User talk:JamesRenner

License tagging for Image:Amyphoto.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Amyphoto.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands 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:

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. 17:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Your re-uploading of Image:Amyphoto.jpg

Hi, please don't reupload images that have been speedy deleted, especially without adding an URL for the source, a copyright tag, and a fair use rationale. Note also that the fact that the child's family have released the photo to the media does not make it fair use; nor does it mean it has a free licence. A free licence means that people can do anything they like with the photo — redistribute it, modify it, sell it, etc. Fair use (according to our policy, which is much stricter than US law) would mean that there is some extremely good reason why the article needs it, and why it would be difficult to understand the article properly without it — for example, if a discussion of her appearance formed an important part of the article. I've deleted it again. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Amyphoto.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Amyphoto.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, then 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, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re your edits to Amy Mihaljevic

Posting lengthy unreferenced accusatory paragraphs about living people (such as you did here - [1]) will see you blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia. Do not do it again. Neil ╦ 17:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neil, how is it that listing suspects that have been named by police on Amy's page is forbidden, when it is accepted on several other pages, including the Zodiac Killer?

Image:Amyphoto.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Amyphoto.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media 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. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do visit the page and say something. Some people would like to see this photo deleted when there's no need for it to be. -Nard 08:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible conflict of interest

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Amy Mihaljevic, 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 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 you must always:
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 22:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

If you believe you may be being libelled, you may try sending an email to the address listed at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight from your official email address so they know it's you (not hotmail). Also when you add a comment please sign in the wiki way with four tildes (~~~~). Tread cautiously, Wikipedia has many different arcane rules and policies that can take months to learn. Happy editing. -Nard 17:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Diez2 17:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Diez2 17:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, how is re-adding deleted content vandalism? -Nard 17:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Nard. As a journlist, I have never seen such blatant disregard of the truth as I have witnessed on these pages the last few days. -JamesRenner
- However do not edit someone's "User:" page or do not edit war. Please see WP:3RR and WP:UP. -Nard 17:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add back the material I and others have removed from the talk page. The material is being removed because of biographies of living persons (BLP) concerns. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may have to be blocked. --Tony Sidaway 17:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Videmus Omnia

I'm not sure what your argument is about, but vandalizing his user page is not the way to go about resolving it. I'm guessing that's what Diez2 is referring to above. For what it's worth, Videmus Omnia is a very impressive contributor. While that doesn't necessarily make him always right either -- as I wrote, I'm not sure what your core dispute is -- it does mean that there will be no shortage of other editors watching his page. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that you are treating user pages and user talk pages as if they are general discussion pages. The respective users have the right to delete (or add) anything to their talk pages, as outlined in the rejection of Wikipedia:Removing warnings. Re-adding deleted content on user and user talk pages is indeed vandalism. Diez2 17:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Videmus Omnia is being libelous and threatening in his deletion and ongoing exchanges. JamesRenner

Block

I'm blocking you for 24 hours to encourage some discussion. Please read our biography of living person policies. In particular, it states that you cannot make unsubstantiated negative claims about someone - even if they are not the subject of the article, and even on the talk page. The bulk of your list of "suspects" is not backed up by any law enforcement agency, and therefore cannot be considered proper for publication on Wikipedia. I'm also blocking you for intense incivility, in apparently trying to get someone who disagrees with you deleted. There are other ways to deal with an editor you disagree with, and obviously you could learn about these, since you took the time to learn about the MFD process.

Make no mistake - if you continue to violate our BLP policies, you will be blocked indefinitely. This block is short only to give you a chance to explain things and learn how things work here. --Golbez 17:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, even without the BLP and civility issues, you were one revert away from violating our Three Revert Rule policy, which would have led to a block as well. --Golbez 17:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you take the time to review the article in question, you will find that it references articles and books not only by myself, but other writers, where law enforcement officials have gone on record explaining that these men are suspects. JamesRenner

A book by you is not a sufficient source to name someone as a suspect in a murder. If I write a little book and blame you for killing my child, can I put it on Wikipedia? --Golbez 17:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, as I said above, other Cleveland area journalists have named these suspects, not just me. Second, being a suspect does not mean you are guilty of committing the crime. JamesRenner

