User talk:Czbiker

This is the User Talk page of Czbiker

Welcome!

Hello, Czbiker, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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:Where to ask a question, 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! Flapdragon 02:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

Hello, I noticed that you have some concerns about the recent edits that I made to an article and have indicated that the article is about you.

Just as an aside, SmackBot is an automated editing device that helps clean up articles by turning simple shortcut codes into more proper/informative coding.

If you have concerns about comments made about you within an article, the best place to go is to our process for handling issues about living people.

Our policy for all articles, but especially applied to articles about living people, is that the material in the article must be supported by a reliable source. The information that I removed from the article, claims that Dr. S. "was the first" were not supported in the article by any source. Should you have a source, please note the source on the article talk page with a request for another editor to add the material to the article. It is generally not recommended that people actually edit their own article due to potential conflict of interest. However, should any libelous / unsupported material be entered in the article, removal is generally allowed. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind our policies of conflict of interest[edit]

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should 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;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
avoid breaching relevant 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 conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"claims"[edit]

"The statement that Dr Shuker's books claim that he was first cryptozoologist to bring certain cryptids to a wider audience is incorrect, because there is no 'claim'involved. I WAS the first, which can be checked by reading through crytozoological publications that appeared prior to mine" - while your statement may be true, please read wikipedia's policy of verifiability and original research. We need an independant third party to have published that conclusion. If you dislike "claim" we can also take out the reference to "first".-- The Red Pen of Doom 20:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not simply state: "His books have brought to widespread attention..." ? This is true, and also avoids any of the above contentious issues. Dr Karl Shuker Czbiker (talk) 20:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because that is also a claim that would need to be verified. How about

"According to his books, Shuker is the first ...."

That eliminates the "claim".-- The Red Pen of Doom 20:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: vandalism[edit]

I am sorry that your article has been vandalised in the past. Unfortunately, the fact that Wikipedia is in fact an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, nearly every article has been subjected to repeated vandalism, and it does not appear that your article has been specifically targeted more than usual. Should persistant vandalism occur, various levels of protection can be added to the article, but currently such levels are not evident. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have access to any of the tools that can prevent vandalism, but I have posted your concerns at our notice board (or [1] )for incidents concerning living people. If I have missed any of the details of history, feel free to supplement my summary. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Shuker[edit]

You have admitted to being the subject of this article. Therefore editing the article is inappropriate as per our conflict of interest guidelines. Removing the autobiography tag is even more inappropriate. You are welcome to suggest improvements to the article on its talk page, but you should refrain from editing the article yourself, except to remove obvious WP:BLP violations. Thank you. BradV 18:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2013[edit]

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. — raeky t 15:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — raeky t 15:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia operates best when editors are able to do their work free of legal threats. The threat you made in your article's talk page clearly violates our "no legal threats" policy. As a result, your account has been blocked from editing indefinitely. If you wish your editing privileges restored, please review our policy and take the recommended actions. Rklawton (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I am not a regular contributor to Wikipedia, so I am not sure what the recommended actions are, so I would be obliged for information or links to such. As far as a threat of legal action: as I earn my entire living from cryptozoological writing, to find my work lambasted in such a manner, which is both inaccurate and inconsistent (everything Raeky applied to me can be applied equally to other cryptozoologists as cryptozoology is not an academically accepted subject and therefore cannot be judged by normal academic standards, so why haven't they received similar treatment from Raeky?), is shocking and disturbing to me, and could severely damage my earnings potential, as all comments on the Talks pages are publicly accessible. Nevertheless, I accept that I was myself guilty of being unprofessional by responding to Raeky's allegations in the manner that I did, and for that I unconditionally apologise to Wikipedia. I greatly value Wikipedia as an invaluable tool, and certainly have no wish to slur its reputation, even if - as is certainly true - I have major disagreements with one of its editors' claims. Czbiker (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC) Dr Karl Shuker[reply]

Although it's plainly obvious your using or attempting to use Wikipedia as a promotion platform when reviewing your past posts and discussions on the article, the route to being unblocked is found at WP:APPEAL. — raeky t 16:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your livelihood is not our concern. Your use of our encyclopedia to promote yourself runs contrary to our mission. I would not consider removing your block unless you also agree to refrain from directly editing your article. If you have concerns about the article's contents, you may raise them in the article's talk page. At present, you can expect to see changes to your article as it bears little resemblance to the balance and neutrality our readers expect. Rklawton (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can recall, in recent years I have merely added the bibliographical details of my books, nothing else. I certainly don't purposefully use my Wikipedia article for promotion - all publicity re myself and my work is done via my website and blogs. Obviously, however, I accept that articles should be third-part contributions - something I didn't know when I first contributed main-text information, and which, once I was informed, I have refrained from doing since. So, yes, I shall continue refraining from editing my article. Czbiker (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC) Dr Karl Shuker[reply]

OK, I've unblocked your account from editing. Please respect your promises. Rklawton (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything about apologizing for the legal threat, taking it back and promising not to make such a threat again, which should be required before unblocking on making a legal threat! — raeky t 17:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for unblocking my account. When I make a promise, I keep it. In any event, as my mother is seriously ill I am sure that you will understand when I say that editing Wikipedia is the least of my concerns. Czbiker (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC) Dr Karl Shuker[reply]

Reaky, your comments arn't helpful.

