User talk:Geoffry Thomas/Archive 1

Images

Hi Geoffry Thomas, you can find many images available to use on Wikipedia already uploaded by other contributors on Wikimedia Commons. The best way of uploading your own image or video is to go to Commons:Upload and follow the instructions. Uploaded files must be public domain or creative commons with attribution, see the upload page for links to detailed explanations of what these terms mean. Once uploaded to Commons, images can be shown in Wikipedia and any of the sister projects in the normal way (see Wikipedia:Picture tutorial).

Additional points to note...

Logging in - you have to have an account on Commons, this may have already been created under the same name and password as your Wikipedia account, see Special:MergeAccount.
Copyright - if the copyright of the photo is owned by someone else and there is no existing free license to reference (for example on their website), then you need to follow the Commons:OTRS process and confidentially supply an email from the copyright holder. If you think your photo is public domain but want to check the rules that apply then see WP:RFCA and List of countries' copyright length.
Email a photo - see Wikipedia:Contact us/Photo submission. You should note that there may be a long backlog and your email may take days or weeks before getting processed. If you seem technically able, you may get a polite request to do it yourself as this is a low priority for the OTRS volunteers.
EXIF data - image data may be automatically added by the camera or by your photo processing applications. This will be visible after upload so make sure you are happy that the make of camera, when/where it was taken etc. will be consistent with your upload information.
Image verification - the photo can be checked using TinEye after upload, so if it appears on websites which claim 'All rights reserved' or similar then it may get marked for deletion.

A simple standard guide is at Help:Files. If you need more help on getting a suitable photo in the first place, you may find Finding images tutorial helpful. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 14:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to your message on File:Islam Denounces Antisemitism.jpg, please refer to point 2 under additional points above. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 14:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of things have happened in the last 24 hours that don't understand. Is there someone who can help me with Wikipedia procedure?

I was recently ask a friend of mine to look at the Adnan Oktar page. In addition I was shown the "Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre of Jordan" which ranked this person as 45th of the most influence Muslims in the world. The Adnan Oktar page clearly seemed to violate Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons in the following respects:

It was not written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy
It was written like a tabloid
It was not written in encyclopedic fashion rather lists of court cases and negative information without context or connecting prose
The legal issues were quoted twice, repeating information in both the Biography and also the Legal sections
Most of the sources are openly hostile to the subjectt. The first line of one source, quoted several times, explicitly says "The following article is mostly a personal attack." [1]

So I began slowly, over the course of two weeks to add additional information:

The fact that the latest court case was appealed and overturned
The "Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre of Jordan"
A couple of book covers to illustrate the style of the subject
I DID NOT DELETE NEGATIVE information
Instead I added a quote from the subject's websites where he claims the court cases are harassment. I assume this is allowed in WP:SELFPUB because I am quoting the subject point of view and clearly labeling it as such.
Lastly, I added some highly toned down information from their website to the biographical section. WP:SELFPUB specifically allows adding context from self published websites that is not unduly self serving. There is no reason to doubt the information I added because it is even confirmed by highly negative article [2]

Then before I can turn around, the page is reverted, I am labeled as "Conflict of Interest"

I challenge the "Conflict of Interest", but I do not know where.

PLEASE I REQUEST ASSISTANCE IN HANDLING THIS PAGE AS IT TOUCHES ON THE BIOGRAPHY OF A LIVING PERSON --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{adminhelp}}

If you disagree with another user's edit, you can contact them directly on their talk page. If you disagree with the way an article is written, discuss the issue on its talk page (in this case Talk:Adnan Oktar). If this does not work, you can use dispute resolution. On a side note, I declined your request for speedy deletion on said article. G10 does only cover articles that are only negative in nature and have no sources. This article does not satisfy those requirements and any issues with it should be addressed by editing, not deletion (see alternatives to deletion). Regards So Why 17:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{adminhelp}}

Please tell me how to do dispute the roll back. 1) It was not done with neutral editors 2) it was based on fallacious claims. 3) It was done without giving me a chance to reply to any of the claims.

