Rabbit.runner

Image tagging for Image:RabbitRunner.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:RabbitRunner.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ordnung

Howdie, thank you for working on the Ornung article. Wanted to point out the two citations just added weren't the best, though. I added short descriptions for each so they'd show up with titles in the references section. They were:

• Tim Roper's senior class report at the Francis W. Parker Charter Essential School
• David Yoder's page summarizing Swartzentruber Ordnung rules.

The senior project report, if you click around that site, has a bibliography. Perhaps the list of rules could be found in one of those sources? and the David Yoder site is appears to be an anti-amish web site, and fails as a neutral, third-party source. He titles the cited page "control". it also lacks verifiability without specific citations. Could you hunt for more neutral, third-party scholarly sources for the article? Again, thank you for working on the article. Sorry to nitpick. But I noticed they weren't the best and wanted to ask your help in finding better ones. Thanks again! - Owlmonkey (talk) 08:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

June 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Colfax Township, Dallas County, Iowa, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Nyttend (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

--Rabbit Runner - Those who dance, appear insane to those who do not hear the music. 15:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)This particular item is verifiable because I grew up there, I went to that church, I now the policies of the church and the agreement they have with the township. Can I cite myself as a source, or must it be a written source? That's the question, because the information I presented is absolutely factual.--Rabbit Runner - Those who dance, appear insane to those who do not hear the music. 15:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you're not allowed to cite yourself; you need to find the information in published reliable sources. It can be either printed or online, but it has to be written somehow. Nyttend (talk) 23:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll allow part of what you say, but not all. First, the church is "Panther Creek Church of the Brethren". It is NOT Church of the United Brethren. The original posting is incorrect. Here is the website for the church... http://www.panthercreekchurch.org. Next, the location of the church, AND the cemetery is 1/2 mile south of Highway 44. That much can be verified by a Google map. Check it out. Put this phrase in a map search..."panther creek church of the brethren adel iowa" The church sits next to the township road and the cemetery sits connected to the far end of the church property. My father is buried there, my grandparents on both sides of the family are buried there. I have uncles, aunts, cousins, and friends interned there. I have a boatload of friends who still attend services in that church. My mother worked in the church office until her health failed. I have sat through numerous church council meetings and issues/questions were brought up on several occasions about the cemetery. I'm familiar with the policies and connection that the church has with the township. The church is acting as trustees for the township concerning the cemetery. Nyttend, if you want to change the part about trusteeship relationship between the church and the cemetery, then go ahead and change it. But I won't, because I know it is factual. About the other two items above, don't remove them because they are factual and can be verified online. Here is a Nyttend quote from his talk page. "Simply put, if you don't know, please refrain from reverting an edit by someone who does."--Rabbit Runner - Those who dance, appear insane to those who do not hear the music. 00:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have anything against the inclusion of the cemetery, but please read WP:OR — since churches can possibly be located next to cemeteries to which they're not related, the map doesn't prove it. What's more, how do I know that you really live nearby, have friends and family there, etc.? I assume you do (why would I doubt it), but Wikipedia's policy is verifiability, and if you can't prove it, you're not allowed to add it. Find a source from the church, or from the township, or from anywhere else that's reliable on such issues, and the article will be improved, but please don't add anything that's not referenced. Finally, about the cemetery: there's a reliable source on the article already (click "City-Data.com" in the external links) that says "Church of United Brethren Cemetery", and there's even a USGS entry (click here) for the name of the cemetery. Nyttend (talk) 04:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so how does on go about correcting something that is posted on the internet, but which is INCORRECT? You provided a link, but does that make it true? Not in the least. Both you and I know that one can find 'anything' on the web. Apparently someone who put that information about the church on the geonames website, erred. In your comment above, you are implying that "If it is published on the internet, then it is true". But on the other hand if someone who was born and raised there, lived there for almost 25 years, who has friends and family there, and THEY HAVE NO WRITTEN PROOF OF WHAT THEY SAY, then you will take the side of the undocumented web link (which is falacious)? My question to you is HOW DOES SOMEONE WHO "KNOWS", CORRECT SOMETHING THAT IS INCORRECT BUT WHICH IS PUBLISHED (AS GOSPEL) ON THE INTERNET? How does one go about correcting an erronious piece of information when it is published on the web? Here is another point. When a government website gets a piece of information wrong, and other websites use that information as a source, won't that compound the error?

