Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:18, 23 April 2008

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 / /Archive 13 / /Archive 14 / /Archive 15 / /Archive 16 / /Archive 17 / /Archive 18 / /Archive 19

Please add new comments below.

Muhammad

Hi ChrisO,

I am afraid I do not agree with this change because they seem to say two different things. --Be happy!! (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wonder about that, because I'm looking at the cited page of Nigosian's book and it says nothing about the Qu'ran being the "most credible" source. The book actually says that the Qu'ran says very little about Muhammad. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The Qur'an is of course much more reliable than the traditions. Welch in Encyclopedia of Islam says:"By far the most trustworthy source, but at the same time the most difficult to utilise as a historical source, is the Ḳurʾān , most if not all of which is contemporary with the life of Muhammad."--Be happy!! (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with your view, but as I said, the cited book doesn't say what the line in question stated. I've updated the reference so that the source matches what the line says. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the edit now sourced to the above mentioned source as I think it is more accurate. Hope you don't mind :) --Be happy!! (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed

Yes-to all namespaces, see Misplaced Pages:RFAR#Request_for_clarification_re_Macedonia_case. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Ancient Rome Labelled Map Cestius

A tag has been placed on Template:Ancient Rome Labelled Map Cestius requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Replacement of deleted image / image vandalism

This image which was deleted after this discussion has been replaced with this (the exact same image). The user (Harry Barrow) who replaced the deleted image took part in the discussion. He is now using the image to vandalise Barack Obama, claiming that Obama is a Kenyan native. He is also placing the image into Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. Your advice and help in this matter would be appreciated. Thanks! →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The user issued me this warning. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

There was no consensus nor any basis to delete the image, so its deletion was unlawful and abuse of deletion tools in order to censor the article. We already discussed this ad nauseam, and the image is included in the two articles following a consensus. If you don't like it, please discuss at the talk page. Harry Barrow (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've re-deleted it. If you upload it again, you will be blocked per WP:COPY#Copyright violations. You can consider this fair warning. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

He uploaded it again, so he's been blocked for a week. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully he'll learn to direct that energy and tenacity into improving the project. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it, to be honest; he seems to be a fairly blatant POV-pusher. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

True. But, I do appreciate your help. Thanks again and keep up the great work. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Please keep an eye open for any reappearances of the image, and let me know if you spot any! -- ChrisO (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Will do. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again: Image:Barack-obama-somali-elder-clothing.jpg. →Wordbuilder (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Darko Trifunovic article

Hi, I very much appreciate increased third party involvement in this article. Especially from admins. However, I believe that the current version of the article is breaking WP:BLP and should either be reverted to or deleted per WP:SD. Here is why:

• The subtitle "Srebrenica genocide denial" is a weasel word, specifically used to tarnish Trifunovic.
• the text states that Trifunovic is the "author" of the report when the report actually states that it was "prepared" by Darko Trifunovic, it is therefore not clear what role he played in chosing its content.
• the text misrepresents the report in saying that it states that "only about 100 Bosnian soldiers were killed" while in fact what the report is saying is that about "2,000" Bosnian Muslim men were killed, mainly in combat, and that about 100 Muslim Soldiers were summarily executed (se p 33 of the http).
• nowhere does the report bring up the issue of whether what happened was genocide or not. Please remember that according to the ICTY, genocide is not a matter of numbers killed.
• the current text does not provide any rebuttal of the accusation.

Please consider WP:BLP, especially the part stating "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Misplaced Pages:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals" in light of my arguments above. Regards, Osli73 (talk) 09:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for spending time and effort to greatly improve the article. I feel it is now well sourced and presents the controversies in a balanced and fair manner. Cheers Osli73 (talk) 01:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cchr flyer.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Cchr flyer.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rossrs (talk) 13:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:NC

I deleted part of a recent addition you made. Not that it couldn't be right, but that the example isn't good. The China/PRC/ROC thing has been under dispute for so long that the example would never/doesn't now have consensus, in and of itself. It might be better served with a Somalia/Somaliland or Burma/Myanmar example. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

29 years.

That was a vandalism-only account, all eleven edits before the block were vandalism (as were the four after it). I would have blocked indefinitely, if not for 29 years (though I'm willing to unblock before then, if Nininvch is willing to contribute constructively). · AndonicO 18:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"Prominent"

The WP:PEACOCK page and the list of words to avoid does not include "prominent" for reasons that should be plainly apparent. Please read the policies and guidelines you try to employ in wikistalking me before employing them. --Leifern (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The list of terms isn't meant to be all-inclusive, but the basic principles certainly are. Note in particular the "show, don't tell" principle and the advice to avoid peacock terms in the lede. Also, I'm not wikistalking you, but I do try to clean up after problem users. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Start with yourself and stay away from me. --Leifern (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should try to follow Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, then there wouldn't be any need to clean up after you. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, in the last few hours you've accused me of making arguments I didn't make, of original research when the original research came from you, using peacock words when I didn't, you've wikistalked me, and now you're accusing me of not following WP policies and guidelines? --Leifern (talk) 19:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you did follow WP policies and guidelines you wouldn't have reverted to a version of Pallywood that was patently POV and sourced to blogs, and you wouldn't have attempted to misquote cited sources. Come on, you know better than that - or you should do, at least. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's quite clear that Leifern has not completely understood the principle of neutrality. Most of his editing seems to be pushing pro-Israeli views. Babiel (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not the pro-Israeli views that are the problem, it's the noncompliance with WP policies. Editors from any point of view are very welcome, but policies such as the neutral point of view policy and the ban on original research are non-negotiable requirements. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. That was what I meant when I said he has not completely understood the principle of neutrality. Babiel (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

