User talk:ChrisO
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Old discussions now at /Archive 1 / /Archive 2 / /Archive 3 / /Archive 4 / /Archive 5 / /Archive 6 / /Archive 7 / /Archive 8 / /Archive 9 / /Archive 10 / /Archive 11 / /Archive 12 / /Archive 13 / /Archive 14
Please add new comments below.
[edit] Image:City hall london.jpg
This photo is an old Featured Picture of yours, and a few days ago it was nominated for delisting. I just found out that the nominator did not inform you of this, so I'm doing it for him. The main problem with the image is the size; it was promoted over two years ago and just doesn't meet current size requirements. Would you happen to have a higher resolution version? Raven4x4x 04:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] User:129.7.35.194
Hi Chris. I see you have warned and blocked 129.7.35.194 on Dec. 21st. This user has stubbornly inserted/reverted his paragraph in Oxford Capacity Analysis, which is not very encyclopedic, and which I think is anyway better covered in the article already -- the same paragraph that was reverted on Dec. 21st. Still, I'm trying to find RS to enhance what is already there, and added a cite, which he reverted too, calling me a "scientologist liar" on the summary edit... I had previously left a message on his talk page, to no avail it seems. Raymond Hill 23:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Agim ceku.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Agim ceku.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — Nv8200p talk 23:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Copyright violation notices Bay of gibraltar.jpg.
Hi. On a Flickr page of this photographer there clearly states that "All right reserved". There is nothing about any free licence! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stanmar (talk • contribs) 23:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC).
- The "all rights reserved" notice is automatically applied to all photos by Flickr itself. As I said, the photographer has agreed to license the picture as cc-by-sa-2.5 - it seems he's forgotten to update the notice on Flickr, though. -- ChrisO 01:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Use of MBE medal on web site
Hi Chris
I am writing to ask if you could use your image of the MBE medal on a web site we are designing. I can send you the graphic of how it is going to be used, if you send me your email address - I will attach it
Many thanks,
Rob rob@enotions.co.uk —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.109.31.65 (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Fjuckby
Good news. I expanded the article so it now meets DYK criterion. -- Jreferee 00:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] DYK!
 |
On January 10, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fjuckby, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. |
Nishkid64 15:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Scientology article
Hello there, Am I to assume then, that you are the one responsible for writing the Scientology article? Before I begin, I remind you that I speak under the free speech laws guaranteed me under the congressional rights of a canadian citizen. With that out of the way, let me begin. I have long turned to Wikipedia for a clear and unbiased opinion on any subject. Thus it disappoints me that I found said article on the subject of Scientology to be, while not lacking in true information, readily filled with slander and half-turths. Even many truths are coloured, with a tiny "Spin" added to present it in anything but a clear and unbiased fashion. Have you simply read wrong information on our Church? Or do you intentionally create these supressive effects? What have we done to you? Should you choose to respond, I will compile a list of specific areas of discontent to me and others like me. User:TimonofAthens, 02:35, 12 January 2007
[edit] Middlesbrough
hi I do have a selection of photos showing Middlesbrough along the lines of the one you posted - if you would like coppies to select for the Middlesbrough page I will glady send them on ty
- Sure, why not upload them and let's see what we can use? -- ChrisO 11:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Patrick Flanagan
Dear Chris, My name is Cory and I am the research director for Phi Sciences of Cottonwood, Arizona. The information contained within the Patrick Flanagan article contains much outdated and outright incorrect information. There has been many peer-reviewed publications in scientific journals, authored by myself, Dr. Flanagan as well as other scientists in the field. I made some edting changes on the page and added some links and references to account for the innacuracies, as requested by Patrick Flanagan, himself. I notice then that the changes are then reverted back to the incorrect information. Please consider the revisions. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. Most Sincerely, Cory ~nano duke
[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Albanian_road.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Albanian_road.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then you need to specify who owns the copyright, please. If you got it from a website, then a link to the website where it was taken from 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 then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
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 criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 05:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 05:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] ifd
Please see Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_January_15#January_15#Image:Yellowcake.jpg_.28talk_.7C_delete.29 -- mav 22:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Scientology articles
I am relieved to hear that such a celebrated administrator can use his authority with an impartial and unprejudiced hand. Below is a list of areas I would like to be, if nothing else, more thouroughly examined.
- the L. Ron Hubbard article,under heading: controversial episodes, paragraph 5, (the Jack Parsons controversy)
I note that all the sources the article claims to be based from, each and evryone is a critical biography. Does anyone actually expect unbiased information from something like that?
- the L. Ron Hubbard article,under heading: controversial episodes, paragraph 7( Quentin Hubbard)
Scientology rejects homosexuality as a sexual perversion? Interesting, seeing as my course supervisor is homosexual, and his boyfriend comes to all the events. Someone's got a red face now, I'll bet. -- User:TimonofAthens 00:59, 16 January 2007
Hubbard should be said to have rejected homosexuality, but he did not abhor it; or @ least there are lectures that seem to show that he considered it a to be expected, amusing abnormality. He said in 1 lecture that considering past lives, he was surprised it was only as common as it was. That he considered it such, was probably different from his practical policy decisions about it.Thaddeus Slamp
- OK, I'll have a look at those issues and get back to you. -- ChrisO 23:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Irish Tenors
You deleted the Irish Tenor articles despite my putting a hangon tag. I said I intended to establish notability as per WP:Music, and began to do so by referencing a NY Times article. A google search of "Irish Tenors" will reveal many many hits. Two of the group's former members have articles on Wikipedia, and both articles reference the Irish Tenors. A search for "Irish Tenors" within the articles of wikipedia reveals many hits as well. Somebody else had created the article today with blantant copyvio, so I was in a rush to revise, because I think it's an article worth keeping. Please review your decision. -Taco325i 16:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- I noticed this too. This article was on my watchlist, to create at some point. They are notable. A google search provides ~68,000 results, including many indepedent media coverage [1] [2] [3]. Also, articles shouldn't be speedy deleted when someone has placed the {{hangon}} tag on the article. --Aude (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- OK, in view of your comments I've recreated the article. -- ChrisO 18:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please restore the relevant (and not copyright infringing) portions of the edit history, to preserve our GFDL history. Then we can close the opened deletion review. GRBerry 18:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, they all have a copyvio in them - it's been commented out in later versions but it's still in there. -- ChrisO 21:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please restore the relevant (and not copyright infringing) portions of the edit history, to preserve our GFDL history. Then we can close the opened deletion review. GRBerry 18:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- OK, in view of your comments I've recreated the article. -- ChrisO 18:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] South Devon Sea Wall Rail Incidents deletion?
Hello, I have noticed that my newly made article South Devon Sea Wall Rail Incidents, is up for deletion. I thought it would be a good idea to let everyone know of the trouble this stretch of railway faces each year. We do have lists of railway accidents after all, this page is sort of related to that? Do you know anyways that i could improve the page?
Thanks Marky7890 19:12, January 17 2007 (UTC)
- Marky, to be honest I think it's unsalvageable. We have lists of railway accidents because they are historically significant, but railway incidents simply aren't an appropriate topic for a general encyclopedia. I suggest you have a look at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. -- ChrisO 21:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Could i merge it with the South Devon Railway sea wall article? suggested by Geof Sheppard, on the discussion page of my article? -- Marky7890 16:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] JMoretti (Posting Company On Wiki)
Hello. I wanted to poast about my company on Wikipedia for any others who might stumble on it. At first it said it would be deleted, then when i fixed it for the 6th time it didnt give me a message. Then i fixed it some more and it brought back the delet log list. I was wondering why my Millenium Entertainment gest deleted when for example Blizzard Entertainment does not. Please post back asap.
Account: JMoretti
- Please read WP:CORP for our guidelines on articles about corporations. The vast majority of companies are not notable enough to merit an article. -- ChrisO 22:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Deletion of BrainKeeper
Hello. After reading other discussions here, I can see that you hold Companies strictly to the letter of the law as it comes to posting pages about themselves. There do appear to be companies that have managed to keep pages up, however. For example, Central Desktop and Atlassian Confluence both have pages that contain content very similar to that which I posted, but you deleted mine. I am very interested to know what it is about these pages that meet your criteria as valid wikipedia pages so that I may follow that standard.
Cganskewiki 04:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) for the criteria for inclusion. Also, please don't recreate pages that have already been deleted before - the article had already been deleted on five previous occasions by five separate administrators. That virtually makes it a delete-on-sight article. As for the examples you give, they appear to meet the inclusion criteria ("the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself") - however, yours plainly doesn't. -- ChrisO 11:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- I'd like to recreate the BrainKeeper page in accordance with notibility requirements. However, the page has been locked for recreation. Below I've listed several references to show that this is indeed a notible topic. Additionally, members of BrainKeeper will be speaking at the Under the Radar | Why Office 2.0 Matters conference, a notible industry event. Thanks.
--Cganskewiki 15:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks...
...for your reply. In case you haven't noticed, I've made some research and I posted the results in my talk below your comment (for continuity). NikoSilver 11:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
Thanks for your recent banning of TeddyBear247. It can get very tiring chasing after a vandal yelling "Stop, Stop!" :) NipokNek 20:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- My thoughts exactly. :-) -- ChrisO 20:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Delete me when finished...
I think you may have missed that someone edited your talk page all the way at the top, and it's not very nice. I would have just dealt with it, but I know you are online... NipokNek 21:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, fixed... -- ChrisO 21:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Neither one of you gentlemen dealt with this or fixed it. It was a legitimate question and I'd appreciate an answer. I disagree that the Flat Earth article was not notable, and I had multiple unbiased national references to prove it. I asked nicely for you to state your reason for deletion and was deleted myself. This appears to me to be an abuse of power, and if I'm deleted again I will be back with an advocate.
Best, Bryson
Blackbryson 15:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Please Undelete
hi - you've deleted the article i began about Adam D. Kinory, with the notes that the article didn't meet notability requirements and was self-promotion.
since i'm not adam kinory, i can assure you that your second reason was not valid. how about the first?
my sense is that an encyclopedia like wikipedia would benefit from the inclusion of articles like the one i had begun about adam kinory - i believe the work he has done is notable, by the official wikipedia criteria - most importantly there are multiple and non-trivial published references to his work at the school of the future.
references include; http://ali.apple.com/ali_sites/deli/exhibits/1000441/ http://ali.apple.com/ali_sites/deli/exhibits/1000751/ http://newali.apple.com/ali_sites/ali/exhibits/1000328/Learning_Styles.html http://www.essentialschools.org/cs/fforum/view/ces_ff01e/9 http://www.tc.umn.edu/~rbeach/teachingmedia/module3/5b.htm
if i had published about his dating habits i would understand the speedy deletion - but given that he is a very important teacher at a very important school (selected as Coalition of Essential Schools mentor school, gates funded, recipient of multiple grants and awards, mentioned as among the top public schools in nyc, a site that international and national educational policy makers regularly visit, the focus of a major educational video by the CES) i think he is a notable figure.
so please undelete the article so i can add substantiating links and information. thanks for your time and efforts.
Juggleandhope 22:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] If you'd be so kind...
As a level-headed admin I've encountered in the past, I'm wondering if you would be willing to give me a bit of feedback on my position in a small matter--I'm not asking you to get involved in the dispute, which is exceeding minor in any case, I'm just a bit baffled by the response I've received, and I'm wondering if I've taken a position that is off the rails. I'd value your perspective. The dispute in question is at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_January_21#Jeffrey_Mishlove.
