Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:08, 21 December 2006

Alan.ca (talk • contribs • non-automated contribs • wikichecker • count • total • logs • page moves • block log • email)

AfD issues

The Barbara Biggs one I'm not sure on, but the fraternity sure doesn't look too notable to me (and long lists of "notable alumni" aside, notability by association isn't). Just be aware that trying to delete anything but the most obvious and unimprovable pile of crap will run you into opposition. Seraphimblade 06:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. Alan.ca 21:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Image Copyright

I am concerned that the Picture of Stephen Harper may not be licensed properly. The photograph that we're using, is clearly copywritten by Mr. Chung as seen at this url.Alan.ca 12:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It would seem that it is copyrighted, and thus should be removed from any articles, and deleted from Misplaced Pages. Bjelleklang - talk 12:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I nominated it for deletion, but I'm getting a lot of oppositiong. You may want to join the discussion if you have a viewpoint. Alan.ca 22:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation -- Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-05 Censure for not changing Existing Content

Are you a respondent in this case? Alan.ca 04:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you check the WP:MEDCAB page, you'll notice I'm the Mediation Cabal Coordinator. I go through all the new cases and rename them when needed, fill out the templates if they're not done by the requestor (who didn't do this in your case), delete invalid cases (if they're complete nonsense, for instance), and deal with mediator requests for administrative functions. If, for instance, you needed an article semiprotected due to vandalism which is part of a case, you'd leave a note for myself or Cowman109.

Anywho, nice to have you mediating cases for us, it's a lot of hard work for everyone involved, but I think the end result is worth it! :D ~Kylu (u|t) 04:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Kyle, I appreciate the direction. Alan.ca 22:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Harper Copyvio

As the image is not a copyright violation, I took down the tag so that it would not get deleted after seven days. There was already licensing info on the page, it was listed for deletion in bad faith and was eligible for speedy keep. --Arctic Gnome 04:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not list it in bad faith. The url where the image is taken from contains a copyright notice for a Mr. Chung. Unless you have a release from Mr. Chung, you have no release at all. Therefore, you are vandalizing the page by removing the tag. If you won't follow procedure I will report you as a vandal.Alan.ca 04:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It also says © House of Commons on the main page of Harper's page, which we have permission from the house and the PMO, which Herman Chung is part of as Harper's offical photographer. SFrank85 13:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you read the copyright statement attached to the notice you reference, it clearly states that users are required to verifiy third party copyright on their own. Further, there has been nothing stated anywhere about Mr. Chung's property being owned by any government office. Alan.ca 22:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add nonsense to my talk page. For one thing, I am not new to Misplaced Pages, according to your user contributions, I have been here longer than you. And secondly, you are the one perpetuating a revert war. You keep reverting by saying that you have proof that the image is copyright Mr. Chung, yet the owner of the web site that you are citing has said that the information there is incorrect. You have no source for your claim, so do not try and say that you are continuing this debate for copyright reasons. I don't know if you have something against Mr. Harper or whether you just like fighting, but please stop, this is getting very tiresome. --Arctic Gnome 23:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Alan.ca, it seems me that the image you're linking to is probably an outdated page. However the image has been updated to be "© House of Commons" at Harper's proper biography page at the Parliamentary website. Which is it Alan.ca? So who owns the copyright now? Herman Chung or the House of Commons? . I can't figure out how to get to that one page you're linking from their main page. So I have to go by the assumption you googled this image to find the appropriate page to make your argument here. I've removed the copyright violation tag as the gives me the exact link instead of the link given by Alan.ca.