He's been an editor for a long time, so he certainly knows about the principle, but it would seem that he regards it as merely optional. That's mistaken, of course, as it's a fundamental pillar of Misplaced Pages. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, thank you for your messages. I am not a new user and have before edited pages that were incorrect in their assertions, or incomplete. I wish I new how to message you directly. I corrected the manner in which I used the blogs and personally published sources. This time, I used them in conjunction with more acceptable sources, and used them as citations for times when the term has been used by blogs and the non-traditional media. That is perfectly acceptable as a manner of citation and should not be removed. Since the term is one that is used mostly online, it is only reasonable that people be aware of its use and given prominent sources of such. As for the original research issue, it would be more proper to say citation needed than to remove all changes I have made. (I have a citation and am adding it.) There is news regarding this issue that should be included, and when you remove large amounts of editing, you're also reverting back to a pretty non-neutral (and misleading due to lack of information) article. Danielleb32 (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that type of research is specifically prohibited from inclusion in Misplaced Pages articles, though it might be acceptable outside Misplaced Pages. Please see WP:NEO: "An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy)." -- ChrisO (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It's NOT a personal observation. I have a source for citation, which I would place if you wouldn't keep removing ALL edits, reverting the article back to a biased and incomplete piece of dribble. I'm glad that you're an administrator, but I challenge your supposed neutrality given that every time you revert the article, you remove the latest news and you present Pallywood as some sort of ridiculous conspiracy theory that is unverified. You can imply that you'll ban me, and that's fine. Just know, that I am aware of your unfair bias that you're imposing and am going to challenge it. I tried to include all sides, including your continued desire to have the quote from the Jpost stating that it's pro-Israeli watchdogs, even though it's a misrepresentation of the article. The article states that that video was used by pro-Israeli watchdogs, not that the term is the exclusive purvey of pro-Israeli watchdogs. I am currently getting a third opinion and will pursue this to mediation because I allowing misinformation to continue in unconscionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielleb32 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

What is your source for citation? It would help if you can provide it here, so that we can discuss whether or not it meets the sourcing requirements. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Request clarification re Obama-in-Somali-garb image

I would appreciate a response clarifying your answer to my question regarding fair usehere. Thanks. Andyvphil (talk) 03:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hallooo! Anybody home? Please weigh in here: I'm saying things I'd like you to respond to. Andyvphil (talk) 23:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Bible Software

Thanks for the speedy of the bundled articles. Before I take the rest of them to AfD (I didn't want to do too many in case someone decided sub-sub-sub stubs were notable) is there anyway you can tell me whether any of the still existing articles at Bible software (my prod was just reverted) that SirLogic added are also re-creations to save an AfD? Thanks!

They don't appear to be. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, just didn't want to clutter AfD if it wasn't necessary to do so. TRAVELLINGCARI_{Tell me yours} 20:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Countries of Europe

Is there something wrong? 16@r (talk) 22:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread that as vandalism! Self-reverted. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Because They Hate

I'm not familiar with the formulation history of Misplaced Pages:Notability (books), but this could be a situation the rules do not address adequately. Obviously if comics or sudoku books are often best sellers, these don't deserve their own articles. Perhaps (I really don't know) Because They Hate is similarly one of many garbage books feeding a hungry Islamophobia market (I have no idea). However, this book seems to be embraced by various american conservatives and promoted by the Heritage Foundation as an important statement, albeit one which few if any mainstream sources have bothered to either review or debunk.

When I get more familiar with WP:NB I might bring this up there. This is not the first time I've seen a book that seemed article-worthy, but fell short of the NB thresholds.

I have no fondness for low-quality permastubs. Because They Hate lacks content after over a year, and the apparent lack of reliable sources makes it unlikely this will become a good article. But if an obvious merge target did not exist, I might be arguing for a keep. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

RFD Relisting

There is no need to re-list RFD nominations. Standard practice is to leave the nomination open until an admin decides enough discussion has occurred. If no admins are willing to close it, then it just stays open. It is not unknown common for a RFD to remain open for longer than the typical week. Since all active debates are transcluded on the same page, moving a debate doesn't have any benefit and it makes it inconvenient to find the history of the debate. As such, I have reverted your move of Category:Former Wikipedians from the 01 Mrach page to the 10 March page.
By the way, if you do ever close the last debate on a particular page, please don't forget to remove that day from the transcluded list.
If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Help changing image

I see you are an administrator and have been involved with the Greater London location map. I am trying to upload this image to replace the current Greater London outline map image (this one) I have uploaded newer versions of existing images before but this one is not letting me I think it maybe protected. My newer version is only a slight alteration making the boundaries clearer between Newham and Barking and Dagenham - Ealing and Hounslow - and City of London and the City of Westminster, the missing borders always bugged me a bit so I added them myself. If you help me change it or change it for me I would be grateful. thanks Carlwev (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

University of East London photos

I see you uploaded the photos of UEL's Docklands Campus. Do you have any of the University of East London Stratford Campus too? Grunners (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't, though I live not too far from there. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Wikipedians by radio series

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedians by radio series. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Note that this is merely a procedural nom looking for a relisting for more discussion. - jc37 23:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Believe What You Like, copyright status

Do you know if anything more is known about permissions for online use of C. H. Rolph's book Believe What You Like: What happened between the Scientologists and the National Association for Mental Health? According to the page, no estate could be contacted for permission, which makes having a link to it a bit of a problem. AndroidCat (talk) 13:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed prod from Why I Left Jihad: The Root of Terrorism and the Return of Radical Islam

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Why I Left Jihad: The Root of Terrorism and the Return of Radical Islam, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion. Thanks! -- Atama 00:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Trapped in the Closet (South Park)

Thanks for all of your help today and your work on the article. Cirt (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem, you did an excellent job on it. :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't just me, it's a wiki, after all :-) -- Cirt (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hi ChrisO, long time since we talked to each other, but many things have changed since then...now I am not from province Kosovo but the Republic of Kosova. I hope the independence of Kosova puts and end to the biased editings on Kosovo articles made by Serbs. Wish you a wonderful spring :-) --Noah30 (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, AGK § 19:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

False image copyright details?

Hi,

Could you please take a look at this guy, who weither lied or has been personal photographer of Tito and Tudjman: User:Muleni. See User talk:Muleni, gallery of his images. --Ante Perkovic (talk) 11:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Something is clearly not right here - I've already identified one of his images as stolen. I'll see if I can work out where the rest have come from. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

RoM/name

I understand why you did this, but this is going nowhere. I would suggest going back to the way it was - simply removing the idiotic comments, or attempting to explain to them how the horse is dead. Either way, this new subpage doesn't do much. Not to mention that an actual question about the name (by diegopmc) was put in this subpage along with all the other crap. I really think that that should be moved to the actual talk page, and everything else on the subpage, and some things on the talk page, deleted. BalkanFever 15:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I think we'll keep things as they are. It seems to be working just as I intended it - to keep the name-obsessed nationalist idiots away from the article's talk page. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

But we are getting good contributions in that page too, which I think have a place on the actual talk page. Like the legitimate question by diegopmc, and the newest section about the Economist (lol). BalkanFever 23:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

What on earth are you doing?