Czbiker, although you are allowed to edit an article about yourself, it's strongly discouraged for exactly this reason. You are of course allowed to take legal action against Wikipedia and it's authors, we cannot prevent that. However, we get legal threats leveled a lot on Wikipedia even when they have no substance to them. Our policy is not to allow editing while a legal threat is outstanding for several reasons. The primary is to force people to use the appropriate legal process and legal channels for their actions. Wikipedia is not a courtroom for legal action to take place. Second, it's because of the chilling effect that legal threats cause. Folks are often in opposition to critical information about them being included in articles about them, their business, or particular interest and throw around legal threats whether they have a reasonable case or not. Luckily, we have a policy that governs our use of negative information in articles about living people. They are several channels for you to use before resorting to legal threats to address information in an article about you that you feel is inappropriate. The first is the biographies of living people noticeboard where you can outline your concerns. If that fails, you can also email [email protected] to have the problem addressed by one of our volunteers. Finally, you can contact the Wikimedia Foundation directly here to get help. Keep in mind, however, that if there are sources critical of your books, our policy is to allow them provided that they are not attack sites and they are significant. We are an encyclopedia, after all, we we have the good and the bad. I'm sorry this situation has likely left a bad taste in your mouth but please do not let it discourage you from participating.--v/r - T P 17:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For more information, you can click on the link I provided above. And you have my best wishes for your mother's speedy recovery. Rklawton (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, TP, for your reasoned explanation, which is what I am normally accustomed to receiving from Wikipedia editors. I have detailed my concerns regarding this situation in previous comments, but what they primarily consist of is alarm and confusion as to why I have been specifically targeted by the claims made by Raeky when no other cryptozoologist entry on Wikipedia has received any such comments, even though we are all in exactly the same position. Cryptozoology is not an academically recognised subject as yet, so if its researchers are to be judged entirely by normal academic standards of significance, scientific citations, etc, then I think it likely that every single cryptozoologist entry would need to be deleted in order to maintain consistency. Ditto for persons prominent in other controversial fields, such as ghosts and other paranormal phenomena, UFOs, etc. Working in such 'fringe' fields, we can only be judged by our output and the respect or otherwise that it attracts, and mine is surely sufficiently prolific and well respected by other cryptozoologists (check references to me in their books, articles, blogs, etc) to warrant an entry here. I have been a consultant for TV programmes, I am a longstanding consultant for Guinness World Records (formerly the Guinness Book of Records and still one of the bestselling books in the world), my own books have attracted the likes of Dr Desmond Morris and the late Gerald Durrell willing to write forewords for them, this very day I received an invitation from the scientific journal Historical Biology to act in future as a regular reviewer of submitted papers, I am the editor of the scientific journal Cryptozoology (currently the only peer-reviewed scientific journal in existence), etc etc. However, I have only very limited knowledge of the precise requirements for notability re biographical entries on Wikipedia. So I naturally accept that the decision as to whether my entry is deleted is a matter for the editors - all I would ask again is that whatever the decision may be, it is consistent across the entire spectrum of cryptozoologist entries. Thanks again. Czbiker (talk) 17:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC) Dr Karl Shuker[reply]

Thank you, Rklawton, for your kind wishes, which my mother and I sincerely appreciate. Czbiker (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC) Dr Karl Shuker[reply]

