This user may have left Wikipedia. The Epopt has not edited Wikipedia since June 2018. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.
At the sound of the click, Epoptic Standard Time will be 01:23
Hi, I thought I started the entry on John Paul Stapp, and the history says you ran the first draft. I was wondering if your draft was from my inital ad-hoc job? Because there was definately no entry on him when I did mine, I just don't remember when that was, but the history doesn't seem to reflect it anywhere.
Thanks. Oracle.
Thanks, The Epopt! Finally I know why Tussionex makes me stop coughing and feel soooooo good! --MichaelTinkler, bronchitic.
Hello, sorry to bother you but I accidentally deleted the Hawkeye photo you uploaded. I was on the phone and dropped something on the mouse, and hit "Esc" but the command was already sent. Koyaanis Qatsi, Tuesday, June 11, 2002
That's sounds like it would have been fun to watch. Was there a cat involved? --the Epopt
Eh, no. Just distraction because of the nature of the conversation and my general clumsiness. Thanks for reuploading. :-) Koyaanis Qatsi
I'm so happy I could eat a small force-fattened bird whole!Ortolan88
Why did you move calibre to caliber? I thought Wiki has a policy of accepting an article in whichever version of english it is written. For hundreds of millions of english speakers, (British-English, Hiberno-English, etc) Calibre IS the correct spelling. Only American English uses Caliber. (Europeans often joke about 'American gun-culture' - I've often wondered, surely linking culture to guns is a contradiction in terms!!! - but does that extend to changing articles on guns to American-English spellings? I'm joking by the way. Please don't take offence like so many Americans do when the rest of the world expresses bewilderment at its gun laws! One American friend of mine couldn't comprehend the fact that Irish and British police don't carry guns, or that 95% of Irish and British people have never even seen a gun. He had his first in LA aged 11!!!JTD 18:59 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)
I didn't move anything -- I simply created a redirect at calibre pointing to the already-existing article at caliber.
And I don't take offence at your not understanding our affection for guns. We citizens have always been willing to loan you subjects guns when you realize you need them, and I have plenty to spare. ;-> --the Epopt
Just thought I would point out, subject and citizen are synonomous under UK law
I just had my first page redirected. It now contains a hex that I cannot undo. The page is Full_Representation, which now is automatically redirected to proportional representation, a term with similarities but different context. Could you help me remove the hex? My arguments:
Full Representation is a term often used to describe Proportional_Representation, yet differs from that term in the same way Winner Takes All differs from district elections. One term covers the specific name of the system in place, while the other term covers the specific effect of the system in place. One term appears to be neutral, but the other term also neutrally describes the resulting effects of the system in place. As such, they are both valuable distinctions to what is central to understanding the variations of political systems. I noticed that political pages are often used up to their maximum length, giving me a second reason to ask you to remove the hex, since the unavailability of space for such a widely considered important subject comes down to censorship by default of the system. Thank you for either helping me directly, or helping me find out how to have this hex removed. FredrickS21:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like how USS Texas and its sub-articles are shaping up! But I have a question - should the hull type and number have a hyphen joining them or not? I see no hyphens on official Navy pages, not even on pages referring to old ships, but they are ubiquitous in DANFS, which suggests a policy change in recent years. Do you know the story? Stan Shebs 04:08 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)
I was wondering how long it would take someone to ask that question. There seems to be no consistency anywhere -- chinfo.navy.mil sometimes uses a space, sometimes a hyphen, sometimes both on the same page! I've been using a hyphen (as you can tell) only because I think it looks best. --the Epopt
My God, I can't cope - there's no regulation? No "Norfolk Manual of Style"? :-) I bet there is a rule, just need to find it. It's going to matter a little, because the choice leaks into article titles thus affecting search results (though not Google's I suppose). Stan Shebs 05:27 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)
World War II practice was no space. Decklogs, etc., generally used the form "BB35" (as at USS Texas). Thereafter, a space was introduced and, more recently, a hyphen, although I've heard that there's a retreat from the hyphen (as at Pentagon press release regarding the new USS Kidd.)
Similarly, World War II practice was to refer to a ship without using "the," i.e., "Kidd" as opposed to "the Kidd" -- Mccomb11:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships looks great! I added a bit of content recommendation. The general characteristics and other universal info could be table-ized and flowed alongside text, could spiff up the presentation a bit. Might be interesting to table-ize ships' comings and goings, but it would be more work. Stan 05:14 Mar 11, 2003 (UTC)
I see my Beryllium table has again been adapted to serve yet another WikiProject. :) Have you given any thought to using different colors for the heading cells based on ship type? That would be cool. --mav
Beryllium? I swiped it from Vostok 1! The different colors is an interesting idea -- I'll give it some thought and discussion on the Wikiproject page. Any suggestions? --the Epopt 06:53 Mar 15, 2003 (UTC)
Like I said the table has been copied all over the place - most people didn't even bother changing the heading color (or even realized where the table first came from - such is the power of wiki!). :) I dunno about the colors -- that will take some thought. It took a while to figure out the best color scheme for the periodic table and for the different Kingdoms, but those are areas that I know a lot about. This is the type of detail that can be worked-out later though. --mav
On the subject of copyright, I notice that Stan Shebs refers to the RN website, saying that its info is often not good enough to copy. However, I have looked at the page for HMS Sceptre, the SSN, and I have found that your text was in large part a verbatim copy of the text on the RN website. True, you have inserted a great deal of extra material about the second HMS Sceptre, and the latest HMS Sceptre, but other than that, it seems pretty blatant copying. Since the RN website is under Crown Copyright, have you got permission to copy that?
David Newton 17:19 BST Jun 20 2003
Yes, I do. If you look up the definition of a "Crown copyright," you will see that it can be copied freely as long as it is copied accurately and not dispargingly. --the Epopt 16:23 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I've checked on the HMSO website, and the waiver on Crown Copyright does indeed extend to websites, unless explicitly said so on the website. The RN website just claims Crown Copyright, it does not say that it cannot be reproduced, so I think that I was a little too zealous in my point. It's probably worth putting up what is covered by the waiver of Crown Copyright in the article on the same in the Wikipedia.
David Newton 18:25 BST Jun 20 2003
Thank you for actually checking, and not just shrieking hysterically. ;->
Just to bring you fully up to date, I've gone through all of the RN warship articles, and those that use material from the RN website have had a Crown Copyright acknowledgement added to them. That should bring things fully into line with HMSO's policy on the waivers
David Newton 20:00 BST 20 Jun 2003
Problem. IIRC the Crown Copyright and the GNU FDL are incompatible. We cannot say at the bottom of each page that "all text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License" when some of that text is first and foremost under the Crown Copyright. I'll ask the mailing list about this but I'm pretty sure we cannot use Crown Copyright text. --mav 19:58 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Well, at least you'll be able to find the pages that have the material in them easily in the search engine now! I have also included a link back to the page that the material came from originally, so it can be seen what is Crown Copyright, and what might need rewriting.
I would certainly agree that Crown Copyright itself and the GNU FDL are incompatable. However, the waiver for Crown Copyright simply states that the text can be reproduced in any format or medium, provided that two conditions are met. One of those conditions is that the source and status of the material is noted. That is fulfilled by the links that I have put in. The other is that the material is not reproduced in a misleading context, and is reproduced accurately. Obviously, not reproducing it in a misleading context is no problem, since the articles are themselves about warships. However, the problem might be accuracy. The whole point of the Wikipedia is that dervative works of the original can be easily created. Does that make the reproducion of the text inaccurate, when quoted portions are interspersed with other bits of the article, as is the case with several of the articles that this applies too?
David Newton 22:43 BST 20 Jun 2003
As I announced on the mailing list, I will query HMSO this week, explaining the GFDL and our project and (I hope) getting an official answer to this question from HM Government. L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace. --the Epopt 17:33 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)
They should reply fairly quickly. When I had a copyright query and emailed their licensing department, they responded inside 24 hours. David Newton 23:20 BST 22 Jun 2003
So what was the outcome? I'm curious now. Plus some Canadian government websites are probably under Crown copyright. --Andrew 00:55, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
I've noticed the term Straw man being used often by users to mean "a bad arguement", which is not the proper definition. Please see the definition listed on wikipedia of Straw man for the real meaning. Hopefully this will clear up confusion in the future. Don't feel bad, this is a common mistaken use of Straw man. :) MB 20:35 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I know I was just being picky, but thanks for fixing your error. MB 21:24 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)
No problem. I was using the term in the sense of "you're shooting at the wrong target; even if you're right, it's irrelevant" -- which is a little better than "a bad argument" but is admittedly not exactly correct. --the Epopt 21:43 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)
'Yards square' is equally correct as 'square yards'.
The 4000-ton submarine did not leave a debris field only 60x60 feet. The only interpretation of "400 yards square" that makes sense is 160000 sq yd. (To those of you wonder what the hell we're talking about, see USS Thresher (SSN-593).)
I've heard plenty of people use 'yards square' to mean the same thing as 'square yards'.
Plenty of people may *use* them interchangeably, but that does not *make* them interchangeable. "400 square yards" is 20 yards x 20 yards, "400 yards square" is 400 yards x 400 yards. Elde 18:16, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
It probably, once upon a fictional time when people wrote more carefully, would have been "yards squared". But that's perhaps too Victorian for today's Dear Reader. 210.22.142.82 (talk) 07:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... Your edit comment under Ohio Class leads me to think you wear the patrol pin. What boats did you sail on? Elde 09:47, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Two years in the shipyard watching her being built, then two years sea duty on Ohio (Blue crew) herself. --the Epopt, ex-MM1(SS)
Just curious as to why you think German aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin is a better name for the article? Wasn't the ship's name simply Graf Zeppelin? --Rlandmann 04:41, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
After much discussion, summarized at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships, we settled on nationality type name for ships that don't have standard prefixes. The main advantage is readability -- "He served on the German aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin" is a good English sentence. Obviously, we can't simply title the article Graf Zeppelin.
I've put a couple of new MediaWiki messages into circulation. One of them is for DANFS, and the other is an experiment with the Iowa class battleships. Please let me know what you think. David Newton 23:08, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I like the idea of msgs, and I like the class-list msg, though it will probably be impractical for the larger classes; e.g., the Gato class submarines. I'm not quite so thrilled by the DANFS msg, simply because I hope that DANFS won't be the only source for our articles and having a hard-and-fast msg might actually discourage people citing other sources. Many of the Sturgeon class submarines have a stub in DANFS which must then be expanded using other sources. However, the message can be easily overwritten, so let her run. --the Epopt 01:48, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Good to know that you like the class message idea. I also approve of your suggestion of omitting the USS/HMS(although I haven't done any RN lists yet)/whatever prefix. On the DANFS message, I made it because so many places use DANFS material, and the copyright paranoid might be likely to blank such pages for copyvios. I altered quite a number of existing pages which pointed directly to the DANFS page, although I still left a large number of submarines to deal with. As for short articles from DANFS that need expanding, I'd say that's what the stub message is for.
