I hate to keep reverting your edits, but please find something not at all connected to YouTube. It needs to be a secondary source from a reliable publication with a history for fact checking and editorial control. So, is there a publication that published the text of his speech? Was the speech (or parts of it) quoted in a magazine article? Thanks. QueenofBattle ( talk) 16:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- And, I'd ask you to consider including it in the BP article, rather than in Hayward's BLP. While he said it (purportedly), it is a statement about the company's corporate responsibility stance not his personal stance. QueenofBattle ( talk) 16:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Just to comment that we did find something for that edit of the TH article, as U Penn kept public domain copies of the videos of business school lectures. Thx to QofB for help with that! Createangelos ( talk) 00:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
With this edit: [1] you added your own comments while removing comments by another user, namely me. Please be more careful in the future. You can automatically create a new section for a new topic by clocking the "New section" tab at the top of the page. Beeblebrox ( talk) 04:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Thx for the explanation! Createangelos ( talk) 18:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arthur, thx for your helpful edit to the Math article. Createangelos ( talk) 00:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Weldon.ogg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 23:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
In case anyone needs to verify the radio program referred to in the dead link in the Weldon Angelos case I'm keeping a .ogg file now that the radio program website is off the air. Createangelos ( talk) 00:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Createangelos. I noticed you created a Requests for Adminship page some time ago; I was wondering as to what the status of that request might be. I think it's fair to warn you that new users are rarely successful at RfA and that the Wikipedia editing community sets very high standards for editors running for adminship. That being said, I strongly urge you to read Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship, User:Davidwr/Administration is not for new users, and Wikipedia:Not now, and ask you to reconsider whether you really do wish to go through with your candidacy; please understand that you stand very little to no chance of passing RfA at this point and that you are strongly discouraged from running for adminship. If you are still intent on running for adminship with that request and are absolutely positive this is what you want, please do let me know; otherwise, I'll go ahead and delete the RfA page for you in about a week or so from today. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- "in fact I do not know much at all about doing admin-type things" That statement alone will automatically fail you at RfA. !Voters will not hand mops out based on speculation that a user who has never participated in admin areas will succeed at it. Wikipedia takes adminship very seriously and only after displaying that you can be successful in admin areas will you succeed at RfA. I strongly urge you to not proceed with the RfA. However, if you choose to completely ignore my advice and go ahead with it, you will need to transclude your RfA at
WP:RFA by following the instructions at
WP:RFA/N.
Eagles
24/7
(C) 00:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Since you used an analogy, I'll use one, too. For the part of my reply you did not understand, think of adminship as a presidency for a second. You are running for office, but you have no political experience. You have never been a senator, or representative, or even mayor. Will anyone vote for you based solely on what you say you will do? Probably not. See
WP:TRANSCLUDE for a detailed explanation as to what that term means here. Again, I suggest you not run, but of course it is entirely up to you.
Eagles
24/7
(C) 01:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, I won't delete it, but don't say I didn't warn you if/when your RfA does not go to plan. You may want to look at other unsuccessful RfAs just from this month to see how high the standards are here:
Wikipedian2 2,
Wilbysuffolk,
ZooPro 4,
Rehman 3, and
SilverSoul91911. Here is the only successful RfA from this month and you may also want to peruse it as well:
Salvio giuliano. To put things in perspective, you currently have 186 edits to your name, while at
my successful RfA, I had over 17,000 edits.
Eagles
24/7
(C) 01:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- I believe that one day you will be a great admin. However, at the moment, you are not experienced enough to succeed at RfA (see
WP:NOTNOW). You have a lot of philosophical analogies and insight in the reply on my talk page, and I hate to break it to you (although it was an interesting read), there isn't supposed to be much of that by becoming an admin. The administrator's job on Wikipedia is equal to that of a janitor in that we just clean up messes. And BTW, in order to delete an image you uploaded to Commons, you would have to be an admin at Commons.
