User talk:ChrisO~enwiki: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:10, 31 August 2006

Old discussions now at /Archive 1 / /Archive 2 / /Archive 3 / /Archive 4 / /Archive 5 / /Archive 6 / /Archive 7 / /Archive 8 / /Archive 9 / /Archive 10 / /Archive 11 / /Archive 12

Please add new comments below.

Your Edit Count (From Interiot's Tool)

You mentioned that you had previously been unable to access your edit count using this tool. I think you might have a few too many edits =D. You have to keep clicking continue instead of stop script. Anywhere, here it is. Regards, Alphachimp ^talk 05:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Username ChrisO
Total edits 13508
Distinct pages edited 4334
Average edits/page 3.117
First edit 18:12, 21 October 2003
(main) 8622
Talk 1515
User 111
User talk 996
Image 839
Image talk 19
MediaWiki 1
Template 174
Template talk 52
Help 1
Category 25
Category talk 3
Wikipedia 1048
Wikipedia talk 102

Personal attacks and Kosovo

It would be very good if you could look this up. I recommend you to give this IP adress 81.136.139.227 a warning or block him for what he wrote here on [1].

I am sorry I didnt take part in the request for mediation on the Kosovo article, but I have had almost no time for Wikipedia sadly for some time, but I hope it will change soon. Best regards - Litany 16:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users Jum4 and Piecraft

Hi Chris, I hate to keep leaning on you as a beacon of sanity, but you just are. On the discussion page for The Frosties Kid, users Jum4 and Piecraft cannot be made to understand the concept of Original Research, and have made repeated personal attacks to me such as "Wikinazi", "loon swinging a handbag", "get your head out of your ass" and "if you are too slow". Such uncivility is unacceptable and I'm surprised no admin has given them warnings. The discussion page also indicates that they think personally emailing a cereal company is a valid source for a Wikipedia article, and Jum4 brushed off my WP:OR concerns with, and I quote, "Let's be honest most articles on Wikipedia are over embellished and long winded." (The Frosties Kid article, incidentally, is the only article Jum4 has ever edited.) wikipediatrix 16:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltarian

I think Gibraltarian must be quite bored and frustrated. I'm sorry to see he's vandalising your userpages now :( E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 20:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's my aim to make Gibraltarian bored and frustrated - he's learning (I hope) that vandalism doesn't pay. As for vandalising my talk page, I don't mind. It confines his vandalism to one place and it's easily resolved. -- ChrisO 20:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he'll ever learn. What I find so hard to understand is why hasn't he ever appealed his ban if he is so bothered about it? It's like he feels the need to carry on, possibly out of some compulsive manic behaviour. Cheers, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 20:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's a raving loon. Or perhaps more charitably, maybe he has OCD or something. -- ChrisO 20:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! I wouldn't be surprised at all. Take care, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 22:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: He has made (or has attempted to make) an appeal - see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee. It seems he's still unrepentent even in his appeal statement. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 23:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You now see the extremes I have been forced to go to in order to get people to take niotice of this blatant injustice. My original ban was unjustifiable, and only served to encourage racism. This is NOT acceptable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.120.226.180 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 23 July 2006.

Nobody has "forced" you to blank pages or post abusive rants to users you don't like. That was entirely your own decision. Every time you do those things (each of which is a blockable offence in its own right, by the way) you only confirm that the block was correct. If you want to prove that you really do want to be a good Wikipedian, I suggest that you stop vandalising and stop abusing other users. Is that so hard for you to do? -- ChrisO 00:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it so hard for WP to admit that the original ban, and the procedures followed were simply WRONG and unjustifiable????

Ban

I'm going to remove the ban on Guy per SV's request. I think the ban is reasonable, but evidently I'm too involved. I'm not sure if that applies for you too? - FrancisTyers · 11:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inter-User Correlation

I did calculate the statistics for your user account -- you didn't have any strong correlations with anyone else. The unfiltered data is here User:Bhouston/IAArbComCaseDataAnalysis3#Inter-User_correlations_for_User:ChrisO. I have ammended my statement. I would like to do better data analysis thus if you have any ideas on direction, feel free to make a suggestion. --Ben Houston 20:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my bad - I didn't notice that (I think my eyes had glazed over by that point!). Thanks. -- ChrisO 20:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on Amnesty or Refocusing of the IA RfA

I just posted this [2] at the IA RfA -- its in a section on just defaulting to a general amnesty for all participants. I am not sure if you agree with it or not but I would welcome your thoughts since you initiated the RfA and not myself. --Ben Houston 03:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo

Why you dont put Kosovo als a region in Serbia it is ore easy then we dont have problems. No, no dont woury. Kosovo is a normal part of Serbia like New York City part of USA. We are traing here to help the Wikipedians to finde soulution and this we do if we give right a group. The poit is, we dont need the problems. The Neutraly is not importen. Kosovo is a normal part of Serbia like Vojvodina. In Kosovo is serbian administration and they have the suverenty of this region.

Are you dreaming???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.178.10.219 (talk • contribs) 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Eciklopedia

It is your text in Kosovo article: In short, there isn't a single reference source that I can find that describes Kosovo as anything other than a province in Serbia. This emphasizes just how far outside the mainstream Ilir pz and Ferick's position is. -- ChrisO 12:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

My I aske you why you dont go and work for Britannica Student, Britannica Junior or somthing like this? This encyclopeis diden know till in new time whatt is Kosovo they was thinkin that is a antice beatel feeld. They diden know nothing about Kosovo like you and they are whatching what we are discussion here. More thene 10 arguments witch I jave presant here in Wiki they have "modifikedet" in they text. This is a circel you are copy from they and the copy from you. Do you know why? Beacose the ont know nothing only the replay from serbian propagander. Kosovo it was serbia, Kosovo is Serbia, Serbia Kosovo and Kosovo Serbia, Serbia Kosovo. They dont know nothing. They dont have no info about the geograph, ekonomy they have info about the religion "Muslim, terorist, muslim, albaner, terorist ...." only bull shit from serbian propaander. My dier friend you dont know nothing about Kosovo and you are voting and working with one articel in witch you dont know nothing ol Kosovo is Serbia, muslim terorist albaner and bla, bla.... Just do it! and support the "Sava Center" diplomatic War. Shame you!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.178.10.219 (talk • contribs) 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Gibraltar

I note that the block on my IP has been lifted and assume that the system kept it in place for 24 hours despite your best efforts to revoke it.

If you are in the business of blocking people you really should have an email address configured to receive complaints, however I acknowledge you did respond promptly to the message on my user page.

I also feel that if you are going to block me for an edit war, that user:burgas00 is equally to blame if not more so as he has been attempting to provoke a dispute for some time and doing little else.

There is no need whatsoever to post an article from the Spanish Wikipedia onto the talk pages of the Gibraltar page except as an abusive act. I consider it little more than vandalism and removed it accordingly.

HOWEVER, I did replace it with a link to the article and did not remove any actual comments by user:burgas00 although on one edit he removed mine which required a revert.

Most of his effort has been to a) push the unsubstantiated claim that the Spanish residents of Gibraltar who left in 1704 were the 'original; Gibraltarians' which is a well known propaganda piece, and to label the Gibraltar finance centre a 'tax haven' using sources which do not actually support that. It is accepted that that term is pejorative, a search on Google yields for the two terms yields 146,000 hits.

Generally I have tried to improve the quality of the pages by adding appropriate graphics, and decent sources for things, however a lot of time has been totally wasted by an ill advised RfC which speaks for itself.

