User talk:Nagle/Archive 2007-12-31

DZK / Richard James Burgess

Just go ahead and remove these sites, I seem to be far too inept for this librarian shit. Keep up the good work, Nagle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DZK (talk • contribs)

Israeli Apartheid arbitration

The move/revert war issue for Israeli Apartheid has been referred to arbitration. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Move and revert warring at Israeli Apartheid --John Nagle 00:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the move to arbitration, but please remove the term "wheel war" - moving and reverting moves isn't an administrative action, it's something any user can do. -- ChrisO 00:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the messages indicated that moving had been blocked at one point, which is an admin action. Did that happen? --John Nagle 00:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was wheel war, there were moves and deletions that can only be done by admins. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the moves and deletions point - I was under the impression that any user could do that? But you're certainly right about the move protection; Humus sapiens (I think) un-move-protected the article so that he could move it to Allegations of Israeli apartheid for the fourth time. I've documented the timeline with diffs at WP:RFAR#Statement by ChrisO. Please let me know if I've left any significant points out of the timeline. -- ChrisO 02:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please put your comments in the appropriate place on the arbitration page, not here; the arbitrators won't read this. Thanks. --John Nagle 03:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per HOTR's precedent, I edited my name on the list to point out that I was not involved in the move/revert war. I hope this is acceptable. Bibigon 06:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbComm

Hi, I think it best if I stay out of the ArbComm case, I don't really have time to deal with it right now and I wasn't involved in the actual revert war. I think if I were to get involved I'd just end up being a magnet for personal attacks that would just distract from the real issues. Homey 06:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's really up to ArbComm now. Let's just see what happens. --John Nagle 06:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfM

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Apartheid (disambiguation)]], and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apartheid RfM

Nagle, Fred Bauder indicated that he supported the idea of mediation, so my guess is the committee may want to wait to see whether that can go ahead, rather than the other way round. Normally, we're supposed to try mediation before asking for arbitration, if at all possible. I was about to file an RfM anyway, so I hope you'll reconsider whether you want to be part of it. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfAr

John, I saw your note about Zeq. I think you may have misunderstood the nature of an RfAr. Anyone who was involved may be added as a party by anyone, regardless of who has filed the request. The ArbCom may also add anyone at any time, even if they have not been named as a party. The situation is fluid for good reason, because ultimately the point of arbitration is to get issues sorted out, not to wikilawyer. So Zeq is allowed to add himself, and to add others too, if he believes they contributed to the situation. Only the Committee can decide what evidence to include in their assessment. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq never actually added himself as a party; he just made comments. My point was that I'm not claiming that Zeq did anything wrong; he's banned from editing the article, and he didn't. --John Nagle 06:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 13:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMC Collectibles

Why is it neccesary to remove an article that largely mirrors a feature of collectible car magazines, a section that discusses what models and toys have been made of a car? On what basis does this article deserve deletion? Who has it offended? Why is the information contained, namely fairly specific and cited information deemed of no consequence? Is this not merely an act of malicious hostility against an editor?? --matador300 07:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hubbert Peak Theory

You've been doing a nice job editing the Hubbert Peak Theory article. The way you reorganized some of the sections a couple of weeks ago was well done. Jkintree 20:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --John Nagle 04:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Similar backgrounds

I've been editing the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article as well as a bunch of others you've edited. I just realized that we have similar backgrounds in computer graphics/animation -- strange. Checked out Animats website, technology and patents. My list of recent publications (including a 2006 ACM TOG paper and two patents) is here [1]. I was in negotiations a few years ago with Softimage with regards them licensing some of my software for inclusion too. I also wrote a package called Deadline which sold fairly well [2]. I did some work for DARPA back in Uni too. Feel free to give me an email and we could grab a beer at SIGGRAPH 2006 in Boston if your going. --Ben Houston 04:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apartheid Arbcom case

Hi John. I notice that you've suggested that Humus Sapiens might have abused admin authority based on the fact that he "deleted to make way for move", but you seemed to have missed the fact that ChrisO "deleted to make way for move" 3 times. Was that just an oversight? Also, you say at least 3 parties to the arbitration have admin authority, but in fact 6 parties to the arbitration have admin authority. Was that another oversight? Also, you say " a race condition on page protection between Jayjg, Humus Sapiens and ChrisO" occurred, but it appears that only ChrisO was attempting to protect pages, not Humus Sapiens or Jayjg. Am I missing something? --User:MPerel 19:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed elsewhere, the moves to "Allegations of" were out of policy, so those are the ones of interest. As for who's an admin, I originally put in "at least 3 have admin authority" back when there were fewer participants in the arbitration. I didn't realize we were up to six now. I've fixed the race condition statement. Thanks. --John Nagle 19:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There have always been the same number of participants in the arbitration with the same six admins. And I thought the issue was "wheel warring" not "moves out of policy"? --User:MPerel 19:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check back in the request for arbitration, where there was a big argument over who was a participant. Two people wanted out, and two people wanted in. --John Nagle 20:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on the evidence page was made after the case was accepted and all the parties were notified. You may want to fix your incorrect statement about there being only 3 admins on the evidence page. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 20:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sms.ac

