Thanks for uploading Image:Hc1.JPG. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: ((TemplateName))
. If you have not already done so, please also include the source of the image. In many cases this will be the website where you found it.
Please specify the copyright information and source on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Peter O. (Talk) 00:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Nicholas "Nicky Buck" Piccolo, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you feel that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add ((hangon))
on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Mmoneypenny 18:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
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) 03:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
|
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages, as you did to Haunted Castle at Six Flags Great Adventure. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" is strongly discouraged. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
If you have something to say to me regarding Wikipedia editing, please put your messages on my user talk page. Do not e-mail me for this sort of matter. I will not acknowledge such e-mails now or in the future. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 13:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Popartpete. 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. The thread is e-mail abuse by POV-pushing user?. Thank you. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
((unblock|Your reason here))
below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. -Jeremy (v^_^v Cardmaker) 04:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Popartpete (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have been harassed relentlessly by these people via email, and I am the one blocked? They do this because they have the power, somehow. This is the type of abuse I got from Drew R. "Christon" Smith: Your book is not part of the history of the haunted mansion. It merely tells the tale of what happened. If you can provide something that would prove your book is reliable it can be used as a source, but it has nothing to do with the article itself. BTW Mendaliv reffered you to WP:ANI#e-mail abuse by POV-pushing user? I'd be careful what you say to other people if I were you. Nothing is private anymore I SAY,"What about the policy on threats. This is a threat of the FIRST RANK!" So I told him to get a life and call him guppy boy, and he replies... Ok. This coming from the guy who wrote a fake book about an event that nobody gives a shit about. I SAY, "Guppy Boy gets you suspended indefinitely. This is an out and out PERSONAL ATTACK but nothing is done." Then he writes: This is what One, your book isn't published. Its fake. Two, I don't give a shit about the "high road" when you attack me at my e-mail. This is what I got from I'll be civil on wikipedia. Not here. Here, I rule. Not admins, not beaurocrats, not jimbo. This is my email address, and if you hit me here i will hit back. Hard. That being said. No one gives a shit about your "credentials". You cant add an advertisement for your book to an article. Even if you aren't selling your book, you are still using the article to get people to read your book. Thats not the way things work on wikipedia. One other point. Don't call me guppy boy. If you look at my contributions, which I'm sure you haven't, you would see that I have never contributed to an article about guppies. I SAY, "This is not harassment via email. I've been PERSONALLY ATTACKED, THREATENED, AND HARASSED VIA EMAIL. None of my emails did the same. So this begs the question::: WHY DON'T you editors criticize and punish your own? The guy is mad because I called him guppy boy and told him to stick to guppy articles and not to edit articles he of which he is ignorant. For that I should be suspended indefinetly? THIS IS A JOKE. No wonder wikipedia has such a poor reputation! It's because of PEOPLE LIKE THIS! I have asked you people for help in regards to how I should approach my articles, and instead of help, I get abused. I might not know every rule on wikipedia, but I know this: if I did, and did see somebody struggling, I'd offer advice, rather than to cut somebody's TRUTHFUL statements that are ADVERTISING NOTHING, except a free link on a website and WOULD NEVER THINK to LIE and have them blocked for rules they themselves have egregiously violated.
Decline reason:
I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Also, see WP:TLDR and WP:NOTTHEM. —Travistalk 22:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Popartpete (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Look, maybe you people are not thrilled with me, but I have no quarrel with anyone, really. The block is kind of an overkill. I am not horrible person, I just want help with adding to the article in the correct fashion. I need help. I think I have a place in that article, and should be able to add it. Instead of arguing, why cannot the editors in which I am in dispute help me to add to it in the proper fashion? I simply do not know enough wiki rules to do it myself, and that's where the problems arise. I think I could be a valuable contributor, but as a journalist who is not often questioned, I fully admit I get angered and incensed when people change my ideas. Maybe if we worked together, it could happen for all of us. Please let me know.