I can be accused of holding the view that Spanish material and sources referring to Gibraltar are suspect, this is based on 20 years analysing the situation and have cited examples. I have recordings of Lola de Palacio falsly blaming Gibraltar for the MT Prestige disaster.

In the past both the .en and .es wikipedias have contained outright defamatory lies about Gibraltar included by 'editors' with Spanish IP addresses. It is rather hard to assume good faith when the evidence is all to the contrary.

Finally I note that the user is now backpedalling and has changed the comment that 'he will translate the .es page on the economy of Gibraltar' to inviting help to translate it in order to justify its inclusion. There was no invitation to translate made at the time I deleted it, it was simply 'in your face'.

There are also comments designed to be offensive, like the reference to Gibraltarians whose native language is Spanish. That might not seem offensive to you as an outsider but would be enought to start a fight here. There are some snide comments about me not speaking Spanish, as it happens I do along with French, German and my school report on Latin said excellent. However I would save it for Rome and the Gibraltar pages on the .en Wikipedia should be in English, and references to 'economia' are inviting trouble.

If this problem persists, instead of further reverts, I will instigate a formal complaint against user:burgas00 in the same way one was used against the user:gibraltarian.

--Gibnews 14:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you seem to doubt that the Government of Spain remains senselessly hostile towards Gibraltar, you may care to read the following:

Spain continues with hostile legal action over Gibraltar voting rights

A link is adequate, I'm not trying to flood your discussion page ....

--Gibnews 20:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy

Hi there! I've noticed that you've edited articles pertaining to the Eastern Orthodox Church. I wanted to extend an invitation to you to join the WikiProject dedicated to organizing and improving articles on the subject, which can be found at: WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. This WikiProject was begun because a need was perceived to raise the level of quality of articles on Wikipedia which deal with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

You can find information on the project page about the WikiProject, as well as how to join and how to indicate that you are a member of the project. Additionally, you may be interested in helping out with our collaboration of the month. I hope you'll consider joining and thank you for your contributions thus far! —A.S. Damick ^talk ^contribs 19:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Old Hipi...

...is back. I tagged one of the IPs he's been using as {{Hipi Zhdripi}}. Am I wrong thinking he is no longer permablocked? E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 20:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im Hipi yes. i diden say nothing else.

Are you Administrator

Are you Administrator?

Yes. -- ChrisO 18:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cities in Bosnia and Herzegovia

Dear Chris, I have to admire your previous work, but I am feeling responsable for some facts about Bosnia and Herzegovina. At first: Demographics in cities- I am living in Gradiska in the northern Bosnia, That part calls Republic of Srpska, and I used to edit a page on Wikipedia about Gradiska. It was large article and I belive you have cut it.Indeed it was too large article about so small town. Altought, demographics body had better informations. Today it sayes:"In 1991, the municipality of Bosanska Gradiška had a population of 60,062, of which there were 35,989 Serbs (59.9%), 15,888 Bosniaks (26.4%), 3,422 Croats (5.6%), 3,245 Yugoslavs (5.4%) and 1,518 others (2.5%). The town of Bosanska Gradiška itself had 18,671 residents: 43.5% Bosniaks, 37.7% Serbs, 10.3% Yugoslavs, 4.6% Croats, 3.9% others." As you can see, these are an official informations 15 years old. Unfortunatley, these are the last official informations about ethnic structure. But in last 15 years there were many unofficial lists about ethnic structure, some of them were politicly manipulated and changed, and small number of them had real informations.These lists were made by organizations which are not under goverment jurisdiction and non-political organizations.One of them was made on sample of 1000 people from Gradiska and about 90% was Serbs, 6% Bosniaks, 3% Croats, and 1% other. I know that this percentage is different from that one in 1991 but it is less or more truth. The most important thing is that Serbs are dominant in Gradiska. This is result of war in Bosnia.During the war, many Serbs from Central Bosnia were forced to leave their homes in cities like Travnik, Donji Vakuf, Gornji Vakuf, Zenica, Bugojno and came to Serb dominant cities like Gradiska, there are aslo people from Sanski Most, Drvar, Bosanski Petovac, Sarajevo, and many others. On the other side, Bosniaks and Croats in Gradiska had to leave their homes and go to Bosniaks and Croats Dominant area. It is awful truth, but it is Truth. The Second thing is the way you write about war in Bosnia. There are often stories about serbian agressions, serbian genocide,...You have to know that there was a civil war in Bosnia. It is truth when people talk about Serbs massacres in Srebrenica, in Foca,... But people should know about massacres made by forces of El-Mujahid divisions around Sarajevo, Doboj ,Zenica,...El-Mujahid was made bz volonteurs from Saudi-Arabia, Egypt, Lybia and other islamic countries.They used to rape a five,six,seven and more years young children, They used to collect serbs heads that they have cut off,...Their sponsor was and is Al-Quaida and Osama bin Laden, who was in Bosnia during the war 1991-1995. Also, Croats used to burn alive Bosniaks children.You should consider these things, when you are making stories about civil war in Bosnia, to make better and bigger wikipedia- the best encyclopedia ever!

Your faithfully, Vladimir,18 from Gradiska( Republic of Srpska,Bosnia and Herzegovina)

P.S. Sorry about language and grammar errors.

Thanks Vladimir, but have you confused me with someone else? I've never edited the Gradiška article. If you have some concerns about it, maybe you should raise it on Talk:Gradiška? -- ChrisO 18:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re Kosovo

I have just been trying to get my head round Kosovo...

I am looking into the ISO country codes for a system I am designing. Whilst comparing the countries & codes as found in an address search tool (naming no names) against the countries & codes, as far as I can tell, that are defined by ISO. The address search tool uses an individual "ISO" code for Kosovo.. but ISO don't. So I yahoo'd on "Kosovo" and started reading the comments on wiki and other websites... I found the wiki discussions on Kosovo "interesting". I found an statement, which may be of interest to you, at the bottom of all the recent UN articles referring to Kosovo as an Albanian-majority Serbian province.

I found the first on http://www.unmikonline.org/news.htm#01307 then followed their source link to http://www.un.org/News/ and found 3 articles for Kosovo in last two weeks alone. Date of Last article is 24 July 2006... http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=19291&Cr=kosovo&Cr1= The Last paragraph states... "Kosovo, an Albanian-majority Serbian province, has been run by the UN since Western forces drove out Yugoslav troops in 1999 amid grave human rights abuses in ethnic fighting."

It is up to you (I chose you as you are a wiki administrator) if you want to do anything with this.

I hope it was ok to "send" this comment to you.

More than OK - that's very useful. Thanks! -- ChrisO 18:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

e-mail

As you have your e-mail disabled, can you cintact me per e-mail? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology protection

I think Scientology is due for semiprotection again. The recent history is just a series of vandalism and reverts. I also just had to remove the YTMND link again. --Davidstrauss 08:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania

Oh, and will you be at Wikimania? --Davidstrauss 08:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afraid not, Boston is a bit off the beaten track for me... -- ChrisO 18:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Image:Tgv sud est.jpg

Hi, I need to know if Image:Tgv sud est.jpg is taken and released under GFDL by you because someone uploaded it to chinese wikipedia without giving source and now it's been submitted for deletion. I just want to make sure so that we can keep it in chinese wiki.(or maybe it should be uploaded to commons after all since it's licensed under GFDL.) Thanks for you time.-- Nikopoley✪尼可波里 ✏舉手發言Hablas! 23:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I took it, and it's GFDL. I'd suggest uploading it to the commons, if it's going to be used on more than one wiki. -- ChrisO 18:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

How do you know so much stuff on Nevesinje in Bosnia and Herzegovina?

