Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:32, 18 August 2007

Archives: --1-- --2--

Archives

July 2007 August 2007

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Organization of British ex-Muslims

The organization has 25 founding members and an unknown number of additional members. It is not significant enough to warrant a section on the Islam in the United Kingdom page. If you were to add a section for every group with so few members or impact on the general British Muslim population the article would be endless.

If such a section is added to the Islam in the United Kingdom article then equally sections on apostacy, scularism and athiesm added to the British Jews article and Church of England article. Please do not try to threaten me or taint the Misplaced Pages project with your Athiest extremist point of view.

Articles that are counterparts on the same subject such as Religion do matter. Misplaced Pages cannot be seen to be or actually be bias as it will destory the credibility of the whole project. While this organization has been heralded in the media its impact on the actual British Muslim community has been neglible as its numbers suggest. The Sufi Muslim Council also is notable but it does not have its own section and is only mentioned in the Political organisations and pressure groups section. Feel free to add the Organization of British ex-Muslims to the latter section.

I do not have the verifiable data or information on apostacy, scularism and athiesm in the Jewish and Christian communities of Britain and would not attempt to make the needed and factual changes without doing so.

Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan

Sorry, I'm passing on this one: I don't know enough about the image to know whether it's public domain, otherwise fair use, or something we'd need permission for. Vicki Rosenzweig 15:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

An article that may be of particular interest to you

I would suggest you read this. The bottom will be of particular interest to you. 112a873754 20:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

thanks --Matt57 01:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: A.Z.

You need to alert A.Z. to the fact that you have removed his remarks. I would highly recommend that you revert your removals altogether; leave it to the bureaucrats to ignore valueless commentary. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think that my commentary is valueless? A.Z. 04:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

RfA is a place for community members to discuss the merits of the candidates; its existence and its daily proceedings in which candidates are frequently rejected contradict your premise. You are basically rejecting the validity of the process, and while that is certainly a defensible position, we've already accepted the process as valid for the purpose of this RfA, so your commentary is of little use to us in that venue. A better place to take your ideas would be Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators or WT:RFA. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

What does this mean? And this? A.Z. 04:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Matt, I'm reverting all of this. The 'crats have indicated numerous times that what is and isn't an invalid vote is not for individuals in the community to decide. You can only strike votes of indefinitely blocked users, and indent votes of SPAs, likely socks, etc. Everything else just leave evidence of and let the 'crats decide how much weight to give it.--Chaser - T 04:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I already reverted most of it. Another user also reverted one of the edits. A.Z. 04:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Please don't do that again. Mackensen (talk) 04:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree that you should revert your removals. Bureaucrats can make those calls on their own. It is not up to you (or any other editor) to remove good faith opinions at RFA, thanks. RxS 04:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC) (and I see they've been reverted)

Ok its all been reverted now by the time I came back. What kind of vote was that anyway? "Everyone should be an administrator"? Thats making a joke out of the whole RfA thing. Anyway, if some admins think it should stay I guess whatever you guys wanna do. You have to admit, the closing admins sometimes dont read all the votes, so the end effect of this kind of vote could effect the voting process wrongly. Again I repeat, A.Z. made a joke out of the RfA process. What if I went around and did a "Keep" on all AfD's saying "All article should be be kept". Thats an invalid vote (or whatever you want to call it) and so it was in this case too. --Matt57 05:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