Eagles
24/7
(C) 19:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- ( talk page stalker) If you want to see what you're up against, do have a read of this and follow all the links in it. Then see the successful RfA of a broadly experienced editor with a high edit count, that could have badly misfired. Your one main advantage is that you have not been around enough to gather any detractors, but with only 187 edits I'm afraid you don't stand a chance. If you need any help with any of the aspects that Eagles has kindly pointed out, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 05:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- I believe that one day you will be a great admin. However, at the moment, you are not experienced enough to succeed at RfA (see
WP:NOTNOW). You have a lot of philosophical analogies and insight in the reply on my talk page, and I hate to break it to you (although it was an interesting read), there isn't supposed to be much of that by becoming an admin. The administrator's job on Wikipedia is equal to that of a janitor in that we just clean up messes. And BTW, in order to delete an image you uploaded to Commons, you would have to be an admin at Commons.
Eagles
24/7
(C) 19:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, I won't delete it, but don't say I didn't warn you if/when your RfA does not go to plan. You may want to look at other unsuccessful RfAs just from this month to see how high the standards are here:
Wikipedian2 2,
Wilbysuffolk,
ZooPro 4,
Rehman 3, and
SilverSoul91911. Here is the only successful RfA from this month and you may also want to peruse it as well:
Salvio giuliano. To put things in perspective, you currently have 186 edits to your name, while at
my successful RfA, I had over 17,000 edits.
Eagles
24/7
(C) 01:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Since you used an analogy, I'll use one, too. For the part of my reply you did not understand, think of adminship as a presidency for a second. You are running for office, but you have no political experience. You have never been a senator, or representative, or even mayor. Will anyone vote for you based solely on what you say you will do? Probably not. See
WP:TRANSCLUDE for a detailed explanation as to what that term means here. Again, I suggest you not run, but of course it is entirely up to you.
Eagles
24/7
(C) 01:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Message added 00:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Message added 16:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey, the Talk page on the article is pretty crowded. I was hoping we could address the neutrality issue together. I'd like to know your concerns so that I can address the issue and you can remove the tags. Could you elaborate on it? Fortibus ( talk) 16:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Please use high quality references per WP:MEDRS such as review articles or major textbooks. Note that review articles are NOT the same as peer reviewed articles. A good place to find medical sources is TRIP database Thanks.
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
(confused: Hepatology 25 pp638-642 is a review article?) Createangelos ( talk) 01:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 | This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
Hi,
I tried to nominate Richard_William_Paul for deletion, but the line I added seems to be in a strange place, I hope I have not corrupted the entire deletion log somehow! Can you check for me? -- Createangelos ( talk) 16:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
- No. you haven't mucked things up, but to nominate a page you have to do more than just put an entry in that log list. I have removed it, so that you are now back at square one and can start again. The instructions are at WP:AFDHOWTO. Ping me (any time in the next 2 hours or so) if you need help. JohnCD ( talk) 19:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
What is that rubbish you added to Collective animal behavior about? It raises questions about your competency, and whether you should be editing here at all. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 21:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
(my reply on Epipelagic's page):Hi Epipelagic,
It was indeed rubbish, thanks for deleting it! I found another link http://www.math.chalmers.se/~olleh/U18.pdf however Google Translate will not translate it.
I hope yr revert was for the best reasons (bec it was rubbish and not bec you're not npov).