Stan Shebs also expressed some concern over the larger classes of ship being impractical. He seems to like the idea as well. I actually beat him to creating a DANFS message. David Newton 20:06, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Frankly the message feature is starting to be way overused. Elde 09:17, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Given the extreme pro-Kerry condition of the John Kerry page when I began editing it and the furious reaction of the entrenched editors there, I am not surpised that Arbitrators would leap to their defense. I am however, surprised that you do it so easily based on what amounts to their half of the story of a tit-for-tat battle.
With election 2004 underway, the ponderously slow process of the Arb committee means that my "temp" ban is in fact a death sentence.
For your information, I was patiently and thoroughly tallying details (many already submitted into evidence) about Neutrality, etc's equally agressive efforts as mine.
But alas, this Wiki has turned into bascially a pro-Kerry farce - with only the aggresive "anti-Kerry" editors being banned. The pro-Kerry crew it seems, can do no wrong.
Being accused of pro-Kerry bias is the funniest thing that has happened to me all week. Thank you for the belly laugh, Rex071404. --the Epopt 17:04, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Most excellent! Now that there's more text, there's room for a couple of my photos taken onboard a couple years ago! Re dups, yeah, I'm spending more time these days knocking down free links that are just different spellings/phrasings of existing articles... Stan 05:34, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Just wanted to ask you something. In your article on the Soviet submarine K-3, you wrote:
"On June 17, 1962 К-3 reached the North Pole underwater, a feat performed nearly four years earlier by USS Nautilus..."
My sources tell me that the Soviet "K-3" didn't "simply" reach the North Pole, it surfaced and fixed the Soviet flag and the Navy pennant in the ice. Looks like a "simple" underwater journey under the North Pole wasn't enough for the Russians :). This was a great achievement as well, wouldn't you say? Do you know anything about this fact? If yes, do you think we could insert it in your article? Thanks!
Sorry it took so long to see your comment -- I don't usually read my user page. I'll look into K-3's mission and make sure they get the credit they deserve. --the Epopt 04:50, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
While K-3 may need to be given greater credit, let's not forget that Skate surfaced at the pole only a few months after Nautilus went underneath it. Elde
Hey there Epopt,
I was just about to do an article on the USS Pipefish (my dad's submarine) and you beat me to it by about two hours. Any reason you decided to do the article just now? Any connection? Rsduhamel 04:20, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yep. I saw your spelling correction, and decided to put the DANFS article up, hoping it would inspire you to add information from your father's patrols. --the Epopt 04:50, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I just wanted to say thanks for catching that vandalism. I guess I didn't read what I was reverting to as closely as I should have. Cavebear42 17:47, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Back when I was the only one doing this, I chose to use jacks because they are specific symbols; c.f., the various colours of the ensigns of the Royal Navy. Where a given Navy didn't have a jack -- or I had trouble finding a good image of the jack -- I used the ensign. As others joined me in working on ships, they added whatever they felt was appropriate. I do not think we should replace any naval jacks with national ensigns. The jack is the symbol of the Navy; the ensign is the symbol of the entire nation. Precision is valuable. The popularity argument doesn't float for me -- an encyclopedia's job is to be right, perhaps even educational -- not made inaccurate to avoid surprising the ignorant. If anything, we should replace the fifty-star USN jack with the one currently flying on the warships of the US Navy. --the Epopt 15:49, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hi Epopt. I want to upload an image of the British signpost for a roundabout to improve the Roundabout_intersection article. I've found an image at the Highway Code (Dept. of Transport) site
which says it is Crown Copyright. Does that mean that if I upload it, and add the crown copyright tag that should be fine? I mean, that will acknowledge HMGov as the copyright holder, and an image is not going to be edited... PaulHammond 14:44, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
There is no hard-and-fast answer. On the first tentacle, our use of any material under Crown Copyright is fine -- we use it accurately, not disparagingly, and so on -- but we then license that material for others to use under the GFDL, which does not include those limitations. Someone could take the image from our site and somehow use it inaccurately, disparagingly, and so on, and claim that we had given him permission to do so. We don't have the right to give that permission. On the other tentacle, we also include material by claiming "fair use," which other people may or may not be able to claim. Somehow, people have decided that slapping the GFDL onto material that we only have "fair use" of isn't a problem. On the third tentacle, I am not a lawyer, so this is not legal advice. The only thing I know for sure is that HMSO sent me an e-mail message stating very clearly that Crown Copyright and the GFDL are not compatible. ➥the Epopt 17:57, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
We do not have any rights to license Crown coyright material. Only HMSO and those to whom HMSO has delegated authority have the right to do that. Anybody using Crown copyrighted pictures from the Wikipedia must obey the same stipulations as the Wikipedia or risk being sued. David Newton 18:47, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I see you're altering the ordering of the USN submarine list. I would contend that you are doing it incorrectly. For example, you put USS George Washington after USS George Washington Carver. It is clear to me that the addition of Carver to the name places that variant after plain George Washington in an alphabetized list. A c is after nothing in the alphabet. David Newton 17:56, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but open-paren comes after a C. I did the alphabetizing by means of the Linux "sort" command, which compared "USS George Washington (SSBN-whatever)" to "USS George Washington Carver (SSBN-whatever)." The result is clearly incorrect in this case. I was entirely interested in getting all of the [ABCDEFGHKLMNORS]-boats in the right place, and didn't think to look for the side-effects you found. Well done! ➥the Epopt 21:43, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I've spent the last few days working on a new ship table template to enable us to centralise the editing of things like weapons outfits for a particular class of ships in one template (so with the Fletchers or Gearings or other big classes you only have to edit in one place to alter a mistake rather than in dozens or hundreds). Please have a look at the WikiProject Ships page's talk section and see what you think. I haven't written the instructions for using it yet, and I want to see whether there are any table cells people would like me to include that aren't present yet. There are two example tables, one with all the optional cells present, and the other with some excluded. David Newton 14:03, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You have a collection of Lensman source material ? You lucky son-of-a-gun ! What sort of stuff have you got ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:27, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
As well as every word Doc published, I have a few obscure books, such as New Lensman and The Universes of E.E. Smith, several biographies, a starkly wonderful stack of correspondence with Doc's daughter, Verna Smith Trestrail, and notes from interviews with a few of Doc's contemporaries. I accumulated most of it during my tour of duty as Historian of the Lens. ➥the Epopt 21:53, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Your edit comment, Freedom, has nothing whatsoever to do with the contents of your edit, which simply changed capitalization of two links. It makes it difficult for me to go through my watchlist when people don't bother to leave edit comments. It really isn't so difficult. Please play nice with the other users. Avriette 16:34, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Littoral_Combat_Ship&diff=prev&oldid=13518445 ... Perhaps you should be more clear, or make separate edits. The latter is common practice when large groups of people are working on a shared piece of information with version control (eg in software development). Besides, what is your opposition to adding two words ("changed capitalization")? Brevity is not an advantage in edit comments. Avriette 18:12, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
Hi! I was in the process of writing a wikipedia article on The Navy Hymn. After posting my article ("Eternal Father Strong to Save"), I came across yours. I'd like to possibly discuss what parts of the articles we should merge. I know you posted a bit more info than my article, though I have added a few bits that the US Navy's FAQ doesn't have. (Biblical references, film and TV uses, plus an additional verse on Space travel). user:Orville Eastland
Thank you for contributing to the USS Trigger (SS-237) article. My great grandfather, William Zugecich, was aboard that submarine when it disappeared in the pacific. The information you and others have provided are very much appreciated by everyone in my family. This is the most thorough record of the Trigger's voyages that I have yet seen, and is a wonderful dedication to those who died to protect the freedoms of our beloved land. Salva01:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Bananas is leading a cabal with Blowbite [[user:Nathan Ladd|Nate Badd] and [[user:Sasquatch|SasSquat] and CarBite and others to impose a Tyranny of the Majority on TruthTrueEpistemology and Knowledge. They make personal attacks against me. All their comments are ad hominem/poisoning the well type fallacy. They commit the fallacy of conflation of belief and knowledge, two completely different things. This is part of their Obscurantism. They refuse to include my view that the only reasonable thing that can be said about truth is that "Snow is white" is true is redundant in as much as it says nothing more than is said by "Snow is white", so truth is just something that is in accord with an actual state of affairs in the particular case. They started a Request for Arbitration against me. They started an injunction against me to unfairly prevent the minority view from being presented. They block me at the drop of a hat because I am in the minority. Please ban all of these users, so Wikipedia can return to the noble principle of consensus decisions by principled negotiation and no personal attacks. The cabal has others user:Curpsuser:JtkieferMcAttackFoolWagonJimWaeBypedCanderson7EssjayMeelarSpangineerCryptoDerkAsbestosBaronLarfVeratienAncheta WisWhiteCRavenswoodAsbestosChristofurioKzollmanGkhan
How can you say you will not help? You are an Admin. It is your responsibility to defend noble principle of consensus decisions by principled negotiation and no personal attacks. --DotSix
I can say I will not help like this (now watch closely as my keys go up and down): I will not help you. I am not only an admin; I am an arbiter. Bring your case before the Committee and we will judge you. (Including your oh-so cute listing of your alleged attackers as ...[[user:Robert McClenon|McAttack]] [[user:FuelWagon|FoolWagon]] ... oh my goodness, that's persuasive; how can I refrain from leaping to the defense of someone who makes such terribly clever personal attacks?) Until you appear before the Committee, I will not get involved. As my banner states, do not post requests for help in fighting other Wikipedians here. Doing so will not help your cause. ➥the Epopt15:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Epopt, are you sure the distance numbers you added to R'lyeh and Pohnpei are correct? I don't have the books handy at the moment, so I cannot check, but 5000 miles is a quarter of the distance around the globe and definitely not a day's voyage for even a very fast ship :P .. Ferkelparadeπ09:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the location and the distances are correct, and who am I to contradict the stories that say they traveled for only one day? You're right: the ship would have to make over 200 knots to get there in time. ➥the Epopt13:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's been ages since I read the stories, I always assumed the distance from Pohnpei to R'lyeh was supposed to be maybe a couple dozen miles...but if these numbers actually appear in the text, then of course we should also list them in the appropriate articles (and maybe add a note that these numbers, however improbable, are actually based on the Lovecraft texts) -- Ferkelparadeπ13:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While vigilance is a good thing, and as an allophone I sincerely hope native speakers of English will help polish mine where needed, I must insist you (double-)check your facts before 'correcting' an error, as in the case of my article Fustuarium where it was quite easy to find out, e.g. via gauntlet (disambiguation), that gantlet is NOT another, better word but merely an older form of gauntlet.