Honestly, Chris, after the bad feeling that has existed between us in the past, do you really think your action was appropriate for you to take? Even if it were justified to remove (which it in no way was), could you not have come to my talk page and asked me respectfully? Or asked the opinion of someone we both respect? "Unnecessary drama?" You think you're helping to lower the temperature? IronDuke 01:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you're getting way overheated about this. Step back, calm down, have a coffee and chill out for a bit. It's not worth getting upset about so trivial a matter. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I am quite calm. If it's trivial, you don't have to delete what I wrote, correct? If you'd like to respond to the substance of what I wrote above, feel free. PS: What you wrote after you deleted my strawpoll was quite sensible. I wish you'd just stick to posts like that. IronDuke 01:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You are trying to bait me now. I wish you wouldn't. IronDuke 01:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not necessary and it causes additional unneeded drama. Please don't disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point -- ChrisO (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not disrupting anything: I think it's clear that you are, though. It would also appear that you are trying to bait me, and again, I ask you to stop. If you would like to weigh in on the propriety of an admin taunting someone he's been in disputes with in the past, I'd be interested to hear what you have to say. IronDuke 01:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You're getting upset again. Like I said, please take a break and calm down. Nobody's taunting you. Asking people to sign a "petition" isn't useful because sourcing policy isn't subject to a vote. People aren't going to sign it, and even if they did it would be a useless gesture anyway given that policy is non-negotiable. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm not upset. I am disturbed at the action you took. I have to feel like on some level you know it's wrong, but perhaps I am incorrect. I would never delete anything you wrote unless I felt it was a personal attack on me, and even then only sparingly. Chris, you may feel you are correct to delete my (entirely inoffensive) comment, but I think few outsiders would agree that two editors who have really clashed in the past should delete anything the other wrote, short of an outright personal attack. Do you remember the last time I interacted with you? I was so anxious to agree with what you said, I actually misinterpreted it. I do not want a fight with you: please, please do not start one. I don't know how else to ask you. IronDuke 02:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Just drop it, please. I'm not acting out of malice or bias against you. I've asked you to desist from posting it and I would request that you accept that I'm acting within my authority as an admin in doing so. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Number 1, for the record: if you want me to stop posting at your talk page, all you have to do is ask and I will. I want to make that clear. I have no desire to anger or upset you. But you refuse to address the issue I keep bringing up, which is that you and I have been at loggerheads in the past on more than one occasion, and that your behavior is therefore pretty inappropriate. You cannot act within your "authority as admin" in a dispute with me, however much you may wish to or however richly I may deserve it. We have been antagonists in the past. I regret that, and wish it were not so, but there is no changing that fact. If you must, you could take it to AN/I (though I guess I hope you wouldn't). However, I believe your own conduct would be scrutinized if you did so as well. Please just leave my posts alone; if they are so out of line, another neutral admin will deal with them, no? Am I asking that much? IronDuke 02:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Chris, even if it were the case that the material IronDuke was posting was clearly inappropriate (and it's not), given your many previous content and other disputes with IronDuke, you cannot "act within your authority as an admin" when it comes to IronDuke. If you think that administrative actions needs to be taken, please post your concerns in the appropriate places, where uninvolved administrators can then take action, if necessary or appropriate. Jayjg 21:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Cut it out, please, Jay. This has nothing to do with any previous disputes with IronDuke - I would have removed that line whoever posted it. I've explained my position above and I'm not interested in repeating myself yet again. Please stop stirring the pot. The issue is closed. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

As long as you understand that you cannot block IronDuke for your dubious interpretation of some unstated policy, the issue is indeed closed. If the line so obviously does not belong, then notification on the proper board will no doubt bring an uninvolved admin to deal with the issue. Jayjg 21:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Last time I looked, I don't need a permission slip from you to use my sysop bit. Now kindly drop this. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Disruption - straw votes

ChrisO, there is nothing disruptive about proposing a straw poll; but there is something disruptive about blocking such a poll and then not discussing it. Further, it is an abuse of admin privileges to threaten to block an editor because you disagree with him/her. You are not the sole interpreter of WP policy and privileges; and in this case you are quite wrong and acting belligerently. --Leifern (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I've already explained my rationale and I see no reason to explain it again to you. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

What rationale? You disagreed with my edits and then accused me of disrupting and threatened me with being blocked. --Leifern (talk) 00:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, as I told you before, you are not neutral but involved in all these issues and you should avoid closing AfD based on your analysis and/or blocking or threathening to block people who disagree with you. It don't understand that you don't understand. Ceedjee (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia naming dispute

In order to calm things down I propose that (a) you desist from revert warring and (b) discuss the issue calmly and rationaly in the talk page of the article where I have laid out the rationale and would like you to reply. I will not be editing pending your reply in talk. Thanks.Xenovatis (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProjects

No problem; we all can get carried away at times, and even though you and I and Jay and whomever may have different ideological backgrounds, we have to do our best to check them at the door and approach each article from a policy/guideline perspective. Heaven knows I'm as guilty as anyone, I just try to be a bit better each time :}. As for Judaism, I know from personal experience that there are people with interests in anti-semitism (which this hoax may be purported to be - the old antizionism/antisemitism question, which it, in and of itself is a subject of scholarly debate. /sigh - everything has to be a debate it seems ) which monitor WP:JEW as their sole watchlist, and since there is no "antisemitism" deletions board, I took the liberty of posting there. Since there is a separate Arab board from Palestine per se, I didn't see the need to drop a notice on WikiProject Islam, although that may not be a bad idea either. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I take your point, but I wonder if it really counts as "antisemitism", though? It seems to me to be a political hoax, rather than a racial or religious one. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is not classic, but there are those who take antizionsim as antisemitism, so I posted it on WP:JEW. I noticed as I was posting that I had Wp Palestine watchlisted, but not WP: Israel. Go figure :) -- Avi (talk) 23:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The Final Word (I hope)

