Chriswrenn50

Welcome!

Hello, Chriswrenn50, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Jonathan D. George, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Starting an article
• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! MikeWazowski (talk) 00:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jonathan D. George

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 Jonathan D. George requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Chriswrenn, I'm an admin her at Wikipedia. I've actually declined to delete the article, as MikeWazowski must have been unaware of the special rules regarding government publications. In general, Mike is right that we cannot just copy information from other sources directly and put them onto Wikipedia, because doing so is a copyright violation; we have to remove those very quickly to protect Wikipedia from claims of copyright infringement. However, almost all documents created by the US national government are automatically in the public domain, which means they may legally be copyrighted. In the future, if you do copy info like that, be sure to add a template that states where the info was copied from; you can see a full list at Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles#United States government attribution templates. This is because even though information from public domain sources may legally be copied into Wikipedia, it still needs to be properly attributed per our own rules. And Mike is also partially right that it's better when info is put into your own words, though it's not strictly required. What that article really needs now is cited information from reliable, independent sources (i.e., newspaper articles, journal articles, etc.) that discuss George. That will help give the article a fuller perspective, as well as help show that George is notable. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Gen. George

Hello, as I am sure you know I did a major revamped of the article over Gen. Jonathon George. This was not meant as an insult, and I realize now that yours was not a copy right infringement. Still I think just copying and pasting is not a great route to go. You are very free to edit mine to your liking, however I still think this way is better, despite it not being a perfect article right now. It has plenty of time to be improved. Thanks for your understanding and your help.Politicsislife (talk) 02:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I like what you did, alot. The first take was a starting point with the intent to make changes just as you did, and very well I might add. I see you have some skills as well as politcal saavy. If you are interested in getting involved with the George campaign, send me contact information and I will make sure it gets in the right hands. Best, CFW Chris Wrenn 02:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of fact I would be very interested in getting involved with his campaign. My email is Hadley812@aol.com and I can give additional info there if you do not mind. Thanks. --Politicsislife (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Gen. George

I just thought I would give you some advice. I made the the box below that you can use if you want. I would have saved it myself, however it pushes down the pictures, and really would require deleting them unless more was added to the sections. You can click the edit your talk page above and copy out the technical details of the info box and paste them on the General's page so you can see what it looks like there. The box looks really good but I hate to see the pictures lost at the same time. Of course the ideal solution would be to add more info to the sections so that there would be room for all pictures, however I honestly can't find much on the General. If you could add some that would be great. I know you added a lot to the early life and education section earlier only for it to be deleted by another user. Just remember when writing to make it sound neutral, wikipedians hate it when they think an article looks like a campaign article. I know it is hard because Gen. George has such a great bio, but the more neutral sounding the less likely it will be reverted. As you can see I did not fill in info such as the General's birthday, spouse, children, or website on the user box as I do not know any info of those items. The first three of those can also be mentioned in the article as well.

Jonathan D. George
Democratic Party candidate for U.S. House of Representatives from Indiana's, 9th District
Election date November 6, 2012
Opponent	Todd Young
Incumbent	Todd Young
Personal details
Political party	Democratic Party
Residence	Bedford, Indiana
Alma mater	Harvard Southern Illinois University Carbondale

If you need any help at all with the article I would be glad to pitch in. Just comment on my talk page. Best regards. --Politicsislife (talk) 02:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