Actually, while a quick reading on Bartleby may be confusing, it clearly states that both are alternate spellings of the other, and relies on a 1924 dictionary (which seems rightly out of favor). Had you followed the link to http://www.Etymonline.Com, which supplies far more useful information, the whole (word hi)story would have become clear - a usefull diagnostic tool to add to your favorites? Fastifex10:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I babelfished this, on the Cool Cat proposed principle 4, "Stalking", and it said "Entrust, but check". Could you put an English translation in brackets? I'm pretty sure most English speakers wouldn't understand the Russian. --Tony SidawayTalk00:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would have, except that someone deleted it. It is the original form of the phrase popularized by Ronald Reagan, "trust, but verify." ➥the Epopt02:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah now I look at it, the words do have some symmetry, like a proverb. Thanks. --Tony SidawayTalk
I can't argue with you, Texture -- I transliterate Cyrillic by typing on my keyboard while jumping on my pogo stick. What I have above seems to be popular on Google, tho. ➥the Epopt00:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is extremely belated ( 4 Oct 2005!!!!) but the transliteration from Texture looks correct: My two semesters of college russian show it to be Doveryah no proveryah, with a slight "ei" inflection on the "yah" at the end. My instructor was a translator for various 3 letter US Gov't agencies for 20 years, as well as the US Defense Language Institute: he was very fond of this phrase when it came to grading tests. Sorry for the delay, but I hadn't come across your page until now and noticed the phrase. ⇒SWATJesterReadyAimFire!01:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, The Epopt. In case you haven't noticed, I'm writing a special series on the upcoming 2005 ArbCom elections for The Wikipedia Signpost. In the October 17 issue, we will be profiling the current ArbCom members. Note that this should not be a platform for re-election; rather, it should serve as an insight into what you feel about the ArbCom, and your opinions of it are. Thus, I hope you don't mind answering a few questions. Many thanks!
1. Are up for re-election this year?
No.
2. If so, do you plan to run for re-election?
If I were up for re-election, I probably would not run — I don't think judges should be chosen by popularity; I'm certainly not on the ArbComm to make friends. Also, I'm not sure this job is worth going through the Hell that was last year's election.
3. How do you feel about serving on the ArbCom?
Tired.
4. What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom?
We have been given something close to carte blanche to build our own jurisprudence — we are not bound by any procedure or precedent that we have not chosen ourselves. This freedom has allowed us to design a process specifically tailored to our mission of protecting Wikipedia without being distracted by noble but irrelevant concerns.
5. Weaknesses?
Sloth — it is an unpleasant, thankless task that is easy to put off; alas, this means that cases take several months to resolve.
6. If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?
I would dramatically increase the number of arbiters, so that when half of them get tired and disappear, the Committee isn't paralyzed by lack of quorum. Of course, finding that large number of arbiters is much easier to type than to do.
7. Do you regret accepting your position? Why or why not?
No, this is a necessary job, and one that could easily go astray. I'm glad to have had the opportunity to get it started in the right direction.
8. If you could say one thing to the current ArbCom candidates, what would you say, and why?
You're full of fire and ready to make a difference now, but will you still be so determined in six months? Don't sign up unless you're prepared to go the distance. Arbitrating is not a sprint, it's a marathon, through the mud, and there's no glory in it even if you do finish.
9. Do you think your job is easy? Hard? Explain.
Both, of course. It is hard to make sense of the mountains of argumentation we're given as evidence, but once I've read through it, a decision is usually very easy. There are exceptions, but most subjects of arbitration are clearly liabilities to Wikipedia.
10. Looking in retrospective, is there anything you would have done differently?
No, I don't have any significant regrets. There are cases I would have handled somewhat differently, if I knew then what I know now, but only in degree, not kind.
11. Do you feel that the ArbCom is appreciated by the community? If not, how do you think that could be changed?
I don't think the ArbComm is noticed much by the community, and that's the way it should be. While being appreciated is nice, before working on that, I'd rather work on getting the community to be more reluctant to involve the Committee in their affairs. Arbitration should be a painful last resort, only invoked when all other avenues of reconciliation are exhausted.
12. What is the most frustrating thing about being on the ArbCom? Enjoyable?
The most frustrating thing is the difficulty we have in closing cases, caused by vanishing arbiters. The most enjoyable is successfully removing from our community those that hinder the creating of a free encyclopedia.
I hope you didn't mind me bombarding with you with questions; by no means feel obligated to answer all (or any) of them. Thanks for serving Wikipedia, and for taking your time to help a Signpost reporter! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS14:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm posting here because I couldn't seem to find out if there was a proper place in WP:RFAr itself for comments on arbitrators' opinions. I wanted to bring to your attention that although Merkey has made numerous legal threats in the past, he does appear to have withdrawn them for now. His current talk page says, "I will not be pursuing any legal action against Wikimedia, its founders, Wikipedia, or any authors on this site." --Exabit04:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, The Epopt! I just wanted to deliver this week's issue of The Wikipedia Signpost, which features the current ArbCom, directly to your front door. :-) Also, if you wish to read your fellow Arbitrators' full and unabridged responses, you can find them here. Thanks again for all your help! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS21:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings! I hope you’re well. I would like to thank you for declining my request for arbitration and accept ArbComm’s decision unequivocally. Your decision, after all, demonstrates the validity – or not – of both my and Chris Bennett’s positions, while supporting neither, and the importance in Wp that users can diametrically differ yet still continue to grow Wikipedia. What was mildly irksome was how Arbs Fred Bauder and Kelly Martin characterised their decisions (particularly before CB submitted his statement), not the decisions themselves: as neutral third-party arbitrators, there is an expectation to not be diminutive and offer more indifferent or no commentary, as Mindspillage and you have done.
As I’ve stated, I believe my decision to RfArb was and is correct but was not taken lightly: I opted for a “nuclear” option as I believe CBs behaviour required it, was escalatory, and would not change with other modes of resolution; I am familiar with them and garnering positive results. I am a paragon of neither virtue nor linguistics, and am not faultless. As I hope my long contribution history demonstrates, however, I’m not a “bully”, “racist”, or unilateral in nature (as CB has characterised me), having constructively worked with others to help enhance this ingenious project of community.
I will disengage from CB until the Big Crunch (if this event occurs, given current theory) and hereafter exercise more caution when discussing fallacious user decisions in the first place.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Thank you again for your consideration; take care!
Did you know that if you spell ‘Mason’ backwards you get ‘Nosam,’ which is a five-letter word beginning with ‘N’ like ‘Nitwit’? It's all there if you just shoogle the letters around a bit. ➥the Epopt14:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I had hoped that we could settle the issue of Norse mythology names with the naming convention vote but now there is once again a request to strip an article title of diacritics and nominative ending or, in your pithy wording, "heathen unAmerican characters". If you can spare the time your opinion would be valued at Talk:Níðhöggr. There are already redirects in place from every alternative spelling and there is a list of them in the article itself. - Haukur Þorgeirsson19:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure if you were aware of the following when you wrote on the above ArbCom request, hence this note, "in case". You commented on this request: "Reject — there's no doubt that he's in violation of our previous ban, so use the remedies specified: block him for rapidly lengthening periods"
Unfortunately the above is factually incorrect. That's been the problem, and the reason for returning the matter to ArbCom. The prior ruling contained no provision at all for lengthening blocks of any period, nor did they contain any provision for edits on this and related subjects (on other articles) but only a ban on editing "closely related articles".
It said that DrBat would not be heavily handled "this time". I myself have "let him off the hook" already, in order to give him a chance, yet less than 2 weeks later he vandalized yet another unrelated article outside the original scope, in a similar way.
Hence the request, for the scope and enforcement to be summarily extended in order that his edits may be addressed. The extensions sought are specific: an extension to also cover edits on related subjects to those he has sought out (whatever article they may be in), and, as you say, blocking for "rapidly lengthening periods" in the event of violation as an enforcement measure. At present we have neither of these.
Please in view of the limited scope of the previous ruling, which is now being circumvented, would you re-read the statement and reconsider your vote on the item?
I've been trying to get someone with CheckUser powers to do some sockpuppet checks, but apparently my making such requests makes people fall off the face of the earth. Beware! Nevertheless, here is the request I have been making:
To make a long story short, a couple of us were suspecting that some users that suddenly appeared out of nowhere making trouble and backing each other up were sockpuppets, and, it turns out, they more or less incriminated themselves. Read all about the festivities at Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses#Dispute tags for Positive and Critical Links Sections, something one of them started in support of the other (sorry that there's a lot of unrelated stuff there), and the initial suspicions at Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses#"Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files". But now that these first two basically incriminated themselves, we need to check on a few other users that also aroused suspicion before going around slapping sockpuppet tags on pages. I simply request a yes or no answer to a simple question: are these people from Denver (or the surrounding area in Colorado) too? Of course, if you do find some kind of smoking gun, that would be of utmost interest. Following is the list:
I would personally doubt that every single one of those is actually a sockpuppet, but I only seek the yes or no answer to that one question (barring a smoking gun(s) of some kind), nothing that is especially useful to anybody for anything other than confirming or quelling suspicions of sockpuppetry. Thanks.Tommstein11:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: there is no reasonable doubt that some but not all of these users are the same person. I will say no more in public, but if you bring a RfArb, we will have a Finding of Fact of sockpuppetry. ➥the Epopt15:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, sir. I appreciate it. A quick question about bringing this up at RfArb though: having never gone through the dispute resolution process, I have just seen that that is supposed to be the last step, after mediation, requests for comments, etc. In this case, I'm not sure how those earlier steps would apply (mediation on whether they're actually sockpuppets or not?). Can you advise someone that has never been through this on what steps should be followed?Tommstein17:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbitration Committee is going to punish me for something what was (and stil is!) not forbidden by any rules (creating artificial histories of redirect pages). I did it to prevent disrupting Wikipedia and violating the Policies. Why not simply to say "do not do it anymore" instead of punish me for something which is not forbidden? How could I know that I was not allowed to do it if none of the policies forbids it?
In view of the Arbitration Committee, the existing policy about Ukrainian geografic names do not address the question of names associated with the Kievan Rus. How could I know it? There is no any restrictions to particular historical period in the policy about Ukrainian names. How could I know that spelling of Ukrainian names in Wikipedia should be different from Britannica and other English language encyclopedias? Which policy says it? It seem the policy states the opposite.
It's very funny that for a single revert of copivio article made by mistake I will get the same punishment ("Warning") as Ghirlandago will get for multiple insultigs and personal attack made on purpose!
It's very surprising if I will be forbidden to correct Ukrainian names and those who were distorting them and ignoring the naming convention are allowed to do it further.
It's very strange that multiple edist of my opponents that disrupted Wikipedia: broken links, sneaky vandalism, POV-pushing etc. were completely ignored by the Arbitration Committee.
The group of users that has been squeezing Ukrainian editors out of the Community by persisting and scoffing trolling, insulting and personal attacks now is about to succseed to use the Arbitration Committee for this purpose. I called this group "Russian Mafia". It was not a personal attack. It was merely a stating of the fact. Is there a more appropriate name? I do not think so.
The Arbitration Committee voted for decissions that were not discussed in the Worshop. And if any of them were discussed, the discussion has been ignored. As the result, the decissions contradict each other. The proposed enforcement #1 refers to Russian names, while #2 refers to Ukrainian names. What have I to do with Russian names? I did not change a single Russian name since I am here. What is the reason for this strange decision about Russian names? Can somebody explain me?
Nearly all my statements, comments, evidence, proposal were ignored. It would be OK if the Arbitration Committee would discuss them and then reject. At least I would see a fair procedure. But I did not see anything but silent voting.
