User talk:Ptah3773

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] License tagging for Image:St. Michael.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:St. Michael.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Issue8.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Issue8.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 15:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Corey Clark

Hi, Ptah. Although the article is currently protected, I thought I'd offer my two cents on your separate of the sections. I don't think it's necessary, since all of the material previously in that one section is about the scandal, and is not too large to require a second section. And although including different points of view is valid (and I've never removed pro-Clark info as long as it was sourced), I don't think it's necessary to indicate it in the title of a section, simply because it cites the sources you mention. Keep in mind that that section also includes the findings of the independent counsel hired by Fox, which did not find Clark's assertions to be conclusive, and the parody of the flap that aired during that season's finale, neither of which would fall into the category of "Clark's perspective". Let me know what you think. Thanks. :) Nightscream 04:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Ptah. There are three points I want to touch upon:

I still think it should be separate, since the majority of the information presented was from Corey Clark's interview on ABC, excerpts from his E-book, and his public statements following the internal investigation and the parody. But that doesn't tend to be the convention when it comes to naming sections, which you see when you look at lots of other WP articles. Section names are derived from the content of the material in the section, not the perspective from which they're derived. And again, almost half the info in that section is not from "Clark's perspective", so that section name is just not accurate. Hell, even if it were, your statement about the material's "perspective" only depends on whether you choose to place the section divide where you did, which is arbitrary. Move that section line up a bit or down a bit, and becomes even more inaccurate. But if you leave it the way it was, it all falls under the umbrella of the "Idol Scandal", which is why it's just a simpler and more straightforward choice. Breaking it up at that point woud only be warranted if the section were too long, which it certainly isn't.

The tone of that section seemed oriented towards a more "pro-Clark" slant, so at the time it appeared to be more appropriate to annotate it as "Corey Clark's perspective" since it didn't appear (to me, at least) that it was from a NPOV. See, this is the sort of thing I've come to expect from Clark's anonymous fan editor. Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to have "slants", nor are certain sections of them. That isn't how they're supposed to be arranged, unless something about the inherent nature of the information warrants.

At any rate, hopefully it'll stop being vandalized by the well-meaning (but overzealous) anonymous user who had frequent grammar and writing style issues... Well, it has, but only because it's now protected. On Geniac's Talk Page, his own, and the article's, the ClarkFan is still advocating inserting his point of view, arguing that we should insert "positive" stuff about Clark and his career, that we should "look out for him", that the article should itself make a judgment on the quality of his position and his evidence vs. Abdul's and Fox's, ignores me and Geniac when we point out WP policies, refuses to create an account with a username, rearranges material on Talk pages, outright lies about my edits, claims that I am inserting my opinion of Clakr in the article, is now making false accusations about me, claiming that I somehow work for Fox, etc. There's always some bad apples in the bunch, Ptah. But thankfully, there seem to be more of you and me around. :-) Nightscream 03:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

On and by the way, the protection tag on the article says it'll stay there until the "editing disputes are resolved." I don't know if there is a prescribed procedure for this other than consensus, and since 69.180.238.139 is impossible to talk to, I'd appreciate if you'd weigh in on the various points that he and I are "discussing" on that Talk Page. Thanks. Nightscream 04:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I really appreciate your saying that. It's good to know that I'm not the only one who notices his behavior. Just chiming in to state what your opinion is of the various being discussed--that is, who do you feel is making the better case--will show interested parties an idea of the consensus of the editors working on that article (even if it's just a handful of us). You may have noticed that Geniac advised me, right above your last post on my Talk Page, to request semi-protection for the article. I went to the appropriate page for that request, and posted it. Thanks. (And btw, I don't recall how or when this happened, but it appears that there is a message from me to you on your User Page, instead of your Talk Page, where it should've been placed. I'll understand if you want to remove it.) Nightscream 17:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. Sorry to bug you. Would you mind expressing your opinion on the various points being discussed on the Talk Page? Thanks. Nightscream 01:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

What I wanted you to add was your opinion on the points being discussed, so as to help build a consensus. Nightscream 05:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that she's indicated that they're one and the same. All I was referring to as far as your chiming in was your opinion on the various points we disagreed over. But if you don't want to, that's fine. Thanks anyway. :-) Nightscream 05:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)