1. Go to http://www.parl.gc.ca/

2. Click your appropriate language

3. Click "Members of Parliament (Current)"

4. Click "Harper, Stephen (Right Hon.)"

OR

1. Go to http://www.parl.gc.ca/

2. Click your appropriate language

3. Click "The Canadian Ministry (Current)"

4. Click "Harper, Stephen (Right Hon.)"

That's basically it. Do you want to provide directions for me to show me how you got to that page using 4 steps? ViriiK 00:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• I have read your submission. My submission is not unsourced, I included the URL on the parliament web site in the deletion template. Until an admin is able to review our dispute, the tag should be left intact on the image:OfficialPhoto.jpg page. If you read the template, instructions for disputing the claim are included. Imagine how you would feel if I was deleting your response to my submission. As for your talk page, you have a welcome to wikipedia template at the top of the page. This template is usually placed on the talk pages of new users. If you find my assumption insulting, you may want to consider removing the welcome maessage as it gives the impression that you're a new user. Alan.ca 00:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You have read nothing. You included the URL of an outdated page. You're avoiding the issue by not telling me how to get there. Tell me how you got to that website. ViriiK 00:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not avoiding anything. I don't remember how I came to that page. I probably just put OfficialImage.jpg into google. How the page was found is moote anyway, the point is we have a web page that disputes the copyright. You have an alleged letter from the PMO, but nothing from The House of Commons. Saying the PMO owns the property of the Crown is like saying that Dalton Mcguinty's office owns all of the parks in Ontario. Alan.ca 00:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

So you can't find your way through the Parliamentary website to that exact page in less than 5 steps? Also your argument is useless against me because I am the personal owner of Military Power Gallery. Are you going to accuse me of violating the copyright of 2047 images taken by Combat Photographers who are not me? No, why? Because, like the Canadian Government, the United States Department of Defense is a property of the people and I have the right to distribute these images by my decision. ViriiK 00:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I took at look at your web site, it's a nice collection of photographs. I really don't know much about how the copyright would apply to the images on your site. The point I am making here is that we have two pages, on the same web site, that claim two different copyrights. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying wikipedia admin staff should review this image as I believe the policy of wp implies this image doesn't belong. I'm also saying that the release needs to come from the House of Commons and the matter of Herman Chung needs to be resolved. If they believe they own the rights, they should update the page I have referenced. At a minimum this creates ambiguity that needs to be resolved. My recommendation would be to take a photo of Harper at a public event and include it in place of the one we are disputing. Alan.ca

I don't care if it's a nice collection of photos. My point stands. You're the one reverting the proper website to the one you want because you found it on a simple google search. You will not accuse me of vandalism because you're the one perpretrating this edit war, not me, not User:Arctic.gnome. Your silly vandalism insertion was removed from my talks page as it's blatant distortion. ViriiK 00:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey. I wouldn't lose your cool over the dispute over the Stephen Harper image. I didn't think your warning against ViriiK (talk · contribs) was warranted, and I personally would just advise that you discontinue from further edits and let a third party decide what should be done. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 00:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I nominated the image for copyvio because there was some discussion leading in this direction. The two users, ViriiK and Arctic Gnome have been modifying the posting and removing the template. The policy clearly states they are not supposed to do this. I warned them because instead of allowing the process to continue, they are trying to disrupt it. I have made several attempts to get the attention of admins to try and resolve this dispute. No one responds. Everything I have read on wp implies that copyright violations are serious. This is an article about my Prime Minister, the last thing I want is a copyright violation. I don't find that I'm violating any policy and I wish someone with authority would resolve the conflict. Alan.ca 00:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Let a third party decide. Just walk away from the page and let an administrator decide on what should be done. I personally have walked away from the page and will participate in the other discussions because edit wars are really, really stupid. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 00:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, others have walked away from this team. I came to this dispute as a neutral third party. I added the correct template for disputing a copyright. These two users have removed it, modified my source link and so on to disrupt the process. I want to leave it alone, I'm tired of having to go back and revert their vandalism. The fact is, they are not supposed to modify or remove the template. If they leave the template alone, I will not have anything to revert. Copyright violation is very serious here on wikipedia. Alan.ca 00:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I am well aware of the seriousness of copyright violations as this is something I deal with day in and day out in my job. However, what you're stating may not be as cut and dry as you're putting it. Let your entry on the incidents page grow and stay out of the edit war. I am taking my own advice and I will only edit the page if there is serious vandalism. I would request that you do the same--this goes for all other parties. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 00:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I just stated, I will state it again. I am not looking for any kind of edit war here. If the other parties allow the deletion debate and process to continue without removing or adulterating the submission, I will have no need to make any edit revisions. I can not sit back and allow them to circumvent the process by modifying the submission or removing it all together. Alan.ca 00:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Will you at least acknowledge that this is best to be handled by a neutral third party? I am assuming we're all voters here, and because of that, I'd like an outside party to weigh in and decide on this. Can you please at least accept this? :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 00:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly what I have been trying to do here! I didn't take any rash action, flagging an image for copyright violation is a request for a third party admin to review it! By removing the template, they are trying to circumvent this process!Alan.ca 00:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Another link with Herman Chung listed as the copyright holder. . This one I acquired by: http://parl.gc.ca, site map, Members of the House of Commons - 39th Parliament, HARPER, Stephen. Alan.ca 01:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It was already on the commons.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Because the issue is in the process of being resolved, and commons:Template:Copyvio is a speedy delete tag. Surely you can wait 6 hours or so for the Canadian Parliament should wake up and answer our queries. It is 4:45 am in Ottawa (if it's the same time zone as New York).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, even though I wrote them an e-mail on Dec 14/06 trying to clear this up, I am not adverse to waiting until 17:00 EST on Dec 19/06. Is someone intending to call them about it? Alan.ca 08:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Closed?!

