It says that it came from the en Wikipedia. I thought that was sufficient to direct people to the history. If you know a better way, please fix the commons page to look the way you want it to. --SelketTalk05:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. I just noticed the other day the great work you did on the fromowner process. I had no idea such things were possible, but it got me to thinking. One of the biggest complaints I get is that the image upload process is too complicated. Do you know if any thought has been given to simplifying the whole thing? Special:Upload, rather than having lots of boxes to read and then a single licensing drop down with a kazillion choices, could have three links to choose from: (1) I am uploading a picture that I, personally, created. (2) I am uploading a picture that I found on a website. (3) I am uploading a picture that was made before 1923, is a work of the US government, or otherwise in the public domain. Each of those choices could then offer you something similar to MediaWiki:Uploadtext/fromowner in terms of its simplicity. --BigDT23:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know what changes they are planning? How about, as an alternative, having the choices up at the top of Special:Upload, then saying, "or scroll down to use the advanced form"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BigDT (talk • contribs) 00:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Well, my hope was that the whole form would be a "trap form" kinda like we have the trap licenses now ... except that the trap form would explain in easy to understand language why what they are doing is counter tto our policies and ask them not to. The image backlog right now is untenable. The backlogs are steadily growing and on top of that, we have a record number of orphaned images again. My hope is that by having separate pages specifically geared towards what the person is trying to upload, we can stem the tide of some of the unusable images. --BigDT14:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I fully agree ... I just want to have something to bring there first. ;) Once I put together the prototype (in userspace), I will bring it there and post messages on the WP:IUP and WP:FAIR talk pages. --BigDT19:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There were several suggestions for using the Wikipedia logo at Talk:Logo, mostly due to the incidental potential for endorsement. Being that the Wikipedia logo, while copyrighted, was being used in the context of a Wikimedia project, I did not think that it was such a big deal. Using the Debian logo has its caveats as well, and I think that using a free-use logo that is unaffiliated with a company or project would be more appropriate. I'll look for some alternatives, but for now I think that something like Image:Definition of Free Cultural Works logo notext.svg would be more fitting than the Debian logo. ˉˉanetode╦╩20:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. One thing though: Because of its natural small size, it looks pixelated now. Can you resize it a bit smaller, as it was in previous edits? Thanks again. Nightscream04:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. It was obtained by User:Liaishard, who asserted that she found it at a Corey Clark website, and got permission for its use from its copyright owner. The original was uploaded by her; I just tried to re-upload it in order to remove the underscore from its filename, theorizing that that was what was causing the difficulty in formatting it into the Infobox (a theory that turned out to be false). Perhaps she could give greater insight into its origin, so maybe you should ask her. Nightscream07:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you're doing this in conjunction with devs, Fromowner technically has the force of "policy" on-wiki (though you might want to avoid stepping on too many toes, else you'll have some fun times in later projects ;-) ). Also, if Fromowner were to be coordinated with the foundation, your actions once again would be policy-ish.
Can you provide links, attestations or further data for either? If so, I shall close the MFD.
Make that triple, if you can link to mailing list discussions (tangential or direct). Despite the oldness and signal-to-noise ratio, wikien-l can still form policy. --Kim Bruning13:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see I'm not the only one who has been harangued by this Geni person.
Sheesh some people... I guess its just typical that none of them had the guts to sign their name. Anyways, for all those of us who like to see vandals punished, thanks for your anti-vandalism in this area :-) Clegs (talk) 23:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is your evidence that the publisher holds exclusive rights to that image? As you can see from this Kwiatkowski article published on LRC today, she has provided this image to LRC as a publicity shot. They've released it on her behalf under the GFDL. If you'd like me to send confirmation on this to the permissions folks (like I did for History of Money and Banking in the United States), I'd be happy to, but I've worked with them before on content released from LRC and Mises.org and I have a standing agreement from LvMI and LRC authorizing me to release content under the GFDL. I'd be happy to email the permissions folks from my mises.org email address to clarify this. :) DickClarkMises00:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Geni,
Nice looking page, but ran in to an issue, when using images in the MediaWiki space we should have a local copy uploaded and indef protected to prevent vandalism. I can't do this from where I am right now but should be able to in a day or two if it's still outstanding. Thanks, — xaosfluxTalk02:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Geni. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Ads.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Geni/archive 5. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk02:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
I also only see three reverts. Of course edit-warring can be blockable even absent a technical 3RR violation, but I don't see aggravating factors that would warrant a block in this case. Requesting comment from the blocking admin. Newyorkbrad01:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From 3RR: Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period. Edit warring is edit warring. Considering you were reverting Jimbo, and didn't bother to find out his reasoning prior to reverting three times, I'd say that could be considered a wee tad disruptive. You could have discussed first, or even better, instead of, edit warring. KillerChihuahua?!?01:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to do both at the same time [1][2] but ya I did go to talk first and only continued to revert when people ignored that. The issue that it is jimbo who attempted to introduce flawed policy without discussion should be of no consequence.Geni01:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've poked ANI about this. Let's see what they have to say. -Pilotguyhold short
You don't think it might have been a good idea to do that before hand? Aparently that is what people object to in my case. In any case blocks are meant to be preventative and given my general wikipedia philosophy it would be extream unlikely I would go beyond 3 reverts (heh after all I was the main inforcer of that policy back in the day).Geni01:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would unblock, which is not to say I endorse the approach you took to editing the article, but I seem to be in the minority camp thus far. Newyorkbrad01:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I may make a comment from the peanut gallery, my own opinion echoes that of Newyorkbrad's - I think a direct approach or an appeal might have been the better way to go. Also, to SWATjester, he didn't revert Mr. Wales' edits - he simply removed content added by him once previously and did not engage in an edit war with him; this is a wiki, after all, and people are certainly allowed to tweak pages gaillimhConas tá tú?01:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've unblocked you, based on a lack of consensus for the block. I would suggest you try and work with Jimbo, though, rather than just trying to exercise veto-by-revert. --Michael Snow02:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User SFTVLGUY2 did NOT take the photo of Charles Nelson Reilly. I took that photo in November 2000 at Musso & Frank's Grill in Hollywood. I have no problem with releasing it into the public domain since it is a snapshot, but I made a correction on the JPG page correctly attributing the photo to myself. My name is Steve Schalchlin and I am an early Internet diarist, off-Broadway composer and longtime friend of Charles Nelson Reilly.
I took the picture in like 2005. later summer. I had borrowed a camera from a friend. I think it was a canon. It was taken in the parking lot along Fort Henry Drive. I will be getting some updated photo's. I have them now, and am working on them. They will be added soon.
Sorry dont know for sure the date, but it was around late summer 2005.
Thank you for messaging me on 29th-May-2007 regarding some links I placed on Wiki. Your message states that the links are may not be appropriate external links for Wiki.
I apologise if this update caused you any problems and would ask for your guidance as I believe that the links are valid and do meet the Wiki external links guidelines
I believe that these links are relevant and informative and meet the guidelines. I would ask that the Wiki editors review them, here are two examples:
www.thelocalchannel.co.uk/marham
www.thelocalchannel.co.uk/alderholt
I was adding the links to official Town, Parish and Community Councils to Wiki articles providing information on the Town or Parish. These website are hosted by The Local Channel and provided free of any charge to the Council only after the Council has formally adopted the site and it becomes their Official Council site.
I chose to add these links myself as the administrators for the Council site tend not to be technical. Their sites use a very simple content management system that only requires word skills and not web or HTML skills. I know Wiki is not difficult to use but felt that this would be beyond some of the Council site administrators.
I checked carefully the Wiki link guidelines please see the notes in red that relate to the topic in your guidelines. Please can you let me know where I have infringed any rules as I can not at this time see any problems relating to the links posted.
Many thanks
What should be linked
1. Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any.
2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply.
3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.
4. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.
The links placed were to the official Parish, Town Council or Community council websites.
These sites contain a minimum of 20 pages of relevant information regarding the local community including the Local Council. This is only available from the council site.
Links normally to be avoided
Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid:
1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. The site contains Parish Council information that is not available anywhere else.
2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research". These are the official council sites
3. Links mainly intended to promote a website. The intention is to provide Wiki readers with a link to the official site and information unavailable anywhere else.
4. Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources. The sites are free to the council and the reader. The reader has access to all of the Council sites hosted about 2698. Not all have the same level of content and therefore I chose only those with about 20 pages.
5. Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising. A small amount of advertising that is relevant to the local area
6. Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content. No payment is required and anyone can see the entire site without the need to register.
7. Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser. No restrictions of this nature exist on the site.
8. Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about such rich media. If you do link to such material make a note of what application is required. This is not implemented on the site.
9. Links to search engine and aggregated results pages. Does not apply in this case
10. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET. This is a community based site providing local information it is completely different to those mentioned above.
11. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. Not applicable this site is an information portal.
12. Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Not linking to Wiki
13. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked to an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked. These sites are directly related to the article as the site is an official Council site for the place the article is written about.
--DickieUK09:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, as you know I closed the BJADODN discussion saying:
the proposal before this encyclopedia is to revive some material specifically chosen for its lack of encyclopedia signficance, and moreover material in conflict with the site license. As a community, we cannot do this without revoking the site license. If you want to do that, Wikipedia:Village pump is thataway, and jolly good luck to you.
You reverted the close, and that's not a problem. However, your reasoning , insofar as it is represented by the edit summary, troubles me. It says:
rv that is not a vaild closeure reason and you are too incolced in the debate to close
Firstly, could you explain why incompatibility with the site license is not a valid reason to discuss a request for undeletion?