The criticism in the Swedish reference may be better; it seems that at one time the subject of collective animal behaviour was considered by a few practising zoologists and mathematicians to be based on the discredited 'systems theory,' while a proponent writes "my primary vision for the future is the further use of technology and mathematics for finally doing ‘systems biology’. "
OK so what do you advise, myself going on a single-handed intellectual quest to learn all this stuff? I wish you'd left that stub in place. Comment please. Createangelos ( talk) 22:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
PS I have to say, I was a little apprehensive seeing in recent talk page discussions that someone accused you of thinking that rivers constitute swarm intelligence -- but was quite reassured to learn that the idea is that nature can bring advances to the subject of computer science, not the other way around. Well done, I'm genuinely impressed. So now how about some comments about how to proceed with the fact that 'collective animal behaviour' promotes what seems to be a single theory and is missing any criticism section....Createangelos (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- I have replied to this on the article's talk page -- Epipelagic ( talk) 19:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I noticed you have contributed to articles on Broadcom Corporation and/or Broadcom Limited. Just a quick note that there is a discussion here about whether or not Broadcom should be a disambiguation page or refer solely to Broadcom Corporation. Cheers! Talk to SageGreenRider 17:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Greetings! I noticed that you've contributed to articles on Broadcom Corporation, Avago Technology, and/or the new merged entity Broadcom Limited in the past. I'm pinging you to see if you wanted to add an opinion to a deletion debate on a disambiguation page (Broadcom (disambiguation)). If so, the debate is here. Thanks! Talk to SageGreenRider 23:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.In addition to the discretionary sanctions described above the Arbitration Committee has also imposed a restriction which states that you cannot make more than one revert on the same page in the same 24 hour period on all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, or agricultural chemicals, broadly construed and subject to certain exemptions.
- You've already been directed to the GMO RfC, so this template is just to let you know that the overall topic also has other restrictions to it (and is a tricky topic for those new to it to get involved in). Kingofaces43 ( talk) 00:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Could I ask for your vote on whether the total individual child sexual abuse allegations against Michael Jackson should be noted on his Wiki page? Regards, Hammelsmith ( talk) 06:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Could I ask for you to submit a vote on the Talk page please? There are some issues today. Regards, Hammelsmith ( talk) 20:02, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm so so sorry to bother you again, but if you could offer Partytemple & I an opinion to launch from, it would help our stalemate. Cheers & Regards Hammelsmith ( talk) 02:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 | Hello! Voting in the
2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All
eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Should not be altered once they have been replied to. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Doug Weller talk 14:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
A community discussion has authorised the use of
general sanctions for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 (
COVID-19).
The specific details of these sanctions are described
here.
Doug Weller talk 14:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Do not speculate on criminal behavior. Your exit summary about the vehicle was fine until your thought it appropriate to suggest he was committing a crime with zero evidence or sources.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
EvergreenFir (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
|
| Hello! Voting in the
2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All
eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
|
| Hello! Voting in the
2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All
eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
I added my own suggestion for a "Wrongful Conviction Belief's" section. It appears that your suggestions did not gain traction. Is it worth another try given that Ziegler put out the ultimate summary with his With The Benefit of Hindsight podcast? And Dr. Spanier's book is also helpful but he was certainly not forceful enough. Dr. Spanier's take down of the Freeh report was quite good. Anyhow, I have no clue as to protocols etc. on Wikipedia. I just want to state I thought your summary was excellent and there definitely needs to be a wrongful conviction section. Wikinovice1 ( talk) 20:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, a judge is thinking about the issues as we write, at this very moment. One thing is, Wikipedia can be sharply ironic. The section about subsequent accusations which says something like that 'one source' says Sandusky was trafficking porn, etc, are like what on Reddit are called 'crickets.'
- I actually have some correspondence with Andreozzi from the time of the trial. It is strangely paradoxical, as he writes in response to questions I never asked.
- I tend to object to Lindsay and Barden taking an adversarial position or talking about corruption. This is my current public position about the trial and the role of media:
- ------------(begin quote)---------------------
- I do understand that, in for example a case of a defendant charged with violent use of a weapon, it is possible to describe the forensic and biological, or even scientific evidence, such as DNA evidence, very clearly, and to write decisions which, when reported by journalists later, can include some elements of unmistakable fact. And, almost always, I have a sense that there is some legal mechanism by which the facts of the case, at this basic, measurable, biological level, are implicitly agreed by both parties.
- It would be, just, awfully unsatisfactory for a decision to be written which said, for example, that a witness said that a suspect has stabbed a victim through the pancreas with an 8 inch serrated knife, causing insulin shock, while the defense says, the victim is fine, has never been stabbed, and has an intact pancreas.