COI concerns

The fact that you claimed at the article to have personally interviewed George, and the pretty clear implication that you are working for his campaign in a section above, I have to strongly recommend that you stop editing the article. Wikipedia has a policy on editing with a conflict of interest. We don't actually forbid people from doing so, but strongly recommend that they do not, basically because you have contradictory goals to Wikipedia's. Your goal is to make sure George is well-represented so that he gets elected; our goal is to provide a neutral presentation of an encyclopedia subject. That means that if negative information arises about George that is verified in reliable sources, it has to go into the article. It means that we cannot overly focus on positive things about him. Generally, people directly working for a subject are unable to maintain enough distance to write neutrally. Instead, what we recommend is that when you would like to make suggestions for changes to the article, that you do so on the article's talk page. I am going to tag the article with a note that says that a major contributor has a COI, and strongly encourage you to consider these concerns. If you have any questions, please post them here and I will be happy to help. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I must admit I am totally confused. I am in no way connected with any campaign for Gen George. I do not work for Gen George. I do not live or vote in Indiana, actually I live in Boston. Some years ago, six or seven years ago, I had the privilege to serve under his leadership as have many thousands of others. I thought it an appropriate sign of respect and an appropriate use of this forum to start a wiki. I assumed others would build upon the initial skeleton, I know that I have no intention of doing so beyond very basic information. Frankly, this is my first wiki and so there has been a learning curve. I can't imagine why the COI should remain in place as every aspect of the current article meets wiki guidelines. I respectfully ask that this be reviewed by the proper individual(s). As for balance regarding any negative comments, I don't understand the position you present above ... how is this an issue in this article at this time? I must admit, if there is a bias, it doesn't come from this article or it's two contributors so far. Given the reviews, and subsequent overiding of previous objections this very simple article has had in just a few days, I am beginning to wonder what in the world is going on! While I greatly appreciate your help, I must confess that the efforts to suppress simple, verifiable facts leave the impression that a "conflict of interest" may exist but not from me. Chris Wrenn 03:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

If you are not a part of George's campaign, why did you state above to another editor, "If you are interested in getting involved with the George campaign, send me contact information and I will make sure it gets in the right hands"? That certainly sounds like you're involved. Furthermore, if you aren't involved in his campaign, how did you get a "personal interview" with him, as you stated in the edit summary for this edit? I'm not asking you to reveal the details of your personal life or connection with George, but those two points worry me. At the moment I won't replace the tag, but I am still concerned. At the moment, the article is fine; although I must admit I have done no research to see if there are any additional points that need to be added. I'm merely stating that if you are involved with the campaign, that concerns will arise in the future, and its not really possible to serve two masters. As a side note, I will let you know that the very first concern with the article (the claim that it was copyright infringement) was very wrong, and the editor who marked it as such has been told to be more careful on that concern in the future. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Once again, I am not a part of any campaign. As I said earlier I worked for the General a number of years ago and because of that relationship we became linked on a social media outlet. Through that link I was able to access him. As for your first quote above, sure I can send the guy's info to the General, I have his contact information. Nothing else was implied. Frankly, your interest in this makes me uncomfortable as it seems an agenda exists on a personal level which extends well beyond quality control. Once again, I ask that this chain of correspondence be reviewed by the proper Wiki oversight authority ... your treatment of this article and me is accusatory, regrettable, and certainly not appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriswrenn50 (talk • contribs)

Apologies if my inquiries were upsetting--I was simply confused because your actions seemed to indicate something different than your comments did. In any event, I won't push the issue any further. For reference, Wikipedia doesn't really have an oversight authority--we're all volunteers. Some people are called "administrators", and they have the ability to do things that non-admins can't, like delete pages, block users, etc., and while they do often "exercise authority", they're technically not supposed to be any higher or better than other editors. There is a higher elected board called the Arbitration Committee, but they're only a stop of last resort, if all other avenues of dispute have been exhausted. If you think my behavior was inappropriate, probably the best place for you to complain would be WP:AN, which is the administrator's noticeboard. You are welcome to do so, but please be aware that if you do so, they'll look at the whole situation (including your edits), and, in all honesty, are likely to not worry much about the issue since I'm now stating that I will stop pressing the issue. I'm not trying to dissuade you from commenting there, but I just don't want you to think I'm "tricking" you into making a report that in all honesty is unlikely to result in anything. Again, I never meant to make you uncomfortable. The truth is that many many campaign volunteers or employees have numerous times attempted to modify articles related to themselves or their opponents, so it's something we try to watch out for. In fact, it's so common and gone to such a high level that we even have an article called US Congressional staff edits to Wikipedia, which covers many occasions where the issue has not only been detected, but even reported in the news. I hope that my directness before doesn't dissuade you from continuing to edit Wikipedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)