|
User talk:Wadefrazier
Welcome!Hello, Wadefrazier, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 ask your question and then place  Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC) Orphaned non-free image File:The Political Economy of Human Rights, volume two.jpg Thanks for uploading File:The Political Economy of Human Rights, volume two.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media). Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC) Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC) Conflict of interest
In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID). Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC) Seeing problems in your other edits...I see that the Herman page is not the first time you've worked on behalf of an article's subject. For future reference, this is not acceptable at all. At Talk:Heinz Haber, you cite your personal website as a source. This all suggests that either you do not understand or are not familiar with some of our policies and guidelines:
In short, all Wikipedia does is summarize professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources. It is not a place to promote one's personal views (whether positive or negative) of any subject (living or otherwise). Ian.thomson (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC) Copyright violations
Are you going to erase the Wikiquote page, too, and make it a clean sweep?Heck, why not go for all of it: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Edward_S._Herman Wow, is all I have to say. Putting quotes on Wikiquote is OK, but putting them at Wikipedia is a violation? Sorry that I am not an attorney. A disinformation specialist (Cross) gets free reign. Would somebody at least do something about disinformation spin that Cross did on the censorship of CRV? I had my own version published before I published at Wikipedia, because I suspected something like this would happen.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wadefrazier (talk • contribs)
Regarding off-site recruitment of your friends
Brian's bioI have not been addressed with such condescension since secondary school. What I learned in secondary school or so was that plagiarism was passing off somebody else’s work as one’s own. I guess the logic is that I am passing of my own writings as my own. I am not sure what the crime is there, but many years ago, on my home page, I gave away all rights to my writings, so, it seems that I wasn’t really plagiarizing myself after all. But I am not an attorney, so maybe there is a nuance that I am missing. Mr. Admin, what you did to my work on Ed I can live with, but what you did to Brian’s biography I ask you to restore, as my site is not copyrighted material.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wadefrazier (talk • contribs)
Orphaned non-free image File:The Political Economy of Human Rights, volume two.jpgThanks for uploading File:The Political Economy of Human Rights, volume two.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media). Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC) ArbCom 2018 election voter message Hello, Wadefrazier. 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) Ed Herman's bioEver since my Wikipedia contributions were erased, by using tortured and legalistic logic that even Wikipedia finally admitted was invalid, it has kind of been amusing to see what is happening at Ed's bio, which is actually an example of the propaganda model in operation. That Noam's own predictions of the propaganda model are censored is like censoring Einstein's predictions of relativity theory. This is very true, and I appreciated your popping into my page to let me know. I'm going to eventually move along with doing more to help improve the page; you're right that it's an example of the model itself once again successfully predicting flak-without-engagement. CraigBurley (talk) 13:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC) Ed Herman's bio – the continuing sagaCraig, I have to admire your initiative and savoir faire, but you are up against it. For starters, the editors whose “consensus” you seek includes an editor whose understanding of Ed’s work is so poor that he recently reverted the change to try to reinstate the fact that the propaganda model actually has five filters. Heck, Philip Cross will likely not even need to roll out of bed on this one, like he was not involved when my work was erased under false pretenses, about 100 hours of work, mind you. And as an FYI, when a pupil of mine protested that treatment, Wikipedia banned him, once again under false pretenses. I am very familiar with kangaroo court behaviors that make this all pale to insignificance, so this is kind of amusing, if obscene, and they are virtually all anonymous cowards, as usual. You are actually the only real person in this latest charade, and my guess is that at least one has intelligence connections ("Cross" almost certainly does), but with all the anonymity, you will never know it. You might say that they don't play fair. It is rather surreal, and I’ll say it again – all that you are trying to do is describe the model’s predictions, which is no different from trying to describe relativity’s predictions, and Noam is the only person alive who can be credibly compared to Einstein. That Wikipedia is threatening you for trying to add such information is one more sad piece of evidence of how far Wikipedia has fallen. While you are the model of comportment, on your take of Gitlin’s black eulogy of Ed, others are not as charitable. I regard Gitlin as near the Chris Hitchens end of the spectrum, with Ed’s other bogus critics. However, as you note, he is at least a “notable” historian, but the same cannot be said of Sharp, Ear, or Hoare, whose libelous comments and references grace Ed’s Wikipedia bio. Best wishes on your adventures in trying to make Ed’s bio a little more credible. Wadefrazier (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC) Wade Frazier
Mr. Thomson, mentioning Chomsky's predictions generated by his own co-authored model is not "hagiography," and it would help explain the focus in Ed's bio on "nefarious" bloodbaths (as well as the libelous misrepresentations of his work in the Wikipedia article, which you oddly don't seem to care about), which actually conforms to the model, and your accusations are as unfounded and wild as ever. Wadefrazier (talk) 01:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)Wade Frazier
Please ignore the shoving by Mr ThomsonWade, I've noted the harassment here by Mr Thomson, who also came around my page to give me a snotty and spiteful talking-to. I suggest you ignore him. I'll get on with working on the Ed Herman page, where people are starting to work together properly now, and thanks for your reply. CraigBurley (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC) ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
May 2023
My Final Comments for nowI wrote something today, but do not plan to comment on this situation very often. Wikipedia's behavior really says it all. |
Portal di Ensiklopedia Dunia