I noticed an AfD about this guy, and I jumped in, as I recognized who he was--he's been a notable figure in the small world of "parapsychology" for a couple of decades, at least. Published several books, hosts a cable TV show, lectures around. He also--though one editor disputes this claim--seems to have received a PhD in Parapsychology from UC Berkeley, ostensibly the only such degree ever granted by an accredited US university. The article was largely uncited, and Mishlove himself had evidently been contributing to it--the long list of publications read like a c.v.--leading someone to create the AfD to raise questions about its veracity and his suitablity as an article subject, as well as the unsuitable writing style. I was engaged in some back and forth with the guy who challenged the degree at the time the AfD was closed--I didn't see the closure coming, which may have been my fault... it had been (just) five days. There were three "keep and cleanup" votes versus one "delete" vote, yet the admin deleted the article. I cried foul, trotted out what I think are good reasons that this guy meets the notability threshold, and that the article at least merits the time to continue the discussion and related revisions that were underway. To my surprise, I've received no support from any of the editors (are they all admins? I'm not sure) who have weighed in. Given the number of comic book characters, third-string athletes, etc. who are routinely granted articles, I don't understand the resistance to restoring this to see whether editors can massage it into shape, but clearly I'm missing the beat. Glancing at their home pages, the eldest of the folks who are participating seems to be 21--that may have something to do with their POV, or not. I'd appreciate a "reality check" from you, if you can spare a bit of time to look it over. Thanks. BTfromLA 01:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Beyond Wireless
My article about wireless service provider Beyond Wireless was deleted. Please tell me why. Paul3144 18:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- It didn't meet the notability criteria for companies and corporations - there was no evidence provided of notability - and, frankly, the way it was written it read very much like spam. If you can fix these problems you're welcome to re-create the article. -- ChrisO 20:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] notability
should the article Christopher Zervic be marked for quickdelete because of not notable, or just normal request for delete?--142.108.107.36 21:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'd run it through the normal request for deletion process. His notability seems to be fairly marginal, but not so much so that it would justify a speedy deletion. -- ChrisO 21:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merge South Devon Sea Wall Rail Incidents article?
Hello, i was wondering if i could merge my article with the South Devon Railway sea wall article? suggested by Geof Sheppard, on the discussion page of my article? I also thought there is no point adding more to it yet, if its up for deletion -- Marky7890 22:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- I honestly don't think it belongs in Wikipedia, merged or otherwise. It is worth mentioning that the sea wall is vulnerable to the weather and perhaps giving a few referenced examples, but I don't think an ongoing log of problems is suitable for a general encyclopedia. -- ChrisO 08:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image of Greece
I saw your image, while just surfing wikipedia and I liked it, cause it was a much better one than the one I currently used for my infobox, that I'm making. This is the image I'm talking about: Greece Outline This is the current image used for the infobox: Prefecture Outline and I was wondering if you could using that "Prefectures map of Greece", and add those prefectures outline to your "Greece Outline map". Since the description of the Greece Outline Map says to contact you about any modifications or add-ons, I was wondering if you could do that? This is the infobox I want to use it for: Template:Infobox_Greek_Dimos. That's the first prefecture map, that I had, if you need a better one maybe I can look for one? El Greco 01:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, I should be able to manage that. I'll let you know when it's done. -- ChrisO 08:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Don't want to bother you, but what's the status of the image coming along? El Greco 15:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Sorry, I simply haven't had much time to do it. I'll see if I can have a crack at it tomorrow. -- ChrisO 00:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Thank you, it's perfect! El Greco 15:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] This is cool
it updates every hour for the admins :) --Parker007 09:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Excellent - thanks for letting me know! That will be very useful. :-) -- ChrisO 09:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Arsenale_lion.jpg
I have uploaded the Arsenale lion image you requested to Wikimedia Commons. I look forward to reading the associated story! --iay 09:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wylands Law
Could you expand a bit on why you deleted Wylands Law? If it's "Nonsense," then so is Parkinsons Law, the Peter Principle, and many others. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gawbl (talk • contribs) 16:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC).
- "Wylands Law" isn't remotely notable; it doesn't even produce any Google results. Please see Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. -- ChrisO 20:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Dying Gaul
Chris, if you think the footnote is not worth mentioning, feel free to remove it. I believe the Brigg statue is contemporaneous of Byron's poem. Asteriontalk 23:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- No, I think it's fine. Thanks for taking the trouble to let me know! -- ChrisO 00:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] speedying AfDs
Please read this discussion. In your case, I saw this and this. -- RHaworth 19:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for letting me know. -- ChrisO 19:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Xin teleport
Hi, I'm not writing a lot and my article about xin teleport was deleted. I'm sure I did something wrong, I'm just curious as to what? It's a 'real technology' and it's in actual use and it's referred to from another article here at wikipedia, so I thought somebody should write something about the topic, since the wikipedia link in question lead up to a blank page before. Sorry if I violated the rules, it was not my intention. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amikael (talk • contribs) 19:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC).
- I'd suggest that you have a look at Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations)#Criteria for products and services, which lists the relevant criteria. -- ChrisO 23:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Does extensive coverage in commercial and noncommercial blogs count?
[edit] Xin teleport 2
Oh, there was a note "advertising", but that's not right, we dont sell this technology, and we dont advertise it anywhere, on the web or elsewhere, for that exact reason, I just responded to a link that I noticed lead to a blank page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amikael (talk • contribs) 20:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC).
[edit] How not to get deleted?
I'm trying to flush out the entries for the Psychic Tv Discography and have had some posts deleted. Could you point me to some acceptable examples of how to add a small entry that won't get flagged for the speedy deletion, as most of the subject listings already exist but have no info in them. Some of them point to single releases and as such there won't be much content when finished. I think that if a release is already listed in the discography, then it should have at least a minimal entry as to the track listin, catalogue number, label and year of release. Also some entries may only be a re-release under a new name or label and as such would mostly contain a reference to the original entry. -- J mead 23 21:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Just saw that an entry that I had put up again after it's deletion for an erroneous flag of advertising has now been protected, A Pagan Day This was an entry attempting to describe an album that was released 22 years ago, and I believe it is notable in that it was a draft for the third Psychic TV album, and also for the fact that it was very limited in that the time for which record stores could place orders for it was less than 1 day. I can't talk to the sysop, Redvers, that protected it as it appears they have left Wikipedia. Trying not to be a pest, and I'm reading through the guides and tutorials so as to not violate any policies and such, but this can be frustrating. -- J mead 23 02:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'd suggest that you have a look at Wikipedia:Notability (music) for the relevant criteria. Obscure releases certainly won't qualify for inclusion, I'm afraid. -- ChrisO 23:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Heads up: AFDs needing closing
[4], [5], [6] DogJesterExtra 02:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, they seem to have been dealt with now though... -- ChrisO 00:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re: "The Brainwashing Manual - the hard facts"
Hi Chris. You posted an essay titled "The Brainwashing Manual - the hard facts" in 2000 on ARS. I don't know if you still have an interest in the subject, but in case you do, I found many newspaper articles on Kenneth Goff, which confirm that he appeared before the "Un-American Activities Committee" on Oct. 9 and 10, 1939. Later articles show that Goff didn't die in 1943. When he resigned from his "communist activities", he turned to religion and gave lectures for many years thereafter, as can be seen in an article dated 1951 (I'm sure more can be found after that.) There is also an article dated Feb. 1958, which clearly relates to the Brain-washing manual, and signed "Jackson Adams" for which I couldn't find anything. There is a Jackson city in an Adams county in Wisconsin though, which I thing is the state where Goff lived, or grew (but that would need confirmation.) I remember reading an article where Goff states that when he was a "red", he referred to instructions as to how members can "infiltrate" etc. Made me wonder if these instructions could have been the source for the Brain-washing manual... I will allocate more time to try to find material for that if you are interested. For now I have 24 scans of newspaper pages containing article on Goff -- tell me if you want them. Raymond Hill 04:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- That's a useful coincidence - I was looking at the Brainwashing Manual again just recently with a view to expanding the Wikipedia article, which definitely needs some work. I'd very much like to have a look at those scans. How did you find the newspaper articles? -- ChrisO 23:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] OR
Hi Chris. I wanted to give you fair warning. I have not looked at all your recent work in depth but if you intend to do "source-based research" (not your term, I know) and then make statements, analyses, conclusions, summations, etc. based on your research then please be aware that that would be a direct violation of WP:NOR. See the talk page for a bit more on that. The funny thing is is that all that material has already been covered in RS so you don't have to be at risk of wasting your effort. Please refactor your work to reflect published materials. G'nite. --Justanother 04:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Omega Phi Beta
Hi, I noticed that Omega Phi Betas page was deleted and was wondering why? Please email me at jrt43@cornell.edu. Thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.7.19.3 (talk) 06:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC).
- It was because it was a straightforward copy-and-paste of the contents of the website at http://www.omegaphibeta.org/about/index.htm with no assertion of permission - in other words, a copyright violation. Even if there had been permission, I'm afraid it probably would not have met the notability criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, so it most likely would have ended up deleted anyway. -- ChrisO 23:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Permission to use image
Dear Chris O
I would like to contact you to ask for permission to reproduce your image of Maison Carree. Would you please contact me to discuss.
Regards
B Keenan
keenanb@yarracity.vic.gov.au —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brona K (talk • contribs) 22:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Veoh related
Hey ChrisO I recently start an article for VEOH, it was only a short blurb but i was planning on expanding on it when i had time. But it seems to have been deleted and protected... i was just wondering why?
S —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Semper222 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Undelete Request
This message refers to the recent deletion of the article about singer Mia Rose. This artist is the #4 Most Viewed musician of all-time on YouTube (over 5 million), has been the subject of numerous articles on the news media and more recently has been featured on the Rolling Stone magazine.
The Associated Press, for instance, has written this about her on 01/17: "The new season of "American Idol" probably will create at least one more Kelly Clarkson, but the Fox program might have some new competition in the star-making business. In the past two weeks, an 18-year-old singer named Mia Rose has continually risen to the top of the most-viewed videos on YouTube. Rose fits the typical "Idol" profile: cute, strong-voiced and confident. A representative of Rose's says she's recently been contacted by several music labels, which only makes it easier to imagine her as the first YouTube-created pop star. To decide for yourself, check the YouTube channel for "miaarose."
Therefore, I strongly believe that this singer cannot be considered a "non-notable subject", and see no grounds for the deletion of the Wikipedia article about her.
Conspiracies theories may abound, but the legitimacy of her work and career are attested by the overwhelmingly positive evaluation given to her music videos by the viewers. Several of Mia Roses' music videos are among the Top-Rated of the month on the YouTube website, for example. Her fast rise to fame and remarkable hit online are certainly unprecedented, and only emphasize this person's notability.
Several personalities have been made famous by YouTube and have their profiles featured on Wikipedia (e.g. Judson Laipply). I don't see why Mia Rose should receive a different treatment.
Thanks for your attention, and particularly for the awesome job done by you and the other Administrators on Wikipedia! Please keep up the good work!
