|
User talk:VinceLeibowitzWelcome!Hello, VinceLeibowitz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Reference errors on 21 October
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC) Copy and pastingWe run "copy and paste" detection software on new edits. One of your edits appear to be infringing on someone else's copyright. See also Wikipedia:Copy-paste. We at Wikipedia usually require paraphrasing. If you own the copyright to this material please follow the directions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials to grant license. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC) http://www.beckleyclub.com/bce-hist-beg.html
October 2016 {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC) VinceLeibowitz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I am not sure why Doc James has determined that the Swiss Avenue article was plagiarized, and I challenge that. My edits were made using primary source material contained in the Dallas Public Library, and I challenge this 100%. I also see you claim there is an issue with the Beckley Club article. Please point out to me specifically what you think is infringing on someone else's copyright, in particular since the information that they have on Beckley Club was taken from another source. I'm glad to make a change, if there is a verbatim sentence, it is possibly because it was left in inadvertently while editing, but without knowing exactly what you are talking about, it is impossible to mount a defense. Furthermore, I am probably Dallas' leading on 1914-1929 and post-World War II subdivision development, with a book on these topics in process. VinceLeibowitz (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC) Decline reason: It is not at present clear that you understand copyright law and how it applies to Wikipedia editing. Please read the material at the policy page Wikipedia:Copyrights and the guideline Wikipedia:Plagiarism before posting another unblock request. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
We have discussed these issues in depth via email, and per that email I have agreed not to write abt myself, and make the necessary modifications to bring these articles in comoliance. VinceLeibowitz (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC) After having discussed this extensively with Doc James, I understand what I need to do moving forward, and the changes that need to be made. We've communicated about this extensively. With that said, I am requesting an admin to please review this block. It is on hold while we wait on some other administrator with greater copyright expertise, but that deals with only one issue of many. I would like to fix the other articles in question while we wait however long it will take for someone to give an answer on the RTHL issue. VinceLeibowitz (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC) Fair use
Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC) My Replies
It is unnecessary for you to use the word "plagiarism," to accuse someone of the act. You have done so and I demand an apology. I let you know that the issue with the Beckley Club article was a piece I left in while editing, and was intending to rephrase or remove that, and simply failed to before finishing. I'd like to correct both. I also noted that the recent sale of 5614 Swiss, regardless of who sold it, is the most recent sale for the neighborhood. I also own the copyright to the photograph for 5614 Swiss Avenue. It is the only photo I can find for which I can control copyright to show a representative current home on Swiss. I'm glad to remove my name as the listing agent, but the facts on the home and what it was listed for are important to the article, as in the 1970s, the neighborhood had essentially become "flop house" status, and prices have increased over time, and this is fully illustrated in the article, and is placed well in context. VinceLeibowitz (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Doc James, is there an update on whether or not you have been able to have another admin look at the copyright issues? I am not sure, given that I've pledged to make the corrections and changes, why we cannot get the block resolved while the issue of the RTHL text use is pending? VinceLeibowitz (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)  A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedians interested in Wood County Texas requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories. If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —swpbT 15:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC) VinceLeibowitz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: After having discussed this extensively with Doc James, I understand what I need to do moving forward, and the changes that need to be made. We've communicated about this extensively. With that said, I am requesting an admin to please review this block. It is on hold while we wait on some other administrator with greater copyright expertise, but that deals with only one issue of many. I would like to fix the other articles in question while we wait however long it will take for someone to give an answer on the RTHL issue. Decline reason: It is not at present clear that you understand copyright law and how it applies to Wikipedia editing. Please read the material at the policy page Wikipedia:Copyrights and the guideline Wikipedia:Plagiarism before posting another unblock request. