User talk:PBP

Yeah, I know

Good thing I never posted a video on Youtube saying "LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE". No one knows what I look like or where I live. Please reply as soon as you can. ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.106.50.228 (talk) 12:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, but a lot of people live in Florida. I never had any malicious intent. I just wanted to post the facts. I was surprised that the New York Times wanted to shut me up. I'm also surprised my edits created a storm over censorship. Even Michelle Malkin and Jimmy Wales knows about me. XD

Oh well, at least I knew David Rohde was held hostage while most of the world didn't. Thanks for not calling me a royal ass. I'm actually a good person at heart. ;)

In other news, too bad two of the five British hostages in Iraq are dead. It doesn't look good for the other three. :(

Thanks for the reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.106.50.228 (talk) 14:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq casualties

I was updating Iraq conflict casualties and found that my numbers conflicted with some you had just added. I used the AP story "A Look at U.S. Military Deaths in Iraq for my numbers. What was your source? Any ideas why the numbers conflict? Rmhermen 13:42, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

I can't remember what my exact numbers were, but I think they were something like "934 US deaths and 64 British." Those came from http://icasualties.org/oif/, which I use to update casualty figures. Remember, there is some discrepancy between all (usually American) casualty counts, especially the Pentagon's count, which is usually behind a couple of days. If you feel your numbers are more accurate, I don't care if you change them. As to why this occurs, I think it has to do with the notification of families and the fact that each news agency might count a death when it happens or when it is officially confirmed by the Coalition, depending on what their style is. User:PBP, Aug 13, 2004

Image:WS Flag.bmp

This is a formal notice to let you know that an image you uploaded has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion (since it has been replaced by Image:Flag of Western Sahara.png. Thuresson 11:15, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Afghanistan casualty page

But I can, can't I? They do not update it so often. I mean, it's really no problem to me... Copperchair 07:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your update, but this isn't reflected on the DoD page or in CNN. What happened? What is your source? Copperchair 04:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to the military, a soldier was killed in action on Sunday. Another was killed today, so there's going to be an update very shortly. Since it takes a while for those two sites to update, I'm not waiting for them. PBP 25 July 2005

CNN updated today. Copperchair 05:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then I would appreciate it if you left a link to the site where you took the figures from in the explanation for the edit. Copperchair 16:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I will update the figures when the DoD announces them. The pages that are linked at the bottom are updated days later. Therefore, I will update based on the released statements and not a web site per se. PBP 17:54, 31 July UTC

I feel that since this is an encyclopedia, it should be based on reliable sources, i.e. the DoD casualty page. It is not that much trouble to wait until they update the page anyway, don't you think? Copperchair 19:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. I am going to revert it. We know the DoD page will be updated with these figures--Afghanistan is not like Iraq, with a new casualty every day, and multiple figures. There is a US death every few weeks, and rarely an ISAF death. Since the DoD ANNOUNCES the death--but does not update the site--I consider the announcement a reliable source. PBP 01:22, 9 Aug. 2005 (UTC)

Becuase I only trust the DoD page, for the reasons stated above. Copperchair 06:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It has been weeks since you said there had been a German casualty, but it has not appeared in any update. Copperchair 07:04, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Terror incidents page

Perhaps you right in saying that there have been many more attacks in Kashmir which were far more significant than this one. I'm removing the Srinagar attack from the list, but isn't it a bit suprising that the Wandhama Massacre is the only Kashmiri terrorist incident mentioned. Why do I always feel that terrorist incidents are given importance with respect to the place where they occur rather than the casualties. Take for example the July 21 explosions in London. Only 1 person was injured during the attacks, but its included in the list! Now, why does this one get higher precedence -- because it took place in European city? Thanks --IncMan 00:35, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps so. Take the attacks in Egypt for example...the death toll was double the London bombs yet the cable news channels barely covered the attacks until hours later! They had continuing coverage of both London attacks, though, meaning bombings in Western nations are more important thanbombings elsewhere. PBP 24 July 2005

Well, CNN is an American channel (though it claims to be a global one) and hence it is obvious for it to focus more on incidents happening in the western world. Take the ex of Madrid train bombings, CNN covered the attacks for 3 days. On the other hand, Indian news channels barely mentioned the attacks. Believe me, the only concern for these news channels is to get higher viewership. All I want to say is that, terrorist attacks around the globe should get equal importance because terrorism doesn't know international boundaries. Establishing a link between the terrorist behind the London bombings and the Kashmiri terrorists wouldn't be too hard. --IncMan 23:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