- Depending on the jury findings, the subsequent reporting could include mistruth, unless the decision were complete and clear in its explanation.
- In the case of the Commonwealth vs Sandusky, the facts of the case were very clearly established, in the original trial, in Dersham's report about victim 1 (AF), in school reports, later in what the mother of AF wrote in a published book, what is in the Moulton report, and what was even reported in the press by Sara Ganim, that among other intimacies, Jerry Sandusky had repeatedly put his mouth on AF's lower stomach above the waistband, and had put his hand upon AF's back below the waistband, and had telephoned the then child many times and spoken with him.
- Leaving aside for the moment a notion that other un-admitted activities may have taken place, these particular activities are remarkable in that they were repeatedly agreed by all parties to have taken place.
- The Costas interview may be deemed a confession that these activities were committed along with a 'love to be around young people'.
- Regarding journalism, you may not remember, but Andreozzi very faithfully reported his client's position to the media. While charged with obtaining the best settlement for his client, he was transparent about how his client was testifying on behalf of the oral sex which had occurred to AF, and which he was informed about during the interview which was tape recorded in Mr. Andreozzi's benificent presence. This is to protect anyone else from the thrusting and forceful wrestling moves or rape which had not, though, occurred to himself.
- Now to my main point, I think that Chris Barden would commit a serious violation if he interpreted the emails among Fina and other prosecutors as what he called pornography. They were things like playboy. The hypothesis that Cleland wanted a conviction is as wrong as Cleland's protestation of innocence about it is right. In fact, McGettigan had made it clear that there will be no specific accusation of an action of abuse occurring at any definable time. This to Joe Amendola, and maybe to Cleland, surely to me and the public, seemed then to be a rising lava well of innuendo, with no way to stop it, which threatened Jerry Sandusky's right to a fair trial. Cleland said that, he said, Jerry Sandusky has a right to a timely trial.
- The issue about the playboy type of 'porn' is that it equates nakedness with sexuality; and some people like Feudale said in their correspondence, Sandusky is obviously a terrible person preying on children for sexual reasons. But none of the main players were corrupt like that. For Lindsay to say that Cleland writing that the defense has not found valid grounds of appeal was not a message to his successor, it was the truth, and a truth the defense needed to hear.
- A possibility is that some of the confirmation bias Barden writes about may be because paedophiles do exist, and while their condition may not affect their life, it may affect their judgement. It is an agreed fact of the case that Sandusky when accompanied by a boy usually had his free hand on the boy's knee, but never anywhere else. A car driver might think, this is safer than wrapped around the shoulders, in case of an emergency, the hand can be brought to the wheel. But a biological paedophile might be distracted by their condition and attribute a motive based not on proximity to the steering wheel but proximity to the main body of the child.
- This too, for the focus on the mouth on the stomach of AF and others, when it was less often on the stomach than other places.
- Regarding the original AG, campaigning for governor, he said he has a record of convicting suspected paedophiles. One needn't search for secret corruption of any secret conspiracy, I think throughout everyone has been honest and done their best to be good.
- I want to reiterate, I am not writing about law, I am writing about the way decisions are written and how the wording of decisions affects journalism.
- It was the opinion of Amendola that a protracted trial would be unable to bring justice in the face of a lava tide of journalistic condemnation. I don't think the jury read what the journalists were writing, but they the jury were overwhelmed by a wave of disgust in reaction to an incomplete apprehension of what journalists were writing.
- It would be very wrong to allow anyone to frame the debate as adversarial or originating in corruption or bad faith, this would only perpetuate the inaccuracy of the understanding of the reporting.