In that case, make a note of it, with a link to his contribution log or a few examples. But deciding whether or not a vote is valid takes us down a slippery slope no one wants to see the bottom of. You can still add comments on voting behavior to these live RFAs.--Chaser - T 05:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Your claim that the closing bureaucrats don't read all the discussion is a pretty serious one, what's the basis for it? Christopher Parham (talk) 05:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this vote appropriate to flood all the RfA's, or does his viewpoint belong on "Village Proposals"? Are "votes" not meant to be meaningful? What if I said "Oppose, no one should be an admin" - is that acceptable too? I'm surprised to see you guys going along with him. It effects the 75% number, does it not? And does that number not effect the closing admin's judgement at all? This wasa frivolous vote and should have been removed. I repeat, its making a joke out of the RfA process. --Matt57 05:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Try this and add that previously he voted support without any explanation. I don't know how much weight is given to those; probably less in close calls. The current comments you left are just naked assertions without evidence.--Chaser - T 05:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not strictly a vote and the closing bureaucrat has some leeway when evaluating an RFA. Now, how much leeway is hotly contested these days but they do have enough to toss out obvious joke/troll comments. Whatever you might think of the concept that everyone should be an admin I bet you'd find some support for that here and there so it's not so outrageous that it make it invalid. Jimbo may even have some sympathy for the thought. Anyway, it's best to let everyone speaking in good faith to have their say...a bureaucrat will work it out one way or another. RxS 05:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If he's allowed to give frivolous support votes like this, I should be allowed to give similiar oppose votes, which I have done now to balance the numbers out. Each point on that list is supposed to be a reason of support or opposition specific to that candidate, and not "Today's saturday so everyone's getting a Support from me". --Matt57 05:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If you're looking for balance, that's not the right way of doing it. Typical passage rate is 75%, so one oppose cancels three support votes. Please reconsider that protest vote.--Chaser - T 05:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

How about I give you the same reply you gave to me: The 'crats have indicated numerous times that what is and isn't an invalid vote is not for individuals in the community to decide. You can only strike votes of indefinitely blocked users, and indent votes of SPAs, likely socks, etc. Everything else just leave evidence of and let the 'crats decide how much weight to give it.. Sorry, I'm not taking it back. If you want to leave a comment at the bottom, thats up to you. This is all because of immature Misplaced Pages policies. Policies should reject and delete votes like this that turn the process into a joke. That includes sockpuppets by the way, of which I've seen enough appearing on AfD's to pollute the whole page and yet, policies are angelic enough to let them do that. --Matt57 05:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, just to make it more clear: do you see the inconsistency? When I said this is effecting the numbers, you said "numbers dont matter". When I made the oppose vote, you came and said "numbers do matter, please reconsider". Do you see that you're not applying your own standards to me? Please reflect. --Matt57 05:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right.--Chaser - T 05:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you're doing yourself any favors here. If you think policy toward certain kinds of votes at RFA needs tuning, bring it to the talk page. Don't try and fight it out on each individual RFA...RxS 05:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll listen to your comments if you tell A.Z. the same, i.e. not to push some policy on RfA's (his policy is that everyone should be an admin, which clearly belongs on the Talk page, not on everyone's RfA page). I'm sorry, you'll have to be consistent. If you're tolerating A.Z's vote, you have to tolerate mine as well. --Matt57 05:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not caring about this issue any longer. I had to do what I had to do, i.e. balance out those frivolous votes. Maybe it will also help people think about making policies on what kind of votes should be allowed to stay on these 'vote' processes and what kind should be deleted (not struck out). In any case according to current policies I have a right to cast my vote as did A.Z.--Matt57 05:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucrats are going to ignore these kinds of votes if it's a close case, so don't worry about it. Andre (talk) 05:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hey there.

I don't usually discuss votes outside the RfA, but you do realize that since it takes about 75% support to pass a RfA, a single oppose balances out three supports?

I really don't mind opposition, but I hope you mean to oppose my RfA, not just cancel out a silly support (and, if you look at it, not all opposes are that solid either; thing pretty much balance out on their own).  :-) — Coren  06:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes I didnt meant to. Admins werent allowing me to remove the other guy's invalid vote so I had to do something myself. I cancelled it out now since you requested. --Matt57 06:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. But try to have a bit of faith in the system. Things like that do cancel out: look at the editor that goes around with opposes to everyone who dares self-nominate. There are others.

