Jump to content

User talk:Chabuk/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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 2

Could you confirm

That you are in agrrement with the discussion over on the Village Pump (policy) page concerning my deletion of the csd tag from the Raymond C Lemme article? Apparently, it's not vandalism.--Pussy Galore 03:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bonito e Gostoso

Your best bet will be bringing this up at WP:RFCU first. If they confirm that it is a sock it can be blocked with out any further issues. JoshuaZ 03:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I misread the block log, and immediatley removed the tag when I realized my error. I'm very sorry about the indef tag. Knowing Is Half The Battle 12:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Moved

hey

I don't know if you're aware but there's an issue with the G13 page (at least for me). When you search for it, it directs you to to another article. Meanwhile the page is still showing up as "G10 (Canadian Universities)" in Wiki's search engine. Might be my cookies/cache but doubt it as Ive cleared them and it's been like this for days. Thanks for the help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Buffer v2 (talk • contribs)


Question about Vaughan election

Do you know if Stan Grabowski(candidate for Ward 2 Vaughan) is the same person as Stan Grabowski (candidate for Ward 5 Toronto)http://www.stangrabowski.com . Are they one and the same or are they two differnet people with the same names? --CharteredMember 02:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vaughan: Stan Grabowski, 2 Attorney’s Lane, Woodbridge, Ontario, L4L 6M6 vs. Toronto Over the years living in Ward 5, my family and I have enjoyed the lush green parks.... --ArmadilloFromHell 02:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uhhh right. I'll go with Armadillo on this one. I'm not sure personally, though it's possible that he lives in Toronto but owns property in Vaughan (thus making him eligible for both) -- Chabuk 02:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Nomination: The Ale House

An article that you have been involved in editing, The Ale House, has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ale House. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 21:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watch where you tag

I just had to remove a speedy delete tag from a user page that I had just created from the page you were trying to delete. Pay attention to redirects. Djcartwright 20:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaican bobsled team

I recognise that the article isn't quite featured article quality yet, but what concerns in particular made you add a cleanup tag to it? Andjam 04:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Esperanza!

Welcome, Chabuk, to Esperanza! As you might know, all the Esperanzians share one important goal: the success of this encyclopedia. Within that, we then attempt to strengthen the community bonds, and be the "approachable" side of the project. All of our ideals are held in the Charter, the governing document of the association.

Now that you are a member you should read the guide to what to do now or you may be interested in some of our programs. A quite important program is Stressbusters, which seeks to support editors who have encountered any stress from their Wikipedia events, and are seeking to leave the project. So far, Esperanza can be credited with the support and retention of several users. We will send you newsletters to keep you up to date. Also, we have a calendar of special events, member birthdays, and other holidays that you can add to and follow.

In addition to these projects, several more missions of Esperanza are in development, and are currently being created at Esperanza/Proposals.

If you have any other questions, concerns, comments, or general ideas, Esperanzian or otherwise, know that you can always contact Natalya by email or talk page. Consider introducing yourself at the Esperanza talk page! Alternatively, you could communicate with fellow users via our IRC channel, #wikipedia-esperanza (which is also good for a fun chat or two :). If you're new to IRC, you may find help at an IRC tutorial. I thank you for joining Esperanza, and look forward to working with you in making Wikipedia a better place to work!

I'd also like to extend a warm welcome to you. I hope you enjoy the community here at Esperanza, and please don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page if you have any questions. Welcome! -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 01:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've come to give you a welcome too.--Saoshyant 14:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom house

It was simply a brilliant idea to access the freedom house and it was timely and perfect. You're a genius, thanks. Amoruso 04:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editor review

I'll look into this sometime this week. To be honest, I'm a bit surprised you're not already an admin. CJCurrie 03:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • *sigh* Ironically, WP:RFA is not a vote, its consensus. In addition, actively soliciting "votes"/comments is, if not outright against the rules, at least seriously frowned upon by the community. Good to see that you're working hard to improve the project ED. -- Chabuk 05:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not in violation of any rules in trying to voice my opinion. I think you are quite unfair and one-sided. These are not the qualities of an admin. Plus, you've been the center of a great deal of controversy. ED209 06:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

House of Yahweh

Why can't the npov edit (originally made by someone else) be posted to the talk page for discussion? Please point me to the wikipedia rules on this subject. Thank you, Hanako 18:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are a couple reasons. First, Wikipedia is not a noticeboard, so as you were looking for someone to find references in order to make it verified, it would go against that. In addition, even if it is on the Talk Page, the content itself is considered vandalism. Even its formatting lends itself to that label. Finally, we need to keep in mind that random people who make their way to this site might not understand what the difference between the article page and the talk page is, so to have that extremely PoV information sitting there is problematic. As I said in my edit summary, if you want to point people to the content in order to find references, it still exists in the edit history. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 02:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thanks!

