User talk:Hux/Archive1

Joint Combat Pistol

What are you doing? The Heckler & Koch pistol competing for the JCP contract is the HK45 not USP 45. You clearly should have checked the talk page before reverting my correction. Oh, and I own two USPs so I should know. Haizum 00:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to see an HK45, see these direct image links: 1 2 3 4 5 Originating thread. Haizum 00:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I was just trying to add links where there were none and made what turns out to be a bad assumption after looking through H&K's product list. Apologies for not checking the talk page first, but there's no need to be a dick about it. -- Hux 08:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You didn't consider the possibility that the military's desire for a new pistol might actually require a new pistol to be built. What there is no need for are Londoners trying to edit pages regarding firearms. Haizum 05:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm just giving you a hard time man, no real offense meant. We Yanks are really crazy about our guns; feel free to poke fun at that. Haizum 05:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

No big deal. But FYI, I am American, so saying "there is no need for...Londoners trying to edit pages regarding firearms" is off the mark (no pun intended!) in its implication. -- Hux 07:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, right, didn't see that. Welcome to the party then!Haizum 15:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Central Asia

Hi, I'm trying to start some sort of working group to improve the coverage of Central Asia and related topics in Wikipedia. Leave a message on my userpage if you're interested. Aelfthrytha 04:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

DST in Kyrgyzstan

Please check out Kyrgyzstan now. Is that something more to what you were envisioning? Please respond at Template_talk:Infobox_Country#Time_zone_question. —MJCdetroit 17:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Central Asia

WikiProject Central Asia has finally been created! If you're interested, please consider joining us. Aelfthrytha 21:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Replied to you rcomment on the talk page. Aelfthrytha 18:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Living in Kyrgyzstan, cool

I don't suppose you have a blog? I've been meaning to visit for a while... - FrancisTyers ·

Right here! - I haven't updated it in the last month (sickness, traveling and the World Cup took their toll) but the entries go back to Oct 2005 and I will be getting back into the blogging rhythm again very soon. Enjoy! -- Hux 18:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Hux! Thank you very much for offering me help with Wikipedia articles. And sorry for answering too late. :) I've just read your blog, and I share most of your thoughts about Tbilisi and Istanbul. :) Bektour 15:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Photos

Thanks for the offer! I tagged all the Kyrgyzstan-geo-stubs that would benefit from having pictures added, and I created a new category for them because it (strangely) didn't exist. Here it is: Requested photographs of Kyrgyzstan. Aelfthrytha 21:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: Italian Wikipedia

Would you able to write a report about the Italian Wikipedia for the Wikipedia Signpost? See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-07-31/Interwiki report for an example of what you need to do. Please tell me if you can do this. You would need to do this in the days coming up to August 28. Carmelapple 21:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I know very little about Italy in general and nothing about the Italian Wikipedia. I also speak about three words in Italian. Kind of confused why you're asking me if I can do this! I'll say no, but grazie for considering me, or something! -- Hux 08:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Really? You seem to have a lot on your Italian page. You do know Italian, don't you? Carmelapple 14:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not my page. It's just someone else with the same nickname as me. As you can see here, I don't speak Italian. :) -- Hux 06:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Ansari

Hi Actually wanted to correct an information. Ansari is born Mashhad and she is not Azerbaijani. She speakes Persian, French and English[1] and some russian. --Ayadgar 20:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, several sources online suggest that ethnically she is Azeri. Do you have any evidence to support your claim that she is not? I don't think it would be wise for Wikipedia to simply take your word for it! -- Hux 06:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes she is born in Mashhad which is not an Azeri city. And she only speaks three languages according to the source above: Farsi, French and English. [2] [3]. I haven't seen any reliable source otherwise(except a newspaper from the republic of Azerbaijan which has a strong nationalistic fervor) whereas the NY-times article is reliable and her place of birth is in Mashhad. I guess we can't be sure until more interviews are given perhaps in the future. --Ayadgar 07:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi.

Please explain how the Ansari image "violates copyright law" when it has been uploaded as fairuse. If it makes you feel better, we can mention the BBC or Getty or whoever else as a source too. It wont make a difference as far as Fairuse laws are concerned. Please explain.--Zereshk 17:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see my comments regarding this on the Anousheh Ansari talk page. Thanks. -- Hux 19:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Ugly Betty premise

I see that you've edited the article in question; did you catch its premise? =) Please respond on my talk page if you have the time. Never Mystic (tc) 23:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm watching the American version of the show, which premiered last week. (She falls in love with him? I think you spoiled that for me. =|) It's quite interesting thus far, but seems to be somewhat clichéd, if you asked me. Never Mystic (tc) 02:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Zamira sydykova.jpg

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

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Rossrs 05:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

What criteria are used to tag images for deletion under the First Fair Use criterion?

You asked: "A copyrighted image I uploaded (Image:Zamira sydykova.jpg) has recently been tagged for deletion on the basis that it supposedly violates Wikipedia's First Fair Use criterion (i.e. that a free image could reasonably used in its place). What is the criteria for tagging images like this in this way? Given that it's well nigh impossible to find freely usable images of this person my assumption is that it was tagged purely because it is a copyrighted image being used under a Fair Use rationale. If I'm right then that doesn't make a lot of sense. For the tag to be meaningful it presupposes that some copyrighted images pass the "First Fair Use" test and others fail it, but I really can't see how this one fails that test. I get the impression that the editor added the tag purely because it is a copyrighted image. Can anyone shine some light on the procedure here? (PS Please reply to my talk page. Thanks!)"