War on terrorism

See [1] Copperchair 05:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Afghan page

If the administrators ask why I keep changing it, I will simply provide the link to CNN, "the most trusted name in news". Has it occurred to you the news pages you mention may be wrong? Copperchair 23:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then give me a link to the ISAF page announcement so I can see it myself. Then I'll believe you. Copperchair 04:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moved picture from History of French Guyana

I notice you have moved a picture of the condemned mens' block in French Guyana that I had added. Can you please tell me where you have moved it to and why? If you wanted to use it somewhere else could you not have just copied it over? Please let me know what has happened. Thanks, John Hill John Hill 06:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moved picture from History of French Guiana

Thanks for replying so promptly. Please accept my apologies for wrongly accusing you of removing the photo. I will try to be more careful in future. John Hill 22:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Darkspot small.bmp

The image you uploaded, Image:Darkspot small.bmp, was corrupt and therefore deleted. – ABC D✉ 23:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism

Okay, no problem. – Zntrip

29 October 2005 New Delhi bombings

Thanks for contribution at 29 October 2005 New Delhi bombings.
- P R A D E E P Somani (talk)
Feel free to send me e-mail.

Happy Diwali

bin Laden picture

Well that yet be the stupidest mistake I've made in my time on Wiki, thanks for the heads up! Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 01:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

helicopter crashes iraq

I noticed that you removed the january 23, 2005 apache crash from the list. Have you found any inormation on this (possibly non-) incident?

re: apache crash

thank you for your remarks. I would see the case for presenting that information as follows

DoD release No. 068-05 from January 24, 2005 says: The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom. Capt. Joe F. Lusk II, 25, of Reedley, Calif., died Jan. 21 in Camp Buehring, Kuwait, of non-combat related injuries. Lusk was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 3rd Aviation Regiment, Fort Bragg, N.C.

So ``supporting OIF is acknowledged. On the other hand, there is no other identification which could be related to the Apache crash announced in the other news piece.

Redirect in Crime and Punishment (TV series)

Hello. I have seen you make a redirect at Crime and Punishment (TV series) and have fixed it. Please remember to not include a space between the # and the redirect symbols and it should operate properly. Hope that helps! SYCTHOS ^talk 01:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1995 French Bombings

I can't believe that I missed that! I actually went to that page looking for it - and after I didn't find it I did a bit of Googling and wrote that reference. Sometimes I amaze myself with my foolishness. hehe. --AStanhope 01:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Riyadhbomb.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Riyadhbomb.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 13:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Hallums.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Hallums.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 19:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1983 Beirut barracks bombing

Hi PBP, on March 12 I added this section to 1983 Beirut barracks bombing in response to an email Wikipedia received from a retired U.S. Navy captain: [2]. In your latest revision to the page you made some other changes but also reverted this paragraph. Is there something incorrect about it that I should know? silsor 01:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of casualties of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan listed for deletion

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of casualties of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of casualties of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Commanche

I hope to be seeing a budding inclusionist [3] and by reading your web page your not a new commer to wiki. There is a slight battle over this info but I have time now to fend off what I perceive as vandalism. Let me know if you need assistance in the fight (as small or ridiculous as it is) or just let me know your stance on the matter. --Supercoop 15:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Titanic from CGI history

Hey there. Just noticed your blind edit to remove Titanic from the CGI history article. Not really a good idea to just remove something "stating" it wasn't the first when all you have to offer is a suggestion for something else. What is worse is that your suggestion doesn't even fit the category. Forest Gump was a fiction movie, while Titanic (and indeed the category it is listed in) was an historical event. If you dont have any proof of something better, dont just arbitrarily remove something. At the least, take it to discussion and allow people to discuss its removal by providing something factual to replace it. Enigmatical 03:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canal Hotel bombing

Nice edit! Good work! --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 07:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Die Hard 2

Great citations! Thanks! -- Tenebrae 19:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Hi. Can you explain this? Thanks.~~--Nearly Headless Nick 13:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry about that. :) --Nearly Headless Nick 13:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

State terrorism

Regarding your comments on my user page.