Of course. :) I had just assumed it was some off-wiki thing, but it doesn't make too much difference, to me. Let's hope I can keep it up. Luna Santin 06:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heyy

Heyy, I'm Ace Fighter, I agree with you. [[Life with Derek does focus on both of them, Casey and Derek. Well, I'm trying to mee new people on Wikipedia, I love editing on it. Well drop me a line when you can! Ace Fighter 20:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC) Heyy, its me again I would like to chat with you about that, It tends to switch sides of Casey or Derek though, Like, it shows Caseys side of conflict with Derek, and vice versa. I find that family members, tend to be quite minor, yet Emily and Sam are involved in Conflicts. Well I think it tends to mention or touch on Hypocrisy and Sexism. What do you think Chabuk? ohh and thanks for calling me Ace, I had to use Ace Fighter because of Ace was taken. Well, talk to me whenever you get a chance! Ace Fighter 20:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First off, you seem to be having trouble with your signature, all you need to do to have it appear properly is type ~~~~. Regarding Life with Derek, what changes are you proposing exactly? -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 18:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better? I forgot I don't write my username then the 4 tidles. My mistake. I don't propose anything. And please, for the future can you write your messages to me in my My Talk page? Ace Fighter 20:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's kool, but I will get confused tho so i wont know and sorry for miskates Ace Fighter 22:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's this newsletter on the bottom of the page for? Ace Fighter 00:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are a couple of problems with the Life With Derek Article, to first start it off, the ver opniated article about Casey, it has a negative tone against her, and last I will be requesting that the Nora/George article be split up into to articles, until we get enough information that is. Ace Fighter 10:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also considering signing up for the newsletter about helping new editors, well coaching them Ace Fighter 11:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November Esperanza Newsletter

Program Feature: Admin Coaching (needs coaches!)
Admin Coaching needs coaches!!! If you are an administrator, or even a generally experienced user, do consider signing up to be a coach.

Admin Coaching, now being coordinated by HighwayCello, is a program for people who want help learning some of the more subtle aspects of Wikipedia policy and culture. People are matched with experienced users who are willing to offer coaching. The program is designed for people who have figured out the basics of editing articles; they're not newcomers any more, but they might want some help in learning new roles. In this way, Esperanza would help keep hope alive for Wikipedia because we would always be grooming the next generation of admins.

What's New?
The Tutorial Drive is a new Esperanza program! In an effort to make complicated processes on Wikipedia easier for everyone, Esperanza working to create and compile a list of tutorials about processes here on Wikipedia. Consider writing one!
A discussion on how Esperanza relates to the encyclopedia has been started; please add your thoughts.
Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter.
  • The list of proposed programs has been updated, with some proposals being archived.
  • There is now a new program: the Tutorial Drive! Consider writing a tutorial on something you are good at doing on Wikipedia.
  • The suggestion of adding a cohesive look to all the Esperanza pages is being considered; join the discussion if you are interested!
  • In order to make a useful interlanguage welcome template, those involved in translation projects will be asked what English Wikipedia policies are most important and confusing to editors coming from other language Wikipedias.
  • A discussion of Esperanza's role in Wikipedia is being held, with all thoughts of all Esperanzians wanted!
  • Shreshth91 informed everyone that he will be leaving the Esperanza council as life is rather busy; his spot will be filled by the runner up from the last election, HighwayCello.
Signed...
Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List.


