User talk:FreedomYeahRight

Welcome![edit]

Hello, FreedomYeahRight, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Delibzr (talk) 07:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: FreedomYeahRight (June 7)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MatthewVanitas was:

See WP:notability (songs)

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:FreedomYeahRight/sandbox/FreedomYeahRight and 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.
You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! FreedomYeahRight, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Helm sources[edit]

Hi, you may want to familiarize yourself with WP:RS. You've replaced a news article (a secondary source) with what appears to be a primary source document detailing the exercise, hosted on a white supremacist website. That's not really how sourcing on Wikipedia works—as you'll see in the policy article I linked to above—and that's why I'm reverting your edit. Dyrnych (talk) 18:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh geez, that was certainly not my intent. I am not for supremacy of any kind! I am back out into the internet to try to find a more official source. I know that is the correct document because I have seen it at the town hall meetings.FreedomYeahRight (talk) 19:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely didn't think that was your intent. That said, if you want to list the document in a "see also" section, that would be appropriate. But it would probably be a bad idea to interpret the document yourself for the article (because that's original research) and a similarly bad idea to replace the reliable secondary source that we have in the article with a primary source. Dyrnych (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are going to have to elaborate on that point. Why would a secondary source be better than a primary source?FreedomYeahRight (talk) 19:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PRIMARY]] but the other problem is that if a document isn't on its publishers site we don't know if it's been changed. Doug Weller (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It's a principle of Wikipedia that we predominately use secondary sources. The rationale behind that is that "[p]rimary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research." Dyrnych (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see how you could quickly get into original research. Point taken, I will use a secondary source. Thanks for obeying the "don't bite the newbies" principle. FreedomYeahRight (talk) 19:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help me![edit]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with...

I believe someone vandalized my uploaded photo from the federal government's presentation.

File:JADE_HELM_LOGO.png (see previous revision) JADE HELM LOGO.png. This is a work of the federal government and public domain under 17 U.S. Code § 105. How do I resolve this?

FreedomYeahRight (talk) 11:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think it has been vandalised? The file history shows only this one version, which you uploaded at 01:38, 9 June 2015.

By the way, when you refer to a WP page, you don't need to give the full URL, just the page name between double square brackets makes a WP:Wikilink. With an image file, if you want to link to the file rather than actually displaying it, you precede its name with a colon character. So typing [[:File:JADE_HELM_LOGO.png]] gives File:JADE_HELM_LOGO.png. JohnCD (talk) 11:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not the file itself, but the page. Someone tagged it with a "di-no permission|date=9 June 2015". I deleted it but I just wanted to make sure there was no legitimate reason someone could tag a public domain image. Also, thanks for the tip.FreedomYeahRight (talk) 11:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was actually somewhat related to me zapping the image from the article, as it was mentioned on IRC. You need to provide the source to show that it's from a US Govt document, so that people don't assume (as happened) that it came from one of the dozens of websites using it that pop up in a Google search.

The edit to the file page was not, btw, vandalism. Vandalism is when a person intentionally does something they know is damaging, in obvious bad faith. Revent^talk 12:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I jsut edited the file page based on the information you gave at the article talk page, should be fine now. Just remember that people need to be able to verify the licensing, so give links. :) Revent^talk 12:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that someone else had done it in bad faith, which logically triggered you to question the image in the article. :) FreedomYeahRight (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, User:FreedomYeahRight/sandbox/FreedomYeahRight[edit]

Hello, FreedomYeahRight. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "sandbox/FreedomYeahRight".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:JADE HELM LOGO.png[edit]

The file File:JADE HELM LOGO.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Bizarre nonsense. We're not a webhost.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]