User talk:Mantanmoreland/Archive6

Vote

Please vote 67.70.71.160 10:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Ethnicity in header

Oh yes, there's an accepted format over at WP:MOSBIO - #3 "Nationality (In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.) " I hope that helps. I find it annoying as well, especially when a person is "half something" and "half something else" and I see some editor's just put in one of the halves. Or worse, when they've put in BOTH halves or more, you know "Nicolas Cage is a German-English-Italian-American actor".... eh.... Mad Jack 03:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

James Cagney

Hi, I think the image you've noted would be much better. It's obviously a promo photo (the Warners Brothers logo etc strongly suggests that). I'd be careful to ensure that a fair use rationale is stated, and an example is at Image:BootsMalloryPromoCardSmile.jpg. I think it's a good choice. Rossrs 20:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks good. I've added the source and a fair use rationale to the image description page. Rossrs 06:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Spencer Tracy

Hi, another good image and a big improvement. The only thing that remains to be done is adding the source, so could you please do that. ie just provide a link to the website the image came from (as per the Cagney image).

There's also something you need to watch out for, and I only mention it because you said you're new to uploading photos. We have to be careful when replacing an image that we don't replace one that is either a Commons image or is tagged as public domain, or as being released under a GFDL tag. These are all "free" images and are always our first choice (even when the quality is a little scrappy). The Tracy/Fredric March image was a Commons image and ordinarily I wouldn't think it should be replaced, but I think it's status is a bit doubtful. I'll explain what I mean. Movie trailers released before 1963 are considered public domain because they were not copyrighted independently of the film. So their copyright has either expired or never existed in the first place (this is my understanding anyhow) Therefore, a screenshot from these trailers is considered public domain. The problem with this is that many of the film frames are identical to what exists in the films, and the films are still copyrighted. The image you changed came from the trailer but there is nothing to prove that as it looks exactly the same as the film. So, I think the public domain tag on it is a little dubious, and I think it's not a bad thing that you replaced it. If I add an image from a public domain trailer I always try to include something that only exists in the trailer, such as the name. That way it's clear that it came from the trailer. Example : Image:Priscilla Lane Cowboy from Brooklyn trailer.jpg. If I used the same image without her name, it would be exactly the same as the film, so it's status could easily be questioned. Wouldn't it be great it this wasn't so convuluted? Hope I haven't bored you too much with this lengthy explanation :-) Rossrs 06:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

ArbReq

I think it is unfair that you weren't notified that your name was being mentioned at WP:ArbReq#Jews for Jesus. Cheers. Just FYI. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 12:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Lowenstein

Oh, if there is no citation for it, just like any other piece of info, it should have been (and was) removed. I just noticed today that someone removed the "Jewish" categories from Woody Allen, though! Now that's ridiculous... Mad Jack 06:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Judd Bagley

Can you lend me a hand? I'm trying to write an article on Judd Bagley and it's been put up for speedy deletion. Underdog the superhero 19:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

AN/I

Thanks for your input. I trust you've refreshed on perhaps an intended affiliation to Justus Jonas. I haven't yet decided if there is irony in this or not. Keesiewonder 16:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that, but it provides a clue as to the identity of this user.--Mantanmoreland 16:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you think this is related? i.e. a 3rd or 4th of the same "person"? I only noticed since I'm doing some archiving off of my talk page to sub-pages. Keesiewonder 16:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Quite possibly. You may want to raise the issue at the AN/I. What struck me about the new user in Martin Luther is that it engaged in even-handed slashing, not showing any particular partisanship and getting everybody, not just one faction of editors, annoyed.--Mantanmoreland 16:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Henry Ford