Secondly, could you please explain how I am "too involved in the debate"? What debate? Who would you accept as a closer? --Tony Sidaway02:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mid-2006; it was the same e-mail I sent to Raul for confirmation. It also grants usage of the other ones of his offices at Petroglyph. Zeality00:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Flicker clearly shows the image as licsenced under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 not Creative Commons Attribution 2.0.Geni21:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have recently been edit warring at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. In fact you have four reverts (in about an hour, I might add), repeatedly removing the sentence "These sources should also not be included as external links in BLPs, subject to the same exception." [3][4][5][6] You have been blocked for 24 hours for violation of the 3RR. On a policy page in particular, edit warring is unacceptable. Please use the talk page when things get heated, and read dispute resolution if you can't resolve it there. Dmcdevit·t21:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
sigh.. Those are for the most part not reverts. They are edits to try and deal with the concerns of those who dissagree with me (obviouse since they refuse to debate this is tricky but I supose I should have had enough practice at that by now). As to dispute resolution well I would argue that this and this count although obviously there are limits to what can be done when the people who hold a different position do not take part
Decline reason:
Not following your reason for requesting to be unblocked Geni. Your reverted 4 times in 24 hours : Revert 1, Revert 2, Revert 3, Revert 4. No one else reverted 4 time - SlimVirgin and Jossi are clearly within the rule so you don't appear to have been singled out unfairly. As a former admin you obviously are aware of the three revert rule. On what basis was the block unfair? WjBscribe23:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Supposed revert one create an entire new section. supposed revert 2 creates a new paragraph 3 is a revert but in responce to an entirely flawed argument (WP:V does no mention external links) and was backed up with comment on talk page). Supposed revet 4 isn't a revert that is my intial edit. So we would appear to have one revert total with 2 if you really streach the rule. SlimVirgin reverted twice dirrect 3 if you streach the rule.Geni23:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reverts don't have to be identical - they all contained a common element - in all 4 instances your removed the words "These sources should also not be included as external links in BLPs, subject to the same exception." To quote the WP:3RR: "A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors. " In all 4 case your undid the addition of those words making this a pretty clear breach of 3RR to my eyes... WjBscribe23:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does it matter? At some point someone added that text - you undid their edit (in whole or part) and 3 subsequent restorations of that text... WjBscribe23:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yes because classing every remove of a bit of text as a revert falls under the "mind boggeling extream bit of rule lawyering that even Abraham Thornton would be impressed by" category.Geni23:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's odd - I thought your insistance that I name the precise editor who orginally added the text was one of the more extreme examples of rule lawyering I had come across... WjBscribe23:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
actualy that was an attempt to get you to realise the problem with your positon. For example you would consider this a revert thus pushing SlimVirgin up to 4 reverts in the last 24 hours.Geni00:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really - its a rewrite - there doesn't seem to be a section of text she is removing or adding that she has removed or added 3 other times in the last 24 hours. In your case there is a clear progression. At some point someone adds the sentence in question. You remove it. SlimVirgin restores it. You remove it. SlimVirgin restores it. You remove it. Jossi restores it. You remove it. Thats a pretty clear progression. I see nothing so clear cut in SlimVirgin's case. You could, and should, have stopped reverting while you discussed the change - it was after all you who wanted to change the page away from the status quo. On a policy page its rather expected that you gain a consensus to make changes (especially where the edit is disputed). WjBscribe00:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So mine was a rewrite combiened with modification to bring it inline with practice while adressing concerns. Discussion requires more than one person to be involved. If the people reverting me will not discuss there isn't much I can do. Oh and you want clear removal there you go and remeber it is well established it does not have to be the same material being reverted.Geni00:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
No, the administrators' noticeboard is not dispute resolution, and the point is for you to discuss instead of reverting, not in addition to it. When it is clear that your edits to a policy page are contested, you should talk it out, not keep making them. It looks like the other editors are taking part in the discussion, so I'm not sure what you mean, but other editors' lack of discussion is never justification for edit warring of any parties in any case. Dmcdevit·t22:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't reverting. Ok lets try basic maths. My second comment was at 20:08 after that despite finding time to revert me twice the people who have dissagree with me have still not responded to it (I note you have not blocked them despite their direct reverting. Obvious I have't delt with 3RR in a long time but I recall back in the day there was a requirement to treat both sides equaly). If we look at User:Jossi where is the debate? hmm all we have are arguments by assertions which is about as far from debate as we can get Slimvirgin's comments have much the same issue (combiened with an ad hom) and do not adress my points so no debate there either. As to the disspute resolution what would you have me do? RFC doesn't have a section. The Mediation Cabal is article based and it is a bit early for arbcom (who in any case do not make policy).Geni22:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should know that edit warring is not excused by others' behavior, and is not justified by being "too early for arbcom" or MedCab being "article based". Please readWP:DR for some options, like soliciting third opinions and coming back to the article after cooling down. Dmcdevit·t22:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rule lawyering? can do it that way if you want. You can only block me for edit waring if you can show I was severely disrupting the project (that is the section it falls under). I wasn't (the section of policy isn't exactly regularly inforced). I think I have demonstraited I did solicit third opinions. Thidly my comments on others actions was a critism of your actions more than a defence of mine (combiened with a debunking of your claim that they people with different views were debateing).Geni22:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wasn't asking for ruleslawyering. And yes, edit warring, which is nothing new for you, is disruptive. I am glad that you solicited third opinions, but you ought to do that not in combination with edit warring. Several rapidfire reverts in an hour is not conducive to the discussion you claim to have wanted. You could have even waited a whole day for comments from third parties. Dmcdevit·t23:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The people with a different position to me found time to revert me. It is not unreasonable to expect them to have time to comment no? Remeber I was chanageing my edits rather than blunt force reverting. I wasn't aware one was meant to wait before trying new things. Oh disruptive isn't good enough policy requires "severely disrupting the project".Geni23:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I must inquire as to what motivates image purging. Half the British Parliament, including Labour Deputy Leader Harriet Harman and Northern Ireland Minister Alan Johnson, have had their pictures removed on the grounds that the images came from the BBC. Widescale deletion has also been applied to official pictures of state governors in the US. I ask you, if this continues, how are we to maintain the quality of imagery expected of an encyclopedia? --JesseBHolmes05:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is meant to demonstrait that the policy has not been put together in a bottom up style by the community without ever demonstraiting wide popular support and that it will continue to exist regardless of any consensus against it. It makes no judgements as to wether or not this is a good thing. Something simular was talked about with regards to the EDP thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geni (talk • contribs)
Given that we would only be looking into a fairly limited set of defences (person is dead public figure and truth) it is not an unreasonable aproach. OR just say "care must be taken to avoid writeing things that could result in a civil judgement being issued against you"
Of course none of the things you list have anything to do with the "Presumption in favor of privacy" section which if it were legaly based would have to be based on right of publicity and certian rights due to minors (strangely neither the word minor nor child appear on that page which for something supposed to be legaly based is a little odd).
In short:
WP:BLP as worded is not simply forced upon us by legal issues. It has never been limted to stuff forced upon us by legal issues. Please stop trying to claim otherwise (and if you need a legal reason look into some of the wording of florida's laws with regards to giving legal advice).Geni18:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't take my comments to mean that I want to get into a length discussion on the merits of or reasoning behind WP:BLP. My comments are merely limited to the fact that {{policy2}} seemed like a bad idea which was poorly implemented. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But if you are not going to try and defend your position with regards to BLP being law based than that is simply your unbacked opinion.Geni18:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't care. What I do care about is a whole new category of policy being cut from whole cloth, with no discussion other than a pet template applied to one single page, and with no explanation for what the criteria are for this whole new kind of policy. If you want to make a whole new kind of policy, fine. But don't do it like this.
This is also a really, really bad way to do this, on a technical level. It's trivially easy to do this as part of {{policy}} with parser functions, and that's why the old {{policy2}} was deleted. If you can drum up the support to separate the policy like this, we can do it the right way.
Hi Geni! Are u interested in Graphology? You seem to have made some contributin to the Graphology page. Because I am :) Why don't u put a couple of userboxes on your user-page so that people can know more about u. I am an utter newbie so please forgive me if I sound stupid. -- 125.21.164.25117:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IRC discussions have no weight as many people don't know it exists, don't know how to access it, or don't want to access it. As these changes seem to have no consensus on Wikipedia I'll continue to revert. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel20:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're making the change but no discussion seems to exist on Wikipedia where it has communuty support. I think it is inappropriate to have these gender stereotyping images in the first place apart from the fact they look ridiculous. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel20:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I noticed that you were an active editor in the homeopathy article and I'm leaving you this message asking you to add some input into a proposed article rewrite project I have planned for it and related articles. This means that I will rewrite the article, post a rough draft as a sub page of my username, then when I am done I will gather all major contributors to work on the article from there following specific rules. Anyone who has been in previous disputes concerning this or related articles should be able to come to a compromise if they are reasonable. This project will take several weeks and will probably involve several other articles. Hopefully we can turn homeopathy and related articles into Featured articles or at least Good articles. If you're willing to aid in such a project then please leave a note of support here Talk:Homeopathy#Proposed_article_rewrite_project and answer these simple questions here Talk:Homeopathy#Questions_for_editors. Thanks. Wikidudeman(talk)03:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my contribution was prompted by the rather poor "History" section which jumps straight from ancient history to the 19th century, but I agree it now rather overlaps "features". But it's important to chronicle the technical developments which led to the explosion of canal building from 1760 onwards and also to emphasise the multi-national nature of this. What the section probably needs is some figures about the increase of canal building. So I'll try and dig those up.
I just finished a rewrite draft of the Homeopathy article. The draft is a rough approximation of what it should be like. It obviously has some flaws in it's format and wording right now but they will be kinked out within the next couple of days. Right now what I want is for you, if you're interested in helping to improve the article, to come to the articles talk page. I'm trying to get all of the articles major contributors to discuss the rough draft and hack out a consensus so that we can replace it with the current article. There we will all discuss the article and how it could be improved before we replace the current homeopathy article with it. In order for this to work we need to follow a few rules. The first rule, the most important rule, is that no one but me can edit the rough draft. Do not edit the rough draft. This precaution is used to prevent edit warring and loss or addition of information that might not be up to consensus. Don't worry, It's just a draft and you'll have all the time you want to make changes after we've replaced it with the current article. The second rule is that all proposed changes in the rough draft must be made on the talk page of the rough draft and must be clear and concise. At that point anyone involved will discuss the proposed changes and if agreed by consensus they will be implemented. We will do that until there is no disputes or disagreements. After all disputes are hammered out, we will replace the homeopathy article with the rough draft. At that point there shouldn't be anyone needing to make huge edits, and if you do see an edit that you want to make, be sure to add a note on the talk page PRIOR to making the edit so that consensus can be reached and then you should make the edit. If you have any questions you can leave me a message on my talk page. Here is the link to the rough draft Link to rough draft. Thanks. Wikidudeman(talk)08:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
already exists filesize a bit bigger than I would like mind. The reason I haven't already put something like this in place is that I'd rather stick with specific ones and get wikiprojects to manage them.Geni02:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Basically someone has set up a prefix dcc: to an external wiki and many of the subject links actually point to this wiki rather than other Wikipedia pages. I think all of this material should be in Wikipedia itself and am looking for advice on what to do. I have not been able to establish who actually owns this external wiki but they are asking for donations via PayPal so cannot have the same security of tenure as Wikipedia. Given your stated interests its similar to have someone set up a Narrow Boat wiki somewhere and are attempting to hijack all info into this just because they can.