I'm curious as to what your opinion is of the recent Jimbo-intervention at this article? Themindset 04:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overreaction, I think. Sms.ac has sent out similar threatening letters in the past, and they haven't actually sued anybody yet. --John Nagle 04:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. It is absolutely not an overreaction to see an article with completely unsourced claims like that. QUALITY means something. --Jimbo Wales 02:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Full apology here

hopefully you see the before you even know what I am apologizing for

Seizuredog/SeductionWiki.css

Doh, forgot the User. Go ahead and speedy it. --SeizureDog 16:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

That's a particular hobby of mine. WHile I prefer in-line/Harvard style (see Actuary ) I still like cleaning up references. I'm about halfway through Circumcision, and that was an unholy mess. But it is a pain to open each reference, check that it is accurately reflected, drill down through the research to see if there is actually a better source, etc. So thanks for the note, it helps :) -- Avi 18:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kiki Carter

This is an effort to create an historical article about the environmental activist Kiki Carter. I am adding sources as requested by the original notice, but the list is exhaustive. Please review the sources on the article page and advise. Eaglefeather11 20:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot substitution of templates

That is quite a question, and my answer is but a referal to WP:SUBST. Hopefully you'll find all of your answers there. :-) --Zsinj^Talk 18:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Meople.net to the Attention Economy Entry

I am trying to add the reference to the Meople site which you refer to as "email spam." I am trying to tie Meople to the attention conversation just as Root.net is. Please let me know the best way to do this. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.106.207 (talk • contribs)

Actually, the general idea is that Wikipedia doesn't carry advertising. Also see WP:VAIN. Thanks. --John Nagle 02:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

District of Columbia Civil Contempt Imprisonment Limitation Act

Copied from FloNight talk

What's going on with District of Columbia Civil Contempt Imprisonment Limitation Act? Your last edit changed a valid link to one with a 404 error. Please recheck your last edit. Thanks. --John Nagle 03:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John Nagle ; - ) In reply to your question, I was reverting the edits of a banned user AMorrow. Feel free to improve the article as needed. You need to make the changes in your own name making sure that you do not violate copyright laws. If you have further questions, leave them on the talk page of the article or my talk page. regards, FloNight ^talk 17:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was that from a bot? --John Nagle 17:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, why? --FloNight ^talk 19:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheggit

hi, cheggit is fully merged, not merely redirected, to empornium, so it is appropriate. the other one i leave as is. Zzzzz 09:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moller

I was aware of his advancing dates as you noted on my user page. The difference would be that if he doesn't do it this time, he's going to have to hand back at least $250,000 in deposit money in early 2009 or face fraud accusations. According to the recent WSJ article he links to on his site, he's got a hundred deposits of $25k. Offering to hand a significant chunk of change back if he doesn't hit his deadlines is something new in the long history of Moller's Skycar. TMLutas 21:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He already missed the 2005 deadline. I wonder if he refunded the money. --John Nagle 22:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shubnikov

The "citation needed" was outside the parentheses, i.e., it looked to me as applied to the whole phrase about repressions of scientists. Anyway, right now I updated Lev Shubnikov and working on details of his fabricated affair that concerned other Ukrainian scientists, UPTI Affair. `'mikka (t) 06:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on Amnesty or Refocusing of the IA RfA

I just posted this [3] at the IA RfA -- its in a section on just defaulting to a general amnesty for all participants since the current RfA has clearly gone off the rails. I am not sure if you agree with it or not but I would welcome your thoughts since you initiated the RfA and not myself. --Ben Houston 03:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a reply. Thanks. --John Nagle 03:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Mediawatchlogo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Mediawatchlogo.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on Al-Manar

Thanks for the work and the clean up, especially finding its new website, they keep getting taken down.Hypnosadist 21:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing Light

I would advise you to drop your tone. You are not entitled to be rude nor demand as you do that I justify my actions. Nothing whatsoever was recreated. The redirect remains protected. The band will redirect to its notable member until and unless that article (Kiki Carter) is deleted. I have also userfied the text of the deleted article to the original creator per s/his request for use elsewhere. I hope and pray that my actions meet with your kind approval - [personal attack removed]. - CrazyRussian talk/email 00:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inlining fair use images