Even a serial killer has a right to be heard in the court. You deprive me of this right just for the attempt to protect Wikipedia against pushing of Russian POV and distorting Ukrainian names!--AndriyK21:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
... You should perhaps understand the following sentences in English:
1. If justice were a threat for you, then what would lack of justice be?
2. You must take legal responsibility for libel and censorship
3. You can't delete evidence for censorship you just offered
YOU TAKE PERSONAL LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR LIBEL AND CENSORSHIP BY VANDALIZING INCONVENIENT USER PAGES!
DO NOT TRUST JIMBO's MONEY!
I HAVE HAD IT WITH CONSTANT ATTACKS BY T-MAN. The arbitration is just a further opportunity to attack and attack and attack, a relentless illegible onslaught. PLEASE JUST MAKE IT STOP! Dyslexic agnostic05:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am a 61 year old retired English solicitor. I know both Robert Isherwood and Gregory Lauder-Frost. I can confirm that they are friends and that they live not far from one another (60 miles apart).
I was asked by Robert to examine what has happened to him and to give my opinion.
My view is that he has been treated unfairly.
Robert made several attempts at complaints and also requested arbitration before other users. These were ignored. It may be that (like me) he is unable to properly find his way around the very confusing Wikipedia pages and headings.
User C.J.Curry however, made a request for arbitration which was immediately taken up. He appears to be the main protaganist in this dispute although he called in support from at least two other users, home on the range and ground zero, all of whom appear to know each other, and, indeed, praise each other. All three would appear to have the same political ideas.
Robert has one computer at his flat. He and his son use it. Gregory Lauder-Frost lives in Berwickshire and having remarried in 1998 has a young family. He has a very old computer which he and his wife both use. Gregory is not IT literate. He regards the internet as a dangerous source of disinformation.
It has been suggested that occasionally the same computer or computers with similar ISP number have been used, purportedly by one person using aliases. Without proof this would not stand up in our courts.
It has been suggested that several posters use similar language terms, phraseology, etc., and therefore it has to be the same individual making the postings. This would be thrown out of our courts. The majority of those attending a good public school, especially boarders, leave school with the same English language and linguistic attributes.
Robert has been banned for "aggressive editing". However, it was Robert's articles which were aggressively edited and often deleted, not visa-versa.
On several occasions "sources" were absolutely demanded and even when given were still ignored on the most specious grounds, such as assertions that a speaker/writer was being "sarcastic" or that the source had then to be checked. On several occasions sources were given in the references or publications and they were still ignored and the comment in the article deleted.
Robert's articles have been stated by Mr C J Curry to be "right-wing propaganda" which he a some sort of duty to eliminate. Having examined the original articles it may be contended that by quoting the organisation's won opinions and objectives may appear biased. But nor more biased than deleting them and relacing them instead with the detrimental opinions of a few journalists. In British courts a quote from a journalist is inadmissable without the journalist being present with the evidence used for the article concerned.
One of Robert's detractors has stated that Gregory Lauder-Frost's article was "vanity" and that Lauder-Frost was "on the fringe of the fringe". These statements were absolute opinion. The evidence does not stand up.
It may be that an article has not been written in a particular Wikipedia manner, but that should not make it inadmissable. Gregory was, in his time, a prominent figure. His activities in the various pressure groups, and indeed within the Conservative Party, made him, shall we say, a fascinating figure. He was a friend with Alec Douglas Home and numerous MPs. He was on a restricted guest list for a House of Commons Dinner on 4th October 1990 for John Major following his becoming Prime Minister (that is not on your article page) and he sat in front of Margaret Thatcher in a reserved seat for McWhirter's memorial service (deleted from the article). These things demonstrate that he was far from persona non grata, and definitely not on the fringe.
I have not the time to list here the seemingly endless lists of the manner in which Robert's comments and articles have been attacked. But it is unjust that these attackers are now confirmed as being wholly in the right and Robert wholly in the wrong. Articles on individuals and groups on the British Right should be fair and balanced and give some good idea of their opinions and views, of what they believe they stand for, and also the juxtaposed comments of others. Comments designed to place them in an unfair and bad light should at the very least be supported by evidence.
It has been suggested that the term "European" is meaningless. The Oxxford English Dictionary is cited with definitions. Some wors have numerous definitions. It is not possible to accept them all. most people would settle upon one. Robert has done this and been unjustly attacked as denying the "authority" of a dictionary which today carries words and definitions which would never have been acceptable to pre-1950 editors, and which are, at the end of the day, the opinions of the editors. Its all a matter of opinion.
The most appalling aspect of Robert's treatment appears to be that he has been treated as though he had made shocking or pornographic statements, that he had abused others in a dreadful manner etc. My reading is that he was very often provoked into robust responses by seemingly quite arrogant, even pompous, comments made by his detractors.
None of these points appear to have been noted by the arbitrators at all.
The arbitrators appear to have commenced their arbitration from an automatic position that Robert was absolutely wrong, and that he had committed some fantastic crime on Wikipedia. My own opinion is that he has obviously spent hours on end researching and submitting articles and information to Wikipedia, articles which previously were not there, and which filled a vital information gap. These were then attacked by ideological enemies under the guise of "neutrality" etc. In fact, what was criticised as opinion, was usually replaced by opinion.
Phrases such as "hard-right", "far-right", "extreme-right", "holocaust denier", "White-minority government" etc., are all loaded with political inuendo. They weould not be permitted when giving evidence in a British court as the court would be making the decision, not the witness.
His detractors' arguments, I submit, would not have the gravity of evidence in our courts for the drastic treatment/decision made by you on Robert Isherwood.
Michael.
I have read your post carefully and thank you for it. I have re-reviewed the arbitration case in the light of what you state above, and see no reason to change any of my options. I see no need to address your argument in detail except at two points:
Robert's ban is not for "aggressive editing" but rather for legal threats. To end that ban, all he has to do is publicly withdraw all legal actions against Wikipedia as an organization or against any person in his or her role as a participant in Wikipedia.
You point out that Robert's detractors use loaded terms and that their "arguments ... would not have the gravity of evidence in our courts," which is undoubtedly true. However, the Arbitration Committee is not a court and its rules of procedure and evidence differ from the British — and from the American — judicial systems. It exists solely to protect our encyclopedia, and has little interest in justice as an abstract ideal.
I ask the members of the Arbitration Committee a question. I am currently working on a very massive change to how the dispute resoution is done as well as how Wikipedia functions. I want to make an Appeals board (for use of a better name), that would resolve issues before they go to the Arbitration Committee as well as help enforce there (arbcom's) rulings. Earlier, when I sought to make a higher group it didn't work, but my goal would be reached with either proposal. Now back to the idea: The board would have nine members, three selected by the Arbcom, five selected by the public (users) and one selected by Jimbo. They would each serve six-month terms (I can always change this) and would require a simple majority to make a descision. I feel that I must recieve your advise, because you deal with disputes all the time. So I ask for your comments, good or bad. Thank you for your time.
WikieZach 01:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You changed USS Swordfish (SSN-579), saying, "Celcius doesn't use the little circle symbol;". I believe you are mistaken. The Kelvin scale certainly doesn't use the degree symbol, not since 1967—much further back than I had thought. But according to Wikipedia, "The degree Celsius (°C) is a unit of temperature named ..." Looking farther afield, the NIST says, "The unit of Celsius temperature is the degree Celsius, symbol °C. The numerical value of a Celsius temperature t expressed in degrees Celsius is given by t/°C = T/K - 273.15."[1] —wwoods08:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you wrote that you reject the above mentioned RFAR, I was wondering if you would mind adding an explanation of why you do so?
(You also wrote on a previous RFAR, that was against me, that a case probably could be made against -Ril-, suggesting pre-judgement about me, and hence I would also like to know why you haven't recused yourself)
I made motions, presented evidence but it seems no on is paying any attention.
Indeed, now the article had to be protected again because edit wars are continuing by other parties.
[2]
ArbCom should realize that the process is totaly broke. Protection does not cause "dialogue". Banning does not cause NPOV.
I seriously suggest you come up with a different process for such articles. Some proposals were made in the ArbCom case.
Sincerely,
Zeq04:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:USOS_Seaview.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then 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 images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. -- Carnildo20:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite impressed with your contributions on a few submarine articles, I was wondering if you could add anything to the Affray article I created, I wish to make it the most complete on the net. Could you add or edit anything? It would be much appreciated! :) (Khan 10:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC))
Thankyou very much, fantastic job!(Khan15:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:JAGcoin.png. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then 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 media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — THOR=/\=05:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Can I enlist your help to change this protected template? It needs to be made clear (within the template) that Crown Copyright usage is determined on a site-by-site basis. Many users are uploading images from government websites that expressly prohibit reproduction except for personal use due to the wording of the template. Regards Mark8320:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. God help us if HM Government ever notices how thoroughly we're ignoring the formal letter they sent me stating that we cannot relicense any CC material under the GFDL.... ➥the Epopt00:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since this article does not assert notability, shouldn't it be speedy deleted? I was wondering why you didn't put up the csd tag on there, because that's what I would do. Am I wrong? -EdGl03:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
a starkly wonderful stack of correspondence with Doc's daughter, Verna Smith Trestrail, and notes from interviews with a few of Doc's contemporaries.
Could I please get access to these? I'd be delighted to pay the reproduction and postage costs. I've been editing the E.E. Smith biography, and I'm worried that my most detailed source is Moskowitz's biography. Gharlane said it was riddled with errors, and Moskowitz's inability to spell Gray Lensman is not encouraging. I'd also appreciate your reviewing my changes.
I was ELT on the criticality team for USS Florida (SSBN-728). I'll always remember: When the RO latched rods for the first time (which you may know is done by driving the rods in even tho they are already bottomed), half the rods moved out. He scrammed the reactor as soon as the rod-bottom lights went out so no harm was done, and the Engineer got to call the Admiral at 0400, and the Admiral got to call the EVP of Electric Boat, P. Takis Veliotis, at 0430, and at 0500 the shipyard electricians got to fix the CRDMs they had wired up backwards, and a good time was had by all.
Seeing half the rod-bottom lights go out all at once must have been one of those moments where even the adrenalin doesn't kick in fast enough. Good thing the RO was paying attention and had good reactions.
I know some other FBM crew and have some slight engineering familiarity with them from school, but for some reason hadn't met anyone who was in reactor engineering. Good to make your aquaintence. Georgewilliamherbert16:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am the wife of User:Danny B. (usurped), as he advised the Wikipedia WelcomerUser:Wiki alf and we log in from the same office computer. We don’t contribute all that often and so it came as quite a surprise to Danny to find himself blocked by you and this message on his user page:
This user is a sock puppet of Ted Wilkes, as established by Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser/Archive/March 2006#Ted Wilkes (talk • contribs) and related accounts,
Because you provided no explantion for your actions on his talk page, it took me some time to track it down. At the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard[3] you wrote:
"See this request for CheckUser: Ted Wilkes, Danny B. (usurped) and Karl Schalike are the same person." Mushroom (Talk) 06:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I note that this statement by you was posted immediately after Danny complained on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents [4] about vandalism by Onefortyone which you did nothing about.