However I do have a slight issue with Someguy0830 who removed many of the links to DCC Manufacturers from said site (akin to removing Narrow Boat Builders) which I disagree with. Again I would welcome your opinion on this. St1got19:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that at some point you created various templates in conjunction with a now-defunct policy. Would you have any objection to me deleting these orphaned templates (listed below)? Cheers. --MZMcBride02:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of this, but it's not unusual to purge a whole history for an indef blocked user - it can always be restored later. Is there something you're looking for in the history? WilyD13:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm restoring those history versions I'm willing to restore, but to be perfectly frank, you're not going to get very much. There's just too much shit in there. If you want specific information, it'd probably be easier to just ask. You could look around for someone who's more willing to restore history, but I doubt you'll find anyone. I've shown more sympathy for Xavier than anyone else who's looked at it so far. Nonetheless, feel free. Cheers, WilyD14:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but after looking over that archive, there's simply too much I can't restore to do anything viable. If you're interested in pieces, I may be able to provide them to you where appropriate. If you really want to contest it, feel free to take it to deletion review. WilyD16:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Geni, you seem to know about the GFDL. If you have time, would you mind replying to this query? It's basically whether copying and pasting material from one WP article to another, without attributing the material to the Wikipedia editors who wrote it, is a GFDL violation. Cheers, SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)19:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:High contrastcopyright.png listed for deletion
Since we seem to be the only ones dicussing this specific case I thought I would continue the discussion here. To respond you your last post. Yes, if there is a non-copyvio version in the article it can be easy but not always. Example:
August 2006 Editor A added the copyvio.
Oktober 2006 Editor B greatly expands the article.
November 2006 Editor C tags the article as a copyvio.
,, ,, Editor D creates a temp article which includes the expansion but not the copyvio,
,, ,, Admin E comes along, deletes the history back to the last non-copyvio edit and merges the temp article with that.
It is, therefore I think our current copyvio procedure is not GFDL compliant. I guess step 4 could still be ok if for instance editor B only added new pharagraphs to the article which editor D copied to the temp article. But the result would still be the same. All mention of editor B is gone. Garion96(talk)18:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I noticed that you've had some edits to the Homeopathy page and I just wanted to let you know that I've re-written the article with the help of numerous editors and it is a great improvement on the current article and the criticism section is much clearer and goes into greater detail. I thought that you might want to contribute to the draft before it goes live. Please don't edit the draft directly, except for minor changes. Make proposed changes on the talk page of the draft so that we can all discuss them and add them if there is a consensus. The link to the draft can be found here: Link to rough draft. Thanks. Wikidudeman(talk)03:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Your additions are most welcome but you seem to have missed that I did not remove your additions to these pages. I've simply formatted them in the way that all the Ages of consent... pages are. Please see the orange box at the top of the talk pages. --Monotonehell15:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello you've done it again. Please understand the formatting requirements of the Ages of consent in... pages as reached by consensus are a little different to the normal practice of using the ref tags and having a references section at the bottom. The reason is that these pages become very large, having the references to the law cited inline makes the page a lot tidier and much easier to read.
See the other more complete pages for examples; Ages of consent in Australia and Oceania or Ages of consent in Europe for example. The further requirement for citations to the actual laws is to satisfy verifiability. There are many pages on the Web that have age of consent information, over the years that we have been assembling the Ages of consent pages we have found that the vast majority of those are inaccurate and out of date. It's for this reason that we have settled on these high standards for citations to the law. --Monotonehell15:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Citeing primiary sources is kinda ify particularly where law is concerned. Also creates the problem that it completely ignores caselaw which will tend to result in errors in common law based juristictions.Geni15:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I outlined above, citing legislation is vastly more accurate that relying on iffy sources. We've found Interpol to be completely wrong many times. Common law hasn't come into it as yet, most legislation is formed to take into account common law precedents or to negate it.--Monotonehell15:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okey in the indian example. A reading of the law would make you think 16 yes? Unless you knew that under 18 had parental consent issues. Throw in the amount of outdated law floating around the net and you are still going to have problems. Interpol generaly claims to be okey up to spring 2006. In the absense of adding something else removeing the citations is unhelpful. You are free to ask for futher citations but the loss of secondary sources is not good.Geni16:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep for an example of similar situations see several of the jurisdictions on Ages of consent in Latin America. Brazil for example, where the general AOC is 14 but there's Espurto and parental approval issues. All I saying is have a read of the other Ages of consent in... pages and understand the formatting that we're using on these pages in order to keep everything consistent and verified. Again, I did not remove any of the references that you included, I formatted them to comply with the consistent system we have. Which, instead of having a singe references section at the bottom of the page, each jurisdiction is dealt with separately. It's done in this way to keep all the references for each jurisdiction together with their section. Otherwise the reference section becomes unwieldy.
There are various tricks availible for compressing the amount of space refences take up includeing the two collum method and the scrollbox method.Geni16:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The scroll box method is outlawed due to accessibility issues, and for similar reasons having a smaller font is not a good idea.
But this is not the issue. Have a look at Ages of consent in Australia and Oceania for an example of a page properly formatted in this scheme. The references system is reserved for tangential references to news services and similar. While citations to the law are made inline. Also any external documentation that is specific to a particular jurisdiction is placed with in that jurisdiction's section. It's done this way because we are considering the way which the average reader will use the Age of consent set of pages. Most people will only read their specific section of interest. So we try to keep all the pertinent information in each separate section as if each were its own mini-article. --Monotonehell16:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do you come to that conclusion? The citation needed templates are calling for a citation, not a particular method for dealing with them. If anyone is kind enough to provide a citation anywhere on Wikipedia, but doesn't include it in the "correct" manner, someone else will come along and reformat it. Just as I have done with your contributions. --Monotonehell17:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You ask for citations then start trying to inforce non standard citation requirements and convetions. Assume 50 countires per page 5 citations per country that gives you 250 citations. Manageable through normal methods. Much above 5 citations you move the section into a sub article.Geni18:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again you miss the point. The inline citation method is not a non-standard method, it is one of the methods available under the Wikipedia Manual of style. The inline format was chosen for the 6 Ages of consent in... pages by consensus after lengthy discussion in order to make it easier for the casual reader to find the information they want (These 6 pages are subpages forked rom Age of consent by the way). Instead of a mess of references at the bottom of the page, we have direct citation to legislation inline, any additional reading relating specifically to a section directly beneath each section (as you would normally find "Further reading" and "See also" at the bottom of an article). And finally any actual references that are not direct citations to legislation in the normal "References" section. It's been like this for nearly two years and works well, it was decided by consensus, and it's not contrary to the MoS at all.
Got a question about something... like a lot of folks, my watchlist is getting on the long side (yes, I am pruning it). What I was hoping I could do was to split it into two different lists: the active pages and the less active ones. I see on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Genisock2 you withdrew it saying: "User:Guettarda's workaround appears effective.". Can I ask what that workaround was? I'm wondering if it'll do what I have in mind... Tabercil15:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not insert the outdated image again without discussion on the talk page. I understand that some think that this helps the article but it does not, IMO. In fact, the image is of "Native Africans" and is an old image from 1914. It is bad practice to insert information that is outdated and not fact. You nor I know for sure that those pictured represent "Negroid". If you think you know that, that is POV. Please see the talk page, and discuss your reasons for the need of the outdated image that may or not be related to "negroids". Thanks. - JeenyTalk05:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why remove the external link to Pennine Waterways?
AFAICS, that site is a pretty comprehensive and authoritative site containing a good deal of further reading on the subject. Mayalld
Regarding your reply at User Talk:Mayalld#River Don Navigation I would disagree that the links have been spammed across many pages. Pennine Waterways has (at present), a far greater depth of coverage of the canals of northern England than Wikipedia does, and I would regard it as sufficiently authoritative to be used as a cite, let alone as an external link. Furthermore, this isn't a case of linking to the home page many times. Each link is deep linked to appropriate page on the site. Perhaps it would have been Better is User:Pennine had discussed adding the links on the project page to gain a consensus for doing so, but equally it would have been better to discuss removing the links, rather than going round reverting every change he makes. If User:Pennine is who I think he is, he would be a valuable addition to the project membership. Mayalld14:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, each link is a different link to a good source of information on that subject. Yes, there are many links to the same site, but that is hardly surprising when the site in question covers a wide range of canal related subjects! Having decided to add one link to that site, it would seem eminently reasonable to add other links where the site provides additional information. I concede that he should have discussed it first, but if his actions in adding links without discussion were wrong, is your removal without discussion not also wrong? People sometimes do things the wrong way, and we should move on from where we are, rather than taking the stance that we will rip down anything that has been done, and only put it back once the proper process has been followed. Mayalld15:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what was done as being anything that was described in the section on external link spamming on WP:SPAM, because he added DIFFERENT, and relevant, links to articles which added to those articles by providing a link to a more in depth source. Clearly you take a different view. In my opinion, the fact that it was NOT a clear cut case of link spamming means that it should have been discussed first. However, we are where we, and just as I think you were wrong to remove all those links without discussion, I would be wrong to put them back. I suggest that we take the discussion to the project page. Mayalld18:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Got your message for which I thank you -- I just don't know how to add the information you suggested to the pix so that it's acceptable -- how to do it? Mig 06:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Geni - all previous offers of "Mentorship" for me have been torpedoed by a blizzard of accusations, complaints and even administrator actions against those who dare to deal with me in a collegiate manner. User:HG is just the latest to have buckled under (in his case) relatively mild pressure of "you're much too buddy buddy with PR" and other such accusations (HG doesn't like them refered to as attacks). Despite the mountain of aggressive accusations against me, there's only a single instance in 10 months and 1500 edits of me doing anything anyone has has bothered to quote and consider offensive, and the community is split on whether it amounts to a "legal threat". A plea of "not guilty" to the charge of "making a legal threat" evinced only an accusation that pleading "Not Guilty" made me an even more recalciturn offender.