So, as you are probably aware, in the interests of drama reduction, I decided not to contribute anything further to the Pipes RS thread, though I had every right to restore the poll you deleted. That said, I want you to know that I’m not going to tolerate anything like this from you in the future; you may not threaten to block me, you may not block on some flimsy pretext—you may not even block me for a perfectly valid reason. I know you know why this is, but for the benefit of those reading your talk page, it is because you and I have had rancorous disagreements about content in the past, and have both recommended, in arbcom cases, sanctions against each other. This is exactly the sort of situation in which admins are told they must seek a neutral admin when dealing with someone they have had such a past history with. I quote from WP:ADMIN

Misusing the tools is considered a serious issue. The administrative tools are provided to trusted users for maintenance and other tasks, and should be used with thought, since serious misuse may result in sanction or even their removal.

Common situations where avoiding tool use is often required:

• Conflict of interest/non-neutrality/content dispute — Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. With few specific exceptions where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools.

I further ask to keep away, as much as possible, from areas I am working on, and I will do the same for you. I understand that we both edit in I-P areas, so we cannot avoid seeing each other; for my part, however, I intend to ignore you when I can, and treat you respectfully and cordially when I cannot. I hope you will do the same.

I was going to ask you to affirm here that you would follow both the letter and the spirit of WP policy concerning administrator conduct and promise not to block me, but as you shrugged off a similar suggestion from a former arbitrator, I can’t imagine I would have any more luck. So, you don’t have to respond, my feelings won’t be hurt, but you do have to leave me alone and not threaten me with blocks. I can’t edit here looking over my shoulder, waiting for someone who could plausibly be thought to bear me ill will using his administrative role to make my Misplaced Pages life unpleasant. I hope this closes the subject for both of us. IronDuke 01:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually edit only sparingly in I-P articles, so we don't have much overlap. It was pure chance that we encountered each other again on the RSN. As for blocking you, of course I wouldn't do so in the event of a content dispute, but I fully reserve the right to do so if I see you acting abusively (edit warring, civility violations, disruption etc) - just as I would for any other editor. The mere fact that we've had disputes on a couple of articles in the past doesn't mean that I can't take an objective view of your conduct in future. As for the "suggestion from a former arbitrator", let's just say that there's a good reason he's a former arbitrator. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the civil, measured tone. But no, you may not treat me just as you would any other editor. When there is bad blood between two users, and one is an admin, the admin may not block the other editor. It's really quit simple. The only exception to this would be if you had blocked me before we'd had any significant negative interaction; then you would be justified in continuing to do so regardless of acrimony. That is not the case here. I will also note that you have taken positions that could be construed as anti-Israel in the past. That you were aiding in the insertion of negative material about Daniel Pipes, who is generally perceived to be pro-Israel, and that you were edit-warring with me and then threatening me with a block to keep me quiet, is also a violation of your administrative duties. As for Jay, there were quite a few editors, as I recall, who were anxious for him to run again, but he declined, as most arbs seem to. Hard to blame them. IronDuke 01:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

PS: Would it help you in any way if I dug up some past arbcom cases on admins not using their powers to gain advantage in content dipsutes and over users they have had bad experiences with in the past? IronDuke 01:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would be helpful. Thanks in advance. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I shall get back to you... IronDuke 01:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

IronDuke, you are harassing ChrisO by making a big deal of the unnecessary noticeboard section. This is getting too much. --Be happy!! (talk) 01:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we are having a productive civil discussion so far, something you are, of course, not in any way aiding. I do think it rather odd your accusing others of harassment when 1) You appear to be following me around to hurl unhelpful and hostile comments at me and 2) In your own massive block log, you yourself have been specifically blocked for harassment, among many other things. IronDuke 02:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The arbcom file

Right, here’s what I have so far:

• Darwinek

• Seabchan & Mongo

• Freestylefrappe

• Guanaco

• Alkivar

• Physchim62

• Zero0000

• InShaneee

• Zero0000 again

A few thoughts: 1) No, these cases are not all exactly like our own. But they all point to a penumbra of policy indicating that admins should be very wary of blocking users with whom they have had prior disputes, either in content or in personality, You and I have had both. 2) In I think all cases desysopping occurred, but it was in conjunction with other bad acts. Nevertheless, I note they specifically took pains to point out that admins may not use their role to gain advantage over other users. Thus, if this case went to arbcom and they followed strict jurisprudence, they would not permanently desysop you, but they might well admonish you in some way. (Then again, they do sometimes confound expectation, don’t they?)

Finally, is being poised to block me at any moment that much of a priority? Would it be such a climb-down to promise not to do it, when you can see it will generate much drama if you do? I’ve never been blocked, and never even been threatened with it (except by you). If there were something egregious that came to your attention, could you not hand it off to someone neutral?

Okay, ball in your court. Thanks for reading. IronDuke 02:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

So, did you have a reply to all of the above? IronDuke 14:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Or, if you're not intending to reply, would you mind indicating that here? It's getting on for a week now... I guess if I haven't heard anything specific from you in 24 hours or so, I'll assume you aren't going to respond. IronDuke 15:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