Is it enough if i fill in the list of participants? --Striver 11:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

What case? Please provide the wikilink. Alan.ca 21:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

re: Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-11 BooyakaDell,

This has progressed to RfC see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/BooyakaDell, and help there would be appreciated. I have close this Mediation Cabal and put a link to the RfC. I think I have done it correctly - please check. Thanks Lethaniol 11:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, if you are seeking advocacy you may want to check out Misplaced Pages:Association of Members' Advocates.Alan.ca 21:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation -- Swedish Anarcho-syndicalist Youth Federation

I have opened the case, Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-08 Swedish Anarcho-syndicalist Youth Federation on the mediation cabal. Do you wish to proceed with the mediation with me as your mediator? Alan.ca 08:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That too is now a non-issue. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 13:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I have closed this case as well. Alan.ca 21:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Confirmation

Sorry to ask this, but how do I confirm that I'm a respondent in the Aly & AJ Gernre Classification Case? I thought I was part of the case anyway. Do I confirm it here or somewhere else? Acalamari 15:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You click this link Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-12 Aly & AJ Genre Classification and you will see your account listed as other parties. Alan.ca 16:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I already clicked on it, now what do I do? Acalamari 16:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation is voluntary, the requestor put your name on the page to indicate that you should be contacted as a party to the mediation. The idea of mediation is to have the parties discuss an issue with an impartial mediator. If you do not want to participate, state so and I will remove your name. Alan.ca 16:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll be a party in the mediation; definitely. I just wasn't sure how to confirm that I was in it. You're the mediator, and yes, I will be a party in the discussion (I got blocked due to the edit war, so I WILL be in the mediation). My only concern is that the User King Bee and I were having the edit war with, Switchfo0t813, will not participate in the mediation. Acalamari 16:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

We only require two parties with a conflict to proceed with mediation. Alan.ca 17:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

So all I do is edit the discussion section and sign with the four tildes? Simple as that? Acalamari 17:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Never mind; I have signed. Acalamari 17:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, now we can continue this discussion on the mediation page. Alan.ca 22:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

CJCurrie Revert Wars

I'll answer several of the allegations that CJCurrie has made against me:

The other situation involves my dispute with User:GoldDragon. GoldDragon's general "modus operandi" on Misplaced Pages is to repost the same edits over and over and over, even in situations where everyone else disagrees with him. I've dealt with him over a period of several months, and consider him to be a nuisance editor most of the time (although not a vandal). I'm certain that I'm not alone in this view. I've tried introducing compromise language several times, but, unfortunately, I've learned that one frequently has to descend to his level of multiple reverts to counter his dubious edits. It isn't pleasant, but the alternative is generally worse. CJCurrie 23:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, CJCurrie is not above such a "modus operandi" either, though he brags to you as if he is above it. This often makes disputes with him all the more difficult, because he is an expert with wiki format which lets him talk as if he is holding the high or moral ground.

