User talk:ChrisO/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Macedonians/Macedonian Slavs 1.1 The Naming Committee 2 Pic of the Day 3 Macedonians 4 Miskin 5 Ammo for Both Sides 6 Abuse 7 Space aliens in Scientology doctrine article 8 DYK 9 ooops. Sorry 10 Story of Creation 11 Scientology 12 Pic of the day 13 WikiProject Scientology 14 Message from a.r.s 15 Hi 16 Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries 17 The Fishman affidavit 18 Rewrite of Scientology and other religions 19 London Bombings 20 London Bombings 21 Geographical coordinates of cities 22 Tower Bridge Works, September 28th 1892 23 Image:Aldgate_train.jpg 24 Uncyclopedia 25 Operation Allied Force 26 Serbia proper 27 A coldblooded look at your last sixty trillion years 28 Knock Knock 29 Macedonia and banning 30 Interior of the Tower Subway, 1870 31 Tower Subway 32 ODP Article 33 3RR 34 Yet another poll on Macedonians 35 Final decision 36 Ford Greene 37 Aliákmon 38 Disute tag 39 Foreign relations of Greece 40 La madeleine paris 41 Dig this blog entry 42 The Turkish Invasion of Cyprus 43 Userpage Format 44 Image:Breithorn.jpg has been listed for deletion 45 Battle of Poitiers (1356) 46 Have A Barnastar! 47 Image:Battle suomussalmi.jpg 48 request 48.1 second request 49 old tube photos 50 DC-8s to Mars 51 yet again Macedonia

[edit] Macedonians/Macedonian Slavs

I was under impression that the name of the article would change to a compromising variant: Macedonians (nation), Macedonians (nationality), Macedonians (people) or whatever since the resources shown clearly point that Macedonian Slavs is rather inappropriate. I'm glad the whole poll thing is over, but what is the overall conclusion:

1. the naming committee will discuss on the matter of Macedonians/Macedonian Slavs name 2. Macedonian Slavs stays until another poll is organized or 3. a status quo for an indefinite period of time?

Since you seem to be the only neutral admin actively engaged in this debate, it seem to me that you are the right person to ask these questions.... --FlavrSavr 02:49, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If a poll doesn't reach a decision, the poll is treated as moot and the status quo is continued. I agree that the name "Macedonian Slavs" is inappropriate (and many of the arguments made against using it were blatantly POV). The problem is that right now we don't have a mechanism for ensuring that the name is decided objectively. I'll have a chat with the other admins to see if anything can be done in the short term (bear in mind that the naming committee is just a proposal, it's not been endorsed yet). -- ChrisO 11:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would like you to know that I appreciate your active involvement in the Macedonians/Macedonian Slavs issue, because if it is left to polls to decide such delicate matters, Wikipedia would soon degenerate. The English Wikipedia, and its mirror sites are the most important generators of the Macedonian Slavs term on the net - [1], which is much unfortunate, because it makes the term more "common" than it actually is. There was a brief period of some "Macedonian Slavs" references in BBC or CNN's news articles (the first half of 2001), but they have withdrawn the term very soon. The naming committee is a good idea to resolve matters of this type, since the naming of the article itself is a specific NPOV question - the different POV's can hardly be "described" in it. I don't want to leave the impression that I'm trying to put a pressure on you, but please resolve this dispute in a reasonable period of time (that is, don't forget about it :-)). Thanks again for your contributions. --FlavrSavr 17:04, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just remember that we need to figure out what is neutral, not what is objectively correct. A committee which "votes" on what is "objectively correct" will not get "endorsed". This is the kind of thing which probably cannot be decided by a committee. See Wikipedia:naming conflict. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 10:41, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say we should decide what is correct, merely what the common usage is. What I'm arguing against is the use of arguments such as "they don't have a right to use this name", which is what's been happening so far. BTW, the link you provided doesn't work - could you point me to the right place? -- ChrisO 10:45, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the red link thing. I was using it as a "forward reference". That is, I made a comment referring to a policy page BEFORE writing that policy page. I also oppose the use (in Wikipedia articles, anyway) of arguments like X doesn't have the right to use the name Y. We can, of course, say that P rejects X's use of the name Y. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 01:40, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Naming Committee

Hi, it's me again. About two weeks have passed since the end of the Macedonians/Macedonians Slavs poll. We are waiting for the Naming Committee to be established and to resolve this issue, am I right? Just to be sure... --FlavrSavr 9 July 2005 12:35 (UTC)

[edit] Pic of the Day

Hi Chris,

Just to let you know, that your picture Image:New scotland yard.jpg is due to make a reappearance as Pic of the Day on the 6th July. I've reused the caption from last time, but you can make any changes at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/July 6, 2005. -- Solipsist 30 June 2005 08:59 (UTC)