Michael Di Biase

Councillor

So does mine. Is this an American/Canadian distinction, I wonder? CJCurrie 03:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest

  • No, the mayor didn't vote. It was all over the news, I'm surprised you didn't hear about it. Basically, 50 or 60 people came to protest the fact that Council was voting for the recount. The argument is that they are all in conflict of interest, simply because they did endorse Di Biase during the election. ED209 18:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not a conflict of interest then. A "conflict of interest can be defined as any situation in which an individual or corporation (either private or governmental) is in a position to exploit a professional or official capacity in some way for their personal or corporate benefit." Thus, if the mayor had voted he would likely have been in a conflict of interest situation, but since the other councilors don't really have anything to gain from holding a recount, I don't really see how they're in a conflict. I understand your argument, but I don't think it applies in quite the way you want it to. The other fact that needs to be considered is, (if we take your logic as true) in this situation, all of the councilors would technically be in a conflict of interest, yet, only Council has the authority (short of a judicial order) to order a recount. Thus, since none of them stand to benefit directly from ordering a recount (in terms of financial, positions, etc) it could be argued that by all being in conflict, a decision like this was legitimate. As I said, I don't believe any of them were in conflict (except perhaps Di Biase and Jackson) but the above example is more of a "what-if" -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 21:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Di Biase could have been granted a recount by the City Clerk or he could have a judge order one. Also, I would argue that because all of the Councillor who supported Di Biase, appeared on his campaign promotional materials (which included pictures and quotes), this would represent a "pecuniary" interest. Either way, it puts the councillors in a negative light. ED209 01:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's my understanding that a judge won't grant a hand recount until council grants a regular recount. Either way, I still disagree that it's a conflict at all. Di Biase and Jackson both didn't vote, so it seems fine to me. And I do happen to know Roberts Rules fairly well - It's kinda my job. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 02:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Military College of Canada page

Hi,

You left a message advising me to start use 'show preview' because I am clogging up the edits on the Royal Military College of Canada profile. Thanks for the advice. I have done so. 11:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC) Victoria Edwards —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Victoriaedwards (talk • contribs) 10:08, 26 November 2006.

Move Request of The Harper cabinet

I have split the survey into two options: 28th Canadian Ministry, and 28th Canadian Cabinet, just to make the survey easier to read, and make sure everyones being understood. It would be appreciated if you would continue to participate. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Jewish Congress

This is often the best way to get more research on an event; move it to another article where it stands out more. That segment initially belonged to Joe Clark. Thank you! GoldDragon 19:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Di Biase

Speaking of some of the ED209 scandals like the speeding tickets, Acura-BMW crash, salary comparisons, campaign donations, etc. the only way these items can be added in is if the article is expanded sufficiently. After that, the scandals can probably put it in a "trivia section" or something. But right now, there is essentially nothing on his municipal record or policies.

Its a similar story with Mel Lastman and Howard Moscoe in that most of the scandals are retained in a peripheral section, once their political careers dominate the main body. GoldDragon 19:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Williams-Sonoma

Is that store in Yorkville or Yorkdale? I've been to both and might have bumped into you without knowing! GoldDragon 04:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW...

I just protected the Pm shef talk page with your redirect in place. No reason anybody should be removing that redirect, since aside from you (and me, obviously ;) ) I doubt anyone else would be looking at that page to see the comments placed there. Cheers. Syrthiss 14:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you very much! I put in a RFPP but it was denied, so I'm relieved that you did that, It's been fairly annoying having to revert edits there. Thanks. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 16:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

I like it - remind me of someone... :) Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 08:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CJPAC

I'm just keeping an eye on ThornhilllWatch's contributions. I do suspect he's VaughanWatch, as you suggested on his user page. -Joshuapaquin 18:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed

Honestly, though, I doubt that deleting revisions is going to have any effect on the problem. Since it's probably a single banned user (or small group of banned users), having the information in the page history (or not) isn't going to make any difference to their ability to engage in that particular style of harrassment. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the advise

Thankyou for advising me on keeping a cool head.I was almost tricked into getting myself blocked by users who started this whole issue .

Regarding me "creating disputes" by osting those flags,Im sorry it offends and you are free to disagree with me,but I consider that as part of free speech.Im sure you understand.

