User talk:Robertawillard

Welcome!

Hello, Robertawillard, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Joseph m ford, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Starting an article
• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  The Determinator p t c 16:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Joseph m ford

The article Joseph m ford has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. The Determinator p t c 16:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your feedback

Hi, Robertawillard! I noticed on the editing feedback board that you're having trouble with a new article you want to create. I'm just a beginner and I don't know if I can help you. But I know where you can go for help! Click on this: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions, and then on the line that says Ask a question >>. This will open a question box. Explain your problem with some details and somebody who knows what they're doing will come along very quickly to help you out. They will leave a notice on your talk page when they've replied. Click on it and it will take you back to the Teahouse for the answer.

The Teahouse is a new space on Wikipedia where beginners can ask questions and get simple, friendly help. I've used it since I started a few months ago and love it. I don't think you'll be disappointed.

Tlqk56 (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 

Have you visited the tutorial? If you have questions, you may also contact me at my talk page. SwisterTwister talk 03:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Joseph m ford has been reverted.
Your edit here to Joseph m ford was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmHaBfhnuBw) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 01:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Dearborn

I have reverted (removed) your changes to this article as part of the text appears to be a copyright violation of the Camp Dearborn website. Also you claim to have taken certain photographs in the 1950s and added them to the article. Is this actually correct? Rmhermen (talk) 01:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The photos were my grandfathers Joseph M. Ford and were given to me by him. I own all the rights to the photos.

Photographs are copyrighted to the person who took them (or the business that employed the photographer). This copyright continues generally for 70 years after the death of the photographer. If you own a copy of a professional photograph you do not usually own the copyright. At least part of the text you added to the article was a direct copypaste from the Camp Dearborn website which is copyrighted by the City.

Wikipedia is in trying to produce free and reusable information in the form of an encyclopedia so we have to be very careful about copyrights. Learning all the rules and processes is a bit difficult. Rmhermen (talk) 02:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no difference in copyright law between a personal photograph and a professional one. If you did not personally take the photo, then someone else created the copyright. You have claimed that you created the photos on the upload page. This copyright rests with the person for life and passes to their estate after their death for 70 years. If the photos have ever been published or are owned by an organization, different rules apply. See [[1]] for a simple chart of various copyright situations in the U.S. If you did not create the photo, you will need to correct the upload page with the name of the photographer and probably provide some evidence that you own the copyright. Rmhermen (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply and a suggestion

Please use "show preview" (located next to "save page") as this will allow you change your contributions before submitting. This will also prevent edit conflicts and exhausted servers. As for your message at my talk page, I haven't tagged Joseph M. Ford for proposed deletion. Additionally, the logs show Joseph M. Ford hasn't been tagged by other users. SwisterTwister talk 03:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page was listed for proposed deletion by Determinator as the link above in this page notes. Rmhermen (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Dearborn reverts

Your edits are rapidly becoming contentious. Please note our policy WP:3RR. Your edit is not an improvement as I explained in the edit summary. Additionally names are not capitalized in infoboxes, map coordinates are not enter when no map is present, the external link does not need to be present three times in the article, etc. Rmhermen (talk) 14:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Dearborn

With all due respect, what are you even doing? The article is getting progressively worse as you continue to edit it. Specs112 t c 15:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Dearborn, Michigan

Article forking is not allowed. I have had to nominate this article for deletion. Perhaps you could find help at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user or Wikipedia:Teahouse. Rmhermen (talk) 17:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Robertawillard. You have new messages at Specs112's talk page.
Message added 17:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Specs112 t c 17:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as seen at User talk:Specs112, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Gtwfan52 (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't hate you.