[edit] Macedonians

Can you find some administrator to block the article temporarily until the spirits calm down? Or should I try to write to someone? VMORO July 3, 2005 14:23 (UTC)

Don't worry about it - I'll warn him of the 3 revert rule and if he breaks it, I'll block him. -- ChrisO 3 July 2005 14:25 (UTC)

Take a look at what's happening in the article. VMORO is starting an edit war by doubting every single of my edits, on sections which are irrelevant to the article anyway. I knew this was gonna happen and this is why I didn't want to get into editing the sections one by one. Take a look at my past edits. I've only been contributing to Greek language related articles, I have no other interests. I don't care about national issues, only as long as people don't spread lies in public. Right this moment this article is a terribly biased, single-viewed condition, most of which being the work of User:VMORO. Are you planning to personally examine who's right or wrong or are you there just to give orders? Miskin 3 July 2005 15:39 (UTC)

I made some edits on what I considered false and misleading information. You'll see that this will result in an edit war no matter what. Right now I'm wasting my time on removing all the indirect insults and lies that are implied in Macedonians against Greek people. I'm calling it a day for now, later tonight I'll remove the falsifications of the region's ancient history. I've wasted a great deal of precious time and delayed contribution on serious articles, just because some people didn't bother to check on the neutrality of the information provided within the article. I hope that when the time of judgement comes, you'll take the right decisions. Otherwise you should have blocked me from the start. Miskin 3 July 2005 18:16 (UTC)

[edit] Miskin

I have reported Miskin for violating WP:3RR at Extinct language. If he's continued to violate it at Demographic history of Macedonia after being warned, you may want to report him for that as well. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 4 July 2005 21:51 (UTC)

[edit] Ammo for Both Sides

• Your invitation to comment on THE PUMP on 'Resolving Naming Conflicts' led me to give your work a careful read. I'd be interested to see whether you think your guideline should still have local use as third priority after you peruse the naming conflict/flamewar in Talk:Tsushima Islands (See 'Proposal to Move'), or whether you conclude as I, that your guideline offers hope to both sides therein, which is to say, more ammunition to argue. Good job, but sticky since both sides have historic uses they can cite to back up their own POV. (e.g. Other encyclopedias 'split' on the name, as do acedemic papers.) I'd like to see what you would assign as the numeric table you propose in such a case, or whether you were actually giving some precedence to one section or method in your head, that doesn't transfer as clearly to those of us reading it after. It makes for an excellent proving ground for your document! GOOD LUCK! User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 5 July 2005 16:32 (UTC)

[edit] Abuse

In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, sysops should treat all sides equally. So did the other users but the punishment fell on me, it might have to do with the fact that a biased admin is supervising an ethnic debate. I did violate it 2 days ago and you gave me a warning. After learning about the rule I apologised for blanking out the page and I started editing after Discussions. Then I would keep you up to date with the changes I made, hoping that you would point out something that you wouldn't agree with. Not even once, you replied and ignored me. After a short edit war, we were about to find a solution with the other editors on the Talk page of "Demographic history of Macedonia". Just before reaching a mutually acceptable solution, you appear from nowhere (without being previously participating), you locks the article by saying "solve this in Discussion first", proving that he hadn't been following (as we had been discussing for hours). Then you block me supposedly under 3RR, by saying "violated the 3RR on Demographic history of Macedonia and other articles. Now concerning the other articles, that's the most ironic thing of all. I was correcting the mistakes of List of extinct languages and Extinct language which wrongly categorised Ancient Greek as a separate dead language. According to lingusts Greek is a language, and Ancient Greek is one of its stages, this is common knowledge. Anyway I took this to Talk, I proved to those two people that they were wrong, I stated my sources and edited their mistake. One of them who just wouldn't admit being wrong, kept editing the page (by violating 3RR), I urged him not to start an edit war and posed the question if he knows any Greek to be able to have an opinion. His answer was reporting me to you (because he read my Talk page), claiming that I violated 3RR. Ignoring all msgs I had sent you and all Discussions I had made with other editors, you give me a block under the accusation "violated 3RR on DHM and other articles". The funny thing is that the "violation of 3RR on other aricles", was referring to a simple removal of Greek from a STUB article. I have contributed to all articles of the Greek language and written from scratch many others such as Modern Greek, Ancient Greek, Medieval Greek, Koine Greek, and this guy is accusing me for vandalising an article that concerns the Greek language. You obviously didn't take a look at neither Talk:List of extinct languages, nor Talk:Demographic history of Macedonia nor my contributions, and just grabbed the first chance to force a block against me, without examining who was right or wrong. You never replied to my msgs and he indirectly accused me for vandalism, something that can be disproved by my long edits in the Talk pages. Basically the only factor which matters here is that you didn't like me from the start. Needless to say that you have blocked my entire IP range x.x.x.*, blocking thus one of the biggest Greek ISPs. You gave me an autoblock, and when I logged in as Miskin under a different ISP, you autoblocked that IP range as well for being under my name. Then probably other people who tried to log in from the same ISP had the same fate. So you must have blocked out 3 of the largest Greek ISPs (that should be some millions of Greek and Balkan internet users) just because you were too lazy (or too biased) to read the Discussion pages and participate on the debate. I don't even want to mention the fact that a Slavic admin (potentionally biased) is taking desicions on a Greco-Slavic ethnic debate. Some 30 hours have passed and the block is still there, it will obviously never expire since people from those ISPs will keep trying to log in. If you don't unblock me I will report you for abuse on the WikiEN mailing list. Miskin

