User talk:WILLIAM DAKOTA

Welcome! - and some advice[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, WILLIAM DAKOTA, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. While the Wikipedia community appreciates your obvious efforts to increase the amount of information on the site, we'd like to point out our policy against original research and for citing sources for the information you provide. This increases the reputation of Wikipedia as a whole and aids in checking the factuality of that article.

The advise in the last paragraph above in connection with several of your edits to List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people-related pages. --Francis Schonken 14:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article (BILL DAKOTA, WRITER, FILM CRITIC, NEWSPAPER PUBLISHER may not be sufficiently well-known to merit articles of their own. The Wikipedia community welcomes newcomers, and encourages them to become Wikipedians. On Wikipedia, all users are entitled to a user page in which they can describe themselves, and this article's content may be incorporated into that page. However, to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia proper, a subject must be notable. We encourage you to write or improve articles on notable subjects. --TheM62Manchester 12:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Star bibliography[edit]

If you don't mind, I'd like to complete the Hollywood Star bibliography. By my count, there were 13 papers in Volume 1 ("Bi-sexual Female Actresses named" was #13).

Vol 2 #1 was Natalie Wood, so I'm guessing that's all of Vol 2.

Hollywood "Confidential" Star: two issues (Elvis and Mitchum)

Am I missing any? BTfromLA 22:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dakota: By all means. I was publishing Gayboy at the same time and that was 20 years ago. Thanks for helping me out. The manuscript has drained me and the collection my mother had was ruined in a flooded basement. (WILLIAM DAKOTA 22:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

So does that sound right to you--13 papers in v.1, One in v.2, two in magazine format? BTfromLA 23:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dakota, Yes. One about every four months. Did Gayboy in between. Had 120 newsracks around Hollywood and North Hollywood. For personal questions you can email me [email protected] (WILLIAM DAKOTA 04:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Copyright and Wikipedia[edit]

Hello. You're posting various material that you claim is copyright and that you seem to be claiming is by you; for example: This material is excerpts from a copyrighted manuscript 8/9/95 TXu 703-772 THE GOSSIP COLUMNIST aka CONFESSIONS OF A HOLLYWOOD GOSSIP COLUMNIST.

If you are indeed the copyright holder, you may post such material (where appropriate), but by posting it you are releasing it under the GFDL. If you are not the copyright holder, you may not post it: the copyright holder must first explicitly release it under the GFDL.

Either way, what is not possible is to assert something along the lines of: "This material is copyright, and although I am posting it here you may not post it anywhere else."

Matters of copyright aside, there are other issues raised by posting long (or indeed short) reminiscences, essays, etc. to an article talk page, whose purpose is the discussion of the selection and presentation of material for the article itself.

I hope this is clear. -- Hoary 11:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles and talk pages[edit]

Hi DAKOTA and thanks for contributing to the Nick Adams article! Would you please consider moving your comments from the article to its talk page? Normally articles should contain only encyclopedic material; the place for discussion is definitely its talk page. Thanks. --Zoz (t) 23:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've deleted your edits to Nick Adams. Please don't insert yourself into articles. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've now removed them a second time.

Please read and digest the advice that has been given to you on this page. Thank you. -- Hoary 00:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Writer, William (Bill) Dakota[edit]

You cannot move your User page to article space. Please keep it in the User: space. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[[I am listed with wikipedia as Writer, William (Bill) Dakota no longer as User.WILLIAM DAKOTA 01:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you may be listed as User:Writer, William (Bill) Dakota, but Writer, William (Bill) Dakota would be the name of an article. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Nick Adams[edit]

And now I have removed your contribution from Talk:Nick Adams because you insist on putting a copyright tag on it. All material at Wikipedia must be released to GFDL, and if you include a copyright tag, you are not abiding by that requirement. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dakota,[[I am the copyright holder and not copying someone else's words. Which means by GFDL I can license my contributions. Shall I erase everything you post, which I may well do too.WILLIAM DAKOTA

Posting the copyright claim violates GFDL, and will not be allowed on Wikipedia. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It'll help to read the rules[edit]

I'm happy you're here, Bill Dakota, and I'm sorry to see that some other users are being rather harsh with you about your posts. But they are correct in pointing out that Wikipedia is a community with rules, and you've managed to violate some of them, though I have no doubt it was innocent on your part. You would do well to read at least the nutshell explanations of the three main policies of Wikipedia, lined here: WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V. It'll clear things up and make this a happier place for you to join in. (It'll also keep you from giving away the copyright on material you want to retain control over.)