Decline reason:
This does not address the reason given for your block. Sandstein 14:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
((tlx|unblock|How long should I expect to be banned}
As I said before, I have no quarrel with anyone. I'd like to be unblocked. I'd like help with my editing, so that it is proper to wiki standards. I had no idea that it wasn't proper to email the editors directly. I looked, but didn't see any other contact info, so that's where I went. I did not think of or really know to much about the discussion pages, etc., at least not as much as I do know. I see now that if you dispute an edit, simply go to the discussion page and hash it out there and a third party will intervene. In this instance, I know tempers and emotions went overboard, but there really was no threats or real harassment or either end. If you look the night that I made the update, I contacted Cliff C, another editor I'd dealt with in the past, to look over my adjustment, and to see if it fit correctly or was inappropriate in anyway. You see, Questioning The Report was there for years, and Cliff and I worked to get it a way that it fit. When the book went online, I added another small section in this area. The change alone was not removed, but the entire section, which ticked me off, as I worked to get it there. So I ask to be unblocked, so I can work with these editors again in a beneficial way in the future.
You did not answer my question.
How long will this block be expected to last?, is still my question.
Horrible things were written to me, yet why is that permissible? This seems very one-sided.
Are these buddies of yours? Sounds like it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.138.123 (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
There is absolutely nothing wrong with being self promotional. Every person in Hollywood, even the President of the United States, is self promotional. There's an entire machine behind every public person, whether they hire professionals, or they run that team themselves. If you don't believe in yourself, who will? That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. When you apply for a job, you are being self-promotional. Are you ashamed to go on job interviews or write a resume. However, I am not trying to promote myself in this case, but the story, dedicated to the memory of the dead, for free. I have edited stuff for years which had nothing to do with self-promotion, so I beg to differ that there is only one occasion. However, you needn't bother reply, for I am giving up ever trying to post on wiki ever again. It's only as good as the people who control it, and they all seem to be in co-hoots, and be just as bad, or worse, than those they punish for nothing. As far as publicity, at 2 p.m., I am being interviewed on camera about my "fake" book for a statewide news telecast, today being the 25th anniversary of the fire. I will mention that wikipedia editors have also been successful to keep the Haunted Castle truth in the dark, with agendas of which I can only imagine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.138.123 (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
QUESTIONS:
Why I am blocked?You are blocked because you abused the email feature
Why are others not blocked, if your policy forbids threats and personal attacks in emails? That's what was done to me, with no sanction, except to me.I did not seek you out and personally attack you. I replied to your email.
Why I am singled-out?See above
Are these your buddies?The only people here I am even aquainted with is medaliv and that is because we both work at EAR together.
I'd bet they are.see above
All I get is roundabout answers from you people.They already told you. You did not say why you should be unblocked, but why we should. In order to be unblocked you need to tell them you won't abuse the email feature again, and will not make any disruptive edits. An apology to medaliv for the douchebag comment would go a long way toward gaining favor with the unblocking admin.
How do you could determine what they sent you (supposedly sent by me to them) is even legitimate.
I could forward a bunch of words to you that I wrote myself and claim they came from anybody.Not that it has already been done, but we could simply forward the message to the other editors, and they can see for themselves that it is legitimate.
Fool.WP:BITE
Let's just print a bunch of lies, and stomp on anyone who dares to offer an alternate opinion. My word is good enough for ABC World News Tonight, but not you lot. Let's "verify" our information based on statements made by morons, totally ignorant on the subject matter. My work is called, "shit" and "fake", but yet, you do nothing to your buddy. You shameful, power-hungry little people with no lives.
Popartpete (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
There must be some editor out there that sees I am being unmercifully attacked by these people, all in co-hoots. I have offered every sincere attempt to work with them and begged for their help, but they arbitrarily block me. If I am blocked for email wrongdoing, so should Drew R. Smith. Why is he not? Is calling my work "shit" and "fake" not attacks on me personally via email. I think so. HE KNOWS THE RULES, whereas I really do not, BUT it seems he is above the rules. Is being told I am on a soapbox not a personal attack? That is an insult, by every definition I could find. Who is qualified to make such a statement? Is being called self-promotional not an attack? How does Travis know what my motives for things are. He doesn't, and never will I am portrayed as an evil villian, and people like Drew, Travis and others walk on water, and turn water into wine while doing the same damn thing. WHERE IS THE NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW you people proclaim to hold so near and dear? Why is something done by one the subject of punishment, and worse done by others totally okay? The double standard is laughable. This is a KANGAROO COURT, where I am automatically found guilty without a fair, objective weighing of the evidence or even consultation! Being told my ban "while last until it lasts" is unacceptable and VERY SPITEFUL and EXTREMELY UNFAIR. Doing things for spite is a million times worse than anything I may have done. If am not unblocked, I will sign up under a different name and use another IP address, as I can log in on a variety of wireless networks available at my disposal 24/7, so YOU'RE STUCK ME WITH, LOCKED TOGETHER IN HATRED, unless someone comes to my aid. WHO is not afraid of the little, not so bad wolf???
