User talk:Nagle/Archive 2008-09-31

Mutual Assistance Living

see Talk:Mutual Assistance Living —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hongsun502 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Horse gait

Years ago you contributed to Horse gait; I have been working on several related pages and would welcome your help. See Talk:Horse gait#Group gaits. Thanks. --Una Smith (talk) 02:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relation?

Are you related to Derec Marie Alton-Nagle, soldier and horseman, please? - Kittybrewster ☎ 09:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. --John Nagle (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Update

Just to let you all know, the case has been started. I have created a little navbox for you to navigate between pages and will be expanded as the case goes on so that its easier for you to navigate. The first page you need to visit in this case is here so you can give youre opening statement. There i have left a few questions for you all to answer. For those that have been busy and unable to confirm their participation in the mediation, they are welcome to join the mediation at any stage.

I can be contacted in several ways in the event you need to. I am normally present on the wikipedia-en, wikipedia-medcab and wiki-hurricanes IRC channels at some point between 15:00 UTC and as late 02:00 UTC depending on college and real life commitments. To find these channels and instructions on how to access IRC go to WP:IRC. Throughout the day, even when i am in college, feel free to email me using the email tool or by emailing the email address on my user page or both to make sure. You can also leave a message on my talk page which again ill do my upmost to reply to as soon as i can. Seddon69 (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question on Jewish lobby

John, you left a question there: "Does anyone other than Jayjg (talk · contribs) want to present an argument that this is not a neologism?" - I think you meant to say "that this is a neologism" - right? I would be happy to reiterate some of my earlier arguments (which Shell archived) about it NOT being a neologism. And thank you for working on this while I've been busy: I agree with you that this is the most essential question that must be dealt with in this mediation if we are to make any forward progress on this article. Thanks, Jgui (talk) 06:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Servomotor.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Servomotor.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 04:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish lobby mediation

I've created a new mediation page so that we can try this again, hopefully with a better result. If you wish to join, please sign here. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --John Nagle (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New AS mediation

The mediation im getting rolling as its been a long time waiting so i think its best to get moving. Most of the mediation will be on the talk (discussion) page. so make sure its in your watchlist. Seddon69 (talk)

New Antisemitism Mediation

I think thats its time we got moving. A couple of the points have been raised before and felt they were the foundations to the dispute:

Firstly whether the picture can be confirmed to have been taken in the rally in San Fransisco.
Secondly to come to an agreement on what new antisemitism is and then to decide what the image is depicting and whether it purely illustrates New Antisemitism or whether it also addresses other issues which could be confused with new antisemitism by new readers.
If we cant confirm the those then we need to find a viable alternative.

A point i would like to raise is that at some point a lead image might need to be found if this article got to FA. The image in question is not free and couldn't be put on the main page with this article as todays FA. Although not an immediate point a long term solution might wish to be found so that this article could feature on the main page with a viable alternative.

Does anyone have access to Lexis Nexis? It might help as a search on the network could uncover something not readily available on the internet. Reliable sources that use the image would be helpful. Do you reckon that there would anyway of finding third party images that might possibly contain the poster/placard? Also i would be grateful if images of other placards at that rally could be found to find whether this was a small minority at this rally or perhaps a larger group.

Whilst that is being done i wanted to find out on what the consensus view is on what New Antisemitism is? I have read the article and the previous discussion and attempted to get a proper understanding but i wanted to ensure that this was current.

PS any sources you find can you please post in the section at the top of the mediation talk page. Seddon69 (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Behave

I noticed that you placed {{Behave}} on User talk:Florida babe. That template really needs to be substituted, i.e. {{subst:Behave}}, for it to work properly. You were right about her needing to behave, though. Cheers! —Travis ^talk 21:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's why it doesn't do paragraph breaks properly. It used to work. Probably worth a bug report. --John Nagle (talk) 02:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the "Behave" template. It had an unclosed DIV tag. It doesn't need to be substituted. --John Nagle (talk) 17:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of antisem in Jewish Lobby page

John, I read the section you added, which Shell immediately deleted. The question that you are raising (that these are allegations of antisem and not proven antisem) is a good one. I had made that change to the version of the Jl page that Jayjg deleted some months ago (I changed the title of the Antisem section); I have not reinserted any of that material again while mediation proceeds, but it is implicitely one of the changes to be considered since Jayjg requested ALL of my changes to be considered. So the material you added can be re-added if and when we get to a discussion of the changes that Jayjg deleted.

Could I ask you in the meantime to vote on the proposed description of Bard? Either my original version or Carol's modified one are fine with me. If you vote that leaves only Jayjg to respond. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 14:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: mKR and email list reference

Hi John

1. I have been told that those discussions are not valid evidence for notability, because I participated in the discussions.

2. The reason I included that reference was so people who wanted more info. could read the emails. There are literally hundreds of emails, from many different users who have an ongoing interest in RDF and OWL languages.