I disagree that because I made those changes NOT JUST to Sri Lanka related articles but to articles regarding India, Indonesia and will be adding to the state terrorism category to actions of the Iraqi government Under Saddam against the Kurdish minority and more. If you have a point to make, the appropriate place to discuss the merits of State terrorism and terrorism is in the appropriate topics. I know about NPOV of Wikipedia and I don’t need to be lectured about it. Terrorism and State terrorism, holocaust, pogroms and genocide are topics that require utmost circumspect but not knee jerk reactions. RaveenS 12:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC

Reply

PBP, in case you haven't noticed, the profile of Geoffrey St. John can now be found in the article King Acorn's Secret Service. I created the article and placed him there because I like to group minor characters together. To me, it makes more sense to organize such characters instead of just dumping them all into a minor characters article. That being said, I hope you get the idea. User:Denjo

Empire Strikes back

I don't care if you believe me or not. Answer me this: why do the articles for the Episodes IV and VI have both the Special Edition poster and the DVD cover, and the Episode V doesn't? Esaborio 17:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you will like this answer better: No, I am not Copperchair. BUT, I still don't care if you believe me or not... Esaborio 21:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

That's what I thought. The Wookieepedian 17:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am Esaborio, alright, but not Copperchair. Varese Sarabande 15:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the third video of the first plane impact on 9/11 you asked about.

It was captured by Artist Wolfgang Staehle. The frame rate is really low. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8KBiym4Yd8

Irish terrorism

The Provisional Irish Repulican Army PIRA clearly falls within the term Terrorism, therefore the British in fighting the PIRA for over 30 years have been fighting terrorists.

The statement ""no surprise" that the British Army is the best", is based on the fact that the Felix Centre is still the authority on IEDD, and to date nearly every country send their best EOD Operators on courses there.

Snozzer 17:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OBL worldwide perception article AFD

You might be interested in this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worldwide perception of Osama bin Laden

Regards, -- That Guy, From That Show! 07:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Sandoval

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Miguel Sandoval, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Oo7565 22:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shauket Aziz

You removed my comments as POV, these were not POV but rather facts from the annual report of Citi Bank. This man was not an executive officer, as if he were he would be in the annual report of the company and he is not. Therefore this should be part of his history at Citibank. Everyone bank manager is a Vice President because only an officer can open an account therefore to make this man something he was not is wrong.

trueblood 01:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree some of the information was POV so I have removed it, but the rest is verifiable from www.SEC.gov and look Citibank and than 10k and read the same, Aziz is no where in the annual report. As the annual report only has the corporate executives

trueblood 04:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RC-135

I've temporarily reverted your addition to the RC-135 article, as the material you added is unsourced. AFAIK, the mission of the X model was/is secret. If you have a source that confirms what you said, please feel free to re-add the material, but please be sure to also include the ref. Akradecki 00:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks much better...thanks for that! Akradecki 03:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian factional violence

I have no objections to your source for 600 killed and great that you added it to the article. But the fighting before December was not on the level as the fighting since december. There have been three rounds of fighting since December and in each one 50 or up to 90 people were killed each time. Before December there were at least a dozen fights that laste only up to 48 hours and there were never more than 5-10 persons killed. Because those events are also notable we have included them in the part of the article titled February 2006 to December 2006 rise of tensions. The real civil war as the Palestinians call it started after the assasination attempt. Me and users TheFEARGod and Sm8900 have been doing on this article since day one. And they agree with me. So please if you whant do any edits to improve the article, that would be great, but the REAL fighting started only in december.Top Gun

Hey, like I said great about the 600 figure it should be mentioned. Keep up the work.Top Gun

Helicopter NPOV

Hi. I think the NPOV says that we have to present both sides of the event equaly. Why believe that the militants have exaggerated the tolls and not that the US Army are decresing the number of deaths? (I don't say that they certainly do it but I think you get my point). It would be good if you had cross referenced for all the cases. Of course, we are using referenced from Western media because it's more easy for us to find. Moreover, for some cases I checked in Al-Jazzera for example, the numbers of the casualties were exactly the same. Of course, I didn't have the time to do it for all the cases. The way you suggest to be written obviously implies that the US sources are more trustworthy than the others and I don't think this is a NPOV. Friendly, Magioladitis 16:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Unbomb.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Unbomb.jpg. I noticed that 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, then 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, then 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:Fair use, 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 18:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Hello, I am concerned about the copyright status of this image, because with the link you provided, we have no way of saying who made the image. It could very well be a screenshot from a TV broadcast (and looks like it). Only images made by an employee of the US government during his worktime is public domain, not any image displayed on official web sites. Rama 18:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hum, never mind, I stumbled by chance on the original shortly after, and uploaded the high resolution version to Commons under the same name. Rama 18:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Coalition aircraft losses in Iraq

