User talk:Cbrown1023/Archive 12
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Cbrown1023. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
DC meetup invites
It's time to organize the next DC meetup, scheduled for December 9th. We have an invitee list and invite template: {{Meetup-DC_invite}}. Would you be willing to have your bot deliver these invitations? I see you already have a request for the NYC meetup, so (if you say yes) there is absolutely no big hurry with this. Though, we do want input for choosing a meetup location. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 00:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, I'll send out a petition for comment on the proposed meetup now, then? When we get closer to the date you can remind me to send out the individual invitations? (Will wait for your "okay" before I send the invites or the requests. ;-)) Cbrown1023 talk 00:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- However you recommend doing this, it works for me. I don't know a lot about how bots work. --Aude (talk) 01:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Being sent out right now. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 01:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you so much. This is a tremendous help. --Aude (talk) 01:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- No problem at all. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 01:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you so much. This is a tremendous help. --Aude (talk) 01:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Being sent out right now. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 01:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- However you recommend doing this, it works for me. I don't know a lot about how bots work. --Aude (talk) 01:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
DC meetup #3
Interested in meeting-up with a bunch of your wiki-friends? Please take a quick look at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 3 and give your input about the next meetup. Thank you.
This automated notice was delivered to you because you are on the Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite. BrownBot 01:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Kersal Massive deletion
Hi, I noticed you deleted Kersal Massive. Whilst the original entry was very poor, I think Kersal Massive has a legitimate place in Wikipedia;
http://www.google.com/search?q=Kersal+Massive
It was a regional internet/youtube phenomenon akin to "Leave Britney Alone" and "Don't Tase Me Bro". It also featured in the Guardian's internet blog;
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/tv/2006/12/minirappers_cause_internet_sti_1.html
Which is a pretty safe barometer for UK internet phenomenon. There are also a considerable number of "remixes" on youtube;
http://youtube.com/results?search_query=Kersal+Massive&search=Search
With all this in mind, I'm not sure of the procedure of allowing entries in previously deleted entries but I think the above references and some linking to;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Viral_videos
Would be appropriate in these circumstances.
Many thanks,
Tom Barbalet (tom at nobleape dot com). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbalet (talk • contribs) 01:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- I only deleted the placeholder page when we moved to a new protection system. The article was actually deleted per community consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kersal Massive. If you would like to see the article recreated, you can start a discussion at Deletion review. Thanks! :-) Cbrown1023 talk 02:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I've looked at the Deletion review information and I am not clear how I would lodge this. The previous examples show expanded versions of the format listed in Step 1 of Steps to list a new deletion review. For example is UNDELETE_REASON a single word or the text I have provided to you above? It also mentions;
Consider talking to the admin who deleted the article (or otherwise made the decision) first. There could have been a mistake, or there could be some miscommunication or a misunderstanding, and a full review might not be needed
Is that you or someone else? If this is not you, should I contact that person first. Many thanks for your assistance.
Best regards,
Tom Barbalet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbalet (talk • contribs) 04:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, although I am the administrator who deleted the article, it was first deleted by community consensus and needs another discussion by the community to undelete it. I have posted the deletion review on your behalf at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_November_1#Kersal_Massive. The community will decide whether or not the article should be deleted or recreated (feel free to adjust the nomination statement on there if you would like to). Thank you for contacting me, Cbrown1023 talk 23:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks for your assistance with this. It is really interesting to see the methodology in play. The process has completely changed my mind with regards to the inclusion of the Kersal Massive entry in Wikipedia in terms of source material. Very interesting and thanks again!
Best regards,
Tom Barbalet.
Signpost updated for October 29th, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 44 | 29 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Charlatan and Hoaxer Promoted on Wikipedia
Fringe author and fringe publisher Filip Coppens
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Coppens
is promoting recognised French charlatan and hoaxer Andre Douzet here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_Douzet
Isn't it the central tenet of Wikipedia that all claims need to be verified? And all sources provided? To date, Andre Douzet has not provided any evidence to substantiate any of his allegations - and all that Filip Coppens does in response is to state "Wrong, Andre Douzet has supplied evidence" - and it goes round and round in this same loop.
I keep trying to balance Filip Coppens' biased claims on the Wikipedia article - and he keeps deleting my comments.
Here is an english translation of: http://www.octonovo.org/RlC/Fr/ctrb/ctrb07.htm
Having acquired an indepth knowledge of the books of correspondence of Abbé Saunière, many people often ask me (Octonovo) if there exists amongst these documents anything which would confirm or deny the thesis of the so-called “Saunière’s Model”, on which a large part of Mr André Douzet’s research about Rennes le Château [1] relies.
