User talk:Natalie Erin/Archive 14

Heads up
FYI. The same set of IPs who are trying to delete the Sharon Foley article are also the ones trying to delete the Aoife Hoey (bobsleigh) article and tried to do again to the Siobhán Hoey article earlier this month. All of the WHOIS tracings link up to several sites in Dublin, Ireland. I have asked for WP:AN/I, gone through Administrator vandalism issues, and gone through Wikiquette alerts with these users on this right now. It makes me wonder if this user (or users) has a vendetta against these three. The only link between them is that they are all female Irish triple jumpers. The question is what other articles have they affected? Chris (talk) 14:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Heads-up, Part 2
FYI. The Dublin, Ireland user who tried to delete the Sharon Foley, Aoife Hoey, and Siobhán Hoey articles are from ireland. I realize you are an administrator, so here are the list of the ISP user that we will need to keep an eye on in the future about these articles.
 * 213.190.141.211, 84.203.1.58, 194.125.97.208, 213.202.149.105, 213.190.141.210, 213.202.132.52, 194.125.98.62, 194.125.52.12, 212.2.170.84, 194.125.76.92, 194.125.21.131, 213.202.183.229, 213.202.174.145, 194.125.71.53, ans 78.16.67.220.
 * Even though this ISP lost this round will not mean he will return again. In fact, he is still debating the Siobhán Hoey article on its notability. Chris (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

EDC
Natalie

Thanks for asking, I thought I'd included a rationale in the original prod but clearly hadn't done so. I've put in an explanation on the article talkpage.

Cheers.

Relata refero (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed tags
These tags are not vandalism, and you cannot remove them as such. The sentences need to be cited and the tags should not be removed until the information has a source. Natalie (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Are there established guidelines for what does and does not require citation? For example, your talk page says you are a native speaker of english - if that were in an article, could I add a citation needed tag for that?

In an article which links to the institution's official home page, which has links to, addresses for, and pictures of the remote academic centers - isn't it wholly superfluous to add a "citation needed" tag to a mention in the article to those academic centers? Jikaku (talk) 18:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Coach Carter
So do i need to specific which part of the article the picture is used in?

- It&#39;sOnlyU (talk)

DRV listing
Please see Deletion_review. Corvus cornix talk  23:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

King Speech
I think you were the person who deleted by addition to the King authorship aritcle. I put this on the discussion page there, but wanted you to see it too. Rosspz (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)rosspz

Earlier today I added a weblink to the Carey/King texts and put the partial texts in a footnote. These were deleted.

If you try to find the Carey text on the web you will only find it here (where I got it from: http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/mlking.asp), and, apparently on a white supremiscist webpage I've never heard of, but which was cited by Malik Shabazz. Since Carey's words are so hard to find, don't we want to at least give a weblink to them and/or put them in a footnote. I thought the purpose of Wikipedia was to put information freely out there in a readily retrievable format. It seems like we're not doing that here.

This is the basis of my research and which I based my edit of earlier this month.


 * http://boards.blackvoices.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=937&nav=messages&webtag=ti-talkoftheday&tid=67120


 * http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/about_king/encyclopedia/carey_archibald.html

CAREY, ARCHIBALD J., JR. (1908-1981) An influential Chicago minister and politician, Archibald Carey maintained a close relationship with Martin Luther King, Jr. In 1957 Carey visited the King home while participating in the Montgomery Improvement Association’s annual Institute on Nonviolence and Social Change. Carey was born in Chicago in 1908, the son and grandson of ministers. He received degrees from Northwestern University’s Garrett Biblical Institute and Chicago-Kent College of Law. During his professional life he wore many hats: lawyer, bank president, politician, judge, and minister. He was pastor of Woodlawn AME Church in Chicago from 1930 to 1949 before moving to Quinn Chapel AME Church, Chicago’s second oldest Protestant church, where he served until 1967. Carey also served as Republican alderman of Chicago’s Third Ward (1947 to 1955) and was an alternate member of the United States delegation to the Eighth General Assembly of the United Nations in 1953. In 1955 President Dwight Eisenhower appointed Carey vice-chair and, later, chairman of the President’s Committee on Government Employment Policy. By 1966 Carey had changed his party affiliation to Democrat, and was elected as a circuit court judge in Cook County, Illinois, a position he held at the time of his death in April 1981. During the Montgomery bus boycott, King enlisted Carey’s aid by appointing him chairman of a Chicago committee that was asked to inform the headquarters of Montgomery’s bus company of the concerns of black Montgomery residents. During April 1956, Carey also helped organize an ‘‘Hour of Prayer’’ in Chicago that raised $2,500 for the MIA. King’s ‘‘I Have a Dream’’ address at the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom parallels themes in Carey’s address at the 1952 Republican National Convention in Chicago, which concluded: "from every mountain side, let freedom ring. Not only from the Green Mountains and the White mountains of Vermont and New Hampshire; not only from the Catskills of New York; but from the Ozarks in Arkansas, from the Stone Mountain in Georgia, from the Great Smokies of Tennessee and from the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia ’’ (Carey, 8 July 1952). Carey, Address to the Republican National Convention, 8 July 1952, AJC-ICHi. King, ‘‘I Have a Dream,’’ 28 August 1963. King to Carey, 27 December 1955, in Papers 3:93–95.
 * http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/about_king/encyclopedia/ihaveadream.html