Please review recent edits at Henry Ford, and the personal attack [1] on the talk page. User: Rjensen Is continuing his campaign of original research, despite the Lengthy discussions you were a part of some time ago [2]. He's doing exactly the same things. Other sectiosn of the talk page show more of his efforts regarding this. ThuranX 04:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yet again, RJensen has opted to play a 'let things cool off, then attack' game on the Henry Ford page. He avoided the page after being left a lengthy (more than a screen long) list of points to contradict. He replied to none. He left. Now he's back, again, starting EXACTLY where he started before, making this the third series of tendenious edits he's commenced. Please look in and try to help out on this. I don't know what his agenda here is, but Incivility is a part of it now. This isn't Good Faith, it's a game. ThuranX 12:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Unsigned comment from 85.92.183.128

pump and dump is starting to use wikipedia to look "legitimate". please do something about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burren_Energy—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.92.183.128 (talk • contribs)

Looking at the page, I don't see any apparent reason for concern. If you have any problems with the article, please state them in the talk page of the article. Also please log in and sign future posts.--Mantanmoreland 15:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Something wild 1961.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Something wild 1961.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 09:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

A case of "uploaded and forgotten." Will add to the article.--Mantanmoreland 20:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Irish-American Fordham

Thanks for your support. While some may have issue with the existence of a Wiki category for "Historically Irish-American colleges and universitites", that is quite another issue. As you have pointed out, if such a category exists, then Fordham must be lieted there as surely as just about any other institution. I had a chuckle over the assertion (not by you) that though Harvard was an institution dominated by those of British ancestry it was nevertheless never known as a "British-American" school. Absurd! Of course it was: The language of the day was not the phrase "British-American", however, but "White-Anglo-Saxon-Protestant" (WASP), and I don't think anyone can seriously argue that heritage did not or does not influence that insitution to this day, despite its diversity and plurality now. Best, Shoreranger 16:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Harvard was the quintessentially WASP school, and Fordham was the institution of choice when Irish and dogs were not permitted on its campus as you know.--Mantanmoreland 17:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Racism by Country

Thanks for responding to the Request for Comment WilyD 04:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I certainly felt that there was no way any reasonable editor could have serious issues with the section I proposed on Iran (although they could've taken issue with the grammatical mistake in the initial version!) - but I'm kinda stuck because the admin who locked the page won't unlock it unless there's a consensus for a new version on Iran ... oh well. Anyways, I just said thanks because RfCs rarely generate much feedback - just trying to thank you for doing a generally thankless task. WilyD 15:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Only 32 out of ~180 countries are listed - I've been meaning to get around to getting at least a little ditty for everyone (save countries where there may genuinely be no racism: Pitcairn Islands, Sealand and so on) but I've been more concerned with cleaning up what's already there - something I can't do until it's unlocked, which won't happen without a consensus on Iran. WilyD 15:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Of course that's possible - the claim that discrimination by ethnicity isn't racism could just come from poor English skills rather than maliciousness, and they'd hardly be the first editors to try to apply a policy or two they didn't understand. WilyD 16:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This is classic POV pushing. One editor misapplying policy is one thing, a half-dozen is something else. POV-pushing is also endemic at every article related to Iran.--Mantanmoreland 16:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, Iran and every other article. I'm not sure I'm aware of a topic without it. But I'm kind of stuck at the moment. Request for comments is supposed to be the first step on the dispute resolution ladder, so even though I may have to climb a long way, I'm taking it one rung at a time. WilyD 16:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Cat: Iranian neocons

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_24#NEW_NOMINATIONS. Thanks.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 18:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Iranian neoconservatives

I think you are right about the Iranian neoconservatives. What do you think should be done with this: History of fundamentalist Islam in Iran? If you search for "neoconservative" & similar words, you will find that the concept is well-embedded in the article. I get the feeling that the article needs a delete or complete rewrite but I haven't decided what to do yet. What do you think of it? The Behnam 20:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The term is definitely used, but I think that, overall, it is done so disparagingly by whiny opinion articles or biased reports. This is what have I seen from my experience, at least. I don't believe any of these people describe themselves as "neoconservatives," unlike in the US where people actually identify with the description. The attack derives from a simple comparison to the US setup. In a way, to carry the usage into articles is to carry attacks on living people. Anyway, I look more into it to make sure this holds, as I haven't dealt with those kind of writings for awhile. Thanks for looking it up. The Behnam 20:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

