User talk:NYScholar

---

Disclaimer: NYScholar is not in any way affiliated with a personal website called nyscholar.com. This Wikipedia log-in identity is simply descriptive: "NYScholar" is an academic scholar who resides in New York. This Wikipedia log-in identity, used since June 30, 2005, pre-dates the existence of that website, which began on January 30, 2007.

---

Talk · Userboxes  · Barnstars  · Contributions

N.B.: Please do not copy my comments placed on my talk page or other talk pages or editing histories of articles, or other Wikipedia pages, take them out of context, and/or move them elsewhere. Doing so distorts them. Thank you.

Further information: § N.B., and WP:TPG

Talk archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Copyright

General information

For general information about the status of current Wikipedia policies pertaining to copyright, fair use, and copyright infringement, please consult also:

• Wikipedia: Copyrights
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use
• Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA),
• External links provided therein and below.

Please do the same for:

• trademark, and other various topics, issues, and controversies pertaining to
• intellectual property, including musical, audio-visual, multi-media, and digitally-formatted properties.

Thank you.

(I do not have time to discuss any of these matters further in Wikipedia.) --NYScholar 20:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Some related United States Government resources

• United States Copyright Office.
  • Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code: Circular 92.
    • Preface.
    • Definitions.
    • Section 106.
    • Section 106a.
    • Section 107.
      • Fact sheet for Fair Use (July 2006).
    • Section 108.
    • Section 113.
    • Note 37.
    • Note 38.
    • Note 39.
    • Note 45.
  • FAQ.
    • FAQ: How is a copyright different from a patent or a trademark?
• United States Patent and Trademark Office.
  • Basic Facts about Trademarks.

(All accessed 3 September 2006.)

Issues relating to Wikipedia as a source

Problems that academic scholars find in Wikipedia

• Read, Brock. "Can Wikipedia Ever Make the Grade?" Chronicle of Higher Education 27 October 2006. 9 July 2007. (For additional articles on Wikipedia in the Chronicle, see its menu links in "Related materials.")

Related perspectives

• Lapp, Alison. "Wikipedia's Opponent", PC Magazine 2 May 2007. 9 July 2007. (Concerns the founding of Citizendium and Scholarpedia.)
  • Citizendium: The Citizens' Compendium: Welcome page. Founded by Wikipedia's co-founder Larry Sanger[1]. (Described misleadingly in the cross-linked Wikinews article as "a Wikipedia fork". Though early memoranda by Sanger initially described it as such, Citizendium is not any longer a so-called "Wikipedia fork"; it is now a separate project, independent of Wikipedia. It serves now as an alternative to Wikipedia.)
  • Scholarpedia: The Free Peer Reviewed Encyclopedia: Welcome page––another project also conceived as an academic scholarly alternative to Wikipedia in specific technical fields. ("Scholarpedia is a free peer-reviewed encyclopedia that combines the philosophies of Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica. Scholarpedia hosts Encyclopedia of Computational Neuroscience, Encyclopedia of Dynamical Systems, and Encyclopedia of Computational Intelligence. All three will be published in a printed form, and will be used as seeds to start Encyclopedia of Cognitive Neuroscience, Encyclopedia of Applied Mathematics, and Encyclopedia of Computer Science [later next year (2007)].")

[Both projects, Citizendium and Scholarpedia, require editors to use their actual names in ways that identify their specific credentials as experts in their fields.]

Jimmy Wales on the importance of properly-sourced material

• Wales, Jimmy. "Getting Rid of Bad Fair Use". lists.wikimedia.org 19 May 2006. 9 July 2006. (Advocates deleting copyright violations from Wikipedia and its related Wikis and following "fair use" provisions of copyright laws.)
• –––. Keynote Address excerpt. Wikimania, August 2006. (Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page. "... we have a really serious responsibility to get things right.")
• –––. "WikiEN-l Zero Information Is Preferred to Misleading or False Information". mail.wikimedia.org 16 May 2006. (These principles also apply to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia of all kinds but especially for living people's bios rests firmly on the shoulders of the Wikipedia editor making the claim.)

