User talk:ChrisO/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 that contreversial cartoon 2 We have an open request to unprotect the Macedonian redirects 3 Dianetics 4 Yellowcake 5 from user:Makedonas 6 Sort Order 7 What is citeable, per WP:CITE 8 Ten-Day War 9 DONT PUSH TO MUCH 10 Ten-Day War 11 German images 12 GermanGov tag 13 List of Macedonians (ethnic group) 14 Image:Judea.jpg 15 user name 16 3RR 17 Talk:Macedonia 18 Revert wars 19 Image:Explosion.jpg listed for deletion 20 Image talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad drawings.jpg 21 Why your heart has a black blood 22 Talk: Dianetics 23 Proposal 24 Use the discussion pages. <expletive> 25 need the original large version of Jyllands-Posten muhammed ansigt 26 regarding discussion. If you want discussion you will have to offer discussion 27 your comment to me on my talk page 28 Permission request - Battering Ram jpeg 29 DYK 30 Scientology Study Corner Austria 31 Request for Mediation 32 Laments and other stuff 33 Image:Adams bridge map.png listed for deletion 34 Regarding the mediation 35 scientology-pic 36 Block evasion 37 Request for mediation rejected 38 Missed the boat (re: Dianetics, etc.) 39 FYROM 40 KLA 41 Template:UN map 42 PLEASE DELTE THOSE CARTOONS FROM THE WEB SITE. 43 Image copyright problem with Image:Chicoutimi_fire_damage.jpg 44 Deletions of my work 45 Your ineffectual warning 46 KLA 47 Keep watching... 48 3RR 49 User:Nestore 50 Yugo article 51 Can you keep an eye on Operating Thetan? 52 About portal:Macedonia 53 RFAR 54 ==mediation== 55 Thetan article 56 2 Years late 57 ==question about a problem== 58 Rfc 59 Thanks 60 Your Initiated Rfc 61 Redirect 62 User:JimmyT back to attacks after block is lifted 63 My answer to your question, posed in an edit 64 How to proceed with RfC? 65 Martello tower 66 Image:Vesuvius crater wall.jpg 67 Terryeo RFArb 68 Thanks for letting me know :) 69 FYROM or Republic of Macedonia 70 Possibly unfree Image:Nanogearandbug.jpg 71 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo 72 Gospić massacre 73 Barnstar Award 74 POLL: Introduction for Republic of Macedonia article 75 You have violated the deletion procedure 76 No personal attacks 77 Help and advice needed 78 Operation Medak Pocket 79 Comment on Talk:Republic of Macedonia 80 Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-11 Scientology 81 Copyright problems with Image:Greek hoplite.png 82 the Dianetics Introduction 83 Confidential Documents 84 Help 85 Permission Question 86 Terryeo's vandalism tear 87 More about you-know-who 88 Terryeo selectively editing posts 89 Terryeo engaging in rumor mongering 90 Another personal attack by Terryeo 91 Abortion-Is-Murder-01 92 Operation Medak 93 Butrint 94 Narconon 95 Unreasonable blocking 96 Christodoulos 97 Mr Owen? 98 More problems from Terryeo 99 Abortion IS murder! 100 Christodoulos 101 Archive? 102 About your winning essay in the LMT Literati Contest

[edit] that contreversial cartoon

in reference to the copyright information provided, has the cartoonist given his permission for wikipedia to use the image? can we see a translation of the copyright agreement and copys of the e-mails refered to? i ask because, and i'll use the example of the movie dogma here, which was also contraversial, yet woulg be a brach of copyright to reproduce without permission. Also, i nbelive wikipedia should be an obsurver of the conraversies of the world interact. your thoughts please, best regards haydn. --Happyhaydn 00:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Please take a look at Image:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_drawings.jpg#Summary and Image:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_drawings.jpg#Licensing, which I believe answer your questions. If you have any further queries, please direct them to Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. -- ChrisO 01:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] We have an open request to unprotect the Macedonian redirects

User:Khoikhoi has a request up to unprotect the 5 Macedonian people redirects you protected in mid November. Unprotect? Let us know on RfP or on my talk page. Thanks. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dianetics

Looks very good! I have only a few comments:

• The use of italics for quotations is, I believe, non-standard. I confess I find it visually distracting.
• In mentioning the APA's September 1950 resolution not to use Hubbard's techniques therapeutically, I'd also mention that the resolution left open the possibility of using Hubbard's techniques experimentally to test their validity -- something you don't hear very often from the Scientology camp, whose party line is that the APA at that time wanted to surpress Dianetics because they "knew" it worked.
• You mention that GUK was named "after" the rifle-cleaning fluid. I was under the impression that Hubbard had stated it actually was the rifle-cleaning fluid, with the addition of niacin. (This may have been me misunderstanding that this crazy thing Hubbard said was actually meant as a joke, as opposed to the other crazy things he said which he meant as sacraments. =) )

Overall, an excellent job. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello ChrisO. I wish to get into communication with you regarding your use of your administrative status and its intrusion into the Dianetics article. You revision of 8 Jan [1] removed a cited list of Dianetics Publications, in Harvard style, complete with ISBNs and other cited sources. You replaced that carefully prepared, cited, information with sketchy, ill-prepared information that does not have ISBN numbers, isn't cited, doesn't have verification and, in my opinion, is counter to Wiki Policy. WHY ? Terryeo 02:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I see you have refused to communiate with anyone about your gross violations of wikipedia policy in preference to your assumed right to rewrite whole articles (the dianetics article) without any other POV presented. The reason I have tried to talk with you is because A. you are an administrator, you earned that status, it didn't just fall into your lap. and B. You have a few people who think you are doing right. I submit this information to you. No one who understands Dianetics considers your inputs helpful, in fact, in the area, Dianetics, all consider your inputs to have destroyed what was worked hard to achieve. And you persist in destroying the meaning of Dianetics with your persistent edits. And you refuse to communicate with anyone but those who think you are doing right. You, and they, don't understand Dianetics. Would you ask a plumber to build an article about carpentry? You would be wise to listen to those people with a little expertise in this hard to understand area. Is there any possibility of getting into communication with you at all ? Terryeo 22:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yellowcake

Hi Chris,

I posted a message in the discussion section of the "Yellowcake" entry. I believe the entry is incorrect. I will double check with some of my colleagues who work in the nuclear fuel fabrication industry, but I've looked into texts on this. I'd like your opinion also, as there has been some controversy about the term yellowcake in my professional circle. I work for the Dept of Energy in the nuclear field. I'll check back on the discussion section of yellowcake for your response.

Best regards!

Pete

Hi Chris - I added a more detailed response to the yellowcake entry. Thanks!

[edit] from user:Makedonas

Hello!First of all thank you for your neutrality about the subject.As you understood, Greeks are very sensitive about it.

1. About the flag-I know that one day I was running to photo the flag in our prefecture for allowing us to put it in the article for Macedonia, and now I watsch Skopians to put it simply in the article FYROM although they haven't the right to use it.

2. About the term "Slavomacedonians"-I'm trying to be as polite as I can. That's why I don't use the term "Skopians" as all Greeks do. The issue about the name hasn't resolved yet. From the other side I am Macedonian-How should I refer to them?

3. Some people are trying to write the "slavian names" of Greek cities as "macedonian names".I use the term "South Slavic" because in Bulgaria, in Serbia, in Croatia etc. they refer to these cities with excacly the same name.What are they trying to say?That these are "slavomacednians" cities?We are refering in Greek cities! I think it is right to write how Slavians refer to these cities, but what they do, it is very offensive!(I won't say again that in FYROM speak a Bulgarian dialect).

I 'm trying to be as fair as I can, but after living 7 years in Bulgaria, having many Skopians friends and after working 2 years in greek-skopians borders, I know very well what Slavians trying to do. Sorry about my English.--Makedonas 15:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sort Order

See my comments on Macedonia. You have to provide an objective reason why FYROM should be first. Right now you are just being arbitrary and biased. Sysin 11:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is citeable, per WP:CITE

Hello ChrisO. I am letting you know that WP:CITE states: "To ensure that the content of articles is credible and can be checked by any reader or editor." Some of your cites in some articles do not fulfill that requirement. Please feel free to read the style guideline for yourself. One cite in particular which you recently make which clearly is off Wiki guidelines involves confidential Scientology materials. Please don't get our beloved Wikipedia involved in legal struggles over a book cover picture. The reason I say this to you isn't because you shouldn't edit wikipedia, but because this website: [2] states clearly: "Holding or reproducing in any manner, confidential materials of Dianetics and Scientology without the express permission of RTC" is a reportable matter of concern to RTC. The reproducing part of that statement says that RTC might take legal action. But with or without RTC's concern, the citation you make about confidential Scientology materials doesn't follow Wikipedia's WP:CITE because who but you can look at it? I hope you understand. The citation doesn't fulfill Wikipedia's guildlines and it presents a potential legal problem. Don't take this as a threat, take this as my carefully pointing out to you that no one can look up and read your cite but you. okay? Terryeo 14:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This is my second contact to you ChrisO. I am letting you know it is inappropriate to cite a source which is not available to readers and to editors. In this particular case you are citing Confidential, trade secreted materials which are legally protected. Few persons but you have access to that material. It is not the intent of Wikipedia, I don't believe, to cite such materials. That is plain wrong. To rewrite WP:CITE as you did in an attempt to make access to citations acceptable is wrong. But it is also wrong, of its own accord, to cite trade secrets. Both are wrong. As, at this point, I am the only person who has pointed this out to you, you are not actionable in dispute resolution by normal, Request for Comment means. But whether you are actionable or not, it is the wrong thing to do. Terryeo 22:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO, I would like to add my two-cents worth on the "Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health" citations. To me your citation of a personal note on confidential Class VIII materials from a book by a man being paid to dis Scientlogy is too much of a reach. This should not be used on Wiki to add extraineous, controversial and inflamatory materials to a book written in 1950, when actual claims in the book are deleted and ignored. As it stands this volatile matterial takes up at least half of the discussion space and has too large of an importance in the article itself. I see this as the basic premise. Advertizing people try to push people's buttons to get them to buy things. So what is news about that? Why do you try to dazzle people with galactic genocide and billions of people and space opera and confidential high level materials and hearsay and uncitable "facts". This whole topic seems to be your personal fascination. A book cover has a volcano on it. I can recall quite a few that also have such a cover, like Churchward's Mu series from the 30s. Big friggen deal. Is this what you get paid to do? Spirit of Man 01:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Your statement is incorrect. Almost everything the CoS calls "confidential" is readily available. Check Xenu - the scan of Hubbard's original handwritten OT III. This is scholarly and educational use.