REVIEW OF THE FACTS
It was at the conference which he gave in the grounds of Saunière’s house at Rennes le Château in August 1995, that Mr Douzet presented this model and his first work on it. He claimed to have found the object at the home of a metal-founder, together with several letters in Saunière’s own hand. Although the model clearly illustrates holy sites such as they were shown at the beginning of our [Christian] era, he presented this model more or less as a “Treasure map of Rennes le Chateau” which would have been left behind by the priest at the end of his life.
There were numerous speakers, of whom Mr Boumendil, Mr Tappa and Mr Feral launched a real scandal, accusing the author of being a forger and, in short, of producing convincing elements to prop up his statements. A meeting was arranged for the presentation of certain items but Mr Douzet did not appear at this meeting and did not find it convenient to arrange a new meeting to clear the serious accusations brought against him [2].
The matter seemed therefore to be agreed for the followers of Rennes le Chateau, all the more so when Patrick Mensior succeeded in proving that the so-called model, if it really did date from the 1900’s, had nothing to do with Rennes le Château and that it could not have been ordered by Abbé Saunière (see the section of the conclusion in his article published by the “Amis de l’Insolite”). To come to this conclusion he relied on elements of correspondence known at the time, namely the correpondence of 1915-1917, published by Pierre Jarnac [3].
In comparison, through a completely personal interpretation, Mr Douzet recognised, in the reversed relief of a mould of the so-called model, a region closer to his home [Durban-Corbières] and continued his work in the area of Périllos (in the Pyrénées Orientales). He recently created an association [according to the French law of 1901] in order to promote this research, amongst other activities.
To this day Mr Douzet has never produced the documents requested which would be able to clear the serious doubts which overshadow the sincerity of his research.
ABBE SAUNIERE’S FILES
Since the annoucement of the discovery of the files of correspondence and financial accounts of Abbé Saunière, many people have asked if there was any mention of the famous letters which were supposed to have been exchanged between Abbé Saunière and the designer of the Model
From the beginning, Mr Douzet has stated that he preferred not to make these letters available because they contained information which he wanted to keep to himself; I therefore asked him to inform me of the dates of the letters, to see whether they were recorded in the priest’s files.
This solution would be advantageous because it would not require him to produce the documents, just for him to provide the details of their dates, and if the information was confirmed, he would no longer be the target of the accusations which had followed him for more than 10 years.
Therefore, with methods which to me have seemed to be delaying tactics (in particular his tendancy to respond with incredibly convoluted answers to simple questions which would normally only require a Yes or a No), and in spite of the formal promise which he had made to me in public, Mr Douzet did not finally wish to provide me with these dates.
Since then I have completed my study of Abbé Saunière’s files and I can state that I have not found a trace of any element which would be able to confirm Mr Douzet’s statements.
In relation to the accounts books:
There exists no invoice relating to the supposed model. There exists no invoice for the measuring tools or optical tools such as those described by Mr Douzet, which Abbé Saunière would have needed in order to create the topographic model. There exists no invoice for the hire of a carriage or for a property rental in Lyon, in particular in the Rue de Macchabées. There exists no trace of an invoice for a voyage to Lyon, Durban-Corbières or Périllos. In relation to the files of correspondence:
There exists no trace of the letters cited by Mr Douzet relating to a supposed topographic model. There exists no trace of the journeys to Lyon which Abbé Saunière is alleged to have made, although his journeys to other destinations are often very clear. There exists no trace of his supposed journeys to Durban-Corbières or to Périllos, nor the maintenance of a continued connection of any kind with this place. There exists no trace of an order for optical or measuring equipment which Abbé Saunière would have needed for the creation of his topographic model. There exists no trace of an order for a carriage or for accomodation rental in Lyon, especially on the Rue de Macchabées. Additionally, I have not found any link between Bérenger Saunière and the real people who ordered this model, which had originally an educational purpose and which had been created in reality in many tens of examples at that time.
To the anticipated objection that, as these matters were secret, Abbé Saunière would not have mentioned them in his notebooks, I reply that from his trial, Abbé Saunière denied having kept such notebooks and that this had worked against him during his sentencing. As a result, that which the priest wanted to hide from the inquisitors of the time is more than likely written in his notebooks.
CONCLUSION
Mr Douzet has been for very many years the target of criticisms and of accusations which seriously endanger the credibility of the works which he has carried out based on the study of the so-called “Saunière’s Model”.
He has not wanted to do what was required to try to eliminate these doubts and has even excused himself from the various offers which have been made to him to support his thesis after having publicly given his agreement to do so.
The work carried out in a documented and reasoned way by M. Patrick Mensior seem to me completely conclusive. They invalidate the theories of Mr Douzet.