- ----------(end quote)--------------------------------------------
- I wouldn't object to you trying a 'wrongful conviction' section. It couldn't hurt anything to be bold, you might learn something. At worst someone will revert your edits and explain why. Createangelos ( talk) 22:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I hate to keep reverting your edits, but please find something not at all connected to YouTube. It needs to be a secondary source from a reliable publication with a history for fact checking and editorial control. So, is there a publication that published the text of his speech? Was the speech (or parts of it) quoted in a magazine article? Thanks. QueenofBattle ( talk) 16:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- And, I'd ask you to consider including it in the BP article, rather than in Hayward's BLP. While he said it (purportedly), it is a statement about the company's corporate responsibility stance not his personal stance. QueenofBattle ( talk) 16:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Just to comment that we did find something for that edit of the TH article, as U Penn kept public domain copies of the videos of business school lectures. Thx to QofB for help with that! Createangelos ( talk) 00:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
With this edit: [1] you added your own comments while removing comments by another user, namely me. Please be more careful in the future. You can automatically create a new section for a new topic by clocking the "New section" tab at the top of the page. Beeblebrox ( talk) 04:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Thx for the explanation! Createangelos ( talk) 18:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arthur, thx for your helpful edit to the Math article. Createangelos ( talk) 00:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Weldon.ogg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 23:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
In case anyone needs to verify the radio program referred to in the dead link in the Weldon Angelos case I'm keeping a .ogg file now that the radio program website is off the air. Createangelos ( talk) 00:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Createangelos. I noticed you created a Requests for Adminship page some time ago; I was wondering as to what the status of that request might be. I think it's fair to warn you that new users are rarely successful at RfA and that the Wikipedia editing community sets very high standards for editors running for adminship. That being said, I strongly urge you to read Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship, User:Davidwr/Administration is not for new users, and Wikipedia:Not now, and ask you to reconsider whether you really do wish to go through with your candidacy; please understand that you stand very little to no chance of passing RfA at this point and that you are strongly discouraged from running for adminship. If you are still intent on running for adminship with that request and are absolutely positive this is what you want, please do let me know; otherwise, I'll go ahead and delete the RfA page for you in about a week or so from today. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- "in fact I do not know much at all about doing admin-type things" That statement alone will automatically fail you at RfA. !Voters will not hand mops out based on speculation that a user who has never participated in admin areas will succeed at it. Wikipedia takes adminship very seriously and only after displaying that you can be successful in admin areas will you succeed at RfA. I strongly urge you to not proceed with the RfA. However, if you choose to completely ignore my advice and go ahead with it, you will need to transclude your RfA at
WP:RFA by following the instructions at
WP:RFA/N.
Eagles
24/7
(C) 00:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Since you used an analogy, I'll use one, too. For the part of my reply you did not understand, think of adminship as a presidency for a second. You are running for office, but you have no political experience. You have never been a senator, or representative, or even mayor. Will anyone vote for you based solely on what you say you will do? Probably not. See
WP:TRANSCLUDE for a detailed explanation as to what that term means here. Again, I suggest you not run, but of course it is entirely up to you.
Eagles
24/7
(C) 01:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, I won't delete it, but don't say I didn't warn you if/when your RfA does not go to plan. You may want to look at other unsuccessful RfAs just from this month to see how high the standards are here:
Wikipedian2 2,
Wilbysuffolk,
ZooPro 4,
Rehman 3, and
SilverSoul91911. Here is the only successful RfA from this month and you may also want to peruse it as well:
Salvio giuliano. To put things in perspective, you currently have 186 edits to your name, while at
my successful RfA, I had over 17,000 edits.
Eagles
24/7
(C) 01:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- I believe that one day you will be a great admin. However, at the moment, you are not experienced enough to succeed at RfA (see
WP:NOTNOW). You have a lot of philosophical analogies and insight in the reply on my talk page, and I hate to break it to you (although it was an interesting read), there isn't supposed to be much of that by becoming an admin. The administrator's job on Wikipedia is equal to that of a janitor in that we just clean up messes. And BTW, in order to delete an image you uploaded to Commons, you would have to be an admin at Commons.