11-M

Hi, Randroide wants the article to look as if it were posible that Spanish police DID the bombings. You must keep this in mind to understand what is going on. We must stop him of doing that. I feel this as an obligation towards the dead and towards the police who risk their lifes. Sorry but I have no more patience to see how Randroide cheats everybody with his cheeky behaviour.--Igor21 17:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I explain to you. There is a guy called Toro who were a traffiker of hashich. He was being supplied on a regular bases by the arabs who afterwards did the bombings. They have been introduced each other by a picturesque caracter called Zouhier (a stripper and a minor criminal) who met Toro in prison. When the arabs were convinced by a fanatic to start actions in Spain the look for explosives and this Zouhier told them that perhaps Toro can provide. The arabs asked Toro and he said that he do not have explosives but that his brother in law (who were a former miner) can obtain.

The thing went on and the brother-in-law sold the dynamite. Toro is a profesional criminal (hashish, stolen cars, etc..) but Zouhier and the brother-in-law, called Trashorras, were more amateurs. Trashorras was starting in the criminal world and was a mad caracter. Both of them have been informers for money (to diferent unrelated branches of the police) and BTW both were considered very unreliable because they tend to use imagination and sell incredible stories.

The story that The Times article explains is that the wife of Trashorras (sister of Toro) has a phone number of someone called "Manzano". Manzano is the name of the police officer in charge of the squad that desactivated one of the bombs found in the trains thus making posible to follow the cell phone used as detonator thus making posible to chase the perpetrators. Conspirationists said that this bomb was not in the trains but was factored by the police.

The conspirationists said that Manzano was involved in the conspiration and they use the fact that the wife of Toro has his phone number to proof it. This is the moment when the article of The Times was written. But then, the judge investigated the phone number (he call to the number) and found that was the operative phone of a police in charge of a drugs investigation with nothing to do the head of desactivation team. In fact "Manzano" was not his real name but a nickname. So the story of Manzano and the wife of Trashorras died there and the article of The Times is outdated.

There is another story that is related with the cell phones used as detonators. The arabs bought them to some hindus who own a kind of bazaar. This hindus bough them as part of a promotion of a bell company so they can only be used with this company. They went to the shop another person to make unblock the phones. It happens to be that this person was a former police. This is the caracter introduced by Randroide recently. This guy has nothing to do with the bombings since when he touch the cell phones, they were generic cell phones. He probably unblock hundreads for the hindus.

The current tactic of Randroide is make appear as much policemen as he can in the text. He is using the fact the in English wikipedia nobody knows anything. His conspiration is that ETA (a Spanish group similar to irish IRA) did the bombing and the police allowed them to do and then falsely accused islamists and kill some of them simulating suicide. It is so far fetched that is dificult to understand but if you bear this in mind you will understand Randroide maneouvers. Because he know that he cannot flatley state this ("ETA did helped by Spanish police") he tries to create a maze were "Spanish police" and "ETA" appear as much as posible.

Finallly, the discussion about Al-Qaeda is irrelevant to me because it depends more in the definition you make of Al Qaeda than in a study of the facts. The perpetrators have Bin Laden videos showing horrible things done by westerners to muslims and they hear again and again Bin Laden speeches. But they payed the operation with the money they earn smugling hashish. So they did because Al-Qaeda and they were instructed by people with known contacts with Al Qaeda but is imposible to proof were the order came from.

My point is that extremists islamist did the bombings -I can bring 100 sources if necesary- and all Spanish police behave honourably (some of them with sheer neglicence and lack of resources).