Having said all of which, and without knowing anything about you whatsoever, I'd be delighted to have you as my "Mentor". All it requires from you is to examine this evidence page and express your opinion on whether I'm indeed working to improve articles. (Be prepared for even more bitter flack as I attempt to carry out further urgently needed edits detailed at this page).
I'm sorry to be operating as a single purpose account for this topic - extensive (robust) discussion finally proved that my doing this is to WP:policy after all. I've virtually stopped operating my regular account (the one I used to add a whole bunch of other material I was interested in). Doubtless when things calm down I'll return to regular editing and this onerous duty you've volunteered for can be laid aside and buried. PalestineRemembered23:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think it is possible to make such a judgement based on a single page. You are making an effort to follow WP:CITE and WP:RS but the one sidedness suggests you need to consider Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy. One condition of my taking the role of mentorship is that as far as possible past events on Wikipedia are left in the past. Is this acceptable.Geni00:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are a wiser person than me (but that's not a big hurdle to clear!) I'm sorry my "list of suggested edits" appeared one-sided, but it included just the edits I fear would be most resisted on "non-legitimate" grounds, since I don't think there's much doubt about the evidence I've presented. (I say that - no effort has been made to dispute what I'm claiming, so there could be small details wrong). I provide it as evidence that I don't edit-war. I've attempted to insert some of those edits and been knocked back, in other cases I've not even attempted to make the edits, despite my conviction that the evidence is excellent and the events belong in the article.
Events of the past will indeed be left behind. It will less easy to forget some editing patterns .... repeated efforts have been made to conflate the Washington Times (owned by the Moonies and operated to save the world) with the Washington Post (an RS, the only kind of thing we should be using in articles, at least for "surprising" claims). Sources such as CAMERA are not simply partisan, but widely distrusted, and there was an RfC rejecting them as an RS. And yet, "facts" from these very dubious sources continue to be vigorously shoe-horned into articles, while much better (even "official") RS material is ruthlessly excised.
"Writing for the enemy" is an excellent idea, I've requested it some 4 times to 3 different people over the "Kurdi Bear" interview (see my list again). Nobody's (yet) requested it of me. If I can harp back on previous events for a moment, my requests for this "collaborative assistance" led only to accusations I was trying to operate meat-puppets. If you're to be my mentor, it's important you know that various subtle and not-so-subtle pressures will be applied to you ..... if you think I'm trying to bully you now, be aware that I'm a pussy-cat compared with some of the other players on this field! PalestineRemembered08:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know you, and I was against the idea of involuntary mentorship for PR from the beginning, because I don't think he's done anything nearly serious enough to warrant it. This being said, you seem like a fair-minded and capable person and I certainly wouldn't object to your stepping in. Eleland12:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also am not big on mentorship as a concept. If you can make it useful, great. If it has no effect, my expectations will be met. I have no objection to you being the mentor. Good luck. GRBerry02:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply. As I have no experience with you, I can't hold any opinion either way, though I would be thrilled if you could ultimately effect a change. I would have been more comfortable with someone like an administrator, who is already confirmed by the community as having the proper skills, but I suppose it is worth another go to get PR in line with WP norms... TewfikTalk19:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seemn like a reasonable editor, and I support your effort. Also, Palestine Remembered seems overall like a fairly reasonable person, despite our differences of opinion. --Steve, Sm890021:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non english sources are allowed on wikipedia (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias for why this has to be the case) however translation issues being what they are I would suggest choseing some random people from Category:User_he-N to provide an opinion on the translation. At the same time it should be made very clear that what the source is so the phraseing should be along the lines of "TV station X reported that whatever".Genisock219:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure what to make of this ... the WP page you reference is not even a guide-line (I don't think?). Are you telling me it trumps WP core policy verifiability?
I'll take your word that it is possible to get translations of minor languages (7 million speakers of this one worldwide?) - but only if you can point me to a quick and hassle-free way to do it eg - I'd very much like to know what goes on at the articles referenced here (entered with this diff). The articles in question are these: [7], [8] and [9]. The contents are clearly very important, since relevant discussions at this TalkPage are being archived in as little as 4.5 days, barely before they're completed - but the diff I've given you above is from June, over 90 days ago. PalestineRemembered18:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find it disturbing that anyone thinks they can link to a foreign-language video, that has an English translation, and tell us the English version is wrong according to another translation, in a different language, to which we (as I understand it) do not have access! And then boast of what a good editor they are in consequence.
I'm very happy you should be sampling my contributions and picking me up on anything I do that may be over-robust, down-right rude, lacking in logical consistency or laced with terminological inexactitudes. However, in this case (assuming I've picked up all the details correctly) we have an editor who is simply driving a coach and horses through WP:Policy. My protests at this behaviour may be lacking in subtlety - but all other protests are being ignored too. PalestineRemembered20:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've only bothered with this article because a recent entry to Talk was held up as proof that it's originator was a "good editor". Do you want an AfD on whether an article on this kid has any business in the encyclopedia? PalestineRemembered21:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
terrorism-info.org.il not worth getting translated.
We're supposed to be on a voyage of discovery, charting a course to a workable system of "Mentorship" for editors with problematical patterns of behaviour. (This is a process that's never worked before and isn't really expected to work this time). Your challenge is doubly difficult because you've got absolutely no material to work on - nobody has come to you and said "this", "this", "this", and "this" are in breach of WP policy - or even just generally disruptive of the project. Then, just to make things really absurdly difficult, 95% of the people I'm editing with have only "content dispute" type problems with my edits anyway, they spend 0% of their time fending off any issues they have with my "behaviour". Do you wish you'd not offered yourself?
However, to try and kick this thing off again, tell me what you think of this edit, removing both the reference to "Jenin Massacre" (3 times more popular than "Battle of Jenin" according to the hated Google Test) and the personal testimony of the bulldozer driver. These removals look a lot like a case of "IDONTLIKEIT" and nothing else - what do you think? Being a pussy-cat, I refuse to go in there and simply reinsert these two excellent pieces of information. PalestineRemembered21:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou. I've taken your advice and made the edit with the summary "Alternative names are always shown, especially in cases like this, where the Hated Google Test shows the alternative name to be 3 times more popular than the article name we're using." - I trust you approve!
I'm absolutely convinced that the other clip belongs in there, diff the interview with the bulldozer driver - or see the whole interview and tell me what you think. Note - Jaakobou, Kyaa and Tewfik have all confirmed it's genuine, but they seem to have a severe case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT over including it. I think it's highly pertinent to the whole event. How about you? Note that I'm only using a quite small part of it, but there's no question of my distorting it's significance. PalestineRemembered21:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS - as soon as I posted you the above I discovered I'm being accused of "edit-warring" over use of the word "massacre" - but you weren't to know how very sensitive people can be! PalestineRemembered22:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who gush-shalom.org are so I can't really comment. Idealy the name should be the two english names (don't try and cover geographical area without a cite so drop first world and middle east claim) and the arabic and hebrew names.Geni22:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to understand why we need non-English in articles in en-WP. In fact, that's one of the practises that is excluding editors/being abused to exclude editors (and hence damaging articles). Our previous discussions didn't exactly fill me with confidence that translations were easy to come by (certainly not into minority languages, it's bad enough getting them out!). PalestineRemembered22:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is generaly useful to know what those involved in conflicts call the thing. Anyway that is a long term aim not something we need worry about in the short term.Geni22:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In an already heated environment I've made two edits you might consider inflammatory or worse ..... please check [10] and [[11]. If you think I should strike them out (or part of them out) then I'm perfectly prepared to do so. The first of these edits is actually me disagreeing with someone who considered becoming my "Mentor". (Although this is 7 or so days after I backed out from accepting him as such). You might think that the dignity of the process requires me to be ultra-careful in this context.
(What do you think of my new sig - do you think it will help reduce some of the really serious harrassment I've had in the past?). PRtalk(New Sig for PalestineRemembered) 10:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. You'll see I'm again being harrassed on my TalkPage on the basis that contacting you is a sign of a guilty conscience. I'm not the first or major victim by any means, much worse has happened elsewhere. I may have offered you some examples, I'll not risk doing so again. Question - would it be inflammatory of me to revert it with the summary "Remove nonsense"? That's almost as strong as I've ever dared to say in the past. PRtalk(New Sig for PalestineRemembered) 15:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Something else - is there any objection to my disagreeing with the community and posting my support to an editor who has suffered sanctions for (I think) being angry and making a nuisance of himself over policy? PRtalk07:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is important to describe as exactly as posible what the sources say and who is saying it thus I would suggest something along the following lines
On 29 March Israel began Operation Defensive Shield. In giving his reasons for the action Ariel Sharon listed 3 suicide bombings.[12] A briefing released by the Israeli embassy in Washington claimed the scale of attacks by the palatines combined with the lack of cooperation on the part of Yasser Arafat made the operation necessary.[13]Geni01:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, you drew together the two sources and accurately reported what they said. It is depressing that so much time has been wasted by involved editors who have failed to grasp some of the most basic policies of the project. On a similar topic, can you suggest how I could overcome blind and ungrammatical reverts like this one, apparently suggesting it's one of the least serious problems in the article? PRtalk11:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
News - the consensus reached (and underlined by yourself above) that "three suicide bombings" was Israel's reasoning for attacking Jenin has again been removed. And the "also known as" Jenin Massacre has been removed, despited it apparently being 3 times more popular (even in the English-speaking world) than "Battle of Jenin". The latter gets 13,400 hits by the Hated Google Test, and the former 30,900, over 3 times as many. PRtalk06:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
News - The section you created at the Battle of Jenin TalkPage has today been interfered with and turned into a near invisible sub-section. This action was part of a sequence, in which this and this archiving took place, with some comments less than 2 weeks old being summararily disappeared. This AN/I was raised on this exact subject less than 2 weeks ago, it is clear that some editors (involved and uninvolved) take serious objection to it. I'm informing you of this in case you think that normal rules apply. PRtalk08:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest staying well away from this. Even I'm not crazy enough to get seriously involved. As for Deir Yassin massacre disscuss on talk page.Geni19:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't. For example here. Google search suggest the guy was anti-zionist so you had better have some very good refs to back the claim that he was pro.Geni23:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Simple mistake, I confused Glubb with Wingate (famous for the Chindit Campaign against the Japanese - he'd earlier 1939 been sacked from Palestine by the British for siding with the Zionists in direct opposition to British policy).