And I'm not singling out your articles or trying to prevent you from sharing the information. I'm doing the sort of essential maintenance work that keeps Wikipedia a reliable encyclopedia. I'm giving you a cookie to make you feel better and encourage you to keep editing. And don't personally attack Rmhermen and me, mmmkay? Specs112 t c 19:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem but just so you know I have actual real information regarding your park. Plus the photos you contested I have a signed letter from Alex Pilch the Director of Research and Information Department City of Dearborn written in 1953 stating that all the photos I have in my possession can be used from that point forward for whatever. Don't worry I will not uploading or making any changes to any of your pages. Here is the original description and the hard facts of the history of Camp Dearborn in case you were wondering.

"240-acre ideal year-around city camp with two streams running through it and a 21-acre hard-bottom spring-fed lake. This land is mostly high and dry, wooded and rolling. The several expensively constructed buildings on the completely fenced city camp are nearly worth its cost, according to the city engineer. Only Councilmen Ray F. Parker, Joseph M. Ford, Martin C. Griffith and Howard A. Ternes vote for the resolution creating the Dearborn Camp Commission, which is composed of fine outstanding public-spirited and civic-minded citizens, upon whose unanimous recommendation, plus that of the Recreation Commission, the city camp was purchased. In Oakland County, near Milford, and only 35 miles away, it is exclusively for local citizens, and particularly for Dearborn boys an girls, including Cub Scouts, Girl Scouts, Camp Fire Girls and the Boys' Club.

This description was printed in the local papers. Happy Writing. Robertawillard (talk) Robertawillard

Photo copyright

Please see WP:DCM for the procedure for getting the owner's permission to use images registered with Wikipedia. The fact that you claim to have a paper allowing the use of the images is not verifiable by us. If the copyright owner complains we have no standing based on a unverified person on the internet claiming they have permission. Warning, the procedure is unpleasant. Rmhermen (talk) 00:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice but the photos I am talking about I do not plan on using for Wikipedia and for this reason verifying them does not matter. The photos I have the permission letter from are the Camp Dearborn photos you deleted earlier in the week. The other photos in my possession that I have used are all my own personal photos that I own. ~~ robertawillard

You must establish you control the rights to any picture you upload. To date you have uploaded pictures claiming you took them in the form but later claiming that you inherited them? Photos can't be "own work" if you were not the photographer. Rmhermen (talk) 13:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the law in-case you are not familiar with it.

How long does a copyright last? The term of copyright for a particular work depends on several factors, including whether it has been published, and, if so, the date of first publication. As a general rule, for works created after January 1, 1978, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years. For an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first. For works first published prior to 1978, the term will vary depending on several factors. To determine the length of copyright protection for a particular work, consult chapter 3 of the Copyright Act (title 17 of the United States Code). More information on the term of copyright can be found in Circular 15a, Duration of Copyright, and Circular 1, Copyright Basics.

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-duration.html

The photos I have used are well with in the copy right law and I have full ownership of them. If you could please back of with your allegations it would be appreciated. ~~ robertawillard

I am well acquainted with copyright law and how Wikipedia deals with it. The fact that the images are copyrighted is the problem. If the images were public domain (not copyrighted), the situation would be much easier. However the images are too recent for that. If you had taken the images, you could easily release them under the appropriate license. You have incorrectly asserted (by checking "Own work") that that you personally took the images you uploaded (which you have said is not true in your talk page comments) and you are also claiming that you own the copyright (which you have not produced evidence of). On Wikipedia we require material to be released under a free-reuse license, which it cannot be if you have not provided correct authorship information, whether (and where/when) the images were published and how you have legal control. The fact that own a copy, even the only copy of an image does not equate to the fact you own the intellectual property/copyright to it. At a start you should add the name and death date of the photographer for each image. But I don't see any way to do this licensing properly without going through the OTRS system I mentioned in the link above (WP:DCM). Rmhermen (talk) 20:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure you fully understand. The photos are not copy righted, they are not copies, and I own all the rights to them. How much clearer can I make myself. The photos were taken by my family members. Also, when I checked the part that says I own all the rights to the photos. I did not check that I actually shot the photos. The photos you are talking about were Camp Dearborn photos and those have been removed per your request and I already said those were not taken by my family members. However, I am still protected by the law even if I wanted to post those photos.

