User talk:DoDaCanaDa

Welcome!

Hello, DoDaCanaDa, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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!

Dan Beale-Cocks 19:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the article needs sections. Divide it up into a two-paragraph info that summarizes the article, then split it up into biographical info as you see fit. Just having one big long block of text without any sections is hard to read. There are also far too many one-sentence paragraphs. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ten. I looked for the single sentences and combined some of them. I have images I would like to post between the single sentences on the trips in 1981 and 1986 but I haven't figured out how to do that yet. The images already posted were done by the creator of the article and I have not heard from him for a week. The single sentence on being invited to lunch with the Pope's Ambassador will be expanded in time to convey a sense of being there.

As to sections for this work in progress, I envision only three for now. Preamble Prophecy and Preparation with a fourth on Prophecy again.

DoDaCanaDa (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You still haven't put the section headers ===like this=== on. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• To upload an image, go to the left side of the window, below the search box, and you should see "upload file". Click that and it'll bring you to the upload wizard. Make sure you tag the image — if you're not sure of the license, then you can ask me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 11:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You can't use either of those, I'm afraid — magazine covers can only be used in articles about the magazine, and I don't think that a scan of a magazine article will fly no matter how you tag it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The images don't really add any context to the article though. The scan of the article is a copyvio, and couldn't possibly rationalized as "fair use" no matter what, so I'll tag that for speedy deletion. The same with the magazine cover — there's nothing that explains how it's "historical", and I really doubt that anyone would consider an obscure magazine cover from 1981 to be irreplacable historical info. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've tagged the cover with {{non-free historic image}} as you asked. However, I have consulted other Wikipedia users on IRC, and it is our understanding that fair use does NOT cover magazine text. If you think the information in the article is important, you may cite it with a {{cite journal}} template. Again, fair use does NOT cover the actual content of a magazine. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not going by my own opinion, I'm going by the fair use guidelines at the Wikipedia page on fair use, which is not opinion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:MacLean's People.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. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I don't understand. There doesn't seem to be an article on that subject. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What little box? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you give me an example? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh that. Just type an asterisk (hold down Shift and 8 at the same time). If you want to indent, just put a colon before it too. Note that my above post has a colon and asterisk, while this one has two colons and an asterisk. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you asked User:Jayron32 why he placed the PoV tag? I would probably do that first before removing the tag. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, if you've asked him and he's said nothing about it, I don't see the harm in removing it. If someone just leaves a tag without explanation, it's probably better just to remove it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Image:Ottawa Focus.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

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 [[ Talk:Image:Ottawa Focus.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Image:Ottawa Focus 1.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

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 [[ Talk:Image:Ottawa Focus 1.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I told you before, images that are of magazine articles are NOT FAIR USE. DO NOT UPLOAD THEM. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not provide false copyright information, as you appear to have done with the images "Image:Ottawa Focus 1.jpg" and "Image:Ottawa Focus.jpg" which you uploaded and marked as public domain images. Unless you are the copyright holder of that publication and the text contained therein, and were releasing your intellectual property into the public domain, you do not have the right to release such material into the public domain. As a result, I have deleted these images.

If you can prove that these images were indeed in the public domain either because the copyright holder released them into the public domain, or because you are the copyright holder and wish to release them into the public domain, please contact permissions-en@wikimedia.org with the proof of this.

If the images were not in the public domain and you are not the copyright holder, then you should take caution that Wikipedia takes the rights of copyright holders very seriously. If you upload copyrighted material in the future and knowingly make an incorrect claim of its copyright status, you may be blocked from contributing to Wikipedia. - Mark 03:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I can understand why you would believe it to fall within the public domain. However, this is an incorrect assumption. Copyright does not die when an organisation dies. For instance, when a company is wound up, its copyright does not automatically expire; it would be one of the company's assets and would go somewhere. Similarly, when a person dies, copyright which they owned gets passed on with their other assets and debts. Chances are, the person who wrote the piece in that newspaper is still alive (and it doesn't matter if they're not); they copyright they hold in their text still applies, regardless of the copyright in the publication held by the newspaper/magazine. - Mark 04:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Get the author to send permission for the text to be released under the terms of the GFDL or into the public domain (in the form of the Boilerplate text here) for the images to permissions-en (at) wikimedia.org. Then upload the images and put {{OTRS pending}} in the summary, along with details of who the author is etc. I hope this has been a help. - Mark 04:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I noticed your posts on TenPoundHammer's talk page and wanted to clarify something about Canadian copyright laws. Copyright in Canada is based on the lifetime of the creator of the work; essentially, the copyright is held by the creator from the moment the work is created and remains copyrighted until 50 years after the creator's death. Unless the creator specifically releases the work into the public domain, it's still under copyright. Hope that clarifies things. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your e-mail to me: 99 percent of the time, scans of newspaper clippings are considered to be under copyright unless specific permission is given for reproduction - and that would require full release under the GFDL. If you feel that you can get the permission for those articles to be released into the public domain, I would suggest contacting our OTRS system - or better yet having the owner of the copyright make that contact. Please read through our guidelines on copyrights first, to ensure that the material will meet our needs. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw the images you e-mailed me. I don't know how many more times I can tell you, but scans of newspaper/magainze articles are NOT fair use no matter what. I can NOT upload the images you sent me; discussion among myself and other users has resulted in the observation that there is no way at all that a scan of a magazine/newspaper article could ever be fair use, even if you think that it adds to the context of the article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your comment on my talk page. For information on what piping a link means, you can find a definition at WP:PIPE. Basically, it's a method of modifying the wikilink so that it shows up differently. This is handy in cases where the page name is something like Craig Morgan (singer); if you want the links to just say "Craig Morgan", then you would type [[Craig Morgan (singer)|Craig Morgan]]. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Why would you need to put a link to Google though? Just curious. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What article has a Google link? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh wait, I see. Your post was misplaced so I didn't see the top of it. Google likely links to my talk page because you mentioned Cornier on my talk page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Huh. That's strange. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:2nd Police warning 4 God's Emissary.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? J Milburn (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:2nd Police Warning 4 God's Emissary 1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by an adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't deleted the images, I have merely tagged them. Yes, you are very much wrong. Wikipedia is not a democracy- decisions are made through discussing issues until there is a consensus, not voting. Furthermore, my own personal views are irrelevant- when editing Wikipedia, I leave my opinions at the door and write from the neutral point of view. J Milburn (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reasonable difference between the ideas of democracy and consensus, but Wikipedia's definition of consensus is very different from the idea of democracy- I recommend you read the links above. I will raise my concerns on the article talk page now. J Milburn (talk) 21:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:2nd Police Warning 4 God's Emissary 1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:2nd Police warning 4 God's Emissary.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe the images should be kept, you can tag the images with {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|Your reason why a free replacement can not be found or created}} and a neutral administrator can assess the arguments and keep or delete the articles as appropriate. Note, however, that though images may not be recreatable, they still look rather decorative- the pictures barely aid the readers' understanding, and again look rather non-neutral and pro-Cormier. J Milburn (talk) 10:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you dispute the deletion of the images, you just hit 'edit this page' and place the tag that I showed you above on the image page, replacing "Your reason why a free replacement can not be found or created" with your reasoning. J Milburn (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the tag for you. J Milburn (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the comment to the talk page, as there is no tag to oppose the deletion notice I used there. Seeing as you asked, I have no opposition to you adding back the images, but others may, and the images may still be deleted. However, the tags should not be removed until the issue is resolved. I am watching the article, but I doubt I will be editing it much. J Milburn (talk) 21:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I have no huge objection to you adding back the images yourself. An administrator will assess whether the images should be deleted after a few days, I don't remember how long off-hand. As for the maintenance tags on the article, the best way to get them removed will be to deal with the issues- provide sources for everything in the article, ensure it is written from the neutral point of view and ensure it is written in an encyclopedic tone. Regarding your last point, I am not sure what you are talking about. Could you be a little more specific? J Milburn (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it was me who deleted it? What was the exact name it was uploaded under? J Milburn (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, I thought we were talking about different images. Exactly what permission was given, by whom, and regarding which images? J Milburn (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that permission for Wikipedia to use is not enough- it must be free for anyone to use or modify, for any purpose, even commercially. Why not just write it in your own words and cite the article? J Milburn (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ray,

