User talk:Bert Schlossberg

NPOV

Schlossberg, please read Wikipedia:NPOV. We strictly enforce this policy.

Also I nominated this article KAL 007 and the Russian Ramming Attempt for deletion because it is unreferenced and an NPOV violation. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We do not post eyewitness accounts as separate articles. We are an encyclopedia. Wikisource is used for texts and Wikiquote is used for quotes. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could have the author of the book produce a form of permission and have the text uploaded to Wikisource - BUT make sure the author positively gives permission. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry 'bout that - Wikisource in fact prohibits any copyrighted texts [1] - Well, maybe another Wiki will want to take the KAL007 texts. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I notice that it prohibits fair use - If you get permission from the copyright holder I think you can upload it to Wikisource after all.. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are welcome - but make sure that the people on WikiSource know of the author's permission - if you need to have the author contact Wikisource and tell Wikisource that you have his permission :) WhisperToMe (talk) 07:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Just noticed that the article, now in Wikisource has been nominated for deletion. In the request for Comment, I mentioned your name as the one who suggested that it can be done this way - If that's O.K. I have the author's permission letter to use in case requestedBert Schlossberg (talk) 07:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has not been nominated for deletion yet -- the notice says "Warning: This page does not provide license information and may be nominated for deletion." - So, contact this guy Wikisource:User_talk:Jayvdb and he will clarify stuff and will help you prove that you have the author's permission :) WhisperToMe (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the information mentioned in that book also in the ICAO report? I think the ICAO report would mention the stuff in the Hokkaido beaches. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the citation is for that last part that hasn't been cited yet. :) WhisperToMe (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Bert Schlossberg

Hello, Bert Schlossberg. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Yours, --NewbyG (talk) 08:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read our policies before further editing

Welcome!

Hello, Bert Schlossberg, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Bearian (talk) 13:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sakhalin

So, you made this:

On May 28 1995, an earthquake measuring 7.5 on the Richter scale occurred, killing 2,000 people in the town of Neftegorsk.

Part of the Korean Air Flight 007. Interesting. ~ WikiDon (talk) 05:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I did, Don. Sorry. Actually I became aware of it but hoped that others could put subtitles like I did to the sections to put more order to it. Can it still be done,leaving my subsection title up and letting that be an encouragement to others?Bert Schlossberg (talk) 05:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If not could you replace the other info of my edit and leave the subtitle off?Bert Schlossberg (talk) 05:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Stalk of KAL 007

I have nominated Stalk of KAL 007, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stalk of KAL 007. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Guycalledryan (talk) 10:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello/Shalom

Hello there. Do you also teach Syriac-Aramaic?--Yohanun (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for Image:Soviet destroyer.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Soviet destroyer.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. 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 made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. 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 Mifter (talk). For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 14:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have written permission from the Photographer and owner Paul Soutar, who took the photo aboard on of the Naval vessels in search operation. He has given me permission to use as I see fit. The Navy Dept. had released these pictures.Bert Schlossberg (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for Image:After Action Report Map.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:After Action Report Map.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. 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 made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. 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 MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 19:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source/license for Image:Osipovich1983.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Osipovich1983.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. 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 made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. 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 MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 19:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source/license for Image:Soviet destroyer.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Soviet destroyer.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. 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 made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. 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 MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 19:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Chart8.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Chart8.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sdrtirs (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Time magazine.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Time magazine.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sdrtirs (talk) 18:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So....

...I've removed your recent edit. It's no doubt of use but it needs to be neutralised and correctly cited. Feel free to work on it in a sandbox and make sure it complies with our guidelines, notably WP:NPOV and WP:MOS before inserting it into a high-profile article which is bound to be liable to POV edits. I understand where you're coming from but you must work within the policies (including WP:COI) to allow your contributions to stand. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Looking over your contributions, I noticed that there seems to be one KAL 007-related article you haven't edited: Larry McDonald. Do you plan to edit that article anytime soon? was TML (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look soon and see. I had edited a while ago but it was removed. Maybe it's time againBert Schlossberg (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for Image:Ship 1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ship 1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. 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 made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. 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 MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 22:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:After Action Report Map.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:After Action Report Map.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.

