Thank you Voorlandt, Caissa's DeathAngel, and Brittle heaven for your comments on my edits to Bughouse. It was a good learning experience. I have removed your comments here to make room for a possible comming flame war on other subjects.
File copyright problem with File:Branson Airport 9-26-009 by KTrimble.jpg[edit]
File Copyright problem
Thank you for uploading File:Branson Airport 9-26-009 by KTrimble.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
I hope this gets to you in time. Fixing licenseing after they've been posted is easy but not necessarily intuitive. That Branson photo is way cool and I don't want to lose it as I think you probably took it from an airplane. Copy this section (and knock off the categories) and paste it into the description on your photos. If you don't your photos are going to get nuked. Thanks again for an awesome photo. BTW that license puts the photo into the public domain but the attribution requires that folks are supposed to attribute it to you. Americasroof (talk) 05:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked: contrary to your assertion on the Media Noticeboard, neither one of the images that was deleted said anything about being in the public domain, or even Creative-Commons-licensed. If you say here what license you intended to place File:Battlefield Mall Springfield Mo by KTrimble.jpg and File:Branson Airport 9-26-009 by KTrimble.jpg under, I can restore them and tag them appropriately. You really might want to put in a {{db-author}} on that last one you uploaded, though.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KTrimble - Here's an even more straightforward suggestion. If it's a photo you took yourself, after you've uploaded it, edit its page and add the following:
"Summary" section: describe the photo and say that you took it
Or, if you like, you could copy the way I do it for my images (example). Either way, definitely feel free to continue asking for help if you get stuck. Sometimes this place can get frustrating, but there are always plenty of people around who are happy to point you in the right direction. :) -- Hux (talk) 05:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, KTrimble. You have new messages at Ww2censor's talk page. Message added 04:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
I have a bunch of great photographs to upload into existing articles and a bunch of ideas for new articles, even a couple of entire new subjects to expand on that have barely been touched. Several months ago, I started experimenting with contributing to Wikipedia in an effort to try to learn how to do this, but I have had bad results.
I have just had some other bad experiences with trying to contribute to Wikipedia, and I am discouraged. I originally tried making minor contributions to existing articles and immediately got my hands slapped. I created new articles on subjects nobody seemed to have a possessory interest in yet, thinking they wouldn't be bothered, and they get deleted. A couple weeks ago I uploaded a couple of photos that I took myself and placed in the public domain, and they got deleted because somebody didn't like the copyright. While investigating this photo snafu, I noticed that an article that I wrote about, Ze plane! Ze plane!, was deleted.
My original thought was to write a series of articles of various specific notable aircraft, mostly airshow aircraft that I had good photographs of and good information on, and possibly start a whole new list of articles or a whole new subject, if I ever learned how. I happened to know this specific aircraft, so I started with it. But within minutes of creating the article, it was flagged and then deleted about a week later before I could get back to it with any references and photos. Apparently it was judged to not be notable enough. I thought this aircraft was pretty notable, being seen at airshows, it's unique design for a Grumman, its provenance, and its interesting checkered past. Apparently not. I remember seeing an article about some race car driver's Ford Bronco that appeared in a movie for about fifteen seconds. I don't understand the difference. Go figure.
I will try things for a while, get discouraged, and not come back for several weeks or months. And then I will look for something and not find it, and get interested again. This time, however, I think I'm done.
I just reversed the deletion edit on Ze plane! Ze plane!. Go ahead and re-delete it, not delete it, or whatever. I no longer care. I have a life, and I don't need the brain damage. There are too many Barney Fife's running around Wikipedia deleting everything normal people not in 'the club' try to contribute for one stupid reason or another without explaining what is allowed and what isn't. If this is the way it is supposed to work, it's not fun and there are no rewards. Adios --KTrimble (talk) 05:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated Ze plane! Ze plane!, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ze plane! Ze plane!. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Stifle (talk) 08:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't that "somebody didn't like the copyright", it's that you didn't tell us what the copyright actually was on the image page itself. We can't do this for you, because we can't assume you've released the image.
I hope you'll be able to overlook this series of unfortunate accidents and become a great Wikipedia contributor. Stifle (talk) 08:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I told you this and pointed you to the deleting editor who I am sure would not delete any image that was properly tagged. You images were good one, so please take Stifle advise as he too is an administrator who can help you undelete your deleted images. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 14:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I put 'public domain' in the drop down box when I uploaded them, I put the date, time, and place taken, including the altitude, that I was placing them in the public domain, and information on how the contrast was adjusted in the info box at the same time. I don't know what else I could have done. There is nothing in the file upload instructions about the 'PD-self' tag. Frankly, I've not gotten into this deep enough to try to understand what the 'tags' are all about. I read all of the license options, I know more about copyright than most people, I even read ww2censor's page about copyrights. I know all of that. I put the image in the public domain. Public Domain is as free as it gets. What else could possibly be required?