You are welcome to look at my work and feel I shouldn't get the mop yet— I actually value criticism, when it's criticism about what I did, not some random passer-by. — Coren  06:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree. Random passerby's should not be allowed to oppose or support. That was my point. When admins didnt delete the other guy's support vote, they were allowing a random passerby to spoil the process. Thats all I could do to nuetralize that spoil. We dont have policies for this thing. As expected there wont be any agreement ever, but I tried to raise this issue here.--Matt57 06:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Giggy

Dear Matt57, Could you remove your opposition to Giggy's RfA? He's a good editor and I don't see why his RfA should be the victim of a dispute between you and AZ/your opposition to AZ reasoning. So out of courtesy, could you remove your opposition to Giggy's RfA? If you choose not to, then there's nothing I can do about it. So its all up to you. Nat Tang 08:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Cant remove it, sorry. It shouldnt effect their rfa anyway, they're doing pretty good. --Matt57 13:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

From Muhammad to Elonka

Matt, I do respect your interpretation. What I ask you to suppose is that other Wikipedians might conclude one policy weighs a little heavier and another a little lighter. It's one thing to jettison WP:CENSOR and AFD the pornography articles (or compromise with those who do). I've stood very firm against that impulse - whatever topic is at hand - and if I thought that were operating with Elonka I'd be as opposed to this nomination as you are.

When I put Daniel Brandt's and Seth Finkelstein's biographies up for deletion I asked people to tip the consensus scale a bit lighter on WP:V and heavier at WP:BLP. I did my best to clarify exactly how far that would go - to give a reasoned basis for the request - and consensus did shift. I don't recall whether you agreed with me on that one or not, but you may know Daniel Brandt repaid me by adding my username to his "Hive Mind" page, which was poor sportsmanship to say the least. But I don't regret asking the community to weigh that balance. And I don't think I was breaking WP:V on that scale.

At Joan of Arc (who in some odd ways is a good parallel to Muhammad when you think about it) I dealt with an opposite challenge: a strongly Catholic POV dominated the article throughout, and as a reflection of that nearly all of the images were devotional portraits when I began editing. That really didn't convey very much to the reader because the only actual portrait she sat for was lost in the fifteenth century. So I found a photo of the house where she was born (it still stands) and a period map of France and the ruin of the castle where she met the king of France, a fortification from one of her battles, an actual portrait of the king she crowned, and a photo of the cathedral where the coronation took place. I even added an image of her signature. And that approach - I am absolutely certain - was more informative and more NPOV. That page page got featured in part through those efforts so maybe I'm onto something? Durova 23:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you're having to deal with criticism of Elonka. I feel you shouldnt. You should nominate and let her go. People who deserve to be an admin find it no problem defending themselves at an RfA (well first they dont let people find anything to criticize about). Then if she can be a good admin, believe me its her who should be writing the responses you wrote above. Instead if you look at her RfA, she's not responding to people much as if she doesnt care. Not caring is what I saw at the Kaab article too. She wanted her way, thats it. Good admins work with people and listen and talk to them and show a genuine concern. That was exceptional stuff then you did at the Joan of Arc, you went out of your way literally to get the pictures and improve the article. We already had the images for Kaaba. The last thing we needed is something coming and trying to get those images out and as Beit Or put it so succintly: "An admin should know better than arguing for the removal of images as Elonka did on Talk:Kaaba. The community cannot entrust the tools to an editor for whom someone's sentiments trump policy.", but really you shouldnt feel you have to defend Elonka. Its she who should stand up for everything she's done and said. Its possible to have a great sense of judgement and rationale. Here's one RfA that passed with flying colors recently. If you look at this user's contribs, she has an excellent sense of judgement and rationale and I supported her, so its not that I'm hammering everyone. So again, these were historic images like no other and in short, policy was overwhelmingly in favour of keeping the images. CENSOR applies very strongly. UNDUE applies very weak. Having images of Muhammad around is now not a minority affair anyway because of Muhammad cartoons being printed everywhere. So UNDUE applies very weak.