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Copyright law in the United StatesUnder the terms of the Berne Convention, literary works (including prose displayed in a public place on markers or plaques such as those on display at historic buildings) are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. Exceptions include works of the United States government and of the states of Florida and California. The Beckley Club website is marked ©2004-2014 Beckley Club.com. All Rights Reserved. The web pages of the Texas Historical Commission are released for non-commercial use only, which is not a liberal enough license for you to copy the material here and is not equivalent to the material being released into the public domain. The fact that you've seen the prose reproduced in guide books does not prove it has been released into the public domain. Regarding fair use: Wikipedia is stricter than most other websites in permitting prose for fair use. Our non-free content policy only permits non-free content when there's no free alternative. In the case of prose, there's a freely licensed alternative: prose that we write ourselves. All material you add to this wiki needs to be written in your own words. Regarding your request for unblock, I am declining your unblock request for now, because it is not at present clear that you understand copyright law and how it applies to Wikipedia editing. Please read the material at the policy page Wikipedia:Copyrights and the guideline Wikipedia:Plagiarism before posting another unblock request. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC) VinceLeibowitz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I have already read both of the Wikipedia uides requested, so I make the request again. I have made it abundantly clear I understand the issues and am ready to fix them and no make these mistskes oib forward. Can we please remove this block? I really don't know what else to do yo further note that I fully understand, Diannaa. Decline reason: Procedural decline: You are no longer blocked. See below. Huon (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. VinceLeibowitz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: As I have stated multiple times, I have read both of the Wikipedia guides in question. In addition, after extensive discussions with Doc James, I am in full understanding of the issues with the articles, and am ready to correct those issues. In addition, as Diannaa requested, I have already read both of these guides during this discussion. At this point, other than offering to take a quiz over the two user guides in question, which I am happy to do, I am unclear as to why this block remains, and would request that an Administrator engage in some sort of dialogue other than, "it is not at present clear" whether or not I understand the rules and copyright issues. I'm not sure how to make it more abundantly clear that I fully understand these and other rules and am prepared to abide by those rules at all times. I would greatly appreciate it if this request could be addressed. Thank you. VinceLeibowitz (talk) 17:07, 27 October 2016 (UTC) Decline reason: Procedural decline: You are no longer blocked. See below. Huon (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.  VinceLeibowitz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: In addition to the other items cited, at this point, I am requesting the block be removed because I believe the block is in violation of Wikipedia's blocking policy, to wit: blocks should not be used as punishment against users found at Wikipedia:BlockingPolicy. Based on the statement of Diannaa which was, "I am declining your unblock request for now, because it is not at present clear that you understand copyright law and how it applies to Wikipedia editing," it is clear to me that no attempt is being made to determine what I do understand after reading both guides, as no other editor is in my head. I've offered to illustrate my knowledge of those items to no avail. At this point, I can only believe that editor Diannaa's remark is highly punitive, as it is impossible for another person to determine what is and is not my understanding of copyright law. I find the statement highly punitive. VinceLeibowitz (talk) 17:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC) Accept reason: Vince and I have discussed the block by email. We have agreed that paraphrasing will always occur, Vince will not write about himself or stuff he has sold / is selling, and legal comments directed at other editors will not be made. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC) Continued copyviosSo the long Swiss Avenue, Dallas article is back. At a glance, I can see that the content pointing to Ref 14 is lifted straight from the spreadsheet; the Frank Lloyd Wright paragraph is lifted direct from waymarking.com. I have reasonable suspicion that had I access to refs 4, 9 and 17 I would find substantial plagiarism. I don't think it's good enough yet. Vince - your comments please; and ping @Doc James: & @Diannaa: for their thoughts. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I find your statements about the sources at 4, 9, & 17 highly offensive. If you had read the full thread, I believe you'd have realized that the text you were calling out was RTHL text given the source. I didn't realize I hadn't removed those in previous edits. As for your request, electronic copies of this media do not exist. If, however, you'd like to pick one cite from each book, I'm glad to visit the main branch of the Dallas Public Library and make copies of the pages in each thesis for you to view--mainly because I find your comment so highly offensive. So, please pick, essentially, a house from each one of the three thesis and I'll send you the pages on those for your review. Further, if you will look at my contribs page and check the History section of the Wood County, Texas article, you can view an online journal article via JSTOR and compare that text with my edits (related to the archeo discoveries. My intent in editing isn't to violate copyright, even though this article has taken some time to clear up. It was also my first significant submission here. Also, the Dallas Public Library has duplicate copies of these thesis, so you can ask your library to send them to yours via interlibrary loan if you like. You can also order copies of the thesis from UMI microforms. VinceLeibowitz (talk) 02:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC) VinceLeibowitz (talk) 02:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Towns in Wood County TexasA tag has been placed on Towns in Wood County Texas requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason: Inappropriate list. Subject of list way too narrow to be either notable or useful. Wouldn't even make a good navbox template
