash. In Wikipedia, it's always been the case that if the image's uploader claims to be the copyright holder, this is taken to be true until proven otherwise. I asked you to tell me how you arrived at your conclusion, only to be told that I'm missing the "real issue".

I note that you have still neglected to source any of your claims, other than quoting a non-policy article about model release forms. I would be grateful if you could show me one piece of Wikipedia policy which states a GNU-licensed photograph requires a model release form or permission from anybody in the photograph before that photograph can be used in the encyclopedia.

You ask on what grounds I am claiming that I am the sole copyright holder. I am categorically stating right here, in the strongest possible terms, that I am the copyright holder of Student_japes.jpg. Any claim otherwise without proof is an assumption of bad faith which ultimately equates to an accusation of dishonesty. If I claim that I'm the copyright holder, it is not up for me to chase people up in order to prove that I am, it is entirely up to you to prove that I'm not. Until then, good faith needs to be assumed and my claim taken as true. That is Wikipedia policy. Bear in mind that if bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that others' editing is in fact based upon bad faith, it can also count as a form of personal attack.

Furthermore, even a perfunctory coup d'oeil through Wikipedia's featured picture archives brings up dozens upon dozens of photographs (for example [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]) with the same, or even less source information than Student_japes.jpg. Perhaps Wikipedia's entire administrative body is unfamiliar with the concept you've brought up (in which case Wikipedia has a catastrophic legal crisis on its hands), or perhaps you may have misunderstood the rules with regards to image copyright status. Please feel free to ask for further assistance if you are still confused by the issue - I have plenty of time :) Yeanold Viskersenn 02:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as Wikipedia being unfamiliar with the concept I suggest you look at the last image you posted a bit closer.Image:Sabaa_Nissan_Militiaman.jpg note the attached warning. I have been unable to find where the template is comming from, but the referenced article is Personality rights

But back to my original question, Has the individual in the photo agreed to having it posted on Wikipedia? I am not questioning your good faith only your interpretation of who needs to provide permission for the posting of images of living people (assumption he is still alive as you have not stated otherwise) You have yet to state that the individual in the picture (still unnamed) has given up their rights to control any commercial use of his or her name, image, likeness. The license you posted allows for the commercial use of the image by any one who would choose to do so. Thus the question has the subject of the photo agreed to it being used for any commerical purposes or otherwise as permitted under the GNU Free Documentation License. Sorry for repeating myself, but it seems that the two of us are not communicating very well. Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No need to apologise. I shall acuminate. There is no policy requiring model release forms for the subjects of photographs released under GNU. The template you refer to is a warning to people who plan to use the image in external projects that Wikipedia is not responsible were the subject's personality rights to be infringed, for instance if the image was used in an advert for electric razors. It is not an instruction that the photograph needs a model release form to be used on Wikipedia. If it was, there wouldn't be a chance in hell that the picture you referred to would have been allowed to become a featured image.

I will now insert the personality rights disclaimer template into student_japes.jpg to allay any further fears. Hence, the image contains as much if not more source information than many community-approved and celebrated featured images - a worthy precedent in lieu of any policy that substantiates your asseveration. Yeanold Viskersenn 17:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I never claimed that a model release was required, and yes the added template will take care of the problem, but a simplier way would have been to have optained the permission of the subject to post the photo in Wikipedia under the GNU license which would make the template unnecessary and would make the image available to anyone to use without question. As long as the subject does not object to its posting in Wikipedia we should be fine, but remember that he does have the right to object at any time in the future since there has been no statement that he as agreed to it being posted in the first place; if that happens, then the image would have to be deleted. But for the time being, this should be an end to the discussion. Dbiel ^(Talk) 19:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, but I confess that I'm not sure what the matter with my edit summary is: with emphasis added for clarity, it says "Reverted to revision 167486354 by Dbiel...", not "Reverting revision by Dbiel". Or am I still missing something?! Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 19:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk page. It seems that I need to be more careful in my reading as I simply read it wrong. Dbiel ^(Talk) 19:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely no problem at all. Glad to have cleared that one up! Regards, and happy editing (hope the bad mood improves...) Bencherlite^Talk 19:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to intrude - was this you? It was done by an IP is all, and I don't think i've done anything except leave messages on your page? I haven't edited it recently AFAIK! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 20:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Update note: the forged posted was deleted by User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry never did find out why my name was being forged. Dbiel ^(Talk) 19:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No intrusion at all. I would like to know who is forging my name on one of your pages. Personally I believe that Wikipedia should prohibit IP address posting. Since anyone can register and a valid email address is not required, requiring registration does not restrict anyone from posting; but thats just my POV. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. It is interesting that this was the only post ever from that IP address. Dbiel ^(Talk) 23:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm - see if you can take it to WP:ANI, getting an administrator involved seems a prudent measure. It's from a UK IP address, but it looks like it's a dial up rather than anything else. I'm not sure however, I'll keep an eye out for anything else. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 09:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