Did you check out this link? http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=panther+creek+church+of+the+brethren+adel+iowa&jsv=116&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=0.005556,0.009892&ie=UTF8&latlng=41680264,-94105751,7843028100598823930&ei=popbSJvbKYvKjgHX4b2uDQ&cd=1 Make certain you click on 'view larger map', then select satellite view. Zoom in and there is the cemetery and the church.

Your link to the government website is correct in this point, there is only one cemetery in Colfax township. Search the entire township with a Google map, or better yet, visit the place. Since there is only one cemetery in Colfax TWP, and the link above zooms directly to a cemetery within the boundaries, and it is adjacent to Panther Creek Church of the Brethren church, isn't that proof enough proof for you? By the way, I sent an email to your government website, asking them to correct the errored information.

Also your link to City-Data.com has this little blurb at the bottom of the page. "City-data.com does not guarantee the accuracy or timeliness of any information on this site. Use at your own risk." Oops, so their info may be incorrect. Well I have news, It is incorrect. Besides, check the map(s) on the city-data.com website for Colfax TWP. It pinpoints the cemetery, which corresponds to the location of the Panther Creek Church of the Brethren location. Oops, again. Wikipedia has used inacurrate data.

Don't you think that wikipedia should try to get something right, when it is pointed out that they are in error, AND two links are supplied which show the correction?

Wikipedia tries to get things right. I have no ultimate reason to believe your assertion (altogether unsourced) that the church maintains the cemetery or that the cemetery is named something other than Church of United Brethren Cemetery. Provide a source for your statements, or they will continue to be reverted. Nyttend (talk) 14:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I have already contacted the webmaster of the usgs website and they are willing to look into the matter to correct things. Wikipedia does not appear to be so inclined. Instead, they (you) insist to maintain an incorrect source when I have already provided acceptable links which show the error. Do you want them again?

http://www.panthercreekchurch.org/

http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnis538/getgooglemap?p_lat=41.680543&p_longi=-94.1077344&fid=1823072

The last one points to the cemetary, which shows the same location as the church's website.

Those are my sources, but you refuse to accept them. Instead you insist to accept a faulty piece of information. Why can't you be magnanimous to correct it? They are at least willing to search it out. What do you need, pictures? If I were to now find a website which contradicted the one you currently want to use, which one would you use? You would have contradicting information. which one is correct and which one is wrong? I am only trying to correct an error that you persist in presenting, even though I've given information that counters the source you want to use.

If a contradictory website were to be provided the sources would have to be evaluated on their merits: which one is likely to be more reliable? If the GNIS accepts the changes, the reference will likewise be changed. The GNIS does not necessarily follow the same policies as Wikipedia: it's not a tertiary source. As long as sources do not support your changes, stop making them; doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Nyttend (talk) 15:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

My links are verifiable.

BTW. Here is an email from GNIS, stating that they have made the correction.

We have investigated and verified your suggested corrections to the names of both the church and the cemetery. The church is now Panther Creek Church of the Brethren and the adjacent cemetery is Panther Creek Church of the Brethren Cemetery, and we have made the changes to the entries in the Geographic Names Information System (GNIS), the nation’s official geographic names repository. The corrected entries are now available at that website; click on the name itself to view the full entry and map options. We could not open the links provided. Thank you once again for your interest.

By the way, regarding "Church of the Brethren is the largest, then there is Grace Brethren, Old Order Brethren, Dunkard Brethren, River Brethren, etc., we have record of Church of the Brethren, Grace Brethren, and Dunkard Brethren, but not Old Order Brethren and River Brethren. Can you provide any information for those two such as website and location and any others?

