User talk:Sallicio/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

COI

Hmm - then you don't work as a Deputy Sheriff in Prince Georges County, and don't know Michael Jackson? Tedickey (talk) 20:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

We're done with sarcasm. Sarcasm breeds hostility which is not tolerated on this site. If you have something to say, say it. If I have done something in error, explain (without sarcasm) why, and if I agree, I will correct myself. Check your talk page for verification of me owninup to something I have done wrong. So try to stay calm and don't instigate hostilities. Thank you. Sallicio (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Sallicio

Re: Spam blacklist

See WP:BLACKLIST. This means that a link in the article you are trying to save has been blacklisted as a spam site. It may not be a link you added; it could have been added before it was determined to be a spam site but has not yet been removed. Which article are you getting this warning from? --Tom (talk - email) 21:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Some recently posted links to famousamericans.net on his userpage. That link is on the spam blacklist, which is why you (nor I) can edit the page unless they are removed in the process. --Tom (talk - email) 02:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Copyright Infringement

It may be public information, but it also might have protections or limitations applied to its use (i.e., you can read it, but not use the text word-for-word for commercial use). Public information is different from public domain. When in doubt, it is always better to put things in your own words. --Tom (talk - email) 14:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I would cite it the same way you cite any quotation, by using the ref tags. Try to paraphrase wherever possible. --Tom (talk - email) 04:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome!

Welcome Sallicio/Archive 2

Thank you for joining the Law Enforcement Wikiproject on the English Wikipedia! As you would have guessed we are a group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to law enforcement

Since you now are a member you get to have our userbox or banner on your userpage! To add these use:

{{User WikiprojectPolice}} -- our userbox, or
{{Lawenforcementmember}} -- our member banner.

Here are some more tips to get you started:

Creating articles: See here for articles you can create, but don't forget to add [[Category:Law enforcement]] to the base of the article and our project banner to the talk page of the article using {{WPLE}}
Participate on our talk page: It is highly recommended that you watchlist it. There are also a number of small projects on the talk page as well that may be of interest to you!
Check the bulletin board: For news and information, please read the bulletin board regularly or add it to you user-page using: {{Lawenforcementbulletinboard}}
Improve an article: Click here to find all the really short articles, pick one from that list and improve it. When you are done go to the talk page of that article and removed {{WPLE| class=Stub}} the bit in bold and another editor will be along to see how well you have done and reassess the article to a much higher class.

All members are reminded:

That this project aims for: No vandalism, no conflict and if particular articles in this project are suffering from vandalism, edit wars or talk-page abuse, please add it to the Article Watch List

In a nutshell:

Join, Create & Assess
Members in trouble can go to:

SGGH ^speak! (Project Coordinator)
Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) (Assistant Coordinator)
Or any project coordinator listed on the main project page or members page.

Again, Thank you and Welcome

Thats all right mate, you dont have to thank me. I was looking at your pages you created and contributed to, the pages you have created are full of facts and is to the point - your a credt to the project! Happy Editing!

Police,Mad,Jack —Preceding comment was added at 16:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Bowie State University, Department of Public Safety

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Bowie State University, Department of Public Safety, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Bowie State University, Department of Public Safety. Truthanado (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for teaching me that individual articles for University police forces are acceptable and should be part of Wikipedia. I am glad to see you removed the prod tag, and you also did a good job with the parent Bowie State University article. I did a little research and found a few other similar articles, for example Boston University Police Department. This will help me as I patrol articles in the future. Thanks again. Truthanado (talk) 12:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: PGSO Impala

I may have added the photo, but User:IFCAR is the person who uploaded it. If you would like to add a more accurate picture, feel free to take your own and upload it to the Wikimedia Commons under a free license (presuming you have easy access to one of the cars). --Tom (talk - email) 16:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Fair use images

First of all, feel free to ask as many questions as you like. I will always help new editors.

As for the fair use (or "non-free" as they are now called, since it is more accurate for this site) images, see Wikipedia:Non-free content. Let me explain the rationale behind this. The goal of Wikipedia is to provide free content to everyone, without worry of violating copyright rules for reusing the material. The presence of images that aren't "free" (used by anyone, anywhere, at any time, and for any reason) counters this fundamental philosophy. Where we draw the line, i.e. "How many non-free images should we have?", is actually a hotly-contested issue around here, and many people feel strongly one way or the other.

Using your officers' discretion analogy, some people here are sticklers for enforcing the rules while others see them as flexible. Also, since Wikipedia doesn't have a police force, everyone has the right to enforce the policy as they see fit, not just admins: "while the tools granted to administrators are technical and do not convey authority per se, administrators are people that are entrusted with potentially harmful tools" (Wikipedia:Administrators).

Hammersoft is right (if not entirely diplomatic) that non-free images shouldn't be on userpages, templates, categories, etc. (only the article namespace), and he can remove them if he sees fit. You'll notice that a bot initially removed your images, which means that this idea has a strong enough following for a bot to gain approval to do this automatically. Be sure to read the policies linked to on the bot page as well.

