User talk:Cadbury333

greetings from groupuscule

Hi Eksilverman, welcome to Wikipedia! I want to thank you for your extensive contributions at Gregory Bateson and Iatmul people and to offer my assistance with navigating this wacky website of ours. (You can communicate with me by editing here—your page is now on my "watchlist"—or drop me a message at User talk:groupuscule.) If you're interested in doing Wikipedia assignments with your students, there are some resources on that here. Good luck with the beginning of school. See you around! groupuscule (talk) 09:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Eksilverman, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Draft:Association for Social Anthropology in Oceania (ASAO) has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 12:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Association for Social Anthropology in Oceania (ASAO)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Association for Social Anthropology in Oceania (ASAO), requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
• It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Draft: Association for Social Anthropology in Oceania (ASAO)

Now I'm confused too. I am getting a message that you have sent me an email stating that you are confused about the article that you created. However, I haven't received the email. I assume that is Association for Social Anthropology in Oceania (ASAO). It appears that you created that article in draft space in September as Draft: Association for Social Anthropology in Oceania (ASAO). It contained material that was copyrighted by ASAO, and had to be deleted on grounds of copyright violation. You then created it in article space, and I tagged it for speedy deletion as not providing evidence of corporate notability and as advertising (for the organization). If you have questions about notability or about advertising (which is not permitted), you may ask at the Teahouse. Please do not edit an article on yourself except in special circumstances, because you have a conflict of interest. Instead, request that someone else edit the article. Maybe I haven't answered your questions. Do you have any more questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The email was in my spam folder. The draft still exists. You say that none of the information on the web site is copyrighted, but almost everything on a web site is copyrighted. Wikipedia cannot use information that is on a web site unless the publishing party unconditionally releases rights, not only for use in Wikipedia, but for use by all in the world. Also, there is still language in the draft that we consider promotional, such as "The organization prides itself on a welcoming atmosphere". Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

As an officer of the organization, you have a conflict of interest. Also, in order to get the draft approved, references will be needed of independent (third-party) coverage of the organization. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Robert. This makes sense. I add that I was absolutely not trying to advertise the organization--just to give it a page since it is a fairly well-known scholarly organization, which I was then going to alert other members so they could add additional information, such as it history, etc. But given your own information, I shall pass on it. Thanks for your help. Eksilverman (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. SwisterTwister talk 14:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Ann Olivarius 2018.png

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Rhodes Scholarship edits

Hello @Eksilverman: I couldn't help but notice you rolled back some of my edits on the Rhodes Scholarship page, switching the emphasis back to the early history of the Scholarship. I understand that you want to document the original motivation for the bequest but your edit leaves out other motivations like fostering the special relationship between Britain and the Newly independent USA. Also your edits don't go into any detail about how the Scholarship has evolved over the years. It seems that most of what you have written would be better suited to the Rhodes Scholarship section on Cecil Rhodes' Bio page? Could we perhaps balance the history so it is 50% about the early days and 50% about the present day, with more emphasis on The Scholarship itself and less emphasis on its founder. Also may I ask you what your overall vision for the page is? What version of the Scholarship's history are you trying to put forward? Best regards, Pug of the day (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, @Pug of the day: See my comments in the talk page of the scholarship....I was just trying to add more detail and depth to the early history of the scholarship, but agree with you that it would be helpful to enlarge on the history of the program in its various decades/eras. My vision for the page is simply to enlarge on the details, especially in regard to its history. Happy to continue the discussion and the draft additional sections that cover subsequent years. --Eksilverman (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ann Olivarius 2018.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ann Olivarius 2018.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Rhodes Scholarship edit, why??

I'd like to point out that your revert of my edit is the exact opposite of what you stated in your Edit Summary. Why? {{u|waddie96}} {talk} 18:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

For example, you stated "Not sure that the phrase "leftist delusions" adds anything factual to the discussion, too". Insinuating that "leftist delusions should not have been removed, yet you reverted my removal of it? {{u|waddie96}} {talk} 18:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@Waddie96: If I understand correct, I deleted your deletion of the "leftist delusions" comment. If so, that was an error on my part! Not sure how that happened, as my intention in the edit was to do likewise, that is, to delete that very same phrase. So, I think we are in agreement. Forgive my error.

