This is Archive 001 of User talk:KTrimble
Please do not edit this archive unneccessarily. Thank you KTrimble ( talk) 02:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Voorlandt, Caissa's DeathAngel, and Brittle heaven for your comments on my edits to Bughouse. It was a good learning experience. I have removed your comments here to make room for a possible comming flame war on other subjects.
Thank you for uploading File:Branson Airport 9-26-009 by KTrimble.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor ( talk) 03:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:Battlefield Mall Springfield Mo by KTrimble.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor ( talk) 05:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I hope this gets to you in time. Fixing licenseing after they've been posted is easy but not necessarily intuitive. That Branson photo is way cool and I don't want to lose it as I think you probably took it from an airplane. Copy this section (and knock off the categories) and paste it into the description on your photos. If you don't your photos are going to get nuked. Thanks again for an awesome photo. BTW that license puts the photo into the public domain but the attribution requires that folks are supposed to attribute it to you. Americasroof ( talk) 05:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I just checked: contrary to your assertion on the Media Noticeboard, neither one of the images that was deleted said anything about being in the public domain, or even Creative-Commons-licensed. If you say here what license you intended to place File:Battlefield Mall Springfield Mo by KTrimble.jpg and File:Branson Airport 9-26-009 by KTrimble.jpg under, I can restore them and tag them appropriately. You really might want to put in a {{ db-author}} on that last one you uploaded, though.... -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 03:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
KTrimble - Here's an even more straightforward suggestion. If it's a photo you took yourself, after you've uploaded it, edit its page and add the following:
Or, if you like, you could copy the way I do it for my images ( example). Either way, definitely feel free to continue asking for help if you get stuck. Sometimes this place can get frustrating, but there are always plenty of people around who are happy to point you in the right direction. :) -- Hux ( talk) 05:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
ww2censor ( talk) 04:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I have a bunch of great photographs to upload into existing articles and a bunch of ideas for new articles, even a couple of entire new subjects to expand on that have barely been touched. Several months ago, I started experimenting with contributing to Wikipedia in an effort to try to learn how to do this, but I have had bad results.
I have just had some other bad experiences with trying to contribute to Wikipedia, and I am discouraged. I originally tried making minor contributions to existing articles and immediately got my hands slapped. I created new articles on subjects nobody seemed to have a possessory interest in yet, thinking they wouldn't be bothered, and they get deleted. A couple weeks ago I uploaded a couple of photos that I took myself and placed in the public domain, and they got deleted because somebody didn't like the copyright. While investigating this photo snafu, I noticed that an article that I wrote about, Ze plane! Ze plane!, was deleted.
My original thought was to write a series of articles of various specific notable aircraft, mostly airshow aircraft that I had good photographs of and good information on, and possibly start a whole new list of articles or a whole new subject, if I ever learned how. I happened to know this specific aircraft, so I started with it. But within minutes of creating the article, it was flagged and then deleted about a week later before I could get back to it with any references and photos. Apparently it was judged to not be notable enough. I thought this aircraft was pretty notable, being seen at airshows, it's unique design for a Grumman, its provenance, and its interesting checkered past. Apparently not. I remember seeing an article about some race car driver's Ford Bronco that appeared in a movie for about fifteen seconds. I don't understand the difference. Go figure.
I will try things for a while, get discouraged, and not come back for several weeks or months. And then I will look for something and not find it, and get interested again. This time, however, I think I'm done.
I just reversed the deletion edit on Ze plane! Ze plane!. Go ahead and re-delete it, not delete it, or whatever. I no longer care. I have a life, and I don't need the brain damage. There are too many Barney Fife's running around Wikipedia deleting everything normal people not in 'the club' try to contribute for one stupid reason or another without explaining what is allowed and what isn't. If this is the way it is supposed to work, it's not fun and there are no rewards. Adios -- KTrimble ( talk) 05:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Ze plane! Ze plane!, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ze plane! Ze plane!. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Stifle ( talk) 08:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading a great image like File:Clark Taney Co Airport 6-1-09 by KTrimble.jpg, and for adding the public domain tag {{ PD-self}}, which is exactly what you needed to do.