If the image is used solely to depict a living person (and assuming the person is not in hiding or something), the image fails WP:FUC because a replacement free image could be created. That we have not yet found a freely licensed image is unimportant. A great many images currently fail this criteria and it will take quite some time for people to find and tag all (or a reasonable number) of them, but the work is ongoing. --Yamla 15:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to say I'm confused as to the interpretation here. In the past I thought that the general rule was that if there is no free image it's okay to use a copyrighted one under the terms of Fair Use until a free image can be found. Did this rule change or was I misinterpreting it all along? If it changed and the new rule is that we can't use copyrighted images in the event that it's simply possible to produce a free image then that rules out a vast number of images and in many cases makes it very hard to locate a free version. For example, say there is a copyrighted image of a particular Antarctic location but no freely usable version is available. Are we really saying that we can't use the copyrighted image merely because it's possible for someone to go to Antarctica, photograph the location and release the image for free use? That seems more than a little...excessive! -- Hux 12:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Orange Smarties

I have listed a possible reference to orange Smarties on the talk page, see if you like the look of it. Mr Stephen 11:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice work! I can't think of a better reference than Nestle itself. I knew I was right! ;) -- Hux 12:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I added a reference to a book at the talk page. Someone else added the link to Nestle. Theirs is better. Mr Stephen 12:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yerzhan Ashykbayev

Hi, if you have the time I would like your input on whether to delete the article on Yerzhan Ashykbayev, the Foreign Ministry spokesman of the Government of Kazakhstan. Thanks, KazakhPol 18:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Input duly given. Thanks for the heads up! -- Hux 18:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for voting. KazakhPol 04:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Constitution of Kyrgyzstan

Your expertise on the new Constitution of Kyrgyzstan would be greatly appreciated as I have had absolutely no help so far. If the news reports on the constitution are not incorporated soon, they will be taken down and good info will be hard to find when Western media stops taking an interest in it. This at least I suspect as I have had great difficulty in finding good info on the current Ministers of Kazakhstan. KazakhPol 04:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm on it. Thanks. -- Hux 06:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Constitution in Russian

Thanks, I've sent you a copy via email. KazakhPol 05:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Woah! I'm afraid that's way beyond my capabilities. Quite aside from the complexity, I'm afraid I just don't have the time to attempt to translate something that long! Sorry. -- Hux 17:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Borat vandals

All of the Borat-vandals seem to be unable to differentiate between Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. It's so annoying and it is depressing to think Americans cant even identify Kazakhstan-related pages when they want to vandalize them. KazakhPol 06:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's annoying, but I see two silver linings: first, soon the Constitution of Kyrgyzstan link will disappear from the main page, along with the vandals, and second, Borat wouldn't be funny if everyone in the West knew more about Central Asia. I think I'd rather have a funny Borat than a few less idiots. :) -- Hux 14:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Kyrgyzstan

Thanks for the compliment re my edits to Kyrgyzstan. As you know, I changed stuff around to improve the style, but you may have noticed that I left in some otherwise dubious or contradictory passages. I don't have the information to amend or delete. As you are on the scene, I wondered if you have anything to say about, e.g., the mineral wealth? (Lots of petroleum or not very much? Both are stated in geography and economy.) Any ideas? BrainyBabe 13:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well-spotted on the mineral wealth issue. The "Geography" section was definitely wrong - there are oil and natural gas deposits but they're not in any significant quantity, as the "Economy" section correctly notes.

Are there any other dubious parts that you spotted? -- Hux 18:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for following that up. I can't see anything else at the moment, but I'm not entirely satisfied with the article yet. BrainyBabe 16:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Karakol_cathedral.jpg

Hello, I have copied one of your images Image:Karakol_cathedral.jpg from the English Wiki to Wiki Commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Karakol_cathedral.jpg . I suggest that you may conider doing your future uploads into the Commons, rather than the en.wikipedia, as it will allow better categorization of the images and will make it easy to use them in all Wiki projects, not just the English Wikipedia. With best regards, Vladimir. Vmenkov 21:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/History of Central Asia

Your input on this F.A.R. is desired. KazakhPol 02:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hogarth (s) House

Hi Hux. I note you corrected the name of this article. Do you have any reliable source to substantiate this correction? --RichardVeryard 16:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth I was born in Hammersmith, lived there for 15 years, and spent another three years here, approximately half a mile from the house, which I would walk past nearly every day, past the road sign at the roundabout that reads, "Hogarth House". It's also worth noting that a Google search for "Hogarth House" yields 19,400 hits versus 1,240 for "Hogarth's House".

If we're really that desperate to solidly source evidence for this I suppose I could ask my mother to take a photo of the road sign, since she still lives in Hammersmith. :) -- Hux 17:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Hux. I added a bit to the discussion on the name of Hogarth's House, and have only now discovered how to look at your page. What I said before is this: "I visited the house 28 Feb 2007 to check on the name. The displays have several early references to the form 'Hogarth House' with no possessive - OS map of 1860s, ditto 1890s, and bill of sale of the house dated 25 November 1901. However, then name then changed to 'Hogarth's House' as shown on the 30 May 1904 Daily Graphic article on the inaugural dinner of the museum, and later on the reopening on 24 September 1951. The very helpful and knowledgeable lady on duty there assured me that the correct name does have the possessive, and has had since it became a museum. The road signs, and the signs on the outside of the house itself, are all for 'Hogarth's House'.

So I think the article title should be changed back to 'Hogarth's House'. Presumably this can be done whilst keeping the later changes, so is not a simple reversion. I will look up how to do this in a day or so, but if anyone else would like to make the change, please go ahead. Patche99z 18:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)"

So the road signs definitely use the possessive case, and so does the notice on the gate of the house itself, and I can only assume that the road signs were corrected at some stage. The change in name may well have gone unnoticed by the sign makers for some time.