I made one edit last night to undelete an article that I originated a few months ago, and it is already tagged for deletion. I thought a series of articles about notable aircraft might be a good idea; and I thought this plane was marginally notable. Somebody else thinks it isn't, so it's gone. I really don't have time to get into any big discussions or flame wars to justify every little contribution I might hope to make, so I'm not going to bother.
I have noticed that most of the edits in the history that aren't reversed by some robot are done by somebody with a bunch of awards or stars or a couple dozen user-boxes. Not much is being done anymore by regular folk who are just starting. I have been at this off and on for a couple of years and I feel really discouraged--to the point that I don't want to screw with it anymore. I can't help but think that other people are out there having the same experience. You (the 'community') are making it harder for new people (new people who may have a lot to add) to come in and learn how this is supposed to be done. I wonder if this is impeding the introduction of new content by new people? Would it make sense for the 'leaders' of 'the community', if there are any, to try to educate all of the experienced old hands on how to deal with new people? Would it make sense to have some sort of program set up where 'the community' can identify new people entering the field and trying to make edits and trying to contribute and having problems, and try to educate them on how this works, encourage them to contribute new content, and bring them into 'the community'? I am feeling pretty beat up, I am feeling unappreciated, and I am embarrassed that I am in a position of having to whine like this, but I have a lot of content to contribute--and I am gone. I wonder how much else the community has lost in this way?
I just restored those two images, but I have to admit it was against my better judgement. I asked a simple question: are you formally releasing this into the public domain? What came back was two screens worth of "I did everything right, you people are so mean, I'm out of here, I still have lots to contribute, and oh, by the way, yes, I release them into the PD". Might I suggest you tone down the rhetoric a bit in the future, per catching flies with honey? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KTrimble, I know contributing here can be frustrating. Our processes have been built up over the years, in many cases out of the digital equivalent of popsicle sticks and chewing gum. As a collaborative project, that's inevitable. Having fresh eyes like yours can help us fix these problem areas -- things that might make sense to those of us familiar with them, but none whatsoever to new users. There's also the problem that we get a lot of people uploading things that they don't have the right to upload, so we've gotten a little gunshy and our processes reflect that bias. Most of us are aware of the problems this causes for new contributors, but no one's quite sure what to do about it. All we ask is that you do your best, and excuse any occasional lapses in communication on our part. We need your contributions; will you stay and help? PowersT 18:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have done a lot of soul searching on what I want to do here today. I spent some time this evening screwing around with the Ze Plane! Ze Plane! article, adding a few references (which I don't really know how to do) and doing some rewriting. In the process, I browsed the user pages and user talk pages of everybody involved in this little flame war and ended up looking through probably a hundred such pages around WP. I browsed around some of my favorite subjects and looked at earlier versions of pages that probably originally attracted me to WP.
I learned a few things. Among many things, apparently there is some sort of mentoring program that exists. Even so, there are way more adoptors than adoptees. I would have used it, but I didn't know about it, and apparently nobody else that is new knows about it either. Apparently MOST of the old hands don't know about it, or they don't like it, or else they would be advising new people to try it or possibly offering to mentor them. It might help if WP as a community told somebody about it. There seems to be a big part of WP that doesn't want new people around, and they have a noticeably elitist attitude about it.
Reading all of these user pages and talk pages, I learned that there are two broad philosophies that are at work here:
An open view, ignore all the rules, be bold, contribute, contribute, contribute, etc., WP is something special that should be open and accessible and low-calorie and tax-free and everybody should be made to feel welcome and become a part of it.
A more elitist, purist, officialdom, meritocratic view of hard rules, heirarchical decisionmaking, a view of a threshold of what is important enough to include and a bunch of decorated robed high priests whose mission in life is not creating content, but policing the content that new people try to add and stiffening the barriers to entry.
Being new, I tend toward the open view. The elitists are trying to make WP as reliable and accurate and as respected as Britannica or Colliers, which is understandably laudable and desirable. But ya know what, Britannica and Colliers have gone the way of the dodo.