"I HAVE A DREAM" (28 AUGUST 1963) Martin Luther King’s famous “I Have a Dream” speech, delivered at the 28 August 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, synthesized portions of his previous sermons and speeches, with selected statements by other prominent public figures, which he used to convince his audience that: “Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. (King, a Call, 82)” King had been drawing on material he used in the “I Have a Dream” speech in his other speeches and sermons for many years. The finale of King’s April 1957 address “A Realistic Look at the Question of Progress in the Area of Race Relations,” envisioned a “new world,” quoted the song “My Country ’Tis of Thee,” and proclaimed that he had heard “a powerful orator say not so long ago, that… Freedom must ring from every mountain side…. Yes, let it ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado…. Let it ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia. Let it ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee. Let it ring from every mountain and hill of Alabama. From every mountainside, let freedom ring” (Papers 4:178─179). King borrowed this final segment from a speech that Archibald Carey, a minister, politician, and King family friend, delivered at the 8 July 1952 Republican National Convention. King capped the 1957 speech by paraphrasing lyrics from the spiritual Free at Last: “And when that happens we will be able to go out and sing a new song: ‘Free at last, free at last, great God almighty, I’m free at last’” (Papers 4:179). In King’s 1959 sermon “Unfulfilled Hopes,” he describes the life of the apostle Paul as one of “unfulfilled hopes and shattered dreams” (Papers 6:360). He notes that suffering as intense as Paul’s “might make you stronger and bring you closer to the Almighty God,” alluding to a concept he later summarized in “I Have a Dream”: “unearned suffering is redemptive” (Papers 6:366; King, 84). In September 1960, King began giving speeches referring directly to the American Dream. In a speech given that month at a conference of the North Carolina branches of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, King referred to the unexecuted clauses of the preamble to the U.S. Constitution and spoke of America as “a dream yet unfulfilled,” (Papers 5:508). He advised the crowd that “we must be sure that our struggle is conducted on the highest level of dignity and discipline” and reminded them not to “drink the poisonous wine of hate,” but to use the “way of nonviolence” when taking “direct action” against oppression (Papers 5:510). King continued to give versions of this speech throughout 1961 and 1962, then calling it “The American Dream.” Two months before the March on Washington, King stood before a throng of 150,000 people at Cobo Hall in Detroit to expound upon making “the American Dream a reality” (King, a Call, 70). King repeatedly exclaimed, “I have a dream this afternoon” (King, a Call, 71). He articulated the words of the prophets Amos and Isaiah, declaring that “justice will roll down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream,” for “every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low” (King, a Call, 72). As he had done numerous times in the previous two years, King concluded his message imagining the day “when all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing with the Negroes in the spiritual of old: Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!” (King, a Call, 73). As King and his advisors prepared his speech for the conclusion of the 1963 march, he solicited suggestions for the text. Clarence Jones offered a metaphor for the unfulfilled promise of constitutional rights for African Americans, which King incorporated into the final text: “America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned” (King, a Call, 82). Several other drafts and suggestions were posed. References to Abraham Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation were sustained throughout the countless revisions. King recalled that he did not finish the complete text of the speech until 3:30 A.M. on the morning of August 28. Later that day, King stood at the podium overlooking the gathering. Although a typescript version of the speech was made available to the press on the morning of the march, King did not merely read his prepared remarks. He later recalled: “I started out reading the speech, and I read it down to a point…the audience response was wonderful that day…. And all of a sudden this thing came to me that….I’d used many times before.... ‘I have a dream.’ And I just felt that I wanted to use it here….I used it, and at that point I just turned aside from the manuscript altogether. I didn’t come back to it” (King, 29 November 1963). The following day, in the New York Times James Reston wrote: “Dr. King touched all the themes of the day, only better than anybody else. He was full of the symbolism of Lincoln and Gandhi, and the cadences of the Bible. He was both militant and sad, and he sent the crowd away feeling that the long journey had been worthwhile” (Reston, “‘I Have a Dream…’”). SOURCES Carey to King, 7 June 1955, in Papers 2:560─561. Hansen, The Dream, 2003. King, “The Negro and the American Dream,” excerpt from address at the Annual Freedom Mass Meeting of the North Carolina State Conference of Branches of the NAACP, 25 September 1960, in Papers 5:508─511. King, “I Have a Dream,” in A Call to Conscience, eds. Carson and Shepard, 2001. King, “A Realistic Look at the Question of Progress in the Area of Race Relations,” Address Delivered at St. Louis Freedom Rally, 10 April 1957, in Papers 4:167─179. King, “Unfulfilled Hopes,” sermon delivered at Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, 5 April 1959, in Papers 6: 359─367. James Reston, “‘I Have a Dream…’: Peroration by Dr. King Sums Up a Day the Capital Will Remember,” New York Times, 29 August 1963. King, “Address at the Freedom Rally in Cobo Hall,” in A Call to Conscience, Carson and Shepard, eds., 2001. http://hnn.us/readcomment.php?id=49241&bheaders=1