Re:Talk:Buck_Rogers_(science_fiction)

Fair use images are to be used on article namespaces only. Please read WP:FU if you have any questions on usage of fair use images. Retropunk 18:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing that is fine. It was just used there temporarily, until all the relevant articles were updated, which they have been. --John Nagle 18:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miniclip

User has been blocked for 5RR --mboverload @ 22:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. That was wierd. --John Nagle 22:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Nagle redirect

Dear sir, I'm working on the Articles requested for more than a year project, and the non-existent John Nagle article was one of the items on the list. As you note elsewhere, there is not really enough material on you on the internet to knock up a proper bio. I unlinked your name on the Nagle's Algorithm page, then redirected John Nagle to Nagel's Algorithm. No offence intended, I'm just cleaning up. Ordinary Person 15:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Possible error in escape sequence

Thanks! I think the problem is now fixed. -- Where 18:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UNIQUE USERS PPV PURCHASES (NON-ADULT)

Nah. It was just a vandal. Or a nutter. Doesn't matter. As you say, it's just good that it is now gone :o) ➨ ЯEDVERS 22:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AfD/A bigger, better machine i will be

Done. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 06:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation... activated! :P

Hello! I've accepted your mediation request... sorry for the delay in accepting, we're unusally clogged with stuff at the moment. Check the case page for response. --The Prophet Wizard of the Cray on Cake 16:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-03 Mosaic: World News from the Middle East

Rewrite of Physics

Thanks for the pointer I think I've created the page under my talk namespace as you've suggested. Now if you can delete the original page, I'd appreaciate it. Also feel free to comment on the changes. Good luck in DGCIII. Tmcsheery 17:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Thought the name sounded Familiar. You need to come by and look at the toys we have. Tmcsheery 17:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, so I can't delete it. Put {{db | Moved to talk space, owner requests deletion}} on the page you want deleted, and someone will do it. --John Nagle 18:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg

Hi. I noticed Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg keeps removing sourced material that you've added. Whenever I've done this on the Israel Shahak page he's done a revert and stated "Please do not remove sourced passages unles you have another reliable source that disputes it." Perhaps you should suggest the same to him? Conch Shell 14:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris McGreal

Your edit summary referred to "POV vandalism"; this must have been an error, otherwise it would be a shocking breach of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I'm assuming you reverted the wrong article or something; if you have any actual concerns, the article Talk: page awaits. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category for pro-Israel organizations

You wrote (→See also - rm what appears to be a random grouping of other media watchdog organizations. This is what categories are for.). I suspect that Category:Pro-Israel organizations would be rather controversial. Is that what you are proposing? We have Category:Non-governmental organizations involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which could be subdivided into the two (or more) sides. But we'd just get revert wars. --John Nagle 22:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The organizations listed were not (or at least not mostly) pro-Israel in any sense. That is why I found this content useless and removed it. It was an apparently random listing of a few miscellaneous media watchdog groups of various politics. - Jmabel | Talk 23:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New article on a complex subject

A new article on a complex subject is looking for more high quality contributors:

Israel lobby in the United States

--Ben Houston 00:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been mostly doing consumerism this week, taking a break from Israel/Arab issues. --John Nagle 16:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid

This case has closed and the final decision has been published at the link above.

To summarize: Discussion of global issues which concern use of "apartheid" and all polls shall be at Wikipedia:Central discussions/Apartheid with subsidiary dialog on the talk page of affected articles. Based on the difficult and controversial nature of this matter, with the exception of Zeq (talk · contribs), who remains banned from editing the article, the principal participants in this dispute shall be granted an amnesty for past actions, but are strongly encouraged to engage in negotiations. All involved administrators are admonished not use their administrative tools without prior discussion and consensus.

- Mgm|^(talk) 20:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Birketts

Hi, I see you PRODded this page - did you notice that it had been deleted previously? I'd be inclined to speedy it but don't know if that's possible, as it isn't a "substantially identical copy", as per criterion 4, of the deleted article (which was actually a list). Also, since it was deleted (on grounds of notability) a user has asserted its notability on the talk page. Do you know what the best course of action is? --Blisco 20:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Changed "prod" to "speedy". One could argue over whether the article should be deleted as a duplicate or as an empty article, but why bother? --John Nagle 23:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot?