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 09:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Korean Airlines Flight 007, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. Socrates2008 (Talk) 04:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Socket puppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bert Schlossberg. Thank you. Socrates2008 (Talk) 04:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bert, are you aware that you might be editing Wikipedia whilst accidentally logged out? It's recommended that you choose to edit exclusively with your account so as to minimise things such as the above. If you require any help whatsoever, please don't hesitate to contact me. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 06:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can tell me exactly what you would like me to do then I can help to the best of my ability :-) - Regards and take care, friend. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 22:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 13:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting KAL007 to pass GA

Bert, You might ask User:Happyme22 to help with this effort. I don't know if he is willing or available, but Happy has experience getting politically sensitive articles to pass Good Article and Featured Article reviews (I worked with him on Iran Contra scandal, which is a GA). Socrates is right, if this article is to reach GA this go-around it needs lots of experienced, dedicated editors to go back, hunt down the sources, attribute them, scrub the content that was copied, and fast. It looks like all three of us are working on it, but if we're still finding issues, that's a bad sign. I frankly cannot dedicate more time to this article than I am right now.Dave (talk) 07:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. Dave, Thanks!Bert Schlossberg (talk) 08:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bert, You need to click this link: File:Time magazine.jpg and edit the page adding a fair use rational for this image ASAP. It has been flagged for deletion, and will be deleted in a few days if you don't. For some examples see File:Dueltruckfront.jpg or File:Tank Man (Tiananmen Square protester).jpg. Basically, a fair use rational is wikipedia speak for a short paragraph on why wikipedia should be allowed to use a specific copyrighted image on a specific wikipedia article because of the fair use doctrine, and why Time magazine shouldn't sue the uploader for copyright infringement. It only takes a few minutes, but is important for legal protection.Dave (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bert, I did not pass the GA for KAL007. Please don't take this personally. I honestly believe this will be a GA in the not too distant future. I would be honored to be the reviewer that passes it. However the fact is, while the article has significantly improved, there is more work to do. While I think Socrates crossed the line of assume good faith when he accused you of using sockpuppets, I hope this does not deter you from continuing to work with him on this article. That is what will make this article great, is when it can survive scrutiny from multiple editors with multiple viewpoints. Good Luck. Dave (talk) 05:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The socket puppetry was my mistake, and I apologise for that (I've dealt with two other controversial articles recently where the primary contributors were socket puppets, so I guess I was on the lookout here too). Let's move on - I'd like to see this reach GA too. Socrates2008 (Talk) 06:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dave, I want to thank you for the quality of your work and your good involvement with me. I will not be deterred and view the experience as a good one, though not easy at times. I do hope that you are the one to be the reviewer for the next try. Socrates, thank you for the apology about the sockpuppetry and I will not be deterred from working with you. Please overlook any crustiness that overlies my persistancy with this issue. The very best to both of you and see you!Bert Schlossberg (talk) 08:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 13:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moving images to Commons

Bert, I moved those images to Commons. If you're not familiar, Wikimedia Commons is a sister project to Wikipedia with the goal to create a free art library, similar to Wikipedia's goal to be a free encyclopedia. It uses the same base software and behaves very similar to Wikipedia, and your wikipedia account _should_ work there too (although there have been problems). Only images known with 100% certainty to be free for all uses should be put on commons, for example the TIME magazine cover could not be moved to Commons.