Again thanx for the advise.Nadirali 05:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali[reply]

Point

I appreciate your being fair. Just like to point out that nadirali has professed to sockpuppeteering[1] and done some post-mediation baiting in my talk page (to which I shall not respond)[2].This, after it was HE who said he would instigate edit-warring with the assistance of Siddiqui (and, presumably,his own socks), not I [3]. Hkelkar 06:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Nadirali persists in coterie formation with Pakistani nationalist editors even after being warned [4], effectively making threats against other editors (intent to mass-edit-war)[5].Hkelkar 06:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll think about your proposal. Yasher Koach, your mitzvah is appreciated my friend. Shalom. Hkelkar 07:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comments at ani!

My head was cool. The user called us bigots. that's all i stated.--D-Boy 10:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks again

I know what you mean sir.I think the administrators warning was good enough for them. But the fact is they were trying to get me blocked and all I was trying to tell them is that they shouldn't do such things again as it almost backfired on them.

Regarding the flags,I know what you mean.But since those countries dont get along with one another,an observer will be able to tell that Im putting them from a neutral POV. Also by reading some things I've written about myself,the observer will know,that Im a nuetral person.

Thanks again for the advice.At least your advice will help me be more careful.I really appriciate your concern.Nadirali 18:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali[reply]

Re: Your comments at WP:AN

I wonder what are you talking about? I think there is some confusion. --Incman|वार्ता 21:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.. I get it. Few points:
  1. The commnets I made were on Talk:History of India and not WP:AN/I. User:Nadirali posted them on the concerned page along with my signature which caused confusion.
  2. An advise: Please read the entire discussion before interfering. As far as I know, I never made any personal attack against User:Nadirali and your comment was uncalled for. You have to read the entire conversation before jumping to conclusions and making false accusations.

--Incman|वार्ता 21:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did read the entire discussion, thank you, I could not have known that Nadirali copy/pasted them from another page. Regardless, they were inappropriate and inflammatory. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 21:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I did realize that my conversation with Nadirali was going off-topic and for that very reason, I decided to quit the argument before Nadirali came up with comments like "(I) outsmarted him". Also notice that I haven't taken part in WP:AN/I. Nevermind, please end this topic. It is getting on my nerve. --Incman|वार्ता 21:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, Nadirali continues to make incivil and derogatory comments in the talk page[6]. Why does he keep trolling it despite your advice to the contrary? Hkelkar 00:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chabuk, I think you are right. My comments were inflammatory. I guess we are all human beings and are bound to do mistakes. I kinda lost my temper and got carried away. Thanks for pointing it out though. Cheers --Incman|वार्ता 03:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kahina

Hi, I reverted the article "Kahina" after your expanding for the introduction. I reverted it because it is inaccurate. Two inaccurate facts: Jewish and her father. I don't think there is any serious reason to consider her as a jewish woman. The name of her father is maybe unjustified. If you believe she was Jewish and her name given by you was correct. You sould give a source and then it would be justified. The problem is that google can provide tens of sites claiming she was jewish. If we are accurate, that wouldn't be suffisant untill they explain how they concluded that fact. Else, there are other sites claiming she was christian and pagan. Best regards! Read3r 13:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

apology

Chabuk Im sorry for the way Ive behaved and promise not to interact with disruptive users or respond to their negative comments with negative comments of my own.

I again thankyou for being neutral and not taking sides.I realise that some of the things i said were completely unecessary and only harmful to me. I'll just have to learn to ignor people who are so negative.

Regards Nadirali 20:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali[reply]

Taglit

Hi. I didn't realize how long and drawn out the taglit debate with you and behemoth was, so I posted something agreeing with you (although I DO agree with him that Taglit has some MAJOR issues, but that's beside the point). Anyway, it's not at the bottom because I didn't know the fight continued all the way down, but it's somewhere. Let me know if you need more info.clarification of my thoughts. Kol tuv, Avraham 10:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Greek template

As a member of the Fraternity and Sorority project, please check out the proposed project template and leave your feedback. Scoutersig 17:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Life Template 2.0

OK, I've added ratings and ranking to the proposed template for Fraternities and Sororities, with the requirements to be found on the appropriate page. We're waiting on a transparent picture; is there anything else to be done to this template? I'd like to give it another week or so before making it an official template. Just leave some comments on the template talk page for the template. —ScouterSig 02:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Queen's University Chess Club

An article that you put up a Proposed Deletion tag for, Queen's University Chess Club, has been re-listed to form a clearer consensus on deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queen's University Chess Club (second nomination), in case you wished to help reach community consensus on what should be done with the article. Andy Saunders 13:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

monobook cs

"For those of us who don't have the time/know-how to play around with whatever "monobook cs" even means, is there any way to just make an option in our preferences to have it removed? It seems fairly arbitrary and random to have added it, I mean, I don't remember anyone asking for feedback, and I find it really distracting, with very little tangible benefits."