Academic Criticism of Wikipedia

• Cohen, Noam. "Education: A History Department Bans Using Wikipedia As a Research Source". The New York Times 21 February 2007. 9 July 2007.
• Gonsalves, Antone. "Britannica Slams Nature's Wikipedia Comparison". InformationWeek 24 March 2006. 9 July 2007.
• Wales, Jimmy. "Wikipedia Founder Discourages Academic Use of His Creation". The Chronicle of Higher Education 12 June 2006, "The Wired Campus: Education News from around the Web". 9 July 2007.

See also: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and WP:NOT

N.B. Please see the tags at the top of this page. I move comments that others add to this page if I perceive them to have been misdirected and/or I archive them. [If they involve personal attacks, I delete the personal attacks, referring to WP:NPA.] This is my personal talk page. I archive comments when and as I wish. That is my prerogative. You can find them in the archive or moved to where they should be placed. Not here. Updated. --NYScholar 06:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC) [Updated most recently. --NYScholar 09:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)] Please do not post any more comments on my talk page. Having already expended a great deal of my time to respond expeditiously, patiently, and courteously to earlier comments, I simply cannot and do not want to take the time to deal with them any further. (As already requested above, please place comments about making improvements to articles on the talk pages of those articles.) Thank you. Due to my own other priorities (related to my own professional work and travel schedule), I am turning back to focusing on my own non-Wikipedia related work. Thanks very much to those who do understand for understanding. [Since first posting this, I have attempted to make some corrections to and to update a few articles that I have worked hard on recently, but I really do need to focus on my own work in order to get it done on schedule. I have to go offline to do it. (Updated. --NYScholar 21:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC))] [Earlier discussions are in my "Talk archives"; please click on "Skip to table of contents" to find that box easily.] Further information: § N.B., and WP:TPG

[Previous discussions re: my reporting another user's Wikipedia:Vandalism are archived. Contrary to the user's false claims on his talk page, I have never been blocked for Wikipedia:Vandalism. I was blocked for 48 hours three days ago for reverting (3 times, marked clearly as reverts) what I reported as his "persistent vandalism" (2 other edits of mine involved minor typographical changes to my own prevous contributions, which he had been persistently reverting). He was persistently inserting potentially-slanderous statements, with poor sources that did not document the statements, into the lead and elsewhere in a biography of a living person, which Wikipedia requires be removed "on sight", following WP:BLP; my 3 reverts of that material are supposed to be exempt from WP:3RR. His persistent vandalism resumed after his own 48-hour block for his own violations of 3RR and repeated uncivil behavior, relating to his reported vandalism, had expired. Subsequently, when he returned to make the same reverts to his previous offensive, inappropriate, and poorly-sourced insertions, I reported him again, and he was blocked for a week for violations of WP:3RR. For the pertinent Wikipedia policies that I have been citing, please see Wikipedia:Vandalism and WP:3RR#Exceptions (already defined and linked in my talk page archive 12). Despite warnings in editing summaries of "persistent vandalism" and templates placed on his talk page, his subsequent persistent reverts to his own potentially-slanderous biased insertions again violated WP:BLP and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view in a biography of a living person; they were and are, in my view, subject to WP:3RR#Exceptions. I reverted them, citing "persistent vandalism"; I also posted another alert in WP:ANI. I have and will continue to remove any and all personal attacks by him or others from my user talk space and from other space in Wikipedia. That is my policy, as stated above and in my userboxes. Please see archive 12 for previous discussion. [Updated out of courtesy. --NYScholar 01:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)]

Further information: § N.B., and WP:TPG

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Warning

As I reveiewd the block of Tim Osman, I have also reviewed your behavior in the matter, and you are not acting appropriately. First of all, while you do cite an applicable 3RR exception, I don't accept that as an excuse to continue reverting: the case you have is not so obvious that there is no need to discuss with the other party, as you seem to feel.