Also, please reread Wikipedia:No legal threats - you are veering a little close there - David Gerard 22:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

In the case of OT III, it's especially absurd, since Warren McShane, representing Scientology, specifically asserted in court that the Xenu story (or "Xemu", as he referred to it) was not a trade secret. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

"a man being paid to dis Scientlogy" -- hmm, that's an interesting allegation. Do you have any citation for that character assassination? -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

There are 2 points being made to ChrisO. One is, the citing of material which is known to be confidential to the Church of Scientology, when the Church is known to raise legal questions, is not a practice even newspapers like to involve themselves in. To use Wikipedia in this manner is chancey at best and at least irresponsible. But even if there were good and sufficient reason to cite Trademarked material, that use of that citation doesn't contribute to understanding the article it is within. ChrisO uses the citation in an attempt to make a point. But careful reading of the citation does not state why, exactly, Publications Org, Inc. has chosen to put a volcano on the cover of DMSMH. In any event, because the reading public and editors can not view the full citation, but only the line or two which ChrisO "says" it says, it is a very poor citation and poorly used. Terryeo 18:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

"the citing of material which is known to be confidential to the Church of Scientology, when the Church is known to raise legal questions, is not a practice even newspapers like to involve themselves in." - This is observably not the case, as in the press coverage of Tom Cruise's publicity work for War of the Worlds - every press article was Xenu, Xenu, Xenu. All of them. - David Gerard 08:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

even if there were good and sufficient reason to cite Trademarked material -- why should a trademark be any barrier whatsoever? Are you, perhaps, confused about the difference between trademark law and copyright law, as so many people are? Trademark law protects a business entity's mark of trade, nothing more; it means that if the Church of Scientology had "Xenu" registered as a trademark, I couldn't sell products or services similar to the products and services the Church of Scientology sells under a name which was similar enough to "Xenu" to cause confusion. It does not mean (and it's ridiculous to think it means) that no one except those granted permission by the trademark holder can discuss Xenu. I guarantee you that Proctor & Gamble has a trademark on Pampers; does this mean that no one can discuss Pampers unless P&G approves it? Now if these were trade secrets, that would be a different story, but again, that is exactly what Warren McShane testified on behalf of the Church of Scientology that the story of Xenu was not, and had never been. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Since you both refuse to acknowledge the document is a stolen document, I'll say it again here. ChrisO views my saying the document is a stolen document as a personal attack. This is not a personal attack, though he invites a personal attack because he is in possession of a stolen document. That he advertises his possession of a stolen document, attempting to 'bait' me into reading it and proving he is not constrained by Church of Scientology procedures only underlines the ciminality of his possossesion of said document. I believe you both would have been wise to simply no insist your citation on the DMSMH page was a good citation. Stolen documents do not "unimpeachable" sources make, if you follow my drift. Terryeo 20:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, you've been conflating copyright law and trademark law and trade secret as if they were all the same thing. They aren't. You've been claiming that the story of Xenu does not appear in any Scientology or Dianetics publication. It does. You've been claiming that the Church of Scientology never made any public statement acknowledging the existence of Xenu in their doctrine, which was incorrect; when notified that your claim was incorrect, you refused to acknowledge that there was any such court case. No, we do not "acknowledge" your personal belief that the document in question is "a stolen document", because so many of your personal beliefs are in fact documentedly false. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ten-Day War

I think your contributions greatly improved the article. I only had minor edits. Thanks for your contributions. -- D.M. ^(talk) 00:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DONT PUSH TO MUCH

The flag of vergina is a national simbol trought the ages of the macedonians and you after so many cantries have decided that is not please stay neutral according to macedonians and leave your geniality keep using your brain.

[edit] Ten-Day War

Alright, I see your point. I will be changing the term Slovene to Slovenian though.

If you check the history of the page, Slovenian and Slovene were being used interchangeably (as noun and adjective). It looked like a big mess.

Slovenian, the far more common term, was used by the original author and should be kept.

BT2 01:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] German images

You might like to look at the copyright status of Image:Surreydocks1941.jpg - my view is that someone else should have told you they were changing the tag. --Henrygb 00:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! -- ChrisO 00:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GermanGov tag

Hi there, you recently uploaded an image under the {{GermanGov}} licence. This tag is invalid, and all images so tagged are now at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images#All_images_in_Category:German_government_images. Please re-tag as appropiate. Pilatus 03:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Macedonians (ethnic group)

Hi Chris. Don't you think it's time to remove the "move protected" notice from this article? You put it November 13 and it's still there; and if we can't take it away now, we'll probably never be able to do it, don't you think so? Ciao! :-) Aldux 13:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Judea.jpg

Hi, please post the permission for this photo on the image talk page. Thuresson 20:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I will if I can find it... -- ChrisO 19:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] user name

Hello I was just wondering where you saw this Name Jewbacca http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jewbacca

cause its my user name for neverwinter nights and first person shooters

whatsinbounds@hotmail.com

No idea where it came from - it's not my username! -- ChrisO 19:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Don't worry. I know. I have no intention of going beyond the three. I was trying to put an explanation on the talk page but I kept being caught in edit conflicts. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I guess I was lucky enough to avoid that fate! -- ChrisO 19:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't a 3rr because it was a different version and one on which I made different edits. 3rr applies to a single version which is reverted to. I didn't revert to that version that time. So not a 3rr. See the diffs. Also you were involved on the page which makes it a policy violation. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I reverted Zocky's edit, not yours. Wikipedia:Blocking policy says: "Likewise, users should not block those with whom they are currently engaged in an article-editing conflict."

Also, WP:3RR doesn't support your contention about different versions:

The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia article within 24 hours of their first reversion...

Reverting in this context means undoing the work of another editor. It does not necessarily mean going back into the page history to revert to a previous version. The passage you keep adding or deleting may be as little as a few words, or in some cases, just one word.

Reverting doesn't only mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. It means undoing the actions of another editor, and may include edits that undo a previous edit, in whole or in part, or that add something new. Use common sense.

The wording of the policy clearly suggests that what you were doing wasn't legitimate. -- ChrisO 20:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

But thanks for unblocking. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking yourself is an abuse of administrator privileges, frankly... -- ChrisO 20:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I know but doesn't work anyways because IP was still blocked. Thanks for unblocking it though. Also I don't understand why you blocked me when you were involved in the dispute including the debate on the talk page. You could have also answered my emails that I sent you. That's all part of being an administrator and although I did revert the last time, I did not undo the work of another editor, I kept the story but moved it. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I just checked my mailbox - nothing there from you. It's not instantaneous, you know. :-) -- ChrisO 20:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

No hard feelings here. I also found out that you didn't unblock me. You might want to check why my emails aren't getting to you. I sent another one for just saying hello. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Macedonia

Please take a look at my comment which I placed inside your text. I will not take part in the discussion, however, since I have seen your serious attempts for NPOV wherever possible, I thought I had to remind you of facts.--FocalPoint 12:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a fair characterisation of the facts. -- ChrisO 11:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert wars

Hi, do you have any idea about what can be done about that revert war at Vergina Sun? Perhaps pronounce a policy which requires one footnote link in every article or a link on half the mentions of the disputed name. That revert war was quite funny at first, but now it's reached the point of pure silliness! --Latinus (talk (el:)) 23:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Sysin is, unfortunately, a hardline POV-pusher. I've added a comment to the talk page and reverted him. If he persists we may need to take it a stage further. -- ChrisO 23:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me have a word with him; I may be able to convince him. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 23:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Good luck! -- ChrisO 23:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, who's this User:Vergina, who I've seen blundering over the Macedonia related articles with comments like "FYROM is Republic of Bulgaristan". Does (s)he do anything useful? --Latinus (talk (el:)) 23:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Explosion.jpg listed for deletion

dbenbenn | talk 23:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Also Image:Pora stickers lvov.jpg. dbenbenn | talk 01:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've resolved the latter one. -- ChrisO 11:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad drawings.jpg

Hi ChrisO. Just wanted to ask you about the Muhammad drawings talk page. On the page you say that we should discuss it on the main article, but don't you think that the main article's talk page is already clogged up enough? And, as you can see from archive 2, we were getting a pretty good discussion about the actuall picture going, not, like on the main article talk page, just people venting their anger. I think that the talk page on the image gives wikipedians who don't want to get drawn into a big debate about if they are good or bad morally a chance to discuss what wikipedia should do. So, please reconsider and unprotect the page. The Halo

The problem with that is that the image talk page does offer people the opportunity to vent and it's simply not appropriate to use image talk pages for that. I accept that it might be less convenient to put the discussion on the article talk page, but in the circumstances I think we need to corral the discussion in one place. -- ChrisO 11:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why your heart has a black blood

I am astonished how such pages of Wiki are protected and, I would like to ask you an only one question - only one - why a jews such you hate islam, and when will be the time to be humans and not animals

• Right, becuase someone named Chris has Jew written all over him. Josh a z 04:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC) (an actual Jew, and proud member of the vast zionist conpiracy ;D)

[edit] Talk: Dianetics

Arguing with the Dianetics loonies is bad for my health. Thanks for the compliment, it definitely helps to counter the effects of being attacked and selectively ignored, but I think it will be better for me to keep out of this mess. These people are interested in advocacy, and be damned what anyone else thinks.