Placing it on Commons has two advantages. One, the Commons is connected to wikipedia and all of wikipedia's sister projects, so this image can now be used by the spanish language wikipedia, russian language wikipedia, etc. Two, even if editors delete it because they feel it's not appropriate for an encyclopedia article, it IS appropriate for a free art library and will still be available via this link at the bottom of the page:

.Dave (talk) 05:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Admiral Piotti.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, File:Admiral Piotti.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 20:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC) --Peripitus (Talk) 20:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:McDonald- Computer Aged.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:McDonald- Computer Aged.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. 06:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Grenfell - Dad.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Grenfell - Dad.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. 06:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:Moneron Island 2.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Moneron Island 2.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. 06:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Grenfell - Daughter 1.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Grenfell - Daughter 1.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. 07:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KAL 007 GA

Bert, if it's agreeable with you, I'd like to focus efforts from this point on stabilising the article and fixing the remaining unresolved references, with a view to submitting to GA in the next week. How does that sound? Socrates2008 (Talk) 06:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Socrates, sounds good. All I've got is a couple of entries into the Time Table of Attack. I will be home in a couple of days and will do it. You are doing good work! BertBert Schlossberg (talk) 13:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff?

I knew him, but mostly just by name. It was also a few years ago. — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Small world, as they say. Could you do a favor? I see that besides being interested in KAL 007, you are an Electronic Warfare Officer. Would you read these two pieces and get back to me with your opinion? Please email it to this address: webmaster@rescue007.org Thanks!Bert Schlossberg (talk) 15:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC) http://www.rescue007.org/RC_135.htm http://www.rescue007.org/RC_135_cont.htm[reply]

KAL 007=GA

Well done, this is now a good article. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Socrates, you are a good manBert Schlossberg (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasure working with you! Socrates2008 (Talk) 05:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International Civil Aviation Organisation

Hi Bert. On 1 April you edited this article to include a new paragraph about ICAO investigations of air disasters. Your contribution is welcome. However, even though it contains a lot of detail you have not provided any citation to ensure your contribution is verifiable. WP:Verifiability contains the important advice that The threshhold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

The subject of your contribution is potentially very controversial because it may be perceived to contain criticism of the actions, and inactions, of various countries. As a matter of policy, encyclopedias in general, and Wikipedia in particular, do not set out to add to international tensions. Wikipedia only sets out to record verifiable facts. In the absence of your citation, other Wikipedia editors are unable to determine whether your addition is scrupulously accurate and neutral, or whether it contains an element of original research.

I have added a {{Fact}} tag to your paragraph. Please return promptly and add suitable citations to support your recent contribution. If you do not do so, the paragraph is likely to be deleted promptly. Happy editing. Dolphin51 (talk) 23:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citation now inBert Schlossberg (talk) 03:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your prompt response. Dolphin51 (talk) 03:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Moneron_Island_2.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Moneron_Island_2.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris 07:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Time magazine.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Time magazine.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 18:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Ship 2.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Ship 2.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with KAL 007: How it went astray until attack

Hello. Concerning your contribution, KAL 007: How it went astray until attack, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.airliners.net/aviation-articles/read.main?id=72. As a copyright violation, KAL 007: How it went astray until attack appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. KAL 007: How it went astray until attack has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:KAL 007: How it went astray until attack and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:KAL 007: How it went astray until attack with a link to where we can find that note.
If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:KAL 007: How it went astray until attack.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 08:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of KAL 007: How it went astray until attack

A tag has been placed on KAL 007: How it went astray until attack requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 09:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bert. I noticed your comment on the talk page of the article, in which you claimed that the text was copied from your book. While this would solve the copyright issue, it would be classed as original research. Original research is not considered encyclopaedic and is hence considered unsuitable for Wikipedia. Judging by your comments, you may also have a conflict of interest in the Korean Airlines Crash. Please read those two pages, as they will provide information about what the appropriate editing practices in relation to this is. As a side, you may wish to read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials if you still wish to use your copyrighted materials on Wikipedia. Hope to hear from you. :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 09:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bert, two additional points. (1) Anyone can post anything on Wikipedia and claim that they were the original author of it and that they authorize redistribution of it. If you want to establish this as a fact, please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials. (2) Even if you do this, the material you submitted is not in the nature of an encyclopedia article and is likely to be deleted anyway. I encourage you to review the five pillars of Wikipedia so that you can understand what kind of material we are looking for. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We'll keep discussion on this page shall we? :)