As I said, this is a pretty hotly contested issue. If you want my advice, I'd recommend staying away from it lest the politicking and endless debating drives you insane. That is, of course, unless you like that kind of stuff. Let me know if you still have questions. --Tom (talk - email) 23:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Washington Redskins helmet rightface.png

This is a fair use, copyrighted image. Per Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #9, you can not have such images on your userpage, whether a bot has removed them before or not [1]. This policy is inviolable. Please, if you have questions about the policy, by all means ask, but do not violate the policy again. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Have a look at the image's page. Scroll down to the box that has the big red "C" on it. Read the box in full, and you'll observe that it says it's protected by copyright, and it's use here on Wikipedia is under terms of fair use. Now, moving on to WP:NFCC, which dictates how such material may be used on Wikipedia, item #9 says that such material may only be used in the article namespace. I.e., actual encyclopedia articles. Userpages do not count as such, and thus such images can not be displayed on your userpage. Does that clarify? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Wikimood

You can just use "frustrated". It's a synonym for annoyed. -- Denelson 83 21:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Jacksonville Port Authority

Thanks for your help. I always appreciate assistance. Mgreason (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar awarded to User:Tom

Just glad to be helpful. --Tom (talk - email) 04:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence

Just letting you know that I speedy deleted the article you created, Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence. It did not meet our inclusion criteria a discussed at WP:CORP. One of the main issues is Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found. Since this is a state, not a national or international organization, this criteria needs to be fulfilled. Next, not a single independent, secondary source was cited, and no mention of notability was established. I suggest you read through that page and figure out if you believe the organization fits the shoes for what we usually include, and try to find sources independent of the organization which establish notability. Hope this explains the deletion. If you have any questions, or need help, feel free to contact me. Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that the article was "barely out of regs", as I noted above. Here is what I have done, I've recreated the article in a sandbox in your own user space. See User talk:Sallicio/Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence. You are free to work up the article as a rough draft. Once you feel the article is ready to go live again, I strongly urge you to seek a second opinion about whether the article meets WP:CORP or not. You are free to solicit opinions from a place like Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance), Wikipedia:Help desk or Wikipedia talk:Notability. Hope this helps.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You quoted a pretty relevant part of the guideline in your response to me. Multiple, non-trivial, independent reliable sources need to be found, and this is especially important because the scope of the organization is in essence local. The article was simply one sentence describing it, one article quoting the mission, and a list of publications (which IMO isn't really what wikipedia is, per the spirit of WP:NOT). In the future, you may want to consider working up future articles in a sandbox, or even in a word processing program. Keep in mind that once an article is published on wikipedia, it is live and should meet all standards. Rough drafts in the main article space are frowned upon (and can lead to users filling the header with clean up tags, or worse, the article gets deleted). Anyway, again I hope this helps explain things more. Good luck.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Speedy deletions and Catholic Reparations

Regarding your deleted article, I think Andrew c sums up the situation fairly well above. Wikipedia can't include everything, and a program that is somewhat obscure doesn't seem to meet the criteria for inclusion. As for Reparation (Catholic Church), you'll notice that at the bottom of the article it says the text is from the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913, which is public domain. --Tom (talk - email) 00:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Public domain materials can be used any way you please. Once a work enters the public domain, no one holds rights to them. As for the law question, I'm not sure which you are speaking of. --Tom (talk - email) 01:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are quoting and properly attributing, then it shouldn't be a problem. Just keep the quote as short as necessary, and use the <ref> tags to cite where you got it from. --Tom (talk - email) 04:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:Question

I'm terribly sorry, I didn't mean to remove your question. I was reverting a string of vandalism to the page, and I missed the edit. I've restored the question to the talk page. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 04:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Frostburg State University Police Department

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Frostburg State University Police Department, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Frostburg State University Police Department. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bowie State University, Department of Public Safety

An editor has nominated Bowie State University, Department of Public Safety, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bowie State University, Department of Public Safety and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 01:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppet

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Sallicio for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. L. Pistachio (talk) 09:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

In regard to your suggestion that I am taking your opposition to the article deletion personally, I am not at all. I'm just acting on what I see as a clear violation of Wikipedia policy. Whether the other account is you, or is a friend acting under your direction, that is a violation of the sockpuppet policy either way. --L. Pistachio (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: you deleted my sandbox?

Hi, you tagged your sandbox for deletion yourself, as seen in this this revision. I've undeleted it anyway, so no harm done. :-) east.718 at 20:45, January 31, 2008

Re: help me save my article!

Actually, I agree with the nominator. The department doesn't seem to be notable enough to warrant its own article, though I don't see any problem with it having a section in the Bowie State article. It isn't enough for an article to be well cited/written; it also has to be about a topic worthy of inclusion. As for the sock puppet accusation, I also agree with the nominator. At a cursory glance, it would seem that you have some explaining to do. --Tom (talk - email) 21:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD/Puppet issue

Hello. I don't know if the third party comments on this matter have changed your viewpoint at all, or if you still think I'm on some crazy vendetta. I assure you that was never what this was about.

If you didn't realize that recruiting a brand new user to your side in a discussion is not an accepted practice, and do realize it now, then I don't think there is anything else to say about the issue. If that is the case, and if it's agreeable to you, I think the matter should be considered closed. Please let me know if you agree. --L. Pistachio (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks. --L. Pistachio (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

All complete?

I've closed the WP:SSP case and refactored the deletion debate to take the sting out of it. The above posts can be deleted or archived by being copied-and-pasted (to User talk:Sallicio/Archive 1 for instance) at your choice. Or just left. Cheers. ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 22:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)