I notice that you had some problems with the images File:Battlefield Mall Springfield Mo by KTrimble.jpg and File:Branson Airport 9-26-009 by KTrimble.jpg. I'd love to undelete them, but I need to be sure that you are releasing them to the public domain (or any other allowed license from the list). If you reply here to say you are, I'll undelete them as soon as I see the message.
The problem isn't that "somebody didn't like the copyright", it's that you didn't tell us what the copyright actually was on the image page itself. We can't do this for you, because we can't assume you've released the image.
I hope you'll be able to overlook this series of unfortunate accidents and become a great Wikipedia contributor. Stifle ( talk) 08:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I put 'public domain' in the drop down box when I uploaded them, I put the date, time, and place taken, including the altitude, that I was placing them in the public domain, and information on how the contrast was adjusted in the info box at the same time. I don't know what else I could have done. There is nothing in the file upload instructions about the 'PD-self' tag. Frankly, I've not gotten into this deep enough to try to understand what the 'tags' are all about. I read all of the license options, I know more about copyright than most people, I even read ww2censor's page about copyrights. I know all of that. I put the image in the public domain. Public Domain is as free as it gets. What else could possibly be required?
I made one edit last night to undelete an article that I originated a few months ago, and it is already tagged for deletion. I thought a series of articles about notable aircraft might be a good idea; and I thought this plane was marginally notable. Somebody else thinks it isn't, so it's gone. I really don't have time to get into any big discussions or flame wars to justify every little contribution I might hope to make, so I'm not going to bother.
I have noticed that most of the edits in the history that aren't reversed by some robot are done by somebody with a bunch of awards or stars or a couple dozen user-boxes. Not much is being done anymore by regular folk who are just starting. I have been at this off and on for a couple of years and I feel really discouraged--to the point that I don't want to screw with it anymore. I can't help but think that other people are out there having the same experience. You (the 'community') are making it harder for new people (new people who may have a lot to add) to come in and learn how this is supposed to be done. I wonder if this is impeding the introduction of new content by new people? Would it make sense for the 'leaders' of 'the community', if there are any, to try to educate all of the experienced old hands on how to deal with new people? Would it make sense to have some sort of program set up where 'the community' can identify new people entering the field and trying to make edits and trying to contribute and having problems, and try to educate them on how this works, encourage them to contribute new content, and bring them into 'the community'? I am feeling pretty beat up, I am feeling unappreciated, and I am embarrassed that I am in a position of having to whine like this, but I have a lot of content to contribute--and I am gone. I wonder how much else the community has lost in this way?
-- KTrimble ( talk) 16:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
KTrimble, I know contributing here can be frustrating. Our processes have been built up over the years, in many cases out of the digital equivalent of popsicle sticks and chewing gum. As a collaborative project, that's inevitable. Having fresh eyes like yours can help us fix these problem areas -- things that might make sense to those of us familiar with them, but none whatsoever to new users. There's also the problem that we get a lot of people uploading things that they don't have the right to upload, so we've gotten a little gunshy and our processes reflect that bias. Most of us are aware of the problems this causes for new contributors, but no one's quite sure what to do about it. All we ask is that you do your best, and excuse any occasional lapses in communication on our part. We need your contributions; will you stay and help? Powers T 18:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I learned a few things. Among many things, apparently there is some sort of mentoring program that exists. Even so, there are way more adoptors than adoptees. I would have used it, but I didn't know about it, and apparently nobody else that is new knows about it either. Apparently MOST of the old hands don't know about it, or they don't like it, or else they would be advising new people to try it or possibly offering to mentor them. It might help if WP as a community told somebody about it. There seems to be a big part of WP that doesn't want new people around, and they have a noticeably elitist attitude about it.
Reading all of these user pages and talk pages, I learned that there are two broad philosophies that are at work here:
Being new, I tend toward the open view. The elitists are trying to make WP as reliable and accurate and as respected as Britannica or Colliers, which is understandably laudable and desirable. But ya know what, Britannica and Colliers have gone the way of the dodo.