I have reported Miskin for violating WP:3RR at Extinct language. If he's continued to violate it at Demographic history of Macedonia after being warned, you may want to report him for that as well.

This user has absolutely no relation with the Demographic history of Macedonia article. He couldn't face that fact that the badly written article Extinct language is not under his possession and he got pissed off. He saw your warning and our debate on my Talk page, and he used it here in order to make it sound that I've been vandalising sites in general. Obviously you didn't care to check on the facts, you either naively took the word of a random editor who had an argument against me, or just grabbed the opportunity of an extra accusation on Miskin. Either way you have shown poor administration skills. By keeping you up to date on your Talk page, I made it clear that I was trying to follow the right editing procedure according to the rules and your approval, but you just ignored everything and proceeded with the ban. Miskin

A user of very poor linguistic knowledge and the idea that he can own an article, send me this message after I pasted my sources and contributions on Talk:List of extinct languages: Miskin, you are now in violation of the three-revert rule at List of extinct languages and have been reported at WP:AN3#User:Miskin. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 4 July 2005 21:49 (UTC) After a while you added: You've also violated the 3RR on Demographic history of Macedonia The also part implies that you agreed with what the other user said, i.e. that I vandalised the article Extinct language just as (according to you) I did with Demographic history of Macedonia. Whether I vandalised or improved the article Extinct language, is something that the Talk page and my contributions have verified. It can be also verified by other editors and administrators who are aware of my knowledge on the Greek language and history. Once this is verified, you are automatically at least 1/2 wrong for banning me. Miskin

Now the Demographic history of Macedonia edits is a different story, you knew I was planning to edit this page, many people on Talk had already agreed that it's biased and useless (including admins). As I said so many times, I tried to keep you up to date with the changes I made (just scroll up), so that you would tell me what to do and not do. Your first warning was basically about not blanking the page. you advised me to resolve it in Discussion and so I did. You knew I was making edits and didn't it didn't matter to you then, it only mattered when you received a false alarm on me being vandalising other articles. I started all discussions in that article, and made edits when people could not justify their positions. But you never really checked the disussions did you? Be careful of your answer, an irresponsible administrator is not as bad as a biased one. Post your answer to my original Talk page, and this time you'd better reply. Miskin

[edit] Space aliens in Scientology doctrine article

ChrisO, I read with interest the "Space aliens in Scientology doctrine" article that you're working on in your user space. I must confess that, aside from the name of the article (I would have preferred "Extraterrestrial beings in Scientology doctrine") contrary to my expectations I cannot fault your factual accuracy, and you have presented the material in a clear, objective and truthful manner.

I thought, however, that I might mention to you one point: the "space opera" stuff is not really core Scientology doctrine in terms of what is believed by the majority of modern Scientologists. The vast majority haven't even got to NED, let alone OTIII, and so they haven't seen this stuff; History of Man is not promoted heavily within the modern CoS materials set, and GPMs & Line Plots are generally completely ignored until the higher levels under the "Golden Age of Tech" regime.

You also probably already know that we Scientologists are masters of Orwellian "doublethink", and that what we say in public is not necessarily what we really believe - I would never question the space opera stuff in earshot of the CoS as one would be promptly sent for an Ethics handling or SP declared (!), but I have never paid any attention to much of that sci-fi stuff. I sincerely doubt I am alone; I pick what I decide is 'true for me' out of the subject and leave out the rest - as LRH himself said to do. You might do well to point this out in the article.

