User talk:Farcross

License tagging for Image:610125CrossMA17421457-0020.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:610125CrossMA17421457-0020.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 16:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

COI
Looking at your user name and the fact that you mostly seem to be just adding external links to the Scott Crossfield Foundation I suggest that you read WP:COI and abide by what it says. Please stop adding these external links, Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor is it here to promote your website. - Ahunt (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009
Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I see you were just warned two days ago, and yet you put up two more today.. Quaeler (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Quaeler (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

February 2009
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Ahunt (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Please do not remove content from pages without explanation, as you did with this edit to Albert Scott Crossfield. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing. Alansohn (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Albert Scott Crossfield
I appreciate your being protective, but I am Scott Crossfield's daughter and I have been adding his non-profit foundation link to pages/projects that he was directly involved with, I don't consider that spamming, I consider it informational and pertinent to the topic as well as educational.

I have also deleted any reference to the NTSB Accident Report because it is insulting to the family because it is inaccurate and does not reflect more recent developments. (this edit was done by User:Farcross with this revision.)


 * Thanks for admitting that you are in a direct conflict of interest on these subjects. Please read WP:COI and cease editing these pages. If you would like to see changes to the pages then post requests for them on the talk pages for the articles, as per the policy. If you say that the NTSB report is incorrect than you will need to cite a more recent report to supersede it. - Ahunt (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * To reiterate that notion, a family disagreement with an official report is not a valid reason to alter an encyclopedic article. You can replace the NTSB reference with a superseding official report, but you cannot only remove the reference to that report. Thanks. Quaeler (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Above and beyond issues regarding Wikipedia policy on conflict of interest, I am not sure that I can agree with your removal of content regarding the crash, especially in your reason offered that "Not current, inaccurate, family wishes." If there is more current information, it should be provided, in addition to the NTSB information provided. If the information is inaccurate, the inaccuracies should be identified and corrected. The final reason "family wishes" raises the greatest concern. Removal of content for such reasons places a grave risk that the article will be unbalanced. I ask you to review WP:COI policy and to reconsider removal of this material. I will be more than happy to assist in any corrections or added balance needed, if proper justification can be made that it is needed. Alansohn (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not family disagreement, in fact it is family agreement as well as the Justice Department's assessment.


 * If someone wishes to read the NTSB report, then a link should be provided. That is all that is necessary.


 * In the interest of accuracy, he was never an astronaut. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farcross (talk • contribs)


 * If the NTSB report has been superseded then a reference is needed that says that, then the article can be amended. Wikipedia is primarily concerned with verifiability, so all information must be referenced to verifiable sources. - Ahunt (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * (Also, please sign all discussion page additions with 4 tildes. Thanks.) Quaeler (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

As I have been saying, simply a link to the NTSB report would suffice. As for any further private information, I'll have to speak to our lawyer, since you appear to need a better source than me. As soon as I get appropriate wordage re the Justice Department's ruling, I'll consider putting it up. In the meantime, leaving that there is misinformation, just because you don't know it is so, doesn't change the facts. But, I do appreciate the site protection you provide. At least I know someone else is watching.

I did not even know this page existed which is why I did not previously respond. If you find that the case in the future, email me directly. Farcross@aol.com but you will have to put Scott Crossfield in the subject line or I will spam you.

Please remove "Astronaut" as it is inaccurate. Contact NASA, they will verify this infomation. Johnson Space Center seems to be a little confused on the issue as we also thought he was an astronaut, but not all the X-15 pilots are, I believe 3 of them are not, Scott Crossfield being one of them.Farcross (talk)


 * I haven't been able to source where the "astronaut" note came from, so it will be removed. NASA refers to him as a test pilot. As far as the other info goes, the NTSB seems to be standing by their final report which also seems to be the only public document on the accident. If there is a newer ref then we will be happy to fix the article, but it needs a verifiable ref. Right now the NTSB report is all there seems to be. Also have a look at WP:NOTCENSORED, which says ""being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content." - Ahunt (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)