This mistake of mine (possibly the first I've made in a year and several thousand edits?) was reverted and I have coweringly apologised to the person who spotted it. Shame, because the rest of my edit is good (more detail if you want it) - but I'm much too frightened to try and improve the article now I've slipped up once.
Presently, you will start to wonder why someone already so intimidated needs watching, and why such a trivial allegation (so easily and quickly sorted and closed over 36 hours ago) was ever passed to you. If you were to examine my record in depth, you'd see I've persistently suffered really nasty and aggressive accusations over references (refs in particular, though many other things too). And yet, I'm exceptionally good and careful about references, and have been so right from my first days in the project. In an attempt to justify these allegations, all my contributions have been (and are) exhaustively and aggressively scrutinised and challenged - see my highly credible rebuttal of that particular set of 3.
That set of 3 are only the 2nd documented charge of abusing references that's ever been made against me, coming after 10 months of my participation. (The first documented charge was utterly false, as proved in great detail, though I was virtually blocked for 6 weeks over it, and forced to send a photograph of myself with the book in question to a neutral party). The editor in this second case can only find three "questionable" uses of references by me - and to do that, he's had to go right back to the beginning of my participation (that's where the first two edits come from). Even back when I was a newby, my edits were good, containing highly credible, "unsurprising" and relevant information. The references I used in those two early cases should be perfectly adequate to purpose (and likely RS to policy even for much more "surprising" claims). The third reference *is* RS, since it's a link to a satellite photograph (from a research source we should probably be using a lot, but mysteriously upsets some editors, perhaps because of the ethnicity of those who run it).
These persistent claims that "PR cheats over references" are not only untrue, they're often from people who really do insert unsuitable references. This one (Glubb/Wingate) probably comes from people who have successfully edit-warred the reference "A Study in Palestinian Duplicity and Media Indifference" into the article Battle of Jenin. That very article from CAMERA contains such material as "despite copious evidence of their blatant lying ... refuting their fictitious 'massacre'", so it's completely unsuitable to be used in the encyclopedia anyway (and would be utterly unacceptable due to separate accusations that it practises serious distortion, amounting to lies). The same people who successfully edit-warred over that nasty link then try and make out that my three good sources (one was a big group of US service men, one a big group of Israeli service-men and one a link to a photograph) have no place in the enyclopedia? How do they have the brass neck to do this? May I use a Hebrew word for their boldness, or will that lead immediately to even nastier accusations?
I'm very pleased to have you as my "Mentor" - after all, one day I might make a really serious mistake (eg use the word "chutzpah", thereby causing immense offense) and have to grovel to you to be allowed to stay on board. But you'll not find a lot of meat in the reports you're being peppered with at the moment. PRtalk09:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which reference? Everyone the slightest bit interested knows that Kiryat Gat was built in the "Faluja pocket" and al-Faluja was "emptied" not "abandoned", exactly as I've said. I have the reference I used (Morris), though there is no particular reason I should have, this story is well known and easily found on the web. The article had been stable until there was a puzzling attempt to exclude the details of this atrocity (these details particularily valuable, because they're the most detailed international eye-witness accounts of the Nakba that we have). See this, it's clear that nobody doubts my claim it happened as described. And nobody seriously doubts that Kiryat Gat is the same place as Faluja/Iraq al-Manshiyya, (though Kiryat Gat was actually built on the less famous second of these villages and the satellite picture shows that some of the ruins of Faluja have not yet been covered by Kiryat Gat). There is very aggressive partisanship going on in this article, as in so many others - but the aggression does not come from me - as both these examples prove! PRtalk09:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jaakobou refused to play ball with your clarify Jenin page and the damage he causes to lots of different pages continues. He's recently been harrassing me on my TalkPage, but he does that constantly to all sorts of people, including admins. It would not surprise me atall if he's been following all my edits and trying to build a federal case against me. Geni has apparently puzzled over two of the edits I've made - but as far as I can tell they were entirely proper (well, one was a mistake, but I'd already lain down and accepted the kicking I got for it). PRtalk22:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is under discussion and pending consensus. It is completely inappropriate to revert until a consensus is reached. If you continue edit warring, I will make a report to WP:AIV. Ward300102:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was consensus prior to the current discussion (and before the page was protected, and then unprotected) for the image to be available only if clicked "Show." That is the latest consensus until the current discussion. This is typical for you: You think you make the rules, and everyone else must follow. I repeat: Do not start an edit war. Ward300102:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have followed the page closely for many months, and I know it's status prior to the current debate. The following warning has little meaning now because your edit warring resulted in a page protection, but I'll leave the warning anyway because you deserve it:
Geni, let them have their hidden image. You are a strong debater, I'd love to have you in my corner in a fight, but I don't think this is worth it. First time I went to the page I clicked the link to the image. It was no inconvenience, I then read about the test, and went to that site that shows them all. There is no problem here worth fighting about. There are more important issues that need your attention. MarkAnthonyBoyle23:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Geni. I came across two image you uploaded while looking through Category:Public domain images: Image:PDGeorge Harrison.jpg and Image:PDRingoStarr.jpg. The source image has been deleted at Commons (see deletion log) as the image was, unfortunately, not in the public domain.
Or, if you really want to see the damage being inflicted to the encyclopedia and the severe frustration imposed on a highly qualified editor, go direct to here. PRtalk10:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The rightness or otherwise of their POV isn't that important. They are in a fairly small minority thus it is best to avoid bringing them up in general articles.Geni23:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just an historical note. David Vidal in his history of Zionism notes that the position of rejecting Zionism was the majority opinion of Orthodox Jews in Europe before 1948. The Neturei Karta carry on that tradition to the letter, one that has now become however, over several decades, very minoritarian. They hew to what was the majoritarian tradition pre-1948. Historically therefore it is not a marginal position, it only became that in the recent postwar period. I say this because their fringe view should not be confounded with the usual perception of fringe groups, but as a highly conservative residue of a losing position which once represented the consensus of Rabbinical orthodoxy, for very substantial theological reasons. Nishidani15:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou, I actually thought that situation had survived until 1967, which is what I've said, and elaborated on, here. When a religion has survived largely unchanged for 2,000 years, a sudden shift in 40 or (at most) 60 years is an aberration. With Israel apparently over the cusp, "jewsAgainstZionism" are the future. Calling them an "extreme minority" looks like an old and discredited way to treat people who are a credit to their race. The Human Race. PRtalk19:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered earlier whether you'd entered waters that were deeper than you feel comfortable with. I'm not sure it's a good idea for you to be calling devout practitioners of Judaism an "extreme minority". Especially when the only thing "extreme" about them is to be clinging on to the same Judaism we've known and (mostly) loved for 2000 years. Most people would suppose the heretics were those who deviated from the path of traditional Jewry, not those who were adhering to it. The problems for some people is that these "True Torah Jews" are preaching a message that Jews and Arabs could and did and will live in harmony together. Again, I'm not sure you really wish to manouvre yourself into a position of telling us they're guilty of a series of terminological inexactitudes. It would at least make sense to allow some reference to their eye-witness testimony to appear in the project (though, with you being my "mentor", I've agreed not to insert them again without your blessing). By the way, "extreme minority" is what almost everyone would call the Hebron settlers, whose web-site www.hebron.org.il is being repeatedly inserted into the lead at 1929 Hebron massacre. Even Israelis are pretty sick of these people now, particularly this woman, who I believe is either threatened with, or has been evicted by Israeli soldiers. I can't tell you what's happened to these lovable characters, whether they've been sent packing or not. PRtalk20:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the note about a possible means of getting someone to translate the Hebrew.
I proposed, as a courtesy to Jaakobou, that he access the Hebrew language Sefer haHebron for some details to add to the page. The understanding was that relevant material (not specified) be translated.
That book is over 400 pages long, and has a huge amount of testimony from the survivors. It could technically be harvested to write most of the page, from the perspective of those survivors.
At the moment, we are dealing with the evidence, not accepted by the standard historians, that more than one Arab policeman joined the rioters. I think sourcing the Sefer haHebron for the view that more than one did thus act, is just. I have prepared the text to admit this minority view.
However, in his refusal to translate the text, and ask me to get someone to translate this section, he is creating an extremely bad precedent that mocks my original offer to use that source. Because if I, and not he, must translate anything he cites from that 400 page document, then he could throw onto the page huge amounts of material from all over the book, and require, on the precedent set, that it is I who am obliged to verify the source, obtain assistance arduously by seeking a competent translator, and not he.
For this reason I have insisted that, as the person introducing material to clarify divergent testimonies on one specific point (he need only translate a few lines), he be obliged, as I think the foreign-language indications on verifiability suggest, and not the editors who do not know the language. To allow him to establish a precedent of this kind would be to risk overwhelming the page with Hebrew quotations that non-Hebrew reading editors could not read, and which, to understand, would involve them in endless hunts for people willing to trawl through those 400 pages.
I hope the nicety of the problem is a little clearer. It is a matter of not establishing a precedent that could lead to dangerous abuses in what is already a difficult page to edit with neutrality. RegardsNishidani16:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Geni. I must preface my remarks by saying that I am BRAND NEW to contributing to Wikipedia (I've been reading it for years and love it) and I obviously jumped in over my head. I authored this article, and it was originally tagged for speedy delete but those tags were removed once I improved the primary sources, point of view, and formatting. I was puzzled when I came back and found it deleted again with no notice, and I had a heck of a time contacting the admin who deleted it (Bumm13) as the only way of contacting him is via irc.
I updated my irc client and fired it up to find him tonight, which I did. He advised that he deleted the page at your request, and explained some of the reasoning (original research, "expose" style as opposed to neutral POV). So I am here to initiate discussion with you about the deletion of the article. I have succeeded in having a copy sent to me - I wanted to see what state it was in at the time of removal (additional edits after my last view, etc.).