My own research has not at any time allowed me to eliminate the doubts which weigh upon the credibility of the works of Mr Douzet.
My advice is therefore, that in the current state of the justifications, it is necessary to consider these creations as a work of the imagination.
[1] As the theories of Mr Douzet have occupied a sizeable book, this article only relates to the so-called model and its supposed implications. I state again that the elements on which I have relied are essentially taken from the close study of the notebooks of Abbé Saunière.
[2] On the subject of the events of 1995, read Rennes le château, le secret de SAUNIERE (Editions Sud Ouset - 2005), by Jean-Luc ROBIN, - page 102 onwards.
[3] Editions Couleur Ocre [publisher] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wfgh66 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Biographies of Fringe Individuals unable to produce evidence on Wikipedia
The bottom line is that we are dealing with an individual who cannot substantiate his allegations and who is universally recognised as a charlatan and a hoaxer in his native country of France. It is Wikipedia's central tenet that sources should be backed-up. Instead of just listing an individual's claims, references should be made to verification of allegations - if these references are non-existent then the claim that the individual is a charlatan can hardly be called "libellous". Put it this way, if Douzet wants to sue Wikipedia for libel - he will have to produce his evidence in Court to demonstrate that he is not a charlatan - Douzet will never be in such a position because everything he claims is made-up and composed of air-drawn fabrics. Wikipedia needs to review its position towards Biographies so that spurious individuals like Andre Douzet cannot be promoted
Goodness knows Wikipedia has a bad enough reputation as it is, that's why I am here trying to improve the entries that were previously championed by The Fringe element. Wfgh66 12:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- The only thing I did was to remove unsourced information. It does not matter if he is "universally recognised" as something, it needs to have a few reliable sources to verfiy it or it is solely original research or biased information. We cannot take our own stance on something with an article or publish another editor's views, we can only report what other sources say about an item. The information you posted here would be better placed on the article's talk page. Cbrown1023 talk 02:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- The article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_Douzet claims that Andre Douzet "presented his findings relating to the Model at a conference in 1995" - this is POV since Douzet could not substantiate his allegations as demonstrated by the person above who asked Douzet to produce his evidence. And the latest news from Douzet is that he is going to present his evidence in Summer 2008, which is obvious delay-tactics from a charlatan. What is Wikipedia going to do about this? Does Wikipedia have some sort of policy about this sort of thing? Wfgh66 11:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Any unsourced or biased information about a living person can be removed on-sight. However, why do you feel that that is biased? All it says is that he "presented his findings", it did not express whether or not the findings were accurate or supported by evidence. If there is a source included by that statement, check out the source and see if you can add some more information to that statement to make it more neutral (i.e. to see if it says "presented his findings... but could not produce evidence" or something of the sort. Cbrown1023 talk 15:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have been adding the sentence ""presented his findings... but could not produce evidence" and it is always being deleted by the person who wrote the Wikipedia article, the person who wrote the Wikipedia article on Andre Douzet is Filip Coppens, which means it is biased - Filip Coppens with Andre Douzet runs this website:
http://www.societe-perillos.com/
Do you see what is happening?Wfgh66 18:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XVIII - November 2007
The November 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 15:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Ebionites RfAr
Will you be able to close Ebionites tonight or tomorrow morning, or should someone else do it? Have a great trip ... have I mentioned you travel more than I do? Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Is right now good? I assume that qualifies as tonight EST & tomorrow morning UTC, so I'll close it. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 04:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Closed. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 05:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 5th and 12th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 45 | 5 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 46 | 12 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for correcting that, I've a nasty habit of fumbling templates and subpages. Mercury 03:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- No problem at all. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 03:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
BrownBot & WikiProject newsletters
A quick question: might BrownBot be available to do newsletter deliveries for WP:MILHIST? (Our previous bot just retired, so we're looking for a new one.) Or, if not, would you happen to know what other bots are currently doing newsletter delivery tasks? Thanks! Kirill 04:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to do it, when would it get delivered? Cbrown1023 talk 22:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks! We normally publish each month's issue in the first few days of the next month; so, for example, the November issue would go out at the beginning of December. Other than that, I think we have a pretty typical setup: everyone listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Members#Active members gets a link, with some special cases listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Outreach#Delivery options. Kirill 02:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Articles with sections that needed to be turned into prose, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot 20:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
RfA
I considered not spamming talk pages but not saying "thanks" just isn't me. The support was remarkable and appreciated Casey - here & elsewhere! I only hope that I am able to help a little on here. Please let me know if I can help you or equally if you find any of my actions questionable. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- No problem, Nigel, I know you'll make a good addition to the sysop team here. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 21:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Cookie