Some mistake surely? I've never edited the Nevesinje article. You might want to ask its editors on Talk:Nevesinje. -- ChrisO 18:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: References

Hi Chris,

Yes, I was going over that. The reason why that happened is because some of the refs were broken, but I'll try to fix them as best I can. —Khoikhoi 22:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks! -- ChrisO 22:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, the thing that I'm talking about is that {{ref|250294}} does not match {{note|260294}} and {{note|mej}} is isolated (there is not a corresponding ref). These are just 2 of the problems. You see what I'm saying? —Khoikhoi 23:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your addition to Aeschines Socraticus: Marble bust image

Hello, I believe that the image of Aeschines which you recently attached to the Aeschines Socraticus entry is actually a bust of Aeschines the orator not of Aeschines Socraticus. Compare, e.g., the image of Aeschines posted in the Demosthenes article. I'd appreciate if you'd look into this.

Sincerely, Isokrates 03:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ferick

OK, Chris :) --serbiana - talk 21:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, one more thing, could you unprotect my userpage, or restore it to this version. I think that 3.5 weeks of protection is enough, and I've learned my lesson. Thanks in advance, --serbiana - talk 21:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Boris. On the user page thing: I unprotected it once before and you burned me on that occasion. I'm sorry, but having had my trust abused before, I'm not going to do the same thing again. You'll have to convince someone else. -- ChrisO 22:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you then return it to the version I gave you the link for (the one before I called Ferick and a few others "trolls", which is why it was protected (even though I've been called a troll by Ilir and others thousands of times, and noone ever punished them)) and add Cuba to the list of countries I visited. Or you could unlock it for 10 min, and protect it again, I don't like how it looks at the moment, because Andrew didn't just revert my edits, but rather erased one part, and now it looks ugly. Besides, the first time it was locked, it was done so because I wrote that Kosovo is Serbia, and I was warned not to put "nationalistic" quotes on my page (odd, cuz the last time I checked, Kosovo was a part of Serbia). So, if you could reconsider unlocking it, I would advise you of my changes before I make them, and not make any changes if you consider them to be unsuitable for someone's userpage. I did not burn you, I didn't even know calling Ferick or others an internet troll is a personal attack, since I used to be called a troll on a regular basis. I thought an internet troll was someone who disrupted others who wanted to work seriously on a project. So, anyways, at least make the changes I asked you, and think over unprotecting my page, under the rules I have proposed (first I ask you, then I make edit). All the best, --serbiana - talk 22:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing uncited sources and websites with copyright violations

Hi ChrisO, I removed uncited information and sites with copyright violations. This removal is protected by Wikipedia policy. If you doubt me, I will be glad to provide you with the references to Wikipedia policy. Note: failure to abide by policy will be documented and used against you in arbitration. --Spanked 00:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited information

Hi ChrisO, your revert included the re-addition of "OSA has mounted character assassination operations against many critics of the Church." Please do not add uncited information to wikipedia as it may be considered vandalism. Please cite your sources or remove the sentence. --Spanked 00:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not provide a citation immediately, the sentence may be removed by anyone. --Spanked 00:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert revert

Would you care to explain this: [3] --Spanked 00:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A mistake on my part, which I re-reverted immediately. (I misread the Talk page as being the main article page.) -- ChrisO 00:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You made more than one mistake, see my comments above and on the corresponding article's talk page. --Spanked 01:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on Xenu etc

Please stop. If you continue to remove content from pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- ChrisO 00:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What policy am I in violation of? Please tell me, and for your information, calling for blocks is considered uncivil. --Spanked 00:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The items you deleted from Operating Thetan constituted a summary of the OT levels, a legally published affidavit and a fair use analysis of the OT levels. Your deletions from Xenu included one website which claims to have OT III scans (but doesn't any more) and a fair use analysis of the OT III. And what is your explanation for this deletion of referenced, non-copyvio content? Why did you use the rather dishonest edit summary "removed unreferenced", when what you removed was in fact referenced in several places?

Your actions constitute blanking for presumably POV reasons, which is a form of vandalism and is a blockable action. Please don't do it. If you have legitimate issues with links, discuss them on the talk page - don't just delete them without comment. -- ChrisO 00:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained the removal of uncited information on your talk page. Please provide a cite your source lest your reverts be considered vandalism, bad faith, or simply erroneous. --Spanked 00:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me spell this out for you. On Office of Special Affairs, you deleted a block of cited, referenced text under an inaccurate and frankly dishonest edit summary ("removed unreferenced"). This was in no way "uncited information". On Xenu and Operating Thetan you deleted several external links on the grounds that they were copyright violations. Most of the links you removed were in fact fair use summaries, including one document ([4]) which has been specifically okayed for publication by the courts. To repeat what I said earlier, you're removing valid external links and referenced material for patently invalid reasons. That constitutes vandalism - don't do it. There won't be any further warnings. -- ChrisO 00:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me spell it out for you, instead, ChrisO. You obviously did not examine my edits very carefully. Is the "block" of information you are referring to in the OSA article? That "block" was not deleted. Only one sentence from that block was deleted. Are you going to provide a citation for that sentence? You're revert is responsible for the inclusion of the material in question, provide a citation or else you're revert will be considered vandalism. As far as removing sites with copyvios on the other 2 articles, you claim spaink has received okay. Did she receive ok in the United States where EN.wikipedia resides? I doubt it, and if that is the case then provide proof that she is exempt from Wikipedia's policies about websites with copyright violations. Failure to answer will be documented and used against you in arbitration. Your threats of blocks and complaints of non-existent vandalism will be considered uncivil and used against you in arbitration. --Spanked 01:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is unfortunate that Editors do not simply follow WP:V which clearly states, "previously published by a reliable source", because if editors did, the personal opinion from Clambake org (A personal website) would not creep into these articles. WP:RS also makes clear, any citation which uses personal opinion on personal website may be removed by any editor. We want a good quality here, we don't want rag newspaper, post it on the telephone pole publication from Xenu.net or Clambake.org. Terryeo 21:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is unfortunate that User:Terryeo makes tendentious commentary and falsely accuses other editors of those things he seems to have done. He calls for quality editing, but I have yet to see any quality editing from him.--Fahrenheit451 16:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cite your sources

ChrisO, have you provided a citation for the sentence in dispute on the OSA article? --Spanked 01:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darfour Card

Hello,

My name is Nathalie Courtier and I am working for Publicis Dialog based in Paris. We are working with an association "www.sauverledarfour.org". This assocation tries to communicate in the french media to sensibilised the french population to the Darfour.

In our communication,, we want to realise free post cards (cart'com) and we would like to use your visual of the Darfour we saw on the first page of this website.

We was wondering if you could give us your autorisation and if it would be possible to have this image in a better size to be able to print it.

You can contact me or sand me a mail :

nathalie.courtier@publicis.fr Tel : 00.31.1.44.43.78.11

Thank you very much for your answer as soon as possible, it will be very helpfull for the association.

Best regards and do not hesitate to contact me if you need further information.

Unspecified source for Image:Apotheosis of homer text.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Apotheosis of homer text.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BrownCow  (how now?) 17:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Nenndorf

Maybe you should let us know whether you are able to assess the three sources that are in German, as these may have a bearing on the discussion. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - in several minutes I will give up a statement concerning the whole issue on the German site (in English and German). Kind regards.--KarlV 10:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you ...