I'm not a bot; I'm doing this by hand. There are multiple things that use the "VA-X" naming, and I feel it is better to make the disambiguation pages now than wait until both articles are written and fix all the links then. --NE2 19:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mirabilis (band) and the speedy removal

The actual wording of Wikipedia:Notability (music) says first "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:" and the as one of the criteria says "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." Both members were in other groups who have articles. So they didn't qualify as a speedy. Of course they may still be non-notable and get deleted. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Political notability of Robert Parkyn

The guy was a member of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta and an Alderman for 17 years, he is plenty notable. --Cloveious 14:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, John.

Lots of strange little edits going down tonight, no? Must be another full moon since my talk page is getting hammered. Thanks for the info. :) - Lucky 6.9 02:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts?

Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_11#Template:Palestine. You'll notice it is the same block of voters who all come in and voted oppose to the renaming here: Talk:Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid#Requested_move.2C_Retitle_Article_ASAP. It's coordinated block voting and I do not know how to respond to it appropriately. Maybe I should create a mailing list of people who I think will vote with me and call them up when I want to get rid of something I don't like. --Ben 03:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

John, please don't make fake 3RR reports. You've reverted three times as has Jay, so you're both in the same boat. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John, please do not make spurious 3RR reports in an attempt to harass other editors. Also, please do not use false claims about edits or the Arbitration Committee in an attempt to intimidate other editors over simple content disputes. And finally please stop inserting clearly irrelevant material into articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what dispute resolution is for. Some neutral party is going to have to sort this out. --John Nagle 17:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CAMERA's Founding and Charles Jacobs

CAMERA has posted a brief history, which describes Charles Jacobs as deputy director of the Boston Chapter, not its founder. It has also provided images of documents. Here's the link:

CAMERA's Founding and Charles Jacobs

CAMERA has posted a brief history, which describes Charles Jacobs as deputy director of the Boston Chapter, not its founder. It has also provided images of documents. Here's the link:

http://camera.org/index.asp?x_context=48

Update, sorry for the double posting and late signature: Nehemiah123 02:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments

I don't appreciate your comments about me possibly sneaking in changes to the content policies. I helped to write those policies, and have been continually involved in maintaining them. I'm now helping to streamline them, and have put up a proposal to merge them, which is being worked on by several editors. I try to prevent sneaky changes to the content policies, not make them. Your presumption of bad faith is disappointing, to put it mildly. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a consequence of making many changes without discussing them first on the talk page. It may be harmless, but it's the sort of thing which bears watching. Hence the comment. It's not a big deal. --John Nagle 22:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments II

On my talk page, you asked why I was creating dying mall articles, well... here's your answer. I was just trying to make articles from the over abundance of red links on List of defunct shopping malls. P.Shack 20:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AntiWarRallyFeb162003.jpg and New antisemitism

Greetings Nagel, I would recommend that you just add the {{ifd}} tag to that image. The talk page reasoning is extremely valid and additionally the fact that the usage of the image is so against Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy that Wikipedia can't even credit the artist on the image page (ie: The copyright holder's name is available on request.) combined with the fact that the creative commons license is only for the photograph and not the actual art itself (a photograph of an artist's work does not convey the artist's image rights to the photographer). (→Netscott) 21:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The more you keep trying, the more you expose your POV. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Messianic Jewish leaders

I understand and AGF, they intentionally use a similar name to confuse people. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good books

Getting to YES and Getting past No. Highly recommended. --Deodar 01:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup?

I think it's a little harsh to drop a "cleanup" tag on The Silver Branch (Sutcliff novel) with a note "needs a bookbox and ISBN". Request for expansion, perhaps, but cleanup? What is a bookbox, how am I to find out, and why an ISBN? They're tied to individual editions of books, no, so will the ISBN for a 1970/80s edition of a 1950s novel (and I have some of this vintage) be any use? Telsa (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia knows quite a bit about ISBN numbers. Take a look at the article, which now has a book infobox. The ISBN number leads you to library catalogs and booksellers. Click on it and see what happens. --John Nagle 17:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The human herding question...

Hi Nagle, you weighed in with helpful input on the Talk:Herd behavior page about a potential MERGE a while back. It appears that a wiki-consensus has been reached on the merge. There is now a question as to the best name for the new page. I would very much like to have a decently wide consensus before we merge the two (still muddled) articles, so if you would be willing to weigh in, that would really help. (as would input from any other interested wikipedians) N2e 16:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid

Regarding your comment that I "continually object to anti-Israel sources" and that I revert if anyone puts them in, here are diffs showing I added material from Ali Abunimah, an American-Palestinian writer; from Jamal Zahalka; an Israeli-Arab member of the Knesset; and from Azmi Bishara; another Israeli-Arab member of the Knesset. All three believe that the term "Israeli apartheid" is accurate.

Have you ever added pro-Israel material to this or any other article?