I received shouting abuse just for posting a template from that user. There is no way to "discuss" anything with him. He did not respond to the comments that I posted on the article's talk page before either one of us was blocked. --NYScholar 05:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Rather, they have a point they are trying to add to the article that you feel is not sufficiently backed up. The right approach there is to discuss the edits, and follow applicable policies. The wrong approach is to characterize the other person's edits as vandalism and remove them without feeling the need to discuss. I would actually block you for 3RR violation now just to be fair, but since it's a borderline case and the block would be merely punitive now, I'm declining. Nonetheless, consider yourself warned.

I have spent two straight days discussing my changes; I have explained them. There is nothing further to say about them. It's all documented. This is not a "normal content dispute"; this is someone inserting undocumented statements as if they were facts: "Ms. Plame lied" "Wilson lied"--the so-called "memo scan" that he kept added does not document those statements. I have placed the scanned image (which originally was considered improper but a new license was supplied by a different user) in an appropriate section of the article. It does not belong in with external links (not full citations) in a lead to the article--that user has no knowledge of how to use templates in proper places. He does not read Wikipedia guidelines and policies. I am not required to point all this out to him. He is supposed to read the tagged template notices about WP:BLP himself. I do not use live links in my signature due to too much harassment by users like him. --NYScholar 05:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I also note that you have also removed several of Osman's comments from the talk page of the article: that is also inappropriate.

I removed his attacks on me. It is not appropriate to engage in commenting on contributors personally in talk pages of articles. I stand by those edits, and I am not putting them back into the article. He is uncivil and will not engage in Wikipedia:Etiquette. I will not allow him to abuse me. My policy, as stated in my user boxes and talk page, is to remove personal attacks on me and other users. I do not want to restore his comments about me to Talk:Joseph C. Wilson; they are abusive. [I did so only under protest and with links to my talk page for contexts.] --NYScholar 05:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

While some feel it is okay to remove personal attacks, I didn't see that those entire comments were personal attacks. You should restore those comments to the page, and not alter the comments other people leave.

That user removed my comments from his talk page; to see them you have to look at the editing history of his talk page. I restored his (in my view) offensive (and false) comments to Talk:Joseph C. Wilson#Repeated vandalism; given what you say below: note that I already (on July 20) clearly explained what the problems were "in plain English" with references to the proper Wikipedia policies and guidelines that relate. Before either one of us was blocked, he did not respond to that or post anything at all on the talk page of the article or make any explanations of what he was doing in editing summary statements. He has shown no interest in educating himself about or following Wikipedia policies WP:BLP (clearly tagged at top of the article's talk apge) or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and other core Wikipedia policies and guidelines linked in the BLP notice. He ignores WP:CITE and the prevailing format of citations in the article, which new editors are responsible for following; "full citations" are required; he just tossed in external links and "See" this and that in brackets; the article has a format; he is responsible for conforming to it. His irresponsible editing is, in my view, vandalism: WP:Vandalism. The vandalism templates pertain to what he was initially doing and what he persisted in doing to the article, given WP:BLP. --NYScholar 05:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime, perhaps you could, on the article talk page, explain in plain English (rather than through vandalism warnings) what exactly is wrong with Osman's version.

It's explained thoroughly in archive 12 of my talk page. I linked to that page directly in Talk:Joseph C. Wilson already. Anyone can consult it. I did not want to take up all that space in the current talk page of the article. I have no more time to deal with this. I've spent two days on it, and I do not want to spend any more of my time. The user is not reasonable and will not listen to reasonable explanations of how his changes to the article have violated its integrity and credibility as a biography of a living person. It violates the very points cited above on my current talk page: I've linked the policies; my userboxes link to the core policies too. I am not responsible for his behavior; he is. --NYScholar 05:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

And since you felt the need to bring up WP:TALK, may I ask that you please link to your user page or user talk page in your signature? See WP:SIG for more on that.

My preference in Wikipedia is to have my signature this way. It is to avoid abuse. Anyone can go to "editing history" of an article and see my live links. It is one step. I aim to avoid knee-jerk abuse from anon. IP users and others like the user in question. That's why it's the way it is. --NYScholar 05:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You may notice here I'm not saying who is right in the conflict. That's because you are both wrong, because of the approach that has been taken.