I think the name should be changed back - but I have not yet found out how to do this without losing the later changes, discussions, etc.. Patche99z 12:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just done it! After reading the above it seems your info on this is more accurate than my recollection!

And FYI, moving pages is a straightforward, two-step process:

1. Click the "Move" tab at the top of its page and follow the instructions.
2. Go to the renamed page, click the "what links here" link on the left and check that any pages linking to the old name are updated to reflect the new one.

-- Hux 19:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. You will have realised that I am a newbie on Wikipedia, and am learning the techniques needed to have useful inputs. Your info is very helpful. Patche99z 11:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The New Central Asia project page

Hi

I revised (a bit radically) the navigation system of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Central Asia. You are a member of the project, I would appreciate if you would compare with the old page and give a feedback on the talk page. Thanks. cs 22:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Andijan poll

Hi, I would like your opinion on this. Regards, KazakhPol 18:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Moving debate form Politkovskaya talk

I do not think I am misunderstanding you, but rather disagreeing with the points you're making, although not to the degree preventing both of us from working on the article in constructive fashion. English has been my language of communication, work and education (including university education) for last 7 years (I am bilingual, I think in English, a degree in English, about to have the second one), so I believe myself to be proficient enough to understand you (though I'm certainly too lazy to check on my grammar and spelling in any language I know, which I agree is a bad habit).Lost Angel 22:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You did misunderstand, but it was about a side-issue that isn't really important to the article, so I don't want to dwell on it. Your English is very good, by the way, I could just tell that you're not a native speaker, that's all. I'm guessing your native language is Russian, given the topic and given that you're a little sketchy with definite/indefinite articles in English. Did I guess correctly? For my part, my native language is English and I also have an English degree (language/literature/journalism). My Russian, however, could do with some major improvement! -- Hux 09:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

If I did - my bad. Thank you for compliments regarding my language skills, like anything else they too can be improved. It has been years since I studied the language itself and by now is pretty much hard-wired, meaning I don't consciously address the grammar rules when writing and definite/indefinite articles must've been "wired" worse. My native is Russian, yes - I've indicated it in my profile page, however, I'm not living there for 7 years now. My first high school degree is History and Theory of Arts and Literature and by the end of the summer I'll have an MA in Intercultural Humanities. As to your Russian, I am wishing for a fast improvement, providing you have some use for it and wish to learn it further. :)Lost Angel 11:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism accusation

Why did you accuse HanzoHattori of inserting copyrighted material when the material was actually first added by Vlad fedorov? Kaldari 20:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm rather confused by this response. The fact that another editor originally inserted the copyrighted text (something of which I was not aware) doesn't change the fact that a subsequent editor restoring that same text after it has been removed is also guilty of plagiarism, particularly when the removal of the text is accompanied by a note explaining that it was copyrighted and thus shouldn't be there. I simply brought it to your attention because I happened to notice that you'd previously warned that user for plagiarism and assumed you'd want to know. It seems I was wrong. -- Hux 20:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know that you had already brought attention to the fact that the material was plagairized. Please do not assume that I have time to pour over the entire edit history of an article to reconstruct the series of events. Next time, please provide a more thorough explanation of the situation. Thanks. Kaldari 21:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. In hindsight I certainly could've explained the situation better and will do so in the future. I apologize if I came across as somewhat curt in my response above. -- Hux 21:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I have replied on my talk page. Kaldari 21:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Kuijt offside

It doesn't matter that the ball was deflected through to Kuijt off a Milan player as he was in an offside position when Agger headed it on in the first place. PeeJay 06:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right - I forgot about the "gaining advantage" part of offside, which applies at the moment the ball is played (i.e. from Agger's header). I'll revert the article. -- Hux 09:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

2007 CL Final

Looking through it appears not to be weasel words, but that you shouldn't quote. I also agree that UEFA were the main party at fault. The four cited articles report those. I've found no-one that trumps Liverpool at fault before UEFA, although if you could find someone or a cite, it would be welcome within the article. CorleoneSerpicoMontana 12:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, the phrase "most parties agree" = weasel words. Check out WP:WEASEL for more info - it's pretty clear on this and we should be avoiding all phrases of this type in all Wikipedia articles. And again as I already said, if you have an issue with the way the section was worded then you need to discuss it on the talk page rather than repeatedly reverting. It's pointless discussing it here because with all the reverts going on there are clearly more than two opinions in play. Thanks. -- Hux 13:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Most parties should be replaced with all but UEFA spokesman William Gaillard. Most parties is appropriate; most parties would agree that the Titanic sunk, but there are those out there who believe it didn't. I myself believe the fault lies with UEFA, the Liverpool fans and to a lesser degree the Police. The articles back up that sequence of blame and I haven't found anyone else who would disagree on that or the articles content. CorleoneSerpicoMontana 13:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Please just go and check out WP:WEASEL; it's clear from the above that you're not fully understanding the concept of "weasel words" and it's pointless going round in circles like this. I'm not going to discuss the rest of your comments because, as I've already said, such discussion belongs on the 2007 CL Final talk page, not here. -- Hux 13:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

2007 UEFA Champions League Final article

It does seem that I may appear to be a bit possessive. It just that some edits do not fit the standard understanding of the situation. Words such as 'crushed' are inflammatory when placed inside the article. The wiki article should follow the standard understanding that meets with the quotes and cited articles. Certainly not a personal attack. Londo06 13:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"[T]he crush of fans trying to enter the stadium" is not at all inflammatory. It simply describes the inevitable result of a large group of people attempting to get through a small space (i.e the entrance to the stadium). The usage of "crush" in the Wiki article exactly mirrors the way in which it is used in the cited article.