Hi. I reverted your edits in the article about List of Coalition aircraft losses in Iraq. The reason is that I think the The Harring Report was written in July 2007 and reports the Official Casualty Lists. The links you gave, and I used in the past too, are from newspapers usually in the day of the incident. I find it quite normal some people who reported injured at the day of the accident that finally died from their injuries in the hospital within the next hours/days.

Please, if you have any reasons to believe that the Harring report is not accurate or that your sources are more reliable, reply to me before editing again. Friendly, Magioladitis 05:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw your answer. The Harring Report claims that the sources for the list of aircraft losses are AFP, DoD (US) Novosti, Reuters. I am sending Brian Harring an e-mail today. Please give a 4-day period for his answer. I'll inform you about his answer. If he doesn't reply or he can't confirm the list we can safely revert.

Did you find any sources for the October 30, 2003 incident? I searched google but I found nothing -- Magioladitis

Fair use rationale for Image:Die_Hard_2_runway.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Die_Hard_2_runway.jpg. 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 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. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 05:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Orchard

Thanks for helping with Operation Orchard and adding it to the template. I'm not exactly sure if this is going to end up being its final name, as only The Observer has actually referred to it specifially as "Operation Orchard." Other reports have just mentioned that its codename was "Orchard." I thought, however, that Operation Orchard would work better here for the moment than "2007 Israeli airstrike on Syria", or something overly descriptive like that. Joshdboz 17:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1995 Turkish operation in Iraq

I'm afraid you're mistaken about Operation Steel. It was in 1995, not 1994. All of the sources on the page say so. So do news archive reports...I think you have some incorrect information. PBP 20:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See: http://fotoanaliz.hurriyet.com.tr/GaleriDetay.aspx?cid=6755&p=2&rid=4369 -- Cat ^chi? 20:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you are incorrect. See [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], and every news source from 1995, all of which state that Turkey went into northern Iraq in 1995. I started the article using sources from 1995. And yet you bring up a single source from a non-news site that says it took place in 1994. It's my five sources (and I could go on) versus your one. PBP 22:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hürriyet ([9]) is the largest newspaper in Turkey. Which in turn sources Saygün Öztürk's "Sınır Ötesi Savaşın Kurmay Günlüğü" - Translates as "An Officers Diary Cross Border Wars".

Your first source is a non-peer reviewed query to the NYT and is not a reliable source. I haven't reviewed them, but looking into it.

-- Cat ^chi? 22:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it's an article from the NYT. How is that not reliable? Do you know what LexisNexis is? Look up information on this incursion in 1994--there are zero results. Accept it--the date "1994" is a misprint, since no other source in existence claims the raid was in 1994. PBP 22:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There might have been a more minor campaign in 1995. But the information presented is for the one in 1994. -- Cat ^chi? 22:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Here: http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1995_cr/s950328-turkey.htm . Convinced yet? This is a congressional record from 1995.PBP 22:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am merely seeking the most accurate information. Please calm down. Looking now. -- Cat ^chi? 23:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing there that establishes Operation Steel to be in 1995. No element of the operation is even mentioned. I'll need a more clear link for WP:V purposes. The memo could have been sent the following year of the operation or it could be for a smaller operation in 1995. There are countless mini cross-border operations aside from the big four we have articles on. You are right 1994 may have been a misprint but I need evidence to this end. -- Cat ^chi? 23:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Here are two more sources that conclusively prove the incursion was in 1995: [10] [11]. Please do not drag this out any further...this is a rather trivial issue, yes, but you seem unwilling to accept the truth. I have provided seven sources that say "Operation Steel" was in 1995, yet you provide one source that says it was in 1994. No other source refers to such an operation in 1994, therefore your source is mistaken. It's like saying the Iraq war started in 2002 instead of 2003. It's not reality. Please accept that the incursion was in 1995, or I will get an admin's intervention in this matter, and they will with certainty side with me. Please. PBP 02:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, firstly admins have no authority to interfere with content related disputes. Calling one in would be pointless. As for the [12] you provided, it seems to adequately establish the campaign in 1995. You can alter the dates while <ref>'ing to this source. -- Cat ^chi? 19:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Aviation accidents and incidents in Iraq War