I have devoted many hours of my time to explaining the problems. I do not think that my removal of potentially-slanderous material from a biography of a living person is "wrong"; it is within policies stated in WP:BLP and WP:3RR#Exceptions; I referred clearly to "biographies of living persons" as the problem when I posted the first and second reports at WP:ANI. I have been "constructive"; the other user has not been. I have spent hours and hours providing "full citations" for that article. It requires full citations. He was tossing in external links and unaware that the same Washington Post article that he claims that I was deleting is one that I myself have already cited in the article five times. I know the article very well. I don't think that he has read it. There is no more that I can say.

Discuss your position in a constructive way, and seek and accept the input of others if you are still at an impasse afterwards. Mangojuice^talk 04:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I have accepted the "input of others" regarding the article. The other user has not done so. See Talk:Joseph C. Wilson. --NYScholar 05:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to archive 12. As I see you were already blocked for exactly the behavior I was trying to warn you about, and yet you continued it, after others have tried to explain to you why your reverts are not 3RR exemptions, I am blocking you for 48 hours. I accept fully that Tim Osman was being belligerent and abusive, but by responding in kind you made the situation worse, not better, and you need to take a different approach if it happens again. Mangojuice^talk 16:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Unblock Request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

NYScholar (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was following WP:3RR#Exceptions and WP:BLP and the owner of Wikipedia's instructions as quoted above on my own talk page w/ links (WP:AGF). While I believe and cited the other user in WP:ANI for (in your words) "being belligerent and abusive", I object most strenuously to your stating that I was "responding in kind". In no manner was I "being belligerent and abusive" anywhere in Wikipedia regarding this matter or any other matter. I have been entirely civil (following Wikipedia:Etiquette and posting Wikipedia's own template notices, which are civil ones).

I would like you to restate your comment to acknowledge clearly that I have never been either "belligerent" or "abusive"; I have followed Wikipedia policies to the letter: I posted warnings in the talk page of the article, the talk page of the user, and documented my concerns in WP:ANI (actions that Wikipedia guidelines suggest). As blocking administrators, you and others unfamiliar with the subject of Joseph C. Wilson (Joseph C. Wilson) or the content of the article about him (a biography of a living person and, as such, subject to WP:BLP) may not agree that what I perceived as Wikipedia:Vandalism to it (the insertion of biased potentially-slanderous undocumented statements that both of the Wilsons have "lied"--not a statement of fact and not supported by sources in the article that the user was giving links to--into the lead and elsewhere) was indeed vandalism (although I still do). Nevertheless, your different viewpoint on this matter is no reason to question my edits as anything but the "good faith" edits that they have been (WP:AGF). ... [further development below this request box; policies keyed to asterisks, which appear as bullets], as stated also in Wikipedia:Vandalism in its exceptions relating to WP:BLP (already quoted and linked in my archive 12 comments). Thank you. --NYScholar 19:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your request, continued below, is (again) much too long and confused. I will therefore not read it in its entirety. In short, you appear to argue that with edits such as this one you were reverting vandalism. This is wrong. The edits revolve around whether or not some sourced text belongs in the article. This is, therefore, a garden-variety content dispute, and the block for violating WP:3RR is endorsed. Be warned that future blocks for similar behaviour may increase substantially in length. — Sandstein 17:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Documentation