Please correct what you wrote. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I get along well with Nagle and not with SlimVirgin, but even I have to admit that SlimVirgin has a long history of good service to Wikipedia. Nagle, I think you should give SlimVirgin the benefit of the doubt here. --Ideogram 05:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm being too harsh, perhaps. SlimVirgin isn't that bad. But there is an ongoing ownership issue with some articles, particularly that one. --John Nagle 06:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be patient. She can be abrasive but she means well. --Ideogram 07:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gimble System

Just a quick note on this one. A gimble system is a real and probably notable enough camera term. But in this case, the article is likely a copyvio: [4]. I'm not entirely clear on whether this would qualify as db-copyvio, but if so, it may be worth retagging. ScottW 03:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's Gimbal, which we already have. --John Nagle 04:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, of course. I was kind of surprised that this was the first time someone had made an entry. Thanks for pointing that out. ScottW 11:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Please justify your action with regard to "Hasbara Fellowships"

That was the justification: the article failed notability standards and was a violation of Wikipedia policy and US copyright law in that it was little more than a verbatim copy of this Web site. Please read policy and the law before you ask that I "justify" anything. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 08:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Boxtorrentslogo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Boxtorrentslogo.gif. 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 15:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

proposed merger of blister steel into crucible steel

You suggested the merger. I have commented on this several times (but no one else has). Could you please look at it?Peterkingiron 23:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Apartheid wall" / "Separation fence"

I understand the problems you might have, and I acknowledge that its inclusion in the timeline might be subject to a discussion determining what is or is not relevant. However, it is mentioned in the entry, which is where one can find reference to the arguments "alleging apartheid". Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 22:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a mess again; take a look at the last few edits. Someone put in a quote, that got a "citation needed", and if that's left in, it will be deleted. So I put in "called apartheid wall by critics", which is accurate, verifiable, and not too slanted either way. The magic words have to be in there or the usual suspects will delete it as "original research". --John Nagle 00:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you didn't leave this comment on my talk like the last one, but you must be mistaken about what you described. I see no {{cn}} tags or any other edits to the timeline other than yours...(?) Tewfik^Talk 02:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This edit added a {{fact}} tag, which outputs "Citation needed". --John Nagle 03:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite having looked twice, I missed that. As an aside, the timeline is beggining to verge on OR at this point, and I'm afraid that unless very specific criteria are laid out, it would probably be best not to have it at all. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 21:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't

...post rubbish warnings on my talk page. I've removed it. <<-armon->> 22:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paige White vandalism

My assertion would be that some kid called up a few friends and they decided to hit the same article. I'm thinking that's plausible because even with a dynamic IP, don't most ISPs release periodically as opposed to each time you turn off your NIC? I see you have invented an algorithm. As impressive as that may be, I am solely responsible for the 8th layer of the OSI reference model. the_undertow ^talk 22:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood undead

I tend to agree, but it was a borderline decision, and sine they do seem to have generated a fair amount of publicity, I thought this at least deserved a formal AfD process. I wouldn't know one of their songs if you blew my ears out with it. My view is purely procedural. The article had been salted, and then after the latest author to start the article (an apparent newbie) had presented quite a few reliable-source citations in the talk page (the only place she could since the main page was salted), and she asked if the page could be reinstated or at least subjected to a deletion review or AfD. I had been the last editor to tag it for a speedy, so I asked an admin (User:NawlinWiki) to unsalt it so the procedure could be carried out. Alas, you tagged it and someone ellse speedy-deleted it before this could take place. I would like to put it back and then begin a formal AfD process, just so we can have something to fall back on when another fan of this band comes along. They seem to have just enough notability to make it a little more than a straight speedy -- and believe me, I've been known to speedy-tag half a dozen new article about bands in less than an hour. Realkyhick 06:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Israelactivismlogo.jpg

Hello, Nagle. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Israelactivismlogo.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Nagle/Hasbara Fellowships. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 09:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Palestine

WikiProject Palestine is looking for editors to help build and maintain comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Start by adding your name to the list of members at WikiProject Palestine. Ahlan wa Sahlan! (Welcome!)

