User talk:Flyguy649

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Be sure to let me know what article or action you are referring to. Start a talk topic. I will usually respond on this page to any comments left, although I may leave a link on your talk page. Please add this page to your watch list to look for a reply. Help improve Wikipedia! Join Wikipedia:WikiProject Short article clean-up! I am an administrator, and I'll gladly help you if I can.

Testing away account

Just testing the new "away" account. -- Flyguy649^away _talk 01:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd reported the name anyway.

'Vandal-sense tingling' and all that. Frankly, he might as well have had a loudspeaker screaming 'I'M A VANDAL!', though. HalfShadow 18:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I actually saw the name when you reported it there. First contribution wasn't promising, that's for sure! -- Flyguy649 ^talk 18:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandal complaint

why r u reporting my edits? it is not nice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.52.216 (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Right. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 22:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Q-fever

Hi,

Sorry and thanks for your comment and keeping the text.I will do some exercise and place it correct. Now it's to late.

Jean —Preceding unsigned comment added by PlusJean (talk • contribs) 02:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Asymptote Architecture

Hi, I wanted to talk about why the page i created was removed. or at least why the entire page was removed. I spent a long time making that page and for it to be completely remove is not right. How can I make it in compliance? do i need to cite more? thanks - Hz1234 (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Article restored; I should have only reverted the copyvio and not deleted the whole thing. Replied to the rest of the query at User_talk:Hz1234#Asymptote_Architecture. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 22:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi I can get the permission info and can have it sent immediately. i am looking on the history and my entry is removed entirely. Will it be able to be restored? I asked already for permission and received it. they said they are sending in the permission today.

Edit: Actually what form do i send to them. the same orts form with the text? or a link to the page with the text on it? basically how do i link them with the text on the page. thanks - Hz1234 (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually I've never done that myself. I believe the information is contained on the Wikipedia OTRS and WP:COPYREQ pages. I've put the last version in a subpage of your userpage, User:Hz1234/Asymptote Architecture. You can work on any changes there and then copy any changes into the restored Asymptote Architecture article when Wikipedia receives the permission (you will receive a Wikipedia OTRS "ticket" to demonstrate this). Let me know if you have more questions. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 23:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• NOTE: You should not be adding the copyright material to the article until Wikipedia has received permission. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 23:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

PMDrive1061's talk page

Good call on the semi-protect--I was about to do so myself before you beat me to it. I've also started an SPI case--this is obviously not a new user. Blueboy96 04:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

14 attacks in 20 minutes definitely deserves semi-protection! Thanks for tagging the socks and starting the SPI case. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 04:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The SPI case is here. Blueboy96 04:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

St. Louis Globe Democrat page

Hello my name is Tod and I live in St. Louis and a huge fan of media in this city. In December 2009, a new online newspaper started under the name of ST. LOUIS GLOBE-DEMOCRAT. It was started by a former employee of KPLR TV in St. Louis. A new company began under the name of St. Louis Globe-Democrat LLC and online at www.globe-democrat.com The new website is a 24 hour news site serving St. Louis - as an online newspaper. The staff is roughly 30 employees and unknown numerous contributors. This page was accurate for the past month. This evening this page was edited several time (see history). It seems to be someone who is not happy with the new] online version. The new newspaper online and company have had a lot of media coverage. There was naming rights / infringment rights to the Globe Democrat name by an individual in St. Louis that publishes a nostalgic Globe-Democrat newspaper a couple times a year throughout the metro - it is advertisement supported. The naming rights were resolved in December. Reference: St. Louis Business Journal article: http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2009/12/14/daily5.html

Please restore the non-biased and correct information on this page. Thank you for your time:

Tod De Heart td397@yahoo.com

news on new newspaper online edition: http://www.editorsweblog.org/web_20/2009/10/st_louis_globe-democrat_to_be_relaunched.php http://www.cyberjournalist.net/st-louis-globe-democrat-returning-as-free-online-news-site/

External links

• St. Louis Globe-Democrat website

Dear Editor

PROPOSED EDITS

I propose adding the following edit:

Efforts to use St. Louis Globe-Democrat Trade Name (2009)

The St. Louis Globe-Democrat name fell into the public domain. Dan Rositano is now publishing a new daily online newspaper edition that uses the name "the St. Louis Globe-Democrat". However, there is no ownership or other connection between this new online website and the newspaper that published under the same name.