• As a longtime editor of Wikipedia who has scruples about proper sources (see my userboxes linked above), I have been trying to improve the quality of Wikipedia, not to harm it. The other user who has a clear bias that he threatens to re-insert into the Wikipedia article (as he did before) has no such purpose to improve the Wikipedia article (no interest in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view or WP:BLP); he refuses even to consult Wikipedia's own policies and guidelines; he is demonstrating clearly that he is not editing "in good faith" (given his own statements in his talk page, which are "belligerent and abusive").
• Although I understand that you see things differently from what I have been stating, nevertheless, I still protest this block and the comment that I was in any way "responding in kind". I was not.
• Nowhere have I been "belligerent and abusive"; nowhere have I been anything but (in Wikipedia's own terms) "civil" (WP:CIVIL). In contrast, I have been the victim of the other user's personal attacks, which violate Wikipedia's policy against making them anywhere in Wikipedia (WP:NPA). Deleting personal attacks made against me and others is a policy that I follow in Wikipedia, as I clearly state in my user talk space userboxes. Administrators are supposed to protect users from such abuse not to sanction or condone it.
• I was and continue to be editing "in good faith" (WP:AGF). Following the instructions of Jimmy Wales (as cited for a long time on my talk page above) concerning WP:BLP ("biographies of living persons"), I "removed on sight" what I regard as potential slander that the other user kept inserting and re-inserting (through his multiple reverts) into the article on Joseph C. Wilson. The article already has a full section and subsection discussing reliable and verifiable sources concerning the controversy pertaining to the Wilsons. Please read Joseph C. Wilson, especially Joseph C. Wilson#The Senate Intelligence Committee Report, and its subsection Joseph C. Wilson#Selected press commentary and Wilson's responses (both already linked in my previous comments in archive 12) and please consult the editing history since that user entered the article more carefully. The material that the other user falsely claims that Wikipedia has been "censoring" has been in the article, properly and reliably and verifiably sourced, for many months.
• I myself had cited those sources a long time ago in the article's current "neutral point of view" development (linked directly above).
• The other user was inserting potentially-slanderous undocumented statements (see lead* [asterisks to policies are keyed to bullets below]) which I "removed on sight" following the emphatic instructions of Jimmy Wales regarding WP:BLP as specified in WP:3RR#Exceptions***
• His POV insertion in leadDiffs--"persistent vandalism" according to Wikipedia:Vandalism, intentional violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view** [keyed to bullets below] despite many prior warnings about it: see User talk:Tim Osman#48 hour block and his subsequent threats in response to it. (See * [asterisks] in subsequent bulleted comments. Updated.) --NYScholar 19:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)]

[That user inserted false and undocumented statements into the lead of the article in that edit; the sources that he cites (one the Senate Intelligence Committee Report; the other a National Rev. blog) do not "prove" that Valerie Wilson and her husband "lied" as he states and that has no place in a lead, where it was unchallenged. Every editor of that article must document its statements properly (using full citations to reliable and verifiable sources); that responsibility remains with the editor originating the material (according to Jimmy Wales); full citations require authors' names (if available), titles of articles/book, publication details, dates of publication, and dates of access, and (if print sources) page refs.; he threw in external links in a strange format, having no knowledge of how to format a citation via WP:CITE.

That material he added needed to be deleted due to its violations of WP:BLP and particularly Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, WP:CITE, WP:Attribution, and WP:Reliable sources. My deletions of it were appropriate. My own prior detailed discussion of my reasons was previously posted in my current talk page and in User talk:NYScholar/Archive 12, as linked in the talk page of the article before I deleted his post-48 hour-block POV insertions. I did so by reverting to another user's earlier neutral version. After that I spent many hours correcting problems in the citations formatting. All of those edits are "constructive edits" (including deletions of his "smear" attempts).

Instead of thanking me for all my hard work, you issue a "punitive" block, to "punish" me, for improving the article. To me that shows that you responded without examining closely the "diffs." in the edits.] One should not be "punished" for actually improving an article and maintaining its integrity in terms of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

• • Please see:

“

NPOV violations (link is in section): The neutral point of view is a difficult policy for many of us to understand, and even Wikipedia veterans occasionally accidentally introduce material which is non-ideal from an NPOV perspective. Indeed, we are all affected by our beliefs to a greater or lesser extent. Though inappropriate, this is not vandalism in itself unless persisted in after being warned. (bold print added). [Quoted from Wikipedia:Vandalism#What vandalism is not (its stated exception is highlighted in bold print that I added here and in archive 12 ref. to this.]