Your connection with the aircrash does constitute a conflict of interest, but it is nice to see you are making a conscious effort to avoid bias. There are many other issues that need to be addressed, such as the confirmation of your identity. I'm not going to be of much help to you, so I'm starting a thread on WP:ANI to help you out and get some input from some administrators who are experienced in this area. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your efforts. I will help out in my identity question. I have a number of means of identity, through various websites aside from my own, photographs, documents. Let me know. Yes, I do, and will, make conscious effort to avoid bias, and of course, will work (with others, I am sure) to make article more encyclopaedic.Bert Schlossberg (talk) 12:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem to me that, based on your evident knowledge about this incident, you could make some valuable contributions to our existing article, Korean Air Lines Flight 007, rather than simply reposting material from your book. Any such contributions should include references to secondary sources, since, as Backslash Forwardslash noted above, Wikipedia is not meant as a publisher of original research. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you are who you say you are, is it really your intention to relinquish your copyright and make your work public domain? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russ, I am the major contributing editor of Korean Air Lines Flight 007. The present article is an expansion of one aspect of that article - how it went astray

Baseball Bugs, Is it required that I give an answer to that question to proceed with the issues at hand? For a long time I've thought about this issue and it may be the way to go in order bring this matter to the greater number of peopleBert Schlossberg (talk) 12:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone else written about the specific matter you're talking about? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, lots! You can see the major books and the numbers on the reference section of Korean Air Lines Flight 007 . What I have written here, is agreed on by almost everybody - and then the building of the theories from these facts. Fot example, I list the various ways the pilots were exposed to evidence of their deviation. From this there are the theories - ICAO = lack of flight crew "situational awareness", Pearson, Dallin, Johnson, etc. probable evidence for intentional deviation by pilots, and then the theories for the whys of this - save fuel by cutting across, intential intelligence mission etc. But what I present, with the referencing, is, I think, the agreed upon dataBert Schlossberg (talk) 13:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Bert - I have no concerns about your claims of copyright for your own material, however I am very curious why you have started this second article after we spent all the effort getting Korean Air Lines Flight 007 into shape. There seems to be much overlap with the existing article. (See WP:CFORK) Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good to "see" you again, Socrates! Well to answer you. As you know there is only a small section in the KAL 007 article that deals with the deviation, and as far as I saw and see it, it could not be expanded without unbalancing, and being laborious. When the issue of the flight deviation did come up, in the "Talk" I think that the discussion was fueled by considerations of "conspiracy". But there is really a lot to say that has nothing at all about conspiracy theory and that, as I see it, is pretty much agreed upon by all. This article I see as a way of filling in and sort presenting the understanding that there is really a lot of data that underlies many of the theories, yet do not require any one of them. Without my having registered my opinion in this article (or any other) I can not myself come to either total ignorance on the part of the pilots nor can I come to an understanding that the deviation was intentional. But the ample data requires neitherBert Schlossberg (talk) 13:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem: KAL 007: The Search in International Waters

I see you've been involved with other conversations above on copyright issues related to other articles. I am nevertheless leaving the standard template message below because it contains a concise statement of what you need to prove and release your copyright (which you must) if you want to use this material on Wilkipedia.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as KAL 007: The Search in International Waters, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.airliners.net/aviation-articles/read.main?id=75, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), versions 1.3 or later then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:KAL 007: The Search in International Waters and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:KAL 007: The Search in International Waters with a link to where we can find that note.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:KAL 007: The Search in International Waters.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:KAL 007: The Search in International Waters saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent the requested "permision granted" letter:

I am the director of the International Committee for the Rescue of KAL 007, whose website has featured the aritcle, of my own authoring, from which much of "KAL 007: The Search in International Waters" was taken. The original source of both the website and the article "KAL 007: The Search in International Waters" was the book "Rescue 007: the Untold Story of KAL 007 and its Survivors". which I also authored and hold the copyright. I give my full permission for the the material both of the origninal work and of the website to be used in the article "KAL 007: The Search in International Waters". Thank you!