I propose deleting the following:

St. Louis Globe-Democrat Online 2009 On December 8, 2009, The St. Louis Globe-Democrat launched online serving the city with a second daily newspaper online resource. The St. Louis Globe-Democrat returned after a 23 year hiatus launched a new online format serving as a daily online newspaper for the city. Dan Rositano, former director of information and technology at KPLR Channel 11 relaunched the St. Louis Globe-Democrat as a free online newspaper. The St. Louis Globe-Democrat is an independent newspaper, publishing the news impartially, supporting what it believes to be right and opposing what it believes to be wrong without regard to party politics. Continuously published up to the minute - 24 Hours a day, 7 days a week.

NATURE OF EDIT DISPUTE

The St. Louis Globe Democrat was one of two large circulation newspapers in the St. Louis Metropolitan area from its founding in 1852 until it ceased publication and went out of business in 1986. The history of this newspaper and its tradition, along with its conservative politics, is an important part of St. Louis history.

The trade name "St. Louis Globe Democrat" ("Globe") copyright registration expired. The Globe trademark and name is now unprotected and in the public domain. Anyone can now use that trade name.

In 2009, a new company was formed that started a web site using the Globe name. As noted in the StlToday/St. Louis Post Dispatch article referenced above, this new company has no common ownership, affiliation, or any other association with the storied Globe newspaper. This new company is using a tradename in the public domain just as you and I could.

There are no figures available on the amount of traffic the new site attracts but it appears to be very small. For example, its sports forums (a popular feature of newspapers usually attracting thousand of comments) had only generated a total of 25 posts in 8 weeks.

By all indications, the new web site is a small start up attempting to capitalize on the old Globe by its use of an expired tradename. This is of course their right. However, it is misleading to edit the page on this important newspaper with an important and prominent history so as to devote most of the wikipedia to the new web site. This is further compounded in that the disputed edits strongly implies an affiliation with the old Globe with statements such as "relaunched" and no explanation that there is no connection between these two companies, other than a common name.

Furthermore, the long narrative and edits on the new Globe appear to have been drafted by the new Globe staff. Thus for example, you have atement quoted as though it is fact: "The St. Louis Globe-Democrat is an independent newspaper, publishing the news impartially, supporting what it believes to be right and opposing what it believes to be wrong without regard to party politics. Continuously published up to the minute - 24 Hours a day, 7 days a week."

In prior edits since deleted by me, most of the page is devoted to listing the purported staff of the new Globe (most of whom appear to be free lancers). This is not information relevant to the topic--the old storied Globe newspaper and reads like an advertisement.

These type of edits, along with links to the new Globe's website and that prior to my deletions, resulted in most of this article being dedicated to self-serving statements about the new Globe. The article content was hijacked from a historical piece on the old newspaper to one dedicated to a new start. No impartial wikipedia editor would draft such an artcile. That the content was mostly dedicted to the new startup and making it appear that the new start up was affilliated with the old Globe strongly suggests that this portion of the article was originally drafted by a Globe employee. If so, drafting by an employee or owner of the article subject violates Wikipedia's conflict of interest rules.

Most importantly, the new Globe web site by all indications is very lightly trafficed and has no prominence, visibilty or significant readership in St. Louis. It is highly doubtful that this new start up web site would merit a wikipedia article. Its proposed publication would be rejected.

However, by bootstrapping itself onto the historically important old Globe, the new start up web site circumvents the procedure for article approval and misuses wikipedia to market its new company by falsely claiming an affiliation with the old Globe.

None of my edits should be controversial because each edit is based on facts. The edits may be disputed by an anonymous user--who may have an affiliation with the new start up company. That the new start up understandably wants to use Wikipedia to mislead the public into believing it is affiliated with an old long standing newspaper does not make a true factual controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danocooper (talk • contribs) 06:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to Tod's Comments and Proposed Edit

Ew Tod's comments:

There was no "resolution" of the naming rights to the Globe Democrat. A hustrocial paper publisher claimed to own the trademark and had an attorney demand that the new web site stop using the name. The parties settled the matter with both agreeing they would use the name which is now unprotected. There was no lawsuit and there has been no claim that the new web site owns the name.