The article Ray Joseph Cormier is undergoing the usual scrutiny that takes place around here. Because you have a personal interest in the article, it feels to you like the article is under attack, but that is not the case.

We try very hard to maintain a level of NPOV (neutral point of view) in the articles here. Therefore, Wikipedia has strict policies against editors writing about themselves. Please consider stepping aside from editing the article that is about you.

I realize you've put a lot of work into the article. Please be aware that some or all of it could be removed because of your conflict of interest. Such actions would not be an attack on your personality, your biography or your editing ability; they would take place to maintain the integrity of the entire Wikipedia project.

Please read closely the following links. They will explain in more detail what I am talking about here.

• Wikipedia is not a soapbox
• Conflict of interest
• Autobiography
• No original research
• Neutral point of view
• Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site
• Ownership of articles

Let me know if you have any further questions or concerns. Sincerely, Kingturtle (talk) 13:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I'd suggest discussing the issue of whether to include the image on Talk:Ray Joseph Cormier. Since Milburn is away and 4-5 days isn't much time anyway, I extended the date on the deletion tag to give some more time.

Because of WP:NFCC#3a, the image is probably most likely to be kept if you can work it in with commentary on the specific incident that it depicts.

Bet, — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, and explain what I've done on the article, I have to admit that I only scanned the article before. I go around tidying up links as a way of looking for articles that might interest me and that could use some editing. In this case, I stumbled across RCMP, and spelled out the acronym per standard writing style and the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Work was underway on the article, so I didn't pay too much attention. When I returned today, I saw that the article was nothing like an encyclopedia article. I am sure that it must be frustrating to you to have your work undone like this. This is, however, an encyclopedia. The article read like a personal blog in many places. There was just so much that did not belong in an encyclopedia article. I think you will find that any administrator you bring in on this article will tell you the same thing. Again, I am sorry that so much of your work has been removed, but it really was not appropriate. Regards, Ground Zero | t 23:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ray, I apologize for the "fantasy" remark. It was inappropriate.

I was not aware that you are the subject of the article. I would like to join others who have suggested that you not edit this article. It is generally a bad idea for the subject of an article to make contributions because of the obvious conflict of interest (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.) An encyclopedia is not the right place for an autobiography (see Wikipedia:Autobiography), which is what this article was turning into.

I have no doubt, for example, in the sincerity of your belief in your interpretation of Revelation 19:11, but it is incorrect for an encyclopedia to report that 9/11 is foretold by it. I have looked up Revelation 19:11, and it talks about fire raining down on Babylon, not airplanes dropping on Manhattan. It is your interpretation, not a verifiable facts, that Babylon means New York City, and that "fire" means airplanes. Similarly, the connections between the election of the pope and what was going on in your life are open to your own interpretation, but are similarly unverifiable. Regards, Ground Zero | t 21:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not place older versions of articles into talk spaces. The older versions are available in the history section so this does not aid in preserving the content. See WP:TALK for rules on what can and cannot go on talk pages. I have also responded to your questions on my talk page. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 19:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I have to warn you about WP:3RR which you are close to breaking. If you continue to restore the content on the talk page you will be blocked from editing. Getting blocked will not help your case at all, it looks like you are on a self destructive path, so I urge you to stop and listen to what myself and others have said. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for letting me know this and I will comply. About the same time tomorrow then. It is an article discussion page, not the article itself. Will you not allow other users to see and compare.

I was just coming home to change the subject to Appeal: Convert to encyclopedic language. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 20:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users can easily compare with the history function. Talk pages should not be used to store old versions of articles. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 20:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the raw information is in the history (which you should explore so you can get to know your way around). The talk page shouldn't have just the raw document. The talk page is for dialog about how to improve the article. That is where you can discuss particular issues and concerns. You can definitely quote parts that you want back in and explain why.

I would like you to consider again recusing yourself from editing the article. Your passion may blind you.

And lastly, the 3RR policy prevents you from doing a third revert on the Talk page, but it doesn't prevent you from editing other articles. And I encourage you to edit other articles.

Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DoDa, I know you've put a lot of work into the article. I know that the major overhaul we've put the article through has upset you.

I've done some research on Ray Joseph Cormier‎, I have found very, very few references about the subject. I want to prepare you for the possibility that the article itself may someday be considered for complete deletion. I won't do it, but another editor could someday stumble upon the article, consider it non-notable, and nominate it for deletion. At which point there would be a week for the community to discuss whether the article is notable enough to keep or non-notable enough to delete.

