User talk:Activistrep

Welcome!

 * }

January 2014
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Occupy Los Angeles has been reverted. Your edit here to Occupy Los Angeles was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.facebook.com/OccupyLosAngelesOWS) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=590866624 your edit] to KPFK may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ethnic groups, some of which make up a sizable population of Southern California, and the [LGBT] community. KPFK's programming is also dedicated to the environment and the human inequality

August 30,2017 Biographical pages that appear to just be self-serving to appear at renown Wikipedia to claim fame need to be Edited, removed, questioned or reviewed by those most experienced here. Two recent examples I encountered that appeared to not be bios but work/accomplishments-only info provided are : Roy Tuckman  who hosts a radio program in LA - KPFK, nothing more. and  Ian Masters whose pages includes little bio info other than successes and name-dropping, as in this statement :"He hosted the "2005 PEN Center USA Awards" from Los Angeles, California, which have in the past honored those such as, Gore Vidal, Ursula K. Le Guin, Charlie Kaufman, and Robert Alter..." These attempts to self-aggrandize by mis-using or mis-labeling what they are selling/promoting/advertising [limited to their so-labeled achievements only] should maybe be in another category ? Other people seeing these fake-bios get into Wikipedia will do same and proliferate promotional vs. inclusive personal material too. I d.k. where or how to help clean up the many bios that are mostly just bragging and hiding any other relevant info on that individual. My own in-expertise in HTML et al limits my ability to do more than REQUEST EDITORS to review these sites and make the appropriate clean-ups, please. Activistrep (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)activistrepActivistrep (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello Activistrep, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to KPFK has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Copyrights. You may also want to review Copy-paste.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Donating copyrighted materials.
 * In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

To: Diannaa : The Pacifica & KPFK Mission statements were copied and attributed to their own websites so not plagiarizednor stealing copy. That was what I thought I did then but dont need to repeat and try to do more. My experiences of being constantly not 'monitored or assisted' by others at Wikipedia [less you than some others who revert & revert & revert w/o explanations -till finally after my c/o about their lack of explanations, 1 did finally get some helpful feedback -1 did so = "Jeh". So forget it. I just wanted to Help and have Public know what are those org's intentions/ missions. If not allowed, I dont need to push it or do more work. Thanks for being less controlling/arrogant than the others [males] who I have resented because of their words/styles/attitudes i.e. 'stereorock' who kept reverting w/o any actual helpful info as to why or how to correct my work. Thanks for your feedback. I'm done working here. Activistrep (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)activistrep

Pacifica Foundation page
Aug 2o 2016 -Stereorock guy keeps deleting/reverting my incorrect HTML instead of helping to correct HTML vs. taking out content contributed. Unless he is actively involved in Pacifica and knows better/more, there is no logical reasonable reasons to keep eliminating accurate information that is not available on Wikipedia or easily elsewhere either. If Wikipedia is so easily manipulated and contributions eliminated, now all content herein is suspect to those who want to spin stories only their limited way. No reasons are ever noted, given, written for reasons for reverts and taking control of topics - i.e.Pacifica, KPFK here. Activistrep (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)activistrep Aug 20 2016

I reverted your reverting of one of my edits because your edit goes against WP:NPOV & WP:OR. Wikipedia is not here to be your personal soapbox about the Pacifica board. Please read these policies.Stereorock (talk) 04:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC) - - - - - - - -

reply to stereorock, who insulting demeans my contributions as if he were the one who was a paid member of Pacifica instead. "Wikipedia is not here to be your personal soapbox about the Pacifica board." is not what I am writing here about but what is known, revealed about the actual difficulties at Pacifica, as can be learned. I dont need any put downs by bigger egos, thank you.

Are you an administrator or moderator for Wikipedia? Based on your recent edits and acting so superior. yes, re HTML and how to use Wikipedia, but =No as to contents I share here, I want a mediator before you continue to take out my diligent efforts to correctly inform. Other materials written by others before are not only out of date but slanted to their benefits at times. But remain intact here. Please do not 'revert' or take out without improving my writings or telling me what You, superman, think is 'incorrect' or not accurate. no thank you's.    Activistrep (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)activistrep]]  aug 19 2016

Aug 20 no further information is given as to explanations, or helpful instruction re constant reverts on stereorock guy. see above. Activistrep (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC) activistrep


