User talk:EdLake

Signing
Hi. Ya it's just on talk pages that we need to sign. So just use the four tildes there and it's fine. Thanks and welcome. Dawnseeker2000  20:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

How do I add a picture to this section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks#The_Hidden_Message_in_the_Media_Letters

It really needs a picture of either the Brokaw or the New York Post letter to show the highlighting of the A's and T's. I have large versions on my site, but I can create any size new version. Large versions:

New York Post: http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/2a-150m.jpg Brokaw: http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/3a-150.jpg

Instead of linking to my site, I'd prefer to put the image somewhere on Wikipedia, but where? How? And how big is "the right size"?

EdLake (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)



Copyrighted Sources

 * Unfortunately, those files are almost certainly copyrighted, so we cannot use them. See Finding images tutorial


 * As regards the size, we like to just use the 'thumb' option to make thumbnails, which are of a standard size (and can be changed by users, in their preferences) - e.g. flower.jpg (shown here).  Chzz  ► 19:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The large images for which I provided links were obtained from the FBI via FOIA requests. I don't see how any copyrights could apply. If it's still a problem, there are smaller versions on the FBI's web site. Since the FBI is a government organization, the images MUST be in the public domain:

http://www.justice.gov/amerithrax/docs/a-brokaw-letter.pdf http://www.justice.gov/amerithrax/docs/a-post-letter.pdf

There's already a picture of the Senator Daschle letter as part of the article. All the images come from the same source: The FBI. The author is dead. If he filed a copyrights application, that would be an admission of guilt and BIG news. :-)

I submitted a question to the U.S. Copyrights office to see if it is even possible to copyright a photo taken by the FBI of a piece of evidence from a closed case. They responded: "Copyright ownership belongs to the author of the work. However, works created or produced by the U.S. government are considered in the public domain and are not subject to copyright protection."

EdLake (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Total Deletion of New Material
I followed all the rules and all the suggestions, and the revised section I added about "The Hidden Message in the Media Letters" was simply deleted again because Cs32en disagreed with what I'd written. The discussion was on the discussion page for the Wikipedia article about the anthrax attacks of 2001: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2001_anthrax_attacks

I don't know how these things work. I don't know if anyone else will even notice that this happened. So, I'm looking for help on what to do next.

I'm not willing to endless try to please someone who can never be pleased with anything that shows Dr. Ivins to be guilty or which uses FBI information about the case.

CS32en's explanation was: "Sorry, but you have to take *information* from the secondary sources. You can't just say they "commented" on the topic, or that the Washighton Post "got it wrong".

Can this be resolved, or should I just give up and forget about updating Wikipedia? EdLake (talk) 17:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't get downhearted about being reverted! The last think we want is for you to leave because someone disagreed with you. I think though that you may want to get more familiar with policy. Maybe get into editing some other articles as 2001 anthrax attacks and its associated talk page are your only major contributions. Please make sure that you cite sources since sources allow people to know that your information is at least partially correct.   Mr. R00t    Talk  17:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Mr00t - You evidently do not understand. This is like the FOURTH time I've tried to get that information on the the page only to see it totally deleted.  I cited THE FBI/DOJ's official summary report, quoting from it extensively.


 * I have no interest in updating anything on Wikipedia other than the section about the anthrax attacks of 2001. That is my area of EXPERTISE.  Should I give up?  Or can this matter be resolved?  You seem to be suggesting that I give up. EdLake (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have explained my viewpoint on the article's talk page, and I would appreciate it if you would present my viewpoint in an accurate way when you are referring to it. In particular, I have reverted about 25 % of your entire additions to the article, and I have repeatedly said that the DOJ report may be used, if it is used in an appropriate way. Cs32en   Talk to me  17:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "I have reverted about 25 % of your entire additions to the article" - NO. For the THIRD TIME, you deleted 100% of the section about the hidden message in the media letters.  That is the issue at hand.  I used the DOJ report in "an appropriate way" as a "secondary source."  Your claim that a SUMMARY is a "primary source" is not appropriate, since a "summary" by definition cannot be a "primary source."  "Primary" means "first."  A "primary source" is the RAW DATA, the testimony from witnesses, the letters, the anthrax, and perhaps the field reports written by FBI and USPIS agents during the course of the investigation. EdLake (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This edit summary shows all your 20 subsequent edits to the article. I really would appreciate it if you would cease to create the impression that I would somehow intend to suppress information that you want to add to the article. Cs32en   Talk to me  20:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It appears that you think I should be grateful that you didn't delete everything I posted. And you think I should show my gratefulness by not disputing your interpretation of "primary source," even though you are obviously wrong and using a primary source is NOT forbidden.  EdLake (talk) 14:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I posted the following information to the 2001 anthrax attacks discussion page, but it's also appropriate here:


 * September 13, 2009 - Press Accuracy Rating Hits Two Decade Low
 * "The public’s assessment of the accuracy of news stories is now at its lowest level in more than two decades of Pew Research surveys, and Americans’ views of media bias and independence now match previous lows.


 * "Just 29% of Americans say that news organizations generally get the facts straight, while 63% say that news stories are often inaccurate. EdLake (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Source: http://people-press.org/report/543/

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)