To satisfy the NOR policy, most of the Scientology pages should be deleted. Scientology and Dianetics deserve a mention only as social phenomena, any discussion of their scientific merits properly belongs somewhere other than Wikipedia, as it constitutes original research. I'd throw them a bone by letting them mention their beliefs, but only in the context of "While credible scientific sources believe this, Dianetics holds that something else is true." This is pseudoscience. Nothing of their beliefs should be mentioned without clearly labeling it as a minority view.

Most of SoM and Terryeo's objection to the article is that it does not describe in detail the "philosophy, science, [and] therapy" of Dianetics. This is fairly true, but it is also not relevant: Wikipedia is under no obligation to describe them at all, and certainly not in a positive light. We're not here to present both sides and let the reader choose which. We don't have to, thank the deity of your choice, decide what research is valid and what is not. We rely on the scientific community to do that. What we are here to do is present the scholarly side, the opinion of the scientific community. Verifiable information from neutral, reliable sources.

I suggest this as structure:

• Introduction of Dianetics
• Why Dianetics is pseudoscience
• What distinguishes Dianetics from other pseudosciences
• History of Dianetics

But I don't think it would go over very well. The article is pretty close to that as is, but I think the closer we can get, the better.

I'm going to go try and deal with some stubs, feel free to quote me or call me back in there. I'm just a bit worried about arguing with True Believers, feel like I'd be more productive trying to bore a tunnel through a mountain with a needle, y'know? (three cheers if you get the reference) Anyway, that's my two cents, uncut and undiluted. Let me know what you think. Tenebrous 12:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

Hi, could you check and comment at my proposal at Talk:Macedonia. As you can see, it's obviously pro-FYROM and if accepted, will probably result in me being banished from el: but I tired of the edit warring and trolling (from both sides). --Latinus (talk (el:)) 19:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW I've had a word with Sysin - hopefully, he'll stop. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 19:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use the discussion pages. <expletive>

Use the discussion page. You have POVed the Dianetics article for weeks. First you remove the whole article to place your POV of what the article should be, removing a great deal of work by a great many people. Then you state your POV, (conjecture, pseudoscience) when the rest of the editors are working toward a concensus of opinion. Then you modify the article to make your POV the only POV in the article again. That's just plain wrong ChrisO. Just plain wrong. You were wrong about the inclusion of unpublished, confidential Scientology cites and you are wrong about this too. Use the discussion page. Terryeo 19:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

If you feel ChrisO has made such gross and POV edits to this article, feel free to take it up with Wikipedia. Start a Wikipedia:Request for Comment and see how far it goes. Though strangely, Terryeo, you seem to be the only one who has a problem with ChrisO's edits. Why is that? --Modemac

Yes, I have to agree. It's funny that Terryeo claims that ChrisO is acting contrary to the "rest of the editors", who "are working toward a concensus of opinion." I'd be interested to know who Terryeo is counting as the "rest of the editors"? He certainly doesn't mean me; he certainly doesn't mean Wikipediatrix; he doesn't mean you, Modemac; he doesn't mean BTfromLA -- is he counting himself and Spirit of Man as the "consensus of opinion"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] need the original large version of Jyllands-Posten muhammed ansigt

Dear sir, my name is Budianto, I came from Indonesia, I need to look the original large version of Jyllands-Posten Muhammed Ansigt, I try to enlarge on Wikipedia pages, but the pages was protected. so I wonder if you could send me the large original version from Jyllands-Posten's newspaper (JPG files) to my email account : lord212004@yahoo.com

I had been open the other webs who provided the 12 cartoons, but it seems the 12 cartoons was edited (language) by someone.

I hope, you could give me the original large version.

Thanks

regards,

Budianto East of Java Indonesia

---

Another source for those pictures: Brussels Journal

[edit] regarding discussion. If you want discussion you will have to offer discussion

ChrisO, you said: "ChrisO (Talk) (==Dianetics and pseudoscience== - restored; if you have a problem with an addition, you discuss it - you don't delete it)"

My reply to you about that is this. When you begin discussing your edits with others, then you can expect others to discuss their edits with you. You removed the entire article and substituted your own POV which you admit, is meant only to Debunk Dianetics and present it as a conjecture at best. You did that without a jot of discussion at all. Now you expect poeple to discuss their edits with you? Get a clue ! Terryeo 04:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] your comment to me on my talk page

First you posted: "Antaeus Feldspar, BTfromLA, Modemac and Wikipediatrix" on my talk page and then you modified that to to a lesser number of individuals.

My mistake - I'd thought that BTfromLA had assented to co-sponsoring the request but on checking my (and his) talk page I found that he hadn't replied. -- ChrisO 01:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO, you can add me to the group that considers Dianetics as a pseudoscience, and I am a supporter of your well referenced version of the article about Dianetics. If anything, this article needs at most fine tuning. There are many other Scientology articles I consider difficult to read and understand unless the reader is a "believer" and is familiar with the specific Scientology jargon (example: Clear_(Scientology). Actually it gets very confusing at time, as I understood that Terryeo was agreeing that Dianetics has nothing to do with science [3]. Raymond Hill 03:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Apparently at no time have you understood what I have attempted many times to communicate to you. What link points toward that action?Terryeo 00:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand very well that you don't seem to have any understanding of Wikipedia policies, standards or conventions, and that you're trying very hard to turn the article into an expression of your own POV (as you tried to do with Philosophy of Life, which is deservedly going to be re-deleted). A lot of newbie editors make mistakes but they do learn from them and fit in well after a while. I don't think you've made any progress on that score since you started editing, which is why I feel you could benefit from some independent advice.

I think somebody else suggested this a while back, but you really would benefit from editing non-Scientology articles for a while. Your POV appears to be getting in the way of your ability to adapt to Wikipedia's approach, which does take some getting used to. Try editing articles about your home town, or your hobbies or something else that interests you, other than Scientology. Take a break from editing Scientology topics and learn how Wikipedia works before getting stuck into something as controversial as this. -- ChrisO 01:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Permission request - Battering Ram jpeg

Dear Chris,

         I am writing from the National Strategies head office in Reading,(England). We publish training and educational material for teachers in UK schools on behalf of the UK government’s Department for Education and Skills (DfES). These materials are provided free of charge and aim to raise pupil attainment by focusing on improving teaching and learning in schools throughout the UK.

I would like to request permission to use the photo of the battering ram taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Battering_ram.jpg for which, I believe you own the rights.

Full details of our materials are as follows:

DfES Publication (Working) Title: CPD Subject Leaders.

Context of Materials: The is used as part of a PowerPoint interactive story entitled 'Castle Attack'.

Format of Reproduction: Print, web, CD Rom.

We would like to extend this permission to include potential future Braille versions for the visually impaired.

Intended Audience: Teachers, Heads, and Consultants.

I would be most grateful if you could confirm that you hold the necessary rights, or are aware of any other parties we should approach in order to secure permission. If you do hold the relevant rights, may I request that you indicate your agreement to the use of this material, under the terms expressed above, by replying to this email?

The publication in which we would like to include your materials may be reprinted or repurposed for use in other National Strategies publications, with no alteration to the content or context of your work, as requested here. Please could you confirm if you are happy for us to use your material in this manner?

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further enquiries. I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

Matthew Bishop

Third Party Intellectual Properties Co-ordinator Tel: +44 (0)118 918 2590 Fax: +44 (0)118 918 2766

The National Strategies Capita Business Services 1 New Century Place Queens Road Reading RG1 4QH England - UK

matthew.bishop@capita.co.uk

[edit] DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article UFO religion, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Gurubrahma 12:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scientology Study Corner Austria

Scientology Study Corner Austria: I've sent them an email a while ago asking if they have the "Assists" lecture from Hubbard. No answer though. But it would seem to me a good place to resolve the often used "cite unpublished" argument, as from the description of the site, anybody can drop by and read through their extensive library of Scientology materials. We would have to confirm that they effectively have the material in their library, which would mean that the cited work is verifiable. Raymond Hill 16:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

You recently filed a Request for Mediation; the decision to accept or reject your case has been extended pending further information. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Dianetics.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact}, Chairman, 12:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

(This message delivered by Celestianpower (talk) on behalf of Essjay.)

Chris, please look at my recent discussion on the mediation page and on the Dianetics talk page. --JimmyT 22:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Laments and other stuff

Hi Chris! I've been continuously reverted by FunkyFly at the Jane Sandanski article - it's about an early 20th century revolutionary claimed by both Macedonians and Bulgarians. I proposed a neutral wording, but the Macedonian POV gets either marginalised or erased. The frustrating thing is that the other side does not provide sources. I'm really not into starting edit wars, so would you help in creating a NPOV atmosphere there? --FlavrSavr 03:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll check in and see what's happening...

Also, depending on my spare time, I think I would need your assistance in two other articles:

• Albanians in the Republic of Macedonia - Could you evaluate the neutrality of the article? It was extremely Albanian POV-ed (even fantastic) at some point, but then, some Macedonian editors did some efforts to neutralize it. I was not involved in these developments, but it might be a bit Macedonian POV-ed at this moment. --FlavrSavr 03:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a look at that too.