Best regards,
M. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mancio (talk • contribs) 11:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Request
Hey Chris. Bet you never thought I'd ask you for help! ;) User:Kajmak is doing a little vandalism on the Kosovo War article, which I believe may still be under probation. I went back to his earliest post and undid it, but that doesn't seem to have affected subsequent edits. Is there some way I can just roll it back to the previous good version? (Yours.) Or does an admin have to do that? Cheers. Davu.leon 21:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
You'll have to read back a ways to see the vandalism, he seems to be trying to cover his tracks by making numerous small alterations. Davu.leon 21:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- He's been hitting a number of articles, and not for the first time either - I've left a warning on his talk page. -- ChrisO 21:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
q
[edit] DYK
|
On February 2, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Piraeus Lion, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. |
Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Deleting personal attacks
Re: Special:Undelete/William lin: For future reference, if a page contains personal attacks the automatic summary should be blanked of it. —Centrx→talk • 03:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. -- ChrisO 22:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Flag out of place
Why did you restore the RoM flag in the Vergina article? I did not remove it for any copyright reasons but because it is not the Vergina star/sun. Perhaps you can imagine what would happen if people started including the Turkish, Chinese, (ex) Yugoslav flags etc (they have stars), not to mention other finding from Vergina that also have stars. In fact, if the flag dispute is covered in other articles. User:Politis
[edit] North Kosovo article
Dear Chris,
I would kindly ask you to investigate an article titled "North Kosovo." The article is full of fabrications such as a "government" seated in Mitrovica (Kosovo), and it talks of "president" Ivanonic, but the truth is that there is no government nor president of the three municipalities in the north of Kosovo. There is absolutely no legal basis for a government or president, they do not exists in fact, and if they do (in secret) then they have absolutely no legal power. Furthermore, the article states that all of the people who live in these three municipalities are Serbs, which is, of course, false. There is a large number of Roma, Bosniaks (or Muslims) and a smaller number of Albanians living there. Finally, the article seems to be a discussion of media reports.
If I were to edit the article I would have to remove all references to the non-existent government or president, as well as the discussion of media reports, however this would inevitably lead to a revert-war and thus amounts to a non-constructive step.
I would appreciate if you could let me know whether you will be able to investigate the article or not. I would like to challenge the authors of the article to provide references to the government and president of the three municipalities, as well as argue if it's worth having an article that discusses what "Frankfurt Allgemeine Zeitung" predicts or not.
Finally, I am not sure there should be an article titled "North Kosovo" because legally no such area exists. I have absolutely, absolutely nothing against articles about the municipalities in Kosovo with Serbs as a majority ethnic group, however we have to be very careful with names and their contents. We could, for example, have material that states what legal powers these municipalities could have under the Ahtisaari proposal on decentralisation, but this does not mean that we have autonomous regions with particular names such as "North Kosovo."
Kind regards, Kosovar 05:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Shooters Hill
Hello, Was my bit about Shooters Hill police not allowed? Regards —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SHSNTSkipper (talk • contribs) 13:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/February 11
Hi.
I want to add anniversary of victory of Islamic revolution(Or Iranian revolution) in this page:[7]
As you see there is written:"Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini seized power in Iran, and eventually became the Supreme Leader of the Islamic republic." But there should be a link to Islamic revolution(Or Iranian revolution) because Islamic republic established on April 1 of that year.
But this page is fully protected and just admins can do so. --Sa.vakilian 06:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] POV-fork check
Hi. I'd like a neutral opinion on an important matter which is getting out of hand. I'm of the opinion that the article Cretan Turks tends to become (and is in its current state) a POV-fork of Cretan Muslims. Certain editors do not agree and for that reason I'm trying to gather some non-partisan views. It doesn't require any specific knowledge on the topic, except keeping in mind that Cretan Muslims is well sourced and accepted by all editors. The problem lies in the fact that some editors insist on expressing a different (unreferenced) version of the story in a separate article. Thanks in advance. Miskin 17:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, the matter looks settled, some neutral views were already provided. Thanks. Miskin 01:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] brainwashing manual
Are you still looking for data on Hubbard's writing of it?
It was done to attack psychiatry http://gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/writings/ars/ars-2004-07-03-1.html
and also to fool the FBI
The book is definitely written in his style (beingness, thinkingness, Pain-Drug-Hypnosis,i.e. PDH) and reflects his knowledge and there is no reason to believe Beria would have mentiond Dianetics as an important movement. There are inconsistencies in the histoy Hubbard gives of it. It's supposed to be the russian translation of a german book but is attributd to Beria??? Also what of the fact that Scientology considered the book as their own to the point of substituting Dianticists by Scientologists?
If teh book was by Goff from the 30's then Hubbard at least tried to deceive by adding references to Dianetics who didn't exist in the 30's. So did he deceive to the point of including references to his movemenet or to the point of writing the whole thing?
The hypothesis that Hubbard got the idea for the term PDH from the manual is unlikely. PDH is mentioned in Science of Survival, dictated in Jan 51 in Cuba. There is no mention of the manual before 1955. I find Goff ramblings hardly reliable.
Isn't Brian Ambry essay definitive? http://www.carolineletkeman.org/refund/docs/ron-series/brainwashing-manual-parallels.pdf —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.74.136.164 (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC).
- Thanks, you make some good points. The story of the Brainwashing Manual is pretty complicated, though - it ties in to a lot of other things that were going on at the same time. -- ChrisO 00:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've got an RS that pretty convincingly argues for authorship by Goff (though it mentions Hubbard not at all, so the question of whether the author would have seen Hubbard as the more likely author if he had been considered as a possibility is open.) There are also apparently multiple versions, which would explain how the original authorship could be Goff while the Stickney version is clearly pitching Dianetics. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment:
If someone can provide a pre-Hubbard "Goff version" of the "Russian Manual," then I'd sure like to see it. It's been 51 years and it hasn't turned up yet.
There is the 1955 Hubbard version that lacks the two or three (Goff)references to "Pentecostal faith healers"; yet, *all* of the Goff versions contain Hubbardisms. The Goff versions do not appear until 1956.
(The only slightly modified Goff version is the Roy Masters' 1970s version that removes "ness" from the Hubbardism, "thinkingness.")
Still waiting for that pre-Hubbard, Hubbardism-free "1930s" version.
[edit] Why did you delete my page?
You recently deleted a page titled Aries Villanite. It is based on a character that I created and am writing about. At first the page looked small but that was because I was trying to make sure it would work. It said you deleted it because it didn't have any notable sourced, but I think that the creator of the character might be the best source you can find. Did I do something wrong by trying to put up a page about a character who is fictional?
- Please see Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Self-published fiction doesn't qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia. -- ChrisO 18:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] DYK
|
On February 13, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Minute Women of the U.S.A., which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. |
Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] request
I've merged an article you have edited in the past with Christ Pantocrator. Please check if and when you can, if you could do (or should do, don't know) some "clean up" of the merged page. Take care. talk to +MATIA 08:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know - you've done a good job with the article. -- ChrisO 08:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] re: rewrite of Operation Freakout
You, sir, ROCK. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks! Check out also [8] - I think we should make a start on getting PD source docs like this one onto Wikisource... -- ChrisO 01:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- It sounds like a good idea. BTW, could I ask you to e-mail me via the link on my user page? -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Peer reviewed pseudoscience papers
Hi Chris. I have some peer reviewed papers on pseudoscience if you know anyone interested in checking over information suppression etc. Drop me an email to reply to if you are interested. Cheers Lostintowerz 04:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Arrow Cross Party.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Arrow Cross Party.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, then 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, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
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 criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Iamunknown 06:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Revert of image on FA Premier League
Hello, I have reverted your addition of Image:Fa premier league norway.jpg to FA Premier League, as it was the subject of an objection on the article's FAC nomination. Oldelpaso 16:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] izimi
Chris, you just deleted my entry on izimi despite my -hangon- notice I added. Could you please put it back and give me a chance to explain? Johnalexwood 00:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of izimi. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 18 Feb 07 - Johnalexwood
- I've added a response on the deletion review page. -- ChrisO 09:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act
Great job on the article, very well sourced! Perhaps the actual primary text of the act would be something for Wikisource, as well as complementary pieces relating to the executive branch management of it? Just an idea... Smee 03:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC).
- Thanks! Not sure about the complementary pieces, but I'm planning to add a copy of the original bill to Wikisource... -- ChrisO 08:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Smee 22:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Greater Manchester outline map
Hi ChrisO,
I'm working in collaboration with a few users in an effort to move both the Greater Manchester, and wider UK areas forwards.
One of the things I'd like to do is to create a Greater Manchester outline map, based upon the Greater London one found at Image:Greater_london_outline_map_bw.png.
Just asking if you can offer any advice on how to approach creating one like this. I have the graphic design skill, but am wondering more on source material and the design package you used.
Hope you can help, Jhamez84 19:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've since made this map. Sorry to have bothered you. If you're interested however, it is found here. Jhamez84 13:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Kosovo
You were right to revert that last Non accounts users edit on Kosovo. If that continues we may have to consider a semi lock for registered users. Buffadren 17:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] DYK
 |
On 23 February 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. |
--ALoan (Talk) 13:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Great job! Smee 14:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC).
- Thanks! I must be doing something right - that's my fourth DYK in six weeks... -- ChrisO 21:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Man Up
How about you act like a man and tell me what kind of beef you have agaisnt me on my talk or e-mail as opposed to IRC. Yanksox 20:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Dino Winwood
Hello, Chris. You recently deleted the page titled Dino Winwood. I'm very new to this site (editing pages and such anyways) and Dino Winwood was my first page that I had ever made. I have a feeling you deleted it because of the information being so scarce but I was actually working on obtaining more information. I've spoken with Dino Winwood himself over the internet and he has promised to elaborate more on his career and other things that can be added to his page.
I read somewhere on the site that I could get the coding I used for the page and edit it to resubmit it for approval. Could you please tell me either how to do this or what else (if there's an easier way) I could do to bring back the Dino Winwood page. I would very much appreciate it as I feel Dino Winwood has accomplished enough in his career to deserve a Wikipedia page.
Thank you, Ocire. Ocire 07:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Alleged Wikipedia:Conflict of interest
I will put you on the Wikipedia COI noticeboard because you may have a conflict of interest on Scientology related articles. You edit Scientology related articles and I think you also run a website related to Scientology. Website of user:ChrisO ? See [9] Thread. Andries 09:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] RE:Mount Vesuvius
I was trying to clear a bit of the WP:PP backlog, unprotecting over 100 pages that were all protected for over 1 month with no special mentions in protection summaries besides "vandalism", "linkspam", ect. If you feel it needs reprotection, go ahead. Just mention in the reason summary that it need long term protection. I skipped over anything alluding to that. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- OK, no problem. I thought I'd better explain why I was reprotecting it in case you thought I was wheel warring or something! -- ChrisO 01:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- When it comes to things like unprotection, I don't care if someone thinks it should be reprotected or not. If the vandalism's bad, I say go ahead and be bold. Admins generally worry too much about wheel warring. They hate to be seen as someone who's wheel warring. It's too much politics and not enough of us just doing what we're suppose to do. The asking is always nice, but if someone overrules my choice, I'm not going to go cry at the noticeboard about it. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Coppertop studios
Hi there,
I am a new user and I'm still editing this page 3:19pm Tuesday. Please give me the time to make it accetable to Wikipedia before it is deleted again —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coppertopstudios (talk • contribs) 15:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC).
- It's self-promotion - you can't make it acceptable to Wikipedia, as it's a content type which is prohibited (see WP:SPAM). Please don't try to re-create it - Wikipedia isn't an advertising forum. -- ChrisO 15:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Coppertop Studios
I'm not trying to spam Wikipedia or promote a business.
It looks like spam beacuse it keeps getting deleted while I'm still in the middle of editing it so I have to resubmit it.
I'm trying to write a biography page, with a layout borrowed from another site that I know works. I'll delete the 'business' links from it
I'd appreciate being given the time to sort it before it's deleted. As previously stated I'm a new user and don't know my way around the editing —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coppertopstudios (talk • contribs) 15:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Deformed! in the math's class
I don't know how it happened but the speedy deletion tag that I added caused the page to be re-created. Could you delete it again please? Thanks LittleOldMe 15:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- No sooner said than done! -- ChrisO 15:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] DRV
February 30th? SqueakBox 17:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Put it down to a brain fart. Happens occasionally. *oops* -- ChrisO 00:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edna adan, Edna Adan, and Edna Adan Ismail
ChrisO, please be more precautious when speedy deleting and moving pages.