Hi. I think we should work on next version of this article, not the current one. Please see here and here. 195.248.189.182 (talk) 07:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to write the same thing. Please help us to improve the new version. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Terrorism Newsletter

The Terrorism WikiProject
April 2008 Newsletter

News

1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack was made a Featured Article
Omar Khadr has an ongoing peer review as it begins the slow crawl towards Featured Article status

Trials have begun this month in the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, Benbrika affair and 2006 Toronto terrorism case, each article could use a good vetting, and the articles on specific alleged terrorists are desperately in need of some clean-up.
Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein had his case overturned by the Iraqi courts and was ordered released, although the US military says they will not release him.
China announced that they had disrupted a plot targeting the 2008 Summer Olympics, while detractors claim it was fabricated.
The bail hearing for Abdullah Khadr, fighting extradition to the United States, is scheduled for April 29
Former Turkish Member of Parliament Leyla Zana is sentenced to two years imprisonment for praising Abdullah Öcalan.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guantanamo detainees missing from the official list needs votes on whether or not it should be kept on Wikipedia.

Archives • Discussion

Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 05:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A small article...

Hello! I just wanted to thank you for your small but albeit important correction on the Charles Bucke page. Even though it's a very small page since the author in question is merely a footnote in his own time, I want to thank you for fixing back to normal his death date. Thanks. :) (Tsukiakari (talk) 02:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Marla

Approve removal of tag. Article looks good (i don't edit that article but look over it from time to time since she was a friend).Bali ultimate (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican drug war

Yeah OK I'll have a look tomorrow when I'm free or Sunday. Thanks for the heads-up. Nicknackrussian (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Honeck

Thanks very much for adding the details of Honeck's death, which has puzzled several, including me. If by any chance you have access to the St Petersburg Times article cited, and could scan it, I would really appreciate a copy for my files. Perhaps you could let me know? Mikedash (talk) 14:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to say thanks for the link, but I do appreciate it, so: many thanks.Mikedash (talk) 12:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Helicopter

I found three more sources for the story, so re-added it, but left off the claim of casualties since that seems to have likely been untrue. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 23:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference needed

On July 14 you added some updates to 2008 Nord-Kivu campaign, including an empty reference name="Capture". Could you please give the details of that reference? Debresser (talk) 01:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the fix. Debresser (talk) 16:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monsters, Inc.

A user has brought up a question regarding the accuracy of something you added to the Monsters, Inc. article. Please see the discussion on the article's talk page. Also looking at your edit, per MOS:UNLINKDATES, dates should not be linked unless they are relevant to the topic. - kollision (talk) 04:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Qassam rocket

Hi, I'm requesting input the most active editors in this article, yourself included, regarding an edit dispute. I added the infobox template:Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel (which I recently created) to relevant articles, including this one. User:RomaC has removed the infobox, arguing that the image on it is emotive. Your input would be welcome and could prevent the situation from deteriorating into an edit war. Thanks, and good day, Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Cream Sundae, Town of Two Rivers

I noticed that you addded a section to the Town of Two Rivers page about the ice cream sundae. The section is great however the ice cream sundae was invented in the City of Two Rivers not the Town of Two Rivers. The article on the City of Two Rivers doesn't contain very much information on the topic so I think the section could be moved as it is to that article.--ChesterMarcol (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section was, in fact, a copy-paste without attribution from our article Sundae. Please review Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Anomie ⚔ 14:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello PBP! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 3 of the articles that you created are Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to these articles, it would greatly help us with the current 140 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

Ange Mancini - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Antoine Karam - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Pavel Hlava - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 07:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

STL

you edited the page to remove a lot of content without mention ont he talk page. Also you removed the expert tag for "false witnesseS", but didnt clarify it. Could you clarify the issue in the section as to what exactly the "false witnesses" are?Lihaas (talk) 07:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dont have issue with the removal, was acually waiting for another opinion to cut it. But the false witnesses, i dont think is clarified because the details as to who did what is not mentioned,(Lihaas (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Ah, seems like ive been following the saga too closely ;)