IronDuke, I'll say with respect that I think you are misinterpreting the relevant policy. The problem non-admins such as you or I have, in my experience, is that if we start to act contentiously we're liable to get ourselves blocked. Certainly there is a point where an admin shouldn't take further action with an editor -- in Zero0000's case, this was set after and not before two arbitration cases -- but the case you've made that ChrisO and you have reached that point does not seem to me at all very strong. In at least one situation, I've also seen you argue strenuously that MastCell's warning an editor about a comment actually meant he was too involved to block the editor for doing the same thing again. This is just my opinion, but if you were to attempt to force a ruling that ChrisO should at this point never use his admin tools in a dispute where you're involved (or even issue warnings), I don't think it would go as you seem to expect. If you disagree with that, I'd recommend raising it as more of a general matter, perhaps on WP:Block. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 17:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Mackan, you're pretty much right. All the cases listed by IronDuke relate to admins using edit tools in the course of a content dispute on an article. They're not comparable to this instance (not that I used my tools, anyway) - the issue was a conduct dispute, i.e. IronDuke being needlessly provocative on a talk page. IronDuke, you seem to be approaching this in the assumption that I have some sort of vendetta against you. As I've said before, we've very rarely crossed paths and I certainly don't track your edits. I had and still have no content dispute with you, so I can't be accused of trying to gain some sort of advantage. Your view would seem to be that any administrator who has ever had any issue with you in the past is automatically disqualified from telling you to stop climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man; I can tell you with some confidence that you won't get support for that position. I'm also well aware of the context of your comments on my talk page, i.e. that a number of ideologically committed editors have tried fairly systematically to harangue and browbeat admins whom they feel act against their party's interests. Frankly, I see this as more of the same. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Chris, you have to know how thin it sounds when you say this isn’t a content dispute. The issue is very simple: Pipes is someone who is broadly thought of as being pro-Israel. The woman who wrote about him in the Nation definitely appears to harbor an animus towards him. I was attempting to show that she was not a reliable source. You—an editor who has made edits that, I think it’s fair to say, would not be construed as pro-Israel—continually removed my posts. This speaks directly to the political thrust—the content—of your edits. I was just about to write that you could try to wikilawyer your way around whether you had been making edit that further a content dispute, but really, even that is not possible to do; it’s simply too obvious and you’ve left too long a trail of edits for it to be anything but.

Do you have a vendetta against me? I honestly don’t know, although I had strongly suspected that the answer was yes. If you had replied to my overwhelming evidence about wiki precedent with “Well, I’m not sure I agree with your analysis, but if it will make you feel better, no: I will not block you. Happy?” or words to that effect, I might have questioned whether you did in fact bear a grudge. Given that you insist on your right to hover over me and block me on a clearly weak pretext reaffirms my earlier belief. I hope you will reconsider—or perhaps we could enter into some sort of dispute resolution? IronDuke 02:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any interest in Daniel Pipes. I don't know who he is, I don't care who he is and I've never edited any article to do with him. My one comment in that discussion was an explanation of WP:V which I provided to you in good faith. I'm not pro-Israel, I'm simply anti-POV-pushing; partisans of lots of national groups (Israelis, Arabs, Serbs, Croats, Albanians, Macedonians, Greeks, Turks, Kurds...) have accused me of being biased against them when I've objected to their POV-pushing or disruptive behaviour. If everyone thinks I'm biased against them, I'm probably doing something right. :-) I would have taken a similar course of action if it had been G-Dett or Tiamut or any of the pro-Palestinian editors who posted that "petition". You may not believe me when I say so, but not everything is about partisan politics. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Chris, with respect, you don’t seem to be aiming your comments at me, but rather at some hypothetical audience who is unfamiliar with your editing patterns.

First things first. You don’t know who Pipes is? That surprises me, as you are heavily invested in Israel-Palestine issues and if you go to Pipes and click “What links here” many, many articles in that field pop up. More troubling, in order for you to know nothing about him, you would have had to skip the entire discussion you threatened me for contributing to . Once you actually began reading it, you must have seen that Pipes was being smeared as some sort of ant-Arab racist. So when you write “I don’t know who he is,” you must know that’s irrelevant, even if true, unless it is actually the case that you stepped in to threaten me without reading the actual thread I was participating in.

Also highly disingenuous is you assertion that “My one comment in that discussion was an explanation of WP:VF,” eliding the fact that you removed my comment and threatened to block me. You also write, strangely, “I am not pro-Israel.” I assume that was a typo. No one that I know of would ever accuse you of that. More credibly, you could be accused of being anti-Israel, or perhaps pro-Palestinian (maybe both!). And honestly, Chris, when you write “If everyone thinks I’m being biased against them I must be doing something right,” well, okay: you got me. That was funny. But you don’t expect anyone who is familiar with the way you edit to actually believe this, do you? In every I-P related article I have ever seen you edit, you have, without fail, taken what could reasonably be construed as an anti-Israel position. Have Tiamaut or G-Dett had occasion to chastise you for your excessively pro-Israeli edits? Would love to see diffs.

So, yes, you and I have wrangled over I-P content, into which a smear against Pipes inarguably fits. You can insist it isn’t so on your talk page, but any neutral, uninvolved person would disagree. And even if they did somehow agree, that still doesn’t answer your rather rude remarks against me on AN/I, suggesting that I was no longer welcome on WP, among other unpleasantries, remarks that you edit-warred to push back in. Diff is here: This made things personal (which I deeply regret, but despite my best efforts, I cannot seem to reach you or persuade you to cool down).

We have sharply disagreed over content in the past, been involved on opposite sides of a bitter arbcom fight in the past, and I myself have been the target of your personal attacks; each of these reasons would disqualify you from taking punitive actions by themselves. Taken together, I think it’s fair to say no gray area exists at all here: you may not block me, nor threaten to do so. I’d also appreciate your staying away from me whenever possible, as I outline above, and I will try to do the same. If you still disagree, which I don’t see how you can, but I ‘d be willing to take this to someone who is neutral we both trust. Thanks for you attention. IronDuke 23:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

PS: I take it, just as a by the way, that if you did something block-worthy, you would have no problem if, say, Jayjg did the blocking? IronDuke 23:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

So, I'd love it if you could respond to the points above, though I understand if you are not able to do that. Are you willing to discuss mediation? IronDuke 22:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't know if your non-responsiveness is deliberate; I'm assuming it's not. I would very much like to resolve this amicably. If you could agree to mediation, or could unambiguously reject it, that would be helpful (though I would obviously prefer to work this out together). Thanks. IronDuke 00:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Long footnote at Ouze Merham

I removed it. I don't think it's necessary. I put the text on the talk page. Please take another look. I'm more than happy to discuss it, but if we really need a footnote to call the group "pro-Israel" can we at least do it more succinctly? That's my real problem with it -- too much space. Please respond on the article talk page. Noroton (talk) 02:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Mick's block

"This is a longer block than I would normally give for such actions, but your record of repeated blocks for disruption and incivility suggests to me that you haven't got the point of the prohibitions on disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point and personal attacks."