Second, what is the soruce for the claim that the new company has 30 employees? And how is that relecvant to the issue that the new company has no affiliation with the old Globe. The new company lists a number of "purported reporters, many of whom are known to work other full time jobs (e.g., Howard Balzer) so it is doubtful they have 30 full time employees.

Third, I am attempting to correct a misleading article. There is no affilliation between the old Globe Democrat and the new web site other rthan a common name. Yet the new company continues to mislead the public into believing that the two companies are somehow associated. There is no affiliation. Can you provide any source whatsoever that the two companies are in any way affiliated? You fail to do so.

This leads to the significant abuse of Wikipedia. This new startup would never be approved for a dedicated wikipedia article. But the new start up company has hijacked the wikipedia article on the old Globe and edited to make it appear as though this new successor is somehow affiliated with the old Globe. At a minimum the lack of any affiliation should be clearly pointed out in the article, Instead the article makes false claims to be the sucessor (e,g,"relaunched"). This mischaracterization is most flagrant on the new Globe's web site which brazenly claims to have been founded in 1852 and lists all of Globe's past publishers as though as there is some affilliation. Its a mareting strategy to capitalize on the old Globe name. The new company can be so misleading in its own paper. It should not use wikipedia to perpetrate usch a myth however.

As a result, Tod's proposed new edit with the proposed information tablet in the right margin is factually unsupported and misleading. It claims that the Globe was founded in 1852, which is true. It then later claims that Rositano is the current publisher and that the "Globe" is still publishing in 2009. As noted, this is a different company. Nothing in affiliation with the old Globe and the topic of this article OTHER than the use of the same trade name in the public name.

If I rename myself "Brad Pitt" can I now add a section about me to the wikipedia article on Pitt. Of course not.

It claims the "official website" is the new company's website. The false implication is that historical old Globe is now online at this "official" website.

Absent the common name, the new Globe would not merit a wikipedia article approval. You assert without any reference that the new Globe received significant media coverage of its launch. Googling the "Globe "Democrat" under news did not bring up any such articles other those referencing the trademark dispute. By comparison, the St Louis Daily Beacon is a far more established online daily launched by laid off Post Dispatch staff. Yet the Beacon has not been able to obtain (nor does it likely merit) a wikiepdia article. By hijacking the article on the old Globe and bootstrapping a common name, the new Globe is using wikipedia to mislead and as a marketing tool. That is not the purpose of an online encylopedia.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danocooper (talk • contribs) 06:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC) 

Re: St. Louis Globe-Democrat content dispute

I haven't had time to read everything but I'll help figure out what's going on. Please keep all discussion civil and on Talk:St. Louis Globe-Democrat where possible. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 16:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

St. Louis Globe Democrat

Given this situation... ownership yadda yadda

I believe it would be best to remain unbiases. The responses above seem very well biased in regard to keeping the Debellis paper, old Globe Democrat paper and new Globe Democrat paper all seperate - if that is the case, then wiki should resolve this issue with applying three pages for the Globe Democrat. Which is not user friendly.

What is on the actual wiki site now should be the resolution - three entities - one defunct, one nostalia print paper and one actual company (LLC) running with the name St. Louis Globe-Democrat.

To just simply eliminate one of the three historical and current entities in biases would be incorrect and unethical.

So I would propose leaving the Wikipedia page for the St. Louis Globe Democrat - with all past and currect parties using the name as is.

Regardless, a settlememt has been made to use the name (STL Globe Democrat) by two enties - Steve DeBellis and St. Louis Globe-Democrat LLC

This was a legal binding settlement and no more should be said about it on WIKI than that of which is public record. (see Business Journal Article regarding this settlement) this article should be referenced in the page.

I agree that the line that reads "Naming Rights" and info should remain on WIKI - unbiased and positioned. Like it reads on the page now.

Information on the employees comes from several articles and the comany website www.globe-democrat.com of St. Louis Globe Demorat LLC

Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.200.34 (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

St. Louis Globe Democrat

The user above states the following in his/her comments above (the propose this):

(((((There are no figures available on the amount of traffic the new site attracts but it appears to be very small. For example, its sports forums (a popular feature of newspapers usually attracting thousand of comments) had only generated a total of 25 posts in 8 weeks.