• An article about the Macedonian war conflict in 2001 - Isn't it amazing that there are like tons of info about the ROM/FYROM dumb naming conflict, and we have no article about the 2001 war/conflict? Are you acquainted with this war? Could you please suggest me a proper name for this armed conflict? I mean, it is debatable, whether it was a classic war, and then again, Armed conflict in the Republic of Macedonia sounds a bit blunt. I intend to make at least a stub about it. --FlavrSavr 03:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

As it happens, I did actually write most of an article on this last year but lost it in a disk crash before I could post it. :-( However, I've still got my notes and source material around somewhere, so I'm sure I could reconstitute it. As for the name, the Macedonians never actually declared a state of war (I believe), so "Macedonian War" would be out. How about simply "Macedonian Conflict"? -- ChrisO 23:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Yup, that's a Murphy's one. I think it's better to name it "Macedonian Conflict (2001)", to avoid any possible misunderstandings for the Macedonian Wars, as well as any other conflicts which had struck the region in the history (and there were loads of them). This would be a useful argument against (very) possible Greek objections - there was only one Macedonian Conflict in the year of 2001. It would be also useful to do some little research about how this conflict was called by major media outlets, it would be useful for making redirects. BBC for example, calls it Macedonia Crisis. --FlavrSavr 16:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

How about something like "Albanian demonstrations in Republic of Macedonia (2001)"? Probably demonstration is not the proper word but I can't think of the right word in English right now. talk to +MATIA 19:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

No, "demonstrations" sounds too benign, especially because demonstrations usually don't require Mi-24's as a counter-measure :). "Ethnic conflict in the Republic of Macedonia (2001)", maybe? Anyways, somebody of us, should be bold, and propose the final title. --FlavrSavr 20:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Adams bridge map.png listed for deletion

SoothingR 08:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, my apoligies...I nominated the wrong article. Thanks for fixing that entry, though.SoothingR 08:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the mediation

Unless I'm missing it in all the chaos of the page, you haven't yet posted agreement to the mediation. Is there something I'm missing about why not? -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

No. :-) I've been considering how best to tackle this mediation. I want to avoid Terryeo abusing it, which I think is very likely, and I don't want it to drag on indefinitely. Tomorrow (with any luck) I'll post some terms of reference and specific questions for us to agree on. -- ChrisO 23:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] scientology-pic

hi!

you uploaded Image:Scientology psychiatry kills.jpg and put it under license {{GFDL}}. the original photo comes from flickr.com and it is not under a free license there: "© All rights reserved".

did you have any contact with the photographer there or has the picture then to be deleted? --JD de {æ} 23:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The picture was originally uploaded without any copyright attributions, but the photographer agreed to license it as GFDL. Annoyingly, Flickr subsequently (and unilaterally) stamped "© All rights reserved" on all the copyright-free images, even if the photographers hadn't claimed copyright! I'll update the attribution. -- ChrisO 23:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

thanks for information and updating. --JD de {æ} 12:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block evasion

Hi, do you think it's conceivable that 209.135.109.5 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is User:Macedonia? I mean User:Macedonia has stated that he lives in Canada, was blocked a few minutes ago for violating the 3RR on Macedonians (ethnic group) (see WP:AN3) and lo and behold, a Canadian IP has edited Macedonians (ethnic group) incidentally pushing a pro Slav POV. I may be assuming bad faith, but the facts seem to point in that direction. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 22:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems possible. However, the anonymous vandal seems to have given up for now... -- ChrisO 23:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

God I hate those articles. I think I'll take them off my watchlist of a few days ;-) --Latinus (talk (el:)) 23:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for mediation rejected

Essjay has just rejected the request for mediation on Dianetics on behalf of the Mediation Committee. While he encourages refiling the request in the new, more stringent {{RFMR}} format, I believe that we may wish to look at a user-conduct RfC against Terryeo instead. His poor behavior is clearly affecting far more than just the Dianetics article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely. I'll post a response to the RfM. -- ChrisO 20:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep, the issues were not presented accurately and that became very obvious in the chatter than ensued. The issues still have not been confronted. You may, if you wish to, attempt to confront those issues with me here. Or, you may, if you wish to, refuse to confront those issues and attempt to pawn the job off on someone else (i.e. another mediation). It is up to you. I have gone more than my share of the common mile. Your coherent reply would be a step foreward. Terryeo 22:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missed the boat (re: Dianetics, etc.)

Hi, ChrisO. Sorry to have been so long in responding to your request about mediation on the Dianetics page--I had to log out from Wikipedia for a couple of weeks due to travel and work demands. I'm still unlikely to have much WP time for a while, though I am back home. It looks as if it's been an eventful couple of weeks around here, though I haven't yet read all the dialogue to understand where things stand and determine whether there's actually been any progress. At a quick scan, it looks as if the mediation request fizzled out--is that right? Since I've been completely out of it, I've got nothing to add to the discussion at this point. I just wanted to explain my non-responsiveness. BTfromLA 22:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

How do you protect a page? --Elmo12456 02:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FYROM

For what it's worth, I agree 100% in your proposed change for the intro statement of the above article. Whenever you post such a request in the talk page, I will be right behind you. NikoSilver 10:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KLA

Dear Chris:

I noticed you took out my postings. Why? Is this not the truth?

Peter

[edit] Template:UN map

Dear Chris, I am somewhat confused about this template. I have the impression that it encourages copying UN maps, which is clearly not what Mr. Bessarabov said: he clearly said "You can use them to make your own maps", which I take to mean by tracing over, or adding information such as adding a shaded relief, or vegetation types, or some other significant modification. And he seems to ask that references to the United Nations be removed.

Now take a look at commons:Image:Mbini.PNG. That's a straight copy. See commons:Image talk:Mbini.PNG (written before I was pointed to that template of yours), and then commons:User talk:Thuresson#Image talk:Mbini.PNG and User_talk:Lupo#Image:Mbini.PNG.

What's your take on this? Would it be necessary to change the text of the template to stress that one may use these maps "to create own maps", but that simple copying is not allowed? Or do we need to abolish the tag altogether? After all, one can always produce one's own map by tracing over some existing map: the geography itself is hardly copyrightable, only its presentation in the form of a map is. As long as the traced over map is not too similar to the original, I doubt there would be a problem. Hence, the UN tag doesn't really add anything new. Lupo 12:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

From my e-mail exchange with Mr Bessarabov, it seems clear that they don't want the kind of full-size copying that commons:Image:Mbini.PNG represents. (I'd recommend deleting that image as a copyvio). I've been using the UN maps as the basis for heavily edited extracts from the original - see e.g. Image:Epirus greece.png - to which the UN had no objections. -- ChrisO 20:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yup, I agree. The tag should really state that copying is not allowed. Lupo 20:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PLEASE DELTE THOSE CARTOONS FROM THE WEB SITE.

PLEASE DELTE THOSE CARTOONS FROM THE WEB SITE.PLEASE DELTE THOSE CARTOONS FROM THE WEB SITE.PLEASE DELTE THOSE CARTOONS FROM THE WEB SITE.PLEASE DELTE THOSE CARTOONS FROM THE WEB SITE.PLEASE DELTE THOSE CARTOONS FROM THE WEB SITE.PLEASE DELTE THOSE CARTOONS FROM THE WEB SITE.

That's not a decision that I can make. Please take it to Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. -- ChrisO 21:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Chicoutimi_fire_damage.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Chicoutimi_fire_damage.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 09:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletions of my work

Dear Chris-O:

this is the second time you delete my work. I demand an explanation.

Sincerely,

peter

[edit] Your ineffectual warning

HA ! you "warned" by saying "In my view, your repeated additions of a citation template constitute deliberate disruption, and if you persist I will request an immediate block of your editing privileges. Consider this an official warning - there won't be another. -- ChrisO 20:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)" at Template_talk:ScientologySeries, however, while referencing a guideline (a poor warning basis) you refused to reference a section of it or even to prove (by quoting) that WP:CITE says as you say it says. An examination of WP:CITE does not reveal your warning words and, further, an examination of WP:V (its parent body) does not confine the need for good, reliable informations to the areas you indicate. Have a nice day :) Terryeo 14:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KLA

Dear Chris:

I think that you must be really hurt by the truth of my additions to the mentioned article. Could you please explain why do you delete all my entries, without following Wikipedia rules? Surely, you must understand the rights of others, like the BBC, to their own opinion. Please do not call my additions POV when this is a matter of well-documented historical fact.

Please advise on how we can resolve this amongst ourselves.

Thank you,

Yours,

1liberator

Your additions were extremely POV; please read WP:NPOV, which explains the policy that we have to follow. They were also poorly formatted (in fact, a complete mess). In addition, you've repeatedly reverted the page in violation of the WP:3RR 3 revert rule, so I've temporarily blocked your editing privileges. -- ChrisO 23:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Mr. KLA, you write like you want to give material support to terrorists (i.e. KLA,) and you are calling me POV? You neglect to write even 1 word about the Genocide KLA organized and commited on the minorities of Kosovo? Surely, if you are well informed (as I informed you) you must know that KLA is an atrocious organization, just like Al-Qaeda, in fact. Anyways, I reformated my posting, but you once again took it out. What is your problem, you can't handle the truth?

[edit] Keep watching...