If you don't object, I'm going to close the NCCC medcab case. With LoverOfArt having admitted his mistakes and Coternimous apparently having left Wikipedia, I think this article can move forward constructively now.

Let me know what you think. Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 16:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no objections. As you said with Coternimous out of the picture, there is actually nothing to mediate. Its too bad, as he could have been a great asset to the article if he would have only been willing to work together. I cleaned up some of the sub pages as they just were not being used and now serve no purpose at all.

By the way, welcome to your new name. I just noticed it earlier today. Dbiel ^(Talk) 19:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Done.

Also, thanks!

Been a pleasure working with you, and I'm sure I'll see more of you. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 22:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Ping. Just letting you know that I've responded to your comment on my talk page. To alleviate any potential anxiety you may have, it's not a flame; it's a request for additional clarification on a certain matter. No worries. :) Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 03:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the post, I already replied on your talk page before seeing this post. Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

You'd be well-served to calm down a bit. The original deletion notice was placed because you chose to blank the page: blanking a page that you've created is considered a concession that you don't need it anymore. I was aware that you protested deletion -- what I couldn't figure out is how the page got created where it was in the first place. I decided to delete the page because, whether you intended to blank the thing or not, it was in the wrong location in any event. Ideally, working drafts of articles belong in userspace; having draft pages in article space easily gets cluttered and confused. If you'd like, I'd be happy to move the deleted material to your userspace for you. Alternatively, if the compromise draft was actually employed in the main article, I'll need to perform a history merge for GFDL purposes. Was it ultimately successful? Best wishes, Xoloz 02:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

While it is highly abnormal to have working drafts in article-space, I won't question the mysterious way of the MedCom. I've restored the talk page, as requested. Best wishes, Xoloz 14:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Note all replies have been posted to Xoloz's talk page which was the start of this conversation. Dbiel ^(Talk) 15:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

To get something like that fixed you'd have to ask at the Village Pump technical section. I just click on "hide this message" to get rid of the donations thingy. Project Coordinates 06:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

All I know is (with regards to the context at hand), you have the main namespace and the Talk: namespace, and main namespace articles have a link to their corresponding Talk: page. I don't think you need to know anything beyond that unless you're a developer. I do know that deleting articles doesn't automatically delete their talk page, as I've come across many orphaned talk pages. And that moving articles into the Talk: namespace is an annoying, but quite commonly made, mistake. I dunno, that probably doesn't answer your question. --Closedmouth 05:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well, that part's easily answered by a link: WP:ARCHIVE --Closedmouth 05:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I have worked with User:Survir several times cleaning up image licensing and fair use statements. This one has gone way over my head. I am looking for someone who would be able to sort out the pieces and come up the the correct license and fair use statement based on the inforamtion that User:Survir has provide by my questions below for Image:Maryada_serial.jpg. Thank you in advance for your assistance. Dbiel ^(Talk) 05:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Dbiel, this is Survir. I just want to ask that if you create the image yourself and want to upload it in wikipedia to represent the title of the article,,, Do you still need to enter the source info and all that...? If yes, can you please tell me how will I create the fair use media rationale.Survir 11 November 2007 15:34 (UTC)

There are a lot of different issues that can come into play. The source always needs to be identified. The easiest way for me to answer the question is to see the uploaded image; so I would recommend go ahead and upload it and post a link to the image here and I will be happy to review it and try to help identify the correct license and necessary fair use statement if necessary. Since it is an image you created, you need to decide if you are going to make it available to anyone to use for any purpose what so ever. If that is the case, the fair use statement should not be necessary. Keep in mind that the subject of the photo also comes into play, especially if it is a picture of another person. That person should also release the image for use. There are several ways that can be done. Dbiel ^(Talk) 07:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey Dbiel, this is the link for the image Image:Maryada_serial.jpg(It represents a logo image of the TV serial Maryada). Survir 12 November 2007 13:18 (UTC)

After looking at the image and the article, I have a few questions:

1) Who is the picture of? name of the actress and the name of the character she plays

Name of the actress - Jyoti Makker. Character she plays - Neelakshi

2) Who took the picture?