Eagles
24/7
(C) 19:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- ( talk page stalker) If you want to see what you're up against, do have a read of this and follow all the links in it. Then see the successful RfA of a broadly experienced editor with a high edit count, that could have badly misfired. Your one main advantage is that you have not been around enough to gather any detractors, but with only 187 edits I'm afraid you don't stand a chance. If you need any help with any of the aspects that Eagles has kindly pointed out, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 05:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- I believe that one day you will be a great admin. However, at the moment, you are not experienced enough to succeed at RfA (see
WP:NOTNOW). You have a lot of philosophical analogies and insight in the reply on my talk page, and I hate to break it to you (although it was an interesting read), there isn't supposed to be much of that by becoming an admin. The administrator's job on Wikipedia is equal to that of a janitor in that we just clean up messes. And BTW, in order to delete an image you uploaded to Commons, you would have to be an admin at Commons.
Eagles
24/7
(C) 19:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, I won't delete it, but don't say I didn't warn you if/when your RfA does not go to plan. You may want to look at other unsuccessful RfAs just from this month to see how high the standards are here:
Wikipedian2 2,
Wilbysuffolk,
ZooPro 4,
Rehman 3, and
SilverSoul91911. Here is the only successful RfA from this month and you may also want to peruse it as well:
Salvio giuliano. To put things in perspective, you currently have 186 edits to your name, while at
my successful RfA, I had over 17,000 edits.
Eagles
24/7
(C) 01:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Since you used an analogy, I'll use one, too. For the part of my reply you did not understand, think of adminship as a presidency for a second. You are running for office, but you have no political experience. You have never been a senator, or representative, or even mayor. Will anyone vote for you based solely on what you say you will do? Probably not. See
WP:TRANSCLUDE for a detailed explanation as to what that term means here. Again, I suggest you not run, but of course it is entirely up to you.
Eagles
24/7
(C) 01:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Message added 00:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Message added 16:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey, the Talk page on the article is pretty crowded. I was hoping we could address the neutrality issue together. I'd like to know your concerns so that I can address the issue and you can remove the tags. Could you elaborate on it? Fortibus ( talk) 16:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Please use high quality references per WP:MEDRS such as review articles or major textbooks. Note that review articles are NOT the same as peer reviewed articles. A good place to find medical sources is TRIP database Thanks.
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
(confused: Hepatology 25 pp638-642 is a review article?) Createangelos ( talk) 01:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
| This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
Hi,
I tried to nominate Richard_William_Paul for deletion, but the line I added seems to be in a strange place, I hope I have not corrupted the entire deletion log somehow! Can you check for me? -- Createangelos ( talk) 16:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
- No. you haven't mucked things up, but to nominate a page you have to do more than just put an entry in that log list. I have removed it, so that you are now back at square one and can start again. The instructions are at WP:AFDHOWTO. Ping me (any time in the next 2 hours or so) if you need help. JohnCD ( talk) 19:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
What is that rubbish you added to Collective animal behavior about? It raises questions about your competency, and whether you should be editing here at all. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 21:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
(my reply on Epipelagic's page):Hi Epipelagic,
It was indeed rubbish, thanks for deleting it! I found another link http://www.math.chalmers.se/~olleh/U18.pdf however Google Translate will not translate it.
I hope yr revert was for the best reasons (bec it was rubbish and not bec you're not npov).