--Ian Pitchford 19:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense of Timeline relating to allegations of Israeli Apartheid

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Timeline relating to allegations of Israeli Apartheid, by Kuratowski's Ghost, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Timeline relating to allegations of Israeli Apartheid provides no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Timeline relating to allegations of Israeli Apartheid, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Timeline relating to allegations of Israeli Apartheid itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 21:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jayjg

This case wasn't malformatted, it was poorly justified. I closed it and archived it. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comment you used closing it was "(Open cases - archiving closed cases; removing malformatted case)". Why do you think it unjustified? When the first postings from an anon are reverts in a disputed area, there's probable cause for investigation, per WP:SOCK: Not surprisingly, sock puppet accounts usually show much greater familiarity with Wikipedia and its editing process than most newcomers. They are more likely to use edit summaries, immediately join in edit wars, or participate vocally in procedures like Articles for deletion or Requests for adminship as part of their first few edits. They are also more likely to be brand new or a single purpose account when looking at their contributions summary. I don't really think Jayjg personally was editing as an anon. But it does look like tag-team reversion / meatpuppetry, which WP:SOCK says should be reported as a sockpuppet. If no suspicious edits from anons appear in the relevant articles for a while, I'll consider the problem solved. --John Nagle 18:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense

Prove it? what nonsense am i adding? Ksharpe126

Article Ksharpe126, which you created, consists of one word: "bleh". --John Nagle 19:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cellulose acetate film and Safety film

G'day John,

thanks for your message. I'm aware that the original author didn't do much with the page initially, and then blanked it. Ordinarily I'd have happily deleted it.

In this particular case, however, you moved information from it into another article with an edit summary explaining the merge. This is a Good Thing, but it means we can't delete the original article. The reason for this is that all Wikipedia contributions are licensed under the GFDL, which requires attribution for every change. At the moment, someone who wants to know who found those references (I assume the references agree with the article?) will see in the history that it was someone from Cellulose acetate film, and looking in that history, will find the real contributor. Without the article, it looks like Nagle (talk · contribs) was the culprit instead.

Now, that's quite involved and messy, and it's been said that Wikipedia's GFDL compliance is ... lacking in some respects. This is true. But it's the best system we've got, and it's why we never delete merge targets (unless the deleting admin suffers a momentary lapse of reason, of course). Cheers, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. We need the history. --John Nagle 15:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR block

I've blocked you for 8 hours for 3RR on Jewish lobby. You're a very good editor and you've been here long enough to know better. Please engage in less blind reverting and more discussion when the block expires. JoshuaZ 01:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Collision detection and root finding

Dear John Nagle,

An anonymous editor of collision detection has twice deleted a passage of the article which compares collision detection to root finding, because this editor does not see how these two are related. I have reverted him twice, but due to Wikipedia editing guidelines, I am reticent to revert him any more. From your background, I would assume that you understand what's going on, so why don't you drop by on the talk page and give your opinion? Loisel 16:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John,

You should add the comment you made on my page to the discussion on collision detection.

Also, I come from a different background. My technique for doing kinematics is to use an adaptive RK method with dense output. This way you have a polynomial approximation of the path which is good to 10^-6 or whatever your tolerance is. Then I use the Durand-Kerner method to find the roots.

Loisel 16:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Stopbadwareyellowalert.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Stopbadwareyellowalert.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation 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. ShadowHalo 23:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Stopbadwareyellowalert.png

That seems silly. Were the image not under a free license, it would probably not meet WP:NFCC since it doesn't contributed significantly to the article. And it'd be a bit contradictory for me to write a fair use rationale if I don't know if it should be in the article or if I don't think it should. That's the responsibility of the uploader. ShadowHalo 01:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Apartheid wall -- note AfD decision

Apartheid Wall is a disambiguation page as a result of an AfD. Please watch for changes which try to make it into something else without discussion. A recent edit by Jayjg (talk · contribs) had the deceptive edit comment "fixed", for a major, controversial change to the article against the AfD result. You then semi-protected the article. Please check the history of the article. Thanks. --John Nagle 17:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't semi-protect it. I'm not an administrator, for a start. It has been semi-protected for some time. All I did was categorize the page correctly (into Category:Semi-protected redirects). My previous edits were simply an attempt to create a stub rather than a disambiguation page that didn't actually disambiguate anything (by merit of having only one item in it) – Gurch 16:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. --John Nagle 17:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Collactivelogo.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Collactivelogo.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation 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. Wizardman 02:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added fair use rationale. --John Nagle 05:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orbitz lookalike

Thanks for spotting that. I did not realize that until after I had added the merge template. --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 04:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apartheid wall request for protection

Hello. It seems this thing has started over, and that you were involved in it before; I not sure about procedure, I haven't myself been involved in that kind of thing before.--Victor falk 13:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you're handling it, which is fine with me. --John Nagle 01:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the bug still exists, as I believe I've seen that technique applied quite frequently. WP:BATTLE comes to mind. Tewfik^Talk 04:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Yes Guy