Keep watching what you have in your watch-list. It may be more necessary now... (I had posted you one more message before but didn't get an answer) NikoSilver 23:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that earlier message from you! I'll propose the FYROM name inclusion as you suggest. -- ChrisO 23:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

You might as well want to see this: Talk:Macedonia (region)#Dear editors,. NikoSilver 12:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

I appreciate your taking responsibility for requesting I be blocked for 3RR. However, you are wrong to cite an unpublished document on Wikipedia. Terryeo 20:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Nestore

• I have a [User_talk:NestorYugo/Evidence|case]] suggestion that User:Nestore is now working under the name NestorYugo. This new(?) user has taken to vandalising the Yugo article in Nestore's signiature style. -Litefantastic 01:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yugo article

why do you revert the article? did you read the my posted edit? i guess no! look and compare your edit and my and honor my contributions before blindly reverting --NestorYugo

I warned you about copyright violations on your user page. Since you've chosen to disregard the warning, and since I've found additional evidence that you re-uploaded many of the images after a previous round of deletions, I've blocked you and your sockpuppet account indefinitely per WP:COPY. -- ChrisO 01:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

you cannot honor neither my contributions nor are you open minded for the truth. the wikipedia encyclopedia is a shockingly non-neutral and definitive censorship encyclopedia, totally anti- greek, anti-serbian, pro-albanian, pro-turkish and pro-skopiot (FYROM) page and forum. americans always facing the reality in the way they want to see it, denying the truth - keep on bombing and killing innocent people and countries like vietnam, serbia, iraq, iran, lybia, grenada and many more. the way like you spread your propaganda e.g. kla, republic of macedonia, denying the name fyrom (redirecting to roc-why?) (although the official UN-name) will provoke many people, but you are claiming that my edits are npov and propaganda, thats your point of perspective. a neutral encyclopedia should respect both points of view, but you keep going to release only the one side, spreading lies all over the world Nestore

[edit] Can you keep an eye on Operating Thetan?

JimmyT (talk • contribs) seems to have decided that this is the night to game the system and has already tried to sneak in his original research that the OT I-VII submitted with the Fishman Affidavit are "fake (or forged)" [4]. He's also calling in others to assist in the system-gaming. [5] -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About portal:Macedonia

Hello. This portal represents a small part of the region of Macedonia (only FYROM). They can't monopolised this name - it should be renamed. The Greek and Bulgarian Macedonia have nothing to do with it. As it is written, it seems just like, it is refering in all Macedonian region.--Makedonas 03:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see my response at portal talk page. Thanks Bitola 08:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It not only seems, but it actually did at some point before I reverted. FunkyFly 18:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

This portal name, insults all Macedonians in Greece, and makes problem bigger. STOP FYROM's PROPAGANDA IN WIKIPEDIA.--Makedonas 11:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

"Macedonians" in Greece don't call like that. They declare simply - Greeks. No one did sourced this in disambiguation Macedonian, caus it is simply like that. Bomac 11:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I have insulted anyone, but this is my opinion about this subject and I think I am free to write it in the discussion page of some users. I know that it is a bit exaggerated, but you must consider my feelings when I saw how much unfair is for our side this portal name. Sorry again. --Makedonas 22:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFAR

I filed a request for arbitration for the naming conventions of the Macedonia related articles: Wikipedia:RFAR#Macedonia_naming_dispute. I have listed you as a party involved. Bitola 14:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ==mediation==

ChrisO: FYI—I've taken up informal mediation on Talk:Kosovo_Liberation_Army. I believe 1liberator put in the request. there's a new entry on the talk page to discuss the matter. :-) Ted 14:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thetan article

I see you have begin your work on the Thetan article. The article is actually a single word and has a single meaning. Because of my previous experiences with you, I know we are pretty likely to get into it. May I ask you to do this so that I can understand that you actually understand the meaning of the word, "thetan". Would you please, create 3 sentences which use the word "thetan?" I would appriciate if you did ChrisO because if I understand that you understand the word's meaning, it will (I think) reduce the conflicts we will have. Terryeo 08:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2 Years late

Man, thanks for the wonderful Bullfighting Photos! I was cleaning up the article today and they were very helpful!

Anyway, better late than never! Cheers! --Falcorian ^(talk) 18:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ==question about a problem==

Chris,

as an admin, can you tell me if there is anything I can do about this? I managed to piss off SlimVirgin, who is now following me from page to page, undoing my work. she'd managed to completely revert the work I did on the syllogisms page. and further, it's a cooperative effort - the article, which hasn't seen any activity for over a month, is now suddenly very active, with a number of people who are quite adamant about keeping my work undone.

I'll tell you, I'm not interested in this kind of stuff, and if it keeps up I'm simply going to leave Wikipedia. if I decide to do that, can you direct me to a bureaucrat so I can request a name change on my account?

thanks, Ted 14:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, chris. I considered trying mediation, but the woman is an administrator, and as far as I can tell completely immune to reason; fighting with her about it seems like a lost cause from any angle. I've decided I'm just going to quit. this place has lost it's appeal for me anyway... Ted 05:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rfc

While it appears an Rfc is a good idea, IMHO it would be best to enter into it with a hoepful and positive attitude rather than as a necessary but ultimately unproductiv step on the way to ArbCom. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not in the habit of instilling false optimism, I'm afraid. He's been told often enough what the ground rules are (and he's even got a checklist of Wikipedia policies on his user page) but he's persistently violated them on a daily basis for nearly three months now. I don't think he's either sincere or productive in his contributions, so I see no reason to have any hope that he'll change now. -- ChrisO 23:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I do have that list on my userpage. Did you check out the html colors link ? heh. I want the Dianetics and Scientology articles to present the subjects which the articles say they are about. I do not want unpublished, confidential copyrighted citations in those articles. This is exactly per those policies. I assume other editors want the same sort of easy to understand, well cited articles that I want. The problem to me seems to be with discussion. Killer and I have discussed, back and forth, and arrived at, at least some productive agreements. ChrisO doesn't discuss back and forth. I believe there lies the burr which prompts ChrisO more strongly than some other editors. Rather that use communciation as a tool toward resolving issues, ChrisO is using arbitration, Rfc, modification of guidelines, etc. to get his "disputes" resolved. The Dianetics article is a good example. I want a good introduction in the first paragraph. We talked about it for a while, it is not a good introduction at present but no one talks about it any more. Why ? The Dianetics site introduces the subject, a dozen books introduce the subject, but the small handful of editors who know the subject, if we introduce the subject ChrisO, Feldspar and others immediately revert a good introduction right out of the article. Terryeo 16:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Here's a userbox for you. --Cyde Weys 04:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your Initiated Rfc

I see you've initiated an Rfc. It would appear to be a User-Conduct Rfc. The problem with your initiating such an RfC is nil of course. However WP:RFC#User-conduct_RfC states: "For disputes over user conduct, before requesting community comment, at least two people should have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem." You spell out quite a list of User Conduct, but you don't include that such conduct has resulted in attempts to resolve the issue as spelled out above, do you? :) And this area is exactly the area which prompted your last 2, unsuccessful attempts to get your personal POV happening. You modified a guideline, attempted to get it to become stable without including me (who knew your Class VIII Assists' lecture was confidential and unpublished) in the discussion of the modification of the guideline WP:CITE. That's really only a "how to" of WP:V anyway. Had you discussed with me, collaberated with other editors as you should have, the difficulties and subsequent loss you had on that one would not have happened. Then again, at the Dianetics arbitration submission the same thing happened. Several editors were collaberating, resolving issues on the talk page of the article. You stated your opinion and placed it in arbitration right away, rather than talk, disscuss and collaberate with other editors. That came to nothing. Here again you are doing the same procedure. You have not followed the above stated page's procedure. You have not gotten two other editors to talk with me on my talk page, nor in article discussion pages about the issues you present at the Rfc. In some cases, some of those issues have been discussed with me by some editors. But all of those issues have not been discussed with me by 2 editors. Perhaps you get the message I am attempting to communicate with you. Collaberation is what makes these articles, not "playing the system". Two editors, talking with an editor (in this case me) about the issue which they find bothersome. I have tried to talk with you, for example, many times about the Space Opera article which I know to misrepresent the Church of Scientology's opinion. That particular article earned you a nice gold star, it is not a bad presentation but has 2 major out - points. First, the "assists" citation forms a very tiny piece of it, it is a contested citation because it is copyrighted and confidential (within the Church of Scientology), has never been published and will likely never be published. It forms a very tiny piece of that article, but you insist on including it. That's foolish, that's my opinion. But as often as I attempt to talk with you about these things, you don't. You do it all in your edit summaries and apparently think everyone should do it as you do. I have seen you state your opinion on a talk page, but you really don't collaberate, talk back and forth, arrive at a concensus. These articles are about collaberation, about consensus of opinion, not about what you or I conceive to be a NPOV. Terryeo 15:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You still don't seem to get it, I'm afraid. The RfC is about your conduct - specifically your unwillingness to abide by consensus and your constant edit warring. From the fact that a number of other editors are endorsing it, I'd say it's clear that there's a significant issue that needs to be addressed. -- ChrisO 23:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Instead of replying to the points I've raised you ignore them. Consensus is not being achieved. "unwillinness ot abide by consensus?" What consensus? You don't even reply to the points I raise above, in talk pages you dont' work with other editors and achieve consensus, you delete the hard work of concensus in articles and place your own work and expect it to stand. And, once again, you don't even reply to the points I've raised. Then too, you're not always 100 % polite either. Terryeo 13:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect

Hi ChrisO, just a quick technical question. I'm trying to fix it so that when you type "world state" into the search box it redirects to The World State instead of [[World government]. Do you know how I do this? Rusty2005 16:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:JimmyT back to attacks after block is lifted

Here is the lastest evidence of ad-hominem attacks on myself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Terryeo#Comment_from_Fahrenheit451 He also appears to be gaming with User:Terryeo.