When ya all figure out which one Wikipedia is, call me and I might try to get involved again. Right now it is simply not worth the time and effort without help. Somebody said something about fresh eyes. Well, this is what I see. Frankly I see the same thing happening in a lot of volunteer organizations, and the solutions are usually quite obvious.
One of the responses to my earlier diatribe suggested that I be nicer. Sarek apparently missed the whole point, or alternatively his response demonstrates and illustrates my point. I was trying to be a part of this, but was completely frustrated and obviously need guidance, and would probably be more interested in continuing trying to be a part of this if the thought police were more helpful, so I lashed out a little. The old hands think they deserve nicer treatment from new people when they blaze through and apply narrow judgments to new content. The old hands seem to view new people as a pain in the ass.
Perhaps the old hands deserve better treatment. But ya know what: without new and constantly and wildly evolving content, Wikipedia becomes static and dies, just like Britannica, just like Encarta. Wikipedia NEEDS new people if it is to develop or grow--way more than us newbies need the brain damage associated with trying to help WP.
--KTrimble (talk) 05:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey KTrimble, don't let the rulebound get you down! ze plane! must live (you may have seen i did some work on it) - if you got more references for that, shoot 'em my way, I can add the citations. There is quite of bit of bureacracy built up around wikipedia now, but once you get clear a few initial hurdles, it gets much more enjoyable. --Milowent (talk) 14:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The old hands don't deserve any better treatment than the new hands.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article was up literally a grand total of maybe ten seconds when you decided it needed deleted. As you can read on my talk page, I really don't see the point in trying to do this if I am going to get every little thing challenged in this manner instantaneously. Milowent left enough of a kind word for me in the last exchange to get me to try this one more time, but I don't need this.
The article needs some work on references, I admit. Those references are The Appraisal of Real Estate from the appraisal Institute, the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice from the Appraisal Foundation, The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal from the Appraisal Institute, Scope of Work by Stephanie Coleman (an authority on the subject). I understand that there are similar definitions used in other professions involving the attest function, such as public accounting, auditing, medicine, etc. where there could be other references, and there are other references regarding the use of assumptions in reasoning in the philosphy field.
I assume that is what your problem is because I can't make heads or tails of your comment on the deletion page 'appears to be O.r. and it seems to be confirmed by talk opage comments'. I have no idea what 'O.i.' is or what I might have said on the talk page that reinforced that opinion.
I am new to this and I am interested in creating new content. I am not interested in even a minor flame war with the old hands with every edit. I would be interested in what you really meant, but this article and the two that preceeded it took probably an hour and a half to create. It needs another hour to look up the references and may require more to clean it up with a fresh rewrite after researching other professions. I am simply not going to bother if it is just going to be deleted. Ya all can go ahead and delete it or edit it or whatever. I've done all I'm going to until I get a better explaination of what I'm doing wrong here.
I've moved the article to your userspace and closed the AfD, so you can continue to work on it and get feedback there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problems helping you.it should be O.R. (Original Research) :I have combined two articles on very related topics into one. The reason this article is heavy with real estate appraisal examples is that I plan on creating several articles on valuation and appraisal which will refer to this article" I interperted that as you were saying that you were writing a article based solely on the combination of these two properties. Wikipedia olicies are definitly intricate but try to ask questions how to improve rather then just assume the older editors are out to get the new ones. That's the way we all learn, through assumptions of good faith. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to a few of your references? I would happily help you add them and teach you if you need it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would have assumed that if you old hands had any interest in making an 'assumption of good faith' that you would have put your concerns on either the author's talk page or the article's talk page before instantly deleting.
I'ts after midnight and I have other things I need to do. If you are interested in screwing with this, go ahead. I think a PDF of USPAP is on the Appraisal Foundation's website. I have fifteen years of hard copies. All of the Appraisal Institute books are available only in hard copy. International Valuation Standards may also talk about this, but I haven't looked. There are other texts by ASA, NAIFA, IAAO, the Farm Managers, and others that also talk about this subject. There are also course materials out there about this concept. I am pretty sure there are other professions that use the same or similar concepts and there are logic and philosphy articles around WP citing references on the subject as well.
WP's entries on Appraisal, Real Estate Appraisal, and related concepts are not quite right and some are pretty pathetic. Many look like 'stubs' that have been stubs for a couple of years. I had originally planned probably a year and a half ago to try to author perhaps a hundred different interrelated articles on the subject that I could then refer people to when they had questions for me on the subject. I started a list back then in my Sandbox. I got discouraged back then and am just now getting back to it. But I got sidetracked on this deletion thing on the first article. It really doesn't seem to be worth it.