You can read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and Wikipedia:Notability to understand more about what might happen. I am not saying it will happen, but I wanted to prepare you so you weren't blind-sided if it ever did happen. Kingturtle (talk) 04:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I'll say up front that I can't really help you with the issue of the images you mentioned; free/fair use is my weakest point of Wikipedia knowledge, and I stay clear of it unless it's blatantly obvious that something should or could be done with them.

As for the changes you'd like to see, please read what the editors above are saying; while I recognize that your version of the article contained more and more widely ranging prose, Wikipedia is, at its core, an encyclopedia. The information in the article may be boring and bland, but it's encyclopedic - it's "just the facts," as it were, as they can be backed up by media accounts and other sources. I suggest that if you have information you want to include, that you take it to the talk page with sources to ensure that it's usable, and keep working with the editors there. I don't recognize all the names, but some I do, and they're competent editors who do know what they're doing. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a good idea to paste old versions of articles onto the talk page. If you want to work on something, I'd suggest putting the working copy someplace in your own userspace - for example, at User:DoDaCanaDa/sandbox; you can click there and paste it and work on it there, then refer people to it if you feel there's something there worth bringing back to the article. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't paste old versions of articles to talk pages; I think that translates to a "no." Tony Fox (arf!) 18:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:2nd Police Warning 4 God's Emissary 1.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. J Milburn (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have made my final decision about this image. It doesn't satisfy the non-free content criteria, so in my opinion it should be deleted.

  I'm sorry if you feel aggrieved at other users' actions, but I am not in a position to intervene in your dispute, which you should take to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 10:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I feel the two images should be deleted. The usual methods failed when a (dare I say it?) inexperienced admin deemed that it should be kept. I personally do not agree, and so I am going down another route. As far as I am concerned, I still haven't heard a decent explanation of why the image meets our non-free content criteria. J Milburn (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milburn, you originally tagged the image as replaceable. It was clear in context that the image was intended to illustrate an event, not just a person, and Ray is quite right in saying that we can't reproduce a 32-year-old event of this sort.

That said, I do think Milburn's second rationale ("the event is barely discussed in the article if at all, and so the image is primarily decorative") is more accurate. In policy terms, the image passes WP:NFCC#1 (irreplaceability) but probably not WP:NFCC#8 (significance).

Ray, would it be possible to request a free license for this? I realize that it's a very old photograph, but it looks like the Ottawa Citizen is still running. I don't know what kind of employment contracts were in place back then, but it might be worth a try.

— xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 01:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was not the one who cut down the article- I tagged the article as being non-neutral, having an inappropriate tone and as lacking sources. It was another user who cut it down- I'm not certain who, check the page history. Furthermore, I can assure you I have no 'network of friends' on Wikipedia; at least, not one that I call on. I have had absolutely no contact with any Wikipedian (to my knowledge) outside of Wikipedia talk pages, (no email- I reply to emails on talk pages, no instant messaging or IRC, as I am not using any programs of that sort at the moment and I do not use any other form of communication for Wikipedia subjects) and I have certainly not discussed this article outside of the article talk page, your talk page and possibly some other users' talk pages- check my contributions if you really want to be certain. As such, contacting me about the cutting down of the article (and the subsequent posting on the talk page, which I was uninvolved with) is going to get you nowhere, though I assure you that the article is better than it was now that it has been trimmed- we're not interested in what's 'true', to be honest, we're interested in neutral, verifiable encyclopedic information. My issue with the images is simple- Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, and I resent any use of non-free material unless it is absolutely needed, and this really does not look to be absolutely needed. I am surprised that the images have been kept this long- as I look at it, it's a pretty clear-cut deletion. Also, non-free images should never be shown outside of the article space. As for the image being reduced, that was done because non-free images should be as small as they need to be- that wasn't me, it was Bjweeks, the admin who deemed that the image should be kept. Please stop challenging the intentions of other uses and believing that people are collaborating against you- that is completely against our policy of assuming good faith. J Milburn (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see why we need either. Take a read of our non-free content criteria- what do you believe the images are adding to the article? J Milburn (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:2nd Police warning 4 God's Emissary.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by an adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop using user talk pages to push your personal agenda. If you have information that you feel is relevant to Wikipedia, or a question you need answered, my talk page is always open, but I don't appreciate political spamming to many user talk pages at the same time. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're really making me feel bad here- I'm a (very liberal) politics student, and if we met in any other way, I would be amazed to meet you and hear about what you had done. Please, please don't feel I am trying to belittle the things that you've been through- my concerns about the images are purely that I do not like using non-free images unless it is absolutely unavoidable- yes, the images look good, but I don't feel they're absolutely needed- the text alone is enough, I feel. I am not trying, in any way, to make it seem like the things you've done are irrelevant/minor. I've realised that you may feel like the community has not made you very welcome- I realise that you have remained very civil at all times and have been willing to make compromises, even in the face of what may look like your contributions being thrown aside, and for that, I thank you, and if you feel that I have treated you badly in any way, I apologise. J Milburn (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you say that permission has been granted to post one of the articles? Exactly what permission was given? J Milburn (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What permission was given? Was it released into the public domain, was permission given for use on Wikipedia... (Leaving for the night now- I will reply tomorrow.) J Milburn (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The images were deleted by Rjd0060 (talk · contribs) with a rather ambiguous reason- if you're interested in getting them restored or an explanation, I would contact him. However, I would instead focus on the content in the article- expanding that with neutral, well sourced information will be much more beneficial to the encyclopedia. The request for comment should theoretically bring some more users' opinions into the mix, and will hopefully improve the article. J Milburn (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright holder of the image had contacted OTRS claiming that us hosting the image was violating their copyright of it. While that is true, I deleted the image. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel much the same way as J here. My reason for not deleting the image originally was essentially procedural -- I felt that the image was irreplacable in the context in which it was used. (Others may disagree; that was my opinion, anyway.) But I do think it fails our significance policy, as it is generally interpreted (which is quite narrowly). I'm sorry if I evoked false hope. The most recent deletion was premised on WP:CSD#I9, which is actually rather blatantly incorrect since you didn't claim that the image was freely licensed. But even if one of us were to undelete it (which many would frown upon), I'm certain it would eventually be deleted -- the community has developed fairly strong precedents in these areas, and for better or for worse, images are always held to very high standards in terms of how they contribute to articles. (Of course, if you are able to convince the copyright holders to release the images to the PD or under a free license, most of these stringent image policies wouldn't apply.) As J said, thank you for remaining very polite in spite of all the heated contention, and please don't take this as a gesture of disrespect. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop posting on my talk page. I don't have any idea what you're talking about. Zazaban (talk) 03:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not aggressively cross-post identical messages to other people's pages as you did. It is extremely inappropriate and disruptive. Daniel (talk) 04:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DoDaCanaDa, you have been asked repeatedly that to recuse yourself from this article - and you have even volunteered to do so. Recusing means not only avoiding editing the article but avoiding campaigning in talk pages for the article. Please step aside from the life of this article. I am sure there are 100s of other things that you have expertise in; please use your skills in other articles on wikipedia that do not involve you personally. Thank you, Kingturtle (talk) 04:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? I think this is pretty simple- someone contacted us saying they were unhappy about work that belonged to them being hosted on this site when they have never given permission for it to be released. We delete it. What else do you propose? J Milburn (talk) 12:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that simple; I'm not even certain that you know what 'the FUR tag' is. Are you actually proposing that these images should be kept, despite the copyright holder's request that they are deleted? J Milburn (talk) 13:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to actually answer the question? J Milburn (talk) 13:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of the law, basic morality and Wikipedia policies, we can't just randomly take images from other people. We are attempting to write a 'free' encyclopedia- free for others to use. If the copyright holders are not happy for us to use the images, how are they going to feel for others to use in the same context, but for profit? Keeping material that copyright holders want removed is completely contrary to our fundamental goal, not to mention a potential legal problem. What if this went to court? Would it be ruled in our favour? God knows, I'm not a lawyer. However, I suspect that both our lawyer (Mike Godwin) and founder (Jimbo Wales) would not at all support the notion of keeping copyrighted material after the owners have requested its removal. You're fighting a losing battle there, I'm afraid. J Milburn (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have received no letters- yet again, you seem to have muddled me with someone else. Furthermore, I don't fear any legal cases involving me, but I can assure you, the Wikimedia Foundation has no desire to be involved in any legal cases- firstly, it can't afford to, and secondly, the coverage would be extremely bad for the charity's image- a copyright case against a promoter of free knowledge? The Foundation and Wikipedia will (and already has) work with the copyright holder. You can argue about how random/moral/legal the images are, but, at the end of the day, they don't belong to either of us, and so we have to be very careful about how we use them- even more careful than usual here, as Wikipedia's policies are far, far more stringent than US law. I don't think there is any need to contact Godwin or Jimbo over this issue- it's actually a very small debate, and it only seems to be you who supports keeping these images now that we have received a request to have them removed anyway. If you want further discussion, your best bet would be to mention the matter to someone with OTRS access- Rjd0060 was the deleter, and Daniel confirmed it, so it may be best to start with them, if you haven't already. I am afraid that debating the matter with me is a waste of time, as I do not have access to the request from the copyright holder. J Milburn (talk) 19:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DoDaCanaDa, it would be much easier if you could have someone take a digital image of you that you could upload. In that way, the image would belong to *you* and *you* could release it to the public domain. Or if you have snapshots of your own, you could get those scanned at Kinkos or something like that. Since you own the snapshots, again, *you* could release them to the public domain. Kingturtle (talk) 19:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stilfe, this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ray_Joseph_Cormier has been in the RFCbio list for some time with no editors making any contributions at all. The raw material in the history and in other user talk fits right in with your personal interests on your user page if I read them correctly. If you find the time and interest as an editor, not an Administrator, would you please examine the information and see if any of it can be restored to the article in an encyclopedic language?. Seeing it is an article on me, I have recused myself from editing it, having to depend on others. Many thanks. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 00:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no interest whatsoever in this article. Don't take that personally — I am sure you are very notable, noble, and interesting, but I don't find anything in the article that I would be a significant help with. Sorry. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not heard of you. Maybe you could try Portal talk:Quebec or Wikipedia:WikiProject Quebec --Carlaude (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure I understand. RFCs are usually used when the already-involved editors are unable to come to an agreement on some part of the article. Is there a specific conflict on the article that needs more people to express opinions? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem I just took the top level info from the article.--Nate1481(^t/_c) 14:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help, the majority of editors are well intentioned, and form what I have seen most have ben try in to be constructive. Has anyone pointed you at WP:5? It may explain a lot of the edits you have seen. The other part will largely be explained by the fatigue from dealing with vandals. I would suggets you also try editing a few other articles, possibly those not related to you and your biography, as it may give you a better perspective of the project. The random article button on the left can be good for this. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 16:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recusing yourself means not editing the article at all, not even copyedits ;) Kingturtle (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Ray.

It's certainly appropriate to ask for help from another user, or to ask another user to take a look at an article for you. Now, as Ray Joseph Cormier seems to be about you, you have a Conflict of Interest and so should probably not be editing the article yourself, at all. At the same time, it's perfectly appropriate to comment on the article's talk page, and provide your own input. Realize, however, that the way to edit on Wikipedia is through consensus building—by providing evidence showing a point, and not by arguing based on the inherent merits or veracity of a statement.

If you'd like to be adopted, I'd be glad to adopt you. I'm not sure exactly what you want me to look at in the Ray Cormier article, however. The Jade Knight (talk) 03:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generally adoption involves helping a new user find his way around Wikipedia, learning both the technical side of editing as well as community standards and policies; answering questions; and getting involved where the user seems to be having trouble.