You are way out of line with your accusations. Can you please provide proof that the photos you are talking about are copy righted? You can not because they are my personal family photos. I am sorry that for what ever reason you keep attacking my page. You are not a Wiki authority and do not dictate who owns my photos. You are some random person who has taken a personal grudge against me and the pages I am developing because you did not agree with the changes I made on one of "your" pages even though it made it better. I ask you again please just let it go and move on to something else and stop with your false allegations and harassment. Robertawillard (talk)[[robertawillard]

In response to your feedback

I'm sorry the notes on the article made you sad. There's a couple of reasons why we prefer articles to reference reliable secondary sources. Firstly, primary sources or sources affiliated to the subject are more likely to contain bias and less likely to contain a balanced point of view which Wikipedia seeks to maintain. Secondly, the existence of secondary sources about the subject helps to demonstrate that the topic is noteworthy. If nobody who isn't affiliated with the subject has written about that subject, then chances are that nobody not affiliated with that subject would want to read about it either, so the article isn't noteworthy enough to warrant its own article on Wikipedia. In order to add some references to the article, why not try running a Google search for it and see what comes up? Or read more on the links given in the notices on the article.

Don't be discouraged. These notices are given to help improve articles, not to shut them down. Keep trying and maybe you will produce an excellent article.

 TOW  talk  21:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 

I will be looking at the notes suggestions on my page to make it better in the future. How many references are required to make a page valid. It seems the more valid references (9 so far) I add the more one person keeps attacking my page. Are news articles not considered references? If they are not why is there a template for them? Why are random websites more creditable than a news article? which in fits your secondary source perfectly. How do I put a formal complaint toward a wiki editor? Robertawillard (talk) robertawillard

P.S. Why is the person who keeps critiquing my page Rmhermen empowered to do so when their pages are way worse than mine and have poor references?

In response to your feedback

Sorry that you have found the experience awful. Is there any way that you think Wikipedia could give you a better experience?

—Tom Morris (talk) 23:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 

My complaint is that I spent hours and hours starting and updating a page that was quickly deleted or changed. Here are my suggestions:

1. Issue new members a probationary status where any work that is contributed must be approved by senior member. 2. To prevent rogue deleting and editing any page deletions or changes must be confirmed by at least two people before they can take place 3. Offer a mandatory tutorial and trial quiz before any new members can edit or start pages 4. If senior members are going to critique pages they should be fixing issues or offering step by step solutions not a link to a complicated tutorial.

After a painful and time consuming week I am starting to learn the ropes but even then I only know about 10% of what I should know. It seems to me the end all end all for Wiki is references. I think references are important but even references are subjective to the person judging them. Robertawillard (talk) robertawillard

I can tell you that (1) and (3) have been discussed in the community quite a bit, but people tend to reject them because we feel there shouldn't really be any burden on new members to have to jump through hoops. If you are creating new pages, you can submit them via WP:AFC rather than directly creating new pages. You tend to get more feedback and an opportunity to respond to the feedback rather than just deletion.

As for "rogue deleting", what you suggest sort of happens. When a page is nominated for speedy deletion, usually a non-admin nominates it and an admin checks before deleting. If you think the admin has erred in deleting the page, feel free to bring it up with them or another admin.

As for (4), that is ideally what should happen. I'm sorry if it didn't in your case. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Robertawillard, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Sarah (talk) 00:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your feedback

Hi! Would you mind providing more background information about your problem? I might be able to help you.

 TOW  talk  21:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 

In response to your feedback

Would you mind explaining what exactly you want to do? I will be very happy to help you.

 TOW  talk  21:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 

I have photos and images that I would like to add to a page. I personally own the photos that were taken by family members. The photos and images are over 70 years old and I want to show I own these photos. I have already uploaded them to wikicommonshare. I want to know which wikicommonshare template I use to show ownership and that all the copy rights are mine. Also, where do I post the template once I have added the proper information. Robertawillard (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)robertawillard[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]