In any case, let's not get into a big discussion on this here. As I said, we need to be discussing this on the article's talk page. -- Hux 14:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

CL final stuff will go on its talk page I promise. I'm afraid however that the word crushed carries significance to Liverpool fans with regards to Hillsborough and Heysel. It would also impact the Italian team AC Milan as Italian fans died at Heysel. Londo06 14:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point - that hadn't occurred to me. I agree that we shouldn't use that word for the sake of sensitivity. -- Hux 17:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I believed I praised the edit. I haven't touched it since it became an encyclopaedic account. I believe I also explained a reason for some edits - crushed being inflammatory to both nations involved. Londo06 13:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

2007 UEFA Champions League Final

Do you reckon there is a call for a separate page for the problems before the match, especially with all the fall-out coming UEFAs way. Rather than having the CL Final article overloaded, I reckon there is a need for a separate page warranted, any thoughts? Londo06 11:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary. There's not enough content on that specific issue to justify a separate page, in my opinion, nor do I think it's notable enough to warrant more than a paragraph in an article which itself will become progressively less notable over time. To draw a comparison, whole books have been written about whether or not England's third goal in the 1966 World Cup Final was really a goal, yet that doesn't get its own page, so on that basis I'd say that this event shouldn't either. ;) -- Hux 12:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Valid point, I still believe that the article may become horribly lopsided. But I appreciate the feesback. Londo06 13:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

eHarmony Trivia

Regarding your revert of the WP:Trivia on the eHarmony page. The essay at WP:HTRIVIA appears to address this, illustrating the relatively minor significance of this type of cultural reference. There is little added to the eH page. However, it may be significant add to the SNL page. Your thoughts or rational? Tiggerjay 20:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're asking here. Are you suggesting that the trivia tag that I removed should stay there? If so then I would disagree because (as I said in the edit comment) there is no trivia there to tag: the "eHarmony Parody" section is as relevant to the article as the lawsuit section, for example. This is not to say that either one could not be integrated elsewhere in the article and if that's what you'd prefer then go for it. Otherwise, if I'm misinterpreting what you're saying above then maybe you could clarify? -- Hux 07:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the tag is appropriate, as I am suggesting that it is simply a cultural reference which adds very little to the article. Such information does not add value to the page in the form of notability or relevant information to the topic. Perhaps I am wrong, but my understanding is that WP is not a collection of tid-bits, but encyclopedic in nature with valuable information in regards to a topic. To be clear, I have not particular bias towards how this (or any other information) reflects on a subject. But rather to edit boldly and remove frivelous information for the areas I read. Tiggerjay 00:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This seems like an odd discussion to me. If you think it qualifies as trivia then it seems pointless to discuss whether or not the trivia tag should be there. You've probably spent more time writing on my talk page than it would've taken to do what the trivia tag requests: incorporate the information into body of the article. I think the information adds something worthwhile (it provides an indication of the site's cultural impact in the US) so in my opinion it should be in the article somewhere, but I have no preference as to where. Up to you. -- Hux 05:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Where is Suyab

Do you happen to know the location of Suyab? I like what you did with the coordinates on the Burana Tower page! The Suyab article has a confusing note about the location of the ruins and it'd be great if we could add the coordinates. Dmbstudio 18:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right about the Suyab article being confusing: the location it gives (8km southwest of Tokmok) is pretty much exactly where Burana Tower is! Plus the description of the site almost exactly matches what can be found at the Burana Tower site (with the exception of "Christian churches"). Are they perhaps the same place? The article implies not. Either way, a cursory search around the local area on Google Maps yields nothing else that looks like an archaeological site, so I'm stumped. Weird! (PS Apologies for not replying sooner - I've been on holiday!) -- Hux 17:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Help me, Hux

I know you are the one who put all the images in deletion process but I do not know how to tag the copyrights which it is owned by me. Can you be kind to help me to put all the copyrights by me... Please save them because I am new to Wikipedia and is not very expert as yall does! Would you be kind to help me to save those images. Thanks! Jjcenterprises (talk)

Hi, I'm happy to help you sort this out. The problem we have here is that Wikipedia needs more than just your say-so about the ownership of these types of images for them to be usable. In the case of music videos (and stills taken from them), the copyright is almost always owned by either the artist or (more likely) the record label. Are you the artist in this case, or someone representing the label who is qualified to release the images? If so then I believe (but don't quote me on this) you need to contact Wikipedia directly in writing, releasing the images under the appropriate free license, or into the Public Domain. If you're not either of these parties then it might be acceptable to tag one or two of the images with {{non-free music video screenshot}} and use those (tagging and using all eight would probably be considered excessive though). -- Hux 17:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I just fixed it and is it better? Let me know. I hope I did the right thing using that kind of format. Again, let me know. Thanks! Jjcenterprises (talk) 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Much better - I'll edit the deletion request pages to reflect the change; I imagine the community will have no problem with them now. I would still recommend that you delete most of the images and only use one or two of them though. The reason for this is that a Fair Use rationale only works when your use of the works is just enough to convey the point you're making. In this case one or two images is plenty to illustrate the existence of the music video and its general style. Eight images might be considered unreasonably excessive. However, that's just my opinion as an interested party who knows quite a bit about US copyright law. (By the way, I removed "Template:Jjc" from these images since that template doesn't exist. I hope you don't mind.)

Also, on this image you should delete the summary text ("I designed the artwork...") - you don't need to (and shouldn't) have that text there if you're claiming Fair Use. -- Hux 05:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Lee R. Berger

Dear Hux,

I have just added this to your query deletion page in explanation.

