User talk:CACook7

CACook7, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi CACook7! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! SarahStierch (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Call Cook.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! _nonsense ferret 01:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

John Call Cook, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 2013

Hello, CACook7. 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 John Call Cook, you should consider our guidance on Conflicts of interest and take a look at the Plain and simple conflict of interest guide.

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. Auric talk 20:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

J. C. Cook listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect J. C. Cook. Since you had some involvement with the J. C. Cook redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). I've also listed J C Cook. Huon (talk) 00:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 2013

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_5. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. _nonsense ferret 16:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further warning re assumption of good faith in dealing with other editors

Your continued comments such as recorded at Talk:John_Call_Cook and User_talk:Huan fall some way short of the policy of assume good faith which has already been highlighted to you by me. I have moved your comments concerning the article to the article talk page, because simply that is where comments concerning articles belong. I am asking you kindly to think seriously about the way you treat other editors whose only interest is ensuring that the long established policies of wikipedia are followed, in the best interests of wikipedia as a shared encyclopedia we can all be proud of. --_nonsense ferret 23:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:John_Call_Cook#Empty section. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Your comments about Huon's edits to your work apparently being out of "vindictiveness" are not welcome here. Humblesnore (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there was any damage to the integrity of the encyclopedia, it was from your copy and paste of content of a page from one location to another. Such a move loses the edit history (audit log) of changes on a page so makes everyone's jobs as editors, including yours, much harder. I appreciate this wasn't obvious to you as a new editor - but it really should never be done using that method. The other changes you made to create redirects specifically to the page you created are obviously under discussion - the result of that discussion will be a consensus result based on agreement and reason in the best interests of consistency and fairness to all. --_nonsense ferret 00:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Legal Threat

Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 00:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you make the allegation that editors are supporting one another even when we're wrong. As I said in the message you so succinctly deleted - that is something we simply don't do. You are also discriminating against editors here, including myself, when you make that statement. You're tarring all of us with the same brush, and I wish you wouldn't. You're escalating this whole situation way too quickly for my liking, and I think it might be wise to refer this matter now to the Administrators Noticeboard for their perusal. You are not the only one who won't tolerate discrimination. Humblesnore (talk) 08:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at the Administrators Noticeboard

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Humblesnore (talk) 08:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

Hi, I've been asked to look at all this toil and trouble, and see if we can sort it out. I am led to believe that you're a relative of John Call Cook. The bad news is that I must ask you not to edit the article itself, as this would be a conflict of interest and no encyclopedia has articles where the relatives of a subject write that particular content. What we would love you to do is to provide as much information as possible at Talk:John Call Cook so that impartial editors can then take that information and put it to good use in the article.

I'm also needing to understand the issue with the page, the redirects and the common name John Call Cook was known as, it may be that we would prefer to keep the article under the name John Call Cook, but if there's a good explanation for the changes you're trying to make, we can move the article to a more accurate title.

In the meantime, until we get to the bottom of the whole matter, I would ask that you don't edit things and exacerbate the problems that exist. Thanks. Nick (talk) 00:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OI. Enough is enough. "Humblesnore actually went so far as to nominate the newspaper article in Call, for deletion from Commons, with no justification other than spiteful wrath." - I did no such thing. Before you start yelling the odds, kindly check your facts and don't accuse people of something without verification. And accusing me of having "spiteful wrath" really is the limit. You're getting very close to my requesting that you be blocked. Lose the attitude, for your own sake. Quickly. Humblesnore (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. And for the record - I have no privileges here, short of basic editing. And lending "financial support" to the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't entitle you to any special privileges as an editor. We don't ignore things because you gave the WMF some money. Humblesnore (talk) 17:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not going to block you. I would ask that you try and not get involved in prolonging disputes with other editors. I've spoken with Humblesnore and will have a chat with Huon, but from speaking to Humblesnore, I don't believe there's any sort of agenda going on, they're just both really keen that the article you have written is brought in line with every other article of the same type (a biography of a scientist). The process of writing an article on Wikipedia is much like writing a scientific paper (as I'm sadly only too well aware) and sometimes it can be very difficult to get the information you want into the format that is required. What I would like to propose is that you work on a draft article away from the article that already exists, perhaps at User:CACook7/Sandbox and when you've finished it and have it exactly the way you like it, we can check it over, make any tweaks necessary to bring the formatting and tone into line with every other article on Wikipedia. I'd look at Alan Fairlamb or Philip Cohen for some ideas on what we're looking for in a polished, finished article.