Its all there on her talk page. If she becomes an admin, you can be sure as one user put it, she's one admin that might need to be de-sysopped and therefore, why go through the trouble. She's a good editor and all, but being an admin requires solid rational thinking in the right direction. Thats not what I saw happening in Kaaba. It was all wrong. She was trying to make people happy I think and it back fired. One should do the right thing, no matter what. --Matt57 01:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Tell you what? I'm serious about the offer I made in my conomination. I hope I never need to make good on it and I don't think I will, but bear it in mind. Regards, Durova 15:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If you had to make that kind of safety route just in case, its not safe. A person should be an admin if no one could even dream of them getting an rfc. --Matt57 01:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Tabercil

I notice you did strike your oppose to Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Giggy. Could you also do so for Tabercil? It probably won't affect him passing, but it will make the difference between merely passing, and passing unanimously, which, I humbly submit, might be a nice thing. --AnonEMouse 13:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Matt57 13:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! --AnonEMouse 13:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Top level article

Hi there. Can you tell me what a 'top level article' is and where I can find policy on top level articles in Misplaced Pages, especially as regards categorisation ? TIA. MP 15:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You still haven't answered the question. I have been trying to clear up the Islam category page for a while and have only just got round to completing that task. The articles that I have kept, I chose very judiciously. MP 15:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I've seen that WP page and it says nothing about which articles should be placed in the top level category page. The only reason I want List of Islamic terms in Arabic in the Islam cat page is that it is one of the main things that users of WP will want to look at; exactly the same argument goes for Portal:Islam. Using your argument, if the former is removed, then so should the latter. MP 15:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If you think its justified, sounds good to me. --Matt57 01:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Elonka's RfA

You seem pretty solidly against Elonka's adminship and this is of course perfectly fine. However, this is going way overboard. Please assume good faith and remember to keep a cool head when expressing your thoughts. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 19:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That advice came from the heart. If she really did say sorry to people, it would all be over. She should have went for a Editor review before standing up for another RfA to make sure she was in the right place before doing an rfa, especially that she'd had problems before. I think she just doesnt care. If she did, she would make amends. --Matt57 01:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I reverted that last addition. This is completely uncalled for. A couple of editors have already told you to cool down. As I said, I don't mind you opposing Elonka but civility is paramount and you seem to have lost track of it. Pascal.Tesson 02:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I most certainly will not get into an edit war over this. But I stand by my initial evaluation that your tone on Elonka's RfA is grossly inappropriate and that your point could be made without it. Pascal.Tesson 03:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Kirbytime sock?

Hi Matt, can you please use your Kirby nose and have a sniff at this dude? Prester John 00:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Kirby nose, hehe. Kirbytime wasnt able to do a cleanup job like that one. If it involves actually writing anything, he couldnt have done that. But its a sock of someone alright. The way he removed a link to Allegations of Israeli apartheid and replaced it with Anti-Arabism, I would have reverted his edit on the basis of just that. Keep talking to him. Maybe he's reverting to someone else's earlier version. --Matt57 01:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

regarding edits to Islam/suicide articles

WorldNetDaily is not a reliable source, and certainly not a reliable source for attributing statements to the Pentagon. ITAQALLAH 18:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

That article is mostly OR. This has a video of a sheikh saying suicide bombings are OK in Islam. Also someone who is being supported by tax dollars essentially says the same thing here. Arrow740 20:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

and there are plenty of others- the majority, in fact- who say otherwise. regardless, are you claiming that WND is a reliable source or not? ITAQALLAH 21:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

For criticism, yes. For statements of fact, generally not. A critic's statements about facts used to further an argument would fall in the former category. Arrow740 21:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

extremist, unscholarly sources aren't "reliable sources" for "criticism". ITAQALLAH 21:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you are labeling them as such indicates that they are probably notable critics. Arrow740 22:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Matt57

Hello. I am RS2007. Why don't you want to became the administrator? I looked at your contributions and I think you have done a great job. Best of luck! RS2007 13:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Chigs image

I don't have the second image. It was uploaded by User:Q Original, not by me. Anyway: User:Matthew (coincidence of your names is... fascinating) first broke 3RRR.LexingtonDark 11:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Stanley Dunin edit

In this edit, where you remove information for not having sources, you actually removed several sources.