You speedy deleted the redirect Edna adan -> Edna Adan Ismail mere seconds after I had created it, without giving me a chance to finish editing it.
Also, after I had re-created the page, you moved it to Edna Adan for the purpose of correct capitalization. This is quite useless. For one, this means that anyone typing in Edna adan will now encounter a double-redirect, from Edna adan to Edna Adan to Edna Adan Ismail. Second, I created the redirect page Edna adan well knowing that it was incorrectly capitalized, since the wiki software does not distinguish between that and the correct capitalization anyway (unless another article with the correct capitalization is created). You probably know how this works, but in case you don't, it is here. So the best thing to do now, I think, is to speedy delete one of the two redirecting articles, and point the remaining one toward Edna Adan Ismail
--JianLi 17:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry about the confusion. I've deleted Edna adan. -- ChrisO 17:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thanks :) --JianLi 00:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Guessing games
And on what basis would you make such a guess? (a part from my username?:-)--Burgas00 18:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Just your username, I'm afraid - not much to go on, I know! :-) -- ChrisO 18:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Article deletion
Hello there,
Just for your information: you recently deleted my article Guxt as being "non-notable, self-promotion". I understand it is apparently not notable, but saying it is "self-promotion" is absurd, as I am not and do not even know the game's creator.
Thanks.
--Akhel 21:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- That should have read "non-notable" by itself (darn Firefox auto-completion feature...) -- ChrisO 00:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Spam"
If you continue to spam Wikipedia with links to Gil-White's blog, you will be blocked and the blog will be blacklisted. This is your final warning. -- ChrisO 23:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's not a blog. It contains footnotes and documentation that's more rigorous than most academic, let alone mainstream media, websites. I fail to see why it should be subject to such a harsh prohibition given that there are many other external links in those sections that don't even cite their sources at all. Furthermore, the guidelines for adding external links only say that minority views should not overwhelm mainstream ones, it says nothing about what kind of sites aren't allowed, apart from commercial sites, which this is not. 141.158.240.248 23:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Let's skip the tu quoques, shall we? It's a personal website by someone who isn't a recognised authority (let's face it, he's a fringe theorist at best). WP:EL is very clear on this - see under "Links to be avoided": "Links to blogs and personal webpages, except those written by a recognized authority." On top of everything else, it's been spammed systematically all over Wikipedia. The links have been removed before but you keep adding them back despite being warned against it. If you continue with this you will be blocked and the blog will be blacklisted. Your choice. -- ChrisO 23:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- By the way, are you the website's author? -- ChrisO 23:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I am not the author. Secondly, what constitutes a "recognised authority"? Surely someone who is notable enough to have their own page on wiki, who is a recognised expert in their field, a university professor, and someone who takes the process of rigorously verifying and sourcing their claims seriously. I trust someone like that more than someone who expects everyone to take their word for granted, i.e. most of the MSM. Finally, has it not occurred to you that maybe, instead of some kind of 'systematic spamming', in fact the links have been added by multiple people who all think the source is relevant? Just because you disagree with the source doesn't mean it's violating wiki standards 141.158.240.248 00:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- I refer you to WP:SELFPUB for the definition of self-published sources (bolding added):
-
- Professional self-published sources
-
-
- When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by reliable, third-party publications. Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to independent fact-checking. Self-published sources, such as personal websites and blogs, must never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP. If a third-party source has published the same or substantially similar material, that source should be used in preference to the self-published one.
-
-
- Gil-White is an anthropologist. The links that I've just been deleting all over Wikipedia have nothing to do with anthropology, and everything to do with Gil-White's fringe political views and conspiracy theories about current events. The fact that he's a former academic (I note that you've not mentioned that he's not worked in that capacity in six years and has spent the intervening time writing for fringe websites) doesn't mean that everything he says is of equal value - he could be brilliant in his own field and a nut in others. That sort of thing isn't uncommon, unfortunately. -- ChrisO 00:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know where you got the idea that Gil-White hasn't worked for 6 years. His UPenn contract was not renewed and ended only last year. More importantly, Gil-White was sought by Penn to teach a course in Biocultural Psychology, so much so that they hired him before he'd even finished his thesis, which was to become the textbook he taught in his class. He was hired as an expert in how innate psychological biases cause racism, and was a new thinker at the Solomon Asch Center for Ethnopolitical Conflict. This means that he has spent years researching the causes of ethnic and political conflicts around the globe, and thus his "field of expertise' encompasses the Arab-Israeli and former Yugoslavia conflicts, both of which he was researching at the Asch center during his tenure at UPenn. These are exactly the kinds of wiki topics to which people include myself have added links to his work, and so once again your repeated deletion of them seems more like a personal bias against his views than any form of legitimate reason. 141.158.240.248 05:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Not to get too far into this, but I have to agree that many of the links you've removed are legitimate cites to a recognized academic. His views may be controversial, but the same can be said of folk from the Pioneer Fund who publish controversial treatise on racial inferiority of blacks. Could you please reconsider your deletions, please? --JereKrischel 08:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I think one problem here might confusion as to Gil-Whites qualifications as a notable historical researcher. ChrisO says, for example, that Gil-White is an anthropologist and yet the links have nothing to do with anthropology. This is wrong. As an anthropologist, Gil-White researches the history of ethnic racism and its psychological roots. His writing on matters such as the history of phony IQ science, and also interpretations of historical antisemitism fall under the umbrella of acedemic anthropology. Keep in mind that as an anthropologist he was a fellow at UPenn's center for ethnopolitical conflict. And about the recently deleted HIR links on racist IQ researchers wikipedia pages, I agree with JereKrischel. ChrisO claimed that they represent his "fringe political views" and "conspiracy theory" as opposed to qualified academic expertise. Two points: 1) Opposition to race and IQ research not a "fringe political view" that he alone holds (just look at the epic edit wars on that wikipedia page!), and 2) being a well published researcher on topics relating to both ethnicity and psychology, gil-white is absolutely qualified to have notable critisms of Race and IQ researchers. Now, you might disagree with gil-white, but you cannot deny that he is a qualified academic in this matter. Also, ChrisO, could you please provide evidence that Gil-White has not worked for 6 years. I'm interested to know where you got this idea from. Cmart 08:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I agree with Cmart. Gil-White is, in my mind, even *more* of an expert in these fields than many of the journalists who cover these topics and are linked to and cited, simply because he has spent so long doing academic research into them. What possible reason do you have to repress his views other than the fact that you don't agree with him, which isn't a reason at all? Ryan4Talk 19:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- ChrisO, I'd like to appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia. The work you are doing is very important and I think the articles you have written, and your general perspective on maintaining the quality of wiki articles is outstanding. We need more like you.
- Here's my view on hirhome, Gil-White's training in Anthropology and Psychology gives him an unusual perspective on matters of race and genocide. One can disagree with his conclusions, but his documentation of sources is beyond reproach. Indeed, the legitimacy of Wikipedia articles on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or on Yugoslavia, likely improves with links to his articles for that reason.
- If it is an issue of his not being a recognized authority, well, I have read many of Gil-White's articles and it is clear that he has substantial expertise in the area.
- The difficulty is that it is not clear what wikipedia's definition of a recognized authority is. But it seems to me, that this difficulty can be ignored, because the relevant WP:EL list of suggestions is titled Links to NORMALLY to be avoided which indicates that it is more of a guideline than a hard and fast rule. I think, even if you don't recognize Gil-White as an authority, it is clear that his articles are rigorous enough that they should be included as relevant links. Anyway, keep up the good work.
I am yet to see any logically argued case for why HIR should not be linked to from Wikipedia, in Wikipedia pages which encapsulate issues which HIR analyses. ChrisO refers to HIR as "Gil-White's blog", however this can't be correct as according to http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/web%20log a blog is defined as "a shared on-line journal where people can post diary entries about their personal experiences and hobbies; "postings on a blog are usually in chronological order" " - quite clearly, HIR doesn't come close to fitting this definition. ChrisO is accusing someone of "spamming" Wikipedia with HIR links - it would be helpful if ChrisO explained what he means by "spamming" and provides links to the Wikipedia pages which have allegedly been spammed. Others here have already discussed issues surrounding the term "recognised authority" so for now I won't reiterate them. I will however, say that the letter of a policy should never defeat the spirit of that policy. Nigel DPW 21:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you all for your input. As I've already explained, the issue is whether Gil-White is a "recognized authority". I've been looking at this question by looking not only at his work, but where it's cited - in other words, who recognizes it. Essentially, FGW seems to have had two careers - one as a serious academic publishing in peer-reviewed journals, the other as a political activist publishing on his own personal website. He certainly seems to be a "recognized authority" as an academic. His personal political activism is another story - I've not found any academic books or journals that cite any of the polemics that he publishes on HIR. And as someone who knows very well some of the subject matter that he deals with - I'm an historian by training, and I worked professionally on Balkan affairs for several years - I can say that the things he publishes on HIR (see e.g. http://www.hirhome.com/yugo/suicide.htm ) are way out in the fringe.
- It's not simply a matter of whether fellow partisans like what he says - what counts is whether mainstream sources bother citing him on anything other than his professional writings. I've not found any evidence from academic databases that they do. His personal writings are highly political polemics, pure and simple. To put it in context, citing HIR in an article about the Balkans or the Middle East would be like citing Jack Chick in an article about evolution. Jack Chick likes to put citations in his Chick Tracts, but that doesn't make him a reliable source! -- ChrisO
I'm glad to see that the severely flawed notion that HIR is "Gil-White's blog" and that the accusation that someone is "spamming" Wikipedia with links to HIR, are no longer issues. The only issue which seems to remain now (please correct me if I'm mistaken on this), is the issue of whether Gil-White is a "recognised authority". ChrisO, as "an historian by training" who "worked professionally on Balkan affairs for several years" should be able to easily demonstrate that Gil-White's work is "way out in the fringe." and - more importantly - explain why this really matters. If by "way out in the fringe.", ChrisO means that Gil-White is mistaken, he will be able to demonstrate this easily. If by "way out in the fringe.", ChrisO means that Gil-White's work is impeccable but not popularly known and/or accepted, he will need to explain how this can possibly matter. There was once a time when those asserting (with evidence) that the Earth is round were considered "way out in the fringe." and weren't "recognised authorities". Gil-White is clearly an authority on the topics he writes about at HIR. Why? Because his work there is sourced impeccably and his hypotheses are logically argued. If there are any flaws in his work, they can be easily exposed. Furthermore, the people who illegally fired him from UPenn recognise him as an authority on the topics he writes about at HIR. The evidence of this is that none of them could fault his work - they just didn't like his conclusions. http://www.hirhome.com/bio.htm ChrisO's Jack Chick analogy is fallacious, for reasons which I would hope should be obvious - though I'm prepared to explain why if anyone requires me to. Nigel DPW 21:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Whether or not it counts as a blog, HIR certainly counts as a personal website. Our general presumption is against linking to personal websites as sources of information. As for spamming, this has certainly happened - see Ryan4's list of contributions, and also the fact that he's previously been warned not to spam. He's not the only one to have spammed links to FGW's personal website, but he's certainly been one of the most active FGW-spammers. Regrettably, FGW seems to have a small but dedicated fan club who like to use Wikipedia to promote his political views.