I would like to rework this article and resubmit it for inclusion. I want to change the title to simply "Kimkins Diet" and approach it from a much more neutral POV with the "controversy" aspect as a subpart at the end. This would put it on par with current Wikipedia articles on other popular diets such as the Atkins Diet, Weight Watchers, Nutrisystem, and the many other diets which are the subject of currently active Wikipedia articles. There are plenty of primary sources for "Kimkins" as it got lots of major media attention several months ago, and new primary sources on the controversy aspect are appearing every day, as the details of the scam continue to come to light. I would appreciate whatever feedback you're willing to share on how to shape this up and make it Wiki-worthy. Suggestions about process are welcome also. Is this something that can be resolved just between us, or is it required that I initiate the Deletion Review process? Thanks in advance for your help! Kathycha05:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Geni, thanks for your comment about this article on my talk page. I am still learning (and feeling like I'm on a massive learning curve!) and I appreciate your patience. A couple of questions:
I got the info about your reasons for deletion second-hand and was encouraged to work with you directly on this. Would you tell me what your concerns were that prompted the summary deletion? I'd appreciate some feedback about how I can make the article more appropriate in your view. I get it about the soapbox - and FYI, I am not personally involved in any way with Kimkins (not a disgruntled former or current member, employee, customer, or anything of the sort).
Is this delete issue something that you and I can resolve, or is the only way to go through the Deletion Review process?
You're in a very, very difficult position - but you're sticking to your brief and doing your utmost to analyse the situation. I didn't agree with parts of your advice to me and said so, in most cases you accepted what I said (eg complaints trivial or wrong - one case of mistake, which had been solved 36 hours earlier).
On three occasions you set me straight. On the first occasion you told me not to make waves about policy[15], and I shut up. Then there were two edits[16][17] which suggested to me you were toeing a hard-line ideological attitude that would have a significantly distorting effect on articles. However, I quietly abided by both injunctions without complaint. If you're attacked for bias by both sides at least it says something about the integrity of your actions! PRtalk07:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why not; it seems like a worthwhile topic. Create it somewhere in your userspace, then add a link to it here, under "special stories". If you could get it in sometime before 17:00 UTC on Monday, that'd be great. Thanks, Ral315»16:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; we'll publish it tonight. By the way, if you do any other stories, note that I gave you the wrong link -- it should actually go here. Ral315»21:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Geni - over here it's being suggested that your mentorship of me was a failure. Despite my having said goodbye to you (and being forced to lodge a complaint accusing you of being biased against me), and greeting a different potential mentor, I don't feel our efforts were a failure. You're still perfectly acceptable to me as a mentor. Ball in your court, you could even share it with User:Zscout370 if that suited the two of you. Everything is in full view at my special page, we've never corresponded in e-mail or other, so there'd be no problem with sharing. PRtalk19:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your comment to them, just checking to see if my comments were too harsh or out of line (they appear above yours). I saw his comments on the Pres. Bush page and he did a minor mess up of my user page (no big deal) and created a page that was previously deleted so I did a redirect back to the correct page. If I have over stepped or have done something incorrectly, your direction would be appreciated. CelticGreen23:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did take the picture, the picture was taken at the Holiday Inn Select Downtown Convention Center in St. Louis, MO on the left side of the lobby looking over to the right. I took many more where that came from as well. I could even provide you with a picture taken of myself with my camera shaking hands with David McReynolds during that same convention. I have many blury pictures of Moore as well.
Well , in that date i still didn't read enough about wikipedia conditions of text copyrights and some other things , so i hope i'd be forgiven for this A M M A R 22:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No , Actully some newbie user wrote my initial revision of King Fahd's Fountain onto the article Jeddah , while i was cleaning up that mess i moved all this text into a new article. So i still think im not really guilty. You can review the old revisions of Jeddah A M M A R 23:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am honest confused about what you are alluding to in this comment [18]. Edit warring has been prohibited for a long time and WP:BLOCK has authorized blocking for it for a long time. Personally, I don't much care whether WP:EW is marked as policy or guideline. I think your argument against it being marked as policy - that there should be a limit on the total size of all policy pages - is novel. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's been in practice a long time. If you contest its guideline status, GO THERE. Do not try and systematically remove its existence from other guidelines and policies just because you don't agree with it. That is not how Wikipedia operates. BIGNOLE (Contact me)00:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that means you have no intention of actually going to the guideline in question and presenting your argument. Not my problem. I can show that WAF is an accepted guideline. Look at all the featured articles on fictional topics. They all meet WAF. If you have a problem with WAF, I repeat, take it up on that page, or on a noticeboard. Saying it isn't practiced and trying to remove it from being mentioned will only cause you more problems then anyone really wants. Have a good night. BIGNOLE (Contact me) —Preceding comment was added at 00:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But FAC criteria clearly state: #2 "It follows the style guidelines." WP:WAF is a manual of style. Last time I will say this, because it's obviously not sinking in. If you contest that guideline, say so over there. You can say that "It's right because it's tradition" is a "logical fallacy" all you wish, but unless you can prove consensus that WAF is not an accepted practice then you have to live with it. Wikipedia follows the idea of consensus. That means you need to initiate a discussion on all of the appropriate pages to get the most widespread opinion possible to determine consensus change. This does not mean discussing on user talk pages and going "see here, people don't like it." That means absolutely squat. Now, either start a discussion to determine current consensus regarding WP:WAF, or drop it. BIGNOLE (Contact me)00:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have to show anything. Again, if this isn't clear just let me know, you need to go to WAF and tell them that you do not believe they showed consensus in establishing WAF as a MOS. That's all I'm going to say about this any further, because you obviously are having a tough time understanding such a simple statement. Go to WAF and tell them the problem. Good night. BIGNOLE (Contact me)00:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to play around like this, please at least try to make some sense. While you're stating that you don't like FICT and WAF, so that somehow makes articles exempt from them, there are still the "big three." WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS require that notability be asserted through non-trivial information, verified through reliable sources. That means that primary information like creators, actors, voice actors, dates, and other things do not apply. So please actually try to have some sort of basis for your argument. Please reply here.-- TTN (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
""A Nightmare on Dick Street" was the two-part second season finale of the American sitcom 3rd Rock from the Sun." is an assertion of notability.Geni (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is not good enough for thissite'sstandards. From WP:N: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Note the bold part. TTN (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3rd Rock from the Sun was a fairly popual sitcom and there are no shortage of TV magazines. of course since this was back in 1997 they most likely won't be online but that doesn't mean they don't exist.Geni (talk) 22:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can speculate about how likely sources should be all day, but it will not change the fact that it is speculation. As it is impossible to disprove an assertion like that, and there is no actual way to show that it is unlikely ("Well, you didn't look hard enough."/"Well, the sources will be found in the next few weeks."), it is up to you or someone that wants to keep the article to prove it. There is also the fact that it won't be hard to bring the article back whenever the information may become available. TTN (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, we don't leave non-notable articles around if sources are not clearly available. You cannot just claim that it will be improved in ten years and leave it at that. TTN (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We make educated assements as to the likelyhood of sources. Vijayanta has no sources but we know there have been enough books that cover every single post WW2 tank published to be sure they exist (well that and that it had a production run of over 2000). We know that there will be sources for the Hatherton Canal and Coventry Canal (obviously there will be Hadfield there will be others). In the case of TV there is massive market for TV guides and the like with the result is that anyhalfway propopular program will be have multiple refs.Geni (talk) 23:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Real world people, objects, and locations are a different story, so don't even bring them up. Your theory has absolutely no actual basis in reality at this point. Only a small number of episodes have shown promise at this point, and only two or three series are guaranteed to have most of their episodes given articles. Other series only have one or two each, and these series range from popular to fairly obscure. TTN (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Novels, television shows, video games, comic books, and other pieces of main media are also in a different league. Only the bits and pieces (episodes, characters, ect) can be compared. With that specific example, it is a novel, so yes, but that does not apply to episodes. Generally, the actual show receives all of the attention, while episodes need to be special cases. Only in the case of a show like the Simpsons do the episodes as a whole receive enough individual coverage to actually matter. TTN (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For one example, take a look at our good episode articles. The majority are from the Simpsons. Pretty much all of them will reach this point eventually. You then have a couple from other popular series like South Park, Family Guy and The West Wing. These are popular, but there is no guarantee that even more than ten episodes of each series will become good. Then there are just random episodes like I'll See You in Court, Green Wing Special, The Year of the Sex Olympics. These aren't especially popular, and only the one episode has an article for the series. If you need "exact evidence", please provide evidence that all episodes of any slightly popular show have potential. TTN (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe in ten years there will be expansive guides for every single show that do more than just retell the plot like most current guides, but that is not the case now. The fact is that we do not have detailed articles on most episodes, so that assertion hold no water. To have a backing, you would need to be able to point out a few random, mildly popular series that have detailed real world coverage for most or all of the episodes. You cannot do that. TTN (talk) 01:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea. They just need to be any sort of mildly popular shows (like the second tier shows on FOX). As I said, no shows on this site currently do that, so there is no point in looking. TTN (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying that I can't think of any good examples to answer a fairly random question about some random genre. Please just stay on track. TTN (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zee intial example was a sitcom so it seems logical to continue with sitcoms. So can you name a current mildy popular sitcom? You also might want to consider how many sources almost any article on wikipedia had 2 years ago.Geni (talk) 03:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I can't stand laugh tracks. Anyways, if these can be improved in two years, they can be brought back in two years. There is no way to leave them around without applying sources. TTN (talk) 03:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being proud of your ingnoreance is not a step forward. Experence suggests that leaveing something around increases the chance of it being improved. If you had real editing experence you would know that.Geni (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that I had to look up 'Til Death to name it ddoes not make me ignorant. It just means that I don't know of a fairly popular show in a category that I rarely watch because I find the whole thing annoying. It would be like asking someone that watches CSPAN all of the time to name a mildly popular (mildly, not American Idol popular) reality show. Anyways, leaving them around for good chunk of time is different than leaving them around indefinitely, especially when we have a good process of development (Main article > Episode list > Single episodes) that works well when actually used, and practice has shown that most of these articles do not have potential. TTN (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Large scale editing on a subject you don't know much about is generaly inadvisable. 