India-forums, which lets you use their pictures, if you are a registered user.

3) Did the subject release the photo for use under the license you posted?

Yes

4) Who created the artwork?

My friends aunt uploaded this on her computer and she gave it to me.

5) What is your relationship to the program?

This picture represents the original title of the TV serial Maryada as a logo image.

6) Were any parts of the combined image copied from another source, if so, what is / are the source(s)?

Yes from India-forums (which allows you to copy any of their work, if you are a registered user, which I am). The link of the image is [[6]] Survir 12 November 2007 20:50 USA

Dbiel ^(Talk) 23:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: actual link to the photo portion of the image is http://cms.mumbaimirror.com/portalfiles/1/12/200611/Image/211106/e14.jpg

Thanks for answering the questions. Was not expecting something quite this complex. It is definately over my head. I am going to have to ask for some help on this one. Dbiel ^(Talk) 05:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I don't think this is really a case of a free or fair use image. The original source is the Mumbai Mirror, which is a news site, so it's unlikely that the image is actually free, regardless of the licensing of the forum. (Since it only appears to be reposted there). Does that seem about right to you? Cheers, --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well that is definately one of the issues envolved. The issues as I see them seem to be

• a cropped image from what would appear to be a non-free source

• how to obtain permission to use the image in Wikipedia?

• Additional editing work done by "a friends aunt" using what appears to me to be material taken form one or more sources, but might be original in nature.
• A composite image put together by someone with no apparent relationship with the program that the "logo" is suppose to represent.

And the final question is, how does one put all that together in a way that is acceptable for use in Wikipedia? Dbiel ^(Talk) 05:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Since the derivative works seem to be at most photoshop-ish (to me at least), I think the whole thing is killed by the non-free origin. The only way to make the image acceptable would be to contact someone in the Legal Department over at the Mumbai Mirror, and ask them for GFDL permission. More info on that would be here, but I'd honestly be surprised if they granted permission, given that it would permit commercial re-use of the image. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. As much as I hate to give up on a topic that could improve the Encyclopedia, I don't think this would be the most productive way to spend one's time :) Cheers, --Bfigura ^(talk) 06:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both Dbiel and Bfigura! I agree with you guys about spending too much time on this topic! Well, thanks anyway! We should close the topic. I appreciate that you took out your precious time to help me. Survir 13 November 2007 10:30 (UTC)

Hello Dbiel, thank you for helping me archieve my talk page. I really appreciate your help! Survir 13 November 2007 10:58 (UTC)

DBIEL you removed my edit saying "there has been a long discussion about this image and the outcome was it does not belong in this article".

this not true, in fact the last thing YOURSELDF SAID IN THE DISCUSSION WAS

"I am going to revert the last edit simply on the basis of the edit summary "Image added - the discussion seems to be over!" as this statement is invalid."

so you are contradicting yourself, YOURSELF SAID THE DISCUSSION IS NOT OVER so ur completely un justified in your reasoning for remove my edit!

so tell me specificly what the argument is for delete image cos I Cant see one! look how many good points in bullet points point is made by yeanold viskenson for keep, and you see the real basis of this argument

but most important: refrain from telling lies to get your way! this is'nt bad faith this is pointing out exactly what u did, un disputaible fact... the disccusion is DEFINITELY NOT COMPLETE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.138.19 (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I will not get into a long discussion with an unregistered user over the use of Image:Student japes.jpg in article Student, but I will point out some of the key points. There has been a lot of discussion of this subject and the discussion had died off and as such was considered over. One of the consensus points was the creation of a separate article Student prank which uses this same image.