--Fahrenheit451 17:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

JimmyT has also admitted to being disruptive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JimmyT#No_personal_attacks --Fahrenheit451 18:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

He seems to be actively campaigning to be banned--see his interjections throughout the RfC on Terryeo: he's accusing editors of being "kooks" and part of a "cabal," claiming one user is "insane or gay," and otherwise carrying on in a disruptive manner. Seems like he should be granted his wish: a long-term ban from wikipedia. BTfromLA 15:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My answer to your question, posed in an edit

here you ask, " 00:20, 18 March 2006 ChrisO (rv. What agreement?)". My answer is: here I state: ==Space Opera in Scientology== Here is a link, an expert's opinion, which expands on the how and why of Space Opera in Scientology. [6] Terryeo 19:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

which results in an edit in the history of that article: "02:11, 15 March 2006 Vivaldi (lets go for middle ground. Its not a "central part" nor is it a "minor part". It is certainly "a part".)" Which results in the text you find here.

[edit] How to proceed with RfC?

As I wrote on Terryeo's RfC talkpage: what now? It seems clear that Terryeo and Spirit of Man have succeeded at making the Scientology-related articles much worse that they were months ago, while wasting enormous amounts of the time of competent editors who tried to work with them in good faith. Two questions: 1. how can the RfC lead to a change? Doesn't seem to have done a thing thusfar, and I doubt Terryeo would even admit that there is consensus that his behavior is inappropriate. 2. Is there some policy that addresses the talk-page "gaming" that Terryeo and Spirit of Man engage in? (If not, maybe such a policy should be formulated.) BTfromLA 16:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

An RfC is intended to "persuade" the offending users to change the complained-of behaviour. As this plainly hasn't worked, the next and final stage is a Request for Arbitration. Spirit of Man's conduct isn't too impressive either, but at least he's not got into edit warring as far as I know. -- ChrisO 08:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 08:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Martello tower

I believe that you added the figure of 21 Irish towers to the article but you did not cite a source for this information. Where did you get that figure? I have been researching these and find reference to at least 40 built with about 30 extant, so I have changed the wording to be no-specific regarding a quantity. Hope you agree. ww2censor 14:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Vesuvius crater wall.jpg

I'm trying to sort out the copyright status of this image that you uploaded, with the good article nomination of Third Servile War in mind. Is this a photograph you took yourself, and then released into the public domain? If so it would be a big help if you could tag it as PD-self; at the moment there is a deprecatad PD tag on it. (The picture really is stunning, btw!:-)) TheGrappler 18:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't by me; it was by a Flickr user. Unfortunately Flickr have unilaterally changed all their users' copyright tags, so that anything that formerly had no copyright claims has been changed to "all rights reserved". I'll see if I can dig up the user to see if I can get him/her to release it under a Creative Commons license.

BTW, I'm not sure that the picture is really that accurate for the Third Servile War article. Vesuvius had a much larger and shallower crater in those days, which even had farms at the bottom. The modern crater wall dates as recently as 1944! What's left of the Roman-era volcano is now a separate fragment of crater wall called Monte Somma, partly encircling the modern summit of Vesuvius - you can see it in this image. The AD 79 eruption and subsequent eruptions largely destroyed the Roman volcano. -- ChrisO 19:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terryeo RFArb

Regarding your recently-posted RFArb, to expedite processing it's probably a good idea to provide a link to the workshop page for the mediation you mention, and diffs for some of the talk page discussions attempting to resolve the matter. A complete list would belong in the evidence page if the RFArb is accepted, but it's a good idea to link highlights when making the initial description of the case.

In any event, I'm pleased to see that my advice from a few months ago was useful. Best of luck. --Christopher Thomas 21:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Done, thanks. There is actually no workshop page for the mediation because the original request was abandoned by the Mediation Committee as unmanageable, after Terryeo and several other users got into a lengthy argument. -- ChrisO 23:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm unclear about how these Arb claims work. Specifically, I don't know whether it's a good idea for me (and other editors) to jump in and testify, basically repeating the content of the RfC. Is more chatter on the Arb page likely to confuse matters, as with the mediation attempt, or is it necessary for the arbitration to proceed? I'm willing to step in if it's going to be helpful, but I don't want to just "pile on" for the heck of it. Do you have experience with such proceedings? BTfromLA 18:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that only users directly involved in the conflict should make statements in the application, but I've seen a fair number of "statement by uninvolved party X" entries, so if you have first-hand evidence relating to the RFArb, I'd say go for it. I'm not an expert on RFArb policy mechanics, though, so take my advice with a grain of salt. --Christopher Thomas 20:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I second what Christopher said (the first sentence anyway!). As you were clearly a party to the conflict, I think it would be useful to add your comments. -- ChrisO 22:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO, I have posted a statement for Terryeo's RfA, even though I am not listed as an interested party.--Fahrenheit451 20:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for letting me know :)

I should have known from the onslaught of warnings that suddenly appeared on my talk page (exactly as JimmyT had done) Does that mean I can delete them without being termed vandalism? Thanks again _{ĢĿ€Ñ §τοĿĿ€Ŗγ}^Ť_č 00:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Your talk page is yours to do with as you will - so feel free to trim, delete etc. -- ChrisO 00:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. Warnings that are applied for a good reason should not be deleted. If someone has maliciously added vandalism warning templates or the like _without_ a good reason, get an admin involved ASAP, as 1) they shouldn't be doing that, and 2) they might be trying to trick an admin into blocking you. Removing it yourself might be seen as vandalism, if the admin checking doesn't dig too deeply, so it's best to get a removal by an uninvolved admin.

It's also encouraged to archive old threads, rather than delete them, but I haven't heard of anyone being reprimanded for not doing that. Check the relevant policies or ask an admin if uncertain.--Christopher Thomas 05:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FYROM or Republic of Macedonia

I think you once were interested in adding the commonly used name FYROM in the initial paragraph of the article. The constant reverts taking place right now, may be a reason for you to consider expressing your opinion about that once more in the talk-page. NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 14:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Nanogearandbug.jpg

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 19:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like he is back to his old personal attack stuff again. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BTfromLA#Answer_to_your_question_on_the_CoS --Fahrenheit451 20:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

_Now_ is when you compile a truly exhaustive list of incident diffs. These should be posted (neatly) in an appropriate section of the evidence page listed above. --Christopher Thomas 21:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You and I both find Terryeo's behavior annoying, but I don't think it's right to act like the RFA is already closed on him. --Davidstrauss 11:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gospić massacre

I like the article. Good job! -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 01:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar Award

[edit] POLL: Introduction for Republic of Macedonia article

Hello! Given ongoing discussions and recent edit warring – and with the hope of resolving this issue – you might be interested in a poll currently underway to decide the rendition of the lead for the Republic of Macedonia article. Please weigh in! --Aldux 15:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You have violated the deletion procedure

You have deleted template Persecution of Serbs in the middle of the debate. What do you have to say? I think you have done it out of rage. Also, the template about Scientology is another example of a POV template, that should be treated in the same way as template about persecution of Serbs. If you deleted one, you should delete the other. I have, in the discussion page, hinted that problems with NPOV can be adressed. That is what policy says. However, you have deleted it out of due procedure. CeBuCCuCmeM 22:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ChrisO that CeBuCCuCmeM has opened. I think there is no case to answer.--File Éireann 22:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes I have, and I agree. -- ChrisO 00:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No personal attacks

Please refrain from personal attacks. You have said that to me, but in fact you were the first who resorted to insult ("petty") which, when I returned it, you complained about. There is also a policy as far as I can see of assuming good faith and not biting newcomers. Both you have violated with me. What do you have to say about that? CeBuCCuCmeM 22:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help and advice needed

I noticed that you are an administrator who is involved in the "Macedonian issues" here on Wikipedia. That's why I decided to adress you with this.

• Isn't the use of terms such as Fyromians, Nonamians, Vardarians, Skopians, Bulgaromacedonians for the Macedonian ethnic group considered insulting? Is such a behaviour from some users allowed and what is the case with the usage of offensive terms for other nationalities here on Wikipedia.
• Avg (talk • contribs) used the usual offensive terms and introduced new ones. I pointed out that he should stop because they are insulting to the Macedonians. He ignored me and continued. I placed a NPA warning on his page. I think that it can be regarded as personal attack because despite being directed towards the whole ethnic group it is offencive to users as individuals. He promptly "retaliated" by placing the NPA template on my page and stated that my warning to him was a personal attack (later he stated that the usage of the term Macedonian for my ethnic group was insulting towards him and added that, as one of the ways I commited a personal attack). Faced with this irational (I give you a warning - you give me a warning for warning you) situation, I tried harder to calm things down and find a solution with discussion but to no avail. Avg continued his inflamatory remarks and insults (at least borderline insults) towards me/my ethnic group. I urge you to read my [7] and his [8] discusion pages and draw your own conclusions. Please read them carefuly and be mindful of the chronology. Other insulting remarks of Avg can be found at discusion pages of Macedonian related articles. There are too many of them dispersed for me to cite them here. I'm sure that if I warn Avg again he will simply retaliate. Since I dont think I should take this to the WP:PAIN until I try all other means, I turn to you. If you think that I'm right - please try to use your authority as a neutral person and administrator to reason with Avg to moderate his behaviour.
• Is there a way for me to remove a NPA template without breaking Wikipedia rules. I dont think there is a reason for it to be on my page and I am redy to respect a decision on this matter if there is a procedure for it. Actually this is the second time such template is put on my page. It was done without a reason, the first time also - and also as a retaliation (by user Latinus ). Then I left it there and quoted my statement for wich he acused me to serve as a proof for his false accusation. This time I dont want to do the same - I'm affraid that my page can be flooded with such templates and that I will look wery bad (no matter how much I explain my inosence). Actualy I noticed user Latinus removing such templates twice and I reported this, but there was no action. Please advise me what are the rules concerning this.