Hello Hux: My name is Prof. Lee Berger (profberger) and yes I have added recent edits as a matter of factual correction to the site above. I have also, during the course of adding sites that we have original data on to wikipedia - see my recent additions such as Gladysvale, Motsetse, Coopers cave, taung, plovers lake and others that fall under our institute. To correct you in your accusation of self-promotion, my assistant originally set up the site without my knowledge using data from my cv. Wikipedia then asked me to verify a release of copyright which I did. I had not used wikipedia until that time but became fascintated with the concept as I see it as an excellent way of sharing quality information and images which we hold copyright to. You may look at the sites listed above that I have done in the past couple of days and see what I was trying to do. In editing my own profile, I was trying to improve the quality of content (italics, spelling, incorrect dates etc.). Yes, my assistant did ask me to upload some images as references which I did as she was worried about the referencing policy. I apologize if this is seen as self-promotion rather than quality control, but this was not the intent. I think if you look at the sites and content that I am busy putting on, I am simply trying to put the history of South African paleoanthropology into Wikipedia and add valuable, clean verifiable content.

Regards,

Prof. Lee R. Berger

Profberger 11:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your input. Regarding the self-promotion issue, the two basic rules that apply here are WP:COI and WP:SOAP (point #3), and given the nature of the working arrangement between employer and assistant, these rules would apply to your assistant's actions just as much as your own. The problem here is that a sizable proportion of your edits and the vast majority of Galdysvale's (greater than 95% by my reckoning) involve adding your name, achievements, etc., to a whole range of articles. This creates a conflict of interest in that such actions - especially when they are undertaken to this extent - detract from the purpose of Wikipedia, which is to provide a neutral encyclopedia (see WP:NPOV). The best example of the problems such edits cause can be found in the Lee R. Berger article. As it stands, the article is not very encyclopedic; as someone noted when I nominated it for deletion, it needs to be "radically pruned" of "unencyclopaediac [sic], vanity content" in order to make it conform to Wikipedia standards.

Regarding your comments about the pages you've created, they all seem to be good examples of information that is beneficial to Wikipedia and as long as you endeavor to keep them neutral, avoid including any original research (which is forbidden - see WP:OR) and ensure that they are sufficiently notable (see WP:NOTE), I don't see any problems there.

I hope this answers the points you raised. If not, feel free to ask more questions. I've been around here for a couple of years and am happy to help out where I can. -- Hux 18:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of interest - being new to wiki - do you not credit discoverers of fossils or sites with the discovery? I see you are going around and deleting these. While I guess you could argue that if the person who is presently digging a site or discovered a site/fossil and writes the article about that discovery/site its a form of self-promotion, but who else would have the images, information etc.? Its not meant as a hostile question but a real one. If we wanted to put very famous sites and fossils which we dig or curate onto wikipedia it would seem difficult for us not to mention names etc. (they are after all mentioned in the scientific articles) and certainly it seems that there should be a general policy. Either you do or do not mention the names of discovers - if not then you have to delete all of such mentions for almost every major fossil and site on wikipedia. If you allow it I wouldn't think it would be fair to accuse the scientist of self-promotion - or is that naive? I am going into such depth because we were looking at approaching wikipedia to put all of our holotypes, paratypes etc. of the many thousands of fossils we curate into the encyclopedia and I would like to know in advance before we meet on the matter here at Wits.

Profberger 11:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this discussion is now getting a little broad for a simple talk page and would be better suited in a place where the general Wikipedia community can comment, but I'll address your questions anyway. Bear in mind, though, that this part is more reflective of my own opinion than of Wikipedia's rules and guidelines.

Regarding crediting discoverers, I think the answer is, "it depends". The first point to consider is that Wikipedia is not a database of academic information, so recognizing discoverers in each and every case is not a requirement. The key issue is one of notability: is the discovery itself worthy of being mentioned/having its own article in the first place and is the person who discovered it notable enough to add to the article as the discoverer? If both those factors are satisfied then we should certainly create the article and credit the discoverer. On the other hand, I would argue that it detracts from an article to name check people who are merely working on a fossil site, unless such people are themselves sufficiently notable in their own right. In an article about a famous shipwreck discovery, for example, if Jacques Cousteau worked at the site then we should mention that. But if John Smith from the University of Anytown worked there then we shouldn't. Does that make sense?

Regarding your last point, I can't speak for the Wikimedia Foundation, but I doubt that it would be considered useful to have all your discoveries on Wikipedia. Again, the encyclopedia is concerned with things that are notable. It's not meant to be a repository for every single discovery of every single fossil and fossil site. As WP:NOT notes, "Wikipedia is not a directory". -- Hux 19:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Its aninteresting debate as one could argue that if the fossil/site is notable (as many important finds are) the discoverer becomes notable automatically (no one knew who Howard Carter was before tut nor Ron Clarke before Little Foot etc.). Also, it would be useful to have a template that served for all notable fossils and sites so as to avoid constant patrolling of these for deletions etc. As I am new to this with whom or where would it be appropriate to bring such specific and general matters up? I am considering assigning graduate students to each put ten or so "notable" sites or fossil pages up to begin adding valuable info. to the encyclopedia and would like to have answers to these quesitons in advance of the work. Also, how does one correct incorrect info. that seems to get added when the work is close to home so to speak and thus might violate the general rule of not involving oneself in an article one is too familiar with? As an example, my assistant pointed out that someone added two incorrect references to the ron clarke page - he did not find Sk 847 nor did he assist in the discovery of the Homo habilis skull - (he was involved in the description of the latter and the other was found more than a decade prior to his birth) but for obvious reasons I would seem biased editing a page of someone I retrenced (he wasn't actually fired, but I won't argue the semantics...). Sorry to put these questions to you as you may not be the most appropriate person to answer these but you had the unfortunate distinction of being the first editor I have interacted with!