If you find that you want to write about your experiences without interference from others, look into getting your own blog--it'll cost little or nothing, is easy to do, and you can put up whatever you like--pictures, anything--and the only folks reading it will be people who want to read it. BTfromLA 01:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DAKOTAI just phoned Wikipedia in Florida. In one of the above statements, I was told I could use my copyrighted material, and why not? I know it gives othe people the right to use it too, but my book is 476 pages. I don't think this ZOE had the right to erase my whole article. I own the KERN NEWS AGENCY and hopefully will get some respect from Wikipedia and get this ZOE removed. There are many complaints against her/him already. I don't know how many more they will permit. WILLIAM DAKOTA 02:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill, please don't let him get you riled like that. Again, I urge you to read those policies--it will immediately help you to see why these folks have reacted this way to your edits. If you are adding your personal accounts about celebrities--or any topic, for that matter--to the articles, they will be removed, no matter how true and relevant they are. For reasons explained on those policy pages, Wikipedia articles are limited to using material that was previously published by a reputable source. BTfromLA 02:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dakota, Well, this person said I was doing something wrong on the Nick Adams page, i.e., adding things that should be on the talk pages. I didn't know how to remove them and then she/he said they had removed them, in addition to removing my complete synopsis on Nick Adams from my manuscript. What friggin' nerve. But, looking at the page where people gripe at her, she has a whole, rather many pages for her continuous erasing of things. Who does she think she is? I am computer illiterate, although I am now in over 125 news print media, across the country. Can anyone go to any site and erase anything they feel like erasing, without Wikipedia's permission? If this is so, who the hell needs it? Just wasting time and I should let these people argue with one another. My time is more valuable than this.WILLIAM DAKOTA 04:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC) Right. They give out this sort of advice over the phone. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk and userpage moves[edit]

Please don't move your talk and userpage to another name. If you'd like a name change, you can go to Wikipedia:Changing username. --Kevin_b_er 04:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to tell us here what it is you'd like to accomplish before you make changes, and we can advise you how to do it without ruffling feathers. BTfromLA 04:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page blanking[edit]

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content, as you did to Hollywood Star. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 13:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dakota, when I first saw the site for HOLLYWOOD STAR I noted a few errors. I changed them, knowing absolutely nothing about Wikepedia and only used it twice for something I no longer recall. I also added a few things about myself (as the owner/editor of the named publications). Someone deleted these items. I also deleted the mention of the Walt Disney headline story because of all the flack I received from that headline story. I have also omitted it from my copyrighted manuscript as well. I don't understand how my page could be edited and then when I tried to make corrections on the Nick Adams page, having more knowledge on Nick than anone else posting, it was removed by ZOE and said it had to be on the talk pages. I didn't know how to move it to the talk page. I could have deleted it but she took it on her own to do it and then as a retaliation, she deleted my lengthy insert on Nick Adams/talk, which had put to rest the many unsupported things on that page, by persons who had never even met him. Wikipedia should be after TRUTHS, especially by persons like myself, and those things I wrote about are copyighted but by posting on Wikpedia, they are more or less in the public domain. So why can Zoe remove/delete but I cannot delete a whole page on myself and my publications that are there without my prior permission? Common law is common sense, but not hereWILLIAM DAKOTA 14:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Food for thought[edit]

...for everyone editing this user page

There's a sort of typical pattern where I've seen this happen over and over and over. Somebody, they go to an article and they see something they don't like in it so they blank the article. Right. So somebody warns them, and then they blank again and they get blocked. Right. Then they make a legal threat and they really get blocked. And it's just like a totally bad experience for that person, when in fact, they may have been right in the first place. Or maybe they weren't right. Maybe they just didn't like what we wrote about them, but still, we didn't handle it well. (Jimbo Wales, Wikimania 2006 plenary speech, 4 August 2006 [1])