Thank you for mentioning it on IRC. Keep up the good work. If you need any assistance with Scientology-related articles, please do ask; I am at your service. --NicholasTurnbull 7 July 2005 00:19 (UTC)

Thanks, Nicholas. Actually, it's gone through major changes and a name change since then - see Space opera in Scientology doctrine. See what you think! I take your point about the position of this material within Scientology, and I'll add a section tomorrow on that aspect. -- ChrisO 7 July 2005 00:21 (UTC)

Chris, shouldn't this article have gone onto the normal queue at Template talk:Did you know, rather than jumping straight to the front page? That, unless I'm rather mistaken, is the usual process. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk July 7, 2005 00:24 (UTC)

"If you're an administrator, please be bold and update the template. Just follow the rules." - from Template talk:Did you know. -- ChrisO 7 July 2005 00:27 (UTC)

Yes, you update the template with the next four (or so) items from the queue. Generally this is done once per day, to ensure that new articles get a fair crack of the whip. We also have the queue so that there's a window where articles get a brief review before they go onto the main page, and it has the additional benefit that it's a level playing field for admins and non-admins alike. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk July 7, 2005 00:34 (UTC)

OK, in that case it's probably best to update the template across the board. I should note that this isn't absolutely required ("The items do not have to be replaced four-for-four (one-by-one additions are fine)" - WP:DYK) but it seems like a good idea to do a clean sweep, and the timeframe is about right. I've done this now. -- ChrisO 7 July 2005 00:41 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Next time you update DYK, could you please add the updated items to the archive so at least the initial version is archived - changes can be added later - and the inform these users section so someone else can inform the users their item was used in the update?

Also, if you've used an item, please remove it from the list of suggestions. Happy editing! - Mgm|^(talk) July 7, 2005 07:45 (UTC)

[edit] ooops. Sorry

Didn't mean that. My apologies :) Project2501a 13:07, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Story of Creation

I liked your space opera article. But where is the description of the story of creation implants?

[edit] Scientology

I see what you mean about the Space opera in Scientology doctrine page. Wow. Rentastrawberry 23:41, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pic of the day

Hi Chris,

Just to let you know that your photo Image:City hall london.jpg is due to make a reappearance as Pic of the Day on the 14th July. I've used much the same caption as last time, but you can make any changes at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/July 14, 2005. -- Solipsist 04:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Scientology

I've started the WikiProject Scientology page. I've added your name already ;-) Feel free to do what you like to the project page - it's very much the generic template - David Gerard 19:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Message from a.r.s

Not sure if you're reading, so I thought I'd pass this on - David Gerard 14:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, David! -- ChrisO 08:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Dear brother in Humanity.

I have support for adding it in the talk page. The addition is factual and not pov.

No you don't, and no it isn't.

The event is legitimate and deserves to be reported.

See my comments on the talk page. It's non-notable conspiracy theorising, and nonsense to boot. -- ChrisO 23:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Have a good day/night! --Striver 23:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder!

--Striver 23:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries

I've recently discovered that there's a huge amount of still yet-to-be-converted CIA World Factbook material about various countries, especially territories and developing countries. I have started a category for such articles Category:CIA World Factbook cleanup and made a post at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries#Reinvigorating_this_project suggesting the project be re-vitalised. Suggestions would be welcome! Morwen - Talk 12:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Fishman affidavit

Dear Chris,
          Thanks for your observation regarding the validity of the Fishman affidavit. I have been aware of this affidavit for some time, and have never had any reason to seriously call its validity into question. Rather than carrying out a detailed discussion about whether or not it is a forgery on the Scientology talk page, which could be rather lengthy, I would very much like to hear more about exactly why you seem to be so certain that it is a forgery, and after we have come to some kind of a better agreement, perhaps then we could post the highlights of the dialogue on the Scientology talk page. I am always ready to stand corrected in light of someone's else's superior knowledge of a subject.

Cheers,

Scott P. 19:04, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

I still think that this Scientology teaching re: Jesus deserves further exploration, both pro and con. In my opinion, the word of a few OT-VIII's combined with the Fishman Affidavit would carry more weight than a CoS denial. Am interested to know which CoS critics have expressed doubts about the validity of the Fishman Affidavit. I read a Jesse Prince transcript where he says that he believes the document (presumably the Fishman Affidavit) was a reasonably accurate reassimilation of the teaching from memory. Is that what you are referring to? I do recall him once telling me that the teaching was a fact.

Scott P. 03:27, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I'm done editing the Scientology section regarding Scientology and other Religions. As far as I'm concerned, you can do what ever you want with it from here on in. Thanks.