Contrary to belief, that's really not a good reason to come down even harder on him. If he's having trouble with these issues it's because that's a weakness he's having, so it would stand to reason that he wouldn't suddenly over come those shortcomings over night, or simply because he was blocked for it in the past. Your rationale works well for people who are being intentionally disruptive, where Mick here seems to have just lost a bit of control.

The block in itself I can understand, and I'm not here to ask you to unblock him, but to consider your rationale when blocking people like Mick, and for how long you make it for. -- Ned Scott 06:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Problems with user:Eleland

Hi,

I have problems with user:Eleland. He deleted my contributions.

Note that my contribution include references to official pages of canadian. He reverted it with rv propaganda. The problem is that he ment croatian propaganda, the lable that he puts on all of my contributions.

Could you please take a look at this guy's behaviour?

Please.

--Ante Perkovic (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure

I'll have a look.--G-Dett (talk) 12:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia intro

Please take a look: Talk:Republic of Macedonia#The incorrect use of "FYROM" and user:BalkanFever/intro. BalkanFever 06:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC

I've started drafting an RfC that you might be interested in here. Please feel free if you'd like to participate in adding anything to it that you feel might be relevant. Cla68 (talk) 02:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Self called Sate and State, dispudet State

A state is a State if one another stata (member of UN) recotnese als State. In this case we have two dispudet states.

Self called States are not recotnesed from members of the UN.

It is locigel thate you can not call a Serbia state and Kosovo state. This both states are disputed. The Serbia in old borders hase stoped existin from the day after Self-called state Kosovo was maked State.

It is locigel thate 36 members of the UN don´t recotnes Serbia in old borders. This is maken Serbia like Kosovo dispudet.

And your chanche in Serbia articel is not POV.--Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 23:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

npov

• Then attribute this and stop try to improve neutral editing and remember there is a talk page (you are ot oblige to always try to enforce your deciion, you can also discuss ideas). Ceedjee (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: end the sentence with "by pro-Israel groups" and add the footnotes for CAMERA and for NGO Watch that we already have. Would that solve it? Noroton (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure. But as a general stylistic point I tend to leave the citations for the article body, and have an unadorned lead as in this case. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

Noroton left a message on my talk page. So I write here.

I don't think this is a complex issue.

There are several solutions :

• Whether we write the "alleged statement" is used by "anti-Israeli groups" and that "pro-Israeli groups" answered ..., which is NPoV except that wikipedia should not take party and claim that one is pro-... and that other one anti-, ... (Because, it doesn't sound "NPoV" to claim statements must be attributed, but not to attribute the "main statement" (the one of the article) and to attribute the one that answers to this "main statement".)
• Or we just write who makes the statement and add "by CAMERA" and "...".

This is not complicated to understand. Let's assume it would be written in the lead of "Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus" that "Benny Morris analysis is controversed. The events of 1948 are seen as an ethnic cleansing by some pro-palestinian scholars and activists". This is no less true than what is written here. But no more in agreement with not taking party and not tagging some pov's, which is the first step for a "straw man argumentation" : These are pro-Israeli groups, so in fact, the General exists and they are just not reliable...

Ceedjee (talk) 06:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a straightforward question of what WP:NPOV calls "A simple formulation". There is a dispute between parties about whether or not Merham existed and Sharon gave that quote. Misplaced Pages isn't a party to that dispute. Therefore we can't take a position on which side is right. All we can and should do is report what the rival parties say. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

Does this mean you agree with my suggestion ?

• indeed we should only report what the rival parties say and don't take party. When it is written one side is "pro-Israeli", we take party (straw man argumentation).
• One party made the statement (let's say who) and one contested (let's say who).
• I am not sure there is a dispute about whether or not Merham existed. I think the dispute is rather about whether or not the statement is false.

-> First party made the statement; second party said Merham didn't exist (and therefore the statement was false). First party answered that instead of focusing on the existence of the general, they should focus on the meaning of such a statement. The inexistence of a General Merham is not contested. (note maybe I missed it.)

Ceedjee (talk) 08:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Your argument

Your argument here is covering your chances from not antonym users.--Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You have a answer and quesqen

Who say A, must say B - to!--Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 00:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Hipi Zhdripi#A reminder--Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 00:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

For goodness' sake, please improve your English. It's impossible to understand what you're trying to say. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Please help me to fight vandalism

The user User:Barryob ,continusly delete images from page : Serbia .Please let him know to stop vandalize the page.Thanks Bg007 .

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Syria outline map.png

Thanks for the upload. As the map is being used now for the Template:Location map, would you kindly provide its projection (Mercator ...etc.). At any rate, if you are certain that the projection is Equirectangular just state it. Thanks. Hakeem.gadi (talk) 09:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Pallywood

It seems that Jaakobou doesn't understand the concept of misattribution. Could you review this matter, please. CJCurrie (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You asked how I found . I am a law student focusing on International Human Rights and I've been writing a paper on human rights in the Middle East and in my research, I have been amazed to discover the amount of media manipulation that happens on a regular basis. Plus, the trial over the case of the shooting being held in France recently had an expert witness testify that the Israeli position could not have formed the bullet holes in the wall nor could they have killed the "victims." I felt the article needed updating for accuracy. You, apparently, disagreed. Danielleb32 (talk) 16:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 4 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Temple of Divus Augustus, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Daniel Case (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

A proposal

Hi ChrisO, Could you please take a look at my proposal here . I think this is important given the current waves of secular attacks on all religions. Thanks in advance, Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 07:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:Misplaced Pages requested photographs in ...

I saw your name at Misplaced Pages:Wikipedians/Photographers. I revised the pages at Category:Misplaced Pages requested photographs in England. Please consider adding your name to the top of the page at Category:Misplaced Pages requested photographs in London and to any of the other subpages for Category:Misplaced Pages requested photographs in England. Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 01:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Operation Freakout

Can you flesh out some of the information in the cites used in this article? In particular: Cites 6, 11, and 12. Cirt (talk) 07:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is, more info on the cites themselves, to better satisfy WP:V. Cirt (talk) 07:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Gibraltar Elections

I would appreciate it if you were more polite in your comments on my user page - you clearly could benefit by reading this.

However, as you have joined in I request that YOU sort out the mess that Number 57 has made with the pages about Gibraltar elections and has failed to resolve after having the situation explained and having been asked nicely.