Are you Lebanese of from the Levant by any chance? I presume you got to the page from the WikiProject Lebanon request?Lihaas (talk) 05:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ive reinserted the expert tag as it seems there are multiple accused false witnesses. (warrants mentioned on the page now)Lihaas (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

I just wanted to thank you for starting the article List_of_attacks_attributed_to_FARC, as that article was recently a contributing factor in convincing a certain professor that one of his exam questions was graded incorrectly. So have a cookie! LWG ^talk 02:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the Mexican Drug War

Hey, thanks for contributing to the timeline! Stop by any time and contribute, and especially if you know any notorious/prominent event that already occurred and is not on it. Thanks! ComputerJA (talk) 04:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Terrorism - Welcome Back!

Welcome back from Wiki Project Terrorism! I'm Katarighe, a Wikipedian member since 2009. I'm currently the successor of Sherurcij in September because, he has not edited Wikipedia using this account for a considerable amount of time since May 2010. We are trying to renovate the new WP page this fall 2011 and we look forward this month whats next. If you are interested, start the renovation with us and new awards on contributing terrorism are coming soon. The WP terrorism newsletter begins January 2012. See you on October for the updates on WP terrorism. I will send this message next month about the updates. Good Luck.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Terrorism at 22:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Insurgency in the Maghreb (2002–present), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sahrawi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link in article 'U.S. Steel'

Hi. I tried to fix the dead links in 'U.S. Steel', but there was one that I couldn't fix. I marked it with {{Dead link}}. Can you help fix the last dead link?

Dead: https://www.globalfinancialdata.com/articles/dow_jones.html

You added this in February 2010.
I tried to load this link on 12 March, 14 March, 16 March and today, but it never worked.
I looked in The Wayback Machine and WebCite but I couldn't find a suitable replacement.

Please take a look at that article and fix what you can. Thank you!

PS- you can opt-out of these notifications by adding {{Bots |deny=BlevintronBot}} to your user page or user talk page. BlevintronBot (talk) 07:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Just Another Missing Kid, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Fifth Estate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2003 Istanbul bombings

Back in 2004 you created the page for the 2003 Istanbul bombings. Was the text of your contribution your own original work? I am asking only because it appears in Mark Gaouette's 2010 book Cruising for Trouble: Cruise Ships as Soft Targets for Pirates, Terrorists, and Common Criminals. If you are the original author of this text, and you are not Mark Gaouette (or his ghost writer), then it looks like you might be the victim of plagiarism, and might want to consider getting in touch with the publisher, Praeger. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was my original text. I will consider getting in touch with the publisher, but what exactly can I do? Get them to update the text? Is there any precedence for this? Can you even plagiarize WIkipedia? PBP (talk) 04:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a lawyer, though I am well-versed in content licensing, and I have been the victim of plagiarism (which incident was resolved to my satisfaction after I contacted the plagiarist's publishers). By default, you retain the copyright to all original material you post to Wikipedia, though you are irrevocably licensing it under the terms of the CC BY-SA 3.0 Licence and the GFDL. These licences give everyone the right to publish original or modified versions of your contributions, provided that they meet certain conditions—most importantly, they must provide credit (which, at minimum, would be the URL of the original article), and they must also release their modifications under one or both of the same licences. Generally speaking, this means that any book which incorporates CC-BY-SA/GFDL-licensed text (other than brief, sourced quotations) must itself be CC-BY-SA/GFDL-licensed in its entirety.

If someone is found to be redistributing CC-BY-SA/GFDL-licensed material in violation of the licence, then legally speaking they must do one of three things:

Bring themselves into compliance with the licence (such as by providing the missing attribution and by appropriately licensing their derivative works).
Seek a new licence from the copyright holder which would permit them to redistribute the material under other terms.
Stop distributing the material altogether.