So... how can we handle this? Anybody any ideas? --Francis Schonken 13:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dakota, You mean that I cannot delete a whole page that is created around my copyrighted material and inserted with opinions based upon their thoughts? Seems like I can sue (someone) for reprinting covers, and material written and without my knowledge or permission? This is called copyright infringement and I believe it could be filed in a civil court under copyright infringement for monetary damages, in addition to other charges. At the very least, I can file for an Injunction to have the page removed through a court order. All my material on the Nick Adams pages WAS REMOVED/DELETED by someone name ZOE. Is she the high priestess and can do it, but I cannot delete a page someone put there on me? I think NOT! The thing about the Internet, everyone uses aliases to hide, not really using their names but things or names they want to be known as and hiding their true identity. Well, I use my real name and have printed the truth. Truth is a defense in a libel suit, as well as proof. Wikipedia leaves much to be desired.WILLIAM DAKOTA 14:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"You mean that I cannot delete a whole page [...]" – On the contrary you can delete a whole page. And administrators can block you. And while you start to speak about court orders, administrators can get you very blocked. So, I'm trying to be creative here, and see what would be a better solution.

Some other of these guideline pages that might be of use to you, and to the other wikipedians in finding such solution is this one: Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. Either the material introduced in Wikipedia was previously published & copyrighted, in which case a formal GFDL acceptation declaration by the copyright holder is needed (unless the fair use doctrine can be invoked). Or your contributions to Wikipedia are directly published under the GFDL. In either case GFDL applies, which includes that the following applies: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." This text can be found below on the page under an edit window, and it highlights some essential features resulting from the GFDL. Once submitted under the GFDL these "merciless" activities may include redistribution (which includes "undo deletion"). That's GFDL. Or deletion. That's also GFDL.

If you want to see a page deleted, the procedures are explained at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, or alternatively WP:PROD.

If you want to invoke copyright violation, see WP:COPYVIO for procedures. But I don't see how a person owning the copyright (as you say you do), being the same person who submits that previously copyrighted content to Wikipedia ***agreeing to the GFDL in the process of submitting the material***, could invoke copyright violation.

A quicker way to make your fellow-wikipedians accept deletion, would probably better be to convince them the material is either not encyclopedic, or non-verifiable.

But it's up to the wikipedia community to decide, together with you as a part of that community, whether an article is kept or permanently deleted. That is if you choose to be part of that community, which includes stopping to revert and instantly removing & withdrawing any court-order-like parlance as a "slip of the tongue". In fact wikipedia:no legal threats could already have been applied. --Francis Schonken 15:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User: Dakota, I find it very disturbing that when I write something and then anyone can re-write it according to their whims or imaginations. I don't wish to be any part of such an organization or company. I know what I write is true, but anyone who doesn't like to read it can just change it? I guess this is under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution? But, it sort of makes this whole Wikipedia seem like a joke to me. Nothing but people arguing against one another over small things that don't mean much, just to get their names, (even if fictitious) online. I guess they are all seeking their fifteen minutes of fame. I am more interested in Israel and Lebanon fighting and why we can't get our men and women out of Iraq? And how President Bush, is a control freak, that seems to be starting World War III and people just sit back, doing nothing. Impeachment should be started. They did it over a frivolous matters with the Great President Bill Clinton. This is more important than squabbling over, things less important on Wikipedia.WILLIAM DAKOTA 15:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re. "anyone can re-write it according to their whims or imaginations", well err..., no: a very important Wikipedia policy for countering that is described in Wikipedia:Verifiability. You've been invited to read that policy page already quite a few times (just click the link and read). I invite you again. --Francis Schonken 16:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your questions about Wikipedia[edit]

Bill, if you are not willing to allow other people to jump in and edit what you've written, even when sometimes they edit very poorly, you should not contribute to Wikipedia. The whole idea here--for better or worse--is that all articles are authored collectively, and everything is subject to endless revision by the entire community. There is no barrier to entry in that community--some editors may be 10 years old. At best, the sensible and knowlegable writers prevail in the end, but it doesn't always function at best.

Wikipedia is not aimed at collecting lively first-person accounts--the idea is to create a dry encyclopedia that contains accuarate information presented fairly in a third-person voice (which is described as a "neutral point of view"). I'm not arguing that this is the best idea, but it is the way Wikipedia is set up, and one has to agree to these principals to participate here. Fortunately, the internet offers lots of alternative options for distributing types of content that would not be acceptible on Wikipedia. (I'm still hoping to see that Bill Dakota blog, completly seperate from Wikipedia.)