The reason why I removed the specific examples you had added to some of the college articles...

...is because those are just one of many things it exempts them from, and I feel like you are trying to imply that these institutions are specifically trying to avoid those regulations whereas the founding of at least some of the institutions refusing government money predate the enactment of these regulations; for example, Yeshiva Toras Chaim opened in 1967, whereas Title IX didn't exist until 1972. It just seems to me it's simpler to state that they refuse government funding and doing so excludes them from certain regulations tied to government funding rather than to give a partial list of the things they avoid by refusing government funding. It also seems like a certain fringe wants to paint these institutions as rape havens compared to places that do accept federal funds, yet our article on campus sexual assault paints a different story (also, my own experience with a public school doing absolutely nothing about a sexual assault against me in direct violation of Title IX paints a different story, not that you can really use that in an article, but still...). PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 01:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I see your point, @PCHS-NJROTC (and forgive me for not having responded sooner). I was highlighting the fact that, in today's higher education climate, one of the key issues confronting colleges everywhere is sexual misconduct. Thus, to shun federal dollars, whatever the original reason, is perhaps most directly relevant in today's world to this particular issue. Off-hand, do you know what other regulations a college avoids when it shuns federal funds - significant regulations, that is - other than the one's I listed? Cadbury333 (talk) 12:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Women's Equality Party, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Union of Students. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on May 10, 2019 Edit

Hi there User:Cadbury333:

I wanted to discuss with you an edit you made to the Jeffrey Sachs page last May about his Arnhold Institute fellowship. I know you participated briefly in my conversation with User:Ibadibam earlier this month on that page. Given that the original post used a lawsuit as the citation, and lawsuit filings aren't considered acceptable sources on Wikipedia, would you consider deleting the full second sentence under Arnhold/Mount Sinai? (This is now under a new heading 'Academic appointments'.) I realize that we now have a Vice article as a source. However, the few sentences mentioned there are simply repeating what is alleged in the lawsuit. Also, Vice Media is coded as a 'No consensus' (marginally reliable) source on Wikipedia's list Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. I can find no other source to support this statement.

If you would consider this edit, I would be very grateful. It is the one item Dr. Sachs has said is not true. Given that the reliability of the sources is questionable, I would like to be able to achieve this change. Thanks much for your time and consideration. LeepKendall (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Globe and Mail reference

Cadbury333 posted a reference to what is said to possibly be the first ever use of the term sexual harassment in print in Sexual_harassment#The term "sexual_harassment". The reference is said to be an article by Hugh Gardner in the Globe and Mail from 18 March 1972. In attempting to verify the content of this article, I've been unable to find it. A web search on "..and every prisoner an unprintable word" produces only links to this Wikipedia article. The source is said to be ProQuest Historical Newspapers digital archive. I do have access to that archive as a Wikipedia editor, but searching that archive I was unable to find the Gardner article. Can someone update the reference to provide more information as to how to access it? Dash77 (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I just checked my online database access for this item, but the database today doesn't go that far back for this particular newspaper. So, I have requested a scan of the article...kindly stay tuned... Cadbury333 (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I finally received a copy of the Globe and Male article. It was a review by Hugh Gamer of the book, Maximum Security: Letters from Prison, edited by Eve Pell (1972). The review contains this paragraph (bold my own): "Among the criminal acts perpetrated against long-term California inmates is the theft of destruction by cell-searching guards of a prisoner's appeal to a higher court, the withholding of mail, the removal of a man from one penitentiary to another where his wife cannot afford to visit him, the sexual harassment of a female visitor by a guard who promises better privileges for her man in exchange for her favors, the tearing up or scribbling of obscenities on photographs of wife and children, the deliberate breaking or confiscation of the contents of a gift package."

I will see if I can determine if the phrase was used in the book itself. Cadbury333 (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@Dash77 I just searched for the phrase in the actual book via the Internet Archive, and it does not appear. So, we know that "sexual harassment" was used in the Globe and Mail article from March 1972...but I would think there are other sources, or that it was at least used in conversation prior to that publication. If you can dig up earlier sources, please do! Cadbury333 (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)