"Ted Wilkes, Danny B. (usurped) and Karl Schalike appear likely to be the same."
Your action appears to have been based on a message left on your talk page by User:Onefortyone[5], someone on probation who I see has been banned by User:Stifle from editing certain articles for a time as result of his repeated violations of his probation and someone that numerous others have complained about. (User:MrDarcy, User:Arniep, User:Lochdale, User:Func, User:DropDeadGorgias and if I looked a little further, I'm swure I would find plenty more).
Mushroom, I think it is right to assume that a Wikipedia:Administrator has the responsibility for stating facts, not making quick guesses to spin there own version of what User:Sam Korn who did the checking said. Your rush to judgment has forced me to do a lot of searching all over Wikipedia for no reason. I will unblock my husband and place copies of this message on the talk page of each member of the Arbitration Committee.
Just for the record, because my husband has an interest, I am the one who pointed him to the non-encyclopedic material being pushed by User:Onefortyone after I came across a nonsensical contradiction in on of the articles he edited. I also come from a small city with one of the highest number of writers per capita in Canada and where Wikipedia has a high profile and where I know from the local newspaper(s) and business/social associations that there are a number of Wikipedia editors. - Cynthia B.19:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure: Anything created by a US government employee (which includes military personnel) in the course of their duties is automatically released into the public domain. In particular, if you look at http://www.uscg.mil/disclaim.html, you will see the statement "Information presented on this web site is considered public information and may be distributed or copied." ➥the Epopt16:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I actually knew that this policy applied to US government employees. I did not realize that it also applied to the military (thus, I added the tag). So if I'm using a US government website as a source, to what extent should I try to paraphrase the information as opposed to directly copying it? ClarkBHM17:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't required to change it at all, and often a simple cut'n'paste is a good way to start an article. But we should be improving the article, so any improvement in language clarity, any additional explanation you can add, &c., is very desirable! ➥the Epopt20:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have conducted extensive research that proves that User:David Gerard, User:Cyde and User:SPUI are all the same person. I did this using WP:Check Fool, a new tool that is given to members of the High Order of Fools (HOOF). As a result of this evidence, I have proven conclusively that the 3 users have all sold their accounts to each other, and are sock puppets. Only Fools can see this evidence, and I am a fool, and you are not, hence I can't show you. However, you may well be a fool. If you are, you can conduct your own research, and restore the sock puppet and CheckFool tags on their user pages. Thank you.
On 1st April you deleted this because it had been on Prod for 5 days without response. However, I think there is a problem here so I've requested a deletion review. See my request for details. Please leave a note here on my talk page if you want to discuss. Regards Cje14:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On March 29, you moved moved RFS Novomoskovsk (K-407) to Russian submarine K-407 Novomoskovsk, reason being "use naming standards". I had done the exact opposite on March 23. According to the naming conventions; "For ships of navies that have standard ship prefixes, use the prefix in the name of the article". In the introduction of the Russian Navy article; "The international designation of Russian naval vessels is "RFS" - "Russian Federation Ship".".
The hundreds of other consistently named "Russian vessel name" articles create the de facto standard. If you want to change it, I suggest that rather than moving just one relatively unknown submarine, you start with a popular one; e.g., move Russian submarine K-141 Kursk to RFS Kursk (K-141). ➥the Epopt13:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Distraction, actually — my apologies. The missing content, from her fibreglass construction through the list of equipment, will go better in the article about the whole Osprey class, which I mean to create, but haven't yet. I'll get to it this weekend. ➥the Epopt05:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just tried to find [Deloria Online] as I had been directed there, apparently it had an interesting History of the game and so on. This is getting a little annoying, i find more and more often now, when i try to find things that were here they have been deleted for no good reason. Can you at least give me the text, i will host it elsewhere. Please respond. Bjrobinson11:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was disgusted, but not terribly surprised, to see that six members of the Arbitration Committee -- Dmcdevit, Fred Bauder, JamesF/James D. Forrester, Sean Barrett/The Epopt, Charles Matthews and Jayjg -- condone hate speech and hateful epithets directed at the mentally disabled, and consider condemnation of that hate speech to be unacceptable behavior on Wikipedia -- behavior, in fact, so unacceptable that they say they find it a compelling reason to punish me.
I was a bit more surprised when an earlier form of this letter (differing only in describing the status of the pending arbitration, aside from this paragraph) was banned without explantion from the Wikipedia mailing list where such topics could supposedly be discussed. But I was appalled when discussions on that list, regarding a named editor, turned to open derision of the editor's supposed emotional/mental impairments, and that one Arbitration Committee member participated in the abuse.
As someone who has been involved for more than thirty years, professionally and nonprofessionally, in attempting to protect and to advance the rights of the mentally disabled, and as someone who for many years has served, and continues to serve as a guardian for such disabled members of my community. I find the use of such epithets grossly offensive; they are clearly inconsistent with Wikipedia's supposed commitment to civility. They form no part of civil discourse in any circumstances. They are particularly deserving of condemnation because they are directed toward, in very real terms attack, and have the greatest tendency to injure, a class of people who are less able, sometimes unable, to defend themselves, to resist the impact, or to respond on equal terms. [And, as a note to the politically correct, it is for that reason that I will not use the abominable term "mentally challenged," because it denies (sometimes grossly minimizes) the imbalances of social power that inhere in the relationships between the mentally disabled and the "unchallenged" elements of any community.]
It should be no secret, no obscure facet of social fabric, that the mentally disabled, particularly the mentally retarded, are at greater risk than almost any other segment of a society. More likely to be the victims of physical attacks. More likely to be neglected by governments, particularly when their needs are greatest. In the relatively rare instances when they have substantial assets, they are more likely to have their assets stolen, particularly at the hands of those actors on whom a government has conferred power over them. They are more likely to be degraded and exploited by industries which purport to protect them and to serve their interests. More like to be the victims of sexual assaults, particularly of organized, group sexual assaults.
The casual use of such hateful epithets does not only harm the individuals it targets. It causes pain, often great pain to many others. It regularly inflicts pain on those with brothers and sisters, with parents, with children, with friends, with acquaintances, even with clients, who are abused and dehumanized by such behavior. It regularly inflicts pain on so many of those who deal, day by day, with lesser mental and emotional impairments, whether they choose to acknowledge those impairments, publicly or privately, or not.
I am quite proud that a self-styled community which apparently condones such behavior and condemns opposition to it finds me such a danger to it and its values that it is preparing to forcibly separate me from it. Nothing I have contributed to this curious place makes me more proud, and I doubt anything else could.
Please note that, the immediately-above statement not withstanding, all material submitted here is irrevokably and unavoidably licensed under the GFDL. I will treat it accordingly, especially when told not to.➥the Epopt00:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User Jayjg's revert war at Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel
This is not a formal complaint, but I would like to informally draw the attention of some members of the arbitration committee to the behavior of user Jayjg, an arbitration committee member at Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel and its talk page. There is a dispute about the inclusion of a description of a translating group. Jayjg has removed the description I added on (10:12, May 8, 2006), (10:19, May 7, 2006), (23:19, May 5, 2006) Jayjg and other times. While the article is not heavily edited, there is certainly no consensus that the description should be removed, nor has Jayjg supported his reasoning for removing it after being challenged to do so by myself and another editor. I think that as a member of the arbitration committee Jayjg should be held to an even higher standard than at-large editors. TopRank01:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Check the Qadianism page [13]. It is balanced, it has Pakistan's consitutional amendment, links to pro-Ahmadi pages, links to anti-Ahmadi pages. What is controversal ? The Jayjg has redirected the Qadianism page to Ahmadi. This article contains info not found in any other page.
Siddiqui04:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Last month, I requested at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole/Proposed decision that Jdforrester, Fred Bauder or you please explain what dispute you believed I was engaged in with Netoholic when I blocked him. I received no response, so I assume that my messages were overlooked. On 15 May, I noticed that Jdforrester was actively replying to other posts on the page, so I reiterated my request on his talk page. The discussion that followed has been very interesting, and I believe that it's revealed some misconceptions regarding the series of events. I attempted to provide all of the pertinent information in the beginning, but it appears as though I previously failed to adequately convey some important details that now have been brought to light.
Hi. You've written many articles on U.S. Navy history. I was trying to fill in some historical gaps in the USS Barb (SSN-596) article but was unsure about the copyright rules for using text from the Navy Historical Center's history of the ship. I posted this question on the Barb's talk page. Do you know the answer? Thanks.--A. B.12:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Unclassified material created by Federal government employees during the course of their work is automatically released into the public domain. ➥the Epopt22:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was involved in some blocking and deletion over this business last night. A banned editor posted something threatening on K's talk page, with a serious violation of her privacy. She deleted it from the history, then deleted her user page, then left. Messages of support came flooding in, and then Xsease(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) posted more personal information on her talk page. He was reverted, and reverted back, making three reverts in total. I blocked him for a week, wanting to block quickly rather than spend time reflecting on an appropriate length, and then deleted K's talk page, and did a selective restoration. Xsease then posted the same information onto his own talk page, so I deleted and partially restored that.
While all this was going on, Surgeonsmate posted something on K's user page, with a link to a website that gave discussed what had happened and gave her name. I think it was done in good faith, just to explain why she had left, as some people were puzzled. I deleted the page, and sent him a message asking him not to post links to website that identify other editors. He apologized, and made no attempt to repost it.
Sean Black changed my block of Xsease into an indefinite one, and he has my full blessing. The one week was never intended as one week — just as a quick way of stopping the damage and having time to decide on the appropriate length.
I see now that you have blocked Surgeonsmate as a sockpuppet for Internodeuser. He says on his talk page that he's not, and that he was, in fact, reverting that editor.
Personally, I believe what he says, but I don't have any background knowledge of the case, and I think it's generally bad to undo another admin's block as the other admin may have information that I don't have. Could I ask you to take another look at his contributions, please. Many thanks. AnnH♫20:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for unblocking me. Apology accepted. I shouldn't have poked my 2 cents into a fast-breaking and controversial issue, I guess! On the subject of blissy u2 and inter node user, could you check out this discussion and the series of edits and reversions to the article, please. It looks like an anon who is almost certainly bu2 or inu is trying to push a POV. I don't really know what to do about this except treat them as an anon. --Surgeonsmate22:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like you to take a look at the removal by Jayjg of a section in the article. [14]
This section was first inserted in mid April, when the speech was widely reported internationally. Jayjg removed it not only without suggesting an alternative, but did not make any mention of the fact that he had removed it in the discussion section. That major change was first discussed after two reversions by other people when I brought it up in the discussion section.