For instance, he pretends that he has consesus, when he really does not since its only him and I engaged in the dispute. Second, some of his compromise efforts are frequently footnoting the material or saying that "it is not relevant". A perfect example was on Joe Volpe regarding the paragraph about the donations parody website; despite the section having the support of BlackEagle, ChrisThompson, and myself, CJCurrie kept removing it and even went as far as to label it an attack edit. Ending up, it is now just two sentences and it may face removal on CJCurrie's pretext of "shortening" the article. GoldDragon 18:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to interject: BlackEagle and ChrisThompson were openly partisan contributors who disappeared soon after making their contributions. I stand by my previous actions. CJCurrie 20:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you labelled them partisan just as an excuse to delete something you didn't like. You also tried to threaten ChrisThompson with the 3R, and then BlackEagle astutely pointed out that it did not apply. GoldDragon 17:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Their partisanship was blindingly obvious. CJCurrie 03:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This is just sour grapes from someone who was outvoted 3-1. Second, a partnership is not illegal, as you have used them to skirt the 3R. GoldDragon 20:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not asserting abuse of admin powers, but I do believe that someone who holds these powers should be more consistent with the criteria to be nominated as an admin, namely, acting consistent with wikipedia policies. Reverting an edit, refusing to discuss it and subsequently returning uncited information while removing a well source statement, doesn't seem consistent with the ideals of this project. Alan.ca 23:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Joe Volpe's expenses, yeah it is clear that the Toronto Sun is right-leaning, but at the same time, it is going a tad bit far to consider it entirely "unencyclopedic" and remove it entirely. (Does the same scrutiny apply to left-leaning tabloids like NOW and Eye?) On Jean Lapierre, there are enough sources to back up the controversial statements. It is still a work in progress but there is a difference between modifying the wording and deleting the controversy entirely and leaving no trace. Regarding Judy Marsales, which I will not intervene in for the moment, if that is what the source article suggests, then by all means include it. GoldDragon 18:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I have looked at your contributions, you seem to think you are the authority on article content. You may want to consider, that you do not hold the stick of final decision. This is not the first time that you have reincluded unsourced information and removed someone elses cited work. I do, however, find it interesting that most of your reverts are when the included information suggests a right winged political view, where you seem to have no problem including uncited statements when it supports a left wing view. So let us continue to skirt the 3r rule as we continue to revert war on the article.Alan.ca 23:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I do notice that CJCurrie has a left-leaning and/or anti-Conservative bias in his edits. If there is any criticism of the left-wing, CJCurrie will move quickly to ensure that it is refuted. Most notably when he redirected attacks on the Bombardier deal to a trip that Howard Moscoe made in Isreal, in effect making a "straw man arguement" to be easily struck down.

Also, when CJCurrie "exercises" his final authority, he often requests that the change be discussed on the talk page before considering inclusion. But by agreeing to such a request, that would essentially give him the decision to say "no". I understand that a group of editors on a well-established article or the main author of a featured article request this, but the current articles in dispute do not meet either criteria. GoldDragon 18:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

CJCurrie is an expert on the technicalities of wikipedia, but I have no idea that he is an admin. Let me know if there have been any admin power abuses, though he has been careful enough not to make blatant mistakes. GoldDragon 18:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• CJCurrie, I think the point here is that you're a controversial editor. While it is important for Misplaced Pages to have people who challenge statements included in articles, you may want to consider removing your unsourced statements before judging the sourced statements that conflict with your point of view. Alternatively, if you feel that an article is taking a biased perspective you could source statements of another point of view to balance it towards your definition of neutrality. If you cannot find any, you may consider tagging the article as not being neutral. Alan.ca 19:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Well, (i) the question of sources is irrelevant to our current dispute, (ii) I removed information because it was of dubious importance, not because it "conflicted with my point of view", and (iii) I think you may be giving too much credence to GoldDragon's complaints. CJCurrie 03:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• • "Dubious importance" is overused to the extent that it no longer serves CJCurrie's cover to delete criticism. GoldDragon 20:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

CJCurrie, I have looked at your contributions, you have put a lot of time in to Misplaced Pages. I respect your contributions and ask for you to respect those of others. You may in fact find these items to be of dubious important, but you may want to ask yourself if you're being a little too assertive about that POV. In the case of the Judy Marsales vote ( diff), you had the option to find disputing article, but instead, in frustration I believe, you chose to delete. I myself have been warned by an ArbComm member to be careful about removing sourced statements, please consider the impact of these assertions. Alan.ca 23:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• At the risk of repeating myself, I deleted the reference because I did not consider the matter to be of sufficient importance for inclusion (and it was for the same reason that I did not seek out a "disputing article"). Frustration wasn't a factor until another contributor decided to revert the page multiple times.

