User talk:RYP

I did a pretty big edit to the Robert Young Pelton and before you go and revert it, I want to explain what I did and why I did it. The changes I made were in the interest of making this article conform to the general look and feel of the other biographies of living persons we have here on Wikipedia. First off, I took out the book reviews section. I have no objection to one review of your current work being there, but having review after review is not generally allowed on biographical articles and runs counter to the WP:VAIN guidelines. While I was add it I removed the (vandalism?) about your moustache and some of the personal info about the "The Black Flag Cafe". I'd like to see some citations for the 2 quotes I left in (and tagged it as such). If they are online and you send me the URLs, I will fix it up. Secondly, I removed the links from the Bibliography because linking every book you have to it's Amazon.com listing is going to be seen as an attempt to use Wikipedia for your own marketing purposes and is generally frowned upon. I also removed a vast majority of the external links section. Again, if you look at other contemporary articles on writers and jounalists, most have a handful of links. I rather arbitrarily picked the links I left on there, but if you have 5-6 external links that support the statements in the article, it would be fine to include them. Linking to a huge number of your works is not in line with the general practice here and again, might be seen as a misuse of Wikipedia's resources. Please don't take any of this personally... I don't know you, nor am I in any way affiliated with the other user you appear to be having some sort of issue with. My only interest is making sure this article is

As for your listing continually changing... yes that will happen. Wikipedia is a fairly dynamic thing and articles are rarely static... and unfortunately vandalism is part of that. Articles are routinely edited boldy (or mercilessly depending on your point of view). My biggest problem with the number of links is that it is not in line with other biographical articles here at Wikipedia. As for a link to your website, that is perfectly fine... as are a handful of external links... Please bear in mind, I'm not trying to be the gatekeeper or final authority of the content on your article; I'm just another editor trying to make Wikipedia into a decent and useful resource. If the links I chose are not the links you think best represent your work, then by all means change them. I just want to avoid having 71 links, because - trust me on this - you will see alot more claims of "spam" on this article if you have a huge "linkfarm" at the end. As for the Nat Geo articles... I don't have any strong objection to having them linked, so I've restored them. I just removed it wholesale because I find it easier to start from scratch than try and pick through a huge amount of info. On the Amazon links, generally Books by an author are not externally linked and are only linked internally if they have an article in Wikipedia. Whether or not you make any money off of these books, there may be a perception of attempting to use Wikipedia for profit. Beyond that, it encourages the next person that comes along and see's the article to start adding external links to their books... which is a particular problem with people who vanity publish. I assume the people who come to Wikipedia can navigate over to Amazon if they are interested in your work and search on the titles from teh areticle... I think I covered all your comments... let me know if I missed anything.--Isotope23 20:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I understand all that but I also look at Wikipedia as a place where people come to get clear, unbiased and free information. I understand the "too many links" idea but I also know that Wikipedia is itself made out links...so you have quite a conundrum. If editors cannot leave cyberspace and enter reality to contact a prime source to confirm something then you are relying on second sources, so technically I am that second hand source or you can look at the cover of the book on Amazon or google it from any number of review etc etc. I could just link it to Amazon or my site as proof but that would get it deleted.

But more importantly, have a look at Paris Hilton's listing and tell me which entry is of more use and benefit to people using the internet to research useful information. Which listing should be more in depth? One that attracts people by virtue of name recognition and then sends them to free, in depth sources that provide safety advice or one that plugs Paris' latest single? I hope the effort you expend (for free) is comensurate with the value that is delivered to the users of Wikipedia.

This entire excercise started with a 14 year old spammer throwing three of the available monkey wrenches into a simple review with extensive outside links. There was no clean up, photo added, organization or culling just a well intentioned attempt to respond to the original claim but not to expand the usefulness. I endorse the idea of free information but I don't get why the format and listing was not enhanced or expanded...just chopped. I appreciate the work on the book listings but unless there are ISBNs' publishers, etc it doesnt provide much value considering the amount of content Amazon provides for free.

In any case I would like to get the three silly headers off my listing and see what happens.

RYP

That page with the text is intended to be a temporary placeholder until I can incorporate the information for the Billy Waugh article. I just hadn't gotten around to it yet, and don't always have my copy of Licenced to Kill on hand. No copyvio was intended. Alcarillo 23:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are indeed Robert Young Pelton, would you mind confirming through the email I sent you? It regards asking permission to repost the aforementioned text on my user page's testing area. Thanks. Alcarillo 18:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From your contribution and edits to my scratchpad page:

You may contact me for permission to reprint excerpts at [email protected]

I'm still awaiting a response. Thanks. Alcarillo 22:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need to confirm who I am?... Dude, I am not the one hiding behind an alias. I don't have an email from you in my inbox but you have my name and email above. RYP

I'll resend it. Alcarillo 03:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an email with the domain mypacks.net Alcarillo 03:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You just left a notice in article

If I understand correctly, you are Robert Young Pelton, so I think you can answer this. You uploaded the headshot File:Ryp-1.jpg, but there seems to be a conflict with the license. You uploaded it under the GDFL and CC-BY-SA 2.5 licenses, claiming to be the copyright holder of this work. However, the image description says "©Spencer Mandell. Used by permission". These are at odds with each other, so it needs to be clarified. It's a perfectly useful photograph of a notable person, but if the copyright status cannot be clearly determined it will probably be deleted from Wikipedia. To keep the image licensed under the current licenses, if Spencer Mandell took the picture you will need to get permission from him. The Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and Wikipedia:Example requests for permission pages are useful resources for that. - Gump Stump (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The photo is owned by myself and given to me by the creator Spencer Mandell. There doesn't seem to be a lot of knowledge about copyright at Wikipedia. It is the USAGE of the image that should be reviewed not just the ownership. All photos can be traced to an owner but Wikipedia requires USAGE rights otherwise known as clearance. Since uploading an image to Wikipedia essentially puts the photo into the public domain it is important to know that the "CREATOR" in this case Spencer Mandell, a wonderful photographer and the subject, myself, as well as the OWNER of the image and RIGHTS HOLDER of the image are in full agreement that it can be used on Wikipedia. There are no copyrights or intellectual rights violated in the correct and approved use of this photo.

None of the above people or rights holders require compensation or further rights protection when this photo is used in conjunction with my Wikipedia page. The stuff below is drivel and smacks of censorship without a brain. I suggest that bots and other brain dead lazy items be eliminated from this site. I you have any further questions you know where to find me.

I am sure by the time the bots and the propeller heads figure this out I will need another more haggard, older pic to replace Spencer's great shot! :))

RYP (talk) 05:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC) RYP[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ryp-1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. - Gump Stump (talk) 21:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:RobertYoungPeltonAfghanistan.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on

Thank you for uploading

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:RobertYoungPeltonAfghanistan.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the
  this list
  ) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter
  here
  .

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]