I need advice. What is the correct thing to do? Should dispute the role back, or re-add the changes one at a time with an explanation on the talk page for justification of the change. I request assistance in this matter as i have never done this before. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, try to discuss the changes with the involved editors. If they are unwilling, use the article's talk page. If that does not work, we do have multiple ways for dispute resolution, so you should probably read that page and use one of the mechanisms there. If you think there is a problem with notability, you can also use Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. You can dispute the rollback (as mentioned above) but should not add the changes back without discussion. See be bold, revert, discuss for details. On a side note, there is no reason to use {{adminhelp}} here since nothing here requires any administrative assistance. So if you have further problems, you can use {{helpme}} instead. Regards So Why 18:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{adminhelp}}

(replying to your previous request) As far as I can tell, your issue is with a biography of a living person (BLP). The solution in this case does not appear to be deletion (which is quite an extreme step and only used when there is nothing salvageable in the article). The first thing I would advise is that you spend a few minutes reading WP:BLP. It's quite a chunk of text, but it errs on the side of protecting the subject. After that, read the article carefully, and, if you identify that it, or parts of it violate that policy (note that being negative but accurate and sourced is not a BLP vio), then try to shorten, merge, or, if you have to, remove the parts that you think violate the policy. Then go to the article's talk page, start a new thread and explain what you've removed and why you think it violates BLP and wait for other editors to comment. You can ask for help at WP:BLP/N—the editors and admins there are all highly experienced and will have seen many hundreds of similar cases. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

How do I request volunteer, neutral Sysop assistance to help discussion on a Talk Page from falling into chaos? --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 10:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, what page you mean? Petrb (talk) 11:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Adnan_Oktar#Disputing_rollback.2C_current_version_violates_Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

and WP:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Adnan_Oktar. I am doing my best to be orderly, but it is breaking down. I simply am not experienced in this kind of thing. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 11:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand what you need to help with, you started dispute on discussion page and changed article, I see no rollback (not of last version), no discussion was closed. What do you mean by falling into "chaos", thank you Petrb (talk) 11:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the problems

First of all I would like an opinion of an unbiased reviewer. All three editors have express prior bias.
Fae recommends voting. But I think much of the existing text and proposed changes touch on WP:BLP issues of writing conservatively and subjects privacy. I think simple vote of editors is not sufficient. I think the article needs someone familar with WP:BLP, only one editor Hafrn seem to fit this criterion.
Based on BLP/N recommendation, I had tried to set up a list of interested parties, and then discuss issues one at a time, until there were no more comments. But now that we are on the third subject, then random comments and disputes are being raised about prior discussions and new issues are being brought up. The talk page was being edited in ten places at the same time.
Jeff recommends using a B-R-D cycle so long as it complies with the The three-revert rule guidelines. This would mean multiple simultaneous edits to be reviewed, thus chaos. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 11:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have asked for "an opinion of an unbiased reviewer". Unfortunately I have no idea how you will judge whether a person is "unbiased" or not. However, here is the opinion of a reviewer with no prior involvement in or even knowledge of this dispute, who has come here only because of your request for help. I hope it is helpful.

There is a clear consensus on the talk page of the article, and you seem to be in a minority of one in opposing that consensus. It also seems to me that the consensus is based on arguments which follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
I cannot see where Fæ "recommends voting": certainly not on this page nor, as far as I can see, on the article's talk apge.
Your comments regarding "chaos" are not entirely clear, but as far as I make out you are saying that allowing individual editors to make individual edits without waiting for exhaustive discussion of the previous edit will lead to "chaos". If that is what you mean then it would be useful if you would explain how and why. This is how Wikipedia works, and I have not seen that it generally leads to chaos. It is also difficult to see how this could be prevented. If, on the other hand, that is not what you meant, then perhaps you could clarify what you did mean. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adnan Oktar

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Adnan Oktar. -- Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted the post because you decided "it was rejected". Who said my post was rejected? It was discussed by three editors who offered changes which were combined in the text. It was not rejected at the time I posted. It is now being questioned and there is a new proposal on talk page - please participate in the discussion. I invite you to participate in discussing the new proposed version currently being discussed. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 12:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The clue is in your edit summary: "rv" -- and in the fact that the previous edit had reverted yours. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should read the talk page first. Three editors reviewed a text and made a combined document. No more comments were made for 24 hours, so it was posted. Two editors who had not participated in the discussion reverted the text - including yourself. There was a request for people to discuss the changes on the talk page before reverting, including a request on your talk page. Hopefully, orderly changes will take place from now on. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]