Bert Schlossberg Director International Committee for the Rescue of KAL 007 Survivors

Info about the book http://www.rescue007.org/book.htm

info about the author with photo of author http://www.rescue007.org/bert_schlossberg.htm

The website of which info for the wikipedia article "KAL 007: The Search in International Waters" http://www.rescue007.org/

The particular article, of my anthoring, in the book from which material was taken for use in the wikipdea article is intitled "KAL 007, the U.S. Seventh Fleet, and the Great Russian Ruse" http://www.rescue007.org/docs/TheGreatRussianRuse.pdf

I give Wikipedia full permission for the use of all and any of the above material in the article in question.

Thank you,

Bert SchlossbergBert Schlossberg (talk) 07:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Schlossberg, I see that your letter was received on June 6, but an agent wrote you back requesting specific licensing information. I do not see any sign that you have responded to this letter. If you have not, please send your response so that we can clear this article. If you did not receive the communication from the agent, please let me know, and I will see that it is resent to you. (OTRS agents only may view the correspondence, but I am noting the ticket number here for convenience: Ticket:2009060610007811) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since our records do not yet show a usable license release for this material, and it was requested of you on 6 June, the article has been removed for the moment from Wikipedia. If at any point you provide a specific license release as requested, it should be restored by the foundation agent who processes that request. If you have any questions about this or, again, if you need our correspondense re-sent, please feel free to come by my talk page. I will be happy to assist you howeverI can. We appreciate your interest in donating material to Wikipedia; these processes are not meant to make that difficult, but were put in place simply to be sure that the project respects the rights of copyright holders like you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your Edit of U.S. Coast Guard Article

The edit you recently did on the U.S. Coast Guard has been reverted by me. The content of the link you provided should properly go into the history article History of the United States Coast Guard. While there may have been Coast Guard involvement in the KAL 007 incident, it is of historical significance, not about the organization and how it works. The Coast Guard has existed for 218 years and has had a long and colorful history. In the article U.S. Coast Guard, even the History section is just an overview of the history of the organization. The Coast Guard conducts thousands of Search and Rescue missions annually and to those involved no one mission is more important than another. I can understand your interest in the KAL007 incident and your interest in telling the story; however your entry in the SEE ALSO section of the article places undue importance on one SAR case out of literally hundreds of thousands of SAR cases. Please put the information you want to convey in the logical place in the History of the United States Coast Guard article.

Please understand that I am very sorry for your family's loss. Cuprum17 (talk) 15:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm talkin' about! Much better after your addition to the History article. Thanks for your co-operation and Cheers! Cuprum17 (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Rescue 007: The Untold Story of KAL 007 and its Survivors

The article Rescue 007: The Untold Story of KAL 007 and its Survivors has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Self published book - article created by the author. verging on spam.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. noq (talk) 18:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COI

If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article The Zero Option, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Given your directorship of the International Committee for the Rescue of KAL 007 Survivors (rescue007.org), it's inappropriate to create articles about rescue007.org, or to add links to your website from Wikipedia articles

The Zero Option was not written by me, but by David Rollins and the links to the International Committee for the Rescue of KAL 007 Survivors website (This is not my personal website but rather the website of a long standing organization of which I am the director) are specifically to the photos in the website.Bert Schlossberg (talk) 07:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National Convention Resolution 773

Mr. Schlossberg - you have introduced references to 'National Convention Resolution 773' to the Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission articles. Can you point me to a reliable primary or secondary source where this resolution is mentioned please? - Crosbiesmith (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s the partial text of a resolution approved at the 63rd national convention of the American Legion held in Honolulu, September 1-3, 1981.