”

That user "persisted" in reverting to his already-discredited POV ("smear" in the word of another Wikipedian--see User talk:Tim Osman#48 hour block***) content "after being warned" several times. Thus, deleting his insertions (edit 146504814 and prev. ones) is removing "on sight" such potentially-slanderous material from the lead (and elsewhere that he inserted it) into the biography. My reverting it is exempt from WP:3RR (WP:3RR#Exceptions)*** due to WP:BLP and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: see quotations from these Wikipedia policies as bulleted (keyed to asterisks) below]. What he inserted in the lead of the article on Wilson is entirely inappropriate and potentially slanderous and clearly (after so many warnings against doing so) "obvious" (to my eyes) and "persistent" "vandalism". The article is better without his insertions in it. His insertions "harm" the article, may cause potential "harm" (slander) to the Wilsons, and thus "harm" Wikipedia.

• • • Please see:

“

... rearranging an article into an entirely smear oriented piece, one which is clearly biased to make Plame look like a complaining criminal instead of a covert CIA operative, is going to anger and upset a lot of people here. Not because their politics don't match yours, but because there's enough citation and evidence that it led to congressional hearings and a major trial. Your edits, some of which is fairly obvious synthesis, are going to fail wikipolicy at that point. Anyways, please follow the thread after you've cooled off. Hope you can continue to edit Wikipedia in a constructive manner after your block. ThuranX 21:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC) [Quoted from User talk:Tim Osman#48 hour block.]

”

Despite that warning from yet another user (User:ThuranX), User:Tim Osman returned to the article and persisted in re-inserting the same content that he had added before his 48-hour block, resulting in my "removing it on sight", my WP:ANI about his doing so, his week block and now my 48 hour block. The 48 hour block of my account is not, again, in my view, legitimate.

• • • Please see bulleted item in WP:3RR#Exceptions (already quoted in my archive 12)****:

“

reverts to remove clearly libelous material, or unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons)...

”

To Mango: Please see also my comments in response to User talk:Stephen#Your block of User:Tim Osman.

Please note also that you blocked me prior my seeing or having an opportunity to respond to your saying that you were going to block me [at the very end of your "warning" section]; I did not see that part until after you blocked me. I really do think, given the history of my "good faith" attempts to make that article conform to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:BLP, including WP:BLP#Well known persons and WP:POV, that you should unblock my account and IP address. [There are some important typographical corrections that I would like to make to Joseph C. Wilson and perhaps some other articles (they are non-controversial)]. Thank you. --NYScholar 21:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[Further updated due to typographical corrections (tc). --NYScholar 19:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)]

Some typographical corrections pending (sandbox)

For note 11 and replacement for a previous defunct link in it (and previously in external links sec. of Joseph C. Wilson) [I removed defunct link which was clearly outdated from external links yesterday.] I just noticed a defunct link in note 11; looked for a new link to the same bio today and found it]:

• "Joseph C. Wilson, IV". Biography at Greater Talent Network Inc. (Speakers Bureau). Accessed July 24, 2007.

Deletions of some editorial interpolations that I now see are incorrect. (Will do when back online and unblocked.) [Even that bio. is outdated; he no longer lives in Wash. D.C., e.g.]

Wilson's Greater Talent bio. says that he is a "native" of California, but while he was raised in California and Europe, he was not born in California (apparently--acc. to the CBS News "Profile" of him already cited in the Wikipedia article[2]; Marquis' Who's Who in America would document birthplace as well). The Wikipedia biography says that he was born in Bridgeport, Connecticut (with no source given to document that point--I think it comes from the CBS News Profile [3]). Needs correction/clarification of source (proper and reliable and verifiable source citation); it's not in the pages of his book cited (where he just says that he was born in 1949 but not where he was born). --NYScholar 00:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)]

Need also to correct typographical errors relating to Amy Goodman (and Juan Gonzales) citation; will consolidate so that the two references to the interview are the same; will use short ref. ("ref name=GoodmanGonz" for both). See some other typo. errors as well that need corr. (missing or incorr. punctuation, other inconsistencies in citations mostly). --NYScholar 03:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Government Printing Office etc. (sandbox)

This is the GPO (Government Printing Office) site URL for the Senate Intelligence Committee Report: GPO: Congressional Reports: Iraq. Going to the home page index is useful for other Congressional Reports and other government office records. [4]

This index of "hot documents" at globalsecurity.org includes links to html and pdf versions of the Senate Intelligence Committee Report (the full versions [albeit w/ redactions, of course]), not the partial document in the link given by the other user. The full report includes all the text, not blanked pages of a different pdf file version. The full report also includes the section of some of the committee members' "additional views".