For Lou Yost

Manager GNIS

[phone number removed]

Thank you for getting the GNIS work done. Wikipedia is not intended for research or investigation: it's intended for reproducing others' research. Nyttend (talk) 01:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Adel-tinys-horse& buggy.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Adel-tinys-horse& buggy.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nyttend (talk) 13:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I fail to understand the nuances of public domain licensing. This particular picture is un-copywrited, un-licensed and the person who took the photo is deceased. Plus there is no one who desires to protect the licensing over the picture. Perhaps there is different licensing rules can be applied to this picture? If so, could that licensing rule be applied to the picture?

As for this, I don't know; my knowledge about copyright law is small, although I do know that something created just 57 years ago by a now-dead person is assumed to be copyrighted unless we have other reason to believe it. You'd do better to ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, where there are people who know the law better than I do. Nyttend (talk) 14:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I've posted a question under the section you suggestion. Now we are waiting for an answer .......

The executor of the photographer's estate or the rightful heir of the image will need to provide in writing that he/she releases the image to the public domain or will license it under the GFDL or Creative Commons. See WP:COPYREQ. I have deleted the image for now. If the copyright issue is cleared up, the image can be re-uploaded or it might be able to be restored -Regards Nv8200p talk 01:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Adel-Depot.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Adel-Depot.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sdrtirs (talk) 14:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Adel-Brick&TileWorks.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Adel-Brick&TileWorks.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sdrtirs (talk) 14:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Colfax Township

Copyright laws and regulations say that we may not copy text someone else wrote. Of course, fair use restricts copyright, so that we can use small bits of text, but by quoting the plaque and taking several almost complete paragraphs from the Pearson book, you're using far more than necessary. Nyttend (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• NYTTEND, I did "NOT" copy any text. It was a paraphrase (or rewording) of the exhibit wording, which was taken from an article in a publication. Either one would be an acceptable use for Wikipedia. I can show examples from the Amish article, or the Ordnung article.

You placed large amounts of text in quotes — either this is poor writing, or it's copyvio. Nyttend (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The text that was in quotes, which started with "My interest in Kennedy Station is personal", was a direct quote and was sourced. The rest of the text that you reverted did not seem to be a direct quote, but was sourced material with in-line references; the direct quote was clearly identified as such. I don't think that it can be a copyright violation to include it. Omnedon (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

All of the text from that starting point, through to the end, was a direct quote by Ann Pearson in her article in Wildrows. That portion of her article begins with a quote from someone she interviewed. Another person was quoted within her article. Perhaps there is a better way to have it annotated, or in some way to indicate the whole portion is a quote from the exhibit (which is a quote from the article). I'm willing to discuss how best to format it, or to mark it to be properly indicated as a quote. From what I'm told, fair use is limited to 250 words. The portion I quoted was 170 words.

Here is the four criteria for fair use.

-the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

-the nature of the copyrighted work;

-the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

-the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

[unindenting] Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, however, also say that we're not allowed to use portions of copyrighted text when other bits can suffice. Even if the legal limits permit what you gave, our policies do not. Nyttend (talk) 20:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Nyttend, you said the magic words, "...when other bits can suffice." There are NO other bits. There are no other articles or book or online webpages, or library documents concerning Kennedy Station. I grew up in that township, I've looked for documents. The only possibility would be the memories of the elderly who lived in that region. But Wikipedia does not allow unsupported personal knowledge to be permitted for their site. Therefore, by your own words, by your own words, the article I used for Kennedy Station would be permitted, even according to Wikipedia guidelines. Yet you persist in removing it. The Colfax Township article is about the history of a mid-western rural Iowa township.

File permission problem with File:Adel-courthouse.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Adel-courthouse.jpg, which you've attributed to deceased friend. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Adel-mill&dam-1937.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Adel-mill&dam-1937.jpg, which you've attributed to Deceased friend. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 16:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Rabbit.runner. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Rabbit.runner. 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)