Hi John. My recommendation would be to just keep an eye on it and make sure the speedy template stays put, regardless of sock puppets, etc. I suspect an admin will come across it, realize it for the nonsense it is and delete it. I'm not sure what WP:Deletion says about deletion after the hangon template is placed, but I've seen admins delete obvious nonsense even with the template placed. I recommend you contact Irishguy who seems rather active in deletions tonight. And I'll keep an eye on the article too. Cheers! Douglasmtaylor 01:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Maybe there's some hope of turning him into a good editor. Let's see what happens by tomorrow. --John Nagle 02:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Prime Insurance Brokers Tags

Thanks for giving the article the benefit of the doubt instead of blithley deleting it.. Please let me know what i can do to improve the content etc... Scrugbyhk 04:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing is to find external neutral sources, like magazine articles, about the company, and cite them. --John Nagle 04:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apartheid Wall

See the discussion on WP:AN. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 02:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've had your first run-in with Jayjg (talk · contribs), after being an admin for two days. I see your frustration. It's not that serious. Take a look at his edit history. He works on Israel-related issues full time, and he's usually feuding with somebody. He's been admonished by ArbComm twice, once in 2005 and once in 2006. He does good work as an admin most of the time, which is why he's still an admin, and he works very hard, but is inclined towards tantrums when he doesn't get what he wants. --John Nagle 04:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just read through the whole Jewish Lobby talk page and it certainly was an education in wikilawyering! Noticed both your last section entry and your note on the bottom of Jayjig's page. It seems that there are less obstructionist people doing some edits now - and that the article is as messy as ever and needs work which I don't have time to do.

Plus it seems absurd that even references to "Jewish lobbies" where Jews lobby together on legitimate issues like anti-Semitism within a country or against any discriminatory laws against Jews would NOT be covered in such an article. Jewish lobby (disambiguation) at very least should link to whatever wiki article there might be for Jews lobbying as Jews. I wish SOMEONE would just go back in there and clean it up. Carol Moore 03:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,Newyorkbrad 18:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:79.75.246.185 report at WP:AIV

I have commented there. Since the account is currently not active would it be okay to remove the report? If it starts up again you could contact me, or re-report it. LessHeard vanU 20:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC) (I don't know why the talkpage is red and there are no contribs, since I copied it from AIV - oh, well! LessHeard vanU 20:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Discussion steps before next poll or RM

Greetings. I've noticed some of your comments before but I don't think we've ever talked (so to speak). As you probably know, I've began trying to help shape discussions about the article name a few weeks ago. Anyway, I'd like to talk to you because I feel frustrated by your recent comment and DNFT logo at at AoIA. Or, emotions aside, I am concerned about your recent comment aims to frustrate (i.e. nullify) my latest step in trying to facilitate discussion on the article name.

Here's what I gather are your concerns: You don't like the flurry of recent polling/RMs. You see them as a drain and as disruptive. You also see them as premature, given the pending ArbCom case. You seem esp annoyed at greg's recent attempt, so close on the heels of his previous RM and poll. Ok, I can share much of your concern. I agree that such polling is disruptive and counter-productive. (Indeed, a few weeks ago I started a straw poll and quickly rescinded it for this reason.) In my recent comments to greg, I spoke again his polling.

Incidentally, though, I think that greg is not a "troll" per se, if only because he's not deliberately and intentionally disruptive. Mostly, he seems over-enthusiastic and trying to rush deliberations. He even said he felt "rebuked" by my comments. Granted, faced with sharper opposition, he defended and did not withdraw the RM. Nevertheless, as mentioned in the misuse of process section, greg seems like somebody who doesn't realize that the polling/RM process needs to be more restrained. Anyway, and please correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think you consider my contributions as trolling. Right?