The criticism in the Swedish reference may be better; it seems that at one time the subject of collective animal behaviour was considered by a few practising zoologists and mathematicians to be based on the discredited 'systems theory,' while a proponent writes "my primary vision for the future is the further use of technology and mathematics for finally doing ‘systems biology’. "
OK so what do you advise, myself going on a single-handed intellectual quest to learn all this stuff? I wish you'd left that stub in place. Comment please. Createangelos ( talk) 22:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
PS I have to say, I was a little apprehensive seeing in recent talk page discussions that someone accused you of thinking that rivers constitute swarm intelligence -- but was quite reassured to learn that the idea is that nature can bring advances to the subject of computer science, not the other way around. Well done, I'm genuinely impressed. So now how about some comments about how to proceed with the fact that 'collective animal behaviour' promotes what seems to be a single theory and is missing any criticism section....Createangelos (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- I have replied to this on the article's talk page -- Epipelagic ( talk) 19:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I noticed you have contributed to articles on Broadcom Corporation and/or Broadcom Limited. Just a quick note that there is a discussion here about whether or not Broadcom should be a disambiguation page or refer solely to Broadcom Corporation. Cheers! Talk to SageGreenRider 17:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Greetings! I noticed that you've contributed to articles on Broadcom Corporation, Avago Technology, and/or the new merged entity Broadcom Limited in the past. I'm pinging you to see if you wanted to add an opinion to a deletion debate on a disambiguation page (Broadcom (disambiguation)). If so, the debate is here. Thanks! Talk to SageGreenRider 23:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.In addition to the discretionary sanctions described above the Arbitration Committee has also imposed a restriction which states that you cannot make more than one revert on the same page in the same 24 hour period on all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, or agricultural chemicals, broadly construed and subject to certain exemptions.
- You've already been directed to the GMO RfC, so this template is just to let you know that the overall topic also has other restrictions to it (and is a tricky topic for those new to it to get involved in). Kingofaces43 ( talk) 00:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Could I ask for your vote on whether the total individual child sexual abuse allegations against Michael Jackson should be noted on his Wiki page? Regards, Hammelsmith ( talk) 06:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Could I ask for you to submit a vote on the Talk page please? There are some issues today. Regards, Hammelsmith ( talk) 20:02, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm so so sorry to bother you again, but if you could offer Partytemple & I an opinion to launch from, it would help our stalemate. Cheers & Regards Hammelsmith ( talk) 02:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
|
| Hello! Voting in the
2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All
eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Should not be altered once they have been replied to. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Doug Weller talk 14:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
A community discussion has authorised the use of
general sanctions for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 (
COVID-19).
The specific details of these sanctions are described
here.
Doug Weller talk 14:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Do not speculate on criminal behavior. Your exit summary about the vehicle was fine until your thought it appropriate to suggest he was committing a crime with zero evidence or sources.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
EvergreenFir (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
|
| Hello! Voting in the
2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All
eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
|
| Hello! Voting in the
2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All
eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
I added my own suggestion for a "Wrongful Conviction Belief's" section. It appears that your suggestions did not gain traction. Is it worth another try given that Ziegler put out the ultimate summary with his With The Benefit of Hindsight podcast? And Dr. Spanier's book is also helpful but he was certainly not forceful enough. Dr. Spanier's take down of the Freeh report was quite good. Anyhow, I have no clue as to protocols etc. on Wikipedia. I just want to state I thought your summary was excellent and there definitely needs to be a wrongful conviction section. Wikinovice1 ( talk) 20:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, a judge is thinking about the issues as we write, at this very moment. One thing is, Wikipedia can be sharply ironic. The section about subsequent accusations which says something like that 'one source' says Sandusky was trafficking porn, etc, are like what on Reddit are called 'crickets.'
- I actually have some correspondence with Andreozzi from the time of the trial. It is strangely paradoxical, as he writes in response to questions I never asked.
- I tend to object to Lindsay and Barden taking an adversarial position or talking about corruption. This is my current public position about the trial and the role of media:
- ------------(begin quote)---------------------
- I do understand that, in for example a case of a defendant charged with violent use of a weapon, it is possible to describe the forensic and biological, or even scientific evidence, such as DNA evidence, very clearly, and to write decisions which, when reported by journalists later, can include some elements of unmistakable fact. And, almost always, I have a sense that there is some legal mechanism by which the facts of the case, at this basic, measurable, biological level, are implicitly agreed by both parties.
- It would be, just, awfully unsatisfactory for a decision to be written which said, for example, that a witness said that a suspect has stabbed a victim through the pancreas with an 8 inch serrated knife, causing insulin shock, while the defense says, the victim is fine, has never been stabbed, and has an intact pancreas.