(In some jurisdictions, they could also be sued for damages, though often this requires that the original authors first registered their copyright with the government.) What I would advise you to do in this case is as follows:

First, get yourself access to the text of the book (by previewing it at Google Books or an online bookseller like Amazon, or by getting a physical or electronic copy of the entire book from a bookstore or library).
Examine the book to confirm whether and how much of your material was copied.
Examine the book to determine whether you were given credit anywhere (such as in the front matter or back matter, or in a footnote or endnote).
Examine the front matter of the book to determine whether the book is licensed under CC-BY-SA or the GFDL.
Optionally, see if anyone else's material has also been infringed. (This may be the case if text was copied from a later revision of the Wikipedia article you created.) If it has, you may want to coordinate your efforts with them.
If you find that the book has incorporated your text without credit and without licensing the entire book under CC-BY-SA/GFDL, then write a polite letter to the publisher pointing this out, giving as many details as possible. Direct their attention to our policy "Reusing Wikipedia content" and to the two licences. Tell them that if they want to continue distributing the book as-is, they must bring themselves into compliance with the licences by providing appropriate credit and by relicensing the entire book under CC-BY-SA and/or the GFDL. Otherwise they need to immediately remove all the infringing text from the book (or stop distributing the book altogether).

Praeger is a pretty big and reputable publisher and is therefore likely to take your concerns very seriously. On the off-chance that you don't get a favourable response, you could always get a lawyer or the press involved. (Even submitting your story to small outlets like The Signpost or Boing Boing will likely generate enough publicity to shame a dishonourable publisher into compliance.) —Psychonaut (talk) 09:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will look into it. PBP (talk) 01:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-a-thon in Madison

PBP, I'd like to invite you to an upcoming edit-a-thon:

ART+FEMINISM EDIT-A-THON

Saturday, March 5th, 9:30 a.m. – noon

Madison Public Library (Madison, Wisconsin)

Bring a laptop! There will be snacks and daycare

RSVP on the event page if you plan to attend or have any suggestions. czar 01:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You received this message because you are a member of Category:Wikipedians in Wisconsin. To opt-in to future Madison event messages, add yourself to the mailing list.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, PBP. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, PBP. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Laurence Foley.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Laurence Foley.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, PBP. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, PBP. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Igor Ponomarev, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FSB (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited State Sponsors of Terrorism (U.S. list), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Islamic Jihad.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not restore your incorrect edit for the 4th time. This is a heads-up that I am deleting your edit on Mr. Atherton's page as the 4th editor to do so. To continually restore an edit that other editors have deleted, violates Wikipedia rules. Administrators have stated, "You are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted." Not until 2020 did you use the Talk Page as advised and in response, another editor said you should delete your edit. You did not.

My reasons for deleting your edit are 1) It is incorrect in several ways. 2) It has harmed not only Mr. Atherton, but many others including myself.

You wrote, "I'm not trying to malign the guy." But I question that based solely on your behavior. You have maligned him since late 2018 which is a long time to keep restoring inaccurate information about a public person in an important online source. You say what you write about is elsewhere on the internet. There is plenty of misinformation on the internet about nearly everything, as I'm sure you know. One vivid example is that other sites have picked up what you wrote because Wikipedia is a valuable resource. So your incorrect edit has been circulated elsewhere, spreading the harm. That's how misinformation gets around. Deleting it here will still leave it elsewhere, likely to be copied again by someone else.

You have shown that you can be a careful editor when it comes to subjects you know--having to do with history and war. That doesn't seem to be the case when you write about male celebrities--I saw you once had trouble in this area before and Wikipedia blocked you from writing on another actor's page. Maybe it's time to take the hint.

Your edit: You put certain words in quotes, essentially attributing those words to Mr. Atherton. But he did not say them. David Susskind said them and he was repeatedly corrected by multiple guests. That's a pretty large mistake, attributing specific words to someone that they didn't say. You also imply Mr. Atherton appeared by himself. He did not. A number of guests spoke about the usefulness of Aesthetic Realism in their lives and all of them spoke about how they used it in their work. Further, no student of Aesthetic Realism ever said they were "turned" into anything or described themselves as "former" anything. I know because I also studied the philosophy in the 1970's, when Mr. Atherton, in his 20's as I was, attended classes and presentations. Aesthetic Realism was taught then and still is, in New York City classrooms. It is popular with educators because of its approach to education. But it is used just as often in the business world, the art world, in religious settings, and is a useful tool in marriage and families. It teaches you that the whole world can be seen by a person the way an artist sees an object he paints, or a musician sees a symphony. It is based on art principles which is why it is called "aesthetic."

