User talk:Chegitz

Orphaned non-free image File:SP Florida logo 100.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:SP Florida logo 100.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SEC approved new logo

Can you give a source that says that SEC approved the new logo which is currently featured.--TIAYN (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The MySpace SPFL web page, which is the only authorized web presence of the SPFL, uses that logo, but otherwise, the only reference is unpublished minutes of the Party from 2008. Chegitz (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean reflist, the reflist is in the references section... If you are talking about the citation templates on the page, you need to verify and reference the article with third-party sources. --TIAYN (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I try to add to it, all I see on the page is ((reflist)) with curly brackets. 16:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I figured it out.Chegitz (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --TIAYN (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, its a long time since i actually earned a positive comment about my editing. --TIAYN (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that clears up alot of things, you don't need to stop communicating with me.. If he keeps on i'll get an administrator to block him, or protect the page so no IP users can edit it. --TIAYN (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPUSA

What that resolution means, is that the dominant elements within the SP hold that position. That does not prevent a minority within the party from holding a contrary opinion; indeed, that's at the heart of being a multi-tendency organization, that a losing faction need not walk out and form another splinter sect that agrees with them on all subjects. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It theoretically could; but it does not. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, duh!

Verifiability is not an option. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Socialist Party Florida logo large.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Socialist Party Florida logo large.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 03:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2011

Hello Chegitz. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Socialist Party USA, you may have a conflict of interest, or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

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.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content 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 a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. As an national officer of the organization, you have a conflict of interest and should abide by WP:COI. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a credible allegation that I've not exercised great caution? I believe I've tried very hard to limit the article to the facts.Chegitz (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:COI policies. You should generally limit your editing to proposing changes of information, which others should generally be allowed to implement. You are one of the primary contributors to many articles where you have a direct COI, with the SPUSA and with its Florida branch; in fact, your account is close to what a WP:Essay has termed a single-purpose account.

Regardless of your intent, such prolonged editing on SPUSA-related articles does not inspire confidence in the public. Our WP:COI policy is written not to target you but to protect WP and to maintain the public confidence.

Furthermore, I noticed that many of the SPUSA-related articles are poorly referenced, and I can recognize passages from SPUSA literature, for example in the allegation of "democratic centralism" by the Unity Caucus, which comes right from your organization's "history". It certainly violates WP:Copyright. If you have added any such material, please remove it immediately. These histories are not reliable and should be removed directly. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read WP:COI policies, a long time ago, before I made any changes to the SPFL article. I exercised the required extreme caution. Other's such as OrangeMike and TISYN have looked over my edits and haven't made an issue of what I've changed.

As for the literature you mention, I didn't add it, so it isn't relevant. Stick to violations I have made.

As for the account, I lost the password to the previous account, so other stuff was lost. Most of the edits I made were a long time ago, so I'm wondering why you're bringing this up now. It's not as if this is a terribly active account. Chegitz (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, Mike might not be the best guy to give you a second opinion on this set of articles. I remind you of the COI policies because I see so many similiarities between the histories of the WP article and the your organization's "history", which is not a reliable source. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]