I restored it to the state it had existed for six weeks pending a compromise being reached in discussion but it was reverted by a different user. I removed all quotations except one so that the section fit better with the others. Jayjg reverted that also.[15] I find this behavior offensive from anyone, especially an arbcom member. TopRank16:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The section in question was just a near verbatim reproduction of an uninteresting speech by Ahmadinejad; as part of a cleanup of the article I removed it and explained clearly why in my edit summary. It was subsequently moved to Wikiquote. The removal has also been discussed at length on the Talk: page. None of that constitutes "Jayjg new revert war", and your spamming of this duplicate message on the Talk: page of every single ArbCom member is highly disruptive. Jayjg (talk)17:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to thank you for doing the underappreciated dirty work. Thank you so much, I know it's a tough job, and I for one greatly appreciate your efforts. Thanks for everything, and I'd love to help if ever I can. Just say the word. Snoutwood(talk)20:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question. where did you get the info on LEMOSS you put in the MOSS article? I have been unable to find any documention (anywhere) on a LEMOSS project (outside of Wiki and sites that copy Wikipedia). I worked on the MOSS for many years, and sat next to the guy that closed the project down, and don't recall any LEMOSS. BTW, MOSS was withdrawn about 10 years ago and it was a 9.75 inch vehicle (it took a special launcher to fit it too a 21 inch tube.... Ralph
Please review your entry for Unterseeboot 123, in which you wrote "She ran aground on the English east coast on the way to be broken up in 1921". Might you - on this single once and isolated occasion - be mistaken? ClemMcGann13:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I doubt it. I thought I was mistaken once, but it turned out I was wrong[citation needed]. I've provided a source for the grounding. It's possible that source is wrong, of course. ;-> ➥the Epopt13:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the letter at Wikipedia:Example requests for permission that you sent to HMSO regarding copyright licensing. I just wondered if you thought it might be a good idea for someone to contact them again (or the government—as I'd imagine this is more a Cabinet decision than one for civil servants) regarding whether they would could consider a change to their licensing terms specifically for acts of parliament so that they are GFDL-compatible. (It might help to congratulate them on allowing any copying, which they only started doing several years ago—we do seem very behind the U.S. in this respect.)
I'm sure it would be very useful, more for Wikisource than Wikipedia, if legislation could be copied freely. (Aside: I think the government's position on this, particularly before the introduction of the vague limited license, is a violation of the spirit of article 11(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights).
Hello. When you created the Skate class submarine article in February 2004, the following line was included near the end:
Skate and Sargo were built with the S3W reactor, Swordfish and Seadragon with the S4W reactor. Later, all were given the S5W reactor.
Do you have citations for these assertions? In a related article another editor is disputing the claim that the subs of the Skate class were upgraded to the S5W reactor. I tried a couple of different google searchs for the info, but all I could find were copies of the wikipedia article. Thanks, --Kralizec! (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just came across the Lira (constellation) page, and noticed it was a redirect to Lira, which talks exclusively about coins. You created this page in February 2005, and Lira talked about coins back then, too. I'm not knowledgeable enough to create an article about the constellation, but the current state is pretty useless. (I don't even feel qualified to create a stub... what am I going to say, "a constellation mentioned a few times in the movie K-Pax"?) Think I should point it to the disambig page (which doesn't mention the existence of a constellation named Lira)? Or should it just be deleted entirely? Or is there a better solution?
Why did you remove the objections and privacy information for the Common Access Card. These are very real concerns, have been in the news, and there are proposals running around Congress as to how to deal with the issues. Mugaliens13:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I explained my removal on the article's talk page. If you can cite sources, I'll let them stand as the objections that those sources have, but since many of them are simply untrue (e.g., it is false that the owner's SSN is printed on the card) I won't let them be presented as fact. ➥the Epopt23:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here I am in 2012 looking at my USN CAC with my full SSN (issued in 2011) printed clearly on the back. You may want to reconsider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.12.86.59 (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was just looking at WP:AC - are you really the only member of the ArbCom to have been present from when it started? If so, I think the next longest-serving member is Raul. Also, are you really the last of the directly appointed arbcommers? Hope you don't mind me asking these questions! Thanks. :-) Carcharoth20:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am the last of the appointed arbiters, but I am tied for the longest serving: Fred Bauder was appointed at the same time I was, but has since stood for (and won) re-election. Thanks a bunch for making me feel so old ... ;-> ➥the Epopt00:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi i'm not sure if you would be able to help with regards to crown copyrighted images in templates. I want to put the UK coat of arms on the Politics of the United Kingdom template however I was told I could not do this as it is Crown Copyright however the The Office of Public Sector Information say's that
The material featured on this site is subject to Crown copyright protection unless otherwise indicated. The Crown copyright protected material (other than the Royal Arms and departmental or agency logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium provided it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. Where any of the Crown copyright items on this site are being republished or copied to others, the source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged.[16]
doesnt this mean the image can be used as long as the source of the material is identified and the copyright status acknowledged thanks. --Barrytalk14:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot guarentee that the material (the arms) will remain accurate and not misleading. We do not pass on the Crown Copyright license; rather, we indicate that everything on our site is available for reuse in any way the reuser chooses. HMSO has informed me directly that we cannot relicense Crown Copyright material under the GFDL. The problem is not with our use — we want to be accurate and not misleading and cite our sources — but with the way we relicense everything for "downstream" use. ➥the Epopt15:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. What does "broken up in the ways" mean when spoken of a ship? I'm guessing from context that it might mean scrapped in the shipyard before ever being launched. Yes?
By way of explanation, I came across this phrase in USS Massachusetts and USS Oregon and nowhere else -- and you added those. Some Polish Wikipedians in the course of article translation were trying to puzzle out the meaning [17], and that caused me in turn to write to you. Best wishes, --Mareklugtalk08:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for the delay in answering you! The phrase should be understood in two parts: "to be broken up" means to be taken to pieces or disassembled, and "in the ways" refers to the supporting structures used while the ship is being built — specifically the tracks the ship will slide down into the water when she is launched. So to be broken up in the ways is to be partially built in preparation for launching, but then to halt construction and begin taking the partially-built hull apart. If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to ask. ➥the Epopt22:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your grossly irresponsible AFD comments demand a conspicuous public apology
Gosh, thanks for all those well-thought-out, carefully checked commets at theOphelia Benson AFD. In the future, to improve the level of your contributions to Wikipedia, might I suggest you improve your practices in two areas. First, you should actually read the article you are commenting on, and take note of its contents. Second, you should consider the claims made in the article against the relevant notability criteria, even, as necessary, checking the references and external links provided for the article.. Ophelia Benson is a well-known published author, not merely a blogger (although she is probably notable as a blogger, too). Her two books are listed by title in the article,even though none of you astute readers noticed that. (Apparently the identification of Benson as an "author" and the listing of the book titles in distinctive type was insufficient to tip off careful and well-informed Wikipedia editors like yourselves; perhaps one or two of you may have suggestions on how to improve such descriptions.) Her books meet the notability criteria, having been reviewed and discussed in major media. In fact, Benson is a native of the UK, and both her books have been reviewed/discussed in the TLS, which even Wikipedia acknowledges as "one of the world's preeminent critical publications." (The second review appears in the October 20, 2006 issue, and is not yet directly cited online.)
Benson's two books may be only available through such obscure retailers as Amazon.com [18][19] and Barnes & Noble [20][21], and the relevant pages give samples of reviews and indicate the caliber of Benson's audience.
Now I recognize that article deletion is a holy and privileged activity, and that deletion of articles about women whose claims to notability don't involve performances emphasizing, flaunting, or exposing their mammaries is a virtual sacrament which shouldn't be disrupted or contested, however ridiculous or inaccurate the basis, unless the circumstances are really really unusual. But while one of England's "leading cultural critics" is apparently not, by Wikipedia editor consensus, as notable as a moderately obese middle-aged woman who films herself having sex with dogs, and the TLS is apparently by the same consensus not a "major" publication with the stature and reputation of Color Climax Anal Sex or Big Fuckin' Tits, or even Juggs, I think she deserves to be included in Wikipedia.
I now realize that the excessive literacy and cultural awareness I displayed in recognizing the name of a well-known figure in the British academic-literary world is inconsitent with the qualities required of a good Wikipedian, and fully justifies the assumptions of bad faith you have all made. I now know that in-depth knowledge of any subjects outside of pornography, Pokemon, and professional sports can only damage the Wikipedian enterprise, and I will do my best in the future to follow your lead and to contribute only with regard to subjects about which I know nothing, or next to nothing.
Now (dropping the ironic stance) I deserve a public apology from each of the posters whose sloth, carelessness, malice, or incompetence led them to make unfounded, uncivil, derogatory comments about me (and about the entirely blamess Ms Benson). And I deserve a display of abject, public, unqualified self-execration from the ArbCom member who charged to the head of the attack. I expect, of course, nothing but renewed incivility, personal attacks, and evasion of responsibility. VivianDarkbloom20:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's just terrible that I pointed how you said things that weren't true. Get over it, big guy. It's comforting to see that "hysterical" was the term that came to the fromt of your mind, a word so often used by insecure men confronted by assertive women. But, hey, you've got the power here, and now I'm sure you're going to use it to silence criticism that you can't handle. That's what people who refuse to admit their own errors do. You do have an alternative, though. Sit back. Tell me what I said that wasn't true. Tell us all. You made a rude, inaccurate, uncivil, insulting post about me, and I called you out on it. I was sarcastic. Big deal. Again, get over it. You were wrong. If you can't handle that, and insist on a pissant display of power here, nothing I do can stop you. If you had a decent sense of shame rather than excessive prideful sensitivity, that could. You do whatever deed you choose, we'll all see which side of the fence you end up on. VivianDarkbloom21:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon a bystander's comments (this page is on my watchlist because I commented here on an arbitration case). Vivian Darkbloom, though having succeeded in attracting my attention in this instance, should tone down the vitriol in her comments. A perceived error of judgment on an AfD does not warrant this level (or any level) of attack and I believe the insinuation of sexism was especially unwarranted. The Epopt's sardonic gilbertesque reference to a "big block block" was also less than necessary. I don't think it will do either of you any good to continue in this vein. On the merits of the AfD, I agree with Vivian Darkbloom and have commented Strong Keep on the AfD; I don't consider this a close call. Newyorkbrad22:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pleased to know this site is populated by unethical scumbags. "Fair use" or lack of copywright doesn't justify or excuse plagairism. If you think it does, I suggest you examine how you'd like having credit for your work claimed by somebody else. I guess "ethics" isn't in your lexicon. I'm ashamed I contributed money to a site that tolerates this. Trekphiler20:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
(BTW, if you're plagairising, you've made Wikipedia off limits to serious research. No writer will risk using plagairised material. I guess you don't care about that, either.)[reply]
Someone so ignorant of copyright as to be unable to spell it has no business commenting on it. Your comments are meaningless nonsense. Please leave. ➥the Epopt23:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this page lists you as an admin who can help me. I've twice created a page, PureTnA, which has been speedily deleted in under first the G11 and then the A7 criteria.
I am not affiliated with the website in question and i provided a clear explanation as to why it was a significant page and it was deleted anyway. I was wondering if:
(a) you could return the text of the page to me, i didnt think to save it
and
(b) could you reinstate the page? or is that someone elses job?
