User talk:Geoff Plourde/Archive 2

GA Review

As I looked at your contributions, I realize you're a new editor. I am concerned about your GA review, particularly Raëlian beliefs and practices. In the article, I found a non-free image (Image:Yes to Human Cloning.png). As a policy of Wikipedia, all copyrighted images must provide a fair-use rationale to qualify its use in Wikipedia. I also cannot find a review comment on the talk page of the article. I'm also concerned about the references in NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc.. It looks very confusing to me (and to most people). If you haven't read it, you should take a look at Good Article criteria before assessing any articles. Articles have to meet all the criteria before it can be promoted to GA class. If you have furthur questions, please don't hesitate to leave a message on my talk page. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Yes to Human Cloning.png does not have fair use rationale. It needs more than just the summary and type of licensing. Take a look at Image:AMS logo.jpg for what a fair use rationale should have. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Conservapedia

Since your a site admin there, can you help me figure out why User:Tesfan was blocked there? Tesfan 01:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Cberlet and LaRouche

I think that you are mistaken -- I don't see anything in the ArbCom decision that prohibits Cberlet from editing the LaRouche article. However, I think he has major behavior problems, which is why I filed the RFC. --Marvin Diode 14:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the duplicate RfCs, I don't see any prohibition. Occasionally an RfC will cover two editors and that would have made sense in this case. However I think El C was right to say that there'd been no serious attempts at conciliation. To my view the RfCs were very weak: the actual evidence didn't support their charges and they aren't saints themselves either. Both of the RfC certifiers appear to have spent a large percentage of their time here complaining about Cberlet

You had a particular concern about COI, but I think you'll find that the COI quideline allows experts to quote their won published material. I recently gained access to a great archive of newspaper articles and had been using it research material on LaRouche's trial 1980s. I've reviewed over a thousand articles. Berlet and King are repeatedly quoted in press accounts as the experts on the topic of LaRouche, and no one else. It's still the case 20 years later. As far as Wikipedia editing goes, Cberlet has been an active, authoritative editor on many difficult fields, like fascism and Neo-Nazism. Dking's edit have been focused more on LaRouche topics and he is obviously passionate about them. Perhaps encyclopedias are edited best by those with little passion, but disinterested editors rarely have the interest to bother editing at all. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I have filed a request for admin intervention due to the way the new page RFC on Lyndon LaRouche has been transformed into an attack on my editing and reliability as a source. See here.--Cberlet 03:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familar with the issues here but the RFC was delisted, and this is just an attempt to sidestep that. I'd suggest moving it into your userspace, though I'm going to consdier deleting it. RxS 03:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that does not list you as a party. However, I think that it would be appropriate for you to join the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Lyndon LaRouche and related articles, and sign on if you agree to mediate. --MaplePorter 07:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)