By all indications, the new web site is a small start up attempting to capitalize on the old Globe by its use of an expired tradename. This is of course their right. However, it is misleading to edit the page on this important newspaper with an important and prominent history so as to devote most of the wikipedia to the new web site. This is further compounded in that the disputed edits strongly implies an affiliation with the old Globe with statements such as "relaunched" and no explanation that there is no connection between these two companies, other than a common name.

Furthermore, the long narrative and edits on the new Globe appear to have been drafted by the new Globe staff. Thus for example, you have atement quoted as though it is fact: "The St. Louis Globe-Democrat is an independent newspaper, publishing the news impartially, supporting what it believes to be right and opposing what it believes to be wrong without regard to party politics. Continuously published up to the minute - 24 Hours a day, 7 days a week."))))))

THIS IS BIASED UNFACTUAL INFORMATION!!!

The information on the bottom line of his/her statements was (I did) take from the new Globe Democrat site itself. PAGE; About US.

Sounds like this user has his/her own personal interest and dislike about the new company. Period.

There is no way you cannot see that in the statements written above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.200.34 (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

DANOCOOPER RESPONSE CLAIM BY ANONYMOUS USER ABOVE.

A self serving mission statement claiming that the new site reports "news impartially", "up to the minute", and "without regard to party politics" violates numerous wikipedia criteria. First, there is no source for these claims other than company profiled (e.g, the new start up). Second, absent showing that the new startup has attained some size (again from a 3rd party verifiable source), this new start up is too small be profiled. See Wikiedia policies on advertisments.

"Advertising. Articles about companies and products are written in an objective and unbiased style. Article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#SOAPBOX

Nothing from any third party source suggests that the new Globe web site has any significant visibility or web traffic.

Last please stop suggesting I have some personal interest or bias against the new start up. I do not. I post my comments with registration unlike many of the contrary comments here which are posted anonymously. I do believe that the new web site is misleading in its efforts to claim an affiliation that does not exist. That it does so contradicts its very mission statement you quote. The issue is whether this new startup can hijack an article on the old Globe and claim to be its successor. Despite all the criticisms, no one has cited one source that suggests any affilliation with the old Globe. I would assert that "there is no way you cannot see" in the proposed article edits pertaining to the new startup that these edits were self serving and inserted by the new Globe or its staff. That all those edits are made anonymously bolsters this assertion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danocooper (talk • contribs) 23:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

st louis newspaper

As an outsider reading this page, I have to wonder what the poster directly above this own agenda is? If the new company in st. Louis has rights to use the name of the old newspaper then they have rights to be representative of the old newspaper. Sounds to me like someone did not secure the name for future use. In reading the response above, the poster makes strong accusations against the new papers company and staff that they are trying to use wikipedia for their benefit. Nonetheless to oppose the facts that this company is not valid. From what I am reading in the articles above, the company is getting established and recognition from the press and media as the new globe. That being said, this company does not seem to be breaking any laws with the name and can then be considered a new generation of an old company. Christpher Leahey, Chicago —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.157.61 (talk) 06:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you VERY much.

Frankly, if that little putz ever saw me in real life, he'd think twice about trying to "beat me up." I am by no means a small individual and I'm making tremendous strides in toning up the excess avoirdupois with the help of a personal trainer.  :) In any event, thanks for the help. I have no idea who the bastard is and I'd never heard of the username, but I'd love to find out someday. Wonder how badly he'd have to clean up after coming face-to-face with an exceedingly large, pissed-off Italian...? Ah, sweet fantasies. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

PMDrive1061 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

You're welcome! Obviously anonymity has emboldened this person. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 16:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Avianca page Restricted

Hello in regards to the Avianca page you have restricted, I have posted some source from a third party website, actually this is a .gov page containing evidence. I have post this on the talk page for Avianca.DG (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

• BLP madness: BLP deletions cause uproar

• Births and deaths: Wikipedia biographies in the 20th century

• News and notes: Biographies galore, Wikinews competition, and more

• In the news: Wikipedia the disruptor?