User:Chabuk/monobook.css User:WAS 4.250/monobook.css WAS 4.250 08:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring with CJCurrie

I appreciate your intervention in the edit war between myself and CJCurrie. Maybe it got so heated to a sense that both of us were sinking to lows that we would have never dreamed... Aside from that, some peace and a break from wiki is needed to enjoy Christmas. Happy Holidays! GoldDragon 23:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great job adding the same quotes to the article twice

That is why his additions were pov pushing. Putting as much negative content in the article as possible. Even though the EXACT same Dershowitz quotes are already in the article. Some people care about wikipedia and quality and others care about pushing their viewpoint and putting negative material into articles. What kind of person are you? Jasper23 06:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Great job remaining civil and assuming good faith. How was I supposed to know the quotes had already been included? I was looking at the diffs and assumed that you had simply removed the quotes, full stop. In normal circumstances, quotes aren't put in the same article twice to begin with - thus my misunderstanding. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 06:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that you've flat out lied. The Gil Troy quote is nowhere else in the article! -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 06:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dershowitz quotes. Dershowitz quotes. Dershowitz quotes. Didn't you read my message? Great job there. You could have known the quotes were already in the article from the edit summaries. Or you could have read the talk page where there is a lengthy discussion of the quotes. Or you could have looked at the article. Who is uncivil? You. Jasper23 06:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you noticed that the article is now completely unreadable? Do you care? Jasper23 06:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on pushing that POV Jasper23 07:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow seriously dude, ignore AGF just a bit more why don't you. There's zero PoV here. Point me to some reliable sources that are support Carter's book and haven't yet been included in the article, and i'll be delighted to include them. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 07:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox Query

Hey, Chabuk since you know how to stack username boxes that start from the top "This User is a native speaker of English", Could you show me how? Ace Fighter 14:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Absolutely. The way I've done it is overly confusing, but I subst'd some of my userboxes so the normal template for linking them doesn't work. As long as you're not subst'ing them, check out this tutorial page, it should tell you what you want to know! -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 17:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Man, thank you ever so much! Ace Fighter 02:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Image:Billygilman.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Billygilman.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 13:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Suemcp

Your input welcome. Cheers. Dina 19:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kavod HaBriyot#Requesting Comments

See: Talk:Kavod HaBriyot#Requesting Comments. Thanks, IZAK 02:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maystar

  • Would you consider creating a page on Maystar General Contracting? I think they are extremely notable seeing as they were recently awarded the big city hall. ED209 02:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure Maystar fails WP:CORP, for one thing, they have a whopping 27 google hits. Even if they didn't fail WP:CORP, I don't know (nor do I care really) nearly enough about some random contracting company to write an article on them. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 04:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd describe it more as annoyed at your insistence on discussing this issue that to be perfectly honest, I couldn't care less about. I live in Montreal most of the year and frankly, I have no interest in the games a bunch of failed electoral candidates insist on playing. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 01:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arno Political Consultants

I have added references to the article Arno Political Consultants, removed some overly promotional text and removed the {{prod}} tag. I think that the article is now acceptable, but if you disagree you may want to send the article to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. --Eastmain 20:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judeophobia