- Your notion that FGW is an authority "because his work there is sourced impeccably and his hypotheses are logically argued" is absurd. Professor David Ray Griffin is equally careful to provide sources and argue his hypothesis that the US Government faked 9/11, but nobody other than loony conspiracy theorists regard him as a credible authority on the subject. I could just as easily point to Bill Dembski or James Inhofe on intelligent design creationism and global warming. They're hacks who cherry-pick, misquote and often simply invent facts to fit their views and forward a partisan agenda. They're not remotely serious scholars. As I pointed out above, serious scholars do not cite FGW, as far as I can tell. As for FGW not being "popularly known and/or accepted", Carl Sagan once said: "They laughed at Galileo, but they also laughed at Bozo the clown." I don't think FGW is Galileo... -- ChrisO 22:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
ChrisO, as "an historian by training" who "worked professionally on Balkan affairs for several years", has nonetheless failed to demonstrate that Gil-White's work is "way out in the fringe." or explain why this really matters. This suggests that he probably can't, which would explain why he is employing increasingly fallacious arguments.
He refers to HIR as a "personal website". There's a number of problems with this:
a) It is false. As can be seen on the homepage, HIR is A FACES project (Foundation for the Analysis of Conflict, Ethnic and Social). Among other organisations, FACES is recognised by the History News Network. http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/25731.html
b) It is essentially irrelevant. Whether an organisation or an individual is behind a website has no bearing on the integrity of the information available on that website. ChrisO's bias against "personal websites" implicitly attacks the honourable goal of Wikipedia to be a "free encyclopedia". Is ChrisO afraid that Wikipedia readers are incapable of exercising their freedom by checking sources and determining the efficacy of logical arguments for themselves? Is ChrisO afraid that Wikipedia readers may reach the "wrong" conclusion?
ChrisO then dismisses my notion that Gil-White is an authority on the topics he writes about at HIR as absurd, by making a comparison with Professor David Ray Griffin. ChrisO states, "Professor David Ray Griffin is equally careful to provide sources and argue his hypothesis that the US Government faked 9/11, but nobody other than loony conspiracy theorists regard him as a credible authority on the subject." This assertion is severely flawed. This is why:
a) DRG does not argue that the US Government faked 9/11, so ChrisO is deploying a strawman.
b) DRG does not simply argue, he argues logically, so others including ChrisO can engage his work at that level.
c) DRG asks questions about the details of the 9/11 attacks. That is, he doesn't only make assertions.
d) Research into the details of the 9/11 attacks is relatively new and evolving, so some may argue that there are no authorities on this topic yet . ChrisO is invited to tell us who he considers to be an authority on the details of the 9/11 attacks. Given DRG's rational approach to the topic of 9/11, if there are any authorities on this, then he is clearly one of them.
e) ChrisO's reference to "loony conspiracy theorists" is an attempt at intellectual bullying. It is designed to cast anyone who has been convinced of something by the evidence and logical argument which DRG presents, as a "loony conspiracy theorist". Absurd.
While obviously Gil-White and David Ray Griffin are engaged in research/analysis in different areas, they are both scholarly researchers. This is why ChrisO needs to employ similar unscholarly methods to attack both of them.
Debate and discussion on the validity of the science behind climate change and Darwinian evolutionary theory is clearly legitimate - there are many scholarly people engaged in this important work. However, I'm content - for now - to assume that ChrisO is correct in his assertion that the 2 gentlemen he cites are "..hacks who cherry-pick, misquote and often simply invent facts to fit their views and forward a partisan agenda."
This, however, has no relevance to the validity of Gil-White's work - unless ChrisO can demonstrate otherwise.
ChrisO's comparing Gil-White to Bozo the clown is so fallacious and frankly puerile that it really isn't necessary to respond to it. However, I will simply point out that:
a) Bozo has never produced a hypothesis, that I'm aware of.
b) No one is arguing that Bozo's work be cited.
c) As far as I'm aware, Bozo was never illegally fired from the circus for performing the "wrong" act which the bulk of the audience - including circus management - nontheless considered to be hilarious.
d) Appeal to ridicule is a logical fallacy - http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html
Let's get to the heart of the matter. This issue is not really about HIR, Gil-White, the Balkans, the Middle East, ChrisO, or myself. The heart of the matter is Wikipedia's role as a free encyclopedia and what this means. What has censorship of information - which those advocating such censorship have failed to refute - got to do with a "free encyclopedia"? All the issues about whether or not HIR is a blog/personal website, whether or not Gil-White is recognised as an authority by mainstream organisations, etc. are ultimately red herrings.
If Wikipedia is only interested in citing and appealing to the mainstream, then what truly useful purpose does it serve?
Is Wikipedia a genuinely free encyclopedia, where free Human Beings can freely access valuable information compiled by other free Human Beings, and then freely make up their own minds?
Or is Wikipedia merely a cheaper, more consumer-friendly and perhaps slightly quicker version of the Encyclopedia Brittanica and other mainstream encyclopedias?
It is this, not quibblings over HIR, that is the heart of this matter.
Nigel DPW 02:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- We're a cheaper, more consumer-friendly and perhaps slightly quicker version of the Encyclopedia Brittanica and other mainstream encyclopedias - or, at least, we aspire to be. That's the whole point of our reliable sources policy. We aim to use recognised mainstream sources to produce a reliable, high-quality, mainstream encyclopedia. The bottom line is that FGW's website is a personal website set up to distribute the fringe political views of someone who isn't a recognised authority in the subject matter. Wikipedia:External links is very clear about such situations - we don't link to fringe sources, period. -- ChrisO 11:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
ChrisO has chosen to persist in avoiding any serious attempt to deal with this issue in a rational manner. He has - in what appears to be an exercise of intellectual sarcasm - simply fired back my only rhetorical question as a statement and in a fairly predictable manner, avoided addressing any of the others. Of course Wikipedia isn't merely "a cheaper, more consumer-friendly and perhaps slightly quicker version of the Encyclopedia Brittanica and other mainstream encyclopedias" - it is far superior than that, and many of us aim to keep it that way.
Wikipedia:External links is very clear about this situation - "This page in a nutshell: Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article."
HIR is meritable. HIR is accessible. HIR is appropriate to the articles it has been linked to from. This has already been explained and ChrisO has failed - repeatedly - to demonstrate otherwise.
If ChrisO persists with this fallacy-based obstructionism, it must be taken that he is confusing Wikipedia with himself, as is evidenced by his resorting to Ipsedixitism.
Nigel DPW 09:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I have been following this discussion for some time and I believe it is good to discuss these topics, it is good because debate is an important part of the construction of knowledge and an important part in the improvement of a project such as Wikipedia. As for the HIR links, I have also checked and read them and in spite of what political opinions or historical interpretations they might bear, all of them, without exception, are well documented and presented with an impeccable logical structure, Gil-White has proven to be a serious academic (that, I believe is beyond all doubt) and I see no reason to ban references to his work (in the form of external links).
Marianovsky
[edit] Blank Map Of Greece
Hi Chris, is there any chance to get a map of Greece without any borders and in SVG (It can be also in PNG). I need the map for a small overview map for an historical map. See the project in the german "Mapmakerstudio". Im glad for all answer. Please use my discussion page. Greetings Lencer (194.76.232.207 12:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC))
[edit] Gibraltar
Chris, I know you are trying to help, but really starting a 'project Gibraltar' in answer to 'project Spain' is not really the way forward and will only lead to problems.
There is no justification in sticking a tag on the page about Spain, Gibraltar does not claim anything in Spain, except special offers at LIDL.
Of late, and UEFA excepted, we have been getting on fairly well with each other, the Gibraltar flag is still banned in Spain, although they have, at last accepted there can be roadsigns saying 'Gibraltar' and there are ones here pointing to Spain. We have Iberia landing at our airport, but Morrisons supermarket doing a wine promotion has every wine growing nation flag up bar one. (pictures available)
Can I suggest that you remove 'project Gibraltar'. I have already accepted that the history of Gibraltar and the dispute come within 'project Spain' and Asterion has produced a template to link it without the nationalistic image which is not well regarded locally and attacts pyrotechnics.
Lets leave it at that and MOVE ON. The Gibraltar pages recently show a number of small edits from Gibraltar and elsewhere which improve them, and my experience in the newsgroup alt.gibraltar is that wars and confrontation scare many people away, and do no good, as do real life wars.
We now have an outbreak of Spanish IP's changing the Gibraltar flag to a Spanish one, and really we all need some peace from conflicts to write better pages and develop what we have to make them useful to people.
So lets do that instead of being confrontational ?
--Gibnews 22:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- I have a number of objections to wikiproject Gibraltar IF you had discussed its creation first, there would have been a opportunity to have aired these and made a consensus decision to create it or not.
-
- As you are aware, there is an issue between Gibraltar and Spain which will not go away until the classic situation of the irresitable force of their territorial claim and the immovable object more resilient than the rock of Gibraltar is resolved. Of late things have been good, and there has been a lot of co-operation both politically, and on Wikipedia - the shameful example of UEFA excepted, but when that goes to the ECHR the damages will be in six figures.
-
- If everyone started projects like yours, Wikipedia would be awash with templates. Already its getting a bit much on
If you add project Spain because the operation was planned and executed from there and a few more things become unworkable. Although they might serve a useful purpose in linking things the templates are too large, and in the case of the Spanish one, the flag is inflamatory.
Discussing all these things takes up time, and that leaves less to create pages on Wikipedia. Can I suggest you start a serious review of whether the project serves a useful purpose. In the meantime I will be spending my time creating content on my websites, whilst keeping an eye open for vandalism and nonsense on the existing Gibraltar pages. --Gibnews 09:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Gibraltar
I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Wikipedia:WikiProject Gibraltar, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Gibnews 11:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] IllyrianKosova
Has been messing around on Kosovo. I believe it's still under probation. Maybe a warning, or somesuch? Davu.leon 22:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- He is meant to be limited to one account only. I'm sure it's Hipi Zhdripi trolling again. No one else mix German, English and Albanian the same way. I blocked the sock indefintely and registered it at the Kosovo ArbCom page. If anyone has a problem with this, I'm open to criticism. --Asteriontalk 20:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] EL on CCHR
Chris, you might not have looked closely enough at your most recent edit to CCHR. Your edit summary said "Rick Ross is a well-known expert in the field, Jeremy Perkins (who?) isn't". Well, you're right, Jeremy Perkins isn't a well-known expert in the field, but Jeremy Perkins is also the subject, not the maintainer, of the site. The site is actually maintained by David S. Touretzky who is not only a well-known expert in the field but is also, I believe, generally regarded as more reliable than Ross. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Dead links
In many articles, you deleted not only broken links, but the properly formatted references to reliable sources (principally news stories from outlets such as AP and Reuters) that accompanied those links
A reference -- however formatted -- based on a dead Yahoo News/AP Headlines/Reuters Alert link is not a based on a reliable source. In fact, it's not any kind of source whatsoever, pretty much by definition. Yahoo News links expire; newspaper links of breaking news generated by wire services expire. Keeping a dead link is not a good thing --- completely pointless, at best. --Calton | Talk 23:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- No. I'm frankly surprised that I'm having to explain this! If the link goes dead, that generally means that the story has moved (usually into a pay-per-view or archive area). It doesn't mean that the story no longer exists or isn't retrievable through a subscription service, e.g. Lexis-Nexis. Delete the links by all means but do not delete the references. The references will always remain valid, even if the method of accessing them changes. -- ChrisO 00:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- I sense a missed point
-
-
- Yep. No sources, no references: really basic WP:ATTRIBUTION territory; i.e., someone has to be able to prove it. If you can't find them, they don't belong, whatever your belief (not actual proof, mind you, just your faith that that's where they disappeared to, assuming they existed in the first place) and it's up to the person who wants them added -- not anyone else -- to back them up with something other than "I'm SURE there must be a reference SOMEWHERE". --Calton | Talk 01:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Oh, and if you don't understand basic underlying verifiability policy, perhaps you should leave link maintenance alone - you'll just end up making Wikipedia more unreliable for other people who have to fix things. --Calton | Talk 01:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- It's not my faith, it's the first-hand knowledge of someone who's worked with the media for 10 years and regularly uses Factiva and Lexis-Nexis to dig up info for Wikipedia. This is how the system works, Calton: The newswires publish a story for a limited period (usually a few months), then "withdraw" it behind a subscription or pay-per-view firewall. You have absolutely no rational grounds for believing as you've insinuated that the stories never existed - that's a gross violation of AGF, too - so please, cease and desist from deleting references.