BTW, I did not delete the articles that I created on Extraordinary Assumptions and on Hypothetical Conditions. I was planning to blank both of those and have them redirect to the combined article when I got time to figure out how. If you want to delete something, blast away!
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. It would appear you don't get it. I am offering to help you and you still attack why I nominated it in the first place. It gives you a chance to fix it by seven days and if in this case as you insist I'm completely out of line in this nomination I opened this to a communitywide debate. Please read this important policy about Wikipedia and if you are willing to accept help, I will still gladly give it. I've authored 40+ articles and can help you make it stick around or get you to another who can help. Please also note that the articles aren't yours, The comment if I wanted to screw with it infers that no one can edit it except you and one of our core policies is that if you can't accept another person editing or re-factoring your writing wikipedia is likely not for you. There's another template but I realize you are new and am trying not to wp:bite a Newbie.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also you can reply here on your own talkpage when having a discusssion here, or you can use a template like
on my talkpage oy anyone and it lets them know you responded to them and where. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hypothetical conditions can be found here. I was not sure how to handle plural/singular in titles other than trying to create a redirect page for each which I had planned to do later.
Also, the 'if you want to screw with it' comment was not meant to express any proprietary interest in the article, but rather a sense of futility, and communicate my intention to abandon the contribution for your deletion.
The last time I got discouraged was last May. Since every edit I ever made was being reversed by the guardians of the articles, I experimented with creating an article on a subject I assumed nobody would care about. I put up a first draft and it was deleted very quickly. I got discouraged and just quit. I didn't get into any flame wars, I just left.
A couple of weeks ago, I thought I would experiment with trying to figure out how to upload photographs. I uploaded an aerial photo I took of the local airport, found out it was easy, and a few days later proceeded to upload other aerial photos to associate with other articles, but I needed to go through them first. I uploaded maybe three photos. Two of the photos got deleted instantaneously because of some copyright snafu that I still don't understand. I tried to go back into the upload area to try to correct it, but there was no intuitively obvious way of doing it. I had to just sit there for a week and take everybody's flak about the copyright. I got frustrated enough this time to mouth off about it. It started a minor flame war.
In the process, I undeleted one of the articles I wrote several months ago about the Fantasy Island airplane Ze Plane! Ze Plane!. It got re-deleted very shortly thereafter. This time I got pissed and mouthed off about it. Oddly, a couple of people came to my aid on it, and one of them was actually encouraging, so I tried again. I wrote the article currently in question and uploaded it. Before I finished the first edit and could enter the first reference, you deleted it.
I'm sorry, but from my point of view, it looks like there are a bunch of old hands sitting around waiting for some newbie to make an edit or upload an article so they can blast it. The deletions happen fast enough that it makes me wonder whether everybody is in some sort of contest to score points. Whatever the rationale is, I find the deletions to be very discouraging. In my original reading of 'the welcome page' two years ago, I got the definite impression that the place for arguments over content, purpose, style, references, etc. was on the talk pages--apparently not. I see no sense in spending time researching how to do all the references and probably doing a rewrite, especially under a clocked deadline, if it is just going to get deleted anyway.
Anyway, above somewhere you give a reason for the deletion of 'I interperted that (what I said on the talk page) as you were saying that you were writing a article based solely on the combination of these two properties.' Why you couldn't have said that on the talk page instead of after I had to throw a hissy fit about your deleting the article is beyond me, but I digress. Actually, I started writing two separate articles, but the two concepts were complements of each other. The two articles were turning out to be almost identical, and the understanding of the two concepts really seemed to require contrasting the two in the same article. In all of the appraisal industry coursework, the two concepts are always treated together, apparently for that reason. I thought that the article could be directed to by anybody that linked to or searched either concept. Anyway, I don't know if that is why the article was deleted, but whatever. I thought it was the beginning of a pretty good article on the fringe of the appraisal subject, but apparently not.
While I don't often do new page patrol, I can say that it's not about blasting newbies - it's just that it's easiest to catch an improperly created article near creation time, so that's why people watch there.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well don't go anywhere, we do need people who can write quality articles. Like I said previously Wiki has a lot of policies and even after 6 months here I'm constantly learning new ones. I would suggest leaving yopur 2 articles as is and add references as they seem to be appropriate and then if you still have issues with deletion you can always ask an Admin to restore the deletedx version to your user space so you can userfy it and get it ready for main space. I write about small state park attractions and I aalways try and add on or two sources upon further creation so when people review it it will at least vouch for notability for a while longer to continue improving it. Let me know where you need the help and I'll be happy to explain more. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the articles aren't deleted yet -- you still have a week to argue for them to be kept.