Do yourself a favor, do me a favor, save a multitude of editors a multitude of discussion, and do User:Fahrenheit451 a favor and talk to F451 and tell him that this term, publish, means to the broad general public without regard to membership in an organization, employment by a company or any other restriction ? F is convinced that published to a public is accurate and that published to the public is not accurate. Terryeo 13:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, it looks to me like Terryeo is spreading nonsense here. He has also taken a discussion off the relevant pages on put it on your page. --Fahrenheit451 06:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunate that User:Fahrenheit451 does not yet understand that "published" is always to "the" public (broad, unspecified) and not ever to "a specific, narrow, membership". That kind of distribution is called "distribution" and is not called "publication". Terryeo 21:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunate that User:Terryeo makes tendentious commentary with his false, POV definition. He is free to fantasize, but has restricted his freedom as an editor because of his own faults.--Fahrenheit451 15:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spanked CheckUser

Hi ChrisO. I'm trying to other CheckUsers to check my results and confirm my findings first. Sorry for the delay. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks Jay. -- ChrisO 23:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the length of time this is taking; I've been asking for confirmation of my findings on the CheckUser list, but so far no-one else has been able to devote time to this. I'm hoping for some help very soon. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, I was only able to get one other CheckUser to take a look at this, and he didn't think the results were conclusive. I'm afraid we can't do anything about Spanked for now. Sorry. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KarlV blocked indefinitely

Hi, re Bad Nenndorf and Bad_Nenndorf_interrogation_centre: Pschemp has blocked User_talk:KarlV indefinitely for *one* (and the first) violation of WP:POINT, this is disproportionate. Besides, Pschemp keeps edit warring, instead of answering a serious claim here, this is unwarranted as well. --tickle me 10:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts on Bad Nenndorf

With reluctance, I give you a 3RR warning. Everyone being treated equally.

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.

Regards,

Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Nenndorf interrogation centre

Just wanted to say thanks for taking the time to research the 1948 sources and writing a more comprehensive article about this topic. In reviewing the sources, I found one dead link - not sure who added it - about the demo in July; I've replaced it with the only reasonable sources I could find - one indymedia and one antifa website. A more neutral source, esp. newspaper (web?) article would be preferable if you come across one. Cheers, Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

Dear Chris, please accept my apologies. I have to admit, I fist assumed bad faith watching you "tampering" with Bad Nenndorf. But now I have to admit you did a great job, much better than I could have done myself. Thank you very much for your contribution to the good new lemma. I like Burke's Peerage 11:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Community ban

Hello Chirs : - ) I think that there is a misunderstanding about why Homey is indef. blocked. All of User:Homeontherange's known accounts are blocked for disruption due to use of abusive and disruptive sockpuppets. [5] I became aware of Homeontherange's use of disruptive sockpuppets while dealing with another banned user, WordBomb. Homeontherange's abuse of sockpuppets has been documented by Checkuser. Until another admin unblocks Homey, hopefully with full community consensus, he is under a community ban and I will continue to block his sockpuppets on sight. If you have furter questions please contact me. Regards, --FloNight ^talk 14:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Srebrenica massacre article protection

ChrisO, As you may have noticed, Bosniak has now reverted the Srebrenica massacre article to his previous, and in my opinion, very biased and in some cases incorrect version. Although I have (a) offered to discuss edits, (b) explained any edits which I have made (c) provided reliable sources for all of the edits that I have made, Bosniak is unwilling to allow any other interpretation or presentation of the events than his own. I believe that he is most likely too emotionally involved with the topic to be able to make sound and neutral judgements on this topic. For Bosniak, this seems to be too more of a political than an academic issue.

I have requested an unprotection of the article, citing the above reasons. However, I feel that I will need some help on this one and would be very grateful if you could help mediate this conflict. Cheers, Osli73 21:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, apparently this article has been unlocked now.Osli73 16:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kosovo-InfoBox

The IP guy is Hipi Zhdripi. He's done this before. He uses AOL so there is really nothing we can do but semiprotect the articles. There is no point on discussing with him, he will simply call you a Serb. I gave up on him a while ago. Don't waste your time reminding him about WP:SOAP or similar stuff as he doesn't really care to listen. What I can't understand is how this guy can be an admin on sq.wikipedia. Cheers, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 01:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terryeo stuff

Please take a look at this: Image_talk:Superpowerbldg.jpg--Fahrenheit451 14:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned this at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement several hours ago, and in the meantime Terryeo has ramped up the issue and amplified his disruption level. Since you are involved in the discussion, it is probably best for somebody disinterested to be the one to swoop in administratively, if any swooping is to be done. But if you know a way to get an admin or two to drop in for a speedy look-see, please do so... it would be nice to douse this particular flame-up at an early stage. BTfromLA 00:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The permission to use the image is based on Wikipedia being a critic of the Church of Scientology (in the owner's opinion). I point that overlooked datum out at that page. Such a granted use of image imperial's Wikipedia for obvious reasons. What happens when the author no longer views Wikipedia as a critic of The Church of Scientology? Terryeo 22:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ferick

You might want to take a closer look at the protection logs for Kosovo. Ferick claims that I protected the article to stop him from editing. In fact, I unprotected it on 24 June 2006 and again on 28 July 2006, following agreement among all the other editors on the talk page; on each occasion, Ferick started edit warring again within a matter of hours. In each case the protection was added at following a request for protection in the normal fashion. I did briefly semi-protect it on 4 August 2006 to block a spate of vandalism from a user abusing multiple anonymous proxy servers, but unprotected it a few hours later when the vandal had gone away. This did not, of course, affect Ferick's ability to edit the article. Please reconsider your statement on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ferick. -- ChrisO

Just noticed that the most recent entry states "protected" - not sure what that is, as the article is most definitely unprotected right now. Check the current protection status for yourself! -- ChrisO 00:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded my endorsement for clarity. The page is currently move-protected, for some reason, but not edit-protected. You move-protected it on August 4th, probably by accident. Stifle (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

copyright

Website kosovo.net has a lot of unauthorized content. In addition, just read what the say in the bottom of the site: "This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material." Link http://www.kosovo.net/news/archive/2006/February_15/2.html

The link should absolutely be removed. --Noah30 10:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing that to my attention, I agree. -- ChrisO 20:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous Trolling

This one too is quite peculiar [6]... E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 18:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block

ChrisO you have to block this unregistreted vandal:

This ip 208.3.69.196 have been vandalising many articles related to Kosovo, including Kosovo-article. 3 edits during a day. It is about time to block this ip address.

Vandalised my talk page to

Mine too. As I'm involved in the Kosovo article I can't block the user myself, but I've asked other administrators to intervene. -- ChrisO 20:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I hope you agree that comments made by 208.3.69.196 about Ferick http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ferick are attacks on his integrity, and therefore should be removed. I did so

Wish you a nice evening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noah30 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser

Hi Chris, as suggested on the talk page of the Ferick RfC, would it be a good idea to ask for a Checkuser on the 208.3.69.196 IP, the other IPs you mentioned and possible Ferick's account? If this IP really belongs to a registered user, it might be worthwhile to find out and take appropriate action. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just reported that IP for 3RR violation, started immediatly again after 1 hour block expired. [7]. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I am apparently blocked from editing some copy on the 20th Century limited because : Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by ChrisO for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "WILLIAM DAKOTA". The reason given for WILLIAM DAKOTA's block is: "Blocked for repeatedly adding defamatory content". Your IP address is 205.188.117.6.

I have no idea who William Dakota is, and I have never sent any defamatory information to Wikipedia or to any other internet website. I am a railfan and was a frequent 20th Century Limited passenger during the last 5 years of its run, and had some inform,ation to share concerning that period of the train's operation.