The correct use of the term is as I have stated, use of the word Gibraltarian would imply that ONLY Gibraltarians could participate, which is not the case. Its a Gibraltar election.

--Gibnews (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I transferred it to 'Gibraltar general election' correctly, However Number57 has changed it back without any discussion. Can I suggest you either sort it out, or complain to the person responsible for starting this nonsense, who has had the difference between Gibraltar and Gibraltarian explained to him now by three people who use these terms on a daily basis.

It would help if you pointed things out nicely rather than being rude and helped sort out the mess, rather than complaining to me for trying and then saying you have no interest in its accuracy. --Gibnews (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

OK point taken. However I did move it correctly on 2007-10-17T23:54:39 but its been subsequently fubared. --Gibnews (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Xenu

I saw you semi-protected temporarily - is there a way to permanently move-protect? Also, I had put in a request for this at WP:RFPP, which is still there, so you might want to make a note of it over there. Cirt (talk) 10:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Footnoting

This request Talk:Pallywood#Footnoting is still open. I trust you can come up with a suggestion that will be acceptable to both arguing parties. Jaakobou 11:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Reminding you again. The related diff was this one - - 3O suggested some other format and I figured you can implement it in a neutral and agreed upon manner. Jaakobou 12:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

p.s. I removed the strange Hello message, I hope you don't mind. Jaakobou 12:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of real facts=Dictatorship

Your act of deleting the quote of Gligorof is just another act of fascism , counterfeit and propaganda . This is an encyclopedia, so it must be accurate.Can u explain me how is nationalist to refer to the words of an official representative of a state like Fyrom about its origins ? Your acts show that u dont want wikipedia to be accurate and u just want to hide real facts.You push wikipedia into disripute and unreliability. Its pity that u want to misinform the people.Goebbels would be jealous with your propaganda.The quote had 3 references , one was also from wikipedia. So learn to behave , we have democracy , not fascism. The truth at the end will prevail. The real truth not your corrupted truth.

DYK nomination of Horreum

Hi. I've nominated Horreum, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Misplaced Pages:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on April 6, where you can improve it if you see fit. Black Falcon 21:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo and the disputed territory debate.

Could you please give us help over at Kosovo. The article's intro states that Kosovo is a disputed territory but fails to mention by whom. User Beam and User Dab are claiming to write an article about the Region of Kosovo ? and that an article on RoK is POV therefor only a section is enough. As far as I know territories are disputed among countries that recognize each others governments but not the sovereignty over that specific territory. This article, from what I understood so far, is a merger of the former Kosovo (Geopolitical Territory) and Kosovo-RoK. If the aforementioned users over at the Kosovo article think that Kosovo region is different from RoK they can continue their work on it, but they should not use sections such as foreign relations, military etc because a region does not have those. RoK is a fact and as per Misplaced Pages definitions NPOV. Jawohl (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Reputation

Hi, I think this message may be referring to you. I made the revert, and I know I'm a budding Nazi fascist vandal, but I don't think I've done quite enough to earn this reputation. Thought you might be amused. // Chris 22:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, some people really need anger management classes, don't they? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Bull attacks matador.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Bull attacks matador.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Misplaced Pages have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on ] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Sdrtirs (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: AFD Closings

I will be online today at 12:00PM (my time its currently 8:27AM) if you wish to discuss these and I can tell you my rationale for closing these AFD's. Thanks and Happy Editing!! Dusti 12:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Horreum

On 11 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Horreum, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bencherlite 00:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Do you still have access to the original URL from which the uncropped image came from, of this image?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've replied on the DR page... -- ChrisO (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Foley move

You know it won't stick, right? Last night's DRV and AN threads prove that NPOV isn't seriously adhered to. Still, kudos for at least trying to dePOV it, even if I don't like the word "controversy". (and to be honest, the whole article's a disgrace. There's no reason for it to be twice as long than Watergate) Sceptre 13:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look at it in more detail later on (I'm working at the moment) but as the author of the relevant policies and guidelines, I think I have a good chance of making it stick. :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully with a bit of editing we can quarter the article. Sceptre 14:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Chris, sorry, as a non-admin I'm apparently not allowed to even discuss this on the talk page. It's not okay to call this a controversy because indeed it's not. There's no controversy about whether congressman can sexually pursue the congressional pages. I agree that in 95 percent of cases, the word Scandal should be avoided. This is a textbook scandal, the very definition of the word. This was unambiguous "loss of or damage to reputation caused by actual or apparent violation of morality or propriety" that Mark Foley himself would not dispute. There are not WP:BLP or WP:NPOV terms with calling this a scandal. Scandal, congressman resigns, this is the very epitome of the word. If the talk page is restored and unprotected, I'm of course open to hearing other arguments, but this current title is not something the event has ever been called -- or could even accurately be called -- so perhaps we need to keep looking? --JayHenry (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

A little further clarification of why this is within policy:

In current affairs, a controversial episode is often described as a "scandal" by the media. In politics especially, claims of scandalous behaviour are often used for the express purpose of campaigning against political opponents. Editors should therefore exercise great caution in using the term since it may imply wrongdoing. The party at the centre of the controversial episode will probably deny wrongdoing. Editors should avoid using "scandal" without first qualifying it, as it can otherwise be read as an endorsement of one side's assertions.

First, these are not claims. What occurred is at this point undisputed. Second, there were not allegations made as part of a political campaign, but rather a proven instance of a congressman behaving inappropriately toward congressional pages. It played no significant part in either campaign and is recognized as inappropriate by both Republicans and Democrats. I think that, quite literally, nobody in the country defends Mark Foley. Thus, controversy is somewhat of an absurdism. Everyone has since admitted that this was indeed wrongdoing (again, look at the circumstances, this was not controversial), so the title scandal does not endorse the claims of one side, but merely reflects the dictionary definiton, and common name, of what occurred.