Thanks for your note. I've asked you a couple more questions on my talk, if you don't mind. Keesiewonder 22:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - I see you may prefer to converse here. Just let me know. Thanks again. Keesiewonder 22:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And, here, on your talk, is what was on my talk page:
  • Very few academic sources will refer to persecution of Jews until the 1800's as anti-Semitism, though once you get into Christian Europe you will find more examples. In ancient history however, and Jews in Muslim lands, much more often it will simply be referred to as "persecution" as the Jews weren't being targeted any more than any other group (again until the rise of Christianity). -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 22:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, yes, that makes a lot of sense. Thank you! Might there be good reasons, then, to have an article on Judeophobia. It seems like you have articulated a clear distinction between Judeophobia and anti-Semitism; yet the former redirects to the latter in WP.
Another thing I've been trying to form an opinion on is why only one person is mentioned in WP' anti-Judaism category [7] - i.e. a category for one person, one sub-category, and one article. Of course and unfortunately anti-Judaism exists. But is there only one person for all of time who can be assigned to that category? I've struggled with this some on the talk page at the Martin Luther article; you may have already noticed it. If you can help me think through this one ... I'd greatly appreciate it. Kind Regards, Keesiewonder 22:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • hahaha, you didn't have to move everything here! If I start a conversation on your page, I would have been perfectly happy to finish it there! But anyways, since it's here now... To be honest, I'd never seen the anti-Judaism category before, or that article, since both are essentially a type of anti-Semitism. The category should be deleted as it adds very little to the actual discussion, and the content of the article should be merged with the anti-Semitism article. I'm kind of surprised that people would leave something like that on the Martin Luther article for so long. It's clearly a misnomer at best, PoV pushing at worst. Regarding an article on Judeophobia, I don't have the resources here to write more than a stub - it would require someone with a lot of time and specialized knowledge -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 22:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Glad you're laughing!!! As long as I moved it, we'll talk here. (Just please don't delete it on me - I might need it!) What I'm hearing/learning from you is very interesting given the "discussions" and the edit/revert wars at the Martin Luther article. Shall we collaborate to get rid of the anti-Judaism category? I haven't kept a log, but there's basically a toggle switch for it coming in and out of the article. I've heard about CfD but not yet read the rules ... Keesiewonder 22:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll look into CfD sometime this week, I'm not sure it'll be successful, regardless of whether or not we are right, simply because of the veracity of some of these editors. A lot of them are convinced that they are always right, making changing these kinds of things very difficult. That being said however, the category is serving no useful purpose that couldn't be served by the anti-Semitism category. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 23:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the talk page for Antisemitism where I first asked about this. So, I'm witnessing controversy, right? (i.e. you and Jayjg don't agree on this topic?) Given how I read/understood this little dialog, I would expect Judeophobia to be its own article (eventually). Yet, it redirects to anti-Semitism. And now racial anti-Semitism has been nominated as an AfD. Keesiewonder 11:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy birthday!

Hola

What's up, Mr. Shefman? Hope you are enjoying Canadian Constitution and Professor Kelley. I would really appreciate it if you would stop trying to delete the McMUN and SSUNS Wikipedia entries..... Good luck with being SSMU Speaker.


Sorry

Yeah, I'm sorry about clogging up the Kavalier & Clay film update page (I've actually just done it again.) I tend to work on the same article for a few days, at the same time that I'm looking and drawing from new sources....I should probably just gather all my information and then update the article once. -User:Hobbesy3, 1/20/06

Hi Chabuk

The dust seems to have settled a bit at the Ecole Polytechnique page, thank goodness!! Thanks for your useful interventions at various critical points.
Since things are calmer, I wonder if I could just bring up the AGF message that you put on my talk page a while ago. I'm guessing the plural of "summaries" was a typo (or part of some template??) and I also wonder if you didn't make the same mistake as Dina [8] and think I was referring to Bobanny's edit, when in fact I was reverting Suemcp's edit [9]. In the context of her comments here [10], about upping the status of Francine Pelletier from reporter to journalist, I think my edit summary was pretty accurate, though I agree easily misunderstood and somewhat snarky! I will be more careful in future.
In any case and for future reference, I wonder if for an otherwise good-faith contributor such as myself a personal message might not have been more appropriate. I felt I had been assuming lots and lots of good faith to the party in question, even if it was getting more and more difficult to do so!! And it seems like I was not alone in this, judging by Bobanny's comments at the end of his response to JS2007 [11];-).
I hope you don't mind this feedback. I was pretty cheesed off at the time, but have calmed right down, and am just hoping that you will see these as the constructive suggestions they are meant to be. And if by some chance you decided to edit the warning somehow, I certainly wouldn't object!!! --Slp1 21:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was actually under the impression that using the standard warning templates was the preferred method of going about these kinds of things, for consistency purposes. I totally understand how things can sometimes get out of hand, and debates get heated - to be honest I can't say I remember exactly why I gave you the warning in the first place! They tend to be immediate reaction things for me. If the situation is as you explained above, I certainly wouldn't object to you removing it completely, just as long as you promise to take a step back next time things get heated! -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 03:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Heyy, it's Ace again, long time no see!, I put a tag for a rewrite for Casey's article. And I received support from one person, do you support me on this? Ace Fighter 23:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Kosatlantis.JPG)

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

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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 06:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Hurtinalbertans.jpg)

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

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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 10:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Sorry!