In this case, it would indeed be more appropriate to post those comments on the article talk page, as they are exactly the sort of discussion that the community needs to be asked. As I have not been involved in editing that article, I have little background on the sort of community conflict it has undergone. I will add it to my watch list, however, and keep an eye on things, getting a sense of what goes on there. I do recommend you post your concerns on the talk page and ask what the opposition is to them there. If you get a response, and would like me to add my own comments, just send me a link to the comment section in particular and ask me to give my own opinion, and I'd be glad to do that. The Jade Knight (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just got back from vacation. Mind getting me up to speed? The Jade Knight (talk) 07:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. Kingturtle (talk) 20:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ray, I am sure that you are frustrated that editors like me have not been attending to your article. I want you to understand that whil you are focussed onthis one article about you, I am working on dozens of articles a day and "watching" thousands of articles. Frankly, I m not willing to spend a lot of time on one article, especially when it involves reading lengthy arguments about minor points and about points that are clearly addressed in Wikipedia's manuals. Once again, if you are looking for a place to tell your story in your own words and with what ever images you want to use, I encourage you to investigate MySpace and Facebook. The article as it stands looks to be most okay with respect to Wikipedia's policies as I understand them. Maybe it's time to leave it alone. Regards, Ground Zero | t 09:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I echo the above by Ground Zero. The material that was removed was, in almost all cases, not removed because of peacock terms and the like, but because it was unreferenced or inapplicable. That is why editors are not re-inserting it. As for the image, there seems to be a clear consensus against its use, not only because of the copyright issues but also because there is little or no apparent benefit to including it. Moreover, while the questions you raise about the Ottawa Citizen's behaviour are interesting, they are all together irrelevant for Wikipedia's purposes; for us, it is enough to know that they do not freely release the image. We do not question their reasons for not doing so - if you would like to, perhaps you would be interesting in privately registering a website and making your points there. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I came to your article via the RFC you posted. I intended to help. However, I don't have easy access to any of the references you cited in the article, probably because they are so old. Without the actual sources to review and digest, there is not much anyone can do to improve your article. Without the reliable source material in front of them, they can make judgements about deleting (which they have) but not about addition. There is so much easily accessible reliable source material available on the Internet, that it is very unlikely that any Wikipedia editor will take the time to revise an article for which that do not have easy access to the references. Suntag (talk) 15:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Note regarding your article. No article is yours or mine. There is no ownership of articles. Please remain aware of that. Kingturtle (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ray - I hope my language at Talk:Ray Joseph Cormier wasn't too strong, and I'm sorry if we got off on the wrong foot. If I may offer you some friendly advice, it would be to disengage completely from Ray Joseph Cormier - not because you have a conflict-of-interest, but because you're just banging your head up against a wall there. I think you'd probably find it more satisfying to edit some articles in which you're neither hamstrung by your conflict-of-interest nor close enough to the subject that you have trouble seeing the boundary of original research. Moreover, I think it would be the best way for you to familiarize yourself more thoroughly with Wikipedia policy. From what I've seen, literally every single thing you've done at Wikipedia has been somehow connected to your article. I know KingTurtle too as advised you to try doing some work elsewhere, and I wish you'd take that advice. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Ray. Thanks for the link.[1] Your story is well written and drawing, particularly your encounters with Trudeau. I could picture him passing by, shrugging his shoulders and replying, "Alright! Alright! I'll feed the sheep" and rushing up the stairs to his Office. That is a human reaction, not a politician reaction, and something you rarely read about. Whatever Trudeau did within the next hour or two after that, you know it was on his mind and had some influence on him. Have you thought about expanding it into a book? People are always interested in the lives of those famous like Trudeau, particularly the things that have not read before. Suntag (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This might help. Yesterday, I was reading the BLP policies. This[2] says, "Self-published material may be used in BLPs only if written by the subject himself." As I read it, if you write and then self-publish your story, it may be used in your BLP. You can't post it directly into Wikipedia as shown here[3], but if you self-published that portion of the material written by you, then it may be used in the Ray Joseph Cormier BLP. That really does not make any sense to me at all, but that is what Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source seems to say. Suntag (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Self-published material may be used in BLPs only if written by the subject himself." That does not say the living person should do the editing, though. The article should not be edited by the living person. Someone else, unrelated, may choose to add such material published by the living person. Kingturtle (talk) 15:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. However, the living person in question can post the material there on the talk page for others to include in the article. The Jade Knight (talk) 03:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Please stop spamming the same comments to many different talk pages. Thank you. Kingturtle (talk) 06:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been warned many times about spamming across multiple talk pages. Consider this your last warning. Watchlists exist for a reason, if you wish to discuss improvements to your biography post on its talk page. --Leivick (talk) 06:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking this over, I realize now that I my last post was overly terse and unfriendly to you. I know for a fact that you do not in anyway intend to disrupt this project and must commend you for being always remaining civil and calm when dealing with difficult personal situations here. However the basis of my last post still stands, please understand that it is not appropriate to post identical postdictions on multiple user talk pages. Please let me know if I can help with anything here on Wikipedia. --Leivick (talk) 06:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, is there something I can help you with? The Jade Knight (talk) 06:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read what you had to say, but I do not see a specific request? What is it, specifically, that is the problem? Were you hoping that your entire speech would be included in the article? BTW: Iraq is not Babylon; the ancient city of Babylon was built in the area now known as Iraq, but linguistically, ethnically, religiously, culturally, and even to a limited extent ecologically, the two are quite different. The Jade Knight (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Iraq: I don't think you understand; Canada in 1900 spoke English and French, and was comprised primarily of Europeans, specifically of British and French descent. Canada today, while slightly different, is still much the same: It has a similar government, is comprised of similar ethnicities, and speaks the same languages. Canada today is also a direct descendant of Canada in 1900. Ancient Babylon(ia) was an Amorite state which was polytheistic, spoke Sumerian (and then Akkadian), and had a Mesopotamean imperial government. Modern Iraq is largely an Arab state which is Muslim, speaks Arabic, and has a democratic Islamic Republic government. None of the ethnic groups in Iraq today are descendants from the Babylonians. No religion practiced in Iraq today is similar to or descended from that practiced in Babylonia. No language spoken in Iraq today is similar to or descended from Akkadian or Sumerian. The closest is Assyrian, which was influenced by Akkadian, but Assyrian is only spoken by a small group of Iraqis, and not in the area where Babylon was. You see, the Iraq of today has less in common (except for geography) with the Babylonia of the past than it does with the Canada of today. Instead of comparing Iraq and Babylon to Canada of today and Canada of 1900, you'd be nearer the mark to compare Iraq/Babylon to Canada and Vietnam.