Thanks in advance, Thedreamdied14:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've copied the page to User:Thedreamdied/PureTnA. If you expand the article, I think it will survive speedy deletion, though it will go to AfD simply because we have numerous admins who hate pornography. Make the first sentence of the article a blatently clear statement of notability: "PureTnA is a BitTorrent community focused on the sharing of pornographic media files notable for ___." Then do some serious research. Find sources other than PureTnA itself. Your article says "the website was going to be closed down for personal reasons, but eventually it was decided to keep PureTnA open." Why? What persuaded them? Look into connections. How do they make money? Is PureTnA related to PirateBay? &c. I think you'll have a good article, but you'll have to put some real work into it. Good luck! ➥the Epopt14:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, had another thought. I had listed a couple of references on the talk page as to why the page shouldnt be deleted - but i cant remember what they were. Is there any chance you could restore the PureTnA talkpage as well? Merci. Thedreamdied12:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found you as the earliest wp encyclopedist on this term. May I, therefore, ask you to re-visit the article? It has been supplanted by the ugly ancient bifurcation of Number-sign--to my despair!!! May I recruit your support to revive, restore, or supplant this poetically lovelier usage?
Hi again, you've helped me before and maybe you can point me in the right direction again. The article ampligen, which I've written the majority of, needs some input from another editor, particularly one who knows anything about medical drugs, as I think what I've written may be incorrect, as I don't fully understand it. Where do i go to get some help? Thedreamdied21:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can't personally help directly, as the only drugs I know anything about — maybe I should stop this sentence now. I've added the {{expert-subject|Drugs}} tag, which is supposed to act like the Bat-signal to summon the kind of help you need. You might also take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Drugs, and perhaps write to people who have listed themselves there. Good luck! ➥the Epopt22:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man, I've seen you around for years but I don't know if we've ever really crossed paths. I am writing to share my experience (and sympathy) regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kunoichi and similar discussions. After my (very longwinded) experience at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F@NB0Y$ -- fortunately, in that case the closing admin was wise and thorough, posting a well-reasoned summary (and rebuttal of nonsense "keep" arguments), deleted the article, and blocked the SPA/IAR troll -- it has become more and more apparent to me that a large portion of the Wikipedia community seems wholly unwilling to apply otherwise straightforward rules to subjects for which they have a personal affinity... either that, or they conveniently ignore our most basic rules, or willfully suspend them due to WP:ILIKEIT. Naturally, since Wikipedia attracts the more geekier among us, we are going to be forever cursed with articles about non-notable webcomics, abstract/fictional anime concepts, and episode summaries of Star Trek: The Animated Series. I find your attempt to take a stand at WP:AFD noble, but pragmatism (and WP:SNOW) seem to be against you (us). Hopefully wiser heads will prevail, but right now it looks like an uphill battle. I am trying to weed out and AfD the worst articles -- perhaps finding the ones with no sources, composed with nothing more than original research, stub-class, and articles on non-notable subjects would be a good start. Anyway, sorry to be longwinded, just wanted to voice my support. /Blaxthos16:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The story continues with User:Wamper. For now the account has made similar comments but the approach is somewhat more aware of our procedures, see this AfD. I don't think the account should be branded a possible sock right now, just alerting you to the new arrival. AvB ÷ talk20:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps more importantly, the username User:Marin655biclonesredlabs seems interesting. This situation, if not handled properly, may have Foundation level implications at some point. Some of the involved seem rather litigious to me, and our new arrival much too knowledgeable. Background: Redlabs [22][23] and Bioclones (note the additional "o") used to be partners of Ampligen marketeer Hemispherx but the latter sued the both of them some 2 years ago, alleging that they belong to a "conspiratorial group seeking to illegally manipulate our stock for purposes of bringing about a hostile takeover of Hemispherx" (see this Edgar entry - which I would never have found if I had not Googled for redlabs + bioclones...) The puppetmaster may be associated with Hemispherx, Bioclones or Redlabs. Should this be reported somewhere? Thanks. AvB ÷ talk20:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with AvB, the many headed user appears to be very knowledgeable about Ampligen, and information is very hard to come by, as I've discovered when writing the article. However, I don't understand their/his/her problem with the article - I have no agenda whatsoever in writing it, other than to provide a neutral and comprehensive view of the drug. I personally would be delighted if it succeeded, I think the technology is very interesting. The article mentions clearly that the drug has shown clear success, so I don't really see the problem. Strange. Thedreamdied00:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A user with a similar name seems to have an e-mailbox (staff or student) at a university in Pennsylvania and also sometimes posts positive investment-related information and attacks criticisms on a HEB forum. AvB ÷ talk00:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted your user page because you deleted my article on Read/Write Web. :-(
sharadtriyama
That article was deleted several months ago, after a week of asking if anyone objected. No one did. Do you know what how proposed deletion works? As for expressing your disappointment, there are more effective ways to communicate, ways that won't put you in danger of losing your privilege of editing this site. ➥the Epopt13:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are listed as one of the earliest editors of this article that still maintains their membership. I invite you to visit the peer review for the current article here.--Amadscientist08:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The endlessly changing methods for justifying and rejustifying the obvious fair use of images no longer interests me. Delete them all. ➥the Epopt15:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted this page last year, and I'd like to see what it says. It might be possible to incorporate the content into the main article on Lattice energy. Please leave me a message if you undelete the page, or if you have a reason not to undelete the page. Best regards, Shalom (Hello • Peace) 01:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Epopt, I'm just wondering - AvB is determined to modify my talk page to remove some comment that he considers WP:LIBEL, even though it clearly is an opinion stated on a talk page in a conversation between myself and another user. I would prefer he left it alone - am I in the wrong? Thedreamdied22:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you discuss this with me first, Thedreamdied. Some considerations for starters: (1) Wikipedia talk pages are indexed by Google (2) The company in question has been targeted by shortsellers before (3) we don't want Wikipedia involved in any of this. Better safe than sorry. FWIW, the removed content is in the page history and I left a link for anyone interested. Avb23:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS As I have already said, the editor in question did not present this as opinion but as a statement of fact. Avb23:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having reflected on this, i can see the point you are making, although I still think that it is perfectly clear that it is the user's opinion and not Wikipedia's. I'll leave it as it is and we can agree to disagree. Thedreamdied18:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
Hello, I noticed that you blocked User:Duke o Puke for having an inappropriate username. He is asking for an explanation on his talk page. He has been using that pseudonym for quite a while and I think the block to him came out of nowhere. Thank you for your time. Ripberger (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the user has been contributing (apparently helpfully) since early October, a sudden block with no warning or explanation seems to be a slap in the face. Without addressing the block, specifically, is there some reason you handled the process in this manner? – Luna Santin (talk)02:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for following up on this one. I think we're all sorted now, but I'll keep a watch to make sure everything's okay with everyone. Thanks again - Alison❤02:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am a new member and have been in a completely unintentional edit war with Ronz, on coral calcium, I have tried reasoning, truce, policy discussions, all to no avail. I can't get him to stop deleting my posts, and getting his friends (Someguy1221) to subvert the 3RR rule. I have tried finding good sources, he just doesn't like the content.
User Ronz has overstepped WP:FANATIC guidelines 2-6 on repeated occasions. I believe Ronz may have used sockpuppetry to disguise some outright deletions of my contributions to the article. My contributions have been undermined repeatedly by outright deletions with questionable reasons. The fact that Ronz keeps coming up with new and creative ways to justify these deletions, leads me to believe that he is more concerned with blocking content that he disagrees with, than maintaining the integrity of the article. I believe I have acted in an overly defensive manner at times. In my defense, I do not currently subscribe to ownership of articles, but I do believe that complete deletion of contributions is not constructive to articles, and I may react accordingly.
Hi, I downloaded an original lines plan of HMAV 'Bounty', a few years ago, from NMM (National Maritime Museum, Greenwich) webpage. They 'of course' claim crown copyright, but I'm in doubt whether that might have expired meanwhile (I also do remember there is something about "published first...", but I'm not familiar at all with those details).
A similar question would be about parts of UKHO Nautical charts which were first published, say, 100 or more years ago. Thanks for your advice, WeHaWoe (talk) 13:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IANAL. I am definitely not an IP lawyer, and I am most emphatically not an IP solicitor. This advice is worth nothing, and if you are flogged around the fleet for following it, I will shake my head at your foolishness and drink another round in your memory. That said, this article implies that there is a very good chance the plans and charts are now in the public domain. Even if they are not, I am very confident that a fair use claim would stand up in (United States) court. Of course, part of that confidence comes from the fact that I won't be standing up in court. The United States courts have a long history of not giving Crown Copyright the respect the Crown thinks it deserves. So, go for it! ➥the Epopt (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In case you haven't been looking at articles you created back in 2003, I've been working on USS Texas (BB-35) recently and was amazed to find that you are still here (having created the article on 24 February 2003). The article is now a Good Article and just to make you feel old, here's a diff comparing your first edit to what the page is today: [24]. Anyways, have any tips for longevity here? -MBK00408:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Epopt, can you explain what is meant by blue crew and gold crew? I saw in several of the boomer articles you started had mention of this and your talk page does as well. My boss spent time on boomers but he is out of the office today so I can't ask him. Thanks, Daysleeper47 (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your last edit summary on this page caught my attention because I've just written the proposed decision in the Betacommand 2 arbitration case. Any input would be appreciated, especially in the community review that (I hope) will take place pursuant to proposed remedy 4. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I may, some of those were sourcing problems (see this fix for example). Regarding Image:NSAWC logo.jpg, I couldn't find an official page with the Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center logo on it, but if they had a page like this one, that would probably help. The idea here, I suspect, is verifiability. Can anyone confirm that this really is the logo? Hence linking to an official page would help with that. I'm now looking at an earlier warning for Image:Coppertone.jpg, and the process there worked quite well (I particularly like "This low resolution copy will not prevent Schering-Plough Corporation from selling sun tan lotion."). I do see some deleted images even further up the page, but those could be undeleted if they can be fixed. Carcharoth (talk) 05:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I posted the following on the discussion page a few days ago, but no one seems to have noticed:
This article claims the ship is named for a Lake Tahoe trout. As a former crewmember of USS Pogy and a long-time resident of northern California, I have never heard this nor have I ever heard anyone call a Tahoe trout a "pogy." Every source I have encountered over the last 25 years (including Wikipedia) says that pogy is another word for "menhaden," a fish found in the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico. There is no source given for the "trout" claim, and I am inclined to doubt its veracity. This claim should be documented or removed. Altgeld (talk) 15:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Reading your talk page, I see that you were an Ohio plankowner, so I wonder if you know Ed Hudson, also an Ohio plankowner and a former shipmate of mine on the Pogy. We must have been at EB at the same time, as I was on the Dallas, under construction there at the same time as the Ohio.
On another topic mentioned here, standard Navy practice (at least when I was in--it could have changed since then) regarding names and hull numbers was the form: USS POGY (SSN647).