Thank you upfront --Realek 19:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This is fairly straight forward. The name "Macedonians" determining ethnicity, was appropriated by Slavic-speaking inhabitants of (a very small part of) the ancient Macedonia only sixty years ago. It is also used exclusively. This means that, according to FYROM POV, no other ethnicity can call themselves "Macedonians". This is an insult to Macedonian Greeks. However, it would never have crossed my mind that I should consider this a personal attack. Now obviously, I don't refer to inhabitants of FYROM as "Macedonians", for the reasons abovementioned. Therefore I choose the obvious, FYROM -> Fyromians. I can use Skopjans, which is what I use in daily speech, but that's Greek POV and I wanted to appear a little more objective. So Realek suddenly puts a WP:NPA template on my talk page, because he felt insulted by my usage of the term "Fyromians". It is obvious that since the whole issue is about the name "Macedonians" to be offending to Greeks, I immediately put a WP:NPA to his page. Using his standards, the term Macedonians is as much offending to me as the term Fyromians is to him. Moreover, the action itself of initiating this (while he does know the seriousness of the issue), is offending by itself because it implicitly tries to impose a POV. So will he refrain from using the word Macedonians as he's asking me to do the same with Fyromians? I doubt it. The only logical outcome is for both the templates to be removed.--Avg 01:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I (bureacucrat User:Angela changed my name from Latinus to Edwy a week ago, check the rename log, sorry for the confusion) did not remove them; I added "nowiki" to what I considered unjustified trollish abusive attacks. As Wikipedia administrators are not authorised to discipline users for violating WP:NPA (that's why no one listed at WP:PAIN has ever been blocked). While I would consider referring to the people generally as Fyromians or Nonamians as uncivil (WP:CIV) I don't think it's a personal attack, although Skopians, Vardarians and Bulgaromacedonians is perfectly acceptable as they are merely locational adjectives. If they were personal attack, calling Greek Balkanians or Turks Anatolians would be personal attacks and they clearly aren't. The Bulgoromacedonians is justifiable on the following basis: Bulgaro (Slavic speaking Orthodox Christian) Macedonian (location).

On the other hand, you have been generally uncivil and have been expressing an absolute contempt for everything Greek, as demonstrated by your performance on various talk pages which overstep anything any Greek user has said about Fyrom. You once served me a npa warning for something totally trivial compared to the kind of things you have said. I was under the impression that the npa warning I served you (which you assumed bad faith of me and thought it was a retaliation) was to instruct you that it was inappropriate. You ignored it and then claimed that it was very unfortunate that Greece "slipped" into the European Union and continued ascribing evil motives and dishonest tactics to the Greek state's legitimate conduct (I'm not referring to the illegitimate conduct). You cannot have a certain attitude to a certain state and users, and not expect something similar in return. Civility should be expected from all sides.

Finally, I am making a genuine enquiry into what have you contributed to Wikipedia yet? An image, an article something, anything? Edwy ^(talk) 20:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I support Latinus/Edwy's comments 100%, and have also been victimised by the said user with improper language, abusive use of tags etc. NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 20:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's not bite the newbie, Realek is still quite new and may not know when tags should be used. Edwy ^(talk) 20:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I think it should be suggested he spends more time in reading policies and guidelines, though. NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 20:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I stand by what I said. You removed my template and before that you removed some other user NPA and archived the discussion to cover the tracks. I wont get any further with this. If somebody is interested here are the deletions I noticed:

• I couldnt find the actual deletion but compare the last version before archieving [9] and the archive [10]. It is a big archive so go straight to the subtitle Please help. The Warning is completely removed
• You did remove only the template from the warning from me:[11]

Those are the two I noticed but there could be more

And again I meet with this revenge tactics. Please dont blame me for being generally uncivil and have been expressing an absolute contempt for everything Greek, as demonstrated by your performance on various talk pages which overstep anything any Greek user has said about Fyrom. You can't use such "general" accusations. I was very specific in what I said (concerning Avg and you Latinus/Edwy). Actually this was not about you at all but about user Avg. I mentioned you only technically and didn't ask anything concerning you. I noticed that flooding is common tactics when the ojective is to dissolve the subject and the point being talked about. So now I withdraw from this discussion and leave Greek users to say nice words about each other and give general bad oppinions about me.

ChrisO, I ask to give me at least an advice on how to deal with such situations

--Realek 21:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This is how you deal with misplaced npa templates, get the pic? Edwy ^(talk) 21:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW must you always attribute evil motives to me and other Greek users? You should try assuming good faith... Edwy ^(talk) 21:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Medak Pocket

First of all, thank you for putting in the time to rewrite the article to a much higher standard. One thing though: your reference links seem to be broken and I'm not sure how to fix them. Could you please have a look? --AHrvojic 20:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on Talk:Republic of Macedonia

I've recently made a comment on the above article regarding your contributions to Wikipedia:Naming_conflict in order to illustrate my point[12]. On second thought I find my choice of example unfortunate and I wish to apologise. I will be deleting the comment--Avg 16:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-11 Scientology

Nikitchenko and I are now in Mediation based on his allegation of POV editing to the Office of Special Affairs article; See here. The Mediation is being held at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-11 Scientology. I notice there is a section, Comments by others so I thought given you have edited the article you may wish to comment when Mediation begins (I am unsure of the process at this stage). Look forward to hearing your opinion if you choose to offer it, and thanks in advance - Glen ^T _C 19:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright problems with Image:Greek hoplite.png

It seems you uploaded the image in good faith; an anonymous contributor pointed out that West Point actually used commercial atlases to provide the images used on their website, presumably under licence. Unfortunately the URL link is now broken so it is impossible to verify, but the claim seems reasonable. As a reproducible image, I can't see that it will qualify as "fair use". TheGrappler 15:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the Dianetics Introduction

I have replied to you on my user page, good of you to make the effort and communicate. Terryeo 22:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confidential Documents

Hi Chris, Let me diplomatically suggest something. What you do is up to you, of course. In the future when an issue like the confidential Scientology documents come up, take into consideration that the whole planet does not know everything that goes on in every country. I certainly don't. If Swedish government sold, perhaps 2000 copies, then they are to some degree published. I say this not to make your methods or editing wrong, and I say it here on your user page where you are free to delete it if you like. Had you told what you knew of the situation more fully when the situation first arose, it would have saved the WP:CITE dagger confrontation, it would possibly have saved the attention everyone tied up in the Rfc, and possibly would have saved the trouble of the present, Rfa. All of the editing comes down to communication amongst editors, anyway. Again, what you do and how you do it is up to you. Terryeo 17:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help

As the (de facto) author of the Wikipedia:Naming conflict guideline, your help is needed here just to explain its implications. Apart from the recent opening paragraph poll, there is an ongoing initiative to rename the article from Republic of Macedonia to FYROM. According to the proponents of this initiative, this is exactly what the Wikipedia:Naming conflict requires. Thank you in advance. --FlavrSavr 00:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

And as a matter of fact I was about to invite you myself to check it out too, but FlavSavr got me first. Please check the reasoning at:

• Talk:Republic of Macedonia/FYROM name support position and
• Talk:Republic of Macedonia/Comments to FYROM name support position

and give us your interpretation, if it is indeed made by the book according to the Wikipedia:Naming conflict guideline. Thank you. NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 08:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Permission Question

Hi, are you the one that put up the Ceres goddess picture? Please email me if you are, thanks so much! --msmgore 22:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terryeo's vandalism tear

Terryeo has started a campagn of deleting everything in the scientology articles that has a cited link on Xenu.net on the preposterous ground that xenu.net is a personal website, thus invalid as a source. It amounts to crazy, widespread vandalism--can he be blocked? BTfromLA 02:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

He has now been blocked for 24 hrs by another admin. BTfromLA 02:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More about you-know-who

I wrote this (admittedly snide) comment on Terryeo's talk page, and of course it was promptly deleted:

Chris, it's obvious that Terryeo is going to try to use this as "proof" that by promoting xenu.net, you are obviously promoting "your own work," i.e. advertising your own Web site on Wikipedia in an act of self-promotion. Of course, this is so laughable that no one other than Terryeo will believe it; but just be ready when he "surprises" us by springing it on you. --Modemac 18:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC) (Don't bother reverting this on his talk page, it's not worth the effort.)

Looks like he's already sprung it: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo/Evidence#Fourth assertion: Personal Websites. -- ChrisO 17:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I placed my point of view in public nearly the day I begin. My intentions have been straightforeward. I did not know until fairly recently that Chris Owen existed, I had never heard the name. It was not until personal websites begin to pop up all over the articles that the name kept coming up in linked-to sites. To find out what was being stated, like any reader would do, I go to the sites referenced by quoted texts and read the site. I found a lot of Chris Owen, I found he had won an anti-scientology writing compitition, that he had placed more than 100 articles on xenu.net. The link from ChrisO, who boldly edits and uses and encourages and argues for personal websites being used in articles, to Chris Owen who, apparently, was trained in dispersive technology by the Church of Scientology, became more and more apparent. Modemac too, that name begin to appear in articles and I found he has his own wiki which is anti-scientology. Modemac more throughly accused me of POV than any editor in discussion pages, yet it turns out that his point of view (which is valid to him of course) has had large effects in the articles. It only makes sense, by inserting personal websites frequently, cross linking from those sites to your own personal sites (this might or might not be the case, it is difficult to follow some trails) by doing that, eventually personal websites of that point of view, held in good faith by certain editors, get more exposure. Why the several editors who have a vested interest in personal websites being quoted and used in the Scientology articles were not forthcoming became more clear as I read more. But I understand, this is to be viewed as just a coincidence, is that right? Terryeo 09:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terryeo selectively editing posts

I've just discovered Terryeo selectively editing a post to him from on his user talk page. [13] While my post to him was not, I admit, perfectly CIVIL (I have not yet found the secret to keeping perfectly calm while someone pretends I'm simple-minded and completely gullible) what he edited out was not merely my rhetorical excesses but my explanation to him of why he could not treat a source that was also available on a "personal website" as if that was the only place it was available. You might want to check and see if he has similarly edited any of your own posts to him. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