I'm still needing some further advice on the precise naming for the article on your father but a potential compromise approach may be to put a disambiguation at John C Cook and having your father's article at John C Cook (physicist) or something similar if physicist doesn't suitably describe the science your father carried out. The other article would go to John C Cook (politician) but I'm not sure on precedence on having a disambiguation at John C Cook and at John Cook so it may be this approach won't work. Let me know how this sounds though and I'll see whether it's something I'm allowed to or not. Kind Regards. Nick (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm here, I've been away for a couple of days. I'm going to look at this all tomorrow and hopefully we can get everything sorted out between the various editors and yourself so you feel you're able to contribute and help out here. Nick (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm I dream of horses. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Talk:John Call Cook with this edit without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 23:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:John Call Cook with this edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 23:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at John Call Cook, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Blanking other pages such as Talk:John Call Cook, and removing recent warnings from your talk page is also inappropriate. nerd fighter 23:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 April 5#J. C. Cook, you may be blocked from editing. I have reverted your blanking of the RfD discussion about J. C. Cook per the explicit instructions not to modify closed discussions. We leave old discussions visible as an archive for future reference as this benefits everybody and keeps Wikipedia's processes as transparent as possible. Thryduulf (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Materialscientist (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

C&P move

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give John C. Cook a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This (as you know already - but for the benefit of CACook7) is an unfortunate attempt to undertake the alterations I suggested over a week ago, I had suggested John C. Cook becomes a disambiguation page, with that content being moved to John C. Cook (politician) and John Call Cook going to John C. Cook (geophysicist). I've asked for some thoughts from various other editors and administrators on these moves/changes, but I honestly don't know if we're going to be able to swap stuff around and thrash out the renaming you're hoping for. Sorry. You'll have to be patient and bear with us. Nick (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether the move of content was agreed or not, cutting and pasting is never the correct method to do so, nor is unexplained removal of content acceptable.

Secondly, please be aware of the Wikipedia:No legal threats policy. If you do choose to engage in legal action against the foundation you will be blocked from editing while it is ongoing. The reasons for this are explained on the policy page. Thryduulf (talk) 15:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Cook, please re-read my comments above and read the information I provided, focus on my comments where I suggested what we MAY be able to do, to try and please you. You will note there was no offer or agreement to clear any of the history of the article or the redirects (any mention of the history of the article would have been regarding the identification of the authors responsible for the content, in the context of repairing your numerous copy and paste 'moves' of content). I suggested 'we' (as in those who edit Wikipedia, as a collective, not the WMF, not administrators, but the whole body of people who edit) may be able to move your father's article to John C. Cook (geophysicist), and indeed, we still can, that's easy and can be done if you would prefer the article to be under that title, I doubt anybody would object to that, though we will of course ask on the talk page and speak to other interested editors for their thoughts. The issue on moving the current content from John C. Cook to John C. Cook (politician) is less clear cut, several people have expressed unease with that proposal.

You should also be aware that several of the people who have commented and spoken to you on IRC (both when I was present and at other times) are fully aware of the history of the article, and

I should perhaps have explained in greater detail the way Wikipedia works, the Wikimedia Foundation essentially provide the infrastructure on which Wikipedia is built, they allow the community (that's you, me Thryduulf and every body else) to actually run things, the community picks the administrators, bureaucrats and others who perform maintenance type tasks, administrators have no greater say than anybody else over content and I cannot over-rule any other editor, just because I'm an administrator, when it comes to content issues (and many others, but let us focus on content) everybody around here is equal. That makes this a sort of democracy, where everything works on consensus. I raised the issue of moving content around as mentioned many times previously and not everybody agreed with it, so it cannot go ahead without further discussion, compromise and agreement from all parties involved.

Now, onto the actual issue at hand, you were told, when I first spoke to you almost two weeks ago, that you shouldn't have been editing the article as you have an obvious conflict of interest, that you should have been helping other editors to edit the page via the talk page, it seems you have disregarded that advice and have continued to make edits to the article, there's a reason we don't really encourage relatives and others with an interest in the subject of an article to edit those articles, it's because it so frequently ends up with people blocked, legal threats and the like. Relatives, colleagues and employees are seldom detached enough to write an objective article and all to often, when anything they consider to be unflattering or wrong is added to an article, threats of legal action ensue all too often, really.