Scott P. 11:45, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite of Scientology and other religions

Good work! You managed to put some NPOV into a difficult section. - Tεxτurε 21:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! -- ChrisO 21:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] London Bombings

Are you sure Visor were being self-promoting?? Maybe any publicity was thought to be good - but not this? Is Wiki neutral?

[edit] London Bombings

Are you sure Visor were being self-promoting?? Maybe any publicity was thought to be good - but not this? Is Wiki neutral?

[edit] Geographical coordinates of cities

You may notice, that 1″ of latitude is about 30 m. It doesn't make much sense to give geographical coordinates of large objects witch such precision. For larger cities, even a minute precision is too much. -- Naive cynic 00:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Umm, no - a minute of arc corresponds to 1.15 miles or 1.86 km (i.e. one nautical mile). You may be thinking of an arcsecond, which I agree would be too precise. -- ChrisO 07:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

1″ is one second. One minute would be 1′. -- Naive cynic 07:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I've only ever used degrees and minutes, as far as I know. Where have I used seconds? :-) -- ChrisO 08:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

In Priština. :) -- Naive cynic 08:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tower Bridge Works, September 28th 1892

Dear Chris

I was wondering if you had a high resolution of the picture with tower bridge under construction. I would like to print it out on A4 photo paper but the one uploaded online is not quite high resolution enough. any help greatly appreciated.

Ben

laser_bulldog@yahoo.co.uk

[edit] Image:Aldgate_train.jpg

Hey ChrisO, I noticed you uploaded that photo (fr:Image:Aldgate_train.jpg) but deleted it with "permission withdrawn", I was wondering what you meant by that, and why it didn't qualify under fair use? Thanks, Joolz 17:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The picture was originally released by the Associated Press but the Metropolitan Police then withdrew permission for its distribution. The AP subsequently issued a "photo kill" alert on the image to tell subscribers to take it off wherever it had been published. A "photo kill" is the highest priority alert, as it "calls into question the threat of legal action, libel or copyright". [2] That outweighs fair use considerations, which is why I deleted it. -- ChrisO 17:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

ok, fair enough, I guess someone who speaks French needs to inform the french wikipedia -- Joolz 18:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Uncyclopedia

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Xenu - they liked your picture! - David Gerard 23:11, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Pity it's actually an Aeroflot Tupolev, not a DC-8! :P -- ChrisO 16:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that's a comment on Rand. Oh, and I only just today read this (and this) - David Gerard 00:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Allied Force

Hello Chris. I notice you reverted edits on Operation Allied Force. The user has restored those edits and I'm concerned about subsequent ones; for example putting NATO and Serb action on par, claiming the United States only participated to get a base there or claiming "the dismantlement of the social democratic government" was another aim. I don't really know enough about this subject to revert so I'm just letting you know. Mark 21:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, sorted. -- ChrisO 23:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Mark complains that I am "putting NATO and Serb action on par". Now, why is that a thought crime? Isnt this supposed to be an encyclopedia? Is neutrality not accepted here? Should it not be an ideal to put the warring parties "on par" and describe conflicts neutrally and solely on a factual basis. Is pro-NATO-bias compulsory in this encyclopedia? In many of your edidts it certainly seems this way, you are writing emotional apologetics that might as well have come right out of NATOs mouth, deleting hard facts, trying to marginalize all dissent. :Why?

Asgeir Bjørkedal, Norway

You're not wrong to say that neutrality is supposed to be our goal here. The problem is that many of your contributions are not at all neutral, e.g. your addition of unsourced conspiracy theories or claims that Milosevic's overthrow was a western sponsored coup. This is supposed to be a credible mainstream encyclopedia, not a forum for regurgitating the sort of rubbish that the emperors-clothes.com people like to publish. -- ChrisO 19:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

So this is supposed to be a "mainstream" encyclopedia, therefore neutrality and truthseeking must be sacrificed whenever the facts mess up the mainstream-narrative. Well I'm not going to start regurgitating mainstream-lies, so i guess I dont belong here and I guess that's why my latest attempt to edit the Allied Force-edit was blocked somehow. It is a pityful form of argumentation to resort to, to claim that you are right just because you are drifting along the Western mainstream and I am swimming against it.

Your blatant political censorship stems from your dogmatic belief in Milosevic-centered conspiracy theories. Why do you get so agitated every time I put facts together in a way that differs from your extremely one-eyed perspective?

Why this hangup on this minor sentence about the coup? It was you who brought in the subject in the first place. Does my little sentence on this constitute a conspiracy-theory? Why?

I don't suppose you would deny that "the overthrow" was subsidized from the west? New York Times wrote about suitcases full of cash that was smuggled in for this purpose. Here in Norway I know that the government worked together with "NGO"s and among other members of my (oppositional) political party on this regime-change-mission, smuggling money and distributing it to the right people. We agree on the western-sponsored part, dont we? Your heroes did contribute to the good cause didnt they?