 * You placed several links to a blog on the references section, and did it again, without the "references" supporting any text in the body of the article. The last revision was done because there wasn't anything that your "reference" was connected to. What, in the body of the article, are you trying to support? At the most, what you have is an external link to some guy's blog. Is the inclusion criticism of Pacifica acceptable? If it's genuinely noteworthy, yes. An example: the board of trustees were at loggerheads with the staff circa 2000. We can look up news articles that covered it...impartially. If your link(s) aren't supporting anything in the body of the text, you have, at best, an external link, which is where it would go. That is what I have issue with: the placement of the link and the motive of the individual placing said link. Are YOU acting impartially? Me, I have no connection to Pacifica, but I want to make sure Wikipedia maintains its quality.Stereorock (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Exactly. "Some guy's blog" is not at all what we consider a reliable source. Also, Activistrep, the larger material you're trying to add is in gross violation of WP:BLP, an extremely important policy that must be rigidly enforced. (Briefly: Any information here about living persons, but particularly anything that can be construed as negative, must be well referenced to very reliable sources.) And nobody has to be an administrator here (we don't have "moderators") to revert anything, particularly when its problems are of that nature. Please see WP:DR for further info on dispute resolution. I agree that Stereorock should have given reasons like "WP:BLP material, needs refs to WP:RS" for their deletions, but that's the only thing SR did wrong. Jeh (talk) 06:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

to Stereorock and his supporter Jeh : who have decided that only the Perfect and Wikipedia experts need contribute. And now, given just a bit of new revelations of why my prior reverts were continually & abruptly done, this contributor shall resign. Easily. And let the site remain as antiquated, not verified- nor current, be stuck there. And no one cares if "the public's" image is fake of what this site has implied Wikipedia to be. This faked image of providing the public valid current information - and that contributors genuinely write and allow others to add current/updated information in here not so true  -a false reputation has been revealed. Not as what has been declared or desired for readers here. -But what a dismaying discovery for me !

Note that "KFPK" page -History goes all the way to 1992 ...and no programs current or past are listed. And Funding is totally out of date.

Then on "Pacifica" page: The 2002 to 2009 history is not all neutral info nor sources and "oped news" referenced is a person's blog with opinions included too. Which blogs used here that are 'verifiable' and which are to be discredited is not clear. But who cares ?

The work and due diligence already given here is being reverted and retracted, leaving Wikipedia's pages on these topics as un-informative and the old-slants-only available for your readers. You win. It's easy to exit from here. There are more valuable ways to spend time and work. Activistrep (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)activistrep aug 24 2016


 * We don't provide program guide information. See WP:NOTRADIOGUIDE. We're an encyclopedia, not a daily newspaper.


 * Aside from that, nothing is stopping you from improving these articles, as long as you provide solid references to reliable sources for all claims. Re the existing material, you are welcome to challenge anything that is poorly- or un- referenced. From WP:V:

"All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced."


 * -- Jeh (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: WP:V = you write “We don't provide program guide information.” but programs Are listed and described on both Pacifica and KPFK pages here. If “we don’t” then why are you or someone else not reverting OUT those older already printed ones? and not being a "new paper" or news source, which later becomes that "data" and "knowledge" and "history" etc etc ... Someone cleverly selected their own chosen [opinionated, slanted,& promo’d] programs and moved them to the top, whenever it was put on. I am not wanting to do anything further to improve these pages, not now nor later. I ‘nicely’ give up the constant having to do free work for nutin. “you got it” now. The info on both those pages are more than antiquated and until Aug 2016 when you and Jeh have finally added actual helpful explanations to help me at least ‘understand’ - if not accept - all the myriad rules that reign here. I understand why they exist, but not how they are arbitrarily enforced, based on what is on Pacifica/KPFK pages as seen now. Thanks for watching over this holy site. I never knew past the preferred-reputation version that so much info on Wikipedia is to be believed, and instead is "unreliable" [dated and now invalid, old, propagandized and promotional.I also did not know that some people live to 'power-play' new writers... vs. helping them or doing more than listing a link only [=like a law that always needs interpreting]. I give up. I can be ‘helpful’ many other places instead of here. What I did dis-cover was that Wikipedia was not what is branded-framed image is claimed to be, but this is more arbibitrary, & often used for sly promotions and elevating statuses,  And tho this is a good idea, “kind and compassionate” people are not only ones helping here. And your comment was undated, whatever.Activistrep (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)activistrep


 * I know: Finding references that meet WP's requirements can be difficult, especially for claims that may be seen as controversial, more so for WP:BLP material, and even more so for controversial WP:BLP material. Far more difficult than typing into a Wordpress blog. If you expect here to be able to type whatever you want into a page and not provide references, as you would on say Facebook or on your own blog... well, you are in the wrong place; Wikipedia is not a blog. otoh if you are willing to dig up and list solid references for your material, and to list them, please have at it.


 * Similarly, if you can establish per the rules at WP:RS that some of the existing sources aren't reliable, you can delete the references, tag the remaining text with "Citation needed" templates, and even delete it. If you want help determining whether WP considers a source reliable, try asking at WP:RSN. (In general, blogs are not acceptable as they are self-published with no editorial oversight.) In short we're not saying "don't contribute". We're saying "there are rules here, and additions that don't comply will likely be deleted." And that does include existing material.