Art House (my name, not a business)

I don't even know how to get an IP adderess....

So I don't understand why I was blocked.

Suitable lead

Hi,

Please look at the talk page and write your idia about the lead.[8]--Sa.vakilian 08:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deir Yassin massacre

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deir Yassin massacre. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deir Yassin massacre/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deir Yassin massacre/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 13:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo

Hi Chris, it certainly seems to be the same person. What would you like to see happen? I can sprotect the pages in question and ask him to choose one account to edit with, making clear that any other accounts/IPs will be blocked. Would that do it, do you think? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your observation of the influence on a user

Chris, I think you are correct. Those folks get into a suppressive mentality where they cannot perceive directly, but rather through the attitudes and views of the group. There is enough coercion to enforce this means of dealing with the outside world. This is one factor that is pushing them to the fringes of society. It is a vicious control mechanism. That user is very much caught in that influence. I don't think he is intelligent or courageous enough to wake up.--Fahrenheit451 19:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting observations :) Terryeo 21:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Winged victory.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Winged victory.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 20:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

blog reliability

I was wondering about the policy for using a blog as a reference. The link you removed on the Qana airstrike page seems to show the staging of photographs of the Qana airstrike. I recognise that this blog may not be widely read, but that doesn't necessary make it wrong. It also seems like this discussion in itself is a small part of a larger information war considering the fact, (and think it is a fact) that the Qana airstrike has been used as propaganda by Hezbollah, perhaps websites such as this one deserve exposure despite WP:RS. The information is relevant but I don't think it qualifies as a conspiracy theory. The comparisons of the photographs on the websites seem logical and factual, although I admit that these too could be manipulations. It's probably to soon to tell what actually happened there, but do you think we should wait for a larger media source to pick up on it? Wikipedia is concerned with facts, and it seems there's substantial proof that there have not only been photo manipulations, but the staging of photographs at Qana as propaganda. I also don't think that just because this is a current event, only news sites can be referenced although, maybe I should have intoduced the topic of the Qana photos being staged as one that was being discussed in the blogosphere.--Cdogsimmons 19:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris

Hi Chris,

You remember me, right?

Can these people really be considered objective?

Check this out:

1. http://www.geocities.com/famous_bosniaks/english/general_lewis_mackenzie.html

2. http://www.geocities.com/famous_bosniaks/english/fighting_for_peace.html

--Bosniak 06:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religon

Why hide fact Albanian ARE MUSLIMS and SERBS ARE CHRISTIAN.

In light of Islamist terorist we need to inform about the majority Albanians that are MUSLIMS. We have to tell the world this is part of islamists extremism that is going on around the world. According to the government Al qaeda is present in Kosovo. They have Camps.Mujahadin helped the KLA during the war. It's a clear prof,but Albanians do everything to hide. Iran supports them too.

re: Srebrenica Massacre - Lewis MacKenzie

ChrisO,

Lewis MacKenzie himself -- after it was discovered -- admitted that he "may have been" paid for lobbying Congress. The nationalist Serb lobby group then confirmed that they did indeed pay him. I am new to wikipedia and don't yet know how to make a reference (citation) nor do I know yet the policy on what constitutes a reliable source. But googling the words "Lewis MacKenzie Newsday Gutman Serb lobby" will bring you to the source material showing that MacKenzie was indeed lobbying but did not reveal that he was being paid until afterward. Therefore, I believe it is entirely legitimate to include that fact in the Srebrenica article for the same reason the Congress felt duped when it found out MacKenzie had been paid but acted as if he was just an objective concerned citizen. The fact that he was being paid is quite relevant and ought to be revealed.

I do not know of a group of Western observers of which he is representative who are merely skeptical of the numbers killed in Srebrenica. Those who want to drastically reduce the numbers of Bosniaks killed, drastically inflate the number of deaths of Serb civilians in the Srebrenica area (I believe it is around 700), or deny the massacre altogether have an agenda. MacKenzie obviously is motivated by an agenda, not just skeptical rational observation as the previous version in the Srebrenica article implied. Fairview360 00:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO - you failed to realize...

ChrisO, it is not true that the facts about MacKenzie are sourced to a private website. Private website only contains copy of the ORIGINAL investigative article published by the media. Come on man. THe article was written by "DENNIS BERNSTEIN" and the source is "PACIFIC NEWS SERVICE".

The article is also referenced in this journal: http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/femres.htm (enter search "answers needed", it's located in references).

Fairview, thank you man. Bosniak 01:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ChrisO

I don't understand what you are trying to say. The article is cited to:

COPYRIGHT PACIFIC NEWS SERVICE 450 Mission Street, Room 506 San Francisco, CA 94105 415-243-4364 Date: 06/04/1993

The fact that someone posted it on geocities has nothing to do with the credibility of the article; this is original article with full copyright notice. It's over 13 years old and was published when internet was only barely beginning to be used.

What's the problem? Is the truth problem again? I would not be surprised if you banned me and all your opponents from wikipedia. Now, I see, we are not even allowed to use this article as a source, but our opponents are allowed to use Lewis Mackanzie's genocide denials as a source ?

Don't you see double standard here? Bosniak 04:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like he is reverting repositied articles on personal websites while maintaining reposited articles on his own, personal website. Is that the double standard you mean to point out? Terryeo 21:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Source Check

I was wondering if you could aide me. There are two conflicting sources on the religion of Oscar Niemeyer. One is an interview in which he states he is from a Catholic family, another is the following website which says he's "Jewish." Here: [9] It is the only website to purport this. Attempts have been made to contact the website but the website does not respond. Is there any way to establish this source as "unreliable" (given its seemingly self-published hmtl-ish nature) so that it cannot be used as a source on wikipedia? Thank you so much for any help. 70.146.75.119 06:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UN Qana map

This was left on the userpage for my IP address (82.29.227.171). I was using your map to illustrate the distance between Qana and Zibqin- the area which the IDF have video of rockets being launched. UN problem or problem with copy process? Link to the original seems dead so cant confirm:

Please note that the grid references on this map appear to be incorrect. See: http://the-lebanon.com/lebanon_country/map/lebanon_rel_2002.jpg and Google Earth for clarification. If this is a UN map, no wonder they are incapable of policing the area, their maps are wrong! For instance, Tyre is at: 33˚ 16' 16.10"N 35˚ 13' 06.93E. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.89.8 (talk • contribs)

RandomGalen 12:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block 208.3.69.196

Hi chrisO. I think you should block this ip 208.3.69.196 permanently because of 3RR and other vandalism. Noah30

Lier.Profe it.

Your Serbian nationalist I will prove that you are a vandal:

1: 13:21, 10 August 2006 208.3.69.196 2: 13:20, 10 August 2006 208.3.69.196 3: 13:15, 10 August 2006 208.3.69.196 4: 20:08, 9 August 2006 208.3.69.196

ChrisO, block him now when you have the evidence. 208.3.69.196 have also insulted me earlier.

Assistance needed

ChrisO,

Would you kindly remind Osli73 that making a fundamental change to an article and trying to slip it by as a minor edit is not OK. He deleted the document link to the list of names of people killed or missing from Srebrenica and presented it as a minor edit to the Srebrenica Massacre article.

Also, could you review what I am doing at the Srebrenica massacre article and please tell me if I have transgressed either wikipedian rules or etiquette. I am new to wikipedia and am just learning how things work.