Hudson was an ET who went NESEP. He was LT while on the OHIO's pre-commissioning crew. Don't know which crew he ended up on after commissioning. Altgeld (talk) 03:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. There's a bunch of data in the old version of HMS Enterprise (1705) that appears to originate in your first draft of HMS Enterprise. I'm guessing you got it from offline references. I've checked them against Lyon's The Sailing Navy List: All the Ships of the Royal Navy, Built, Purchased and Captured, 1688-1860 and there seem to be a bunch of discrepancies, not least the length and which sea she was wrecked in!! I've explained more over on Talk:HMS Enterprise (1705) - I don't suppose you could have a look?? 82.3.242.144 (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello ex MM1(SS) from a fellow bubblehead. Thanks for all the work you've done on WP. I'm a noob here and could use your assistance with a bit of gouge. I prefer email to my talk page for now. I'm guessing your preference is the reverse, thus my greeting here (and thanks for teaching me about the word epopt---new word for me as of today). CyrillicNews (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I apologize for the spam. You are receiving this message because you have indicated that you are in Southern California or interested in Southern California topics (either via category or WikiProject, or I happen to know personally).
I would like to invite you to the Los Angeles edition of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art, a photography scavenger hunt to be held at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) on Saturday, February 28, 2009, from 1:00 to 7:00 PM. All photos are intended for use in Wikipedia articles or on Wikimedia Commons. There will be a prize available for the person who gets the most photos on the list.
If you don't like art, why not come just to meet your fellow Wikipedians. Apparently, we haven't had a meetup in this area since June 2006!
If you are interested in attending, please add your name to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art#Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Please make a note if you are traveling to the area (train or plane) and need transportation, which can probably be arranged via carpool, but we need time to coordinate. Lodging is as of right now out of scope, but we could discuss that if enough people are interested.
Dear Epopt, the naming conventions for ships go back to your format from 2001. I am about to suggest a less rigid proposal, something like name ((nationality, if required) ship (type, if required)). Still interested ? Inwind (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For transparency, this note is advise you that the request for removal of access to Checkuser and Oversight tools will be made shortly to put your resignation of them into effect. You may, of course, regain access to the tools via election should you wish to in the future. For the Arbitration Committee, Roger Daviestalk06:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was reading old pages of Wikipedia:Naming conflict and saw you had been involved in earlier discussions in 2005 when the previous wording on self-identifying terms was first put in. There's a discussion going on right now the clarify that section. If you're interested the discussion is here. --Kraftlos(Talk | Contrib)06:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On May 15, 2003, you made a first draft of the Operation Crossroads article with no references. Part of your text is still included in the present version of the article, which is now being upgraded to Featured Article status. We need footnotes for the text you posted in 2003. Could you look at the text in Operation Crossroads#Exposure_to_personnel and provide footnotes? Or just contact me and say what your sources were?
Hi The. I see that over 2 years ago you prod deleted an article on Jet O'Rourke. I recently created a new stub for him and am curious as to wether the old article has anything worth saving. May I ask your opinion on this? Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated Parascotopetl, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parascotopetl. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
I'm currently doing some research on metadata and am looking for more information about the origins of the word. While I have been able to search US trademarks and corroborate the information regarding trademark registration (date and no.), I haven't been able to find articles that provide more information as to the usage of the word before it was trademarked (i.e. that it was coined in 1969). Everything I find seems to quote the wikipedia information that you originally published. I was hoping you could help me out by pointing me in the direction of some more information on the topic. SallyRenee (talk) 22:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of fictional spacecraft. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello The Epopt! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 140 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
Thanks for uploading File:Ingsoc salute.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.
If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.
I looked at the Disneyland Park (Anaheim) history and you were the one to create the page because I wanted to know who created that page. There were a lot of edits, vandalism edits, etc.... There are like 62.000+ bytes on the article. 71.177.43.147 (talk) 05:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for uploading File:Nmci prog lg.png. 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, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.
Thank you for uploading File:Simonlake.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, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ricin process.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.
Why was the page Korean Armistice Agreement deleted? It seems to me it deserves an article in Wikipedia besides the text of the agreement in Wikisource. I would think there is much information about the agreement which is of interest: the situation in the conflict leading up to it, negotiation of the agreement, effects and aftermath, etc. When I go to create the page it says it was deleted by you. Can you explain? Thanks. GS3 (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:CHMem.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file 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 file 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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for uploading File:CunardAd.png. 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, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Emergency.ogg. I notice the file page specifies that the file 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 file 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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk05:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
lisa marie (heitman?) bruce or lisa marie heitman or LM Heitman Bruce
I'm looking for information on/about a person that may have been deleted so that I can compare to see if it's the same person I'm looking for with a slightly different name. I can find references but a few link back to you and a deleted/missing page. Can I see that page? Or do you email the information upon request? The person I'm looking for is Lisa Marie Heitman Bruce but the link back to you is Lisa Marie Heitman and I think it's the same person (from Alaska?) before she got married maybe??????????? Lisa Marie Heitman Bruce is an alaskan native playwright but Lisa Marie Heitman was a humor writer. But I think it's the same person. Any detail you can provide is appreciated. I can't find a lot of her news and humor pieces and a review of her most recent play in the alaska newspaper. I want more information because if it's the same person there should be a notable page created because she is the first and only alutiiq (alaska native) playwright/writer that I know exists and that is significant and a role model for minorities. I"m so sorry if I'm doing this wrong 'cas I don't know how to use wikipedia. AnneCitrixe (talk) 12:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:JetsonsThemeBldg.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file 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 file 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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 00:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Illum-CarWars.JPG. I notice the file page specifies that the file 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 file 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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Invaders landing.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file 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 file 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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Invaders title.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file 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 file 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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:K-159crew.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kellyhi!07:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Epopt! Did you create the article, Four Chaplains? If so, I wanted to let you know that I've just put in a lot of work adding additional info, because I think it is such an important story to remember -- especially today, when there are so many examples of religious intolerance, and we need these stories of interfaith cooperation...and heroism. Anyway, your name was the "oldest" listed in the history section, although I wasn't sure if you created the article by moving your own material from the Dorchester page or moving someone else's material from there. Either way, thanks for starting this article. Hope you agree my additions help build on your foundation! NearTheZoo (talk) 12:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:SeaviewSurface2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 06:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:SeaviewSurface1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 06:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:IMFbrief.ogg. I notice the file page specifies that the file 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 file 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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thought you made some interesting points. I added some of my own thoughts to that section.
I've always found it striking that advocates of the over-hunting hypothesis never seem to use common sense when discussing their pet idea.
In the practical realm it simply shatters credulity to propose that a few thousand (or, at most, a few tens of thousands of) humans systematically slaughtered hundreds of thousands of mammoths; not to mention the other species such as giant ground sloths or terror birds.
The biggest question that is never answered, to my mind, is why would my paleo-indian ancestors have done this? To ask a modern question, "What was the percentage?" They would have no time to do anything but hunt and kill. And they could never have eaten all the meat. And, obviously, there was no market for mammoth meat (unlike, for example, the market for buffalo hides and tongues in the 19th century)!
Lastly, hunting massive beats like mammoths would have inevitably caused injuries and deaths among the hunters to no practical end. A much higher risk of injury than hunting deer or other non "mega" fauna. I just don't see why they would have done it.
Thanks for uploading File:GURPS Cyberpunk.JPG, which you've sourced to cover itself is copyright 1990 Steve Jackson Games. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones (Talk)00:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Swimmer Delivery Vehicle.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 01:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. WJBscribe(talk)15:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're invited! FemTech Edit-a-Thon at Claremont Graduate University
October 26 - FemTech Edit-a-Thon & Roundtable - You are invited!
Everyone is invited to the first FemTech Edit-a-Thon & Roundtable at Claremont Graduate University on October 26 from 3-6 pm. The event will open with a roundtable discussion about feminism and anti-racist technology projects, followed by an edit-a-thon focusing on feminists & women in science. Experienced Wikipedians will be on hand to support new editors. We hope you can join us!
Sign up here - see you there! 00:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that if you are inactive for a continuous three year period, you will be unable to request return of the administrative user right. This includes inactive time prior to your desysopping if you were desysopped for inactivity and inactive time prior to the change in policy. Inactivity is defined as the absence of edits or logged actions. Until such time as you have been inactive for three years, you may request return of the tools at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. After you have been inactive for three years, you may seek return of the tools only through WP:RFA. Thank you. MBisanztalk00:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on PMP, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
It is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. (See section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Wikipedia has standards for the minimum necessary information to be included in short articles; you can see these at Wikipedia:Stub. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Roger (talk) 06:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Starfish until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Sea Tiger until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ship decommissioning until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. The Bannertalk21:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for uploading File:Godwinjb.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, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Hi, I realized that you have deleted my Article tituled Meyer Vaisman. But I don't understanw "why". I'm consulting it from Italy (I'm here for a trip), but I normally live in Spain and the page was created in the Spanish Wikipedia, I leave here the link: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meyer_Vaisman. Could you, please, traslate or REDIRECT the page you deleted to the right one? (https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meyer_Vaisman). I'm the autor. At the beginning there was two pages with the same name, because the title of the first one was wrong (smal letter of the surmame)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minus Ten and Counting until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For your hard work and due diligence creating or editing strategic deterrent related articles or Ballistic missile submarine related pages, you have been awarded the Strategic Barnstar. Your outstanding performance provides significant and long lasting benefits to Wikipedia, Congratulations!
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technical (vehicle) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Anmccaff (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
File permission problem with File:Companionway.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Companionway.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Ulua (SS-428) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum14:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Turbot (SS-427) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum14:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What? A list of objects because they have nothing in common"? Ludicrous. The logical solution is to MOVE it to a title that will attract readers. Otherwise, it is simple original research. There is no reliable source that says a vessel should belong n the list. Otherwise, it's just a bucket to throw miscellaneous article into, so they aren't orphans.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hi The Epopt, It seems that you created the article Maritime geography back in the distant past. I have been trying to work out what it is supposed to be about without success. Any chance of you providing a lead for it that describes the scope of the topic, to make it reasonably useful? Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood)(talk): 18:00, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, The Epopt. 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 think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. LizRead!Talk!15:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Hi The Epopt! I am Galendalia and I have revived the WikiProject for Spoken Wikipedia. I noticed that you signed up at some point to be a participant and as I am reviving this project, one of my tasks is to get the participant list in order. Would you please go to the Participants List and add your name and language(s) you speak? If you are already there and do not want to be, please remove yourself. If you want to remain, please put remain next to your name. If I do not see anything, I will move you to the inactive participant list. I am putting a timeline of 7 days on this action to help keep things moving along. It would also be great if you would be willing to join the task force for Pronunciation that would be awesome, as there are troublesome words we run into.
Thank you for considering joining us. If you decide to leave, I will be sad to see you leave as so many people have done a great job on the recordings and any work you have done makes a significant difference.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herbert Wohlfarth 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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newton Henry Mason 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.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Arnold Austin 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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Watseka 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.
Article about a fictional submarine that basically just summarizes the plot of The Hunt for Red October. Article has also been completely unsourced since 2009 if the tag is accurate. I feel this article does not add to the encyclopedia whatsoever.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
I have nominated USS Wisconsin (BB-64) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog FarmTalk21:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HMS Thunder Child 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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information 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.
Ready Aim Fire! 01:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
talk 14:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
--Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 15:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello The Epopt! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 140 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
wikimedia.org.
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 01:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