Sorry for the lenght and the bad english.--Igor21 17:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

One hundred sources aren't necessary -- just some good ones contradicting the 2/07 New York Times piece. I appreciate your taking the time to explain it to me. But as I said on the talk page, he keeps coming up with sources putting a different slant on things. It is tedious, but your case needs also to be built on specific sources. That is why I asked if you could come up with some re the Times article. That is how Wikipedia works. I am predisposed to believe it was indeed Islamists, but when an editor comes in with sources you have to respond with sources. I agree that it would be deeply wrong to have the article imply that "Spanish police informants" were behind the bombing if that is not so or is simply a crackpot theory. Right now the very first paragraph seems to fit with your viewpoint.--Mantanmoreland 21:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I am really not an internet person. I much prefer books. You can buy "The one percent doctrine" by Ron Suskind. There is explained everything from the mouth of CIA operatives. I have read many, many about terrorism and nobody has any doubt. You can also go for Bruce Hoffman or see the congratulations of americans to Spanish police for the way the investigation was conducted. Would american FBI and CIA colaborate with a police suspicious of colaboration with Al-Qaeda (or individual islamic terrorists)? Now the trial is going on and here in Spain there is no doubt anymore about ETA (Doubts about police faded years ago).--Igor21 20:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You can certainly cite books, particularly by reputable journalists like Suskind.--Mantanmoreland 21:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mantanmoreland : I spoke about Suskind many months ago but Randroide is not here for subtelties. I also put a 30 pages report by Hoffman and 16 sources but all this is for nothing. Randroide is only going to be bend by force as it was in spanish wikipedia were he was blocked until stoped.

Since nobody is going to force Randroide into not speak about whatever he wants to speak I give you some background about explosives to survive the Deluge of cherrypicked sources and twisted reasoning that Randroide is going to unleash.:

• What happened : The most popular explosive in Spain for mining is manufactured by Santa Barbara and is called GOMA 2. Since seven years ago the most common kind was GOMA 2 EC that containes DNT that is a cancerigen product. Seven years ago Santa Barbara started manufacturing a new kind of GOMA 2 called GOMA2 ECO that does not contain DNT. When Trashorras stole the dynamite from the mine to sell to the perpetrators most part was of the second kind (GOMA 2 ECO) but in the floor there were remains of GOMA 2 EC and they also grab them. The analisis carried out this year with all guarantees (and posted by Randroide in the hope that nobody will understand) says that the explosive found in the bomb that did not explode, in the car used by the terrorist to go the station, in the flat where some of the perpetrators commit suicide and in another attempted bombings by the same cell that was GOMA 2 ECO with some contamination of DNT. Police did some fotografs inside the mine were Trashorras stole the dynamite that showed the floor full of mixed dynamites.

• Conspiracy theory about explosives : In the delirium of the conspiracy the explosive had been one of the central issues. The analisis carried out after the bombings were done hurriedly and without supervision so results were not as accurate as they the ones of this recent analisis. The conspirationist said in the begining that the bomb that did not explode was factored by the police and that the real explosive was C4 (a military substance). Some of them said that was Tytadine (i,e, the explosive used by ETA). Now after the analisis there is little room for especulation. What they say now is cannot be GOMA 2 ECO because GOMA 2 ECO does not have DNT. THey show again and again evidence that says that GOMA 2 ECO does not have DNT (which everybody knows). One of the policemen when declare in a Parliament hearing about the bombings said that "nitroglicerine was found in the trains" . It was a mistake and he corrected himself the day after (and has been doing for two and a half years) but the people like Randroide still is saying that there was nitroglicerine. They say that because in the laboratory cleaned the products the nitroglicerine disappeared. And to make things worse, one of people that did that did the analisis (who was there as representative of one organisation that believes in the conspiration told to El Mundo that some nitroglicerine was found but not writen in the report so El Mundo did a front page. This one of the sources of Randroide.

The strategy of conspirationism here is to show that there is somehting hidden. They do not care very much what so I do not know if Randroide will start with C4, nitroglicerine, Tytadine or his catch phrase the he can extensively source -since is pure truth- "GOMA 2 ECO does not have DNT". He will hide that in the mine they work with both, so the guys grab whatever was in the floor.

Randroide is in a hurry now since he needs to focus the attention in another thing that is not the libel of police officers that is still on the introduction and that has become evident.