Concering your biography: What I gather is that you preached to a court. That has indeed been done in the past, many times (I'm confident), though I'm only aware of a few specific examples. It is certainly much less common today than it was historically; this is likely in part to the fact that modern Western governments are significantly more secular than in the past. I see nothing wrong with mentioning that you made a religious speech during a court case. However, I do not feel that it would be helpful to include the entire speech in the Wikipedia article itself, for a few reasons: 1. Wikipedia is an Encylcopedia, and the goal of an Encyclopedia is to provide as much information in as brief a manner as possible. Including a whole speech would bog down the article, as the article is not about the speech, but about you. However, if you were to license the speech under the GFDL (or whatever they use over at Wikisource), it may be entirely appropriate for you to post it at Wikisource. Have you tried this? 2. This would be a copyright violation, unless you expressly license the speech to be used on Wikipedia. If you're interested in sharing it, I doubt this would be a huge issue, but point 1 still stands.

Again, I'm struggling to see specific requests. You want the biography improved, but how? Certainly, your sermon could be mentioned briefly and referenced. When and where was the sermon given? What was the context? Brevity would be a virtue in responding.

And, a pointer: When linking to pages within Wikipedia, use standard wikilinks, with double-brackets, such as [[Canada]]. Use single brackets and full URL's (such as you have been doing) only for non-Wikimedia links, or to show diffs. The Jade Knight (talk) 03:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While that's all rather interesting, my primary goal as your adopter is to help you resolve issues specific to Wikipedia; I'm having a lot of difficulty separating specific issues you're having with the article about you or Wikipedia in general from your comments on the Bible, the Latter Days, and all that. One of the most pertinent questions may be: What are you known for? If as a preacher, do you have a congregation? Have you published any religious books? Have you appeared on noteworthy television shows as a guest? The goal of Wikipedia is not to help you get your message out; the goal is to help people to know who you are, and what you consider your own significance is not necessarily what others consider significant, particularly given the fact that an encyclopedia needs to be based on reliable sources: you are who the sources say you are. So, what about you is significant and documented which is missing from the article? That's what we should be focusing on. The Jade Knight (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly annoyed with myself: I've managed to just delete all of my comments right when I was about to save them here (by navigating away on accident). However, I'll try to reinclude what I wrote to the best of my memory.

Yesterday I missed a few of your comments. My response: Canada today has changed somewhat from Canada 100 years ago. But Iraq today has nothing in common with ancient Babylon in any meaningful Anthropological sense. You may as well be comparing Canada and Vietnam for all the similarity which exists. Just because one disagrees with you does not mean one has failed to read, or even sometimes failed to understand, what you have written. An important part of contributing to Wikipedia is assuming good faith. I would hope you would do so for me.

There's nothing wrong with lots of references; some of the best historical books out there have pages which contain 80%+ footnotes, and it is not uncommon for a historical paper to be 40-50% footnotes. While this hinders readability slightly, it's very helpful for those studying the topic in question seriously. Wikipedia currently has 47,298,312 contributors, not including anonymous ones. It's no small number of people, all with different POV's. And yet, in a great number of articles, consensus (that nebulous thing) seems to be reachable, even though there's no true absolute consensus. Even in articles where there is definitely not consensus on some issues, people manage to find consensus on other, more fundamental issues. Yes, it's an amalgamation of POV's stripped of peacock words and the like, but that's what consensus is.

At any rate, I've expanded the version of your 1985 arrestation and moved it into the "Arrests" section where it seems to belong, using the old version you provided me for comparison. Seeing as the account was already in the article, however, I'm uncertain what your objection is? You wanted it included, but it already was? The Jade Knight (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		you deserve this AristoLtd (talk) 04:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, article talk pages are not places for you to make political speaches. See our talk page guidelines I have moved your recent post here to your talk page. If there are specific sources that you feel contain content that is needed to provide accurate view of the article topic, please feel free to comment directly about the article and your suggested sourct on the talk page without including your personal prophetic visions and political analysis. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References (section moved from article talk)[edit]

I was working as a courier making my deliveries on 9/11 and at every stop I said, ¨The world as we knew it ended today.¨ In my view, this was the first shoe dropping.

The global system meltdown, due to a poison virus originating in the late, great superpower called America, is the other shoe. I have viewed America as being the Biblical Imperial Babylon before The Kansas City Times printed it September 13, 1976, reference 24 in my biography.

On July 3, in a Wikipedia discussion I wrote, ¨The global system is just entering the time when this line from Rev.18 will be seen and believed: And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buys their merchandise any more......¨

While this is a line from the Bible, the secular global system has to deal with it unfolding exactly along this line, finally, after 32 years insisting it was on the way when no one believed. I am relieved.

The Kansas City Times, now The Kansas City Star, the newspaper of record, is also repudiating its history. You can see these reports at the link below, the last two images, second row on the right, references 24 & 25 in my bio.

I am quoted in reference 24 as saying, He came to town for the Republican National Convention, and will stay until the election in November to do God´s bidding: ¨To tell the World, from Kansas City, that this Country has been found wanting, and its days are numbered.¨

You may recognize these thoughts from the Writing on the Wall from Daniel V in the captivity of Babylon. The statement combines the first two parts of the writing in one sentence. The third part says, ¨Your Kingdom is divided, and delivered into the hands of the Medes and Persians.¨ This was two years before the Americans were held hostage in the hands of the Iranians in the land of ancient Persia. Who could have seen 32 years ago the United States, Iraq, in the land of Ancient Babylon and Iran would become so entwined, repeating that 3600 year old Biblical Babylonian history?

From another part from Daniel, Ancient Babylon was the Head of fine gold from the terrible image in the King´s nightmare, and the United States is the end of that Imperial system, being the feet made of iron and clay.

Anyone reading the article could not relate anything as it is to the many References. I hope this link to where they can be seen, might encourage an editor/contributor to live up to the Wikipedia goal of informing.

