User talk:AccuracyInPosting

Darrell Allums[edit]

Please, please don't copy and paste information from other sources, as you did at Darrell Allums. ([1]) You need to put as much as possible into your own words. Thanks. Zagalejo^^^ 05:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural quibbles, offered in a Friendly spirit[edit]

Work on articles is not "posting" but editing. We are not putting up "posts": we are trying to write "articles" in order to assemble an encyclopedia of as much value as possible.

Also: don't forget to sign your posts properly. Here's the canned message on the subject, now that I've made it clear I'm not just dumping a template on your talk page: Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as on Talk:Ralph Drollinger, 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. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

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) 17:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard[edit]

Your recent behavior is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive204#Ralph Drollinger. You should of course participate in this discussion. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 2012[edit]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Ralph Drollinger. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drollinger - a basketball-related question[edit]

I know his website says he was the "first player [the Mavericks] signed in the expansion draft", but I don't think that's correct. He wasn't taken in the expansion draft at all ([2]); I'm not even sure it would be possible to take a free agent in an expansion draft. He might have been the first player signed to a contract, but that might take some work to figure out. Did you come across any other sources that said he was the first Maverick? Zagalejo^^^ 03:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering, what do you mean by "Mavericks sources"? The records of the transactions were almost certainly published somewhere; it just might take some digging to find them. Zagalejo^^^ 23:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drollinger image[edit]

Please post a link to the file at Talk:Ralph Drollinger - or at least tell us where to find the file - and someone will take things from there. Zagalejo^^^ 06:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we're looking at the same thing, that picture appears to come from MavsWiki.com, which is not directly related to Wikipedia. (It simply uses the same software.) Zagalejo^^^ 00:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, could you link directly to the page that contains the license statement for File:Ralph K. Drollinger.jpg? I don't even see the image at ralphdrollinger.com, and in any case, every page seems to say "Copyright © 2012 RalphDrollinger.com". If you own the rights to the image yourself, you should send an email to info-en-q@wikimedia.org, and they'll take care of things. Zagalejo^^^ 01:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And as an aside, you really can't start using words like "nefarious" to describe other people's actions. See Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. And please try to cite sources for any new material you add. The article has been a source of controversy for several years now, so it's important that any new material can be verified by readers. I don't care if the references are perfectly formatted, but please try to show us where you're getting your info. Thanks. Zagalejo^^^ 01:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please link to the specific page at ralphdrollinger.com where the license statement can be found for File:Ralph_K._Drollinger.jpg? At the bottom of every page on that website, it does say "Copyright © 2012 RalphDrollinger.com. All rights reserved." I'm sorry to keep nagging you about this, but we need to be sure we're respecting his copyright. Thanks. Zagalejo^^^ 02:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Drollinger[edit]

If your links have ellipsis in them, they probably are not valid. Use this format for references: <ref>[http://www.google.com Google.com: search engene]</ref> "Google.com: search engine" is a comment indicating what the link is about. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 05:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those links are incomplete. Be sure to copy the entire URL for each site. (I suspect that you're copying the URLs as they are listed in the search engine results page, but those have been shortened. You'd have to open each one of those sites, and copy the URL that you then see at the top of each page.) Zagalejo^^^ 06:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to fix one link (the Morning Call article), but we'd need your help with the others, since I honestly can't tell what you were looking at. Zagalejo^^^ 06:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to look into this before starting a whole new section. For example, a URL like www.namb.net/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID.... isn't going to work. (It just leads to the site's homepage, which doesn't help.) You need to copy the entire address for the specific page you were looking at. Do you understand the problem? If not, let me know. Zagalejo^^^ 18:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can use this page if you want to experiment with things. Zagalejo^^^ 19:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help and suggestion Zagalejo. I am new to this as you can tell. In regards to the edit war over the inclusion of Mr. Drollinger's current ministry of supposedly teaching the Members Bible Study in the US Capitol, I found an authenticating reference in a Capitol Weekly article titled Religion-Politics fight flares over Bible study group. Can you go ahead and repost this for me and reference that (since I can't seem to figure out how to do that correctly). inclusion of this in the article I believe will help round out the article in regards to what Mr. Drollinger is currently doing. Thank you.

I added a bit. The article is here: [3] Zagalejo^^^ 17:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

December 2012[edit]

Your recent editing history at Ralph Drollinger shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AccuracyInPosting. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Ralph Drollinger, you may need to consider our guidance on conflicts of interest.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Orange Mike; Thank you as always for helping a novice like me. The edit war over the inclusion of Mr. Drollinger leading the Members Bible Study in the US Capitol is referenced in the Capitol Weekly article (A Sacramento political newspaper) titled Religion-Politics Fight Flare Over Bible Study Groups. The first paragraph references this claim so I will ask you to repost this to the article with that reference (since I am not very good at how to do that). Thank you.````

Drollinger image, again[edit]

This is the link to his bio page at RalphDrollinger.com: http://www.ralphdrollinger.com/index.php/ralphs-biography I don't see anything that supports what you've said. Do you understand that the copyright message at the bottom does not imply anything about the public domain? Are you talking about a different page, maybe - or an entirely different website? Please respond below.

(You've suggested that you aren't associated with Drollinger [4], so I have to take you at your word, and assume that you don't control the rights to the photograph yourself.) Zagalejo^^^ 00:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Zagalejo^^^ 01:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I now see a message at RalphDrollinger.com, so that's a step in the right direction. However, that message still doesn't resolve everything, for a few reasons. (For one, the particular image you've uploaded isn't on the page that has the message. And the message doesn't technically say anything about the public domain, anyway. If the image were in the public domain, then anyone could use it, not just Wikipedia.)

An email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org would be the best way for people to verify the licensing details. (If you or the file owner haven't sent an email already, that is.) Zagalejo^^^ 00:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Ralph K. Drollinger.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Ralph K. Drollinger.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Dianna (talk) 04:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drollinger image[edit]

Well.... just because he is depicted in an image doesn't necessarily mean that he owns the rights to that image. Copyright rules can be complicated. I see that File:Ralph K. Drollinger.jpg has been deleted by User:Explicit. We still need something to establish that that particular image belongs to Drollinger. If we have a clear record of where the image comes from, then we might be able to restore it. Zagalejo^^^ 03:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

If you're going to add new information about the legal dispute, you must cite a published source. There's no wiggle room around this; it's a matter of site policy. We have to be very conservative about including such material, because there may be serious real world consequences for people involved. Zagalejo^^^ 00:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any secondary sources for any of that? It's almost impossible to understand those primary documents without additional context. Furthermore, if the material is only available in primary documents, one could make the case that it's simply not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. I really don't like the idea of throwing out names of specific staff members unless secondary sources also mentioned those names.

I would feel much more comfortable to just wait for the legal proceedings to conclude, and then update the article. Remember that a Wikipedia article is supposed to be neutral. This site is not the proper forum to build up a case for one side of a legal dispute. Zagalejo^^^ 03:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me also add this. What you do outside of Wikipedia is your business. If you want to support Drollinger on a blog or something, feel free. I'm not trying to suggest that your edits are deceitful, or anything like that. Just understand that there are some forms of content that just don't belong here. Zagalejo^^^ 03:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]