Your sources are not acceptable for Wikipedia: What Mr. Susskind expected is not what he got and the show did not go well. But it is also a dead link and that makes it an unacceptable source as other editors have told you. Another source is based on information provided by Susskind producers to a copywriter who was allowed a couple of words to describe the essence of an episode. But that listing does not indicate what was actually said in the show, so it too, is inaccurate and not acceptable. Then another source cited by someone for your sentences lists a book, but doesn't quote anything. In my research, I discovered why. It's a farfetched, silly story about the book's author that isn't even relevant to what you wrote. The last source, a 45 year old paid ad, has already been discussed by another editor who determined your edit should be deleted if based on it. Your previously deleted sources have likewise been criticized by editors who removed your edit. The time has come to accept that maybe what you describe is not accurate or accurately stated.

But the real question is why you keep insisting your edit remain, regardless of what other Wikipedia editors say. When editors, for different reasons, believe your edit should be deleted, you should respect this.

Just as important, Wikipedia states about reliable sources: "Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced--whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable--should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

You have not honored that either. In addition to specific faults editors had with your edit, most also cited possible violations of Bios of Living Persons' guidelines. Those guidelines matter. Please review them. I agree that they are being violated and unfortunately if this continues, we will have no choice but to take this up at the BLP noticeboard.

To sum up: You are maligning not only Mr. Atherton, but all of us who had our own unique experiences studying Aesthetic Realism at that time, so many decades ago. Many people have studied this philosophy and some of us found we changed in ways we did not expect. Your edit suggested conversion therapy to me--something so barbaric and ugly that laws now prevent it and that's why you also malign all of us. If you knew what Aesthetic Realism was and what it said, you would realize that what you suggest is nonsensical. Yet I actually saw an article online confirming my worst fears: it quoted your edit under the headline, "Conversion therapy?" That is ugly, harmful, it is incorrect and extremely unfair to Mr. Atherton and to all of us who experienced nothing of the sort--it's just ludicrous. This philosophy has enabled children to learn better, it's enabled people to be more successful in their work, it's made artists better artists. Think of it as psychology based on art.

I know you do not fully understand how the subject you mention was seen fifty years ago. And I know you do not know what Aesthetic Realism is or what it says or how it's affected so many people in all kinds of ways. It's time, PBP, to let this go. It's just wrong on so many levels. Stop breaking Wikipedia guidelines for editing and think instead about the effect you might be having on a public person's personal and professional life. It's time to do the right thing and follow multiple editors' thoughtful opinions. 17enk4900 (talk) 21:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Dearest Editor 17enk4900, for your 1,100 word plea on my talk page. I will consider what you said with the utmost seriousness. For now I will say -- how is quoting the words of William Atherton "maligning" him? It seems that if one takes out an ad in the NY Daily News that says "I am former homosexual" and is videotaped on Dave Susskind saying "I am a former homosexual," then how is that maligning Mr. Atherton? Homosexuality is not "bad." The year is 2021, not 1971. Saying that maybe you were gay in the 1970s would hardly bat an eye in Hollywood today. And it could hardly affect he career of an actor who has not worked much in the last several years. If Mr. Atherton believes these words to reflect badly on him, perhaps you can ask why he made these statements to begin with, in the national press, I might add? PBP (talk) 00:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do hear what you're saying and also hope you will consider what I wrote with the utmost seriousness, as you said. I felt I had to provide you with sufficient explanation to enable you to understand the cause of the deletion because of the previous restorations. I will say again though, Mr. Atherton did not say the precise words you attribute to him. No one spoke that way who studied Aesthetic Realism, publicly or privately. Words have nuance and imply different things to people. I can understand why you put it that way, but when you use certain words, you can suggest or convey something that isn't accurate. You also seem to say he took out an ad which he certainly did not--another example of where you need to be a little more careful in how you put things. The Aesthetic Realism Foundation prepared that ad, which incidentally no longer represents their position from what I understand. But the last few sentences you wrote back to me, are essentially your opinion--which of course, you're entitled to have. But opinions are not what Wikipedia is about. I didn't see opinion expressed in the pieces you've posted that I read--they seemed factual and from what I can tell, pretty carefully written. They were interesting and I learned things. So I hope you take what I wrote to heart. I meant well. Another person's life is involved (and other people's as well, as I explained) and we all have to be more careful when saying anything about someone in an online encyclopedia.17enk4900 (talk) 23:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ammar al-Saffar for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ammar al-Saffar is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ammar al-Saffar until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Star Mississippi 21:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]