So what you're saying is you wouldn't mind if I accused you of committing a murder with no proof but the fact that I wrote a book about it? Hm. You might want to ask all of the countless suspects who were later cleared of their crimes, and ask if they didn't suffer any for being accused. --Golbez 18:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:COS and WP:SPS. It may in fact be allowed under policy. -Nard 18:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not when it violates WP:BLP. Corvus cornix 23:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JamesRenner:Come back tomorrow with a clear head and in the meantime read up on some policies. Specifically WP:UP, WP:3RR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:BLP (naming suspects may be a privacy violation of them), and WP:COI. Or if you must ask for an unblock but I think maybe the matter needs some cooling down. Wikipedia frequently has people's credentials challenged due to the anonymous nature of the Internet. You shouldn't take it personally (It's an ongoing problem, see Wikipedia:Expert retention). -Nard 18:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thanks for talking sense. JamesRenner

The suspect list, and looking forward

You have multiple admins watching this situation now, and multiple people, including admins, saying that the suspect list is a violation of the Biography of Living People policy. This is a policy that has been put in place at the highest levels of the project, and is not one that the admins take lightly in the slightest. And the policy says that things like your list do not belong on the project. Not in the articles, and not on talk pages. If you continue to add this list into places, then you will be finding yourself blocked again and again for increasing amounts of time.

So we currently have the Amy Mihaljevic page protected from editing. And the deletion discussion is winding down, with I suspect either a No Consensous or a Keep descision. So the article likely stays, but the question is, what next? If you will agree to stop adding the suspect list to the article or the article's talk page, then I would think it would be simple to persuade admin Duja to unprotect the page, at which point editing on it may resume. - TexasAndroid 15:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. No suspect list, unless the mainstream media begins to report names and their articles can be referenced. JamesRenner

Thank you, James. Let me know if you have any questions. Neil ╦ 10:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Amyphoto.jpg

If you disagree with the deletion decision, instead of re-uploading, you should follow the process at deletion review to have the decision reconsidered. Otherwise the re-uploaded image will be speedily deleted as re-creation of previously deleted material. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to think you're stalking me. JamesRenner

Stalking on the project tends to entail following someone to articles that the stalker does not normally edit. The both of you are already well established as locking horns over Amy's article, so the fact that Videmus reacts to your actions on the article is not stalking. Sorry.

But that aside, Videmus does have a point. He may have tagged the photo for speedy, but Videmus is not an admin, and cannot speedy delete the photo himself. The photo was deleted by admin User:ElinorD. You thus really need to either persuade ElinorD to reverse him/her self, or you need to take the image to Deletion Review to get a wider audience to overturn ElinorD. In either case I would suggest a close reading of the fair use policy. If you can give a detailed reasoning of why the image should be used, then you stand a chance of getting the image allowed. This is another very critical link.

If, however, you continue to just readd the image, I suspect you will very soon find the image name protected from recreation, and you could again end up getting blocked for your troubles. - TexasAndroid 17:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Mihaljevic

Just show me the law or court case that says the copyright reverts to the parents and I'll restore the image. Otherwise, please take to deletion review. -Nv8200p talk 17:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, we don't accept images that have "permission" for Wikipedia to use them. We're trying to build a free encyclopedia from which all our content can be copied, reused, redistributed, and modified, even commercially. Any use of unfree media interferes with that, so, while we don't rule it out altogether, we try to keep our use of it to a minimum.

I don't see how the surviving parent can be the copyright holder, unless the person who took the photo specifically transferred the copyright to the parent.

I'll add a comment to the Deletion review later, but you have uploaded that image four times now, three of those times being after it had been deleted. Please don't keep doing that. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No disrespect intended, but this is not a free content issue. Looking down upon fair use as a necessary nuisance is not productive, some intellectual property may not be converted by the gospel of open source licensing. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sign with ~~~~

As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Wikipedia guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, and WikiProject pages. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and the date will then be automatically added along with a timestamp when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). For further info, read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TEAM article

Thanks for the link! Fortunately I was able to get a book by the Team founders which provided a good amount of material. I loved your article, by the way, well written and made me chuckle. Check out what I put up for TEAM (company) and please, feel free to make copious edits. Got pretty tired by the end of it, I'm sure it could use much polishing. Trevor Bekolay 08:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Coughlin