Thank youFairview360 19:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Ragusa

I report that Kubura has started an edit war in the article Republic of Ragusa, deleting all the old historic names into the modern Croatian names. The question of the names was already discussed, but Kubura had several times ignored it, changin the article to his own personal taste. Kubura was several times warned also in Italian Wikipedia, still for ultra nationalistic, pro Croatian edits. I consider this user a vandal. I ask for an intervention to stop the edit war. Thank you.--Giovanni Giove 12:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place to spread expansionistic fascist ideas. User Giovanni Giove should now that. Neglecting and banning the native names, replacing them with Italian ones, was Mussolini's policy, especially in Croatia, Slovenia and in Montenegro. Kubura 23:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A note. Maybe this user, AjaxSmack, wasn't careful. But what if he had bad intentions? I've warned him on his talk page today. See this change [10]. "Current" part of certain country? Kubura 23:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq Maps

Hi Chris, you removed a map from the Haditha article as blurry, you do know it is a high resolution JPG? You should click on the thumbnail for a closer look. thanks --Paul E. Ester 13:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did click on it, and it's still blurry! I'm sorry, but it's just not a good quality map. -- ChrisO 14:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Schwarz

The reason you never saw the template Biography protection is because just created it. Free free to help out. Fred Bauder 16:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Deleting relevant Information

Is is very relevent and must be mentioned in the article that iSrael is breaching the rules of war and international law and using illegal weapons. Stop deleting it. 69.196.164.190

Your comment

Chris, in what sense am I "way out of line" on the Israeli apartheid AfD? I don't recall being much involved in it. Am I missing something? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason you gave for deletion: "This is an attack page." Might I remind you of what WP:DEL says? "XfD(deletion) processes are not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked, whose perspective is against ones beliefs, or which is not yet presented neutrally." Nor would I approve of someone voting on the grounds that "This page is necessary to expose Israel" (which I can certainly envisage some people doing). After all the discussion there's been on the subject, with all the editors who've been involved in the article, and all the references which show beyond any reasonable doubt that the allegation has been and is widely made, asserting that the page was "written for the sole purpose of disparaging its subject" (to quote WP:ATK) is ludicrous. I would have thought it would be better to have an article discussing or debunking the allegations openly, along the lines of Examination of Holocaust denial, rather than just deleting the whole thing because you don't like the subject matter. I'm not touching it with a bargepole but if you're that concerned about it, then please get stuck in and fix it - deletion isn't the answer. -- ChrisO 23:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay fair enough, but that simply means you disagree with me, not that I'm "way out of line." I didn't say I personally disliked it. I said it was an attack page because it was created for the sole purpose of denigrating Israel. That's the problem in a nutshell. We're supposed to be Wikipedians, which means (for me, anyway) that we're interested in education and the spread of free knowledge. It's supposed to mean we don't engage in deliberate propaganda; and we don't create pages in order to do people, states, and organizations down, but simply to report what other reliable sources report.

Israeli apartheid wasn't created in that spirit; it hasn't been edited in that spirit; and I don't think it ever will be. For the same reason, I ended up voting to get rid of Islamofascism, because it proved to be nothing but a POV magnet, and it caused a great deal of distress to some good editors. If we were a good encyclopedia composed only of responsible editors, we could have pages called Israeli apartheid and Islamofascism, because they'd be written responsibly. But of course the irony is that if we were a good encyclopedia composed only of responsible editors, no one would ever suggest articles like that in the first place.

The bottom line is that we're supposed to be spreading knowledge, not hatred. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked?

I was attempting to edit the Country_pop page and got the following message...

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by ChrisO for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "WILLIAM DAKOTA". The reason given for WILLIAM DAKOTA's block is: "Blocked for repeatedly adding defamatory content". Your IP address is 64.12.116.10.

I'm not William Dakota, do not know him, and have never said anything bad about anyone or anything on wiki.

I'm xxxxxxxxxxxxx, for what its worth, and I appreciate finding out what I can do to be part of the wiki community again.

Thanks You, Joe Hummel

Sorry about that - it appears that you were accidentally caught in another user's block. Hopefully it's fixed now. Please let me know if you have any more problems. -- ChrisO 00:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack from Terryeo?

Please take a look at this: Talk:David_Miscavige#.22Chinese_School.22 It surely must appear to everyone, as it does to me, that User:Fahrenheit451 is attempting to present into this Miscavige artile, every bit of controversy possible in every area possible, as a sort of erudite attack against Miscavige. Of course, we understand that motivation, but nonetheless, there are many examples of articles about noteable peope who are alive today. Let us work toward a presentation as good as any other noteable person, still alive. Terryeo 18:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC) --Fahrenheit451 01:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Schwarz

Please unblock Barbara Schwarz so she can give feedback regarding the article she is the subject of. She is not a regular editor anyway and is not trying to be. Fred Bauder 20:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you unblock her? She's back, or rather, a user claiming to be her. And she's back at her usual game: personal attacks, and posting the name of alleged employers. --Tilman 07:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't unblock her - she's using an anonymous IP address (which I've now added to the block). -- ChrisO 08:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright and source question

This picture [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Maps_slavs_dialects.jpg] is not "from an Soviet book", as the "uploader" Ragusino stated. They wouldn't have "explanations" in English, neither the text would be in Latin characters. This should be from an ex-Yugoslav textbook from (see the text in the upper right corner, "karta dijalekata hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika"). That's not in Russian. Kubura 23:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indef IP block?

I've been informed that 216.190.11.36 is a shared dial-up IP. As such, you may want to go for a shorter block than "indefinite", to avoid inconveniencing random people. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how flexible the block filter is - a solution would be to block unregistered users from IP coming from sisna.com to edit Barbara Schwarz. --Tilman 18:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Green helmet 003.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:Green helmet 003.jpeg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salam Daher/Green Helmet

Hi ChrisO. Thank you for taking care of the en:Salam Daher article. I'll read it but it looks perfect. Do you think we should rename the fr:Casque vert as well ? Baruch1677 06:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, definitely! -- ChrisO 07:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ferick

hi, what is happening with Ferick? Is he still blocked? --Noah30 19:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, not since a 24 hour block for violating the 3RR expired on 7 August - see the block log entry. -- ChrisO 19:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comanche back edit warring

- on Scandinavia, again. I think he may have broken 3RR already. Just so you know. --Janke | Talk 08:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Srebrenica massacre

Dear Chris,

Sorry to bother you with this mess, but since you acted on it before, you may be interested in my comments on WP:AN/I#Srebrenica massacre. I'm hesitant to block people myself given that I've been involved with the page for a long time, though usually with a light touch.

Cheers, Jitse Niesen (talk) 06:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding External Links

Hey, I would like to know why the links that I added to some articles were considered spam. They were only to serve as supplemental readings, and not for advertising purposes. I especially don't understand why the external link on History of Kosovo was removed.