Archibald Carey Jr.'s Speech and King (#49241) by David T. Beito on December 21, 2004 at 5:56 PM Ralph:

A thoughtful piece. Have you ever looked into the story of how and why King apparently took part of his "I have a Dream Speech" from one delivered by Archibald Carey Jr. When I was looking through Carey's papers for the bio of T.R.M. Howard, I found a copy of Carey's speech (which was to the the Republican National Convention in 1952) and saw some of striking parallels in wording especially to the closing section of King's speech.

Re: Archibald Carey Jr.'s Speech and King (#49242) by Ralph E. Luker on December 21, 2004 at 6:12 PM Thanks, David. I'm not sure we know how it happened. I don't recall whether we know whether Carey's speech was published somewhere or not. There seems little doubt about King's lifting some of Carey's rhetoric from that 1952 speech. It is possible that MLK heard it the same way I did. He may have seen it on television. King would have been 23 years old when Carey gave that speech. He would have graduated from seminary, been in his early graduate school years, and at home for the summer to serve as assistant pastor at Ebenezer Baptist Church, his father's congregation. MLK, Sr., was a Republican and it is highly likely that King Sr. and Jr. would have been gathered around the television set for Carey's address.

Re: Archibald Carey Jr.'s Speech and King (#49243) by David T. Beito on December 21, 2004 at 6:51 PM Did you see it on televison? I always wondered if a copy of that speech has been preserved on film and how his delivery compared with that of King. Interestingly, Carey received several fan letter after the speech. One was from a little known city councilman in Phoenix named Barry Goldwater.

Re: Archibald Carey Jr.'s Speech and King (#49244) by Ralph E. Luker on December 21, 2004 at 7:00 PM I confess to having watched the wall-to-wall coverage of the 1952 Republican and Democratic conventions on television. They really were interesting to watch before the public relations experts seized control of everything and so sanitized them that there isn't very much interesting to see or hear at major party political conventions any more. I suspect that CBS or NBC has a viewable version of Carey's speech, tho no one has dug it out yet and played it alongside King's speech for comparison. The Goldwater letter is an interesting find.