When you were not civil, I delted your post. When you were I left it and replied to it. Your page announces that you might edit it at any time. Terryeo 09:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

And when you wanted to pretend that your argument had not been already refuted, you selectively edited the refutation out of what had been said to you. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Users are allowed to edit their talk pages as they wish. His pruning doesn't seem the most honest, but I don't think it's against policy. The truth is in the diffs, anyway. --Davidstrauss 09:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's very much against policy. You might get varying opinions about whether it's permissible to remove all of a post from your talk page, but selectively editing it is definitely prohibited. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

He edited many of my posts to him as well. I informed him that since he chose to do that, I would no longer discuss anything with him on his talk page, and block out anything he posted on mine. It is clear to me that he is here to disrupt wikipedia under the auspices of rtc/osa. --Fahrenheit451 23:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

As I've told you and other editors before, I neither have been encouraged by any organization nor have requested nor been given permission by any organization. Terryeo 09:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I believe you! -- ChrisO 09:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terryeo engaging in rumor mongering

Terryeo has stated in discussion to two editors that I "made a racial slur" on an editor's talk page. I never did such a thing and I am fed up with Terryeo. I want him banned. --Fahrenheit451 02:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

terryeo stated, "The editors controlling the articles are serious people and mean to control it in a serious way. heh." which was followed by an anon edit which was edited by ChrisO. Terryeo 09:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another personal attack by Terryeo

Terryeo is actively trolling scientology related articles and editors. He made a personal attack as evidenced above.--Fahrenheit451 02:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abortion-Is-Murder-01

Hey - why d'you delete that? I have had some trouble with this, though I don't know why - I own the copyright as I made it on my own computer and it is a statement of fact about a big moral issue that adorns my userpage and my userpage alone.--RichardHarrold 16:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

He uploaded it again under a different name this afternoon. ww2censor 23:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Medak

Hi, Chris.

I've changed correctly now the interlink on Operation Medak pocket article. I've put "rebel Serbs", because "Republic of Serbian Krajina" is not internationally recognised country, only the rebel-controlled territory.
Regarding the line about "criticism at home", that definitely is not truth. Every liberation action that Croatia took, had apsolute support among Croatian citizens. Those who were against, were a bunch of self-propagandists and eccentrics. If you think this is not truth, you should read more sources. Croatians were happy for every liberated inch. Sincerely, Kubura 14:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The point about the RSK not being internationally recognised is irrelevant, to be honest - the entity existed, whether it was recognised or not. See my comments at Talk:Operation Medak Pocket#Kubura's edits. I've reverted your deletion of its name. -- ChrisO 22:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Butrint

Whenever you protect a page, don't forget to add the appropriate template to the top of the page ({protect} or {sprotect}), Also, make sure to log it into WP:PP. Thanks, -Will Beback 00:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

PS, we should probably unprotect it now, as it has been several days. -Will Beback 00:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - to be honest, I'd forgotten about that! I've unprotected it now. -- ChrisO 09:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Narconon

Hello, Chris. Regarding the following statement: "Although Narconon claims a success rate of over 70%, no verifiable evidence for this appears to have been published by the organization, and independent researchers have found considerably lower rates — as low as 6.6% in the case of a Swedish research study.[4]" I need your help. I don't know how to navigate around Wikipedia and enter into the discussion.

I attempted to verify the above statement and I found two disturbing facts: 1) Narconon HAS published verifiable evidence at http://www.criminon.org/studies/fase.pdf. This study of the Utah Fourth District Juvenile Court reported "Of [juvenile offenders] who completed the program, 63.5 percent remained completely misdemeanor and felony free during the remainder of their juvenile history." and 2) the Swedish research study referred to above at http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Narconon/sources/reports/gerdman_se1.htm actually support the Narconon claims. I had, at my own expense, portions of the Swedish report translated. The title is Evaluation of Narconon Part I and it was issued May 1, 1981. Here is what a portion of the report says:

"SUMMARY:

In Group U1 [14 person who completed the program in 1977], we found 84.6% drug-free, but taking into account the "dropout" (uncontactable subject - 1 individual), the results must be adjusted to 78.6% and thus give a certain minimum estimate of the proportion of drug-free. In Group U2 [47 persons who dropped out of the program in 1977] we found at least 21.3% drug-free; here all dropouts are taken into account."

and later

"CONCLUSION:

As far as the Narconon program is concerned, it must be considered as good compared to other institutions. The dropout group U2 can be seen as a contrast group which shows how well Narconon succeeds with those who complete the whole program and there is a notable difference. This does not mean that the dropout group did not need Narconon; about that we know very little. Narconon can be credited for the group which later as individuals who managed to improve their own situations. For some in the dropout group, perhaps a shorter time at Narconon was sufficient."

Now here is the problem: Nowhere in the Swedish study does it state a 6.6% success rate. The lowest "success rate" mentioned is the 21.3% among those who did not finish the program.

How do I put these verified facts on the Narconon page in Wikipedia?

[edit] Unreasonable blocking

Hi, I am sorry for bothering you, but can you please look here and comment on the matter? Thanks. FunkyFly 19:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christodoulos

You need to better explain your changes to Christodoulos. Firstly you said you removed a copyviolation image... which isn't up for copyright violation. Then you didn't keep any of the old referencing system and created a long article without sections which creates style problems since articles should have reference sections. Can you add a referencing system? Also reference 4 is a reference tag to somewhere but it is broken. Can you fix that? gren グレン 00:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Bear with me please, it's a work in progress. :-) I'm digging through newspaper archives at the moment and will fix up the references when I'm done. As for the image, I think we'd need more than the contributors' personal assertion that it's free of copyright before we can admit it. -- ChrisO 07:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mr Owen?

I'll tell you what, Chris, I'll explain myself to you so that you don't need to be holding on to what you apparently perceive and feel about me. We have about 6.5 billion persons on our planet today and more tomorrow. Our planet is really quite young as a civilized planet. It is likely, I believe, that we have advanced sufficiently with technology that we will be able to survive as a species on this planet, though there will be a few major physical traumas in the coming years. The only absolute end to mankind on earth would probably be, at this point, a large astroid strike. Well, we are taking actions which might even allow us to clean up our solar system and insure ourselves against the possiblitiy. In any event, nothing in the immeditate future that we think we can't handle. We are approaching a great lessening for fossil fuel and there are other technological, physical technology, events that at least give mankind a running chance on this planet we inhabit.

• We can all make it hard on ourselves and argue and carp and fight over the most extreme trivalities. Eye color, hair color, race, sex, and even the thoughts we think. Example: "I think apple and you think peach and we physcially fight until only peach eaters are left". Example: "I think Christian and you think Islam and we fight until only Islam thinkers are left". I'm sure you can come up with less extreme examples, and less extreme thoughts. That's fine and not my point.
• We can all make it easy on ourselves. Historically, those societies which manifested tolerance prosper best. Example: The Netherland was the most prosperous country in Europe for many years. It prospered because it was necessary for its surrounding cultures to co-operate to farm the land of it, and not be inundated by the sea. Today, the Netherland is one of the more prosperous countries in Europe. This has not happened without some stress, even today there is a great deal of attention to the "body trafficing" which goes on in the Netherland, thanks to their laws which several countries strongly disagree with.
• Whether we co-operate and build a comforatable sort of society on earth, where we can walk in the sunshine and ski on the snow in the daylight, or we create a more totalitarian like society, dictated by government without easy travel, without a good standard of living, without a good quality of living, that is entirely up to us. From my point of view it mainly depends on information and how we use and share it. You understand my point of view, I propose that information be stated as cleanly and simply as possible, an effort to actually communicate information be made. I understand your situation too, at least somewhat after reading some of the articles and personal attestation which Chris Owen has presented here and there. You are welcome to your situation which of course, you have created for yourself and frankly, I'm pleased enough to be me. You notice I typed this entire communication to you without a single mention of anything other than commonly recognized ideas? I don't have an agenda, I'm not a member of any organization but a public person in Scientology who saw a vacuum of information and started to fill it. I do believe it is plain silly to not communicate to each other. Terryeo 01:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More problems from Terryeo

Chris, this guy is quite a troll. I am curious when the ArbCom is going to ban him. --Fahrenheit451 02:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo tactics have changed to harassing users on article and user talk pages. I think he should be banned from talk pages as well. --Fahrenheit451 15:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

That's up to the ArbCom. -- ChrisO 19:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abortion IS murder!

Listen, you fascist - why won't you let me say this on my user page? That is my opinion (actually, it's not opinion, it's fact). I thought that we were supposed to have freedom of speech on Wikipedia?! --RichardHarrold 14:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually you don't - at least, not unlimited free speech. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for the limits on it. The important one from your point of view is that "Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, webspace provider or social networking site". I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your views on abortion; it's simply that Wikipedia isn't the appropriate place to campaign on the issue. You can say your opinion by all means, but please don't upload banners that don't serve any purpose other than expressing your POV. -- ChrisO 19:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christodoulos

I'm really puzzled with that edit. talk to +MATIA 12:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archive?

Your user talkpage is currently 101k - You may wish to consider archiving it at this point. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 02:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About your winning essay in the LMT Literati Contest

Hello Chris.

I don't know where to reach you by email, so I decided to contact you here even though it is not about wikipedia. I saw your essay titled "The Control Agenda: Control, Responsibility and Freedom in the Church of Scientology" in a.r.s. It is a very interesting read, and I wish I could publish it on my web site. I was wondering if there are any copyright issue from you or from the LMT (which folded if I'm not mistaken) before I reproduced it. Here is a link to my HTML version (which is not linked anywhere else until you explicitly give me permission for doing so.) Raymond Hill 22:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)