And we all had a learning curve to go through. :-) One of my earliest articles was Old revision of Tom Smith (filker). It shouldn't be a surprise that it fairly promptly wound up nominated for deletion, but we managed to improve it enough that it was kept. Twice. :-) Live and learn, eh? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, your situation reminds me of my first test of faith in Wikipedia several years ago. One of the things that has been bandied about this place is the need to retain good editors once they get in a dispute. Let's try to negotiate a solution to this problem of having three overlapping articles. What was your motivation for merging the first two in that unorthodox way? Did you consider moving one to the new title and merging the other in? Abductive (reasoning) 06:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was writing both at the same time with the intention of refering the two back and forth, but the two articles were nearly identical with the leading paragraphs being mirror images. It looks like the important concept is the distinction between the two, and possibly adding in Ordinary Assumptions as a third classification of assumptions. My thought was to have the original two pages redirect to the new combined page. It might make sense, instead, to simply rename the page 'assumptions' or 'logical assumptions' or 'assumed conditions' or whatever. I would have to think about it. My original intention was to write other articles in the appraisal field that referred back to this article, but the concepts are common to other professions and to basic logic, which is part of the field of philosophy. I was hoping that the article would gently evolve to tie all of this together, but it got blasted before I could explore these ideas. --KTrimble (talk) 07:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "blasted" yet. Why not ask for it to be "userfied" while you think about it? Abductive (reasoning) 07:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't give up......Just save your work and continue working with us to help fix it.[edit]
Hypothetical conditions assume facts or conditions which are known to be contrary to known facts, whether about
physical, legal, or economic conditions,
or about conditions or facts lying outside the observable scope of discussion or analysis but potentially affecting the scope or results of analysis or direction of discussion (such as market conditions or trends known to be contrary to known conditions),
or about the accuracy, reliability, or integrity of data on which an analysis may be based.
Hypothetical conditions are distinguished from extraordinary assumptions which are assumptions made also for the purpose of discussion or analysis, but regarding facts or conditions which are merely uncertain or undetermined.
The distinction between hypothetical conditions and extraordinary assumptions can carry a legal consequence and are most important in analytical fields where calculations or representations of professional opinions based on such assumptions are communicated by a professional to a client or end user, such as through an attest function.
Examples of hypothetical conditions used in the course of analysis might include
In a discussion or analysis of historical events assuming the hypothetical condition that Bobby Kennedy was not assassinated in 1968 and went on to become President of the United States (known to be contrary to fact) and attempting to extrapolate the resulting course of history.
In the appraisal of property, assuming for purposes of estimating just compensation for the taking of property for a public use by a governmental entity that the proposed public improvement will not be constructed in an effort to isolate any impact on market values of project influence.
Also in the appraisal of property, assuming that a property is zoned commercially or can be rezoned for commercial uses when it is in fact zoned residentially and there is no reasonable expectation that it could be rezoned commercially. Such a hypothetical condition would have to be assumed in order to estimate the impact on value of a past downzoning.
Examples of extraordinary assumptions used in the course of analysis might include
In a discussion of creationism or evolution, assuming that God does or does not exist. The belief in the existence of a god is generally regarded as an element of faith. The assumption that God does not exist is an assumption of science under lex parsimoniae or Occam's Razor. The actual existence or non-existence of God is generally recognized as not being directly observable and not succeptible to logical proof. As such, any discussion or analysis which assumes the existence or non-existence of a supreme being would be based on an extraordinary assumption and not a hypothetical condition.
In the appraisal of real estate, when an appraiser observes items which might potentially indicate the presence of environmentally hazardous material, but he has no direct knowledge of any environmental contamination and is not qualified to detect such conditions, he may continue to formulate an opinion of value under an extraordinary assumption that the property is not chemically contaminated, though as a practical matter, he would need to communicate the extraordinary assumption made along with the value conclusion.
Analyzing data and reaching a conclusion when the source of the data, its accuracy, or its veracity may be suspect, but is not known to be completely false. The conclusions would be based on the extraordinary assumption that the data is accurate and reliable.
The main example where the distinction between extraordinary assumptions and hypothetical conditions can be a matter of law or professional standards include the field of real estate appraisal where the distinction is codified in USPAP in the United States (although the concept is clearly applicable to all forms of valuation).