For me all this is ludicrous since all the sources except El Mundo say the same. We do not need to discuss each single detail since Suskind, Hoffman, CIA, FBI, Spanish police, Spanish judicial and all the world press tell us clearly what happened. Thanks for your attention and just tell me when you are fed up. Very few people resists more than one month of Randroide intrincated manipulations.--Igor21 15:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This article as the whole wikipedia should be biased towards truth. I also would like more people understanding how sophisticated and succesful is Randroide's tactic. I would like someone saying "Let the deads alone and go to play in another article". I have been looking other articles and specially 9/11 and it makes me cry. Conspirationist are not allowed even in the talk pages. Nowere says "some sources say that the WTC was intentionally demolished by FBI" or in the introuduction does not say "FBI had the names and credit card numbers of the guys who bought the plane tickets" or "some of the hijakers had visas isued in spite of the fact that they were known as having relationship with islamist extremists" or etc.. This is the respect I want for my country, his policemen and his dead people.

I do not want to hazle and you can run away at any moment but I think is clear for you now what is going on. The tone I use is because Southofwatford is worn out and is surrendering. Robust aproach is the only way to stop Randroide and atract people to the article. When I am polited, Randroide introduces more and more garbagge and people tells me "You must discuss with him and find a middle ground". Midle ground between sheer infamy and truth, is sheer infamy.--Igor21 16:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

A middle ground is not always necessary, when the issues are clear. As for conspiracy theories, you are preaching to the choir and there is much resistance to conspiracy theories among Wiki editors. What I am trying to say to you is that when a request is made for sourcing by an editor not familiar with the issues, it is best to comply with the request. Remember that US editors are simply not as familiar with the Madrid bombings as 9-11. --Mantanmoreland 18:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Does people in the States know about Bali, Istambul, Bombay and London bombings? Perhaps I can push for a category so the articles protect each other.--Igor21 18:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Note my comments concerning the innuendo in the first few paragraphs. If you feel that the articles convey the wrong impression, there are Wiki policies such as the ones concerning undue weight (WP:NPOV) that you should cite. --Mantanmoreland 21:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You deleted sourced data

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from an article. Please be more careful when editing articles 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.[3][4] Randroide 15:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

("level 2" warning too agessive, sorry for the inconvenience)

I did nor revert your deletion of sourced content: I expect you to write a text you consider appropiate using all the sources you deleted (see article talk page). Thank you for your understanding. Randroide 15:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Your edits were reverted for the reasons explained in the talk page.[5] Please don't leave vandalism warnings for good-faith edits. Misusing warning templates is disruptive and violates WP:POINT. I see that you have been recently warned about this.[6] --Mantanmoreland15:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

We have had months of this kind of aggressive overbearing behaviour from Randroide, but now he is being even less reasonable than previously; he is completely unwilling to contemplate any solution does not highlight conspiracy theory material in the main article - today demonstrates that perfectly. Southofwatford 16:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. Too bad. --Mantanmoreland 17:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You deleted information from talk page

please be more carefull in future edits as you deleted my text from the AV/I page with this edit of yours - [7]. Jaakobou 11:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

See below. Terribly sorry.--Mantanmoreland 12:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

What's going on?

May I ask why you have deleted, three posts of Maestroka (me), Tony Siddaway, Atabek, on this section, which is a debate, not an article? What do you think you are doing? FYI, this is called vandalism.

If this was a mistake, I suggest you be careful next time you are editing...--Scientia Potentia 12:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I just checked the diffs and am mortified. My intent was to fix one word. Have no idea how that happened.--Mantanmoreland 12:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

That's OK. I was already tense about something else. Sorry for my tone. --Scientia Potentia 13:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You had every right to be upset! --Mantanmoreland 13:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

What on Earth...