When ya all figure out which one Wikipedia is, call me and I might try to get involved again. Right now it is simply not worth the time and effort without help. Somebody said something about fresh eyes. Well, this is what I see. Frankly I see the same thing happening in a lot of volunteer organizations, and the solutions are usually quite obvious.
One of the responses to my earlier diatribe suggested that I be nicer. Sarek apparently missed the whole point, or alternatively his response demonstrates and illustrates my point. I was trying to be a part of this, but was completely frustrated and obviously need guidance, and would probably be more interested in continuing trying to be a part of this if the thought police were more helpful, so I lashed out a little. The old hands think they deserve nicer treatment from new people when they blaze through and apply narrow judgments to new content. The old hands seem to view new people as a pain in the ass.
Perhaps the old hands deserve better treatment. But ya know what: without new and constantly and wildly evolving content, Wikipedia becomes static and dies, just like Britannica, just like Encarta. Wikipedia NEEDS new people if it is to develop or grow--way more than us newbies need the brain damage associated with trying to help WP. -- KTrimble ( talk) 05:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Extraordinary Assumptions and Hypothetical Conditions, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extraordinary Assumptions and Hypothetical Conditions. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 04:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
-- KTrimble ( talk) 05:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I have no problems helping you.it should be O.R. (Original Research) :I have combined two articles on very related topics into one. The reason this article is heavy with real estate appraisal examples is that I plan on creating several articles on valuation and appraisal which will refer to this article" I interperted that as you were saying that you were writing a article based solely on the combination of these two properties. Wikipedia olicies are definitly intricate but try to ask questions how to improve rather then just assume the older editors are out to get the new ones. That's the way we all learn, through assumptions of good faith. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 05:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. It would appear you don't get it. I am offering to help you and you still attack why I nominated it in the first place. It gives you a chance to fix it by seven days and if in this case as you insist I'm completely out of line in this nomination I opened this to a communitywide debate. Please read this important policy about Wikipedia and if you are willing to accept help, I will still gladly give it. I've authored 40+ articles and can help you make it stick around or get you to another who can help. Please also note that the articles aren't yours, The comment if I wanted to screw with it infers that no one can edit it except you and one of our core policies is that if you can't accept another person editing or re-factoring your writing wikipedia is likely not for you. There's another template but I realize you are new and am trying not to wp:bite a Newbie. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 05:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
-- KTrimble ( talk) 07:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah, your situation reminds me of my first test of faith in Wikipedia several years ago. One of the things that has been bandied about this place is the need to retain good editors once they get in a dispute. Let's try to negotiate a solution to this problem of having three overlapping articles. What was your motivation for merging the first two in that unorthodox way? Did you consider moving one to the new title and merging the other in? Abductive ( reasoning) 06:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Hypothetical conditions assume facts or conditions which are known to be contrary to known facts, whether about
Hypothetical conditions are distinguished from extraordinary assumptions which are assumptions made also for the purpose of discussion or analysis, but regarding facts or conditions which are merely uncertain or undetermined.
The distinction between hypothetical conditions and extraordinary assumptions can carry a legal consequence and are most important in analytical fields where calculations or representations of professional opinions based on such assumptions are communicated by a professional to a client or end user, such as through an attest function.
Examples of hypothetical conditions used in the course of analysis might include
Examples of extraordinary assumptions used in the course of analysis might include
The main example where the distinction between extraordinary assumptions and hypothetical conditions can be a matter of law or professional standards include the field of real estate appraisal where the distinction is codified in USPAP in the United States (although the concept is clearly applicable to all forms of valuation).
Under USPAP, a real estate appraisal may be predicated on extraordinary assumptions under certain conditions, including proper disclosure and description of the assumption on which results are based to the client and third parties. The use of any hypothetical conditions, in contrast, is considered professionally inappropriate unless the use of the hypothetical condition is clearly required for legal purposes, for purposes of reasonable analysis, or for purposes of comparison. The purpose of the distinction is to avoid the communication of assignment results based on conditions contrary to facts which might mislead third party users of the results into believing the existence of conditions contrary to known facts.