3rd Rock from the Sun was sold to quite a number of non US countries "'Til Death" doesn't appear to have been. So either 3rd Rock from the Sun was more than fairly popular or 'Til Death isn't fairly popular.Geni (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not even try to use that argument. It is just one of the many cop out arguments that is presented very often. The notability of the show has nothing to do with the notability of the episodes or any other sub-topic. It increases the likelihood for sources, but that is all it does. Unless a certain standard is set (multiple good articles for that series), all episodes of the series must assert notability or be redirected. TTN (talk) 23:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If something is sold to mutiple countries that means that increases the number of TV magazines that can consider writeing about it thus increases the likelyhood of their being sources. Or are you trying to suggest there are no TV based magazines outside the US?Geni (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a higher likelihood that sources exist, but without proof, it is just speculation. Pure speculation with nothing to back it is not enough to leave an article around. To bring the article back, all you have to do is show that the assertion actually has some sort of basis in reality. This goes back to that statement from WP:V, so there should be no arguing there. TTN (talk) 23:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the edit summary of "used by Japanese game developer WARP in the D series of video games is real world information", didn't we just go over that? I'm pretty sure we concluded that that was not enough, so we moved on to the likelihood of acceptable sources. TTN (talk) 22:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um no. Any conclusion was that you couldn't defend the criteria you were useing (after I pointed out they would result in the deltion of a Charlotte Brontë novel) so we switched to disscussing a more rational way of doing things.Geni (talk) 22:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The potential for one group is different than another. One can rationalize that an unsourced novel may become better over a period of time (though there still will be non-notable ones), though if enough time passes, it may be better to redirect. With television episodes, that is not the case. Aside from a couple of major series, only random episodes here and there are improved, so without concrete proof, nothing is even close to guaranteed. You are the one without a case here. TTN (talk) 23:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No because for your case to be true you would have to show why novels are more likely to have sources than sitcom epersodes.Geni (talk) 23:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't that be quite obvious? Many novels are subject to reviews, many writers talk about the process that goes into writing them, and then there are other factors like controversy and expanded publicity. Episodes are subject to individual review much, much less. Mostly, the actual show and entire seasons/DVD sets are reviewed instead. Only certain episodes are reviewed in depth for some series, while the couple of big ones that I have mentioned receive it for most of the episodes. With development, most shows do not have enough to warrant inclusion or they just don't bother with it at all. Controversy and the like is rather rare for episodes, but it is usually the deciding factor for keeping the article. TTN (talk) 23:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate it if you and others don't do anything that could result in me or members of my family in being sued by di Stefano. Thanks, SqueakBox23:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a policy against it? Because I couldn't find one. Usually I wouldn't include author's names but Andrew Speers kindly asked I include it in exchange for changing the license and making the image usable. He even notified me today that they had been removed, so I have restored them for now. As said, if there is a clear policy against attributing authors names in captions, even if they request it, then please tell me and of course remove the names. Thanks. Gran221:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You recently tagged this article as containing copyrighted material, but provided no other information besides the link- there is no discussion about the possible infringement on the talk page, nor did you list the page under Wikipedia:Copyright_problems as far as I can tell. Perhaps you felt that the link was sufficient information to report the infringement, but I'm a bit confused as to what you see the issue to be. Perhaps I didn't see the specific paragraphs that were copied from the article or just didn't notice them, but I would appreciate it if you would explain why you placed the tag. CrazyChemGuy (talk) 00:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, I was searching for the "Jeddah Fountain" in Copyright Problems, as it was named in the copyrighted article, instead of "King Fahd's Fountain". Sorry for my mix up! CrazyChemGuy (talk) 00:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Based on some of your previous comments at Talk:Justin Berry, you might be interested in the ongoing discussion over whether (and under what circumstances) GFDL is revocable, which touches on the question of what happens if Wikipedia is perceived to have violated the terms of the GFDL, with me asking specifically whether that would allow an editor to terminate our license to use his or her contributions. --Ssbohio (talk) 11:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to continue to eliminate the "No Free Image" images when I see them. They don't belong in an encyclopedia that is geared towards use by the general public. It isn't an idea that has been clearly thought through. The editors placing these images in articles could use that time so much more productively by finding CC-authorized images of celebrities on Flickr and copying them over. Nobody would need to undo those sorts of contributions. --AStanhope (talk) 01:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the user who added the external link to theleadingarticles.com website on the Article_marketing page.
You removed it saying: "link doesn't appear to be particualrly useful"
I think adding a link to an article directory is needed on that page. I added the link to theleadingarticles.com website because it's the main one I'm using for my article distribution (when I submit there my articles are broadcasted to other directories) but if you think this website doesn't fit don't hesitate to add an external link to another directory. There are tons of them!
What is important imho is to show to this page' readers the kind of websites used for article marketing.
Sure it's described in the article, but what is the use of external links then? Isn't it to show websites related to what has been described in the article? This is done in hundreds if not thousands of pages on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.194.180.201 (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact it was in response to an BLP OTRS request by a different person, also named "Russell Bishop", and is a predictable recurring problem. Would you be willing to reconsider and reinstate the tag, or discuss it further? Thanks.
A hatnote disambiguation doesn't always do the trick. In this case we have a disambiguation to a non-notable person who will probably never merit an article, which clearly isn't a viable solution in general. Suppose there is no other "Russell Bishop" that's notable for an article, and no article/s to disambiguate to? If a hatnote is the answer then would you agree to rewrite the drafted template as a hatnote? But I think we need some note for the top of articles, for such cases where disambiguation isn't applicable. FT2(Talk | email)18:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right now we have a pointless disambiguation page, and a redlink to an unwanted article, that will probably never exist, to a non-notable person, and the article "Russell Bishop" renamed to "Russell Bishop (sex ofender)" because of this problem arising. Evidently, saying "it's not our problem" doesn't work when the subject is a Russell Bishop emailing us to ask that we make clear our Russel Bishop, the convicted pedophile, isn't him. BLP overrides convenience, and these changes were made for that reason, even if "most people should realize". If a hatnote is your view as to the best answer, can we agree to a standard hatnote for such articles so we don't need to create artificial DABs and redlinks to non-notable subjects next time? FT2(Talk |
I think we might be misunderstanding each other. I'm not stating an agreement or otherwise with the issue, or with what "people should comprehend". My concern is this. For better or worse, the response of OTRS to a case where a Mr. Russell Bishop emailed complaining that the article on a pedophile was the first hit on his name, was not to say "too bad, people should understand that's not you". It was to create extra (NN) redlinks and disambiguations that will probably never be encyclopedically useful. Given a choice of creating dud articles, or a hatnote, I prefer the hatnote. That's my thinking. The option to say "sorry, we're not doing anything" seems to be ruled out by OTRS decisions. You have also stated you think that in general it's a non-issue, but at most, a hatnote would be the most one would do. I'm fine with a hatnote as a general solution too, and concur that a hatnote for where no DAB page exists and we don't wish to have one, is a neat answer. In this case the DAB page should be removed if we can, as there is no other Russell Bishop genuinely being disambiguated. Are we misunderstanding or miscommunicating something? If so, please clarify? Thoughts? FT2(Talk | email)18:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Anomie⚔13:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hey geni i wos just wondering...it wos quite sometime ago in fact last year november 7 and i edited eltham wildcats basketball club page and a nasty reply was posted and then my account wos bloked and it said it had been by u...were u the one who rote all tha bad stuff about "jrjsamartgis" (username) name Jake Samartgis...
Hi geni. I was reading the mailing list, and noticed this post by an "Anthony". I was unable to work out which Anthony this is, but he says "No one has suggested allowing bots to create such stubs, after all." Could you point out the existence of User:Polbot, which creates such stubs from databases for politicians and animals and plants. The arguments Steve Bennett raised about stubs overwhelming volunteer manpower seem to apply in reality here. And wasn't there that bot that created stubs about geographical places based on US Census data (User:Rambot)? Or was Anthony being sarcastic? Carcharoth (talk) 03:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Discussion copied from the article talk page for your convenience...)
The section I just removed contained as a source a link to http://nz.news.yahoo.com/071030/3/287t.html . But at least at this moment, this is a 404 not found! The topic of the removed paragraph has to do with the question of whether or not Mr. di Stefano has claimed that the John di Stefano convicted in 1986 was a different person (a cousin). I find this question poorly covered in the remaining sources, and actually of very minor importance in any event to his overall biography. Mr. Giovanni flatly denies that he has ever made this claim.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried and failed. Did you look at the other references you restored? Two of them do not even mention the name "John" that I can see! Can you check them to double check my work? And if the other two references are not valid, remove them? Notice, too, that in your restoration you have Wikipedia asserting as fact something which is very much in dispute. It will be better to simply leave it that the New Zealand Herald makes the claim. Giovanni denies it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I noticed you expressed interest in the Birmingham meetup last October. Just letting you know, another UK meetup is in planning stages, here. We need input on where and when we will meet so comments would be much appreciated. Thanks. Majorly (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The five seconds are the start times at 50 meters into the event. It you look at each event, there are two records in the class. One is for the start of the heat while the other is for the track time. I hope this helps. Chris (talk) 01:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you're actually being serious about this, or if you're just trying to be annoying, but leave the article as a redirect unless you have sources for it. It's quite obvious that you understand that we don't leave articles around because of trivial references. Given your edits, I assume that you're talking about the quote used in the episode relating to The Day the Clown Cried. I cannot fathom any other motive than you trying to be annoying if that's the case. TTN (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [19]. --Maniwar (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Man Who Killed Batman. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the duration of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2, no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character; nor un-redirect or un-delete any currently redirected or deleted article on such a topic, nor apply or remove a tag related to notability to such an article. Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight, and to block any editors that persist in making them after being warned of this injunction.
As noted in the text of the injunction, this restriction is in effect until the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 case is officially closed by a clerk, following a successful motion to close by the arbitrators. Please note that, for the purposes of enforcement (c.f. the final line of the text of the injunction), all parties in this case at the time of this message (link) have been notified of this injunction.
Actually, the end caption says non-profit not non-commercial. I don't think they're the same thing, non-profit simply means the video cannot be sold or distributed for financial gain, while non-commercial means the item in question cannot be used by an organization other than a 501(c) not for profit or educational institution, (and thus would violate the GFDL.)Mr Senseless (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Derivatives are not the issue here, the video has been released under a very broad license that unless I'm reading it incorrectly, permits redistribution. I'm going to further research this situation. Mr Senseless (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see your point. I wasn't aware that the link you gave me was adopted by Wikimedia as a resolution. I'll see that the video is removed, and I now wonder if the associated screenshots on the article should also be removed. Mr Senseless (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Let's try to work out this matter without edit warring. First, the secondary sources, would not normally be sufficient in and of themselves, but because the Cleveland Plain Dealer establishes the matter, using the other sources to details other aspects of Pesta's position not in the CPD is not unreasonable. These include:
The fact that Pesta spoke with the site's founder, who personally made a promise to protect the profile. This is relevant for obvious reasons.
