User talk:Cryptographic hash

Inline citations at Jonesville Church of God sign controversy

It's good that you've included a list of links to news stories about this controversy, but TheslB is correct in his call for inline references for specific statements and quotations. In particular, all the statements about Roger Byrd need to be linked to specific sources, per Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people. (Even though the article isn't biographical, any statement about a living person or quotation attributed to a living person falls under the BLP policy.) The most common method used for inline citations on Wikipedia is footnotes, using the tags <ref> and </ref>. You don't need to use the full {{cite news}} template: if you just note which quotations come from which news item, someone else (like me) can expand the references appropriately. It's just that we shouldn't expect our readers or other editors to search through all the news sources you listed to find which quotation or fact comes from which source. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

I've just nominated Jonesville Church of God sign controversy for deletion. Sorry to have to do that but to me it just doesn't meet the standard of what an encyclopedia article should be about. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Obama osama.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Obama osama.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Loonymonkey (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC) --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion sought

Hi, Cryptographic hash. Some of the editors of Jeremiah Wright controversy are trying to work out a compromise for a shorter version of the Comparisons with other candidates section on the talk page. I'd welcome your contribution. Specifically, I'd be interested in seeing whether we can integrate a summary of Frank Schaeffer's comments into the proposed paragraph I've been working on, or at least discussing its inclusion with the other editors. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No way. Let it bulk up and break it into its own article when it become too large. Cryptographic hash (talk) 04:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But a lot of the material cited there (like the stuff about Hillary and the Fellowship) hasn't actually been connected with the Wright/Obama controversy by reliable sources. For us to make the comparison by ourselves is original research. (Similarly, that particular Huffington article isn't about Wright, but about the media's refusal to cover another unrelated story. If she'd said "Why is the media covering Jeremiah Wright and not the Pentagon pushing propaganda?", we could include it, but as it is it's only people in the comments section of her blog who make that connection. And that's not noteworthy.)

We really should be having this discussion on the article's talk page, by the way. Other editors may have views worth considering. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh — I didn't see that you'd posted there too. Will continue discussion there. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is an edit war, and please remain civil.

I beg to differ with your claim that the repeated insertion of the Huffington paragraph is not an edit war. I removed the paragraph; you restored it. I removed it again; you restored it again. Happyme22 removed it; you restored it again, with an insignificant change. That's an edit war. I reverted twice, Happyme22 reverted once, and you reverted three times. If someone removes the paragraph and you restore it again before 04:29 UTC on May 7, that will be a violation of the three-revert rule, and you will be blocked.

I also want to caution you about civility. Comments like this insulting other editors, and edit summaries like this, are not appropriate. Please adjust your tone. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you have a record of viewing things through the wrong end of the binoculars, and while wearing britches many times too small your size. Just some honest feedback. Cryptographic hash (talk) 07:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of looking through the wrong end of the binoculars, what POV do you think I'm pushing? I'm honestly curious, because I suspect you've got the wrong end of the stick. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you reverted my attempted compromise on the "Comparisons with other candidates" section, I've reported you to the 3RR noticeboard. I could have blocked you myself, but since we're in a dispute that would be inappropriate. I'll abide by what an uninvolved admin decides. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask you once again to refrain from edit summaries like this. Please try to engage with your fellow editors in a respectful manner. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Obama osama.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Obama osama.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opened discussion on AN/I

Hello, Cryptographic hash. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding the current edit warring and incivility related to Jeremiah Wright controversy. Yours, Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR on Jeremiah Wright controversy

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Per a discussion at WP:AN/3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you return from your block, I invite you to read my comments about working together constructively at Talk:Jeremiah Wright controversy#Working together, and add any thoughts you have there. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring

Please be aware that if you continue to edit war make contreversial edits (without consensus from the talk page) to Ronald Regan, you will be blocked. Please move your edits to the talk page. Tiptoety ^talk 02:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Citzendium.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Citzendium.png. 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 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]