Under USPAP, a real estate appraisal may be predicated on extraordinary assumptions under certain conditions, including proper disclosure and description of the assumption on which results are based to the client and third parties. The use of any hypothetical conditions, in contrast, is considered professionally inappropriate unless the use of the hypothetical condition is clearly required for legal purposes, for purposes of reasonable analysis, or for purposes of comparison. The purpose of the distinction is to avoid the communication of assignment results based on conditions contrary to facts which might mislead third party users of the results into believing the existence of conditions contrary to known facts.
(We do have mentorship programs if you think you'd benefit from one of those.) Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see you're getting a baptism by fire. You might be surprised that a lot of wiki editors want to help you -- especially if you are contributing something really great (as you did with the Branson Airport photo).
I have interest in several Branson area articles that I have contributed to. They are in dire need of photos and your aerial hobby would be appreciated (or ground photos). Here's my list:
Branson, Missouri - the photos there now really suck. We need a good photo of the "strip" and perhaps "downtown" Branson. Christmas photos of the mountain would also be nice.
Missouri State University - Amazingly there are no photos of such a big school (other than the sports facilities). The administration building, etc. need photos.
College of the Ozarks - An overall shot of the campus particularly the chapel overlooking the White River and if possible include the new Keetor building and Keeter Gymnasium and the Keeter Center (a log cabin building) and the Ralph Foster Museum
Do as many or as few or none as you choose. This is just a hobby. Keep your chin up. If you need help let me know. Thanks. Americasroof (talk) 16:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have aerials of most of this. My latest good aerial of MSU is probably three years old. I'm not sure it it has Tom's new building in it or not, or the new Hammons center. SDC does not photograph well from the air. I agree that the Branson photos truly suck. I have photos of most of the buildings in town.
After recent experiences, I am not really very interested in trying to upload them or edit pages to insert them, but you are welcome to them. Get your email to me somehow and I will either email these photos to you or email you a link to where you can browse my photos database (around 325,000 images)
If you want, I can check them immediately after you upload them to make sure they're not wikilawyered out of existence. Let me know when you have them available, and I'll let you know when I'm around to check. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I sent you an email. But it would better if you post yourself since it's considerably more complicated posting material that you did not create yourself (e.g., you have to get a disclaimer on file). Thanks again! Americasroof (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I uploaded two images. I was doing some work for SMS on a utility building that they owned next to Close Park about six years ago and I shot these along with the other technical stuff I was doing. I took a photo of the campus just for fun and took several of the Federal Medical Center. They are at
File:Springfield Federal Medical Center from long ago PNetted.jpg, does this work??
I am not sure how to reference the file preview page. If I just put Filename.jpg in double brackets, it shows as a non-existent page, but if I put File:Filename.jpg, it inserts the entire giant photo into the text and not the filename.
SarekofVulcan, check them out to see if they are uploaded right. Also, I am getting a banner on the upload page that says to upload them somewhere else. Should I do that?
Americasroof, I will go ahead and try to include this photo in the article about the medical center (which is lame, needs a big rewrite with more info), but I don't know what you want to do with the MSU/SMS photo. It really needs to be cropped, but I am not sure of the western extent of the SMS property right now or at the time the photo was taken. I am not sure if they are using cardinal stadium or if they own property on the other side of Benton. I actually have a better photo, but I don't know where it is. I usually take landmarks like this when I am working on other stuff and they get tagged with the project that I am working on at the time and could be anywhere in my photos database. I will stumble on it someday.
I will email you links to parts of the photos database that you can browse. It may be hard to use, but if you find anything you can let me know what I need to do.
--KTrimble (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They appear to me to be tagged properly. The banner you saw probably suggested you upload them to Commons, right? You can do that later, once you get your feet back under you here. Also, the naming of the files is good: there are too many file here with names like SMSU.jpg :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. It would appear you don't get it. I am offering to help you and you still attack why I nominated it in the first place. It gives you a chance to fix it by seven days and if in this case as you insist I'm completely out of line in this nomination I opened this to a communitywide debate. Please read this important policy about Wikipedia and if you are willing to accept help, I will still gladly give it. I've authored 40+ articles and can help you make it stick around or get you to another who can help. Please also note that the articles aren't yours, The comment if I wanted to screw with it infers that no one can edit it except you and one of our core policies is that if you can't accept another person editing or re-factoring your writing wikipedia is likely not for you. There's another template but I realize you are new and am trying not to wp:bite a Newbie. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