• "The paper was first presented at the ARS 17th Annual Meeting and Space Flight Exposition in Los Angeles, in November 1962, and published in the AIAA Journal in March 1964." That's a source, the AIAA Journal, March 1964.
• was an embedded link. That's another source. (It's apparently moved to , looking at the Internet Archive.) --AnonEMouse 14:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone who presents a paper in that journal is notable. The other link has nothing on Dunin. --Matt57 15:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not my point; you'll notice I didn't say a word about whether the subject is notable or not. If you believe the person isn't notable enough for an article, the way to show that is to nominate the article for deletion, not to delete information from their article. Not every bit of information in an article has to individually suffice to make the person in the article notable or be deleted, merely the sum of it. The second link seems to be referring to his company. --AnonEMouse 15:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, my point is that you deleted sources from the article. Please restore them, and the sourced information. --AnonEMouse 15:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

No, the right way is to first place a {{notability}} tag in an article, so people are given some time to establish notability if it exists. You're an admin. How come you dont know this? We need multiple 3rd party non-trivial reliable sources in order for the article to stay. I want to give people the time to find those sources. --Matt57 15:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing of importance to restore there. --Matt57 15:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

With respect, there is no such tag in the article. And it doesn't seem appropriate to remove those sources that do exist, if your goal is to encourage people to find more. --AnonEMouse 15:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm waiting for Elonka to respond about all this. --Matt57 15:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I suspected it might be that, but didn't want to assume bad faith. This should be about the article, not about your relations with any particular editor. Deleting information in order to get a specific editor to respond is called disrupting the encyclopedia to make a point. If you want Elonka to respond, post on her talk page, not on an encyclopedia article. Reverting, and cautioning you to be more careful. If you want to delete unsourced content, don't delete the sources along with it. --AnonEMouse 15:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

?? What are you doing? You didnt have to restore all the information. You're being disruptive by putting back unsourced information. Please dont do that again. Dont put back unsourced OR back into the article. --Matt57 16:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You think its okay to create 8 new articles about my family members and write about what they do in their spare time and who they married and how many kids they had and where they worked? --Matt57 16:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I never said a word about your family members, and don't intend to, since I don't know who you are. If you're William Wales or Marlon Jackson then having 8 articles about your family members would be easily appropriate. If you're asking me about Stanley Dunin specifically, I'm not sure if he meets Misplaced Pages:Notability (people). But it's not a speedy delete, there's certainly some assertion of notability. However that wasn't my point, which was deletion of sourced information. --AnonEMouse 18:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's much more careful. --AnonEMouse 18:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Aol Vandal

Where did you found that His excellency was the parent sock of the AOL vandal that has been vandalizing the same Canadian Conservative-opponent politician articles for several weeks. If it's the case, then this is important for sock reports. I was trying to found the main puppeteer for weeks. I've tought that User:Aol Worker was the main puppet. Thanks again.--JForget 23:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I was guessing from the fact that he's had other IP's in virginia before () and the way he suddenly comes and edits Islam related articles. If that politician has nothing to do with Islam, it might be someone else. But you're the head quarters may be in the same location while the sock puppet might be in a different location.--Matt57 23:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for taking the time to participate at the discussion in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Misplaced Pages project. I listened carefully to all concerns, and will do my best to incorporate all of the constructive advice that I received, into my future actions on Misplaced Pages. Best wishes, Elonka 03:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Dunin Articles - Vanity?

Hey, don't gut the articles. You can try AfD on some of the weakest ones. Also, run Google searches and see if other references exist. If they do, add them in good faith. Your opinion will carry a lot more weight if you do it the way I suggest. You reputation is a lot more important than whether these articles survive or not. Jehochman 03:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jeho, thanks, I'm waiting for Elonka's response on this before doing anything further. I did do a search for Antonin Dunin and found nothing on Google except references from Elonka. Yes I'll definitely try my best to justify inclusion before afd'ing any article because if people can find references easily, it'll reflect badly on the AfD. On many articles, I've not seen any non-trivial 3prd party references so lets see if anyone can find them. If they can be included, the unsourced OR has to go in any case. thanks for checking. --Matt57 03:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I will support AfD on at least two of these articles if things remain as they are today. It's probably better to leave in all the content if AfD is the solution. If AfD fails, then they could be stubbed. Better to do that after everyone has a chance to look and a consensus emerges. Jehochman 03:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh, thanks, yea, I'll deal with one article at a time, giving it plenty of time. Alright then, I'll look into leaving the content back before Afd'ing, if thats the right thing to do. I'll ask people around who have edited the articles in any way if they can find more sources. --Matt57 03:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