And if you could manage to set aside your prejudicial hatred for one moment, and leave all justifications for your cause aside, then how can you possibly deny that it was a coup? You must be aware that the power transfer happened in a illegal (unconstitutional) and partly violent manner, so if it wasnt a coup then it must have been a revolution. Are you claiming it was a revolution?

But as I said, this is definitely a minor issue in our debate. You are crusading to salvage NATOs propaganda, and don't differ from their official line in any question it seems. Gee, I guess that must meen you are 100% right in everything and you political censorship is justified. Asgeir Bjørkedal

[edit] Serbia proper

The sentence that Central Serbia is political and ethnic core of the Serbian state is written by people who do not know much about history of Serbia or Serbian people. The political centre of Serbian people between 16th and 19th century was in Vojvodina, not in Central Serbia. So, this biased (or rather stupid) sentence should be either deleted either explained in some way. User:PANONIAN

That's a good point - thanks for adding that clarification to the article. -- ChrisO 23:15, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A coldblooded look at your last sixty trillion years

I think we just scored another feature. Nicholas is probably going to work on Sea Org next (he used to be in it), I might cast a glance over Operating Thetan (I'm sure the summary of the levels will be marvellous press material) - David Gerard 00:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear - David Gerard 12:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Knock Knock

Some weeks ago I literally flooded the discussion page of Demographic history of Macedonia before I made my changes and you blocked me under the accusation that I didn't resolve the problem in Talk. Now that the page is unprotected, I made intentionally some changes that were quoting Eric Hobsbawm and E. Honigmann, and of course, they were also reverted. I mean what the hell do I need to do in order to change those so obvious one-sided fallacies without being accused for something? If you don't reply I'll assume that you don't care and I'll go on editing. If you have a different opinion then you should discuss it like other people do. Don't take advantage of your administrator status by using gestapo editing methods like you oftenly do. Miskin 20:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You seem to be confusing me with VMORO and Decius - I'm certainly not the one reverting the article... (see [3]). -- ChrisO 07:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not confusing you with anybody. I didn't say you've been reverting yourself (yet), I'm only pointing out that you have wronged me in the past on the same matter when you blindly took the side of those extremist who were mass-reverting all my edits. VMORO (VMRO) has been long vandalising this article by keep reverting to one-sided pro-Bulgarian views. This time I challenged him to use for once the Discussion page before starting an edit-war. Let's see what happens this time. Miskin 09:42, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Basically I have strong reasons to believe that User:Birkemaal and User:VMORO, i.e. the main editors of Demographic history of Macedonia, are the same person. Check Birkelmaal's contributions and discussion page to see what I mean. If that's the case, then you see for yourself how "neutral" this article is, and you might even change your opinion about my actions. You could use your admin privileges to verify their IP range and country of origin. Miskin 19:27, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Macedonia and banning

Hello. Certain people should not be allowed to contribute to the articles regarding Macedonia. Theathenae is such a person. I demand that because of his recent reaction on the talk page, he is blocked. Here is the discussion:

Décie, I don't know why you're even bothering to try to reason with a macadamia nut.--Theathenae 07:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Define "reasoning of a Macedonian nut". Does that mean the "Macedonian nut" to accept to artificially change his name and to give you an exclusive right over the term Macedonia?

And, when you already got a part in this conversation, explain why Greece runned away 300000 Macedonians and 100000 Bulgarians from Greece during the last 50 years, people that are still not alowed to enter Greece? Why did you burn my grandfathers house and shoot at him?

I sterbinski 17:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Because I didn't like his face. What are you gonna do about it?--Theathenae 18:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Is this the way discussions should be made? It is one thing to defend your country, it is another thing to become hostile. Theathenae has already been using non-arguments in discussions regarding Macedonians, spamming the page practically, but this is going over the border. Only common sense tells me not to delete this guy from Wikipedia completely. I leave the blocking part to you. Ivica83 19:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Interior of the Tower Subway, 1870

You credit this to the ILN of 1870 - it is not one of the April 9th images - can you supply me with the exact date please?

Unfortunately I can't - it's scanned from the original (in the Southwark local history library's archives) but the original is only a clipping, not the full page with a date on it. -- ChrisO 07:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tower Subway

Thanks. I am researching the TS and it is important to me to identify articles I may have missed. I am assuming an illustration is indicative of an article - I am familiar with the image of the workman walking through the tunnel, but only from the book 'Old and New London'. It seems unlikely anyone would cut up a book, so its existence as a cutting is encouraging. I have been through the ILN indecies from 1870 - 1896 and not found it. Where does the attribution 'Illustrated London News 1870' come from? From Southwark Library? Is it written on a scrap book page with the undoubted 1870 illustrations, or is that actual cutting so identified?