P.S. sorry about the ron clarke chirp on the deletion page - again, I will plead lack of familiarity with the system/protocal - it won't happen again.

Regards,

Profberger 04:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The best place to discuss what kinds of things you think should be included on Wikipedia, as a matter of general policy, is probably the Village Pump.

Regarding editing articles about things with which a user is closely associated, I think I was a little unclear: it's not forbidden to write about yourself, or about things you're closely involved with, it's just that it's discouraged because it has a tendency to lead to problems with conflicts of interest and increases the chance of non-neutral points of view finding their way into articles. However, if it's a simple matter of correcting factual information then by all means go ahead and correct it. If you can further back up the information with a sufficiently reliable, external reference then that would be even better since it will head off accusations of bias before they arise.

Finally, I appreciate the apology for the Ron Clarke thing (although I'd like to stress that I didn't think it was a big deal, so don't worry too much about it), but there's no need to apologize for the questions. I'm happy to help wherever I can. -- Hux 09:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

thanks for that useful tip - village pump looks just like the place to get an opinion.

Profberger 12:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Please dont delete Richest cities and Richest cities by 2020 i even have a source link for it which is www.citymayors.com/statistics/richest-cities-2005.html [4]www.citymayors.com/statistics/richest-cities-2005.html] [http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/richest-cities-2020.html i took 4 days making these 2 articles, please don't delete them ,either give me advice, or edit it to make them both like a "real" wikipedia article. Please don't delete, Thank You.

--Unites 19:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Firstly, you should know that I do not have the power to delete articles - I simply nominated one of them for deletion (the 2020 one; someone else nominated the other one). The proper place for you to make your case for keeping them is at their respective deletion pages (here and here). Secondly, I appreciate that you've spent a not inconsiderable amount of time working on them, but that in itself cannot have any bearing on whether or not an article should be kept, especially when copyright issues are in play.

Regarding your request for help on how to edit them in order to avoid deletion, ordinarily I would be happy to do so, but in the case of these two articles I don't really see any way that you can avoid it given that the basis for deletion is copyright infringement (for both) and speculation (for the latter), both of which are strictly forbidden on Wikipedia.

The only thing I can really suggest is that you take a look at WP:NOT and WP:PG to get an idea of the kinds of things that are appropriate for articles and wish you better luck next time. Sorry I can't do more than that. -- Hux 20:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

British monarchy

Hi. I'm hoping to keep the waters from getting muddy with respect to my proposal for resolving the dispute on this article. So if you essentially agree with the proposal, but think it needs refinement, please respond in a way that makes your essential support foremost, so it does not become obscured by discussion of the details. Those can be worked out later, or at least separately. Thanks. -- Lonewolf BC 21:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Already done! I support your first option - the reversion to an earlier edit - rather than the complicated rewrite. And I also wholeheartedly support your drive to keep the editorial issue at the front of the discussion. -- Hux 21:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Super. Thanks. The discussion has already gotten somewhat smoke-filled, though, so I've inserted a survey (in the same style as is used for "move", "delete" and other such discussions) to keep things better on track and clearer. I hope you won't mind repeating your view once more, for the survey. I gather that it is: "Support, but without the expanded explanation." I'd be fine with that, too, though perhaps a less expanded explanation would make a happy medium.
The survey should at least make plain the relative levels of support and opposition, but it may not show up a majority overwhelming enough to over-ride opposition. Gbambino is digging in his heals, of course, and one other has come in on his side. Three-to-two won't settle anything, so I'm reckoning on putting out a request-for-comment once the participants so far have polled in. Best regards, Lonewolf BC 03:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. So far it's 4-1 in support. However, even if that number increases G2bambino has made it clear that he will not respect the result. I'm confident, though, that if he does take it to arbitration the arbitrator will look more kindly on the many than on the one, especially when the many are clearly attempting to build consensus while the one is only concerned with getting his opinion into the article. -- Hux 06:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's much to fear, two of your so far four "supports" come with the addition of a desire to insert the exact type of clarifying information that I too see as necessary. There are cited sources now for the fact that the British Monarch is not the head of state in any other country besides the UK, merely the same person who is the British Monarch, and even to support the notion that the Commonwealth Realms are in a personal union. I'm afraid cited, accurate edits will be regarded as more acceptable than incorrect, unsourced ones, regardless of any consensus. Cheers. --G2bambino 15:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

1) If two of the "supports" are, in your opinion, making the same points that you're making then why can you not bring yourself to add your name to that list with similar suggestions, so that we can move on? 2) Why are you posting the details of your position on my talk page? Why can you not keep pertinent discussion on the page where the discussion is taking place, i.e. the talk page of the article in question? -- Hux 15:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

1) I did exactly that.