(We do have mentorship programs if you think you'd benefit from one of those.) Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 16:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I see you're getting a baptism by fire. You might be surprised that a lot of wiki editors want to help you -- especially if you are contributing something really great (as you did with the Branson Airport photo).
I have interest in several Branson area articles that I have contributed to. They are in dire need of photos and your aerial hobby would be appreciated (or ground photos). Here's my list:
Do as many or as few or none as you choose. This is just a hobby. Keep your chin up. If you need help let me know. Thanks. Americasroof ( talk) 16:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
-- KTrimble ( talk) 16:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I uploaded two images. I was doing some work for SMS on a utility building that they owned next to Close Park about six years ago and I shot these along with the other technical stuff I was doing. I took a photo of the campus just for fun and took several of the Federal Medical Center. They are at
I am not sure how to reference the file preview page. If I just put Filename.jpg in double brackets, it shows as a non-existent page, but if I put File:Filename.jpg, it inserts the entire giant photo into the text and not the filename.
SarekofVulcan, check them out to see if they are uploaded right. Also, I am getting a banner on the upload page that says to upload them somewhere else. Should I do that?
Americasroof, I will go ahead and try to include this photo in the article about the medical center (which is lame, needs a big rewrite with more info), but I don't know what you want to do with the MSU/SMS photo. It really needs to be cropped, but I am not sure of the western extent of the SMS property right now or at the time the photo was taken. I am not sure if they are using cardinal stadium or if they own property on the other side of Benton. I actually have a better photo, but I don't know where it is. I usually take landmarks like this when I am working on other stuff and they get tagged with the project that I am working on at the time and could be anywhere in my photos database. I will stumble on it someday.
I will email you links to parts of the photos database that you can browse. It may be hard to use, but if you find anything you can let me know what I need to do. -- KTrimble ( talk) 18:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
This is Archive 001 of User talk:KTrimble
Please do not edit this archive unneccessarily. Thank you KTrimble ( talk) 02:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Voorlandt, Caissa's DeathAngel, and Brittle heaven for your comments on my edits to Bughouse. It was a good learning experience. I have removed your comments here to make room for a possible comming flame war on other subjects.
Thank you for uploading File:Branson Airport 9-26-009 by KTrimble.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor ( talk) 03:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:Battlefield Mall Springfield Mo by KTrimble.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor ( talk) 05:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I hope this gets to you in time. Fixing licenseing after they've been posted is easy but not necessarily intuitive. That Branson photo is way cool and I don't want to lose it as I think you probably took it from an airplane. Copy this section (and knock off the categories) and paste it into the description on your photos. If you don't your photos are going to get nuked. Thanks again for an awesome photo. BTW that license puts the photo into the public domain but the attribution requires that folks are supposed to attribute it to you. Americasroof ( talk) 05:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I just checked: contrary to your assertion on the Media Noticeboard, neither one of the images that was deleted said anything about being in the public domain, or even Creative-Commons-licensed. If you say here what license you intended to place File:Battlefield Mall Springfield Mo by KTrimble.jpg and File:Branson Airport 9-26-009 by KTrimble.jpg under, I can restore them and tag them appropriately. You really might want to put in a {{ db-author}} on that last one you uploaded, though.... -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 03:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
KTrimble - Here's an even more straightforward suggestion. If it's a photo you took yourself, after you've uploaded it, edit its page and add the following:
Or, if you like, you could copy the way I do it for my images ( example). Either way, definitely feel free to continue asking for help if you get stuck. Sometimes this place can get frustrating, but there are always plenty of people around who are happy to point you in the right direction. :) -- Hux ( talk) 05:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
ww2censor ( talk) 04:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I have a bunch of great photographs to upload into existing articles and a bunch of ideas for new articles, even a couple of entire new subjects to expand on that have barely been touched. Several months ago, I started experimenting with contributing to Wikipedia in an effort to try to learn how to do this, but I have had bad results.