 * Please understand that these rules, which do make it difficult to add material here, are also intended to keep other non-referenced, non-neutral material out of the encyclopedia. But much of Wikipedia was written when the referencing rules were much less strictly enforced than they are now; this MAY be the case with the existing material that you object to as "un-informative and the old-slants-only". In which case you can improve the articles by removing poor references and tagging and later removing poorly-referenced material. Jeh (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Sept 20 2016, TO Jeh: Thanks for finally providing some understandable explanations and helpful hints on how to even Try to be helpful here at Wikipedia. It took my reading many reprimands and trying to learn/decipher links [ =laws in stone tablets] that prevent me and probably others adding anything here, with actual Current Information,and References -- even those that are easily mistaken as ‘unreliable’ if not recognized by data -knowledge- sources, or the mass-media-sources that creates that most of that data too. It is interesting: the words used. “blog” sounds like a personal essay of opinion or rants vs. descriptions of events with added opinions and interpretations - which is what all data, written documentation is [biased, with hidden agendas and never neutral, nor 'balanced' tho pretending to be so ]. Even when fancier articles with ads or a few more writers becomes described as if ‘legit’ -- as if they had no slants, no agendas, and so were ‘reliable’[see actual word definition, not socially-used-or agreed-to-one. Wikipedia is no purer or more truthful than other media providing 'facts' and data, while claiming to only have: factual/actual/reality descriptions & words. I know differently. But I’m ok with the ways things are done here since I refuse to work for nothing but the illusion of ‘doing good’ or having any reality-event sharing of actual changes of What Is in Pacifica and KPFK. Nor am i seeking the illusion power of ‘The Word’ - which is then used to convince any readers 'this is so', we Know ! To take more time and effort here is not how I want to live the rest of my happy life, thanks. But I appreciate your telling me I *could* correct the antiquated, slanted, promotional & already-written-info already printed here. I had not thought of that, nor would I dare, before now. And your explaining that before the rules were less rigid and played with [as stereorock arrogantly has used these to keep reverting and diminishing my efforts as well] than they now. I agree. Rules need enforcement, and like police, armies, the way rules are used or weaponized against those less-informed, and here to new=contributors can be a deterrent to helping this site become current & more useful to all readers, too. Obviously, I too hate being controlled and demeaned from afar by strangers, but I am willing to concede. this is no place for me and my lack of knowing HTML too. Thank you for your last contribution here, the best of any I have seen here yet. I give up. Activistrep (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)activistrep


 * Re "program guide" information, you are confusing general information about programs, especially historically significant ones, with "program guide" material, i.e. days and times when specific programs are aired. WP:NOTRADIOGUIDE covers the latter, but doesn't at all prohibit the former. When writing about the CBS TV network we can most certainly say that 60 Minutes has been a mainstay of their Sunday night programming for decades. But in an article about a CBS affiliate station we can't say that they air 60 Minutes on Sunday night at 7 PM local. That's "program guide" material. See the difference?
 * Anyway... I am happy that you chose to respond but sad that you'll not be contributing further. Jeh (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

To Jeh: re above further ways of dismissing my intelligence: " you are confusing general information about programs, especially historically significant ones, with "program guide" material," as if I had done that wrong.NO. I was not contributing a list with times and none of the programs are "historically significant" either on Pacifica's unless when there was a police raid right in radio station. Otherwise they are merely 'programs'.

and you also demeaningly wrote before : " Far more difficult than typing into a Wordpress blog. If you expect here to be able to type whatever you want into a page and not provide references, as you would on say Facebook or on your own blog... well, you are in the wrong place; Wikipedia is not a blog." as if I were as dumb as some dogs ? I was not treating this website as a blog, nor "expect to be ...anything you want into a page..." either.

When anyone explains, courteously or helpfully, that is acceptable but when the secret voice-tone and words are dismissive and demeaning as both stereorock and some [less but still] of yours were and are, then that should Not Be Acceptable, to anyone else either. Certainly not to me. Obviously. I thought I heard on NPR that Wales said something about "kind and compassionate" people...those that contribute here - but I can't find it on Google right now. I could be Wrong about that too. I was startled to hear that after what I read here. I can not leave without feedback of what is Not Ok - regardless of status or intention - when anyone [maybe without awareness] treats me or any others with less than decent respect,and consideration.

Yes, I am no longer contributing here as I do not have an investment in correcting as I tried before. I had added names where some 'edit' asked for that, but those 'specific names' were then deleted too. That I lack HTML know-how and lack time to read and memorize all the rules does leave me at a disadvantage. Yes. And that I asked [ I read someone else did it first] if stereorock or you were an 'administrator or monitor' was appropriate Q, based on how I was responded to also. My wrong assumption was that if I was inadequate in HOW rather than What I tried to update and include, I would be informed and perhaps given some better help- instead of just given the laws-links. Thanks for responding anyhow. I can take my other skills elsewhere. No problem, ever. Activistrep (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)activistrep