...happened with this edit? You removed a bunch of active conversation. Please try to fix it. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It's already been fixed, as per the preceding comments. I'm terribly sorry about it. It was inadvertent and I'm at a loss to explain it.--Mantanmoreland 15:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I am terribly sorry, I did not see the above messages. If you can, can you take a look again, because there is some missing content still (the discussion on Reddi, for instance). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It clearly wasn't on purpose. Don't stress it. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I replaced the "Imam Khomeini" discussion. The Reddi discussion was already restored. The rest is a bit of a mystery -- snippets here and there. I'm really curious as to how this happened. My first thought was "edit conflict" but there's no evidence of that. --Mantanmoreland 15:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

RFC

I have called for an RFC on 11-M--Igor21 15:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

POINT for point

Actually, I beat you to calling my posting of the link a WP:POINT. But there's a bit more to it than that: The exact page I linked to does not contain any personal attacks, which was the real point of my POINT. Please don't ignore the content of my comment: I totally agree that this and other sites should not be linked as attack sites, but personally, I find the essay on that subpage interesting and thoughtful, well suited for an essay page on Wikipedia. I'm simply trying to shed light on both sides of the story. I'm all for protecting Wikipedia users from attacks, but it still means censoring a lot of harmless stuff, some of which I do find interesting (which isn't against policy, yet). —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand, but I thought that your actions and mine were not comparable and were a bit of a cheap shot.--Mantanmoreland 16:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean. You may be interested in my substitute lenghty reply to Crum375. With my "cheap shot", I hoped to get my message across very quickly. I should be more patient (and I know it). —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. As I said on the attack sites talk page, this is no big deal.--Mantanmoreland 16:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree and thanks. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Your note

I agree that defamation alone should cover the subject. I would not restrict it to libel, as I can see an argument that IRC could be construed as slander. Crum375 18:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

arbitration requested - you are named

User:Mangoe has filed for arbitration about Wikipedia:Attack sites at this address. We are named parties. - Denny ^(talk) 21:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. My first arbitration! How novel.--Mantanmoreland 21:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

disruptive ?

How are my edits at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO disruptive ? I'm offering my opinion, that's all. —AldeBaer 00:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think a better question is, "when are they not disruptive?"--Mantanmoreland 00:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

vandalism

Thanks for catching this. Keesiewonder ^talk 10:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Attack sites

Currently, the page is still a policy proposal. The idea I believe was to collect relevant bits and pieces of existing policy and ArbCom rulings on the matter and make it into a policy with special regard to attack sites. It's definitely worth keeping as an essay. I think the question rather is if it should be more than that. —AldeBaer 21:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Replied. —AldeBaer 02:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Mega Group

It never hurts to propose a deletion. "{{subst:PROD|put your reason here}}" -Will Beback · † · 23:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

"Solitary" gunman (Virginia Tech massacre)

Hi. The introductory sentence has been previously decided by consensus. See the talk page archive for more detail. Thanks. Scientz 19:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for getting back to me. Scientz 21:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The WikiProject Biography Newsletter: Issue II - April 2007

The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you BetacommandBot 19:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The neo-lachrymose conception of Jewish-Arab history

I have responded to your comment on the AfD. Can you please take a look(also at the details I have provided under my keep vote). Thanks --Aminz 07:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

User:JohnHistory

It's kind of a long story, but I might as well summarise for you b/c I haven't done it before. Be warned though, it's not that interesting a story, so I don't mind if you "tl;dr" it:

One fine day about 2 months ago, I was patrolling with VP when I came across some deletion and read the talk page of an article, Manfred von Richthofen. An IP had used offensive language against User:Clawson in a content dispute that seemed to be about a source that hinted at "non-Aryan" ancestry of Richthofen. Now, I'm not particularly interested in military history etc, but I handed out a warning and (unwisely, in hindsight) displayed enough curiousity about the dispute to attract that IP to ask me for "help".

I took a look at the whole thing and noticed a minor flaw in Clawson's line of argument: From the fact that the author was Jewish, he deduced that the essay was specifically talking about Jewish ancestry. Clawson and I discussed it on his talk page, and finally we agreed to rephrase the statement and move it to the "Richthofen family" section.