(WHEREAS, the American Legion in national Convention assembled in Boston, massachusetts, August 19-20 1980, did adopt Resolution 773 wherein it was demanded that the Congress of the United States launch a comprehensive investigation into the Trilateral Commission (TC) and its parent organization, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) to determine what influence has been and is being exerted over the foreign and domestic policies of the United States; and)

(WHEREAS, the Honorable Larry McDonald, of Georgia, introduced Resolution 773 on February 4, 1981 in the House of Representatives, applauded the initiative of the American legion, commended the text of the resolution to his colleagues and gave his strong support to this effort; now, therefore, be it.)

(RESOLVED, by the American Legion in National Convention assembled in Honolulu, Hawaii, September 103 1981, that we demand, once more, that the Congress of the United States launch a comprehensive investigation into the TC and the CFR to determine what influence has been and is being exerted over the foreign and domestic policies of the United States; and, be it further) Bert Schlossberg (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personal message

Bert, I don't mean to personally attack you but I have to say this: You are living in a dark fantasy world if you think any of the information you provided is “accurate”. The notion that the passengers of Korean Air Lines Flight 007 were killed by agents of some New World Order conspiracy simply to assassinate Larry McDonald disgraces their collective memory. I sympathize with your loss but I find it heart-breaking that in your desperation to make sense of the senseless you have embraced the paranoid delusions of the American far-right. So the tragegy is compounded... :( --Loremaster (talk) 05:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Loremaster, you really are way off. I do not believe that the passengers of KAL 007 were killed by agents of the New World Order, let alone were killed to assassinate Larry McDonald. Where are you getting this idea? If I did hold to this idea, it would not be, in and of itself, a disgrace to the memory of the victims or a disgrace to their families. And some of the families of KAL 007 believe as I do about survivors.In any case, I do not have the belief that KAL 007 was brought down by the New World Order to get Larry McDonald. But if there were evidence to that presented to me, I would proclaim itBert Schlossberg (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article http://www.conservapedia.com/Korean_Airlines_Flight_007 articulates fully what I do believe about the above. You will find nothing in it about the New World Order. The cause lies elswhere.Bert Schlossberg (talk) 06:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies then. Let's move on. --Loremaster (talk) 07:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Larry MacDonald

Stick around and watch the fur fly on the NWO/CT page. See my arguments in archives of last year so you know my position and contact me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Batvette (talk • contribs) 15:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Ground Forces

Would you mind kindly please explaining why you created a see also section in this article and then added a Soviet Air Defence Forces officer to it? Seems to me to be the wrong branch. Be good to get that clarified. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buckshot06, I am unable to explain but you are right. Kornukov should not be there at allBert Schlossberg (talk) 02:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Please take a look at Soviet Air Defence Forces and add KAL 007 data as appropriate. I appreciate your strongly held views about the reasons for and aftermath of the accident. Please however add widely agreed data. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 06:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.Bert Schlossberg (talk) 08:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published website

www.rescue007.org appears to be a self-published website. As such, it is neither as a reliable source nor a suitable external link, except in an article about the organization itself. Please stop adding links to it. If you continue to do so in violation of Wikipedia guidelines the link may be blacklisted and your editing privileges may be affected. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for the promotion of fringe views. You have been warned about problems with this website and with your editing before. Will Beback talk 20:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted links to the website from every article except Korean Air Lines Flight 007. While it is also inappropriate there, there is some reason to bend the rules a bit to include that mention. I've also left the link from The Zero Option because it's directly relevant there. Will Beback talk 20:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, unless you can show that the webmasters have exerted significant editorial oversight of your writing, the articles you've posted to www.airliners.net also count as self-published sources. Please do not add links to those either. Will Beback talk 23:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bert, I urge you to review WP:COI as your editing profile continues to exhibit a pattern that may be construed by some people as promoting your own website, either directly or indirectly. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zero option

Please stop adding the The Zero Option to the "See also" section of the KAL 007 article.

It is already listed under the "Further reading" section
The undue weight you are placing on this link appears to be related to the fact that it's linked to your website.