- Depending on the jury findings, the subsequent reporting could include mistruth, unless the decision were complete and clear in its explanation.
- In the case of the Commonwealth vs Sandusky, the facts of the case were very clearly established, in the original trial, in Dersham's report about victim 1 (AF), in school reports, later in what the mother of AF wrote in a published book, what is in the Moulton report, and what was even reported in the press by Sara Ganim, that among other intimacies, Jerry Sandusky had repeatedly put his mouth on AF's lower stomach above the waistband, and had put his hand upon AF's back below the waistband, and had telephoned the then child many times and spoken with him.
- Leaving aside for the moment a notion that other un-admitted activities may have taken place, these particular activities are remarkable in that they were repeatedly agreed by all parties to have taken place.
- The Costas interview may be deemed a confession that these activities were committed along with a 'love to be around young people'.
- Regarding journalism, you may not remember, but Andreozzi very faithfully reported his client's position to the media. While charged with obtaining the best settlement for his client, he was transparent about how his client was testifying on behalf of the oral sex which had occurred to AF, and which he was informed about during the interview which was tape recorded in Mr. Andreozzi's benificent presence. This is to protect anyone else from the thrusting and forceful wrestling moves or rape which had not, though, occurred to himself.
- Now to my main point, I think that Chris Barden would commit a serious violation if he interpreted the emails among Fina and other prosecutors as what he called pornography. They were things like playboy. The hypothesis that Cleland wanted a conviction is as wrong as Cleland's protestation of innocence about it is right. In fact, McGettigan had made it clear that there will be no specific accusation of an action of abuse occurring at any definable time. This to Joe Amendola, and maybe to Cleland, surely to me and the public, seemed then to be a rising lava well of innuendo, with no way to stop it, which threatened Jerry Sandusky's right to a fair trial. Cleland said that, he said, Jerry Sandusky has a right to a timely trial.
- The issue about the playboy type of 'porn' is that it equates nakedness with sexuality; and some people like Feudale said in their correspondence, Sandusky is obviously a terrible person preying on children for sexual reasons. But none of the main players were corrupt like that. For Lindsay to say that Cleland writing that the defense has not found valid grounds of appeal was not a message to his successor, it was the truth, and a truth the defense needed to hear.
- A possibility is that some of the confirmation bias Barden writes about may be because paedophiles do exist, and while their condition may not affect their life, it may affect their judgement. It is an agreed fact of the case that Sandusky when accompanied by a boy usually had his free hand on the boy's knee, but never anywhere else. A car driver might think, this is safer than wrapped around the shoulders, in case of an emergency, the hand can be brought to the wheel. But a biological paedophile might be distracted by their condition and attribute a motive based not on proximity to the steering wheel but proximity to the main body of the child.
- This too, for the focus on the mouth on the stomach of AF and others, when it was less often on the stomach than other places.
- Regarding the original AG, campaigning for governor, he said he has a record of convicting suspected paedophiles. One needn't search for secret corruption of any secret conspiracy, I think throughout everyone has been honest and done their best to be good.
- I want to reiterate, I am not writing about law, I am writing about the way decisions are written and how the wording of decisions affects journalism.
- It was the opinion of Amendola that a protracted trial would be unable to bring justice in the face of a lava tide of journalistic condemnation. I don't think the jury read what the journalists were writing, but they the jury were overwhelmed by a wave of disgust in reaction to an incomplete apprehension of what journalists were writing.
- It would be very wrong to allow anyone to frame the debate as adversarial or originating in corruption or bad faith, this would only perpetuate the inaccuracy of the understanding of the reporting.
- ----------(end quote)--------------------------------------------
- I wouldn't object to you trying a 'wrongful conviction' section. It couldn't hurt anything to be bold, you might learn something. At worst someone will revert your edits and explain why. Createangelos ( talk) 22:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)