User talk:Wadefrazier

Welcome!
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -- Oni Ookami Alfador Talk 17:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

File:The Political Economy of Human Rights, volume two.jpg
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Political Economy of Human Rights, volume two.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:The Political Economy of Human Rights, volume two.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

File:The Political Economy of Human Rights, volume two.jpg
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
Hello, Wadefrazier. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Edward S. Herman, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the request edit template);
 * disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Seeing problems in your other edits...
I see that the Herman page is not the first time you've worked on behalf of an article's subject. For future reference, this is not acceptable at all.

At Talk:Heinz Haber, you cite your personal website as a source.

This all suggests that either you do not understand or are not familiar with some of our policies and guidelines:
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
 * Primary sources are usually avoided to prevent original research. Secondary or tertiary sources are preferred for this reason as well.
 * Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources.  Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from mainstream magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.  User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided.  Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
 * Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.

In short, all Wikipedia does is summarize professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources. It is not a place to promote one's personal views (whether positive or negative) of any subject (living or otherwise).

Ian.thomson (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Copyright violations
One of your recent additions has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. See Copying text from other sources for more information. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Edward_S._Herman for more information. I'm going over your other contributions now to see what else needs to be reversion deleted.  You are on very thin ice by this point. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I've removed material you added to a few pages that was taken from your personal website. It does not matter if it is your site, you have not formally and legally donated the text to us, and there's no point in even trying that because your site does not meet our reliable sourcing standards.  If you link or quote your site again anywhere on this site (in articles, talk pages, noticeboards, your user page, or wherever), you will be blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Are you going to erase the Wikiquote page, too, and make it a clean sweep?
Heck, why not go for all of it:

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Edward_S._Herman

Wow, is all I have to say. Putting quotes on Wikiquote is OK, but putting them at Wikipedia is a violation? Sorry that I am not an attorney.

A disinformation specialist (Cross) gets free reign. Would somebody at least do something about disinformation spin that Cross did on the censorship of CRV? I had my own version published before I published at Wikipedia, because I suspected something like this would happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wadefrazier (talk • contribs)
 * "A disinformation specialist"...? Wikipedia does not allow personal attacks and requires the assumption of good faith.
 * Wikiquote is obviously a resource for quotes. Your material on Wikipedia was not quotations but plagiarism, a difference that is taught in secondary school!  It's so basic that one act of plagiarism can get you thrown out of any community college, much less a university.  Honestly, the only reason we have the warning template is because we get users who are still in middle school, or who come from countries whose secondary education is garbage.  You don't need to be a lawyer to understand it.
 * The fact that you posted the material on your site before posting it here is the very problem!
 * I've just had to go through Brian O'Leary to remove more material you posted from your site. Conspiracy theorist accusations toward other users and flippantly treating basic knowledge of plagiarism as some sort of specialist knowledge to excuse your ignorance of secondary school language arts are the last responses you should consider -- you have made tons of mistakes here that you need to own up to.  You are at your last chance to participate productively. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Regarding off-site recruitment of your friends
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Off-site canvassing is considered a type of sockpuppetry. I assume that was going on before I left my last message about WP:COPYVIO, because otherwise you'd've been blocked by now.  Ian.thomson (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Disclosure: Wade and I happen to know each other, I consider him a friend. I have known that he was going to edit Herman's biography for months now and waited with interest as to what it would say and how wikipedia would react. Wikipedia reacted exactly as I assumed it would. There was no canvassing going on. Rest of what I want to say on Ed Herman's talk page. Krishna Pagadala (talk) 23:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Brian's bio
I have not been addressed with such condescension since secondary school. What I learned in secondary school or so was that plagiarism was passing off somebody else’s work as one’s own. I guess the logic is that I am passing of my own writings as my own. I am not sure what the crime is there, but many years ago, on my home page, I gave away all rights to my writings, so, it seems that I wasn’t really plagiarizing myself after all. But I am not an attorney, so maybe there is a nuance that I am missing.