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2003596&l=16beb&id=1294974109

Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Kingturtle already let you know in this edit, you was inserting YOUR comment in the middle of HIS, which is not OK - especially as you didn't sign it. I didn't remove anything, I moved it to where your reply belongs which is below his. You should modify your reply to clarify witch part of his comment you're replying to and move it down. As for my opinion, I believe Kingturtle's arguments are valid and should be adressed to show the article meets the notability guidelines. Cheers, --aktsu ^(t / c) 23:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, 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:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
4. 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. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And now you've done it again. Seriously, I don't know how to get through to you that you are in breach of policy, and in very real danger of being blocked. Do you understand if you keep editing your article you may be blocked? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cross posted from Talk:KillerChihuahua:

You're missing the point. I'm an administrator who has informed you your conflict of interest personal point-of-view original research tendentious editing, which has gone on for some time now, is ending. You may learn our policies and follow them. Or you can keep ignoring them and I will revert, and if necessary block, you. I don't care what your opinion of my writing skills is. I'm telling you that if you want to edit Wikipedia, you have to learn and follow the rules here. I'll be happy to help. I suggest you start by reading what I've linked here in this post, and in the COI warning I left on your talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that KillerChihuahua has taken particular offense to your involvement here. While some fixing of errors in an article in which you have a COI may be appropriate, it might simply be best to make no further edits to the article yourself, and simply post proposed changes on the talk page, discussing which parts are erroneous and why. The Jade Knight (talk) 07:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then it is important that you realize that certain editors may take offense, and if KillerChihuahua is good for his word, he may block you from editing entirely. This may not seem very fair, but Wikipedia is not exactly the pinnacle of fairness. You must understand that there is a degree of politics involved here, and if you insist (even in the name of truth) on stepping on the toes of others, they may take offense. If they happen to be in rôles of authority (as KillerChihuahua happens to be), they may take disciplinary action against you. Your only other option is to try to befriend other editors and convince someone to come in and step up on your behalf. The Jade Knight (talk) 07:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, the best way to befriend editors is to try to help them with their own personal projects—find some articles you're interested in (preferably which haven't been made FA's yet), and ask those there what you can do to help improve the article. The idea is to try to be as helpful as possible, and to avoid edit wars as much as possible. The Jade Knight (talk) 08:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If DoDaCanaDa were merely correcting errors, this would not have come to this pass. I am here at the request of another admin, and have taken no personal nor particular offense, although DoDaCanaDa certainly has insulted a number of people here, including myself, in violation of our NPA policy. He ignores all advice and insults those trying to help him. FYI, Jade Knight, you have omitted one place DoDaCanaDa could go for nearly immediate assistance to have errors corrected; the BLP noticeboard. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from User talk:KillerChihuahua

• I cannot understand your last message in my Talk. Please re-read this post. If I insulted you, I don´t see it anywhere here, unless you are insulted just by anyone presuming to question your actions. Would you please point out where I insulted you? If I did, then I will apologize.

You wrote, ¨I am here at the request of another admin¨ which confirms what I suspected and wrote, that a small handful of Editors, irrespective of Wikipedia policies, will not stop in their efforts to have my BLP expunged. I´m accustomed to this. It is totally in line with the power that 1st imposed this probation mentioned in my biography you want deleted: He was arrested on a number of occasions in the late 1970s for making speeches to growing crowds in Downtown Ottawa and charged with shouting, causing a disturbance. He was convicted and handed a one day suspended sentence with one condition of probation for one year "not to attend on The Sparks Street Mall, or any other Street in the City of Ottawa, for the purpose of speaking or shouting". I am alive today only because this is Canada. In many other countries, I would just disappear for doing the same thing. I truly thank God for that.

¨I am here at the request of another admin¨. As much as I would like to assume good faith, circumstantial evidence would ¨suggest¨ the admin who came after you and tagged the Article for deletion could use the same quote.

When he started the deletion process, the issue was NN & COI, and preliminary indications show there might not be a consensus on COI. On the issue of NN. This is the Wikipedia guideline on that: "notable" does not mean "famous" or "important". Rather, it means that independent reliable sources have taken significant note of the subject and it appears to be a topic that is noteworthy to a reasonable extent.

Like I said, Wikipedia is like the Bible. You can pick and choose what lines you want to believe. Peace

DoDaCanaDa (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calling me immature? Accusing me of bad faith edits? Saying being an Admin has "gone to (my) head"? Yeah, you're fairly rude. And while I'm not "insulted just by anyone presuming to question your actions" I am insulted by anyone insinuating I might be petty enough to think that way. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ray - if your article survives AFD, which currently appears likely, I'd like to take a stab at rewriting it; hopefully I can get it to a point that it meets all Wikipedia style guidelines and does not leave you feeling as though you have to edit it yourself. To that end, I'm wondering if you happen to have copies of the article's references that you haven't uploaded to Facebook. Specifically, I'm wondering about the following:

• "Preacher Arrested on Mall" Ottawa Citizen 3 September 1977
• Dave Rogers, "Second police warning for God's emissary", Ottawa Citizen, 10 September 1977, A2.
• "Emissary from God undaunted", Ottawa Citizen, 22 October 1977, pg 2.
• "The self-styled prophet hauled off Mall again", Ottawa Citizen, 3 November 1977, pg5.
• "Mall 'prophet' jailed again", Ottawa Citizen, 5 November 1977, pg 5.
• "Masked protester returns", The Ottawa Citizen, July 15, 1978
• Jane Taber "'Prophet' fined for shouting at Nov. 11 service", Ottawa Citizen, 3 January 1986
• "Anti-war speech costs man $250", Globe and Mail, 3 January 1986
• "Cormier condamné", Le Droit, 3 January 1986
• Maclean's Magazine, pg 40 31 August 1981, People Section.
• Richard Caron "Raymond Cormier sillonne le pays pour precher Dieu", Le Soliel, 28 July 1986
• Emily Dyckson "Wandering prophet shares his faith", The Weekend (St. John's), 30 August 1986