I have just had some other bad experiences with trying to contribute to Wikipedia, and I am discouraged. I originally tried making minor contributions to existing articles and immediately got my hands slapped. I created new articles on subjects nobody seemed to have a possessory interest in yet, thinking they wouldn't be bothered, and they get deleted. A couple weeks ago I uploaded a couple of photos that I took myself and placed in the public domain, and they got deleted because somebody didn't like the copyright. While investigating this photo snafu, I noticed that an article that I wrote about, Ze plane! Ze plane!, was deleted.
My original thought was to write a series of articles of various specific notable aircraft, mostly airshow aircraft that I had good photographs of and good information on, and possibly start a whole new list of articles or a whole new subject, if I ever learned how. I happened to know this specific aircraft, so I started with it. But within minutes of creating the article, it was flagged and then deleted about a week later before I could get back to it with any references and photos. Apparently it was judged to not be notable enough. I thought this aircraft was pretty notable, being seen at airshows, it's unique design for a Grumman, its provenance, and its interesting checkered past. Apparently not. I remember seeing an article about some race car driver's Ford Bronco that appeared in a movie for about fifteen seconds. I don't understand the difference. Go figure.
I will try things for a while, get discouraged, and not come back for several weeks or months. And then I will look for something and not find it, and get interested again. This time, however, I think I'm done.
I just reversed the deletion edit on Ze plane! Ze plane!. Go ahead and re-delete it, not delete it, or whatever. I no longer care. I have a life, and I don't need the brain damage. There are too many Barney Fife's running around Wikipedia deleting everything normal people not in 'the club' try to contribute for one stupid reason or another without explaining what is allowed and what isn't. If this is the way it is supposed to work, it's not fun and there are no rewards. Adios -- KTrimble ( talk) 05:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Ze plane! Ze plane!, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ze plane! Ze plane!. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Stifle ( talk) 08:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading a great image like File:Clark Taney Co Airport 6-1-09 by KTrimble.jpg, and for adding the public domain tag {{ PD-self}}, which is exactly what you needed to do.
I notice that you had some problems with the images File:Battlefield Mall Springfield Mo by KTrimble.jpg and File:Branson Airport 9-26-009 by KTrimble.jpg. I'd love to undelete them, but I need to be sure that you are releasing them to the public domain (or any other allowed license from the list). If you reply here to say you are, I'll undelete them as soon as I see the message.
The problem isn't that "somebody didn't like the copyright", it's that you didn't tell us what the copyright actually was on the image page itself. We can't do this for you, because we can't assume you've released the image.
I hope you'll be able to overlook this series of unfortunate accidents and become a great Wikipedia contributor. Stifle ( talk) 08:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I put 'public domain' in the drop down box when I uploaded them, I put the date, time, and place taken, including the altitude, that I was placing them in the public domain, and information on how the contrast was adjusted in the info box at the same time. I don't know what else I could have done. There is nothing in the file upload instructions about the 'PD-self' tag. Frankly, I've not gotten into this deep enough to try to understand what the 'tags' are all about. I read all of the license options, I know more about copyright than most people, I even read ww2censor's page about copyrights. I know all of that. I put the image in the public domain. Public Domain is as free as it gets. What else could possibly be required?
I made one edit last night to undelete an article that I originated a few months ago, and it is already tagged for deletion. I thought a series of articles about notable aircraft might be a good idea; and I thought this plane was marginally notable. Somebody else thinks it isn't, so it's gone. I really don't have time to get into any big discussions or flame wars to justify every little contribution I might hope to make, so I'm not going to bother.