Your reading my my edit summary "I am going to revert the last edit simply on the basis of the edit summary "Image added - the discussion seems to be over!" as this statement is invalid.", which may not have been worded as clearly as necessary, was taken out of its intended context. It was not questioning that fact that the discussion was over, it was questioning the conclusion that the decision was that the image should be restored. If need be, the whole subject can be reopened, which is something I would rather avoid if possible. Dbiel ^(Talk) 19:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, Dbiel - I received a couple of odd messages today, one of which I believe is due to my carelessness with regards to copying code from the talk pages of fellow editors - specifically the "Leave a new message" section which I'd inadvertantly copied verbatim from User:Pigman's talk page. The other being a message from a (seemingly new) editor being quite vocal about Talk:Student. I'm rather bogged down in meatspace at the moment, so am reticent to review said discussion in its entirety - but if any assistance is needed I'll be glad to put the time aside to help out! Thanks for your time. Yeanold Viskersenn (talk) 06:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I am more than a bit confused by this post by Yeanold Viskersenn, as he was the most vocal user regarding using Image:Student japes.jpg in article Student as well as the uploader of the image; while User:Scott 110 was the most vocal regarding the removal of the image with myself a close second to Scott. As long as it can be said that we have a consenses regarding not using the image in article Student; there is nothing more that needs to be done. The problem is that all of a sudden, an unregistered user has decided that the image should be restored to the article and then made two unsigned posts into existing unrelated topics on two separate user talk pages leading to some confusion for yet one more user who read the unsigned post as a reply to his posted topic, which of course was impossible for anyone to understand it that context. Dbiel ^(Talk) 22:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Dbiel thanks for looking into Chail Military School. It is located in India and not in Pakistan so I have to undo your catergorisations. I am new to wiki so learning how to categorise etc. Actually Chail Military School is the school under Director general of Military training (MT15) India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harpreetsingh7 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt communication. I'm somewhat unclear on why you feel the image would be better suited for Rolling Stones Magazine (if it were an article) than The Carpenters, but I think one could make a solid (though not indisputable) argument for deleting the image based on necessity/replaceability (Wikipedia:NFCC#1). That's just my view though. I'd suggest bringing it up on image fer deletion -- my guess is that it would more likely than not be deleted there, but that's just my rough speculation, and I wouldn't really be comfortable with speedy deleting it.
Best,
— xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 00:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

In response to the above post, I posted the issue at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Image:Rk74rg1.jpg -- Dbiel ^(Talk)

I see you changed the type of stub tag on Technology tree. Why do you think a stub tag is needed? I was thinking of removing it. Philcha (talk) 01:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the stub being removed. My change was simply to replace the redirect version of the stub (which is in the process of being deleted) with and current version of the stub. In fact, I will go ahead and remove it as I can see that it does not apply at this point in time. Dbiel ^(Talk) 01:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Philcha (talk) 13:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

you said ' Deleted prank image one more time. see extensive discussion page entries '. THE DISCUSSION DOES NOT SAY IMAGE SHOULD BE DELETED SO WHY ARE YOU LIEYING? QUOT ME THE EXACT PART OF DUSCUSSIN WHERE CONSENSUS REACHED TO PERMENTLY REMOVE IMAGE FROM THE ARTICLE... THERE ISNT ONE

IF U READ ARGUMENT THERE IS NO CASE FOR REMOVE, SO I WANT TO KNOW WHY YOU PRETEND THERE IS ?THIS IS BAD FORM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.47.130 (talk) 09:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

That depends on how you read the discussion, but regardless, the statement can clearly be made that there was no consensus for the image to be in article Student. Please log in first, if you want to discuss it further. Dbiel ^(Talk) 12:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You say ' there was no consensus for the image to be in article ' SO WHAT ? ? there is no consensus for removal either so yu phrase it like that is manipulaiton of fact to serve own ends : come on we can see that clear, and DO NOT try and tel me i shouldnt be part of discussion unless i member of wikipedia this is complete lies from you AGAIN, i dont even believe htis level of maniputation occuring ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.28.33 (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You sure have a way of reading things into my posts that are just not there. It is hard to have a discussion with someone that does not even what to sign their posts. It is also hard to know who you are talking to when posts are made using multiple IP addresses (one individual, multiple individuals).Dbiel ^(Talk) 21:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)