One more thing: article leads don't need to be referenced (but can be). The lead summarizes the rest of the article. If the lead says something that is explained later on with a references, that is sufficient. Jehochman 06:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

thanks, got it. --Matt57 12:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Abuse of Power

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Edina_Lekovic

Edina Lekovic

Since your article was substantially different, you may wish to simply talk to SV about having it undeleted rather than go through the entire DRV process. When in doubt, it makes more sense to talk to deleting admins before going through lengthy process. JoshuaZ 15:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I dont know if she'll listen to me but ok then I'll try. --Matt57 17:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I supported you at the DRV, but note that Image:Edina Lekovic-screenshot from CNN.jpg is almost certainly not Fair Use; it's just a picture to show what she looks like, and since she is living, and not reclusive, even showing up to give speeches and such, a free image clearly can be created. Have you tried just emailing her and asking for one? Misplaced Pages:Requesting copyright permission is the official page, but User:Videmus Omnia/Requesting free content is advice from someone who is excellent at it. --AnonEMouse 17:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that. --Matt57 18:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Edina_Lekovic-screenshot_from_CNN.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Edina_Lekovic-screenshot_from_CNN.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Misplaced Pages articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia 18:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Edina Lekovic-screenshot from CNN.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Edina Lekovic-screenshot from CNN.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" 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. BetacommandBot 01:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahmed Yassin

Are you talking about removing "Hamas is a terrorist organization" or "Antisemitism"? There are no sources for "Antisemitism".Bless sins 01:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Your current campaign

Ok, you made your point (rabidly) on the RfA. Going around decimating articles claiming they're all unreferenced and original research is getting a bit pointy, don't you think? Please stop and consider that your actions aren't doing anything to help the project. Shell 00:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Please stop, Matt57. You are applying the wrong standards. Most of these people are not living, so the standard for including facts is "reference-able" not "referenced." - Jehochman 01:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

So can I make up a page for a dead "John Tree" and put in OR there? I dont think so, right? You guys need to stop being bodyguards of Elonka or her family articles.

Now: do you have any problems with the OR I deleted at Antoni Dunin? If so, I'll see you there on the talk pages. --Matt57 01:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope - notice I didn't revert that because I don't believe the information was contained in the references in that case. I'm working on some research atm to see if any references for that information can be found - things from Poland before WWII can be difficult at best though :( Shell 01:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

What information did you bring back that was mentioned in the references? Make sure you guys read WP:V:

Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

So, dont bring in anything without providing a reference. If its difficult to find information on anything, it will be deleted. --Matt57 01:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted after discussion, no? ~ Riana ⁂ 02:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I've put in tags for some time now in some of the articles and no one came to put in references. Elonka too choose to completely ignore me when I asked her about what should be done about these articles she made. Its time for the articles or the OR to go. --Matt57 02:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing requirements

Matt, let me stress the following points:

1. Our policy does not require inline citation. It is totally acceptable to list the sources used to write the article at the end of it. Nowhere does it say each statement has to be individually referenced, just that there must be a source for it.
2. Print references are just as good as online ones. The fact that you are unable at this moment to look them up and read them is immaterial. Also, foreign language sources are acceptable even if you cannot understand the language they are in.

Please bear these points in mind which going about your aggressive campaign. WjBscribe 02:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I dont care if you're going to make allegations about my 'campaign'. So is your action to defend her articles needlessly a campaign (in fact you campaigned for her by creating her RfA). On to more important things: WP:V says if anything is challenged, it may be removed. You read that, right? Here you go again:

Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

There. What are the references saying? Nothing that we can see. The editor who put them in (Elonka) refuses to respond to my questions. I have no choice but to remove them as dubious, unreliable and most of all unverifiable. --Matt57 02:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't say that those reliable sources have to be part of an inline citation. They can be validly added to the end of an article and the fact that you are unable at present to obtain a copy of the sources does not make then "unverifiable". Clearly all those publications could be obtained and checked for the information, therefore they are acceptable sources. WjBscribe 02:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