-
-
-
-
-
- Also, I understand WP:VERIFY very well, thank you - well enough in fact to know that it's been superseded by WP:ATT, which I suggest you take a look at. It says absolutely nothing about your bizarre idea that a newspaper article ceases to exist if the hyperlink dies. (There's a good reason why it's called a newspaper!) -- ChrisO 01:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- From Wikipedia:Citing sources#What to do when a reference link "goes dead": "When a link in the References section or Notes section (a link to a source for information in the article) "goes dead", it should be repaired or replaced if possible, but not deleted." (emphasis added) "If none of those strategies succeed, do not remove the inactive reference, but rather record the date that the original link was found to be inactive — even inactive, it still records the sources that were used, and it is possible hard copies of such references may exist, or alternatively that the page will turn up in the near future in the Internet Archive, which deliberately lags by six months or more. When printed sources become outdated, scholars still routinely cite those works when referenced." (emphasis again added) -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Image:Arc-de-triomphe-paris-nuit.jpg listed for deletion
If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.
If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.
If you have any questions please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you. Jesse Viviano 15:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Jesse Viviano 15:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Tsunami
Hey
I have seen that you have uploaded picture of Tsunami Wall constructed in Tsu, Japan. I'm doing a project on Waterfront Retaining Wall, so I think you may be useful in my research work.
If you are willing to work please drop me a mail to "loverahul[at]gmail[.]com"
Thanking you in anticipation.
Regards Rahul Senior Undergraduate IIT Bombay, India —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.163.25.48 (talk) 09:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] OTRS verification request
Could you please confirm that the OTRS permissions for the following three images (which link to the same OTRS permission), are valid and in order, and confirm the images are released to the public domain? I am looking in to an issue raised about an editor who appears to be wilfully and deliberately placing fraudulent information on images he uploads. I am an administrator but do not have access to check OTRS permissions. --Yamla 18:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Rajini in spain.jpg
- Image:252157716 887607f66c.jpg
- Image:Vijaytamil.jpg
- Apologies, but I can't find my OTRS login details at the moment - could you contact another OTRS user? -- ChrisO 18:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Slacker. ;-) Just kidding. I'll go ask someone else. Thanks for the effort. --Yamla 18:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] E=mc^2
Well I don't know any other way. Quite a claim those scientologist are making there. I'm just not sure if your meant to take mental energy to be equal to conventional physical energy. 131.181.251.66 01:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, Hubbard took it to mean that (though he didn't have much of a grasp on physics, to say the least). You'd think they'd get a bit hot under the collar from all that converting energy to mass and back again! ;-) -- ChrisO 01:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Henson case, in Fair Game
Actually the case is real, important, and very directly related. It should be easibly sourceable (probably already is at Keith Henson); I know that EFF.org has material on it. Rather than fight with Ombudsman over any mention of, maybe try sourcing the parts that seem more relevant, and editing it to make the relevance clearer? Ombudsman may simply not be as experienced when it comes to think like WP:RS, etc. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- To be honest, I would advocate keeping it out of the Fair Game article. The reason I don't want to include it is that the other cases specifically involved the CoS or ex-staff members testifying in court on the subject of Fair Game. This didn't happen in Henson's case. Without this explicit link, it's original research to assert that any particular case is an example of Fair Game. -- ChrisO 08:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Indefinite block of BabyDweezil
Hi Chris, as you've commented on this user before, would you mind giving an opinion on the indefinite block? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Unfounded accusations
Please refrain from making unfounded accusations. If you want to accuse me of anything, please be specific and provide examples. As it is, you are cluttering up my talk page. I have neither made personal attacks nor engaged in a revert war. --Leifern 20:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] thanks
for cleaning up my page so quickly
Edward —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Edwardlucas (talk • contribs) 12:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Norouz
Hello ChrisO, I was referred to you by Jkelly, who suggested that you might be a more appropriate person to approach. I was wondering if I could get your opinion on a discussion happening at Talk:Norouz#Merge_2. In the past a consensus was formed that all transliterations of the word "Norouz" should redirect to Norouz, but allow there for a page on Kurdish celebration of Newroz in summary style so that the information doesn't overflow the main page and also allow for information that is unique to the Kurds to remain in Wikipedia. Now a group of editors, who I believe are Iranian, want to merge the articles, in essence removing the extra material that is in Kurdish celebration of Newroz article, because they don't believe that the Kurds celebrate it any differently that general Iranians. Regards, -- Jeff3000 16:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] New article
- New article created, Scieno Sitter. Heavily sourced, discussed in the film The Bridge (film), and in the A & E program Investigative Reports. Let me know what you think on the article's talk page. P.S. How do I add newly created articles to the Scientology public watchlist? Smee 06:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] WikiProject updates
- I have done some updating to the WP:SCN, added some new articles, added a "to do" list to the top of the project, and fixed up some categories and assessment stuff. I suggest we should all pick one article at a time, or at most two, to work on bringing up to Featured Article status. You could give input on the project's talk page... Smee 20:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
- Also, a Userbox for project members, {{User Scientology project}} Smee 20:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Templates
I see you have recently created Template:WikiProject Scientology, a more complex version of the already existing tag, Template:Scientology. I am not as good at the esoteric coding as you are. I was wondering if you could help me merge some of your useful tools and stuff from Template:WikiProject Scientology, into the already existing Template:Scientology - as the latter is already in place on 230 articles, and it would be tedious to switch them. Smee 22:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
- I can't claim any particular credit for that template, to be honest - it's copied from elsewhere. I'll see if I can work out how to move the code into your template! -- ChrisO 00:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, again, I'll try to work with it myself, but not sure if I can do it. At any rate, the beauty of wiki is you'll see any changes I (try) to make... Smee 02:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
- Sigh, sorry, I can't figure this out. All I want to do is add the "to do list" drop-down option that exists in the Template:WikiProject Scientology, box, to the Template:Scientology box... Smee 04:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] "The Earlking" image by Albert Sterner
What source did you get this image in the artice "Erlkonig" from? In my research on Sterner, I have not been able to find this drawing attributed to him.
Thanks, Matthew Schooff —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.187.0.178 (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Flight 93 and zombie
Hi Chris - Where is a RS V secondary source mentioning zombie's (by name or website) objections to the Flight 93 memorial? Without one, the claim is self-sourced OR. Thanks - FaAfA (yap) 03:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination)
I think this may interest you. Kind regards, Orsini 06:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Pallywood
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on Pallywood. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
i appreciate your attempts at wikifying and improving the quality of the pallywood article, i agree that it did need some more coherancy and less linkage. however, your initial attempt at deleting the article (whiche failed), and your insessant insistance on controlling the material that is inserted as if it's false and unrelated (did you even see the film "jenin jenin"? or the counter film made by pierre rehov?) are being the point of good editing and at the point of "controllism" over the article. i suggest, now that your work with the article is done, that you allow for other people with valid expertieze on the subject to introduce what materials they see as extremely relevant - frontpagemag was simply reporting on the "jenin, jenin" film and while the word 'pallywood' is not mentioned in the frontpage mag, it is (the film) mentioned at the seconddraft and it is also commonly reffered to as pallywood by people who reffer to "pallywood productions". Jaakobou 06:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 3RR
Chris, you appear to have violated 3RR at Pallywood. I have no intention of reporting it, but could you watch out for this in future, please? The 3RR policy says that any undoing of another editor's work counts as a revert, even if it's only partial, and even if it involves different material each time (although yours didn't). I'm listing them for you in case you didn't realize.
- 1st 01:29 March 11, removed sources from the lead (Front Page Mag, Nidra Poller), added "by some" to the lead, added "alleged"
- 2nd 10:06 March 11, restored "by some"
- 3rd 10:42 March 11, removed the same two sources from the lead (Front Page Mag, Nidra Poller), and removed three sources from the last section ("Al-Durah: What happened?"], Second Draft; honestreporting's "Film Focus: HR in Hollywood and 'Pallywood'", and Gelernter LA Times article)
- 4th 11:01 March 11, removed the same two sources from the lead
- 5th 11:41 March 11, removed the same two sources from the lead
- 6th 11:55 March 11, removed the same two sources from the lead
SlimVirgin (talk) 13:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Flag burning.jpg
I see you uploaded this from Flickr. Out of curiosity, do you have any connection to Cloyne Court? —dgiestc 19:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- None whatsoever. I simply spotted the picture on Flickr, asked the photographer if we could use it, and uploaded it here when he said yes. -- ChrisO 20:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Your note
Thanks, Chris, I appreciate that. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 03:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Obvious sock
- While you're at it, here is another obvious sock you might want to take a look at and block: 216.190.12.249 (talk • contribs • logs). Yours, Smee 09:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
- And another: Watersurface (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) Yours, Smee 04:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
- Blocked. -- ChrisO 08:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- And another: Watersurface (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) Yours, Smee 04:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Barbara Schwarz has a new friend posting personal information for her
Misou (talk • contribs) has posted what she believes to be the first name of another editor into an edit summary. diff here She was either provided this information by Barbara Schwarz or she is Barbara Schwarz. This same violation was one of the major reason's that Ms. Schwarz was banned from Wikipedia. This person's edits should be removed and perhaps the user should be monitored to make sure we aren't dealing with yet another sock. Thanks Vivaldi (talk) 04:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sigh, so many socks, so many supporters of the socks, it is getting annoying. Smee 05:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy
You moved the article but didnt change the redirects? -Stevertigo 02:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- I changed many of them. It seems someone changed at least some of them back - the article has pingponged between named for a bit. I'll sort it out later today. -- ChrisO 03:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey there . . . I accidentally changed the redirect on Mar 20 -- I was _trying_ to change the redirect from Daniel Bogden (which itself redirected to the USAttny controversy article) to give Bogden his own article. My mistake. Sorry. All fixed now. -- Sholom 20:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. No harm done! :-) -- ChrisO 20:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] MBE pin
Hi,
I am wondering if you have yet purchased the Order of the British Empire lapel pin which was recently authorized for holders of the MBE [10], if you have I was wondering if you would be up for making a scan of it to be used on the Order of the British Empire page ? Dowew 04:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image question
- I have a question related to a public domain image. Can you enable your email? Smee 04:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC).
- Nevermind, sorry, I have asked someone else for help with this. Smee 15:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Cape Jazz Allstars
why did you delet the cape jazz allstars start?????
- Because there's no indication that it's notable. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (music) for our inclusion criteria. -- ChrisO 16:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Underachiever
Why are you reverting my edit in Underachiever? It doesn't make any sense at all..Special schools are alternative schools. And the previous one says only his...that's sexist...(69.117.20.128 16:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC))
[edit] Confused...