Thank you. Socrates2008 (Talk) 03:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

O.K.Bert Schlossberg (talk) 03:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of The Zero Option

An article that you have been involved in editing, The Zero Option, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Zero Option. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Will Beback talk 17:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other option

While some of the KAL 007 related-material may not be appropriate for Wikipedia, it occurs to me that it may be a better fit at Conservapedia. They are generally receptive to materials concerned with anti-communism, and especially editors who use their real name. User:Ed Poor is a long timer editor here and an admin there. I'm sure he'd be happy to help you set up articles on that site. Will Beback talk 03:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NWO/CT

Just a brief note on the intent of that article by its primary editor, Loremaster- if you want your issue to be stacked up with ridiculous concepts on a podium then knocked down in public shame, go ahead and push for its inclusion- you'll get what you seek. This is not to imply any dark intentions by Loremaster or anyone supporting him- the fact is most everyone who promotes each of those scenarios in that article, once you get comfortable with them and really listen to their beliefs, well they are lunatics. I hate to come out and say it but it's true, and usually not revealed in the belief itself that appears there but another they are spewing about that you may have much deeper knowledge of. For instance one person who had my ear about NWO and CFR taking over the world well one day I find a whole page on his site devoted to one known moron we'll call Dr. Joan Woody (not her real name but following wiki policy forbidding slander of the living Judy Wood oops!) declaring 9/11 was the work of a directed energy weapon disintegrating the towers into dust. Utterly absurd, just dumb. Now if I were so blinded by my agenda I could explain that away saying well I don't care about his belief in the tragically retarded, because he says some things I agree with. However it's clear anyone buying any part of the DEW disintegration thing has no knowledge of science and technology and has a screw loose and sharing their views only discredits me, and promoting them in any way might actually harm the cause I might loosely seem to share- unless one believes that any publicity is good publicity, in that case let them run for political office solely on the coverage they get in the national enquirer. . If I were you I would focus my efforts on the KAL 007's own pieces, best you can do there. Possibly lower your sights on the level of conspiracy. Of course my beliefs in the matter as I stated could be called CT by some. but not paranoid and not lacking grounding by known facts- and that is what the NWO/CT article is focused on. The beliefs of the stupid and paranoid. I don't think you are stupid, and hope you know not to breach the grey area between rational suspicion and paranoia, in your understandable quest for what I think is beautifully described in the latin "Lux et Veritas". Batvette (talk) 20:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Korean Air Lines Flight 007 alternate theories, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Please do not try to add your own website or your own book on this topic. The policy on COI is quite clear - you have to clear the addition with other editors. Your material was already removed once - on COI grounds, as well as the material not passing RS. That you do not come to the talkpage to address the issue, but instead just reinsert references, is not the way to go about matters here. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure we should immediately marginalize his editing for COI, unless we want to tell Republicans and Democrats they cannot edit articles concerning Republican and Democrat issues, respsectively. Let's face it, Wikipedia has this absurd facade of policy which dictates all editors contribute with NPOV and that everyone's presence within an article is to advance the access of information to the world through wiki, and not because of a personal interest in the subject of that article. People become knowledgeable about issues they care about, that's the way it works, and Bert is not a new editor here so condescending remarks about familiarizing himself with policies are a bit out of line IMO. If his edit was blatantly POV, and had links to sites not allowed, and you are probably right about that, then just say so. Perpetuating the absurdity of NPOV editing here only insults the intelligence as condescending and dishonest. Nothing personal, you are only playing the game everyone else does. (note I have no interest in this matter and don't even know Bert, but have seen this angle used against him and I think it's silly. Who else would really care about what happened to these people on this flight? If there are still unanswered questions, and I believe there are, it should not be forgotten)Batvette (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your message confuses COI editing and POV - they're not the same issue, although they can be related. This warning is about COI. As for Bert's experience: there was a discussion on the talkpage which he ignored, and the COI breach is incredibly clear. I am not "using an angle against him", but simply applying policy. COI does not stop him contributing material that is not by him directly to the article, and he can ask other editors to add his own material. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perpetuating the absurdity of NPOV editing here...