So what if I made an article on "Johny Loonytree" and put a reference that said "Moon magazine 1432, issue #451" - what if I made a false reference, or a reference that really didnt talk much about Loonytee? --Matt57 02:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I could say "there is no such reference", but not without bothering to check first. Shell 02:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt, I have made no false references, please do not accuse me of such. --Elonka 02:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ive asked you many times about what we should do about your family articles - why did you not respond before Elonka? What do the references say? If you have the references, why dont you put them in? --Matt57 02:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I did not accuse you of false references. AGF. --Matt57 02:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

So which sources reliability are you challenging? Can you give some details? Right now, all I see is you blindly removing content without bothering to check references. And for the record, your deletions showed up on the IRC vandal bot as possible vandalism, which got me looking - seeing your contribs and user page made me look further. Shell 02:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt, as I've said multiple times, I am no longer involved in the editing of those articles. I have read them, and to my knowledge the information that is in those articles is both true and sourced. If you have a specific question about a specific fact, you are welcome to ask me, but right now you just seem to be wholesale deleting large chunks of information, which does not strike me as acting in good faith. I have also been concerned by the way that you seem to get focused on articles related to me, to the exclusion of anything else on Misplaced Pages. I recommend that you concentrate on working on multiple articles, not just Elonka-related ones. Other than that, I am not going to get involved. --Elonka 02:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes well, you dont have to do anything here. Your friends are willing to do anything to save your family articles. WP COI says, people cant put in information about their family members and 3rd party reliable sites must be provided. Thats the reply for you too, Shell. Elonka.com is not a reliable source for articles about Elonka's dad and mom. WP:COI says we need reliable 3rd party references. Since this was originally a COI issue where she wrote articles about her mom and dad and gave references from her personal site, why did you bring in back these invalid contestable contentious sources that violate WP:COI? --Matt57 02:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, why dont you start by telling me first why you didnt respond to my queries on your talk page for more than a week? And since you said I can ask you about any specific fact, all the articles are full of unreferenced unverifiable information. Why did you not put in these 3rd party references? Please start with Antoni Dunin. Rereferences to Elonka.com will have to go as per WP:COI. Every other statement will have to be referenced by 3rd party sources or I will remove it. --Matt57 02:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, primary sources are perfectly acceptable for factual information. 3rd party sources have been added for claims outside of birth/death/children/birthplace factual type things. I also removed a number of statements from Antoni Dunin that were not basic fact - I'm sure Elonka knows where her grandfather was when he died, but I left that out for the time being. You also have to consider the time period and location you're dealing with here - you do know what happened in Poland to royal families and many others during WWII? As a side note, why are you so interested in Elonka's involvement if you feel the COI is so great a problem? Shell 03:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll ask for an RfC then. --Matt57 03:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Since you've now taken to using sockpuppet accounts to avoid the WP:3RR, I've taken the issue to ANI in the hopes of having some outside editors look at the situation. Please try continuing dispute resolution and discussing the issues instead of using methods that are only going to cause problems. Shell 04:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Great, lol. Thats not my sock puppet. --Matt57 04:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for 48 hours for violation of the three-revert rule on Antoni Dunin and various other articles through the use of obvious sockpuppets, MiiMiiMiiM and MiiMiiM. You may contest this block with {{unblock|your reason here...}}.--Chaser - T 04:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request

Y

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): I have unblocked you pending the result of the checkuser request on two conditions. First is that you don't edit the disputed articles until the RFCU comes back. Second is that you don't accuse anyone (long-respected sysops would be a good example) of being socks until the checkuser comes back. I struck my comments above as a show of good faith and as an effort to hold myself to the same standard. Request handled by: Chaser - T 04:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser cleared you. I also added a note to that effect in your block log. Cheers.--Chaser - T 03:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Matt57 03:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Now see Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kirbytime.Proabivouac 03:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Another sock to block