Shortly thereafter, Clawson left (maybe due to his RfA, which failed partly because of me easily digging up many instances of snide remarks etc). Meanwhile, the IP had registered an account, User:JohnHistory, and we exchanged a few emails, where I tried to explain core policies of NPA and NPOV. When he started to bug me to delete that source entirely, I declined, saying that I find the claim itself interesting and enriching when (as it then was) truthfully cited. He... didn't react well.

On the talk page, User:Kusma, a fellow German user, came up with yet another source, this time explicitly claiming Jewish ancestry of Richthofen, while Mackensen came up with a more precise reference for the first source. There was some friendly dispute among several interested editors, and consensus was that although that assertion obviously wasn't mainstream, it was still interesting and citing them with due weight was a good idea. So I incorporated the second source, and everyone was happy, except for JohnHistory.

He started to rephrase my version in a POV way (calling the sources "Jewish propaganda" within the article...), so I started to revert and tried to get him into reasonable debate. Turns out, I had assumed a little too much good faith in the beginning, as he immediately started to throw the same kind of things at me that you have read at my talk page, and then decided to remove the references completely, which I also reverted.

He was also warned, by Ryan Postlethwaite and more recently by Chairboy. However, he continued to delete the statement, so I filed for a third opinion, and bibliomaniac15 responded that he agreed with my version. It didn't stop JohnHistory, though. So I finally decided to file an article WP:RFC, to little response or effect.

The latest thing was JohnHistory deleting the references twice from IP and posting those latest rants on my talk page. The main problem is, as long as the sources are not in the article, he seems to be totally quiet. He only ever turns up when I notice and revert (I don't have the article watchlisted, as I'm not strongly interested in the article subject itself).

So that's just about the whole story behind those remarks. Yes, I feel they're somewhat unwarranted, too. I don't believe I'm a "bigotted Jewish propagandist", "cancer to the world" or "violating Jimbo Wiki guidelines" (sic!). To be clear: As we both know perhaps better than anyone else, I'm not always the most level-headed guy, but I really tried in this case because it appeared to be the perfect opportunity to argue for article neutrality and quality where I don't have strong (or rather: any) emotional ties to the subject either way.

All in all, it has been a great learning experience for me, but I wish the issue could be resolved by now, I just don't see how that could happen in an agreeable fashion. —AldeBaer 15:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

See my reply in your talk. That kind of abuse is not justifiable.--Mantanmoreland 16:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I may do that, eventually. The wicked aspect is, I know I could get rid of this simply by letting him remove the references. Now, those are not perfectly reliable sources by any means, but his reason for removing them is clear and present POV.

Actually, I don't take particular offence at his remarks, as they're so totally outlandish. I rather regret his complete unwillingness to participate in any kind of reasonable debate, which requires the ability to accept and welcome to stand corrected from time to time. If there was any way to get that simple point across without going through process, I'd strongly prefer it. I just happen to be out of ideas. —AldeBaer 17:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd say you've also exhausted all remedies, short of seeking action.--Mantanmoreland 17:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I did post at AN/I once, to the effect that Ryan warned him. —AldeBaer 18:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC) (Also, thank you for reassuring me that I've been really *trying* to work it out amicably with JohnHistory, much appreciated.)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Cagney.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Will look. --Samiharris 15:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Have added add'tl materials and also used the source you provided. Thanks. --Samiharris 17:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for my hasty edit. It was a cut and paste gone haywire. I will try to be more careful in the future.--Samiharris 00:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Racism by country

Hello, a request for mediation has been filed given the deadlock at racism by country. You previously offered comment on it, but were not involved in any edit warring. As such, I'm inviting you to add yourself to the RFM if you feel that you're part of the dispute. You can do so here. If you feel you're not involved in the dispute, please disregard this message and thanks for your earlier opinion. WilyD 21:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Well, okay - here's the deal: The article was locked very quickly, and only Pejman47 and myself actually "edit warred" - but there's some discussion on the talk page. Rather than decide who was involved versus who was just commenting in a driveby myself, I invited everyone who commented to decided whether they felt they were involved. If you feel you're involved, please feel free to join the mediation. If you don't feel you're involved, don't worry about it. I think it's a fairer and more accurate way to decide who's involved (since it's a bit vague) and keeps it free of any bias I might have in deciding who's involved or not. In principle, Racism by country has been in an edit war for a couple months now. But the activity level is low, so who knows?

