User talk:ItsLikeThat

Editing Concerns

 * 1) [[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.  Please do not delete prod tags, but instead make the edits to help the article in question become viable.-- K u k i ni  hablame aqui 16:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Please abide by wikipedia policy

 * [[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. NeoFreak 00:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. NeoFreak 18:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Nuvola_apps_important.svg|25px]] Please stop. Continuing to add unsourced or original content is considered vandalism and may result in a block. NeoFreak 16:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Stop_hand.svg|25px]] This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. NeoFreak 18:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Glen E. Friedman Article
I've been trying to explain to you for some time now why the material you are adding to this article is unacceptable. I have probably been too curt and not given you enough specific detail or walked you through the issues as you, a new wikipedian, deserve. So let me start again. There is a fundemental rule we have here called attribution. I have provided you with this link before and I will provide it for you again in the hope that you read it. According to this rule you must attribute any and all statements (or at the least the ones contested by another editor such as myself) to what we call a reliable source. Now I understand that the material you are getting here is being take off of the Burning Flag website. This is a problem in several ways.

One, even though it is claimed that the owner of the material on this site is allowing you to republish the work here we do not have proof of this. Secondly the material you are moving from this site is a basic cut and paste job. Not only is this unneeded (you can just provide a link the the source site and the reader will get the same material) but unless he has given you tangible permission or has licenced this material in a way that allows for free redistribution it is a legal coppy right issue. Please read up on our copyright rules for a further explanation. Thirdly the Burning Flag is the website for what is refered to as a vanity press, something that is covered in the realible sources section of the attribution rules. Vanity presses, to make a long story short, are publications of an individual's work that is funded or stems from the individual themselves, therefore the material is not given the editorial oversight or fact checking that would often come from a creditble third party publishing house. Lastly it would seem that you have been adding alot of personal opinion and disputed statements. This is covered in the original research portion of the attribution rules. This is also covered in the other very important neutral point of view rule. I also have some concerns about your own involment with the subject of the article, do you know him personally, are you an employee of his or his company or are you just a fan of his work? This is important as we also have conflict of interest rules here that might effect your participation in the article.

I will again be reverting your edits and if you restore this inappropriate material I will, having addressed this issue and warned you several times, take this issue up with an administrator which might adversly effect your ability to edit here. If you have any additional questions please do not be afraid to address them here, on my talk page or even in the article page's talk section. Thanks for taking the time to read over this. NeoFreak 18:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

reply
NeoFreak, i appreciate you taking the time to write what you have, and i hope you read this reply with the same enthusiasm you do to remove good information from the glen e. friedman page.

1. a friend of mine works on the www.BurningFlags.com website and contacted glen and had him send an approval and full release to wikipedia for use of anything on the web pages that he does own copyright to. And in-fact i was told that they even got confirmation back from wikipedia that they would keep the permission on file. The website itself is NOT Friedman's home page (so for a start you shouldn't have listed it as such). The site is hosted by Southern Records a company out of England who started the site as a credit to Glen's worthiness and support of their own site almost 10 years ago. Yes it is run by people who respect his work just as i do. Why would this be a problem?

2. many of the statements on this page that i will put up again, and in fact was here on wikipedia for quite along time before you decided to remove it is all based on facts taken from press articles and Friedman's books which i referred you to before, please go and do the research yourself to see these things that are written about Friedman on the page are printed in many languages in magazines and in documentary films. You continuously trying to discredit Friedman's worthiness is insulting to him or just display's your own ignorance of his work. DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING PERSONAL AGAINST MR. FRIEDMAN due to his political views? I think perhaps you need to take a step back from editing this page. Mr. Friedman is a great artist and inspiration to many. If there is a conflict of interest here it may be in-fact your own political views.

3. As I mentioned before, why would you put down Mr. Friedman's books because some of them are self-published? This is done by choice! Friedman has been published internationally since the mid-1970's! And his work displayed in galleries all over the world. What further proof do you need that this page is not a vanity page any more than the page on George W. Bush is a vanity page? For credible 3rd parties why not look at some of the press articles that have been compiled from magazines the world over at http://www.southern.com/BURNINGFLAGS/press - i used this resource for a lot of the information since it is from around the world and is sourced as well as any artist press archive I have come across.

4. all i am doing on this page is giving common information on the artist that is out there in the world already. If you want to edit the piece and make it conform better to wikipedia standards then by all means do so. But you delete all the interesting information, and this is not correct, wikipedia is here to supply information! why are you constantly taking it away? why are you so disrespectful of this persons work? Please explain your self more clearly before you do it again. This is also unfair to me since I don't know all the formalities of Wikipedia but am indeed trying to add to the community of good interesting behavior.

The edit you have made is totally lazy and inappropriate. I will leave it for a few days to see if you add back all the info that should be there, IF YOU DON'T I WILL add everything back rightly so.

I do respect the work of Mr. Friedman and indeed it has inspired me to put up the information on this page i have. Some of it in fact was here long before i knew what wikipedia was, but since i found out i had added things, all that i added to the original content that was here was 100% valid in my opinion and research. please take more time to at least do a better edit or i will put it up verbatim as it was. I don't think your seeking action against me as an editor should hold anything over my ability to edit on here, because if it does it will take away a ton of credibility from the entire wikipedia ideal.

An Automated Message from HagermanBot
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 may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 15:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Refs
Hi, I've put in the first four refs, in what I consider an acceptable style (although there are various templates for doing these things). It should be obvious how to continue. Incidentally, SmackBot doesn't insert "citation needed" tags, simply dates them. Good referencing by the way. Rich Farmbrough, 16:42 15 March 2007 (GMT).
 * Looking good! Rich Farmbrough, 14:51 16 March 2007 (GMT).