attribution (#49256) by Greg James Robinson on December 22, 2004 at 12:33 AM I agree that Ralph's post is much to the point. The evidence that King expanded his practice of plagiarism as he progressed academically is indeed disturbing, as is his success at it. Clearly, nobody was on their guard and questioning where a charming young African American student could have absorbed so much information about Mahayana Buddhism. It is no doubt akin to Alex Haley's success at ducking responsibility for plagiarism and fabrications, as Philip Nobile has shown in his compelling research. (I discovered some years ago that Job Ben Solomon, an 18 century slave author and biographical subject, had told of Juffure and of being sold into slavery and sent from Gambia to Annapolis, which confirmed for me that Kunta Kinte had to be copied.) It is an object lesson for us white professors not to be overgenerous with African American students, simply out of fear of building on discrimination. I can't help but think of what would have happened if King's plagiarism had been discovered in full during his lifetime, but then Helen Keller seems to have emerged with her future reputation intact from the scandal of her plagiarism of a children's book. In any case, while I am glad that Ralph's post has fostered such serious self-examination by my colleagues here, I think that it is possible for us as professors to take too much responsibility on ourselves for plaigarism. I do not expect my students to repeat back to me what I have said; if anything, I make a point of being generous whenever possible with the works of students who present positions with which I disagree. Similarly, King's actions demonstrate the fallacy of the old saw that taking one author's ideas is plagiarism, and taking many author's ideas is research; rather, the copying of others's language is the tangible sign of knowingly appropriating their ideas. I have just learned from a Chinese colleague that cheating, including plagiarism, is rampant in China. There are thus presumably larger forced at work here than just a failure of our own society.

Re: attribution (#49423) by Ralph E. Luker on December 25, 2004 at 12:19 PM Mr. Appell, I suspect that if you knew more about the subject than you do we'd have a little more nuanced statement from you.

Re: Archibald Carey Jr.'s Speech and King (#49419) by brad t appell on December 25, 2004 at 11:33 AM Who cares? No one did more to advance the cause of moral values

It's clear Carey and King were friends. It's clear there are similarities between parts of their speeches. Doesn't it make sense to put some information before readers so they can see the actual words. I thought putting information out there is the purpose of Wikipedia. I still can't see what all the fuss is about what seems to be a simple factual statement. Two friends share ideas and here are the two versions of what they said. Why should we be so coy and make it virtually impossible for most people to read the two versions for themselves. 63.87.116.131 (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)rosspz Rosspz (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)rosspz

Jack Chick
Okay. Most of the cuts were OR anyway. Will (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help with the merger proposal. Redddogg (talk) 03:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The Michael Willis saga
This matter is now listed for discussion at AN/I. Would appreciate your 2 or 3 cents. Dloh cierekim  19:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Liz Cho
Thank you for your notification! --Derbeobachter (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

ANI on Mr. Deeds Goes to Town
Thanks for your astute words. It was also an early suggestion from another admin who commented on WP:DFT, and I followed the advice to see that a statement posted on the aforementioned article talk page then dismissively indicated that because I had no interest in replying to the statements posted, that my participation was marginalized and of no value. This aspect of tenditious editing is probably the most tenacious I have ever encountered. But back to the matter in question, I have resolved to no longer answer the taunts or accusations with the hope that others will at least monitor the most serious lapses in civility. Thank you again. Bzuk (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC).

Re: Quick note
You're right. It looks like someone else deleted it after you removed the template though - Mattingly23 (talk) 23:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Pro Gaming League
I edited it again. Could you please look and tell me if it meets the requirements.

NCdave
You are totally right - User:JodyB was mentoring NCdave. I completely forgot about that. I'm not sure if the mentoring is still in effect, but I should have gone that route first. I'll touch base with JodyB - he's a standup guy. MastCell Talk 00:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

sunshine apathy
noted that you deleted the post of the artist sunshine apathy -- giving the reasoning that you didnt see the relevance or importance by which the topic relates or contributes. Then so elegantly listing your qualifications for doing so I feel that i have a place to do quite the same. Bachelor of Philosophy, and Psychology. And, primarily, musician and music lover.... i feel that if one (being you) are to question the relevance of a topic, such as a band, you must first consider music that you listen to and question the relevance of those bands as well. Here you may find yourself in a pickle if you will for if you truly want to know more about the band/artist in which you listen to... im sure that you find the relevance in the article discussing and/or relating to that artist or band quite easily. I dont so much care that the topic was deleted as the reasoning behind the topic seems a little fickle... for if you were one of the thousands of fans of sunshine apathy and in fact looking for more information on the artist or perhaps wanting to add to the importance of the artist in his/her/their genre or whatever the case may be ... you would find the article to be quite helpful or just what you were looking for. Am i wrong in such a question? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Safe2breathe (talk • contribs) 06:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Ernienotsowise
thanks, < >  Dloh  cierekim  15:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks from me too, --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