Anyways, that was longwinded, but - if you want to be involved in the mediation, then be involved. If you don't want to, you don't have to be. WilyD 21:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll be happy to weigh in at the appropriate time.--Mantanmoreland 20:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Clarification request on GraceNotes' RFA

Hello,

I asked this question on the talk page for the RFA mentioned above, but in the case that you're not monitoring that page actively, I wanted to make sure I asked it of you directly: This diff contains a message you added to a previous RFA discussion, which contains a link to one of the primary sites mentioned in the various attack sites discussions. I'd be curious to find out whether you'd now find that message inappropriate, and if so, how you'd reword it to fit with your current views on the policies in question while still retaining the (in my opinion) important and relevant evidence of off-wiki misconduct therein. Thanks for any clarification you can provide on this matter. JavaTenor 00:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt response! JavaTenor 00:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Gracenotes' RFA

Please note that GN has clarified the oft-misunderstood answer to Q4 here, if you wish to review the oppose viewpoint you placed on this RFA. If not, I won't bother you again about it. -- nae'blis 21:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Question about apparent sock, with respect

Hi, this was raised on the Gracenotes RfA talk page, and was rightly taken down, but not before I happened to see it. I'll admit my curiosity is piqued. Can you explain this edit? Thanks, --G-Dett 21:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall how that happened, but I guess it must have the same explanation as this edit.[8] --Mantanmoreland 22:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring at WP:NPA

I was forced to protect WP:NPA due to edit warring which you were involved in. We prefer to keep our policy pages editable to the public. When the protection expires I will be more inclined to block people for edit warring than to protect the policy again. In the future please discuss these things on the talk page and come to a consensus. Do not argue by reverting back and forth on a policy page. ^(H) 03:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Etiquette?

Just so I know, is there some way an editor could ask you about the appearance of sock-puppeteering in such a manner as would meet your standards of etiquette, and not be reverted as "trolling" (here and here)? I'm trying to be as delicate as possible. If you revert this as well, could you please suggest some alternate phrasing that you'd be more responsive to (on my talk page, if you like)? It would seem to me that asking you directly (and politely) in this way is more courteous (and WP:AGF-compliant) than simply reporting you would be, but when you call this "trolling" you don't leave me much of a choice. Thanks Mantanmoreland,--G-Dett 15:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If you have reason to believe there is sock puppetry going on and communication with the person is not successful, I would recommend WP:RCU which will let you request a check. ^(H) 15:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks H. The account in question has not been used for ten months, but it is still technically active. I am not eager to get Mantanmoreland in trouble if he's retired the apparent sock, which is why I've come here rather than RCU; but I do think that if the anomaly can't be adequately explained, the account should be closed and the transgression owned up to.--G-Dett 15:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I should point out that having multiple accounts is allowed unless used in a manner prohibited by WP:SOCK. I myself have more than one account, it is fine as long as you don't use them to abuse the rules. ^(H) 15:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know. In this case Mantanmoreland and Tomstoner have edited together on contentious pages (esp. Naked Short Selling) and address each other as separate editors [9]. They've also actively edit-warred together on the same side: see the following sequence for example: Mantanmoreland, Mantanmoreland, Mantanmoreland; then with Mantanmoreland at three reverts in comes Tomstoner, then Tomstoner again. This doesn't add up to a picture of legitimate use of multiple accounts, unless I'm mistaken.--G-Dett 15:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Tomstoner is not me. Stop harassing me over 15-month-old edit. I already responded to you. Do not post on this talk page.--Mantanmoreland 16:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)