You know what this is for. Picaroon (t) 02:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Cbrown1023 talk gobbles them up, thanks! :-D Cbrown1023 talk 02:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Your wikibreak
I'm glad to see that you're moving up in the world ... sorry that it's only for three days, though! :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
:-POops, *changes 20 back to 19* (messed up the dates). I wish it were three days, it's only barely two. ;-) I'm going there for the day tomorrow, but will probably not be back online until after classes on Monday. Thanks, though. Cbrown1023 talk 04:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image (Image:ToySoldiersDVDcover.jpg)
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Quentin X (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
){kind=link}
- I've deleted it, thanks for telling me. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 18:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- I see that your "wikibreaks" are as phony as mine! :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hehe, I can't help but check in every so often on the mobile phone. ;-) It's so sad, we parked by Spamalot and when we left, all the
roadies(I think the proper term is stagehands, going by their picketing signs) were on strike in the cold streets. :'( *sigh* So much traffic tonight and we're going to have to come back on Wednesday, which will be a lot worse. :-\ Cbrown1023 talk 22:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hehe, I can't help but check in every so often on the mobile phone. ;-) It's so sad, we parked by Spamalot and when we left, all the
- I see that your "wikibreaks" are as phony as mine! :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Prop. 215 Authorship
Hi Cbrown1023
I see that my name was removed as one of the authors of Prop. 215. The Associated Press and other media have repeatedly referred to me as one of the authors.
The Wikipedia page for me has an Oakland, California TV video report that refers to me as an author.
Of all the people who appear on the Wikipedia page as authors of Prop. 215, I was the only one who received a personal thanks from the official author of Prop. 215, Dennis Peron. That letter of thanks, filed with DrugSense, was cited by my name, but was removed.
Actually, the version written by Scott Imler, Dale Gieringer and Bill Panzer, who all claim credit, was rejected by the California Secretary of State, in favor of the version written by Dennis Peron, Anna Boice, et al. The first group attempted to beat us to the ballot, but the Peron version was filed with a money order, putting it back in the lead and the text that was actually adopted.
I ask that you consider these facts and return my name to the list.
Thanks,
Steve Kubby
- Sorry, but which article are you referring to exactly? Also, could we please discuss this on the article's talk/discussion page so that other editors can join in on the discussion? Thanks, Cbrown1023 talk 01:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 19th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 47 | 19 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
DRV notice
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Shibby. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jreferee t/c 20:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for notifying me, but I only deleted the placeholder page so that it could be moved over to WP:PT. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 01:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
ArbCom
Hello Cbrown1023, just wanted to say that I'm sorry you had to withdraw your ArbCom candidacy. I think you would have (and will, I hope someday) made a great arbitrator. Best wishes. Acalamari 03:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your nice message and kind words. :-) Best wishes to you as well, Cbrown1023 talk 03:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- You're welcome, and thanks. Acalamari 04:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I thought so too! Tyrenius (talk) 03:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
:-D. Cbrown1023 talk 03:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)- Er... me too. Stupid age rules! Majorly (talk) 18:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
FYI, I've sent you an e-mail. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- I replied to it a while ago, before I saw this message. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 15:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Image:JorjaFoxVegAd.jpg
Could you please confirm that the image, Image:JorjaFoxVegAd.jpg, has acceptable permission (that is, public domain) from PETA archived in OTRS? If you could just drop me a quick yes-or-no on my talk page, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks! --Yamla (talk) 02:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Strangely enough, yes, PETA has released all rights to its images. :-) So yes, I can confirm that permission as accurate. Cbrown1023 talk 02:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 26th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 48 | 26 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
ArbCom Clerkship position
As you may have seen from Kirill Lokshin's announcement on WP:AN, the arbitrators have confirmed your official appointment as an ArbCom clerk. Congratulations. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. :-D Cbrown1023 talk 03:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Congrats :) FloNight♥♥♥ 22:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Durova Arbcom
You may wish to rework the passing remedies. 7.1 has 9 opposes and is not passing :) spryde | talk 21:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- gah! you're right! :-) I've fixed it, thanks for the note! :-) Cbrown1023 talk 22:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Is it too soon to talk of impeachment? :-P Newyorkbrad 22:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Ya know, around here, weirder things have happened. For now, I give out my personal barnstar... :)
- Is it too soon to talk of impeachment? :-P Newyorkbrad 22:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
|
The "Wanna Get Away?" Barnstar | |
| Sometimes, you just want to get away spryde | talk 19:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC) |
Congratulations on your appointment as clerk to ArbCom spryde | talk 01:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)