I have noticed that most of the edits in the history that aren't reversed by some robot are done by somebody with a bunch of awards or stars or a couple dozen user-boxes. Not much is being done anymore by regular folk who are just starting. I have been at this off and on for a couple of years and I feel really discouraged--to the point that I don't want to screw with it anymore. I can't help but think that other people are out there having the same experience. You (the 'community') are making it harder for new people (new people who may have a lot to add) to come in and learn how this is supposed to be done. I wonder if this is impeding the introduction of new content by new people? Would it make sense for the 'leaders' of 'the community', if there are any, to try to educate all of the experienced old hands on how to deal with new people? Would it make sense to have some sort of program set up where 'the community' can identify new people entering the field and trying to make edits and trying to contribute and having problems, and try to educate them on how this works, encourage them to contribute new content, and bring them into 'the community'? I am feeling pretty beat up, I am feeling unappreciated, and I am embarrassed that I am in a position of having to whine like this, but I have a lot of content to contribute--and I am gone. I wonder how much else the community has lost in this way?
-- KTrimble ( talk) 16:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
KTrimble, I know contributing here can be frustrating. Our processes have been built up over the years, in many cases out of the digital equivalent of popsicle sticks and chewing gum. As a collaborative project, that's inevitable. Having fresh eyes like yours can help us fix these problem areas -- things that might make sense to those of us familiar with them, but none whatsoever to new users. There's also the problem that we get a lot of people uploading things that they don't have the right to upload, so we've gotten a little gunshy and our processes reflect that bias. Most of us are aware of the problems this causes for new contributors, but no one's quite sure what to do about it. All we ask is that you do your best, and excuse any occasional lapses in communication on our part. We need your contributions; will you stay and help? Powers T 18:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I learned a few things. Among many things, apparently there is some sort of mentoring program that exists. Even so, there are way more adoptors than adoptees. I would have used it, but I didn't know about it, and apparently nobody else that is new knows about it either. Apparently MOST of the old hands don't know about it, or they don't like it, or else they would be advising new people to try it or possibly offering to mentor them. It might help if WP as a community told somebody about it. There seems to be a big part of WP that doesn't want new people around, and they have a noticeably elitist attitude about it.
Reading all of these user pages and talk pages, I learned that there are two broad philosophies that are at work here:
Being new, I tend toward the open view. The elitists are trying to make WP as reliable and accurate and as respected as Britannica or Colliers, which is understandably laudable and desirable. But ya know what, Britannica and Colliers have gone the way of the dodo.
When ya all figure out which one Wikipedia is, call me and I might try to get involved again. Right now it is simply not worth the time and effort without help. Somebody said something about fresh eyes. Well, this is what I see. Frankly I see the same thing happening in a lot of volunteer organizations, and the solutions are usually quite obvious.
One of the responses to my earlier diatribe suggested that I be nicer. Sarek apparently missed the whole point, or alternatively his response demonstrates and illustrates my point. I was trying to be a part of this, but was completely frustrated and obviously need guidance, and would probably be more interested in continuing trying to be a part of this if the thought police were more helpful, so I lashed out a little. The old hands think they deserve nicer treatment from new people when they blaze through and apply narrow judgments to new content. The old hands seem to view new people as a pain in the ass.
Perhaps the old hands deserve better treatment. But ya know what: without new and constantly and wildly evolving content, Wikipedia becomes static and dies, just like Britannica, just like Encarta. Wikipedia NEEDS new people if it is to develop or grow--way more than us newbies need the brain damage associated with trying to help WP. -- KTrimble ( talk) 05:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Extraordinary Assumptions and Hypothetical Conditions, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extraordinary Assumptions and Hypothetical Conditions. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 04:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
-- KTrimble ( talk) 05:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I have no problems helping you.it should be O.R. (Original Research) :I have combined two articles on very related topics into one. The reason this article is heavy with real estate appraisal examples is that I plan on creating several articles on valuation and appraisal which will refer to this article" I interperted that as you were saying that you were writing a article based solely on the combination of these two properties. Wikipedia olicies are definitly intricate but try to ask questions how to improve rather then just assume the older editors are out to get the new ones. That's the way we all learn, through assumptions of good faith. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 05:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. It would appear you don't get it. I am offering to help you and you still attack why I nominated it in the first place. It gives you a chance to fix it by seven days and if in this case as you insist I'm completely out of line in this nomination I opened this to a communitywide debate. Please read this important policy about Wikipedia and if you are willing to accept help, I will still gladly give it. I've authored 40+ articles and can help you make it stick around or get you to another who can help. Please also note that the articles aren't yours, The comment if I wanted to screw with it infers that no one can edit it except you and one of our core policies is that if you can't accept another person editing or re-factoring your writing wikipedia is likely not for you. There's another template but I realize you are new and am trying not to wp:bite a Newbie. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 05:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
-- KTrimble ( talk) 07:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah, your situation reminds me of my first test of faith in Wikipedia several years ago. One of the things that has been bandied about this place is the need to retain good editors once they get in a dispute. Let's try to negotiate a solution to this problem of having three overlapping articles. What was your motivation for merging the first two in that unorthodox way? Did you consider moving one to the new title and merging the other in? Abductive ( reasoning) 06:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Hypothetical conditions assume facts or conditions which are known to be contrary to known facts, whether about
Hypothetical conditions are distinguished from extraordinary assumptions which are assumptions made also for the purpose of discussion or analysis, but regarding facts or conditions which are merely uncertain or undetermined.