To address specifically why Raeky is targeting your article and no others, it's because we don't require it. All of our users are volunteers and we address each article on it's own merits. The essay on this subject is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Basically, Raeky has not addressed the other articles because his natural editing pattern has led him to this one. He's not expected or required to take on an entire category of articles at the same time. If the subject interests him, he may delve into the other biographies. On the subject of yours, though, if you know of third party sources that were either critical or supportive of your material and entirely independent of you then they would be immensely helpful to the discussion. It would be a huge show of good faith if you provided some of the ones that were critical of you and you could take the opportunity to point out sources (independent of course) that were critical of the criticism.--v/r - T P 17:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would also show good faith to the COI if you CLEARLY indicate your COI issue (i.e. disclose your name) on your user page. As for how I "focused" on your article, I was drawn to the picture of you on cryptozoology as a potential copyright violation (which btw it's OTRS ticket is invalid and needs more responses from you on Commons, appears to be a studio shot, clearly not taken by you yourself, so a release of copyright for the photographer/studio will be required.) That's how I found your page, and now that you brought up all the others, I've taken a look at them (one image on one I think is clear copyright violation and I tagged it for attention), as for content, I'm only one person, and can't take on 8 articles at the same time. — raeky t 17:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Czbiker, Your arguments supporting your notability are well reasoned. I think you have little to fear about your article being deleted. If it were nominated for deletion, it's clear to me that the article would survive and that the nominator would be criticized for the reasons you presented above. Indeed, your participation in such a process in the unlikely event that it would occur, in my opinion, wouldn't be necessary as the article's merits are self-evident to experienced editors. The article does have a problem with tone and neutrality, but those problems are easily remedied buy an experienced editor. Though I empathize with the Raeky's disdain for fields that eschew the scientific method, the fact is, it's encyclopedicly useful to provide information about these fields and their leading practitioners, and you will find considerable support here on that basis. Rklawton (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with providing third-party sources independent of me and supportive of my material is knowing where to begin. I've been writing for numerous magazines for nearly 30 years, and in that time many many letters responding to my articles have been published in them, magazines such as Fortean Times, Fate, Strange Magazine, Paranormal, The Unexplained, X Factor. I also have many folders full of newspaper reports and interviews covering my work, and if you google my name you will find many online accounts too. Re critical ones: I have been in the fortunate position of not having attracted any serious, vitriolic criticism, at least not to my knowledge. I've seen a few palaeontological arguments against my Prehistoric Survivors book (a book, incidentally, whose brief was given to me by its publisher; it was not a subject of my own choosing) on Amazon, and a letter in Fortean Times criticising one suggestion of mine re a winged humanoid entity from Indonesia plus a somewhat pedantic review of one of my books in FT, but that is about it. In my current Wikipedia entry are comments about me from two major books on cryptozoology, written by two leading writer/researchers in the field. Obviously I know them, as in 30 years I've come to know pretty well everybody in cryptozoology, but we've never met or co-authored, etc, so in terms of coverage their accounts can be classed as independent. I used to compile a list of articles, books, etc written by others that mentioned my work, but it became so long, especially with the onset of the internet, that I gave up long ago. If I still have it, I could include the section of it that I did prepare here (I think it goes up to around 1997 or 1998), but it is exceedingly long and may need to be converted into a compatible format. Czbiker (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC) Dr Karl Shuker[reply]

Thank you, Rklawton - it's good to know that the fringe subjects and their researchers will receive due attention on Wikipedia. Some of them may well become fully accepted academic disciplines one day, just like meteorites, for instance, have done. Re the photograph of me - yes, it was taken in a studio, as part of a complete batch of photographs, but the photographer, a friend of mine, told me that I was free to use them however I wished to, and that there was no copyright infringement details to worry about, as he unconditionally gave all rights to them to me. I realise that I should have obtained this in writing, but as he was a friend I'd known for many years, I saw no need to do so. He has long since retired and moved away, so I am not in contact with him any more, but if I can trace him, I will ask for written confirmation from him that I have total reproduction rights over them. Czbiker (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC) Dr Karl Shuker[reply]

As for the picture the OTRS agents at Commons will let you know if that is acceptable or not, directions on how to contact OTRS is at commons:COM:OTRS. And a discussion about it is going on at commons:Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Review_of_Ticket_request. — raeky t 18:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First let me express my sympathies and well wishes to you, your mother and your family. Anyway, I don't know if you've been following the ANI discussion, but some people have expressed concern it's not clear you've either withdrawn your legal threat or made it clear it was not intended as one. While I'm not saying I agree with this view, it may be helpful if you make this clear. And also maie it clear you will not to make further legal threats. (As TParis has said, we can't stop you taking legal action, but please understand ifyou do so you will be blocked during the course of the legal action and do not make legal threats.) To make it clear, this is not a demand, but simply a suggestion on a good way to reduce tension that may exist with other editors. Note in particular I don't think it is necessary to apologise, althou if you want to do so that's great to, instead simply clarify your promises. Nil Einne (talk) 15:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the discussion at ANI, and since I'm actually somewhat familiar with Shuker's work—I own The Beasts That Hide From Man and various Fortean Times issues— I thought I'd comment here. I agree that Wikipedia shouldn't give undue weight to fringe theories, but it's distressing to see how poorly writers like Shuker get treated around here. Cryptozoology books vary wildly in quality and purpose. It's not fair to assume that there must be a vast quantity of critical press about any particular Fortean writer. Some of them do make an effort to be diligent and objective. Shuker is more reasonable than most. He's done some good research, and has shown a willingness to revisit and explain classic crytozoological tales (see this article, for example). Unfortunately, I think some people automatically lump all cryptozoology enthusiasts with guys like this. Zagalejo^^^ 04:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent updates[edit]

Your article has undergone significant revision recently. These edits have helped the article conform to Wikipedia's standards. If you have suggestions for changes or additional material that belongs in the article, please do not hesitate to make put them forward in the article's talk page. I think you'll see that most editors here are interested primarily in helping create and maintain quality, encyclopedic articles. Occasionally this results in a bit of drama. That's regrettable, and I greatly appreciate your patience. Sincerely Rklawton (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]