Decline reason:
You were blocked for using the email feature to hurl abuse at another editor. This unblock, like your previous ones, does not address this, and the section below this unblock request and the section title this unblock is in is a personal attack, as are portions of this unblock request. Unblock declined, and the next time you hurl baseless accusations at other editors will be your last Wikipedia edit, period. -Jeremy (v^_^v Cardmaker) 04:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Popartpete 03:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Popartpete, please do not use some other IP and/or username to log in and get around your block. That's called "socking" and there are editors here that can find out and then you'll be marked as a socking user and it'll be very hard to recover from. I've seen editors that were very well meaning but thought socking was their only option and they are now banned from WP and no one will listen to them anymore because they have shown they have no respect for the rules. If you can hang-on and display some restraint and respect for the rules there are ways to operate within WP. I don't mean "gaming the system", I mean there are appropriate ways to act in WP and those will help people listen to you and respect your opinion. Screaming about secret cabals is not the way to get people to listen with respect. Please, don't act rashly and we may be able to clear this up and get on with editing. Padillah (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I did say some things via e-mail, but 1)I didnt attack, but retaliated. When I am on wikipedia, or using a wikipedia feature the rules apply. When I am reply to an e-mail in my yahoo inbox I can bite as much as I want. 2)I didnt use the wikipedia email feature, but replied to a personal attack in my yahoo personal email inbox.
That being said, popartpete offered up a white flag via email, and so I told him, via email, how to get his stuff in the article properly and advice on the block. I told him to wait it out. I also said that if it was indef he should try to appeal the block, in an apologetic and unwhining tone. It appears my advice was only half taken to heart.
As I, like all editors im sure, wish to assume good faith let me propose a solution. Put an expiry on the block, say a week or so. After the block put him in mandatory mentorship so he can have a proper introduction to the rules and policies on wikipedia. I would be willing to mentor him, but don't force him under me, as I was part of the problem and while a mentorship may be beneficial, it would be lost if the student harbored ill feelings toward the teacher.Drew Smith What I've done 04:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
←Fair enough, but he needs to understand that self-promotion, incivility, and email abuse are unacceptable. Best of luck. —Travistalk 13:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I am willing to be helped. That's all I ever asked for and needed. And I don't agree with Travis as far as not being able to change certain stuff, although I respect his other opinions. I have intricate knowledge of the Haunted Castle fire, and probably a hundred more third party articles to add to the bottom, but I don't know HOW to do it. You all see, don't you? Please forgive my ignorance. I spent the last two years slaving over trying to finish my book in time for the anniversary, when I thought it be released. I only added the information I did, because I think there is a lack of true understanding of what is the Haunted Castle, and my book offers alternate possibilities, and questions the official story. I thought that because I was providing the story for free online for those who choose to take the opportunity, how could there be a problem? When it is in hard copy, I am going to put that on Amazon, but I'd think not to put a link to it on wikipedia. I learned more about wikipedia this week than in any other. There still remains vast amounts I'm sure I don't know. Doesn't anybody follow? Can anyone explin. As far as my attitude, I was angered that my stuff was being removed, not understanding what I should do. You see, when I kept being re-changed, I emailed the editors with stern questions of why they had done it. It was on. Imagine the emotion of having to publish online, and have people read something it has taken ten years to develop? No wonder I am emotional. I have a lot going on with this.
Drew, I meant no sarcasm at all. I do need a mentor.
So far I have stayed out of this discussion because I've had past conflicts with Pete regarding Haunted Castle at Six Flags Great Adventure (HC). For anyone interested, these can be reviewed at Talk:Haunted Castle at Six Flags Great Adventure (Talk:HC), and on my user and user talk pages. Pete recently asked on my talk page here for me to review his latest additions to HC. In view of our past conflicts I passed the request on to WP:EAR and the situation grew from there.
When I first saw the HC article in November 2006, it had a "Media" section described by one Talk:HC user as "look[ing] like a god damn advertisement". As I worked on the article I looked at Smith's claims and his film, and decided to summarize them in a short final section named "Questioning the report". Most recently, it said:
As a new editor, and since I worded the section as a series of "Smith says..." statements, I didn't think of it as original research, as I probably should have. I retained the external link to the film at YouTube.