Pesta's attempts to rectify the matter by contacting customer service. This is relevant because it establishes that the deletion was not a mistake, and that proper channels were attempted before it became a public matter.
A petition that Pesta circulated, and a comment by a Harvard Law chaplain on the matter. This is relevant because it establishes the opinions of others on the matter, including a prominent Ivy League figure who may not be biased by a direct affiliation with the group (given that he's a chaplain, and the group is an atheist one).
The new profile that Pesta has. This is relevant as an external link for the same reason that External links in general are a necessary part of any WP article. They allow readers to read Pesta's comments, as well as allow skeptics to decide if his position has merit (since they may conclude that the fact that he now has another MySpace profile mitigates his allegations).
Which of these things would you argue is not relevant to the matter?
Your second argument is that this is "really a minor event on a site of the magnitude of myspace does not warrent this level of coverage". This is a completely different argument, and entirely subjective. The information placed in an article is not determined by vague measurements of the subject's "magnitude", as any article topic may details aspects that a reader may deem a "minor" or "major". Because the material you deleted is relevant to the incident in question, it is an appropriate part of its coverage, and does not represent an inordinate "level" of it. None of this constitutes using Wikipedia as a "platform for someone's battle", any more than any of the other points of Criticism in that section. Nightscream (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"But not properly sourced" Of course it's properly sourced. The material in question is Pesta's allegation. The only source it needs is one in which he makes it. A source doesn't have to confirm an allegation as a question of fact, it merely has to source the allegation.
"The quality of myspace's customer service has nothing to do with religious descrimination" Please do not engage me with Straw Man arguments. I made the context of his attempts with customer service quite clear above, and I did not indicate anything about the quality of the customer service, or that it had anything to do with religious discrimination. This is the second time I've noticed you not reading something pertinent regarding this manner (the first having been your ignoring that one of the sources was the Cleveland Plain Dealer). Please respond to my actual statements, okay?
"Pesta does work in academia. Far from imposible that they know each other. In any case I would tend to argue that the opinions of someone who actualy deals with IT would be more relivant." I did not say they didn't know each other. As for the second sentence, I do not know what you mean by this.
"Err we do not include external links in the flow of the article text."Wikipedia: External links says that we typically do not. This may mean that there are some instances where it's allowable. I normally do not put in-line external links in the text, but the reason I did so here is because the text itself referred to that website. But even if you feel this doesn't justify an inline external link, the solution would be to convert it to a linked footnote, rather than deleting it outright.
"The matter isn't really relivant. None of the above appears in a reliable source thus has no place in the article." And I offered my response to that. Instead of my responding to my argument, you're merely repeating your original statement. Please respond to my counterargument.
"As for magnitude of the event wikipedia is smaller than myspace and the current Muhammad image fuss is bigger than what we are talking about. Does get mentioned in the wikipedia article." I have no idea what you mean by this. What does the relative size of Wikipedia to MySpace have to do with what goes into a Wikipedia article? What does Mohammed have to do with this? I see no mention of Mohammed in the article. Nightscream (talk) 19:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does say email but it wont come up on a word search of the Stefano link as it is written 'e mail'. I think the editor's I.P address should be blocked for verbal abuse if its possible. --maxrspctping me19:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Template:Multilicensefromownerbuilding requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Thanks for uploading Image:Kaarebluitgenmohammedbookcov.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
"At this point with only a little over a month left to run before the foundation policy is finalised we have little choice but to use BCB style tactics." - would you consider commenting at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria compliance? I also raised these issues at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#How_to_handle_the_WMF_non-free_image_deadline and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Avoiding_drama_with_Betacommandbot_during_March_2008. I would be particularly interesetd in your views on my question in the former section: Is it possible to determine which images should and should not be deleted after 23 March 2008? I get the impression with your "only a little over a month left" comment that you expect some wholesale deletion to occur after that deadline passes. If so, what criteria should be used? This needs to be discussed before the deadline, otherwise some "deletionist" will get the idea that they can narrowly interpret what is "unacceptable" and run riot deleting loads of non-free images. For what it is worth, I have suggested that the 7-day system currently in operation be continued for old and new uploads (even if they haven't all been tagged in time), and it seems that Anthere agrees with me.
I've also asked for data on the numbers of images involved. It would help if you gave an idea of the numbers involved. The impression I had was that the BCB bot runs were on course to finish about now, and that we were handling things OK. ie. there is no big backlog, apart from the latest runs. But maybe Betacommand will update us on the stats? Carcharoth (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would have done the image tagging by upload date to avoid mixing up recent uploads with older uploads.
I would have spread the load evenly over the last year (say, a run every week) to avoid admins feeling the need to delete thousands of images to clear large backlogs, or tagged everything at once with a deadline of a whole year, with a group set up to divide up the work needed and work on shorter deadlines.
I would have at least attempted to make a clear distinction between images of contemporary culture (modern album covers and logos and book covers) and historic, educational images (with some arbitrary date dividing line, as needed), and set up a specialist group to deal with unclear copyrights and historic images, of which there aren't actually that many. It would have been easy to separate them out.
I would have done more updates on runs and numbers of images. Betacommand's four phases were helpful, but he just didn't give regular or consistent updates. Ocassionally he worked on-wiki with others, but the impression was more that he worked alone or off-wiki with other bot programmers.
The depressing thing is that these issues were raised, but nothing really seemed to get done. The FAQs and image upload help desk and other (already-existing) noticeboards did help. There was a real feeling of powerlessness in all this. I tried to get some changes made (and asked Betacommand several times to make some changes), but the inertia against change is immense, and the momentum Betacommand and others built up was difficult to rein in as well. Having said that, I'm not Betacommand, and this year and his work probably was needed in the long-run. I just wish it could have been handled better. There were good-faith editors riled by this, as well as the editors who fail to understand what "free content" is, let alone the drive-by image uploaders, most of whom probably still haven't noticed that anything has changed. Anyway, sorry for offloading on your talk page (I will point out this post to Betacommand, as I think he should know I've said all this). Looking forward, would you consider helping to change things to work differently after the March deadline for future uploads? If I can get a group of people together to work on various proposals, it should be possible to get a group of bots together to handle stuff that Betacommand doesn't do (by choice or not, I don't know) so that there is less fall-out from BetacommandBot's tagging. That might reduce drama in future. Carcharoth (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your copyvios comment over at ANI (and replied there), but wanted to bring some of the questions here as well. Could you give some examples of the copyvios you found in the random flick through image namespace. Incidentially, on Special:Specialpages I found Special:Randomredirect and Special:Random, but nothing for random images. Maybe Special:Randomimage? If it does exist (maybe under another name) could it be added to that page? Carcharoth (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. It seems that most user talk pages have image deletion tag warnings on them... And most Wikipedia pages are something called "articles for deletion". I'm sure this means something, but not quite sure what! Carcharoth (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Ptatchell.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Hello Geni, I noticed you revert vandalism, occasionally, but correctly. I was wondering if you'd like to be given rollback rights on your account. I understand you're a former administrator, and therefore I assume you know both how to use rollback, and understand it's for vandalism-reversion. Acalamari19:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. TTN(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly. However, he is free to contribute on the talk pages or to comment on any AfD, RfD, DRV, or similar discussion initiated by another editor, as appropriate. Enforcement of this remedy is specified here.
Furthermore, the parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question, and are warned that the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute. Please also note that the temporary injunction enacted by the Committee on February 3 in relation to this case now ceases to be in effect.
Greetings...we haven't personally interacted much, but I saw some of your comments on homeopathy, and I thought that you might benefit from know about this review of in-vitro studies. A review of 67 in vitro studies, three-fourths of which have been replicated with positive results by independent investigators. [Claudia M. Witt, Michael Bluth, Henning Albrecht The in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies—A systematic review of the literature. Complementary Therapies in Medicine. Volume 15, Issue 2, June 2007, Pages 128-138. doi:10.1016/j.ctim.2007.01.011] The researchers of this review concluded, “Even experiments with a high methodological standard could demonstrate an effect of high potencies.” However, they also acknowledge, “No positive result was stable enough to be reproduced by all investigators.” This last statement is not damning to homeopathy (IMO). I like the fact that researchers are honest when they have positive results AND when they have negative results. The most important point in this review is that there is much more replication work that has been done than most people realize. Read the article yourself. Enjoy. DanaUllmanTalk02:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Geni, I got your message but didn't get a sense whether you read it or not. I suggest that you try to maintain a scientific attitude (double-blind doesn't mean that you close both of your eyes). Take this advice in the constructive way in which it is offered. DanaUllmanTalk13:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dana, I suggest you learn a lot more science and maybe take some introductory courses at your local high-school, as your understanding of science is severely lacking. Take this advice in the constructive way in which it is offered. _-81.173.31.91 (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)-_[reply]
Thanx for the advice, but based on your talk page, you might consider getting your house in order...and you might consider reading the above review of research...and you might avoid using an open proxy...and DanaUllmanTalk17:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, just so you know, I've added some more optional questions to your Request for Adminship. Thanks for your time, and good luck. Hersfold(t/a/c)16:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A Beautiful Cherry Tree in Spring BloomTheres nothing like seeing a field full of spring flowers.
Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~
If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
A tag has been placed on Image:1x1pixel.PNG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:1x1pixel.PNG|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Kellyhi!04:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I came across Image:CheriYecke.jpg, which is tagged as PD, but it's pretty obvious from the uploader's summary that it isn't PD. I'm not sure whether this should be listed at PUI, Copyright problems, or what exactly. Since I just reverted an edit by the uploading editor (who is fairly new), I also believe that I'm probably not the best one to handle this issue. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 02:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[Here], you say that protection has failed. However, there is no record of the semi protection ever being elevated to full, which would obviously be a prerequisite for the failure of the protection system. I'm curious as to why the protection log doesn't indicate that full protection was used, and why it was downgraded to semi. Thanks, CelarnorTalk to me23:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
-2007-05-15T02:30:00.000Z-Image:Ads.jpg){kind=link}
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Anomie⚔ 13:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