2) There's a discussion going on here that pertains to the one going on at Talk:British monarchy. --G2bambino 17:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You missed the point. On this page Lonewolf BC and I were discussing the functioning of the proposal and the survey, not the merits of the entire argument that led to the creation of those two things, nor the merits of the reasoning used when adding one's opinion/vote to those two things. It is therefore inappropriate for you to start talking about the merits of the entire argument on this page given that, as you yourself say, there is already a place for that discussion elsewhere. Please do not continue to post this kind of thing on my talk page as I would like to keep it as coherent and as readable possible. Thank you. -- Hux 18:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

User talk:71.147.19.179

Hi. The user page of this and the other users you mentioned at this talk page are already tagged with {{sockip}} of user:Mariam83. There are a couple of threads at WP:ANI as well. Cheers, Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 05:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks for letting me know. -- Hux 05:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Good sources vs. bad sources

In response to Blowejoe1960's questions on the Jill Metzger talk page:

• "Mainstream press" was probably not a good phrase to use; what we're really talking about are reliable, respectable sources and for that I think that most would agree on a certain, limited selection of core outlets. In the US, those would be the news services of the four major US TV networks (NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX) plus CNN, as well as certain nationally and internationally published newspapers (e.g. New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, LA Times, Boston Globe) and magazines (e.g. Time, Newsweek). In addition to those, most would typically include the major news wires (AP, AFP, Reuters). The key factors that tend to define a source as more reliable are things like reputation, editorial oversight, readership/viewership, whether they've won major media awards, and so on.
• Regarding libel, the requirements for the successful prosecution of such a case are not of concern to us editors. The relevant issue for this article is Wikipedia's stance on libel and the policy is clear: we are obligated to remove anything that could potentially be libelous, ASAP.
• Regarding "reasonable person", I'm using the term as shorthand for a person who has studied journalism enough to know what differentiates a more reliable source from a less reliable one, as distinct from, say, someone who has never studied journalism and instead has formed their opinion about what constitutes a good source solely by, say, watching/reading their outlet of choice, agreeing with their stance, and evaluating all other sources by comparing them with it. Does that make more sense? -- Hux 13:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hux,

Yes, I follow you now. Thanks for your help. I do a couple other questions, whats your interest in the Metzger case? I figured it might have been due to it happening where you live, and speaking of that, was there any fallout in the area where you live due to this case?

thanks,

Blowejoe1960

My interest, as you say, is because I live here - I travel regularly through Manas airport and see all the US tankers and cargo planes, so I like to keep tabs on what's going on at the base. Geopolitically, it's an interesting situation having a US air base in a former Soviet country, with a Russian base only a few miles away!

As far as fallout goes, it's a point of argument between the USAF and the Kyrgyz authorities, but it's not a massive problem as far as I can tell. The latter are annoyed because they perceive that the US has prevented them from performing a proper investigation by stopping Metzger from speaking to them and shipping her out of the country almost immediately. However, the case is largely insignificant relative to higher profile issues such as the killing of Alexander Ivanov. In comparison, the Metzger case is more a subject for gossip than anything else. -- Hux 06:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Edits to Busan

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Wikipedia. Please be more careful when editing pages and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you.Mumun 無文 14:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

My mistake - I was looking at an old diff and inadvertently rolled back to a *much* earlier version when I was actually only trying to remove one sentence. The problem is now fixed. -- Hux 14:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion! ^^ It is good to meet you...I was under the impression that we should leave mild template messages first, but truth be known I feel uncomfortable about leaving such messages on the talk pages of registered users because of the potential for misunderstanding. I'll pay attention more in the future Happy editing! :-) Mumun 無文 15:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

THX

I didn't know that! thx man and can you read the papa roach talk page about genre the third please? thx again Melodic Horror

Your nominations to WP:PUI

Thanks for your contributions - we actually have a streamlined process for dealing with images with no fair-use rationale. Just tag the image with {{nrd}} - be sure to subst the template - and follow the directions on the template which pops up from there. It's a situation which comes up all the time so we have a standard process for dealing with such images. (ESkog)^(Talk) 22:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I've been using TWINKLE for this up to now, which I guess doesn't come with an {{nrd}} function. I'll add the tag manually from now on. Cheers! -- Hux 06:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk page comments

As per your comments left at my talk page: 1) It wasn't I who raised any issue with the dabs stating Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom; in fact, I initially reverted User:Chris Bennett's edits as per the exact same policy you used as justification for your revert. 2) I don't see how "stickler for policy" is an insult in any way; I merely predicted someone would change the dab for reasons of WP, and you did. I won't address your opinions on my obsessions. --G2bambino 20:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

In reply to #1, I wasn't referring specifically to you with that comment so there's no need to take it personally. With regard to #2, it was rude in the sense of talking behind someone's back and using an disparaging epithet rather than their name. You could've just said, "someone changed it", or "hux changed it". For #3, why won't you address them? I raised the issue (as I raise all issues here) with the mindset of ensuring that Wikipedia works as well as it can. If you're not even going to discuss it then that doesn't help anyone. -- Hux 20:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

1. The comment was placed on my talk page and didn't refer to anyone else.
2. You're making too much out of nothing.
3. It seems like you may be assuming bad faith on my part, and I don't even want to touch that. It would be of no beneficial purpose for me to pursue your allegations. --G2bambino 21:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

1) I'm telling you that the comment, "I don't think they should be ignored simply because an editor wants an article to be written a certain way", was not specifically directed at you. If you refuse to accept this then you're calling me a liar, which makes your comment about me supposedly not assuming good faith pretty astonishingly hypocritical.

2) Whether or not you think I am is irrelevant - you're not the one who was insulted. If you were polite you would recognize that you caused offense and simply apologize and I'm failing to see why that should be such a big deal. Polite people typically take responsibility for their actions, don't they?