However, your DNFT is placed after my effort to resist polling/voting, and instead promote discussion and analysis. If your "troll" concern is with the repeated polling, would you please consider moving the DNFT further up the page? Of course, besides the DNFT concern, you also said "We don't need to have this discussion again in yet another location. It's time for the people who want to rename the article to just stop for a while." This seems unnecessary. If Tiamut, Andyvphil, BYT, Alithien, I, and maybe others want to try to synthesize the pro/con arguments, I don't quite see why you'd want to discourage us. I can appreciate you may be weary of the votes, but that doesn't quite seem like grounds for us to stop discussions. Indeed, to avoid useful polls/RM, guidelines suggest that further discussion is warranted. So, I am respectfully asking you to consider retracting your objection, or at least respond to my User Talk about your thinking on this matter. Thanks for hearing me out. HG | Talk 03:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote "You really deserve to be commended for persevering with the needed renaming, Greg, and for your previous effort with the requested move." That seems to assume that there is a need for renaming, and that that efforts to rename it must persist until renaming occurs. After six failed AfDs, two arbitrations, and some number of rejected rename attempts, starting yet another discussion about renaming issues really does approach trolling. --John Nagle 05:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I do tend to persist in Talk discussion efforts. Point taken. I've been trying to keep a discussion on track since Aug 7th. I was mostly on wikibreak Aug 12-28 (a period w/some unnecessary voting). Alithien first suggested the synthesis of arguments (10:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)) instead of voting and upon my return I'm following that constructive idea. But persistent talking is not trolling. To put the DNTF label next to my/Alithien's suggestion is to imply that we are trolling, a serious charge of User misconduct, "bad faith" and "a program of malice". If you think our persistent talk "does approach trolling" -- but you agree that we are not acting with malice or bad faith -- kindly remove the DNTF. Meanwhile, I will formulate a response to calmly explain why I believe further discussion (contra voting) is worthwhile. Thanks again for being responsive yourself. HG | Talk 11:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. In my comment that you've quoted, I agree that it sounds like I commend his previous RM (but meaning his effort, i.e. motivation). But my comment does go on to rebuke his call for a vote. What if my opening sentence read: "You really deserve to be commended for persevering with the needed renaming, Greg, but to call a vote on another specific title is ill-advised and could be disruptive." Though you don't agree on the need for renaming, John, would you find that approach more constructive? HG | Talk 12:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Here's why I think the title is worth further discussion. I hope you'll read through it. Even though you will disagree with my analysis, I think you'll recognize that I am motivated by viable reasoning, not malice or bad faith. Please reply either way. Thanks! HG | Talk 16:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just wanted to encourage you again to look at the link, above, if you don't mind. Thanks. HG | Talk 01:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Cheggitlogo.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Cafairslogo.png

Image Copyright problem

This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:Cafairslogo.png. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 19:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Grandnationalrodeologo.png

I have tagged Image:Grandnationalrodeologo.png as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So why didn't you add one, instead of simply flagging obviously valid content? --John Nagle 01:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you're coming from, but it's really the uploader's responsibility to do that. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think VO is more interested in your willingness to jump through hoops, due to your (very) recent AN/I posts. The response he was looking for was "how high?" ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That bot has been disabled by an admin for exceeding its authority. --John Nagle 18:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legal Aspects of Ritual Slaughter

I've set up a request for comments at Talk:Bans on ritual slaughter#Request for comments and will leave the article as it is pending the outcome of community input. I've made requests to both the law/society and religion lists. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Hopefully, you'll be pleased with this. I moved (i.e., renamed) the bans article to Legal aspects of ritual slaughter. This doesn't rule out the possibility of merger into the main article ritual slaughter, though I don't think it's necessary anymore myself. Thanks, HG | Talk 23:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Appreciate your cleanup efforts. Just wanted to mention Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)#Linking (Yeah, a whole manual of style article and not a short one just on headings). Best, --Shirahadasha 02:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have proof read my translation of the motion in the Swedish Riksdag so it should read smoother in the talk page on Ritual slaughter RPSM 02:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oops

I still haven't gone through the editing tutorial, so sorry, I have got those red things. I was just doing it by feel, sorry about that RPSM 02:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help? Samson Option Article Problems

Thought I'd try you before try "editor assistance" with someone who might find it too trying :-)

Special:Contributions/Tewfik works on the issue from military perspective (evidently 9-5) and wants the whole article merged into nuclear weapons and Israel where it is one sentence with a reference that gives little details.

I am re-writing article to deal with any of his legitimate criticisms, but since his goal is to delete the article, I question the good faith of his criticisms/wiki-lawyering. The only other editor, who had good suggestions, seems to have withdrawn from the discussion.

ESPECIALLY annoying are his deleting quotes from Israel leaders which are the only evidence anyone has of what their nuclear policy is!! You can see them in his mass deletion edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samson_Option&diff=169360776&oldid=169360633

I’m still willing to put the allegedly “inflammatory” statements by Israel supporters that are widely publicized into a “controversies” section, but those are the kinds of comments that make the topic worthy of its own article! Which is why he wants them out.

I am about to put up the much improved article, but I know he’ll revert everything - especially quotes – with usual or new excuses. So is there some phrase or defense I can use against this or should I go straight to arbitration when it happens? Don't want to have to do that.

Please feel free to look at article, though you might wait to comment until I put up newest improved version later today and he reverts it :-) If you know anyone interested in topic who wants to take a look, send them along. I'm looking around myself. Carol Moore 16:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Couplesforchristlogo.gif)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of StandWithUs

An article that you have been involved in editing, StandWithUs, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StandWithUs. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]