Regards --PG-Rated 16:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page Moves to communard

Hi Chris, I was wondering if you could take a look at the page moves surrounding Communard. I believe the editor a music fan deprecated the historical sense of the term for the more recent pop group. I would revert all his changes as the pages disamigulated fine before they were renamed but it involves multiple pages and I think I would mess up the history. TIA --Paul E. Ester 20:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!--Paul E. Ester 21:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli fatalities of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

I believe you were incorrect in closing the debate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli fatalities of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict early. I do not see anything in Wikipedia:Snowball clause to support your actions, and in fact it states pretty clearly that what you did was incorrect. Also WP:SNOW is an essay not an actual policy or guideline. Please undelete it as soon as possible per Wikipedia:Undeletion policy#Exceptions. Jon513 06:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jon, we've had similar issues with memorial pages in the past (especially after 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina). There was absolutely no doubt that this article violated WP:NOT, and there was already an overwhelming majority in favour of deletion. In view of that, I judged that there wasn't any point in prolonging the debate. -- ChrisO 07:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find anything comparable for 9/11 or hurricane katrina. There is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Various 9/11 casualties which I agree should be deleted, since they were articles about non notable individual people who were killed. This article is a list of people kill that does not go into any detail about their lives. I will bring this up at deletion review. Jon513 18:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't have, because they were speedily deleted, as I recall. As I said, it's a long-standing policy and the list definitely contravenes it. -- ChrisO 19:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipiggi plushie

I'm up for one :) User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 13:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Krakatoa Map

Thanks for putting up some maps on the Krakatoa page, but I have to point out an error on the more detailed one. The outline is NOT the pre-1883 island, but is roughly the lines of the older caldera that collapsed centuries or millenia ago to form the islands. Even before 1883, Lang and Verlaten were separate islands from Krakatoa proper. I've got a more accurate map from USGS, but I've never put up an image before, and really haven't had the time it would take to do it properly. CFLeon 21:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for pointing that out. I'll correct it. If you have the USGS image, you could always send it to me to work on - I'd be happy to do that. -- ChrisO 21:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I downloaded it to Image:Map_krakatau.gif. It needs re-sizing, though. I don't have the original source (probably the USGS volcano page.) CFLeon 03:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalism

Sorry.... always the same problem..... the usual ultra nationalist Croatian. I'm working at Roger Boscovich article. This person was born in the multiethnic Republic of Ragusa... so is rembered in Italy as Italian, in Croatia as Croatian and in Serbia as Serbian. I tried to insert all this categories, but user: Ante Perkovic several times deleted them. He want to impose an "all Croatian" point of view. Because Boscovich is normally honored in Italy and in Serbia, I think it is correct to insert all the relative categories. Greetings--Giovanni Giove 22:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please, try to explain to Giove that, since there are no profs (except unsubstantiated claims of greaterserbian propagandist) of Serbian origin to Nikola Bošković (Ruđer's father), he just can't add arbitrary categories. I tried, but it doesn't comes to his mind. --Ante Perkovic 01:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ChrisO. You've named me as an ultranationalist. Look this change from "neutral" user Giovanni Giove [11] . Insisting on Zara instead of Zadar? And I am an ultranationalist? And he's accusing me (to admins) that I'm nationalist? Kubura 14:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, Mr. Giovanni Giove's argument in many discussions is: "it was the official name at that time". Why don't he changes the name of Battle of Lorraine into the Battle of Lothringen (1914, WW1)? Or it is much easier to neglect the complaints of small nation (like Croatia), than to "stand on the way" to much bigger and influential nation (like France) and have heavy discussions with them?Kubura 14:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Qana protest nyc.jpg

Hi. Sorry, but I just deleted this image. It was licensed CC-BY-ND, which means it is not freely licensed as we define it. You may wish to ask User:DavidShankBone if they have a photograph that captured signs related to Qana when they were photographing the same event. Jkelly 00:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ChrisO - I'd appreciate if you left the image up. First, the rally was on 8/3 in reaction to the Qana bombing--although the protest didn't slice and dice the Israeli bombing campaigns (when do they?). Second, that page, as you know, has been something of a warzone itself and aside from the fact that tweaking it may incite tempers that have cooled, it is also remarkable that nobody tried to take it down before. Which means that it does carry some legitimacy with the editors on the page (I am not one; I only supplied the photo). --DavidShankBone 02:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough and agreed - better photo. I had not seen it. --DavidShankBone 14:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear that the photographer has agreed to relicense the image, but if you're the only one who knows that the licensing information at the source is incorrect and our boilerplate isn't, I'm afraid it is likely to be deleted again. Is there any chance the photographer will update the license information at flickr? Jkelly 17:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The real Barbara Schwarz

In accordance with your decision to block this user and remove the edits in which this user has attempted to "out" editors of Wikipedia, I would ask that you remove the edits by 216.190.12.37 (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/AI in which this user reveals what she alleges to be a real life name of an editor. Vivaldi (talk) 11:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok

Ok, but Kosova, the Albanian name for Kosovo is the most important one.--Pjetër Bogdani III 00:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that's why it's at the top of the disambiguation list. -- ChrisO 01:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kosova redireckt

Are you a fried thate Albanians finde thate this project is not serbian projekt. You know thate albanians dont Seach the term Kosovo. hahahahh--172.174.144.88 07:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi. Since you are an admin familiar with problems in former Yugoslavia, I have one question for you. User:Dijxtra (an admin from Croatia) just threatened that he will block me because I changed name "Croatian War of Independence" to "war in Croatia (1991-1995)" in several articles (edits like this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pag_%28town%29&diff=prev&oldid=71492707). I simply follow NPOV policy of Wikipedia, since name "Croatian War of Independence" is neither NPOV neither correct (It were Serbs from Republic of Serbian Krajina that fought for their independence from Croatia and Croatia did not fought for its indepence from Republic of Serbian Krajina). So, the current title is both, wrong and misleading, and my question is does User:Dijxtra have right to block me because of my edits regarding name of this war, or he simply trying to abuse his adminship? PANONIAN (talk) 11:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel you should be aware of this discussion. --Dijxtra 11:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My actions again

Hi there, I'm having problems with Mirko Norac article. I'm pretty much confident that I'm doing the right thing, but I need a second oppinion. Are this edits of mine: [12], [13] reasonabe or not? I feel the guy just doesn't want to answer my questions... I tried to reason with him on his talk page, but he doesn't react... Now, I don't ask you to intervene, I just need to know if it's me that's vandalising or him? --Dijxtra 09:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zadar

Hi, Chris.
I've seen that map before[14]. Some of its parts are disputable, like distribution of Italians in Istria (censuses counted local population as Italian, even for such reasons as "they know Italian", neglecting that there are Croats and Slovenians there - still, for this line I'll need to cite you proper reference, so, I ow you {{fact}}) for that).
The author of this map neglected the fact that mother tongue of the W Istria population was Croat (e.g., coach of Croatian national handball team is autochtonous Croat from W Istria; his surname is Croat, in čakavian dialect). Still, I don't deny the existence of old Romanic population (not to mix with Italians, that came later there).
This map doesn't show the distribution (in areas where is their majority) of e.g., Czechs and Slovaks in Croatia, Croats in E Austria (Burgenland), Slovaks and Ruthenians in S Hungary (Bačka province)... On the other hand, it shows no majority of Italians in Zadar.
Then... place names. If you've noticed, majority of city names in Croatia are written in other languages (German, Italian). Wrong. Croat language was already official in Croatia at that time. This is the case with cities in other countries and provinces on this map. They aren't written in respective official languages, and written names aren't English forms. Names on this map are mostly in German and in Italian.
If we want to push the "official language" at that time, than let's change the name of Belgrade into Dar-ul-Jihhad (for Ottoman era), Nice into Nizza (durign the rule of fascist Italy), Lorraine into Lothringen and Alsace into Elsaß (as well as other citynames from these two provinces...), so we'll see the reactions of those peoples. Kubura 10:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Hello Chriss,

I saw that you blocked IP: 158.143.134.192 for breaking the 3R, however I could only count one revert in article Kosovo and one revert and 2 in the article Serbia. I was uncertain as to how you count the reverts? Is it per article or per user?