3. I'm a newbie, and get a lot of my info. by word of mouth. I intend to browse the references you gave me, to get a better understanding of Wikipedia standards.

Rhmccullough (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again - I'm rereading your comments & following-up on various points you made.

1. notability - self-published info. (e.g., KEHOME stuff) is strictly FYI. Are you suggesting that all those references should simply be deleted? Should I leave the KEHOME "address" in the body of the article? Incidentally, the full URL is obtained by replacing KEHOME by http://mKRmKE.org (or something like /home/ke if you install mKE). I have the impression that I should avoid lots of External References, which is why I thought of using KEHOME. I suppose that's just more confusing?

2. verifiability - I still don't have a handle on the problem - can you be more specific?

3. I have replaced the email address with the URL for the email archives.

Rhmccullough (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John - I just saw your conversation with NoDepositNoReturn (it's on my watch list), and posted a short note there, asking to join the conversation, and give you some input, and get your advice. I didn't know how likely you were to see it, so I'm posting a note here also. Rhmccullough (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

mKR article

I believe that User:Rhmccullough/Sandbox/History is the kind of background and design motivation that NoDepositNoReturn suggested I write. It can use some more polishing; this is the first time I've been able to pull everything together. Comments? Rhmccullough (talk) 02:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're trying to publish your own work on Wikipedia. Read WP:NOR, and please stop. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 05:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't feel that way to me -- I'm using Wierzbicka, Korn, Devlin, Rand, and integrating it into something I like better. I'm an engineer, after all. I don't have the right intuition to grasp all the Wikipedia policies. So where does all this leave us? If I suppress Sandbox/History, and just use mKR (programming language)#History, it that acceptable? Or is everything still too original for Wikipedia? Are you going to kick me out, and tell me to publish in AAAI? Rhmccullough (talk) 10:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you can kick me out, and then you can write the mKR article. Rhmccullough (talk) 10:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logitech Racing Wheels compatibility

Dear John, please note that the article is in fact now sourced and that the information is verifiable. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of apartheid deletion notification

Some time ago, you participated in a deletion discussion concerning Allegations of Chinese apartheid. I thought you might like to know that the parent article, Allegations of apartheid, was recently nominated for deletion. Given that many of the issues that have been raised are essentially the same as those on the article on which you commented earlier, you may have a view on whether Allegations of apartheid should be kept or deleted. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination). -- ChrisO (talk) 17:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congregation Beth Israel (Lebanon, Pennsylvania)

Hi: The Congregation Beth Israel (Lebanon, Pennsylvania) article has now been expanded with much information and reliable sources added. Therefore it would be greatly appreciated if you would withdraw the nomination to delete it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregation Beth Israel (Lebanon, Pennsylvania). Thank you for your understanding. In the future, if you wish to get more input about topics relating to Jews and Judaism that you may not be sure about, it would be a good idea to place a note and seek input from the Judaic editors at WP:TALKJUDAISM first. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 07:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Hi John. fyi I left you a q at WP:AN about your comment on the PR case. Thanks. HG | Talk 19:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Personalizing sources list

Hi, I'm quite uncomfortable labeling potential sources that are either written by or in some way reference another editor.[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying/Evidence] To me that feels like a form of harassment although I will AGF you only meant it so those reviewing the materials will be more informed in some way. I've stripped that off as unneeded but left the "blog" remarks and added a note at the top to clarify what "For context" means - that the source provides context but doesn't specific cite the article subject. Banjeboi 01:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Stopbadwareyellowalert.png

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Stopbadwareyellowalert.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ViperSnake151 21:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC) --ViperSnake151 21:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the future

I'd appreciate it if you could discuss any issues you might have with any of my work here with me directly, as opposed to make an official complaint on the admin noticeboard. I have my response for you there. It's rather ironic that you'd make a complaint about me since my last big edit on the JIDF page was to revert to your last edit done on September 6th. I am still new here and have hardly had a chance to adapt. However, just as I said on the ANI board, if you really look at my edits objectively you will see that I am not guilty of the things in which you are accusing me, nor should I deserve some sort of a block on an article I am merely trying to protect. Again, the whole thing is ironic considering I reverted back to your version of it. I wish you could assume better faith here and with me in the future. Thank you. --Einsteindonut (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adminbot RfC

Replying here so that the AN/I thread has a chance to time-out and get archived.

The RfC is technically dead by a minimal activity: in the last 6 weeks there's been only two comments: this, which isn't actually very enlightening, and yours, which is really a "forum necromancy". :)

Current discussion takes place where it should, that is WT:BOT, where the effort is to incorporate the RfC's outcome (as well as some local discussion) into the policy. Regards, Миша 13 16:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

User:Einsteindonut has pointed out an important new source re his group which states that "It’s political views place it on the Zionist right." see [1] . As other info from the source The Canadian Jewish News has been helpfully worked into a new section perhaps this should go in first paragraph? Opiumjones 23 (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]