I am not sure what to make of this, at first I had thought that this user was a good new editor who cites lots of sources in new articles, but now... I am not so sure... Please check out the user's page, User:ClaudeReigns, and this DIFF ? Please let me know if you can sort this out... Thanks for your time. Yours, Smee 04:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
- Forget about this for the moment, sorry... I think the user is trying to be humourous, even if it might be incomprehensible or perhaps inappropriate... Smee 04:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Possible return of banned user
Hi, Chris. On March 13, you removed a dubious EL from Narconon added by an anonymous editor. What you might not have realized (I didn't, until the anon's next edit) is that this is the same IP address that Terryeo (talk • contribs) used on several occasions to circumvent the ban placed on him by the ArbCom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Good catch! -- ChrisO 14:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hi, re: your edit to jayjg's talkpage
Hi, I noticed you placed a warning on jayjg's talkpage regarding WP:AGF.[11]. Jayjg has a history of personal attacks[12][13], assuming bad faith, removing warnings from his talk pages[14], and so on. Just wanted to let you know. Thanks. --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 20:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- ChrisO, also FYI: Kirbytime has denied the holocast (he's from Iran), has told me to "GTFO" (means: Get the fuck out) and said to another user Noogster "you dont fucking own the template" [15]. thanks. --Matt57 01:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Your msg
What is that supposed to mean? ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Israel.png
Hi. Thanks for creating and uploading this image Image:Israel.png to replace the one you speedy deleted:
The edit comment you used for the speedy deletion was "Speedy deletion - duplicate of Image:Is-map.PNG on Commons".
That map on the commons is also found here:
Actually, there was no duplicate on the commons of the deleted image. Because the deleted image was an adaptation of the one on the commons. The deleted adaptation was an improvement of the one on the commons because it made the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and the Golan a different color from Israel, Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. As you did in your great adaptation of the UN map. Your UN map adaptation is much better than the other adapted map, so I am not requesting that the other map be undeleted.
I only wish that wikimedia commons and wikipedia would use gif versions of maps instead of png versions. The scaled-down gif versions are one third the kilobytes of the scaled-down png versions. I have read a lot of wikimedia discussion about the relative merits of png versus gif. Yet none of the supposed benefits of png maps outweighs the thumbnailer auto-scaling problem of png images - in my opinion. People like me with websites avoid png images like the plague because they usually drastically slow page load times for people using dialup internet access. Unless we go through a long process of converting the png image to a reduced-palette version. It is so much easier to just use gif images, since they already use a reduced palette, and free image software like IrfanView works much faster with gif image editing versus png image editing.
I wish wikimedia had tons of money to pay the developers to fix the autoscaling problem concerning png images. Here is my idea to get that money. Category:Wikipedians for optional advertisements.
Are the scaled versions of the png images created on the fly, or are they cached after the first initial use of a particular scaled size? Either way, is there any reason, a gif image could not be used for the scaled version of the image? It seems that only the largest png image and the largest gif image are close to the same number of kilobytes. So when people go to the image page why not have a gif image there too? It also is a scaled version. Only the highest resolution image need be a png image in my opinion. Or wikimedia could keep both a png and gif version of the largest size of the image. See this discussion too please:
I would like to see a section titled: "PNG_images_that_require_a_GIF_version"
Is there any reason we can not create a gif version of your image for the commons? And then use it in wikipedia pages instead of the png version? But keep the png version as the "master" image. Similar to the discussion concerning "PNG_photos_that_require_a_JPEG_version." --Timeshifter 13:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] What are you doing?
Hi. What is going on? Thx. El_C 22:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry - I reverted the wrong diff. I was in the middle of trying to fix a problem with the references when our anonymous vandal started his work. -- ChrisO 22:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, makes sense. Regards, . El_C 22:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
Thanks Chris. As you can see the debate is still ongoing and I didn't necessarily propose renaming the article to that particular title, although I completely agree that it should be renamed to a more neutral term. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 18:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Nemo judex in sua causa
Hi, is this allowed, protecting a page in your version? Who is the judge of what is POV, it's not as if you're neutral on this topic? I'm not saying I agreed with Chirchona's title, I'm just interested in what the proper procedure it? Also, I don't think what he was doing qualifies as "page move vandalism" - to me it seems like proper application of WP:BOLD (don't forget WP:BITE as well). I seriously hope you weren't planning to block him if he did it again. Cheers.--Domitius 21:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Domitius, the move permissions on that page had actually been locked for over a year and a half, by several other administrators, because of previous POV page moves and move warring. Unfortunately it seems that when Aldux unlocked the editing permissions on 8 December 2006, he overlooked the move permissions. I've simply reverted to the status quo ante (see, I can quote Latin too ;-). You may not be aware that Chirchona actually made the move twice - once today and once on 18 March, when it was reverted by FunkyFly. The article's name was determined about two years ago as a result of the introduction of Wikipedia:Naming conflict, which was designed to provide an objective (and to date, very successful) means of determining what we should call disputed entities. -- ChrisO 21:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- I know what has been going on with the page, I know it has been at its current title since forever. What I'm getting at is that this particular interpretation and application of Wikipedia:Naming conflict is heavily contested (there are two extensive subpages on this on the talkpage) - doubting the current title and trying alternative titles (not vandalism; this is an example of vandalism) should be allowed. Why should one be "The Truth" when it is contested? Why should dissidents be considered "vandals"? The circumstances with page moves are different now, an account has to be over four days old to perform a page move.--Domitius 22:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Nobody is preventing discussion of an alternative title. If there's a consensus for an alternative title that meets our guidelines, fine. However, Chirchona wasn't even discussing it - he or she simply moved it repeatedly to a different title without any consensus or discussion. The article is a magnet for POV warriors and this, I'm afraid, is just more of the same. -- ChrisO 01:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Commons media in English wikipedia categories
Commons media are for the use of all wikipedia sites worldwide. The English wikipedia category pages for those commons media list the English wikipedia pages on which those commons media are used.
The commons page for a particular image does not list the English wikipedia pages on which that image is being used.
Sometimes better images are uploaded that can replace lesser-quality images. Without the list of English-language wikipedia pages it would be very difficult to find and replace a particular image on multiple English-language wikipedia pages.
There are images in English wikipedia categories that would not be accepted in the commons. Gif images, fair use images, etc.. So the link to the commons category allows for more public-domain images to be used in English wikipedia pages.
The existence of the English wikipedia category allows for links to be made to the commons category of the same name. So English wikipedia editors then know of the additional commons media available to them. Those images are sometimes better, as explained previously. Oftentimes there is a larger selection of images at the commons.
The existence of the English wikipedia category also allows a logical location for links to the English wikipedia subcategories.
Not all commons images are suitable for placement in English wikipedia categories. Images captioned in other languages for example.
As many others have done I put some of the English-language commons images in the English wikipedia categories. This saves editors time in finding images. Because they don't have to click many commons images to open them up and see what language is used on the image.
It is common for a map or media to be in several categories. There are many examples of this. Maps, for example, often show several nations, territories, etc..
Tewfik today added categories to some maps. So he left those maps in several categories. --Timeshifter 09:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thank you for protecting Image:Israel.png
The same user is deleting other maps from Category:Maps of the Palestinian territories. --Timeshifter 15:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I think what you wrote on my user talk page is reasonable:
-
- Where maps show Israel and the Palestinian territories at an equivalent level of detail, as Image:Israel.png does, they should be listed in both categories. Where either Israel or the territories are shown only as an outline, as in Image:Cia-is-map2.gif, then I agree that they should only be shown in one category. I've used those criteria to categorise those particular maps on the Commons. -- ChrisO 15:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
That seems reasonable. --Timeshifter 15:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The problem is, Timeshifter and ChrisO, that the image does not currently distinguish between the Occupied Territories and the Palestinian territories (i.e. the Golan Heights). In that sense, ChrisO's original description on commons is right on the mark, but the insistence on both of your parts for the category is slightly off. To truly serve the dual purpose, the political geography of the PNA, as a single entity, needs to be distinguished (which isn't to say that the Golan needs to be differentiated entirely; i.e. use stripes or whatever). And lastly, have the title (inside the image itself) read "Israel, the Palestinian territories, and the Golan." Just because it's obvious to us editors dosen't mean it's obvious to our readers. Incidentally, ChrisO, you were not permitted to protect that page since you, yourself, were involved in the content dispute/revert war. El_C 06:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- The previous map that this one replaced was much less detailed. It was an adaptation of this map: Image:Cia-is-map2.gif. It also was used on many pages. See the many pages listed at the bottom of the image page: Image:Israel.png. A map does not have to be perfect to be used on many wikipedia pages. We don't have enough choices. We need more maps to be uploaded. To do that we need the categories to upload them to. Readers need to easily see what currently exists. That requires map categories. A map may be labeled in many ways. Just because it is labeled "Israel" does not mean the map can not be used in other categories. It is common for maps to be labeled with one nation's name even when it covers several nations and territories.
- I can understand why ChrisO protected it himself rather than go through the time involved in going through the normal process. Tewfik and others were repeatedly removing maps from several map categories, and then putting speedy-delete notices on them. Discussion was futile. Tewfik never accepted the reasons for the existence of the map categories. These are the same map category names as are used in wikimedia commons. All Tewfik's questions were answered, yet he and others continued to delete all images in a couple categories and put them up for speedy deletes.
- The categories in question were Category:Maps of the Palestinian territories and Category:Maps of the history of the Palestinian territories. Admin tools were being incorrectly used in speedy deleting these categories. Because the categories still contain subcategories even when all the images are removed. See WP:CSD#Categories. It states: "Empty categories (no articles or subcategories for at least four days) whose only content has consisted of links to parent categories." See the image and category talk pages for more info and discussion: Image talk:Israel.png. See also my user talk page.
- So there may be multiple levels of admin problems. I think the more serious is the incorrect speedy-deleting of the categories. There were additional links I had to rebuild from scratch when recreating the categories. I really don't care what the name of the map category is. I just wish this constant name changing, category deletion, and image category reclassification would end. I now find out today that some people object to the name Palestinian territories. See Category talk:Maps of the Palestinian territories# Criteria for inclusion in this category. A comment excerpt: "Not to mention that 'Palestinian territories' is a POV term anyway, particularly if it is connected to a map that shows all of the West Bank and part of Jerusalem as 'Palestinian territories'." Are we going to delete this wikipedia page: Palestinian territories? If "Palestinian territories" is not correct, then tell me the official wikipedia names to be used. Don't the UN and wikipedia and the most of the world use the phrase "Palestinian territories"? We have map categories for Hawaii, the Bahamas, etc.. They are all the most common names in English for these land groupings. So why not the Palestinian territories? --Timeshifter 08:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Your account is difficult to follow because it is lengthy and yet it isn't clearly-documented; nor does it respond to my particular points. Anyway, even if there was abuse, countering that with abuse (i.e. involved admin) is self-defeating. El_C 08:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not really arguing about the particular points of adminship. I am not an admin. I am discussing it from a common sense point of view. Or if you want to get really legalistic about it,.. I am mounting a "necessity defense" for breaking the admin laws. From a layman's point of view. :)
Let me clarify further on the points you raised. As someone who has added maps, images, charts, etc. to wikipedia pages, I can say that it is not necessary to distinguish everything on the map itself. The caption under the image can be used. That caption will change depending on the particular wikipedia page the map will be placed on. It is often counterproductive to put too much text on the map. English is used worldwide. So maps will be used on many websites worldwide. People can understand basic English, city names, nation names, basic topographical labels, etc.. Putting all the info you want on the map could actually make the map less useful. Breaking down political authority areas, etc.. There are already detailed maps of just the West Bank, for example. Some break down areas of authority at various times. But those maps are oftentimes soon outdated. Palestinian National Authority areas and Israeli settlement areas change.