Thanks

You have a answer

You have a answer in my page --Hipi Zhdripi 14:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC) You are putin the term Kosova in one corner, so you are losen new use only for your serbian propagander interes.[reply]

protection of Kosovo article

Just FYI, it seems that version you protected has the bottom chopped off -- perhaps a firefox/google toolbar issue? Lowg 17:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firefox! Thanks for spotting that. -- ChrisO 20:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now just realizing it was only semi-protected and I could have just fixed, thought it was totally locked which is why I sent message :) --Lowg 04:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photo - New Scotland Yard

Hi Chris

I worked at New Scotland Yard for a number of years, so was pleased to see the excellent photo you'd posted. Although the sign now has the added (and somewhat pointless) logo "Working together for a safer London", the photo neatly captures the industrial and business like nature of the place - or, at least, arguably how it should be.

Best wishes,

Charles

Hi Charles,

Glad you liked the photo. Mission statements like that always amuse me - what's the alternative, "Working together for a more dangerous London"? -- ChrisO 10:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Combined Services Detailed Interrogation Centre

You removed material (your own) from Combined Services Detailed Interrogation Centre. The Guardian refers to London Cage as part of the CSDIC between July 1940 and September 1948. So it seems that the deparment was known as CSDIC already during WWII. (See: Talk:Combined Services Detailed Interrogation Centre) If however you are right, you should place the material somewhere else, or change the article to also refer to the old name. -- Petri Krohn 03:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fauxtography on deletion review

I have opened a deletion review of Fauxtography. Since you previously commented on the articles AfD, I hope you will check out this review and add your comments. Best,--Alabamaboy 14:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Kappa Rho

I was told by one of the people in the discussion that I had until Wednesday to correct the Alpha Kappa Rho page. I was planning on working on it tonight. I'd like to have the chance to. Naraht 23:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo

Dear Chris, after my last effort to get a consensus over the map of the Kosovo article, a new revert war appears to have started, instigated by User:Vezaso. I my opinion this whole dispute has gone too far now and the repetive disruptive edits by editors with a serious POV on the matter keep disturbing this article. The only problem is that we are dealing with different editors each time, making it difficult to end the situtation. At this moment, I am seriously thinking of bringing this article as a whole (with all the main contributor over the last months) to the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, with the possible solution of Wikipedia:Article probation in mind. I know this is not a clearly cut case, but I assume most cases that to go to arbritation are not. Nevertheless, I would appreciate your opinion on this matter. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dardan remarks

Dear ChrisO and Reinoutr, the version that I am insisting on has been the result of long debates. There are obviously four positions here:

1. Kosovo is a province of Serbia

2. Kosovo is a UN run territory

3. Kosovo is an unrececognized yet independent state

4. Kosovo is Albanian territory, captured by Serbia in 1912.

The Contact group point of view, as I have just said in the Kosovo Talk Page goes against the first and the last option. So, the medium two remain valid. I would use either of them. As for the map, too we could use the map of Serbia, the map of Albanian territories in the balkans, but I would suggest we use either Kosovo in the region (hinting towards the known future status, or Kosovo without regional reference, pointing to the limbo status. In good faith, Dardan 11:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding Terryeo and Scientology

Chris, Terry,

I wanted to explore whether there's some way to agree on a mechanism for Terry to raise his concerns about scientology sourcing. I understand that you guys have a past, but it seems like you're close to some common ground.

Chris, if I understand you correctly, you think Terry raises some good points and some bad ones, and you would like to see Terry (1) use dispute resolution that doesn't immediately escalate to the policy pages or mediation, and (2) in the cases where consensus is against Terry, that he work with the consensus opinion.

Terry, if I understand you correctly, you're frustrated that (1) many of the Scientology cites don't meet your understanding of WP:V and WP:DR, and (2) as long as the current scientology editors don't have an interest in fixing the problem, your complaints aren't likely to have any effect.

Chris, is it possible to agree on a mechanism for Terry to raise his concerns and solicit input in a way that you can buy into? Terry, are you interested? As a starting point, I would suggest:

Terry limits himself to one scientology page per week. (In order to allow discussion to focus on that page).
Terry makes a good faith effort to find reliable, verifiable sources to offer as substitutes for the cites that concern him/her. (Yes, there's no obligation to do this, but it will be a helpful contribution).
Once Terry has his concerns and any proposed new sources, if any, ready, the discussion escalates something like this.
1. Terry describes his concerns on the talk page for the page in question and includes a link to that discussion on the scientology project page. Chris makes a good faith effort, time permitting, to respond to those concerns. Terry and Chris both make a good faith effort to explore possible areas of compromise. (I'm sure gadflies like Blueboar and myself will pipe in too).
2. After discussion, if the groups are deadlocked, Terry seeks input from WP:3O (if appropriate), and/or areligion and philosophy request for comment.
3. If the discussion is still deadlocked, Terry and Chris consider a [[WP:M|formal] or informal mediation.
4. Terry doesn't escalate to the policy pages unless there is a serious proposal to change an existing policy, or a serious question about a policy that can't be resolved by the steps above.

Sorry if I'm intruding, but it honestly looks like you guys are close to common ground. Would you be interested in something like the structure I've proposed? Thanks, TheronJ 13:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I've weighed in with my 2¢ about this on TheronJ's talk page. BTfromLA 16:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish celebrities

Was Category:Scottish celebrities empty when you last saw it? It's tagged with an incorrect speedy delete tag and is currently empty - i'm minded to deleted it, but It'd be good to find out if someone has been clearing it out... Thanks/wangi 20:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hey

hello Chris,

It seems that the photo of Albert Einstein that I used on the bottom of my user page has been deleted. Could you replace it with some other A.E. photo from Commons, or simply unprotect my page. It has been a few months, I'm pretty sure I learned my lesson. Come on, please? I didn't do anything bad in the last few months :) --serbiana - talk 23:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration request on Kosovo

Dear Editor, since you have been involved in editing the Kosovo article in the last months, and that article has been the subject of long ongoing edit wars, your name is listed in the Request for Arbitration on this matter. You can make a statement here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Kosovo. Due to the large number of editors involved, however, I would to ask you to keep your statement concise and to the point. If you feel you have not been substantially involved in the disputes surrounding the Kosovo article, please do not remove your name from the Arbitration request, but rather make a short statement there explaining why you feel you have not been involved enough to be part it. To understand my reasons for requesting Arbitration, please read my statement on the Requests for Arbitration page. Best regards, Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 821: / Line 821: @@
 It seems that the photo of Albert Einstein that I used on the bottom of my user page has been deleted. Could you replace it with some other A.E. photo from Commons, or simply unprotect my page. It has been a few months, I'm pretty sure I learned my lesson. Come on, please? I didn't do anything bad in the last few months :) --[[User:Bormalagurski|<font color="#003399">'''serbiana'''</font>]] [[Yugoslavia|'''-''']] [[User_talk:Bormalagurski|<font color="#A61022">'''talk'''</font>]] 23:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
+== Arbitration request on Kosovo ==
+Dear Editor, since you have been involved in editing the [[Kosovo]] article in the last months, and that article has been the subject of long ongoing edit wars, your name is listed in the [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration|Request for Arbitration]] on this matter. You can make a statement here: [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Kosovo]]. Due to the large number of editors involved, however, I would to ask you to keep your statement concise and to the point. If you feel you have not been substantially involved in the disputes surrounding the [[Kosovo]] article, please do not remove your name from the Arbitration request, but rather make a short statement there explaining why you feel you have not been involved enough to be part it. To understand my reasons for requesting Arbitration, please read my statement on the Requests for Arbitration page. Best regards, [[User:Reinoutr|Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr)]] 10:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)