Southwark's local history library has a big collection of boxes containing cuttings and small print publications about local issues. The cuttings are mounted on individual loose pages, mostly just glued to the page. If I remember rightly - it's been some time since I last looked! - the picture was part of a collection of cuttings from 1870 about the opening of the TS. There was also some news commentary, I think, and the loose page itself had the attribution "Illustrated London News" and the date written on it. The pictures and commentary weren't preserved as a single page but as a collection of individual items mounted on a loose page. I'm sure the library could find it easily for you if you ask - it's easily publicly accessible. -- ChrisO 17:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ODP Article

Greetings, ChrisO. I noticed your recent edits to Wikipedia's ODP article, and I thought that I should direct your attention to the mediated version of the article that was in place back in late May of 2005, a version that I believe is vastly superior to the current version. About that time, I got very busy with paying clients and through neglect allowed some very questionable edits to go unchallenged, and I have since made a decision that I cannot afford to invest the time to do quality control on an article that is such an attractive nuisance.

Although most of the controversy over the ODP article results from NPOV issues, one particular fact was removed from the mediated version of the article that is a matter of public record - i.e., the sales price of NewHoo when it was acquired by Netscape in October of 1998:

"COMPANY CONFORMED NAME: NETSCAPE COMMUNICATIONS CORP

CENTRAL INDEX KEY: 0000944458

STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION: SERVICES-

FILING VALUES:

FORM TYPE: 10-K/A

"In October 1998, we purchased for approximately $1 million all of the technology assets of Newhoo, Inc., which included relationships with individuals who volunteer their time to create directories of Web-based content."

I am certain that this reference can be found somewhere on one of the many Talk pages of the ODP article, but it was apparently never footnoted in the article itself. I leave it to you to decide whether this fact should be reinserted into the article, and I wish you the best of luck with your good faith efforts at quality control. // NetEsq 23:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

I remember getting a 3-day block from you for breaking 3RR. Are you planning to do anything about this [4] or are your punishments selective? Miskin 02:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yet another poll on Macedonians

Perhaps you should know that, despite of the disastrous Macedonians/Macedonian Slavs poll, there is an ongoing poll concerning the use of a Disclaimer to declare that "the use of the term Republic of Macedonia and Macedonian(s) throughout this article is not meant to imply an official position on the naming dispute between Athens and Skopje". That should be put on every article mentioning the Republic of Macedonia and Macedonian(s).

I think that we should take it back to talk, because of voting on ethnic lines. Actually, the author of the poll also stated that the poll was a mistake. This time, I am definitely voting on the Abstain option. If you like, as you can see my opinion on the actual disclaimer here. Regards. --FlavrSavr 04:49, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Argyrosargyrou →Raul654 20:07, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ford Greene

Hi Chris, thanks for your help on Babs :) I've started a stub on Ford Greene, maybe you can contribute... the best "neutral" work is the Marin County Journal article in the link list, but my english isn't good enough to rewrite this. Tilman 19:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Tilman

Chris, if you have a watchful eye on cult topics, I suggest you (also) look at the Cult Awareness Network and Galen Kelly.

[edit] Aliákmon

Please check Talk:Aliákmon, thanks. MATIA 11:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello again. Could you check Macedonians? Thanks. MATIA 09:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disute tag

Please stop removing the dispute tag on Vampire Watermelon while the dispute is ongoing.--198.93.113.49 13:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign relations of Greece

Hello ChrisO - first of all, I agree that, whoever 201.254.144.200 was, they did a pretty bad job of editing Foreign relations of Greece. But I wanted to ask you 2 things:

First of all, even though the page is on my watchlist, I didn't get a notification for those changes. Is that because they were made by a non-registered user? If so, is there anything that can be done about this?