What we need you to do, in order to get this all sorted out, is to withdraw your threats of legal action against the Wikimedia Foundation, go away and think about what you want the article to say, what aims you have for it, and come back in a week's time, head to Talk:John Call Cook and discuss the move, and consider putting in a request at Wikipedia:Proposed_moves too, that way you'll get a lots of community involvement and there will be no issue if the community agrees, in getting me or another administrator to move the page.

If you want to get in touch with me in the mean time, e-mail me via Special:Emailuser/Nick. Thanks. Nick (talk) 15:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't have the faintest idea what these unbalanced and spiteful attacks from Huon constitute or where they are. If you could you provide links and I'll LOOK and see if any action is necessary. In trying to find these links earlier, I note you were told by Huon to request the move of the John C. Cook page a few days before I became involved and you appear to have refused or ignored that advice and went about copying and pasting content to achieve your aims. Do you understand that if other editors disagree, you cannot simply ignore them, and make the changes you want, that you have to discuss, compromise or simply accept your preferred option isn't accepted by others.

With regards to your block, you appear to have been blocked because you ignored ever so many people telling you not to copy and paste content, because it deletes the author information and effectively breaches the copyright of every editor to have edited/created the content you copy and paste. That's very problematic, but if you agree not to just copy and paste content, to seek agreement with other editors to move content at WP:Proposed moves then you won't have to worry about being blocked again. I stress again, you're not blocked because of what you're trying to do and absolutely not because of what you're saying, but for purely technical reasons relating to copyright and preserving page history correctly.

There is, however, a serious problem looming on the horizon. You're presently blocked for one week, now we can possibly get the blocking administrator to unblock you and get on with resolving all of this, if you agree to firstly drop the legal threats and to not copy and paste content, to discuss the page move at WP:Proposed_moves and accept the outcome of any discussions there. If you don't agree to drop the legal threats, your block will likely be extended by another administrator when it expires next week and become indefinite, until such time as you do drop your legal threats.

Finally, I need you to realise we are all volunteers here, we give what time we can, sometimes that's a half a day or a weekend, other times, it can be just a few minutes, please don't expect everybody to drop what they're doing just to help you (especially when you've been, frankly, dismissive on advice you don't want to hear). I and others have asked you to be patient and wait, we're all interested in trying to make the article on your dad the best it possibly can be and we would appreciate if you realised that's all we're interested in. Nick (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I explained the problems with cut-and-paste moves at Talk:John C. Cook on April 5. Quote: "[...] we must move the page through WP:Requested moves so that the page history is moved along with the content - that's important for licensing reasons." Maybe that wasn't clear enough, but you didn't ask for a clarification even after I repeated that point with additional details. I've explicitly pointed you towards the appropriate process to get the page moved on my talk page - while I can't tell whether you read that, you definitely saw the note I left here. Huon (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please try and understand, you were given no promises, no guarantees were made to undertake any course of action. I have tried to be completely above board with you all the time, proposing a couple of compromises and going away to speak to other users, to see if there's agreement to make the changes. The reason nothing has been done is because there's no agreement to make any of the changes I proposed or you proposed. I told you I would see what I could do, that I may not be able to make changes, and that it could take a while to reach agreement. You were asked to be patient and chose not to be, indeed, you chose to make edits you were told not to make and which were against the consensus of the community before I became involved. I've tried to help and do what I can but at the end of the day, I'm a volunteer, I give what time I can to the project, some days I can't help, other days I can, if that doesn't suit you and your requirement that I be at your beck and call 24/7, then tough. I'm having nothing more to do with you and your frankly petulant behaviour. You've lied to me, lied about me and I've had frankly quiet enough. You've been told what you need to do, it is up to you whether you choose to request moves and speak to other editors to resolve this issue, or not, but I'll be providing no help in this any further. Nick (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have not lied about anything, period. The record is all there. Huon's adversarial approach and this 'piling on' by others, is certain to create disaffected, if not adversaries. It's a mystery why this wasn't recognized, and a shame. CACook7 (talk) 15:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_5, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. _nonsense ferret 23:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:John Call Cook, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Auric talk 23:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I get the message. Wikimedia Foundation did not respond to my deadline, and you people are still intransigent, and so it is time for legal action. You can quote me on that. I did all I could to avoid this, but it is unavoidable. CACook7 (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

No sir. We will subpoena the information for each editor who chose to take adverse actions in this issue, and we will add them to the suit. Yes I expect the Wikimedia Foundation to indemnify you, and so no need to really be concerned. Although if they don't, it is up to the Court. End of discussion. CACook7 (talk) 00:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. Ironholds (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]