STOP
Stop erasing my edits please. They are sincere, not only helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T3hpaul33n (talk • contribs) 16:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Libel
First, let me quote myself. “…demands censure of Leesome for libel” and “’The author has created a number of sock puppets to promote himself and his vanity works on Wikipedia.’” And “’For just one example of his seeding legitimate literature articles with his self-promotion, see the following’”. This is libel.” The intent was to point out that statements made by the user Leesome are libelous, in that they are “a written defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1): a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2): defamation of a person by written or representational means (3)” I specifically stated I sent an email to Wikipedia pointing this out, and that we would be monitoring the issue, and that if the libel continued, we would take further action. This was, in no way, shape or form, intended as an accusation of libel by Wikipedia, nor was it intended as a statement of a legal action. I apologize if my statements were interpreted as a threat. I do not know Wikipedia’s policies. I have no intention of using Wikipedia beyond a reference source. Greg
 * The point was that the libel accusation concerned a rogue editor, not Wikipedia. I’m afraid, I cannot commit to any requirement. “Action” was not however intended as a legal threat, and it seems a leap of logic that this would be the immediate interpretation, since your own policies highlight various “actions” or avenues a person can take to reach an outcome. Rather, it was intended to mean I’d move forward with other options, i.e. exploring other ways of ensuring your user did not continue to libel. This is why I sent an email to Wikipedia, as a first step/action. It is odd that Wikipedia’s policies protect libel, and then, block those that point it out, that it is acceptable for a user to defame another person. Nothing I have said indicates the article should not be deleted, only that the decision to do so should be based on reliable, verifiable information, not defamation. You are welcome to block whatever IP addresses you see fit. At this point, we prefer the entry be deleted as well. Again, it was never suggested that it should not be, just that if your community decides to, it does not do so by defaming the subject of the article. My sole intent was to stop your user from making libelous statements. There will be no challenge to the deletion.

Since I provided you with a history of the user Leesome’s edits, all of which pertained to so-called this “vanity posting”, I would call this user a “rogue editor”, since it is odd that an account began this month would spend their entire time on one issue, which appears to be a vendetta. Your policies do protect libel. As they protected this person. By titling a discussion “…threatening to sue Wikipedia”, a technique used to frame a discussion, this became an issue of a legal threat, when none was ever made. I would not, and did not, say, “sue”, “commencing legal action” and/or “civil proceedings”; however, I was blocked, while the user has had no discipline. Wikipedia would not have heard from me had there not been libel. Framing Wikipedia’s policy of “threats of legal sanction” being blocked because they may “silence people” is an understandable concept; however, it appears you have laypeople making that conclusion. Therefore, the indistinct word “action” prompts you to initiate this process without proper grounds. I think you misunderstand libel as well. The very definition of libel means that a statement is subjective, i.e. an opinion. Then, it must be determined whether or not it is defamation. Refer to Wikipedia’s own entry on the subject. From Law.com, libel is, to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander, which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. I can and already have shown numerous inaccuracies in the user Leesome’s posting that were personal attacks, not facts. That is libel. Wikipedia’s legal situation is unimportant, since the issue was with a user, not the foundation. This was not a debate about whether the article should be deleted, simply that if it is to be considered for deletion, it is done so without defaming the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glevant (talk • contribs) 16:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Inacronym
Could I invite you to take another look at Inacronym? You declined my speedy for spam, and indeed it looks at first sight like a rather gimmicky neologism about a "new communications paradigm"; but when you click the link at the bottom you get taken to Inacronym.com, and it turns out that what they really want is to generate you a sort of custom logo and then sell you VIPA™ T-shirts for $25, hoodies for $38.99 etc. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, don't bother - maybe the advertising is well enough concealed not to count as "blatant". I'll take it to AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

EXELIXI
EXELIXI is one ERP system, that is well known here in Greece. You've deleted it's page. Please reconsider this. Filippos Filippides —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filippos2 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

An interesting autoblock
is affected by an autoblock resulting from a block on. They've been editing some very similar articles, so your opinion on the possibility of sock/meatpuppetry might be of value. Just letting you know if you'd like to have some input. – Luna Santin  (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

A sockpuppet
Could you add Supadupaflyfly (2nd) to User talk:Oh Noes its another account part deux? Simply south (talk) 19:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)