When the attention of other editors was recently drawn to the article, they regarded and removed as "unsourced adlike material" not only Smith's blatant new promotion of his online book and of himself, but the above two long-standing paragraphs.
What I'd suggest for the article, subject to comments and improvements by other editors
What I'd suggest for Pete
--CliffC (talk) 03:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
One thing I can see shaping up already is a conflict between Wikipedia phraseology and Real Life use of words. Popartpete, don't get discouraged when someone cites a policy you are not familiar with, believe me when I tell you Wikipedia does not use the same definition for words that the real world uses.
First off, when we say you have a Conflict of Interest, we do not mean you work there or are trying to represent the subject in a certain manner. We mean that you are personally involved with either the subject matter or the citations. Not to cast asspersions but, there are people that try to use Wikipedia to promote their books and films and such. This is what we call a COI. It would be more appropriate to call it "self-promotion". And yes, you are right, self-promotion is not, in itself, a bad thing. It's just regarded as inappropriate to do on WP. We have a hard enough time being taken seriously as it is, if we had pages full of shameless self-promotion we'd never get anyone to read an article.
The other thing that most people have a hard time dealing with is the difference between "Truth" and "Veracity". Oddly enough, truth is not good enough to get published on WP, it's got to be a verifiable truth. It's got to be written down somewhere (two or more somewhere's are even better) so people can check it out for themselves. As extensive and intimate as your knowledge is of these incidents we can't just take your word for it. We have to be able to double-check it. So please, don't take offense if we question your motives or information, we don't mean any harm by it. If we get too carried away you have a couple of policies at your disposal, Assume Good Faith is a big one here. We should assume you are here to help Wikipedia. If we question you we should do it delicately in a supportive manner.
One key to keep in mind, if you see a word or phrase you think is being used wrong, ask if there is a special Wikipedia way to use it and the other editor should point you in the direction of the particular policy. Hope that helps. Padillah (talk) 12:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Why did you undo those edits? They seem to be good, if at times misguided, edits, and I would like to answer them. First. On your website the link to the PDF version of your book would amount to a mere two pages of real text, and its not even PDF. It appears to be a summary of a book. I haven't been able to find this 150 page PDF anywhere. Second. While it may be enough for me to contact someone, its not enough for wikipedia as a whole. Wikipedias sources need to be verifiable by anyone with access to a computer or a library. If you can provide links to the Universities web site that says you spoke for them, then it is verifiable.
Despite how verifiable your book is, I cannot stress enough that you're book, or your movie, have no place in the article as content. The movie can be used, as it is on IMDb and other sites, as an external reference. Once the veracity of your book can be established, it can also be used as a source, and/or external link.
As far as submitting external articles to be verified goes, it can't really be done. What, specifically are these articles? Are they original research? Are they newspaper articles? Are they primary sources (such as a photo)? If it's original research, you need to get it verified elsewhere. Wikipedia has no method of verifying original research. If they are newsaper articles, post the name of the paper, the date it ran, and the headline of the article. We have a newspaper viewer thingy at the library down the street, so that can be easily verified by anyone with access to a library. If they are primary sources, I would steer clear of that. While not expressly forbidden, primary sources are discouraged. I presume it is because of the relative ease with which primary sources can be faked.Drew Smith What I've done 13:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
<---keep in mind, the person we're trying to help isn't very wiki-literate, no offense popartpete. Telling him to "edit this section to see how it's formed" seems a little convoluted. I usually avoid the "edit this section" bit with the editors I have adopted, who have already advanced well beyond popartpetes (apparent) level of wiki-literacy. Drew Smith What I've done 13:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Congratualtions, you have waited out your block. This is, in my opinion, the first step to recovery. What you do now will largely determine your future at wikipedia. Contact me when you are ready to start your mentorship.Drew Smith What I've done 04:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
As a first step in the right direction, could you please read and provide links to (so I know you did it) the policies on Civility, Point of View, Conflict of Interest, Reliable Sources, Original Research, and What wikipedia is not? (This isn't an attack, all these policies are key to success at wikipedia).Drew Smith What I've done 13:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I didn't want to suggest this before, but maybe you would be a good candidate for my adoption program. It is centered on learning to use the mediawiki software, with only a slight emphasis on policy. Once we have you caught up on the basics, we can start to work on policies and article writing.Drew Smith What I've done 03:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Do you have any place that the 1995 date can be referenced to? School Newspapers or anything like that?Naraht (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)