I clarified the summary info somewhat for the image at the commons to incorporate some of the things you pointed out. Feel free to edit it further. --Timeshifter 08:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 3RR
Is it allowed to ask another user to do an action if the asking user would violate 3RR in doing so? x42bn6 Talk 01:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm advised that reverting in this sort of circumstance isn't a violation of 3RR after all. Anyhow, the reversion has been done - thanks for your assistance. -- ChrisO 01:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] ANI discussion
Hi, ChrisO, there is currently a discussion at ANI concerning the appropriateness of your protection of Image:Israel.png. You may want to weigh in there. Heimstern Läufer 05:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] You saw it coming
Remember this? Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive217#Banned User:Israelbeach mounting concerted AfD POV-push? Well, now this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Jazeera. Of course, User:Kinnernetgal was already listed as a suspected sockpuppet of Israelbeach (see: Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Israelbeach#Suspected Sockpuppets#Not blocked). --woggly 07:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- I took care of it. El_C 07:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] UN maps
Sorry about my confusion there, don't know why i didn't notice big template on the image description page. Looking thru the UN maps on en the only problem one i see is Image:Map-of-Croatia.png, which needs the UN no. cropped correct? It doesn't look modified, so it's o.k. to use on Wikipedia, but the GDFL says that image can be modified w/o removing the UN name and number. Or am i making things too complicated?—eric 17:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] inanimate entity = non-living?
Hi ChrisO, I had a question about your definition of inanimate entity in the naming conflicts issue. If you mean non-living, I can agree with you easily. If you mean unmoving, please consider the fact that a volcano may not move everyday but they do move. Mt. St Helens bulged quite a bit before it's May 18, 1980 eruption. Even non volcanic mountains move, caused by plate tectonics. I don't mean to split hairs, but my understanding of animate/inanimate is the ability to move. Anynobody 23:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Just a quick update, the move request that prompted my question has ended. I'd still like your opinion on this when you get the time, I can tell you are very busy. Thanks Anynobody 04:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] What am I missing?
I see LOTS of other pages -- including people in my industry, radio broadcasting -- with resume-looking pages, but mine is flagged as "blatant advertising?"
First: "blatant advertising" is redundant. But that's beside the point.
Second: How is what-I've-posted MORE blatant, than, for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Boyce ?
There must be THOUSANDS of here's-who-I-am listings -- LONGER than mine. What am I missing?
Please email me directly? cookeh@aol.com
THANK YOU Holland Cooke
- Umm, what did you post that I deleted? -- ChrisO 20:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Your username
I'm sorry if this seems trivial, but I like your username. ;) I'm afraid I've never seen you around, despite you having been around for quite a while. By the way, I read your FA, Crushing by Elephant, and found it quite interesting. :) · AO Talk 22:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks! None other than Jimbo Wales called it "the most random article on Wikipedia", which I take as an ... erm ... unique accolade. :-) -- ChrisO 22:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sockpuppet for blocking...
- Here you go: MexicoCityMexico (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). Yours, Smee 06:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC).
- Here is a new one for ya: BornElsewhere (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) - Yours, Smee 18:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Removed violations
- Wanted you to go over this one.
Misou (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), WP:NPA, part of a series, here: DIFF 1, and posting personal details about an editor which was also violating WP:OR, here: DIFF 2, which quite frankly also seems like WP:HARASS. I removed those edits, but you may want to erase them from the edit history, and warn the editor... This also was a prior pattern by this user, that is, posting personal details about other editors, as was done here: DIFF 3, which User:Vivaldi had brought up earlier above on your discussion page. Let me know what you think of this. Smee 19:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] WikiProject
- I restructured the Main Page of WP:SCN. Let me know what you think on the talk page. Smee 22:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 00:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Admin help requested
Please take a look at my user page. BTW, this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology; 22:43 . . (-46,702) shows how drastic his change was and how he threw out 46K worth of input. Certainly the page needed pruning but he converted a working page into some useless "show piece". I would appreciate your help as an admin that understands the situation. Thanks. --Justanother 00:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I won't have much time over the weekend for this issue, as I'm preparing for the Easter break. You might want to ask David Gerard, who created the WikiProject in the first place. -- ChrisO 00:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Can I talk you into one teensie weensie revert? Please? I think the old page should stand pending discussion. That is my only point. If the members of the project like the new version then hey, who am I to fight that. But let's at least have a discussion first. --Justanother 00:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] smee revert
He has also been reverting my edits. Lsi john 04:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- In this particular case, I was removing unsourced material. I will stop, however, and instead add sourced material from journal articles/books... Smee 04:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC).
-
- and he promptly reverted another edit Lsi john 05:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- <move to Talk:Large Group Awareness Training> --Justanother 15:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- and he promptly reverted another edit Lsi john 05:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Help?
- User:Justanother seems to wish to pick a fight with me, continues personal attacks, and I don't know what to do. User:Justanother/Smee (formerly Smeelgova) is a new page created by this user, rife with personal attacks, false accusations, and misinterpretations of my behaviour. Please help, or advise if you can, I honestly don't know what to do. I try to avoid articles this editor edits, and take them off of my watchlist, but that does not seem to work out, for the user finds me everywhere. Please help. Smee 23:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Image:Israel and occupied territories map.png
Please see Image talk:Israel and occupied territories map.png. I copied the page by the way. :)
The admin Jayjg deleted the map you uploaded without going through any deletion process. Neither the regular one, nor the speedy-delete process. His first message on the image talk page was to state that he deleted the message. Here is his message:
I find his above comments to be uncivil, abusive, inaccurate, and a breach of assuming good faith. You have made every effort to be accommodating in the captioning of this map. And at the same time to honor the wikipedia guidelines. I have found that discussing things with Jayjg on other talk pages to be a waste of time.
So I suggest uploading another map with the caption "Israel, West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, and environs" or something similar. No one can complain much about such a caption. There is no political element to it at all. It is strictly geographical.
As to the process Jayjg used to delete the map. There were a lot of pages that were using that map. Even if the map had gone through the normal deletion process and was about to be deleted, ... wouldn't a map with a different caption first be uploaded and redirected somehow to replace the old map on all the pages? Or manually substituted rather than leave a blank image spot on all those pages. If you want to make a report about his breach of process I will be glad to comment on it too on the incident board. I will follow your lead. --Timeshifter 06:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] question
hi, can you remove the spanish flag from the gibraltar talk page please? 212.120.228.1 18:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image deletion
I've commented on the AN/I page. Jayjg (talk) 18:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Also, it appears the it has subsequently been restored, then deleted, then restored again. I'm not sure what you think needs to be done at this point. Jayjg (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I haven't abused my admin privileges at all, but you have certainly abused yours. I expect you not to do it again. Jayjg (talk) 19:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- It appears the consensus on AN/I doesn't agree with you. You should take the hint. -- ChrisO 19:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Do we really need the image here if it's on commons already (originally)? Just for the categories? El_C 19:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Without the categories it won't show up in the relevant categories (Category:Maps of Israel etc) over here - correct me if I'm wrong? I should add that Jayjg deleted a placeholder with categories, rather than the image itself. -- ChrisO 19:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely following that. Are all or most maps on commons duplicated on Wikipedia for the sakes of categorization? El_C 19:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Not duplicated. As far as I understand it (User:Timeshifter is the expert here, I think) placeholder pages are created here containing just categories, so that selected Commons images will appear in en: categories. Take a look at Category:Maps of Israel - every image in is on the Commons. If placeholder pages weren't in use for categorisation purposes, those images wouldn't appear in en: category galleries. -- ChrisO 19:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely following that. Are all or most maps on commons duplicated on Wikipedia for the sakes of categorization? El_C 19:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Without the categories it won't show up in the relevant categories (Category:Maps of Israel etc) over here - correct me if I'm wrong? I should add that Jayjg deleted a placeholder with categories, rather than the image itself. -- ChrisO 19:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
A compromise might be to use the <galllery></gallery>, to actually add the images directly to the category page itself, instead of adding categories to the images. Sort of the other way around... Smee 19:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC).
- Interesting idea, I hadn't thought of that. I'll suggest it to Timeshifter. -- ChrisO 20:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Please see Category:Maps of the Palestinian territories and its talk page. I explain how it works there. It is not necessary to use gallery code for the images to show up on the category pages. Adding the category links to the placeholder image pages is much easier. It allows people to click English wikipedia images, which takes them to the placeholder page, where they can click the category links to find many more images. This helps editors find more images, and readers to learn much more. --Timeshifter 21:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Transliterations
In Israel:
- Qiryat Shemona -> Kiryat Shmona
- Nahariyya -> Nahariya
- Akko -> Acre
- Herzliyya -> Herzliya
- Yafo -> Jaffa
- Ashqelon -> Ashkelon
- Qiryat Gat -> Kiryat Gat
- Mizpe Ramon -> Mitzpe Ramon
- Elat -> Eilat
In the occupied territories:
In Egypt
- Al 'Arish -> El Arish
- Abu Ujaylah -> Abu Ageila
In Jordan
I would also recommend getting rid of all the dots etc. around the names (i.e. Khan Yunis rather than Khan Yūnis). Hope this helps! Number 57 21:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input. That's a lot more than I expected. I think that, before I go deleting anything, I'll ask the UN mappers what transliteration scheme(s) they use - I recognise at least some of those Arabic transliterations from maps I saw in the run-up to Iraq. -- ChrisO 21:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Yes, "official" transliteration schemes can be a bit problematic sometimes, and often vary considerably from the common spellings. With regards to the Israeli names, they seem to be those used by the country's statistical bureau, which are literal transliterations (i.e. based exactly on the Hebrew lettering and niqqud) with no regards for pronounciation. However, official Israeli spellings can still be inconsistent, and as I commented during another discussion, I have seen Petah Tikva (which I also consider a mistransliteration) spelt four different ways on road signs leading to the city! Number 57 22:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] License tagging for Image:Mictlantecuhtli statue.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Mictlantecuhtli statue.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] discussion
I agree. "The threat has run its length". :) --Timeshifter 08:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Question II
Owing to your uncouth and ill-mannered indifference to my question, I will ask again. (Excuse me if you did not notice it, although I surmise you did.) Could you please remove the Spanish flag from the Gibraltar talk page? I hope you understand that its symbolism is somewhat 'unfavourable' with the Gibraltarian denizens, to say the least. It was the subject of a major discussion here in Gibraltar the other week. 212.120.228.1 20:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] full list
your full list link on your user page does not work. Thought you'd like to know.
[edit] Map
Hello again. Sorry for being pedantic, but a quick question re: the map: Shouldn't it be "Israel with the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights" rather than "Israel with the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights", i.e. without the second comma? Number 57 12:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- It is optional. See: Comma (punctuation). I saw the map subheading in my watchlist. :) --Timeshifter 15:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- See Serial comma. :-) -- ChrisO 19:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] COFS removal of non-RS, POV, Scientologist "outing site"
Hi Chris. I see that you shut down User:COFS's good work in removing those links. Please see my page at User talk:Justanother#Reverts. Although I think that you should have not involved yourself due to your COI and should have posted the problem to AN/I, what is done is done. I would like to get going again on pulling those links. Please comment on my page. Thanks. --Justanother 21:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Your Mediation Cabal case
 |
Good afternoon (GMT time); I have accepted a Mediation Cabal case - requested by Ryan4 - to which you are listed as a party. Mediation has commenced at the case page, where you are invited to participate.
If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me via email or my talk page; I will try to answer all your questions as fully as possible in so far as it does not compromise my neutrality. Kind regards, |
- Post script — this page needs archiving!
[edit] Image:Caracalla_bust.jpg
Did you take this picture and agree to release it under the GFDL? If so, please change the {{GFDL}} tag on the page to {{GFDL-user}}, otherwise the picture may have to be deleted. Thanks, Yonatan talk 19:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Asucena
I read your comment on ANI. If you meant that my trying to defend Asucena indicates that it is an alternate account I created, it is not true. I would volunteer for a checkuser. Meanwhile, for what it is worth, I am leaving my ip address. I am in Quebec, Canada. --Mihai (74.13.156.153)