I'm involved in perpetuating the "absurdity" of NPOV editing here. If anyone has a problem with the fact that NPOV is a core policy here then they should probably find another project.

The issue with this editor is that he goes beyond expertise into advocacy. Promotion of causes has never been allowed on Wikipedia, and many editors have been banned when they refused to stop. Will Beback talk 20:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Bert is very knowlegdable about this subject, but his self-stated objective is to dissemnate information about his organisation, rescue007.org, and its fringe point of view. Unfortunately that POV has come across very, very strongly at times during his editing here at WP. Ironically it was the strong bias in the KAL article that drew me in in the first place - the net result is that KAL 007 is now a good article, which is a good result, surely? The alternative theory article is salavagable too as long as Bert is guided by other editors and also tries to help by providing suitable references. Socrates2008 (Talk) 20:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to KAL 007: The Naval Search. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you.

Hi there. When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field – please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you. Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 18:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Will do.Bert Schlossberg (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, you'd better be because this lazy behaviour of yours speaks volume about your contribution if you cannot even provide a decent/concise explanation in the edit summary box of what you are doing. Work with us please and not the other way round, wil'ya? Out. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 19:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 2010

Please stop spamming articles with "citations" to your KAL 007 conspiracy website and gratuitous "See also" entries to the KAL 007 conspiracy articles. If you are going to edit articles other than Korean Air Lines Flight 007 alternate theories, please confine yourself to what can be supported by reliable, mainstream, secondary sources. That means nothing from your website and nothing from John Birch Society publications and the like. Thanks. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed Bert's tendency to link even the remotest things (For instance- Air India Flight 182 probably because the flight involved a 747 to KAL 007, to some aviation articles where any connection is just baffling USAir Flight 1549, UTA Flight 772 and List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft.

On a side note, Bert hasn't edited an article in over 10 days. I do hope he's all right.- William 18:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear William, I am well. Thanks!Bert Schlossberg (talk) 18:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of KAL 007: The Naval Search for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article KAL 007: The Naval Search, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KAL 007: The Naval Search until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight

It is clear from your talk page that this probably isn't news to you, but your edits here: [2], [3], and [4] give WP:undue weight to one event. I see this is an issue you care about, but Wikipedia isn't here for advocacy purposes. --Lord Pistachio ^talk 04:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:McDonald- Computer Aged.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:McDonald- Computer Aged.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T/C) 23:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:USCG Cutter Munro.gif

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:USCG Cutter Munro.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T/C) 00:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Link spam

Please do not add unnecessary wikilinks to the KAL 007 articles. It is not necessary to add them to every aviation-related article. Will Beback talk 07:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion involving an image you uploaded is taking place on commons

see [5] Regards, Dave (talk) 16:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing promotion of your website rescue007.org at Wikipedia

This is your last warning. The next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising, as you did at International Committee for the Rescue of KAL 007 Survivors, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Speedy deletion nomination of International Committee for the Rescue of KAL 007 Survivors

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on International Committee for the Rescue of KAL 007 Survivors, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an acceptable page. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this page is not blatant advertising, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You may freely add information to the page that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the page will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources

Bert, don't post about these unless the newspapers cover them. It seems like users have asked you not to soapbox about this theory. Kindly respect their wishes - I also started Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Aviation_accident_task_force#KAL007_soapboxing.3F just to inform the aviation WikiProject. If you so choose we can move it to a noticeboard WhisperToMe (talk) 01:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

O.K.I'll be careful. I didn't start the petition. Someone whom I didn't know started it. It has been written up in a magazine, but you may not hold it to the same level as a newspaper http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/item/12667-activists-victims%E2%80%99-families-want-new-investigation-of-flight-kal-007-shot-down-by-soviets Bert Schlossberg (talk) 01:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Admiral Piotti.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Admiral Piotti.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, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Korean Air Lines Flight 007 - Shoes.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Korean Air Lines Flight 007 - Shoes.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]