• WikiProject report: Writers wanted! The Wikiproject Novels interviews

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Ozguroot

I think that Ozguroot edited in line with reestablished consensus while the other user that complained Happenstance as well as RashersTierney were equally abusive and reverted him then he reverted them etc. I find it absurd to block him for these edits, especially mentioning how they were mass edits; did you check edit history of those articles? Apparently not because you would see mass removal preceding his edits. User RashersTierney has run what I believe to be a canvassed straw poll (The poll results are gone now anyway. That was not a permanent forever consensus as such do not exist. It existed for one day.) to establish consensus but soon after the "consensus" was noted by regular editors it became apparent there was no consensus to remove large amount of info from 200 articles. The "consensus" was thus gone the very next day. Ozguroot might be angrier then the rest because unlike us he didn't just loose months of work but also a lot of money he gave to receive prompt updates on the subject so that he could update Wikipedia. Finally I will quote one user from the talk page, I see no signs of consensus from the dozens of diligent editors who maintained those pages and were blindsided by their removal without so much as a notice on the corresponding talk pages of the articles affected.--Avala (talk) 11:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Still peddling that utterly unfounded accusation of WP:CANVASS . Please make a formal complaint or give it a rest. Your persistent slur is bordering on harassment. RashersTierney (talk) 13:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

My block was not based on an opinion on the issue at Talk:Passport. It was based only on the fact that Ozguroot (talk · contribs) was in the midst of reverting all of Happenstance (talk · contribs)'s edits (which were in turn reversions of Ozugoot) and had ignored two pleas for dialogue. Had Happenstance started to revert Ozguroot, I would have blocked Happenstance as well. Edit warring is bad. It is detrimental to the project, and suggests that people have either not tried to obtain consensus or have ignored it. I did not have time to read through pages of talk pages to figure out what was going on; I made a snap decision that a 1 hour block would stop the war. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 14:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

OK but have you seen the Talk:Passport? I can see several times user Ozguroot writing things like "Please, it seems you don't care any opinion in here, you just delete again and again." "You don't care what i say." "You don't care what those editors say." to Happenstance and I have the same feeling to be honest too so even though Happenstance charmingly invites for discussion it seems he doesn't honestly want to participate. I don't know all details of how Ozguroot behaved but it is true that Happenstance is ignoring pleas for discussion. And I am experiencing the same problem now. Even though it's obvious that the consensus made here is no longer in place per discussion in here, here, here, here but they still revert to the previous consensus forging that it is the current one and referring to editors to discuss it at talk:passport which is nice but is only used to charm the admin, the reality is - they know that the things have been discussed and that the majority of both users and arguments is not on their side. If you open Talk:Passport you will see a plethora of discussion and as you can see a lot of anger at the way those two users attempted to this without notifying any of the regular editors nor posting a notice on any of the talk pages of 200 articles they want to change in one sway. Can you please talk with users RashersTierney and Happenstance and remind them that 1) they cannot refer to a previous consensus as the current one and revert based on that as there is no such thing as permanent consensus, the fact that there are now in just a day about a dozen angry editors speaks for itself about how the poll was organized 2) that it is not that easy to reach a consensus that would remove so much information from so many articles. One needs strong arguments both for the removal itself and for encompassing all articles with the same fate. Please talk to them to make this easier and the discussion softer instead of sharper. Thank you.--Avala (talk) 15:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Mistakes on Sydney_Opera_House

I noticed that Usd241 damaged the article Sydney_Opera_House while editing it. Since you very recently verified it, I tought you would be the good person to inform. 131.137.13.27 (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, another editor reverted the vandalism. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 19:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleted article back again

Hi there. Just wanted to inform you that the article which you deleted was recreated seconds after the deletion by the same editor. Amsaim (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and dealt with. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 17:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Reverted My Talk Page

Note:

Some editors consider personal attacks (say, from a frustrated vandal) a badge of honor—it shows they're having an impact on problem editors. They therefore keep (and archive) such postings. That's another reason why you shouldn't remove content from another editor's user talk page that you, personally, wouldn't find acceptable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Wikipedia:_The_Missing_Manual/Collaborating_with_Other_Editors/Communicating_with_Your_Fellow_Editors#Article_Talk_.28Discussion.29_Pages

8bit (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)