No, you should have got a notification. I suspect that there may be a bug (various things are buggy at the moment, as you may have seen already). -- ChrisO 20:00, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

And secondly, instead of deleting all of that text, would it perhaps have been a better solution to transfer it to a new page for Northern Epirus? I'm just thinking that there could be some good content in there and it's a pity to throw it away. -- Csymeonides 19:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

If you want to try to make something of it, be my guest, but I felt it was too badly written to be worth salvaging. Plus it may be a copyright violation - it seems to be a cut-and-paste of a 2003 post here: http://p083.ezboard.com/fbalkansfrm37.showMessage?topicID=37.topic . -- ChrisO 20:00, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] La madeleine paris

Hello, ChrisO. I'm QBay in Japan. I found your photograph of La madeleine paris. It is nice photo. I'd like to use it for our Japanese article about Gabriel Fauré who is a famous composer and was an organist of the church. So, if possible, would you upload the photograph to Wikimedia Commons? --QBay 23:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dig this blog entry

http://scoobiedavis.blogspot.com/2005_06_01_scoobiedavis_archive.html - scroll down to Tuesday June 28th and look at the links. WP:SCN doing fine work! - David Gerard 09:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Turkish Invasion of Cyprus

Hi. I'm working on fixing double redirects. I noticed that The Turkish Invasion of Cyprus is both locked and a redirect back to itself. You were the last person to work on it so I thought that perhaps you locked it while making the redirect. Can you please fix it and then go to Wikipedia:Computer help desk/cleanup/double redirects/20050713/4, section 6, item number 2 and remove it's entry. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather 22:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Userpage Format

Hey ChrisO, I hope you don't mind me hijaking some of your pages code, it just looked far too cool and organized and I love both of those things. I made it my own some and am gonna do some more when I get a chance.

I also saw you comments on the Talk:Bagrationi page and would like to be involved with anything that is going to happen there. I am working on a sister page for the Georgian kings who ruled in the Kingdom of Imereti and want that to be partially integrated with the currently disputed page. Who really knows what will happen? Anyway, just wanted to give you the heads up and thanks. Ciao! --KuatofKDY 15 Sep 2005 18:49 (PDT)

[edit] Image:Breithorn.jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file you uploaded, Image:Breithorn.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

On Commons RedWolf 06:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Poitiers (1356)

I recently listed an external article I found on the Talk page of the article on Battle of Poitiers (1356) and am looking for input as to whether or not it would make a good external link. I noticed that you recently edited the page and so I hoped you would be able to comment. Would you? 204.126.127.253 14:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Have A Barnastar!

[edit] Image:Battle suomussalmi.jpg

Hi! You have uploaded Image:Battle suomussalmi.jpg. May I know the source? Thank you very much! Miraceti 18:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

It's from the Department of History, United States Military Academy, West Point. -- ChrisO 08:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] request

Can you please check 203.1.20.18 (talk • contribs) and revert his changes? If you do find anything worth keeping I won't disagree, but most of them should be reverted. MATIA 09:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] second request

Could you please check this and let me know what you think about my comments? I believe the note should be restored on two or three articles. I'm looking forward for your answer. MATIA 09:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

ccel.org/ccel/wace/biodict.htm is a big (8MB) dictionary on early christianism - it has 2 or 3 pages about Macedonius and his herecy. Or you could check it section by section, for example ccel.org/php/wwec.php?a=m (all these are part of Christian Classics Ethereal Library +MATIA ☎ 18:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] old tube photos

You uploaded Image:St marys station 1938.jpg and stuck pd on it. It has no source - why did you decide pd? Is it Transport for London or previous bodies (Dept of Transport?) - and then 50 years Crown Copyright? Crown Copyright doesn't cover local govt. Thanks. Secretlondon 13:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

The image came from the archives of Tower Hamlets council. I was told by the archivist that it was PD - if I recall correctly, it originally came from the archive of one of the predecessor councils. -- ChrisO 19:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DC-8s to Mars

Chris I really Appreciate the comment. I'm a huge fan of wikipedia. BTW you should read up on Mormonism. It's hilarious how one jerk created a religious based on him having more wives and money.

[edit] yet again Macedonia

There's a discussion on Talk:Macedonia_(region)#POV_dispute.3F about the wiki-name Macedonian Slavs. Also, please check how Macedonia became Macedonia (region), I believe some user acted too bold (not to say anything else). I'm posting these (like the previous) requests on your talk page, because I've read your previous comments and you can't be called pro-Greek (I'm a macedonian greek) and you are aware of the issue (talks on naming policy etc). Thanks! +MATIA ☎ 21:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

a note: when I wrote you aren't pro greek, I meant neutral (I didn't mean anti-greek or anything else). +MATIA ☎ 13:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Matia, I'm sorry, but I'm just about to embark on an enforced Wikiholiday (due to my computer having to go away for repairs) so I won't have time to get involved in the Macedonia issue again for a while. -- ChrisO 22:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. What should I do about the unjustified article move of Macedonia? +MATIA ☎ 11:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

You should leave it. It was not unjustified. REX 14:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I must also let you know that some certain users, moved Macedonian Slavs and at the same time created various redirects for that article. Take care. +MATIA ☎ 13:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)