• Some things can be perfectly sourced, and still not meet the threshold of notability. This is one such. CJCurrie 00:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

What wikipedia policy are you basing this position on? I have debated notability of articles, but never that of statements. Alan.ca 01:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

"Threshold of notability" coincidentally always applies to criticism that CJCurrie does not like.GoldDragon 03:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

SAM

Alan, please see the disussion page at the Sigma Alpha Mu article. Thanks - hps05

Thanks for the compromise! I'm sure the article will be greatly improved by your contributions. Alan.ca 08:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Admin 3R Noticeboard

Seeing that CJCurrie decided to slander me even though his initial dispute was with you...

Do you think you could give me some help for Jean Lapierre and Joe Volpe? GoldDragon 23:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

We may be able to resolve all of these disputes together. As much as CJCurrie has frustrated me now for the second time. In the first incident, after dispute resolution began he withdrew his edit. I can't assume bad faith on his part, I only know he appears to be editing from a left POV. I may be able to join a dicussion the two of you are having regarding the problem and give my perspective. Where are you discussing these edits with him? Alan.ca 23:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You can tell from the edit comments, but no discussion is going on for the moment. Although I wouldn't go as far as trying to push the 3R, a few reverting of his edits will force him to back down somewhat. Then again, could this thing get out of hand? GoldDragon 04:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Overall, warring with reverts isn't good for anyone. He probably isn't purposely irritating us, I have placed a mediation request, hopefully I will get to the bottom of things with him through the process. I encourage you to start a discussion with him regarding the issues and see if you can't reach a compromise. I appreciate your effort to try and find a compromise between CJCurrie and I on the Judy Marsales article, but I think for now we should leave the article where it is in hopes that the mediated discussion will facilitate resolving the problem. Alan.ca 08:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Newbie tests: NPOV?

You flagged the Misplaced Pages:Newbie tests page as NPOV, but provided no comment on the talk page. Care to elaborate over there? Cipherswarm 04:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall doing so, but that was back in September according to the edit history. I have no idea. I can say that you bringing up this point will cause me to make more thorough edit remarks. Alan.ca 08:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Virrik's Issues

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ViriiK 03:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks ViriiK for the reminder, but my reverts are exempt under policy WP:3R#Reverting_copyright_violations as copyright violations are not subject to 3r. Alan.ca 05:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yet you keep going ahead lying about the fact that the Office of the Prime Minister declared "Yes, it is the freely-licensed official image. Please use that one." and the Library and Archives Canada corroborates the Office as the copyright holder.

Ok, I have no idea what's going on here. I haven't lied to anyone. I tagged an image because of a copyright dispute I observed. This is not an unreasonable thing for me to do. I'm not saying that you're wrong. I am just saying there is more than one claimant for the copyright. I approached this image from a neutral point of view. The first URL I found from google stated it was copyright of Herman Chung. If you would just be patient and stop fighting with me, the issue will resolve itself in due course. Alan.ca 07:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Is that an admission that you never bothered to read the link I have given recently? ViriiK 07:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

For some reason you seem to think this is some kind of civil court case between you and I. Why are you so opposed to letting the deletion process take its course? You make a great case for keeping the image and I have no idea what they're going to do with it. I usually take my own pictures and upload them to avoid these kinds of disputes. It seems that someone has already replaced this image with an alternative in the Harper article, so what's the big concern? Alan.ca 08:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you refuse to accept other parties as the copyright holder and you're stuck on Herman Chung because of an outdated page you found on Google. The Library and Archives Canada shows that the Office of the Prime Minister is the copyright holder and the email corroborates the free-use of the image on wikipedia. ViriiK 08:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

In response to your concern about an outdated page, as I could not remember how I found the page, I went back to the parliament web site and found the offical page for Harper, as a parliamentarian, had the Herman Chung copyright as well. Understand that I have attempted to resolve this discrepency myself by writing the webmaster of the site. Alan.ca 08:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• This has to be one of the lamest edit wars I can recall. Commons has a whole category of pictures of the guy - just choose another one! Guy (Help!) 20:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That's really my point Guy, if there's any doubt of copyright, why keep an easily replaced image. I suspect the debate has become personal and now it is more about who's right vs what should be done. Alan.ca 20:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Frankly I don't actually care who's right. I have deleted the disputed image, just choose another one, there are plenty of good ones which are unambiguously free. Guy (Help!) 20:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, thank you for deleting the image, the task had been outstanding since Dec 12/06. Alan.ca 23:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Your AMA Request