Please understand that I'm someone who strongly supports the BLP policy, and someone who strongly agrees with the wording you'e included at ATA. But I believe this is a clear exception. We should refrain from having the "Barack Obama's pastor's remarks scandal", "The Hillary Clinton Bosnia trip distortion scandal", the "John McCain lobbyist affair scandal", etc. But if we take it to far it becomes a sort of unencyclopedic political correctness that does not reflect our standards. --JayHenry (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Scientology controversies

That article has so many problems it's not funny. Seriously, I don't see any reason apart from notability for why it, in its current state, needs an article. But then again, improving the encyclopedia is always controversial, isn't it? Sceptre 19:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I agree with your comments about the article's problems, but I tend to think that fixing is a better solution than deletion. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You can't fix an inherent problem - in this case, that article is a POV fork. Sceptre 19:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 12 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Monte Testaccio, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bobet 22:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Camargue_baedeker.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Camargue_baedeker.png, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Kelly 00:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

One upon time University of Priština, nowadays University of Prishtina and University of Pristina at Kosovska Mitrovica

Greetings, Mr. Old Timer. :) I turn to you confronted with not just a contentious issue but, dare I say, an unusual one. Noticing your year 2006 edits in the article's log history (dovetailing with my recent edit there: diff), and, of course, aware of your having authored the proposed Kosovo naming policy addition to the Manual of Style, I seek your guidance and, if possible, participation.

It is in the University of Priština article, where I attempted to sort out in the lead the complicated, apparently bifurcated state this university currently enjoys. :) There's been a bit of recent discussion, and reverting. Be that as it may, I am concerned that I may have encountered an intractable viewpoint on the way to consensus building: "10. with the formal independence of Kosovo the University of Prishtina, in Albanian-language version, occupying the campus in the capital of Kosovo, is the chief university of the new country" implies that Kosovo is independent and that it is a new country." The writer, User:Nikola Smolenski, first reverted my best-faith admittedly preliminary fixes, then enlisted User:Osli73 to "mediate" between Nicola and me, but I don't think this is entirely appropriate, if only because there is at least one other user, User:Getoar, whose engagement in this issue predates mine, and who has evidently (see talk page and revision history) conversed with and exchanged reverts with Nicola Smolenski, also in an effort to bring this article to, how to put it, a state describing the reality on the ground. In fact, he just wrote under the budding mediation:

I am hoping that this tripartite discussion is in no way an attempt to disregard my serious persistence in the re-composition of the article to reflect neutrality and reality. I have offered my reasons for opening up the dispute on the article’s factual accuracy and I can ensure you that the article will not achieve true Misplaced Pages standards unless:

1)The current article is dedicated to University of Prishtina

2)A separate page is created for the educational entity in Mitrovica with a name consensus among contributors involved

3)A rewrite of the article reflects unbiased and neutral information of the current article

4)A careful redaction of the new article offers true factual accuracy and high Misplaced Pages standards

This is a compromise offer to be declined only beyond rationality. Thank you!--Getoar (talk) 03:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What with your Kosovo naming expertise (I wonder if you had anticipated a need to use 3 names for the same Kosovan city in the same article!) and long-in-the-tooth Wikipedianship/Administratorship, could you suggest a way to organize this diverse bit of content including the mutually-excluding viewpoints :) in a way acceptable to everyone? My own attempt to do so failed to statisfy Nikola. In the heading above, conjured by way of a synopsis or a timeline, I suggest how we might proceed, but on second thought, perhaps adroit sectioning and delineating all views in a single article would do the trick. Still, Getoar's notion that we have here two (not three, as I have it) physically disjoint entities, and accordingly, should end up with two disjoint articles, is admittedly persuasive. Please advise. Best, --Mareklug 07:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Saw your note at User:American Clio's talkpage. You might be interested in this. Since I seem to recall you have the sysop bit, you might also be able to clean up some of the mess. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Stalking

Please take a look at Avg's warning directed at me, and his follow up. This, and some previous uncivil edit summaries here and here surely can't be tolerated. BalkanFever 04:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Some more attacks: BalkanFever 13:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't even have to put any other diffs than BF, because all these are my replies to his offensive comments as you will see by simply clicking at the links. And even if he clearly and systematically discredits me and my edits, I still give him the chance and do not report him.--   Avg    13:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

warning

I love this copy/paste warnings especially when they are coming from an involved party. Especially the party that calls other users additions "nonsense" and equals Bosnia and Herzegovina, a UN member with a disputed territory. I am also glad to see that you are therefore threatening to use admin powers to maintain your view as the permanent state of the article or template in this case. Admins should never use their admin abilities to intimidate others. Threatening a user with an inappropriate block is just as bad behavior as actually making that block. When dealing with established editors that don't generally make problems, it may be preferable to suggest different behavior, rather than mentioning blocks. But it seems you are no longer able to see the thin line you are crossing - if you are an admin but also an involved party in as you called it edit war (though my every edit was different as I was trying to find the best solution, the thing you completely fail to notice or ignore) you cannot threat with admin powers to intimidate another user and therefore "win" the edit war. I am very unpleased with this bullying. Thank you for reading. --Avala (talk) 21:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

If you believe you have a case to make concerning your edits, you should try discussing it on Template talk:Countries of Europe, not simply making controversial additions without discussion. The arbitration remedy I cited was passed specifically because editors were ignoring talk pages in favour of edit warring. Please don't make that mistake. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Request

Hello ChrisO,

I would like to use the image of Drusus the Elder http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:Drusus_the_elder_bust.jpg which you have uploaded to Misplaced Pages for a book I'm writing about the Romans in East-Frisia, the German area where I live. It's not clear if you have taken the photo or someone else. If you agree, please send me an e-mail with your full name for the credits to coronska@googlemail.com. You can also find me as "Columbus" at http://de.wikipedia.org/Benutzer:Columbus.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.16.88.12 (talk) 10:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

maps, OpenStreetMap + London meetup

Hi ChrisO

I like your sketched map here: Image:Whitehall sketch map.png. Have you seen openstreetmap.org? We are looking at using this to create similar illustrative maps for articles about London places. OpenStreetMap has just developed a new SVG export feature which opens up more interesting possibilities. Some details over at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject OpenStreetMap.

Also if you're in London (?) see Misplaced Pages:Meetup/London 9. Come along!

-- Harry Wood (talk) 00:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI - arbitration on Israeli Wiki Lobbying

I have filed an arbitration request in regards to the Israeli Wiki Lobbying and attacks uncovered: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Israeli Wiki Lobbying. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)