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time. If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. John from Idegon (talk) 03:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Portal:Wood County TexasA tag has been placed on Portal:Wood County Texas requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section P2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a portal based on a topic for which there is no non-stub header article, and there are not at least three non-stub articles detailing subject matter that would be appropriate to discuss under the title of that portal. If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. John from Idegon (talk) 04:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC) Nomination of Colleges & Universities In Wood County Texas for deletion A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Colleges & Universities In Wood County Texas is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colleges & Universities In Wood County Texas until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. CapitalSasha ~ talk 04:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC) Proposed deletion of Ghost Towns & Former Settlements In Wood County Texas The article Ghost Towns & Former Settlements In Wood County Texas has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons. You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing Speedy deletion nomination of Ghost Towns & Former Settlements In Wood County TexasHello VinceLeibowitz, I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Ghost Towns & Former Settlements In Wood County Texas for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia. If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC) Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC) I noticed you added a banner with this edit stating that the article was "improved during WikiProject United States' "50,000 Challenge". There were three very minor edits in November? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC) Magnolia677 Good morning. Yes, those were minor edits but if you look at the nature of the edits, they improved the article significantly because it was very disjointed with sub-heads for transportation seemingly dropped in, so I moved that section and organized it and added the airports. While I'm planning to make a few more edits to the article, if these existing edits aren't in compliance with the rules of the challenge, I am glad to remove the banner. If I am missing the specifics on how large an edit needs to be, please let me know. Most of my edits are fairly substantial, but when I run across an article that has minor problems, I typically fix those if I am able to. VinceLeibowitz (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale! ArbCom 2017 election voter message Hello, VinceLeibowitz. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC) Re: Thank youIt will indeed be interesting to see how the July list differs. I've been functioning solely on the online list, and it does have differences from the list you initially published. The THC list and how they maintain it can be weird sometimes. Some properties as described are now on empty lots. Others are for buildings burned or demolished but whose markers are preserved in some museum across town from the actual property. A few sites have been relocated to locations completely outside of the counties where they are listed as being. The THC relies on addresses and coordinates as reported by local historical societies. Often, these county societies are composed of blue-haired old ladies who can't differentiate the Arctic from the Antarctic any more easily than they can their left butt cheek from their right. Worse, the THC relies on UTM coordinates rather than latitude and longitude causing these positions to shift over time as new UTM data points are redefined. There are some sites that the THC provides little more than a name with nothing else to signify the location or historical significance of the property. A few I've been able to verify either through online historic site lists by local historical boards in larger counties or through their nomination forms from the 91 of the 254 counties that have provided such forms to the Portal to Texas History website of the University of North Texas Libraries. In the process of updating the list, I've been doing an audit of each county in the state from west to east including both RTHLs and NRHPs as well as trying to provide some sense and order to their corresponding Commons categories, which are always a mess, and looking into individual Wikipedia articles where they exist to fix infobox problems and employ a consistent standard across them all. I've completed over 85% of the states counties, but not listings as I've put off a handful of the state's largest counties with the most historic sites for later. I'm currently working on Tarrant, a county I originally sidestepped months ago, and it is naturally proving to be exceedingly time-consuming. I look forward to finishing it and breezing through some much smaller and easier counties once I finish with it. This has already taken me several months, and will require a few more. Nevertheless, at least I feel I'm beginning to see some light at the end of the tunnel without it being an oncoming train. Fortguy (talk) 04:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC) ArbCom 2018 election voter messageHello, VinceLeibowitz. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) 2019 US Banknote Contest
Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) ArbCom 2019 election voter message
Resources for finding county-level statistics
|
|||||||||||
.png){kind=logo}
Portal di Ensiklopedia Dunia