• "Hot docs". [3/4 of the way down that "Hot docs" index page are the documents of the Report--the full report (with everything) in both html and pdf versions, and the "Conclusions" section; it matters which version or versions one links to to document the Senate's Report. See the Wikipedia article already linked in Joseph C. Wilson#The Senate Intelligence Committee Report. Globalsecurity.org is a reliable and verifiable source of these government documents that goes to their original pdf versions hosted on government sites. --NYScholar 02:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The scanned image is not currently properly described in the rationale on the image page. It is not a CIA "memo"; it is an attachment to a State Dept. memo. --NYScholar 02:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

When able, I will alter or delete entirely some editorial interpolations in a block q. to be more accurate. And I may either remove or move elsewhere the image of the "Notes"; those notes about the Feb. 19, 2002 meeting of Amb. Wilson with an official of the CIA Counterproliferation division are an attachment to the State. Dept. employee's (INR) memo dated both June 10 and July 7, 2003, not the memo that Schmidt is discussing in the block q. (a CIA memo dated Feb. 12, 2002).

I am not sure that this image was "Scanned from the report by the US Select Committee on Intelligence, red box added" as stated in its rationale. If it is from that report, what page does it appear on? The rationale needs to give the precise source (including the page number).

That "Notes" image (sans red box) is, however, downloadable from The New York Sun newspaper article (I have given the URL to that PHP version in the article on Joseph C. Wilson. That document file (which is a scan it appears that The New York Sun published in PHP version) can be saved in a computer file and then re-uploaded.

It is possible that The New York Sun article not the Senate Report is the source of that document ("Notes" re: Feb. 19, 2002 meeting).

I think that it needs a better (more accurate) description. For both "fair use" and "copyright" identification purposes, the image of those meeting "Notes" needs correct description, correct source, and correct rationale, to support a proper license in Wikipedia. --NYScholar 03:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Most importantly, those "Notes" should not be misidentified as if they were the Feb. 12, 2002 CIA "memo" that Schmidt discusses in the first block quotation from her WaPo article. It should not be confused with that memo (which predates the notes/meeting (Feb. 19). The "Notes" of the Feb. 19, 2002 meeting at the CIA which Wilson had with Counterproliferation officials about his going to Niger are an attachment to the State Dept. memo to Colin Powell. [I need to alter and/or delete the editorial interpolations in Schmidt's first block q.]

Those Feb. 19, 2002 meeting "Notes" are in no manner "proof" that "Ms. Plame" or her husband "lied" as User:Tim Osman stated (in the material that I deleted on July 20 and then again on July 23); neither is the Feb. 12 2002 memo. The National Review "blog" that that user cited is no "proof" of that either. All that material violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:BLP. That kind of biased politically-partisan blog post is not a reliable and verifiable source in Wikipedia, especially in a biography of a living person and especially not in a lead (introd.) to the article. --NYScholar 03:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, the discrediting of claims of such "proof" is already fully developed in Joseph C. Wilson#The Senate Intelligence Committee Report and the following subsection Joseph C. Wilson#Selected press commentary and Wilson's responses. Those sections have been there for a long time. Administrators dealing with this matter need to read them to see the problems with that user's additions to the lead and elsewhere in the article and why I consider those additions to be "persistent" "vandalism" according to WP:3RR#Exceptions/WP:Vandalism#What vandalism is not sec. on "NPOV violations" quoted above and why I deleted them. --NYScholar 03:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[Updated out of courtesy. --NYScholar 19:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)]