Mr. Admin, what you did to my work on Ed I can live with, but what you did to Brian’s biography I ask you to restore, as my site is not copyrighted material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wadefrazier (talk • contribs)
 * No, the version on your site contains copyright violations as well (just one example).
 * You need to find different topics to edit. You've got a conflict of interest with regards to both Herman and O'Leary, which means you should not have been editing those articles to begin with.  Further, you've posted copyright violating non-neutral praise, which you seem way too attached to.
 * Leave those topics alone. Find some area to edit that you can approach neutrally and try working on smaller edits that summarize and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalist sources.
 * Ian.thomson (talk) 22:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Political Economy of Human Rights, volume two.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:The Political Economy of Human Rights, volume two.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Ed Herman's bio
Ever since my Wikipedia contributions were erased, by using tortured and legalistic logic that even Wikipedia finally admitted was invalid, it has kind of been amusing to see what is happening at Ed's bio, which is actually an example of the propaganda model in operation. That Noam's own predictions of the propaganda model are censored is like censoring Einstein's predictions of relativity theory.

This is very true, and I appreciated your popping into my page to let me know. I'm going to eventually move along with doing more to help improve the page; you're right that it's an example of the model itself once again successfully predicting flak-without-engagement. CraigBurley (talk) 13:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Ed Herman's bio – the continuing saga
Craig, I have to admire your initiative and savoir faire, but you are up against it. For starters, the editors whose “consensus” you seek includes an editor whose understanding of Ed’s work is so poor that he recently reverted the change to try to reinstate the fact that the propaganda model actually has five filters.

Heck, Philip Cross will likely not even need to roll out of bed on this one, like he was not involved when my work was erased under false pretenses, about 100 hours of work, mind you. And as an FYI, when a pupil of mine protested that treatment, Wikipedia banned him, once again under false pretenses. I am very familiar with kangaroo court behaviors that make this all pale to insignificance, so this is kind of amusing, if obscene, and they are virtually all anonymous cowards, as usual. You are actually the only real person in this latest charade, and my guess is that at least one has intelligence connections ("Cross" almost certainly does), but with all the anonymity, you will never know it. You might say that they don't play fair.

It is rather surreal, and I’ll say it again – all that you are trying to do is describe the model’s predictions, which is no different from trying to describe relativity’s predictions, and Noam is the only person alive who can be credibly compared to Einstein. That Wikipedia is threatening you for trying to add such information is one more sad piece of evidence of how far Wikipedia has fallen.

While you are the model of comportment, on your take of Gitlin’s black eulogy of Ed, others are not as charitable. I regard Gitlin as near the Chris Hitchens end of the spectrum, with Ed’s other bogus critics. However, as you note, he is at least a “notable” historian, but the same cannot be said of Sharp, Ear, or Hoare, whose libelous comments and references grace Ed’s Wikipedia bio. Best wishes on your adventures in trying to make Ed’s bio a little more credible. Wadefrazier (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC) Wade Frazier
 * Maybe it's because at least you (if not your friends) fail to understand that this website is just a summary of mainstream academic and journalistic sources, and not a place for y'all to present your own hagiographic opinions as the only views out there? Also, paranoid lies about other users' actions (you called in friends off-site, which is against our policies), ownership of content ("100 hours work" means nothing here, especially when that work was a copyright violation), and general whining aren't going to help, either.  If you are not here to cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, please say so already. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Thomson, mentioning Chomsky's predictions generated by his own co-authored model is not "hagiography," and it would help explain the focus in Ed's bio on "nefarious" bloodbaths (as well as the libelous misrepresentations of his work in the Wikipedia article, which you oddly don't seem to care about), which actually conforms to the model, and your accusations are as unfounded and wild as ever. Wadefrazier (talk) 01:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)Wade Frazier
 * Are you here to summarize mainstream academic or journalistic sources or not? One need only look at the talk page histories of User talk:Prop9, User talk:Vanish 1234u897528096 and this very page to see your friends have been posting copyright violations, that you called friends from off-site, and that they refused to go through proper channels to achieve their goals no matter how many times they were invited to do so -- it is a settled matter and any further attempts at spin and gaslighting will be taken as a sign that you're here to fight instead of summarize mainstream sources.  Ian.thomson (talk) 01:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Please ignore the shoving by Mr Thomson
Wade, I've noted the harassment here by Mr Thomson, who also came around my page to give me a snotty and spiteful talking-to. I suggest you ignore him. I'll get on with working on the Ed Herman page, where people are starting to work together properly now, and thanks for your reply. CraigBurley (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2023
This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass fellow Wikipedian(s) again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.  In reference to this post. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 22:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Calling out libelous behavior (arguably criminal, and way outside of Wikipedia's own guidelines, which is the kind of behavior that got Cross banned), which still stands at Wikipedia and defames Cross's target, is "harassment." I am not too surprised at this threat, but wow. Wadefrazier (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

My Final Comments for now
I wrote something today, but do not plan to comment on this situation very often. Wikipedia's behavior really says it all.