User talk:Deh343

March 2012
Hello Deh343. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Kit Bigelow, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content 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 a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 13:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Have a care
It is bad enough that you submit a blatant autobiography but you then start to attack Wikipedia editors. I have applied a brief block to show that we mean business. If you resume the same behaviour when the block expires, you are likely to be blocked for longer. I would be interested to know how you can possibly think that noting that an article was a copyright violation could be considered slanderous. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Bigelow
Re "Kit Bigelow," I appreciate this opportunity to contact you directly because the reason for the deletion was clearly in error. The following is posted:
 * This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference. 14:14, 29 March 2012 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page Kit Bigelow (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://irla.org/436.htm)

There is no copyright infringement because at the link - http://irla.org/436.htm - you can see that Kit Bigelow is named as recipient of the 2011 Religious Freedom Award. We thought such citations were welcomed by Wikipedia to substantiate material. Ms. Bigelow is currently under consideration by the White House for a top religious freedom commission and a Wikipedia page had been suggested. Her website is www.krbigelow.com and all links and citations that were to be posted on Wikipedia. May I ask ... what's the problem? &mdash; via e-mail
 * I am amazed. You are an author and reporter yet you seem to have no idea of copyright law. You say that using text from http://irla.org/436.htm is not a copyvio because "Kit is named as recipient &hellip;" What sort of Alice-in-Wonderland logic is that? &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It may help if you read this WP:COPYVIO which in a nutshell states "Do not add content to Wikipedia if you think that doing so may be a copyright violation. Contributors should take steps to remove any copyright violations that they find."Theroadislong (talk) 15:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Listen Haworth, you are not a writer or published so consider your words wisely. I suspect this conversation will be reviewed by others at Wikipedia. Your quote above, "I am amazed. You are an author and reporter yet you seem to have no idea of copyright law. You say that using text from http://irla.org/436.htm is not a copyvio because "Kit is named as recipient …" What sort of Alice-in-Wonderland logic is that? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)" will be used by me in a subsequent blog posting that specifically targets you just as today's did. You clearly are an uneducated troglodyte. There was no copyright violation but rather a link for citation purposes to a press release of a religious rights organization. This practice is used thousands of times on Wikipedia to provide citations. Even someone like you could understand it. Please have someone explain it to you. On a personal note, hope you enjoy the story about you that is now online and making the social media rounds: http://www.davidhenderson.com/2012/03/30/looking-behind-the-veil-of-wikipedia-and-who-is-pulling-the-levers/


 * You are confusing two users. RHaworth and myself Theroadislong are two different users, I am not an admin.

Nothing was "copied and pasted" from anywhere else other than a Word document. That is a reckless accusation, and you are now beginning to make up things. I challenge you to prove it because you are venturing farther out on thin ice legally. I believe you have already posted potentially slanderous statements, and now you are just making matters worst by contriving excuses based on nothing. I refer you to how the law regarding hyperlinks is interpreted by Stanford University: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter6/6-c.html
 * RHaworth deleted the article on Kit Bigelow because it was an unambiguous copyright infringement of http://irla.org/436.htm (It was copied and pasted from that website)
 * User:Stuartyeates added the copyright violation notice to the article on David E. Henderson because it was a direct copy of the content from here http://expertaccess.cincom.com/2011/06/brand-journalism-connects-the-next-era-of-business-communications/
 * Wikipedia does not accept content copied and pasted from elsewhere. I am sure that both articles can be recreated as long as they use neutral tone and are correctly referenced to reliable third party references. Kind regards.Theroadislong (talk) 12:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Come on Haworth aka Theroadislong ... this crap from you has gone on long enough. Prove ... SHOW ... indicate precisely what you allege is copyright infringement. I demand that you do so immediately or retract all of your self-righteous and amateurish gibberish. What are you talking about? What link, what information, what material? Prove it or retract.
 * I was just trying to explain to you what happened? Namely that RHaworth deleted the article on Kit Bigelow because it was an unambiguous copyright infringement of http://irla.org/436.htm I suggest you contact RHaworth or User:Jimbo Wales who has investigated this. Theroadislong (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The deleted material was not, as you claim, merely a link to that other page, but rather a word-for-word duplication of the content thereof. Deh343, are you claiming that the website http://irla.org/436.htm contains a copyright waiver that none of us noticed? Please clarify. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  21:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

After Haworth refused, I have just emailed Jimmy Wales to ask that this false, inaccurate and potentially libel Wikipedia language be removed immediately: "deleted the article on Kit Bigelow because it was an unambiguous copyright infringement of http://irla.org/436.htm." It was a hyperlink, and nothing was copy and pasted. KIT BIGELOW WROTE THOSE WORDS. IT'S TAKEN FROM HER BIO, AND THE ORGANIZATION INCLUDED IT IN THEIR PRESS RELEASE, AS I HAVE JUST EMAILED TO YOU. NOW, TAKE DOWN THE MISINFORMATION.
 * So by your own admission it's material written by Kit Bigelow, and therefore copyrighted by her. Unless she explicitly licenses it for reproduction under one of the broad copyleft licenses we accept here, we cannot allow that language in Wikipedia, because it is copyrighted content. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  22:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've sent you an e-mail, referring you to our boilerplate consent form for just this purpose, which the original author must fill out. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  22:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "David E. Henderson, Kit Bigelow". Thank you.

Copyright issues
Please read Copyrights and Plagiarism fully and make sure you understand what they mean. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. This is your last and only warning. Thank you. Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 21:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC) If you are referring to David E. Henderson, I wrote the material in question for an online magazine as I do regularly for many magazines. Furthermore, it was not mentioned or linked to in my bio. Rather, one of your administrators incorrectly assumed and alleged that it was a copyright infraction. If you are referring to Kit Bigelow, she is the author of all material in question. So, what's your problem? Please be more specific?

April 2012
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 19:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Sock?
What is your relationship to ? &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Also making the rounds
You failed to mention above your blog post: Baby boomers grew up with Encyclopedia Britannica, and Wikipedia is poor substitute.

Please explain what purpose this edit served. Did you follow the link that you created? It pointed to a disambiguation page listing eighteen people none of whom is you. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)