As well, I'm wondering if you can tell me anything about Focus Magazine; I'm not familiar with it, and I want to verify that it qualifies as a reliable source. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme danger (talk) 05:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to chime in just because I'm unsure how familiar you are with Wikipedia culture (my apologies if I'm telling you things you already know): To wikify articles is to take significant words in the articles and add wikilinks to them (via brackets - [[like this]]). All Gimme danger is asking you to do is to start going through those articles and add the brakets so that there will be more wikilinks in them. Once you have wikified an article, you should then remove the "wikify" section on the tag (in the second line). If you have any questions about how to do this, or if you've done it correctly, feel free to contact me. Doing this kind of "wiki-gnome work" would be a great opportunity to further help the Wikipedia project in general, and would be good to show that you're willing to work for the greater good here, and not just focusing on your own particular biography. Gimmer danger seems like a very friendly individual—if you'd like another adopter, I'm sure he/she would be helpful. And, of course, if you have any questions, feel free to ask me or Gimme danger, and we'd be glad to help. The Jade Knight (talk) 06:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find lots of details at Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page#Wiki_markup and wikilinks. Do you have any particular questions, or anything you do not understand from my statements above? The Jade Knight (talk) 08:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of us reasonable folks do not wish to get involved in what will likely be an edit war with a few other agitated editors. I prefer to talk first, and act after, to try to forestall such conflicts. The Jade Knight (talk) 09:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPN. Doesn't always work the way people want it to, though. The Jade Knight (talk) 09:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme danger (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've never came here to say hello, so I am doing so now. Even though I voted for deletion of the article I want you to know it was never personal for me and hope it wasn't for you. If I was rude in any way please except my apology as I never meant to be. This article has been a learning experience for me. Even though I am considered a long time editor, I got to see an article built with almost zero web references to attach. I am not a good editor but I do try hard. I made the changes you requested regarding the wikilinking you wanted. I won't go into detail because I did respond to you on the talk page. Mainly I am here to just way hello and I hope you enjoy editing here at this project. I find my time here, as minor as it is, to be useful for me physical and emotionally as I try to learn and help when I can. My talk page explains my comments here the best. Anyway, good health and happy editing, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This message is to inform you that a Wikiquette Alert has been initiated, naming you as an involved party. Please see the discussion at WP:WQA#Talk:Ray Joseph Cormier for details, and to add your comments if desired. NOTE: You are not bound or required to participate in this discussion, however your input would be helpful to resolve any dispute that may have contributed to this alert being posted.

Some important things to remember during a Wikiquette discussion;

• A Wikiquette discussion is not an indictment, an insult, or a slight. Wikiquette discussions are an early step in dispute resolution, and involved users should bear that in mind during participation, so…
• Please remain civil. If you have a dissenting view, please present it calmly, and cite any references to talk page or article content with the applicable diffs.
• It is perfectly acceptable to disagree, as long as it is done agreeably.
• Please read the introduction at the top of the WQA page for additional information.

Edit Centric (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the difficulties for you is that you are not only unfamiliar with Wikipedia, but you are also unfamiliar with scholarly research and writing. Do your best to not be offended if other contributors react sharply to your contributions—you are learning as you go along, and you have much to learn. This is okay. You can generally always do Wikignome work without worrying about it being reverted (usually, though there are a few tricks to this, too). Contributing content to somewhat more established articles is trickier, however. One of the things you can do to help your edits be kept is to always source them with reliable sources. The link on "reliable sources" has a lot of information to help you identify relaible sources. As a general rule, books are more reliable than websites, and books by certain authors and certain presses are more reliable than others. Generally, established university presses publish reliable books. This is not to say that no websites are reliable—some are quite reliable, but it's somewhat more tricky for an unfamiliar user to distinguish the two. Here is a flowchart that might help you evaluate reliable sources: http://web.clark.edu/jpitkin/web%20site%20flowchart.htm (for "Author?", it is asking whether or not the source has listed its author(s)). Generally, the higher on the list, the better the source. Please let me know if you have any other questions, or run into further trouble. The Jade Knight (talk) 01:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be easier, yes, which is why some people stick to that kind of work. The Jade Knight (talk) 01:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to see my edit here: [4] Hipocrite chose to remove my comments, making it clear to me that he's more interested in causing disruption than talking about making improvements. The Jade Knight (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to read WP:AUTO. Writing about yourself, even if you are notable, is nearly impossible to do correctly. You should tread carefully. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...No it doesn't; tags are there to alert editors who may be able to rectify the situations. Besides, tags say themselves what they are there for, repeating that information is unnecessary. However, if you contest them, you can of course complain about them on the talk page.

However, you have an extremely strong conflict of interest in that article. See also Wikipedia:Autobiography. I heavily suggest you avoid getting involved in it, and take it off any watch list you might have. Clinkophonist (talk) 00:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have concerns with a biography about you, I recommend reading Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Help which describes things that you can do with an article about yourself. Obviously, it is important to keep the article accurate and away from defamation. I personally would like to see this article deleted (which is not a slight to you; I just think that we should be careful with articles about semi-notable or non-notable people because of the risks involved in getting a bio of a living person wrong or invading privacy). I suspect this article will be kept, but you may be able to follow some of the advice on this page to at least keep what is left neutral and accurate. JRP (talk) 03:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that, though I'm not Stifle, I have responded to your note at his talk page. Hopefully, the information will be helpful. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've emailed your account with my address- anything else you have can be forwarded to that address, and I'll see if it can be worked in. I'll take a read through some of the articles shortly, and try and work anything important into the Wikipedia article. J Milburn (talk) 12:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to look into improving the article myself at some point- probably later this week. Hopefully, there will be enough source material to get a fairly comprehensive, neutral article. J Milburn (talk) 22:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got the scans, and I have bookmarked the Facebook page. J Milburn (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to amend your post to make it clear how it relates to improving the article. As it is now, the post is inadmissible as soapboxing/forum. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 03:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use talk pages for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 04:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Day of Awakening.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) 02:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Ray Joseph Cormier.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) 15:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Day of Awakening.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. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ray Joseph Cormier.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. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first one, no, since it's a scan from a newspaper or something and is way too high-res. The second one, most likely — but ONLY IF you are indeed the owner of that image. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay then. I trust that you really do own them. If you want to place them under GFDL, I'll add a GFDL tag to the images for you and remove them from Files for Deletion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Where in the article do you want them? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The good news is that I'm back (well, not everyone's likely to consider that good news, but I thought you might). The bad news is that I'm in Edmonton for the summer, and the stuff you sent me is still in Fredericton. I will get to finishing my rewrite of your article come September, though. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted above, work on that article is on hold until September, as I am currently geographically separated from my references. Cheers, Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ray Joseph Cormier.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.

Your actions are being discussed here. I'm only notifying you because I'm required to do so and don't have the slightest interest in hearing from you in return, and if you post to my talk page I will delete summarily. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Hello, DoDaCanaDa. 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. Thank you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danger (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I talked some more. --Danger (talk) 05:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And more. --Danger (talk) 05:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question answered. Danger (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Hope the article sticks around. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IAR. Basically speaking it's a way of saying "it's not by the rules, but it's the right thing to do". Such !votes carry limited weight, but are still taken seriously. Hobit (talk) 23:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Day of Awakening.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. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]