You should certainly tell us if you see factual errors in the article on the Hollywood Star, but you don't get to control what goes into the article just because it is about your paper. Nor should you be able to--would you want George W. Bush to be able to come along and dictate what can and cannot be said about him? Or anybody else--Hugh Hefner, O. J. Simpson, whomever. You sure didn't hold that policy with regard to the celebrities you wrote about! The Walt Disney story is notable, interesting, and true (I have a copy of the issue). I'm sorry if it pains you to see it mentioned, but just as Bill Clinton might be pained to see Monica Lewinsky mentioned in his history, it is relevant.

I'm pretty sure that there is no copyright violation going on by reproducing a couple of your covers in this context--as you know, there is a concept of "fair use" when brief quotations of text or images are used for journalistic or scholarly purposes. But other than momentary spite at a couple of editors who have criticized you, I can't see why you'd want them taken down--seems to me their presence here provides very good publicity for the Hollywood Star, and is likely to get more people interested in your upcoming book. Do you really want the cover images removed?

You said something about how Wikipedia should want "Truths." While of course everybody wants the information here to be true, in the sense of factually accurate, one of the peculiar guidelines of Wikipedia is that the threshold here is "verifiability, not truth." In other words, if you have something to say that is 100% true, but you cannot provide a citation of a reliable source that has already published that information, it can't be included here. This policy, and the logic behind it, are explained at WP:NOR and WP:V. I hope this is of some use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BTfromLA (talk • contribs)

See: bill-dakota blogspot.com will be making moves to there.

Good. I hope you'll lay out all the stories that were too hot for the Hollywood Star. Why not tell the Disney story? BTfromLA 05:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http:www.thehollywoodstar.blogspot.com The Disney story got me into a lot of flack, as did the Betty Hutton story. After the Disney story, many people confirmed and said they knew he was bisexual too. Fans don't like reading the truth about their stars, but more are coming out of the closet, after they are too old for anyone to care.

If you don't mind the question--what sort of "flack"? BTfromLA 01:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(see also: www.nicholasadamshock.blogspot.com). I wish I had copies of the one I had here. I recalled a number of things I had left out of the manuscript. I am printing excerpts on the blog as I go along. I THINK it will be safe without deletions. I saw the Wikipedia disclaimer. Proves that much of the material isn't fact at all. Seems like a game site. I suppose they will put ads up when they get enough subject matter. Someone on an airliner has me blocked. AOL members ALL get blocked since they have the same URL. But, I had joined, using my email address.

You can recover the text you wrote--every revision to these articles is archived. Go to the "history" tab on the page where you wrote, find the version of the page that includes what you wrote, and you can open it, copy the text, and move it to your blog. BTfromLA 01:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block[edit]

You have been blocked for disruption of Wikipedia, because you added material that could be regarded as defamatory. See Blocking policy: Biographies of living people. You may return when the block expires. Any further attempt to restore the material will incur another block. .... added at 18:46, 7 August 2006 by ChrisO

Advertising in talk pages[edit]

Some time on 6 August, you announced in Talk: Nick Adams that you were no longer going to contribute to Wikipedia. The history page of that article shows that you have been active there since. You added links to your own sites. I deleted these, as the purpose of an article's talk page is to discuss edits to the article. You added them again. I deleted them again. If you add them yet again, you are likely again to be blocked from editing.

If you want to contribute to an article according to the rules of Wikipedia that are clearly written and that the huge majority of other editors find easy to understand, please do so. If you want to have articles deleted (as you have said about Nick Adams), there are clearly described methods of applying for this; these methods are open to you. If you want to leave, go ahead and leave. However, please do not hang around merely in order to use talk pages to describe your own grievances and to advertise what you are doing elsewhere. -- Hoary 13:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy: I notice that Dakota has blogged his book at www.the-gossip-columnist.blogspot.com over 51 sections. Good boy.

User:WILLIAM DAKOTA[edit]

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to your user page (User:WILLIAM DAKOTA), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy).

Please note that the purpose of a user page is not as personal homepage or used as a general webhosting service, but as way for active editors of Wikipedia to introduce themselves to other editors. If you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues here or on my user talk page. You may remove the deletion notice, and the page will not be deleted for the moment, but note that it may still be sent to Miscellany for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Calton | Talk 01:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]