Hey! Chabuk, sorry about the mistake I've made, I won't do this again. I found it was a stupid comment and i removed it, Sorry again! Ace Fighter 00:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why do you delete everything about Matisyahu?

why do you delete everything about Matisyahu? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HeavyA (talk • contribs) 20:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

hello

I'm sorry, but I have no idea how this works. I just wanted to know why you deleted the links I have added to my matisyahu site: http://the-little-things-in-life.blogspot.com ?

the links are not spam, my site is all about Matisyahu. I added a link and you removed it, why? HeavyA 20:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chabuk

Thanks for your comment on my talk page. Maybe you could shed some light for me about Vaughan/Thornhill politics in the past few years since its no secret to me who you are although I don’t want to post your real name here. What was the reasoning behind Susan Kadis going to such great lengths to get Alan Shefman elected in 2004 and 2006 and Michael Di Biase (who ended up losing) in 2006? I know she did a great job in the late 80’s in terms of public education and was a very good school trustee, her years as a councillor I am not to familiar with since I never lived in her ward. It seems to me, over the years her views on public education and standing up for your rights has changed dramatically. I know she has “backstabbed” many people, my family included, that had supported her and who were instrumental in helping her with her public education advocacy and origianlly getting her elected school trustee in the late 80’s.--RecoveringFromBackstabs 00:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About my Matisyahu site again

Hi there, you wrote: "Personal websites that are unverifiable and contain content with questionable copyright status are not eligible".

What's "unverifiable" about my site?

"questionable copyright status"? Everything on my site is legal. When I copy articles I link back to the source. The videos on my site are from youTube. you can download Matisyahu's music for free from emusic if you register for a free trial, which means that while you don't pay Matisyahu still gets the credit for the downloaded albums. You can also download Matisyahu's live shows from archive.com which is also legal.

Plus other editors think my Matisyahu site is eligible.

So, here: http://the-little-things-in-life.blogspot.com, take a look at my site and if you still think it is not eligible, please point to the page you think is problematic.

Thanks HeavyA 21:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, here are three Matisyahu external links:

http://religiousfreaks.com/2005/12/28/matisyahu-in-the-hisouse/ , http://www.jumpcut.com/view?id=668025306F8611DB8A96266C9A2E700D , http://www.matisyahu.co.uk/

now, how are they different from my site: http://the-little-things-in-life.blogspot.com ?

All are "breaking copyright law" with the videos they post. How can you possibly think that these sites are o.k. and mine isn't?

My site is so much better, it is a Matisyahu fan heaven.

HeavyA 07:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Chabakkuk (Jewish group)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Chabakkuk (Jewish group), has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chabakkuk (Jewish group). Thank you. IZAK 16:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How you doin

Hey, how you doin. I am a new user here, still just learning the basics, so if I mess up something sorry. By the way I noticed that you revised my contribution on Ted Rogers, and marked it as vandalism. Whats up with that, correct me if I'm wrong but adding more information is not vandalism, unless the information is wrong, or is destructing the page. Here is a definition of vandalism I found on a useful site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandalism. By the way I also noticed you like to mess around with my user page, hey I've got no problem with that, you can use it as a sandbox if you wish, it's just annoying that I keep getting you've got a new message sign by you. Here's a page you can use, without disturbing anyone, I guess it would be equally fun for you, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sandbox.

Glad talking to you, if you've got any questions, I'll gladly help you out. 74.116.92.202 23:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bryonwilfert.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bryonwilfert.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 48 hours after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 04:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bryonwilfert.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bryonwilfert.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 48 hours after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 04:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chabuk/Archive_3&oldid=1058107380"