3) Nothing about suggesting that you're getting way too obsessed with the minute details of these articles represents an assumption of bad faith on my part. It's simply an observation that I made in order to (hopefully) raise your awareness about something you may not have noticed. Surely we can both agree that if my observation is correct then it's a bad thing for Wikipedia, can't we? -- Hux 05:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Dablink discussion at "Commonwealth Realms", July 26

Hello, Hux. I've been (re-)reading the earlier discussion about dablinks, as background, and am curious about whether you were really in agreement where Gbambino supposes that you were, here. That breaks down into two questions: Firstly, did you support the proposal? Secondly, did you support Gbambino's acting upon it at that point, by applying it to all the articles involved? I gather that you would answer "no" to the second part. I'm less sure about the first part, because you were much less involved in crafting the wording of the then-proposed DAB than were Chris and Bambino, and because you had not yet responded to the proposal when Bambino began carrying it out. I cannot surely make out, from your earlier participation, where you stood at that time. So please let me know. Thanks. -- Lonewolf BC 01:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Lonewolf. Firstly, I think your questions may be somewhat redundant at this point. In case you're not aware, there's a discussion going on right now at Talk:Commonwealth Realm monarchies (disambiguation) about the contents of DAB links at the top of all the related Commonwealth articles. The discussion was advertised on other, related pages specifically to address the problem of the previous, limited consensus. Secondly, I agreed with G2bambino's decision to create that disambiguation page in the first place, but I would not have agreed that he should go ahead and change all the DABs as a result of that short discussion. (I'm not aware that he did actually make such changes though.) However, like I said, a more involved discussion is going on now anyway so I suspect this isn't a big deal. Does that answer your questions? -- Hux 06:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, fairly well. Thanks. I wasn't really asking about the making of the "disambiguation" page, though; given that it was your idea, I assumed you agreed with that part. My question was about the wording of the then-proposed DAB, and whether you were satisfied with it. I grant that these are somewhat "old bones", at this point, but I'm trying to get a handle on the background, the better to take part in the current discussion. -- Lonewolf BC 18:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

You have been named in a request for arbitration at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Commonwealth_realms. Jonathan David Makepeace 00:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

vote on decapitalizing Commonwealth R/realm

A vote has been called on the decapitalization of "r" in "Commonwealth R/realm." Jonathan David Makepeace 00:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Apology

I apologise for the remark. It was not one of my best considered comments. Especially after my 'address the argument not the person' comment. That being sincerely meant (and I am about to post a retraction of the comment) I am frustrated. I do not object to anyone offering their view. And I enjoy a healthy exchange of ideas. But I do not enjoy intimations of trolling, being used as a tool of another editor, acting in bad faith, all of which have been indirectly referred to me by some editors,as well as others.I also find intimations of being involved in some kind of conspiracy to subvert consensus deeply offensive. i also feel for other editors who are accused, directly or indirectly of acting in a like manner. I guess you just happened to be in the line of fire. I appreciate that you believe what you do. Fine. But if you really believe something underhanded is going on, please report it. --Gazzster 11:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

No worries - I appreciate the apology and I too am frustrated. Aside from holding different opinions about how the article should be titled, etc., I actually think we're coming from more or less the same general position of wanting to finally put this craziness to bed...somehow!

Also, just in case I inadvertently caused offense, I would like to note that my pointing out of the vote stacking incident was in no way meant to imply that the people being canvassed did anything wrong, or that anyone was involved in a conspiracy; the fact that I only made reference to the actions of JDM was quite deliberate.

As for reporting anything - like I said on the page, I don't think it warrants further action. I just thought it was something that should be brought to the attention of those involved in the discussion, that's all. -- Hux 13:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

JDM'S Comments

I have read the comments you refer to it. I still do not see your concern. If he's persistent, he's passionate about his point. So what? So are you.If you wish to argue that he has prejudiced the vote, which is what you appear to be inferring, you have to demonstrate this supposed interference. It seems to me you cannot do that without inferring that the other editors who shared the same opinion were weak-minded, stupid or prejudiced themselves.--Gazzster 09:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure what more I can do then. As far as I'm concerned I have sufficiently demonstrated the difference between having an opinion and being passionate about it, and abusing the system so as to force that opinion into articles. Also, I've already did demonstrate how JDM has engaged in vote-stacking (I linked to all the relevant posts and explained at length) so I see no need to repeat myself. Also, when discussing vote-stacking, there is no implication that any of the people responding to such canvassing are at fault, which is something I also pointed out in the discussion.

But this is all rather old news, frankly. My main concern right now is the overall way in which this subject has been and is being handled, which encompasses the actions of several people, not just JDM. It should also be noted that I'm no longer referring to anyone by name and instead attempting to focus on the actions themselves. "Shame the action, not the person", in other words. -- Hux 10:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC

I respect your wish to lay the matter to rest. Wise. But I will point out that if 'there is no implication that any of the people responding to such canvassing are at fault' then JDM's alleged abuse had no effect, and that the vote was decided by a free choice? So any supposed underhandedness had no effect on the outcome.--Gazzster 11:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

"I will point out that if 'there is no implication that any of the people responding to such canvassing are at fault' then JDM's alleged abuse had no effect" No, that's a non sequitur. With respect, I don't think you're understanding why that particular activity is frowned upon. Just take a look at WP:CANVAS. It's explained in detail there. -- Hux 11:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Have some tea

☻ Someone has poured you tea ☺

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox British Monarchy

Template:Infobox British Monarchy has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. I would like to read your input on this before I vote. — MJCdetroit 14:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

In Remembrance...

--nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 16:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Vote

Template Bloodsports —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.160.46 (talk) 12:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't canvass for votes from people who aren't involved in your discussion, Mr Anonymous. Talk page spamming is bad, okay? Thanks. -- Hux 04:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Monarchy articles

Hux- I see you've been involved in the editing of British monarchy and on its talk page. There's presently a poll going on regarding the format of the titles for all Commonwealth realm monarchy articles. If you'd like to register an opinion, please do so here. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by G2bambino (talk • contribs) 16:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)