MiiMiis (talk · contribs) - Please someone do a checkuser, this is His excellency for sure. --Matt57 04:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I must concur that this looks like a set-up; see . That's not a credible slip-up.Proabivouac 04:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks P.! Good we got a Checkuser filed on me. Another sock of the id. His Excellency. Sure, I can wait until the CU results are out. I'm not editing a lot here anyway nowdays. Whoever you socks are, thanks for the laughs. --Matt57 04:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Chaser thanks for the unblock. Sure I'll wait for the RFCU results, I'm not in a hurry for those articles. As for my allegations I felt I was being attacked by everyone so I wondered whose sock it was and I've had problems with some of those editors, hence my suspicion. Now I see it was a sock puppet of David york which I suspected at first belonged to SlimVirgin because it came right around her edits. Ok well I retracted my comments. All these were just socks of previously banned users, not of any established users, I'm pretty sure now. --Matt57 05:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for your cordiality.--Chaser - T 05:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Chaser. Can't blame you for making what seemed at first glance like an obvious call. Matt57 may seem a little monomaniacal on the Dunin articles (so he's been accused,) but in my experience, he's a lawful user and a straight shooter who would never play these kinds of games.

Matt57, neither Elonka, SlimVirgin nor Shell Kinney would have set you up like this. I'd guess WP has been pwnd once again by His excellency. We may find out soon enough.Proabivouac 05:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Crossing fingers

Matt, I sincerely hope the checkuser unearths a banned sockpuppeteer and clears you. I also hope this incident prompts you to reconsider your recent decisions. If someone did exploit this situation to get you blocked, they were able to succeed only because your actual edits made the socks look plausible. This doesn't mean you deserved that; far from it. Disruptive editors have occasionally impersonated me also. The best defense is to conduct oneself in a way that no one takes the hoax seriously.

As you know, I conominated Elonka's RFA and my input at the Muhammad images mediation reached a similar evaluation to hers. If that affects my opinions here it's purely unintentional. I have no desire to attack you. You're a good editor and once in a while anybody can get carried away. I'm looking for a helpful and nonconfrontational way to express that something went off track here and the important thing is to move in the right direction again. Durova 05:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Well yes all I care about is the Elonka articles. I filed an RfC. I dont mind the block or Checkuser, stuff happens. Infact this has put me in a good light and will make an admin think twice before blocking me next time so what happened was the opposite of what the sock puppet (or online terrorist more accurately) wanted to happen. And I cant smile all the time if there's 10 people rushing in to revert my edits at Elonka's articles. They feel they have to defend their friend. Thats all there is to it. If it was any other article, no one would have bothered. As for me, I want to make sure unreferenced stuff doesnt stay in. Lets see what the RfC says. --Matt57 15:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt, you might want to modify, "Articles to clean up for Elonka" - it's considered poor form to single out editors from your userpage like this.Proabivouac 06:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the title. --Matt57 11:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

My Signature

I dont agree with your assessment of my signature as "little too loud". I have read the policy & i dont find anything in my signature which violates it. Thanks. -- Đõc §aмέέЯ  02:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Concerns

Matt, I know I'm not in the best position to express this. My motives might be called into question, which is why I'm not acting. I do want you to know that more than one editor has contacted me privately - not knowing that others had done the same - and discussed the possibility of a user conduct WP:RFC on you. I will not initiate such an action. If one does open I may certify that I attempted to resolve the dispute and failed (noting the level of my own involvement, of course). I hope no such measure becomes necessary. You deserve to be aware that it's under discussion. Durova 17:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Repeating here, I dont know what those concerns/disputes are, who the editors are and where they contacted me to solve the problem and failed. --Matt57 18:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt, I treat e-mail as confidential by default. Look through the recent posts to this talk and related pages - they're among the names. If I thought these were unfair opinions I would discourage them and post in your support if RFC were to open. I freely acknowledge the potential for unintentional bias in my analysis. Yet, Matt, your actions and comments appear to proceed from an assumption that the people who disagree with you are acting out of bias. I see too many recent posts from established editors whose opinions I respect. Basically, please slow down and let the dispute resolution process address this. Durova 22:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)