James, please review Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. It states very clearly, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." (Emphasis in original) The material you have persisted in adding is just that: Contentious material about living persons. The fact that it goes beyond the scope of the sources you provide makes it poorly sourced. I have reverted your changes as vandalism, because you persist in adding it despite my warnings and those of at least one other editor. Please note that Wikipedia defines vandalism as, "...any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Consider this, then, a warning. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing. Thank you. -- JeffBillman (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kevin Coughlin. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Alan (talk) 23:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More silliness from Akron-area residents with too much time on their hands

Wow, Jeff. As I figured, you are a biased editor, as this direct message from Coughlin himself demonstrates. I have recommended you be blocked from further revisions. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_Block_of_.5B.5BUser:JeffBillman.7CJeffBillman.5D —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesRenner (talk • contribs) 23:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Direct message from Coughlin? Where? If you're referring to User:Kjcohio, it could be anybody. It could be me... or even you. Things that make you go hmmm... -- JeffBillman (talk) 23:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Coughlin

Hi James, just a note to let you know that you shouldn't be editing this article, if you're the same James Renner who's in a real-life dispute with the subject. Editing it would place you in violation of our COI guideline and BLP policy. Even editing the talk page would not be wise given the contentious nature of the issue. Best to leave it to others, in your own interests, as well as in the subject's and Wikipedia's. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notification

You are currently the subject of a discussion at the Administrator's Noticeboard -- see WP:ANI#Kevin Coughlin. I am just making sure you are aware of it. Looie496 (talk) 18:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Email address

Following recent matters on the Kevin Coughlin article, could you please enable an email address in preferences (here), as there is a need for off-wiki discussion of these sensitive issues, and let me know when it's done. Thank you. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. "JamesRenner (talk) 01:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)"[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Uncle G. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. otherl left 14:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearing the air

Hi James. I wanted to clear the air about our recent dispute at Kevin Coughlin, and tell you a little about myself. I noticed that you had claimed in WP:ANI that I'm a "proxy" of the subject of the article. I have to tell you that this is false: As I mentioned before, I have no contact with you, Coughlin, or any of the other parties to this dispute. I know Coughlin from running cross-country against him in high school 20 years ago, but that's it. I've never even voted for the guy, as I live in the 28th district. As a registered Libertarian, it's really an open question whether I would vote for him were I his prospective constituent.

But that's not all. It's actually kinda funny, your accusation that I'm Coughlin's sockpuppet, since it's the first time anyone has ever accused me of being a shill for a conservative Republican. Usually, I wind up in hot water on Wikipedia with conservatives for my supposed "liberal bias" on such articles as John Freshwater and Focus on the Family. (That charge of bias, too, is false... but never mind that for the moment.) I'm slightly amused at your charges, because I know that if I'm being pilloried by both the political right and left, I must be doing something correctly. ;-)

You are correct that I have edited previously under another account. That account is a well-known Internet pseudonym I continue to use outside Wikipedia to write about my faith, and to lobby against Dominionism. It has nothing to do with Coughlin, as I get the feeling he-- like other Christian conservatives-- would recoil against those other writings of mine. That's actually why I took to editing Wikipedia under this, my real name: I wanted to capture a sense of balance for myself and strive for a more neutral point of view. Editing as myself forces me to try my best to be fair. I think that's why I came down a bit too harshly on your edits: I saw your editing as an attempt to unfairly malign a local politician, and I knew that if my efforts toward mitigating my own POV were to have any weight, I would have to speak up. I'm sorry for how I did it... obviously, I could have treated you much better. Anyway, that's where I stand. As a fellow Northeast Ohioan, I'm sure we'll come into contact with one another on other articles, and I'd like to get this incident behind us so that our future meetings will be much more pleasant. Cheers! -- JeffBillman (talk) 05:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hi James, I've read your articles on the Cleveland Scene, and I admire your work. I read about people such as Amy, and Krista Harrison, and I do have to say, they are very interesting. The one about Krista that you wrote was extremely helpful for a project of mine and I would like to personally thank you for it. --Boy of The Waters (talk) 17:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]