The distinction between hypothetical conditions and extraordinary assumptions can carry a legal consequence and are most important in analytical fields where calculations or representations of professional opinions based on such assumptions are communicated by a professional to a client or end user, such as through an attest function.
Examples of hypothetical conditions used in the course of analysis might include
Examples of extraordinary assumptions used in the course of analysis might include
The main example where the distinction between extraordinary assumptions and hypothetical conditions can be a matter of law or professional standards include the field of real estate appraisal where the distinction is codified in USPAP in the United States (although the concept is clearly applicable to all forms of valuation).
Under USPAP, a real estate appraisal may be predicated on extraordinary assumptions under certain conditions, including proper disclosure and description of the assumption on which results are based to the client and third parties. The use of any hypothetical conditions, in contrast, is considered professionally inappropriate unless the use of the hypothetical condition is clearly required for legal purposes, for purposes of reasonable analysis, or for purposes of comparison. The purpose of the distinction is to avoid the communication of assignment results based on conditions contrary to facts which might mislead third party users of the results into believing the existence of conditions contrary to known facts.
(We do have mentorship programs if you think you'd benefit from one of those.) Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 16:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I see you're getting a baptism by fire. You might be surprised that a lot of wiki editors want to help you -- especially if you are contributing something really great (as you did with the Branson Airport photo).
I have interest in several Branson area articles that I have contributed to. They are in dire need of photos and your aerial hobby would be appreciated (or ground photos). Here's my list:
Do as many or as few or none as you choose. This is just a hobby. Keep your chin up. If you need help let me know. Thanks. Americasroof ( talk) 16:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
-- KTrimble ( talk) 16:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I uploaded two images. I was doing some work for SMS on a utility building that they owned next to Close Park about six years ago and I shot these along with the other technical stuff I was doing. I took a photo of the campus just for fun and took several of the Federal Medical Center. They are at
I am not sure how to reference the file preview page. If I just put Filename.jpg in double brackets, it shows as a non-existent page, but if I put File:Filename.jpg, it inserts the entire giant photo into the text and not the filename.
SarekofVulcan, check them out to see if they are uploaded right. Also, I am getting a banner on the upload page that says to upload them somewhere else. Should I do that?
Americasroof, I will go ahead and try to include this photo in the article about the medical center (which is lame, needs a big rewrite with more info), but I don't know what you want to do with the MSU/SMS photo. It really needs to be cropped, but I am not sure of the western extent of the SMS property right now or at the time the photo was taken. I am not sure if they are using cardinal stadium or if they own property on the other side of Benton. I actually have a better photo, but I don't know where it is. I usually take landmarks like this when I am working on other stuff and they get tagged with the project that I am working on at the time and could be anywhere in my photos database. I will stumble on it someday.
I will email you links to parts of the photos database that you can browse. It may be hard to use, but if you find anything you can let me know what I need to do. -- KTrimble ( talk) 18:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)