Hello Alan. I'm Aeon and I will be your advocate for your case. If you could give me a brief run down of your problem I will see if I can help you. Æon _EA! 01:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Damn....ok I can't be the Advocate in this one per AMA and MEDCAB Guidelines. I will continue to handle it until a new Advocate is found. Æon _EA! 02:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok Seadog is taking over the case. I'm sorry to bail on you like this but it would be better fo both parties to have someone new handle this then have a piror medator do it. I will be watching the case as it is Seadogs first (not to worry he is capable). Æon _EA! 02:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Barry Goldwater High School‎

I cleaned up the whole article a few days ago if you check the history, next time you see it like that just revert it. Thanks. BJ 09:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I just happened to stumble on to the problem. Did you put something on the talk page about it? Alan.ca 09:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point I should, the article seems to have been writen by BGHS students (no shock) and they seem not to like me removing all of their OR from the article and keep reverting it. BJ 09:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you considered applying for Page protection? Alan.ca 09:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Nah, It only happens every few days, I can handle it. I will but a blurb on the talk page for other editors. BJ 09:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, good luck, just keep in mind that when vandals hit that article they waste the time of other editors as well. Alan.ca 10:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Your kind attention

. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ditto

As above your kind attention on the Murchison region of Western Australia is a bit like doing a number on Lake Ontario as far as West OZ is concerned! Thanks for pointing it out - it will be populated faster then if you recited the names of canadian provinces in french and english..... SatuSuro 11:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that this region may be locally significant, but you must admit the article was in pretty poor shape when I tagged it with PROD. I'm pleased to read that someone is interested in the article. Hopefully this interest will translate into article development and possibly a cited source. Alan.ca 14:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The article was atrocious I am relieved that you didnt delete on sight! bit like some of my indonesian stubs (please dont trawl - I will clean them up....:) promise- new year resolution.... SatuSuro 14:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well that's the beauty of PROD, if anyone interested is watching the page, they get the hint and remove the PROD. Otherwise, the abandoned article is deleted in five days. Do you have a favorite article on wikipedia or a project of interest? Alan.ca 14:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

IF you go into my user page - and trawl through my contributions - not up to date unfortunately - its five tiered - West Coast Range, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Australian maritime history, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Western Australia, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Indonesia and the sadly neglected Sacred places of Java (see I am not linking that one.. its embarrasing - it leads to very divided loyalties as I started three of them, sigh.... SatuSuro 14:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Have you read wp:cite and do you know about how to use in line references that automatically show up as footnotes? Are you aware of the citation templates as well? Alan.ca 14:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Not recently - if you checked all my west coast tasmania articles - all done with no consistency -and manually and old fashioned without cite/or template - maybe I should get some practice - I do so many welcomes and try to get newbies up and running - if they asked me about citation - I'd have to check anyways. One of our WP Australia marathon admins has had me sweating over some arts similar to your prod - over sources... but I have been putting in old way. Maybe thats my christmas present to myself - working out cite and template - funny one of my 3 best mate admins here in perth and I started our friendship after a fight over sources a very long ago... :) sorry I digress... SatuSuro 14:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I found reading wp:cite and wp:foot extremely useful. I recently re-read them and learned how to use one citation in multiple places without repeating the entire citation. If you have any questions or need a hand understanding something, drop me a note. If you like I can even help you improve an article. Alan.ca 14:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for thaat have a good christmas! SatuSuro 15:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Prod'ing articles

Hello Alan.ca. I have reviewed your previous edits and it seems that you have not used the {{prod}} template properly. Kindly cease this immediately and put your contributions for review on the admin noticeboard. G'day. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Nick, I responded on the noticeboard. What policy are you asserting that I have violated? Alan.ca 14:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

(I put this on the admin noticeboard as well)The problem I see here though is that much of what you've PROD'd doesn't fail WP:V, it's just unverified not unverifiable. WP:V is a reason to delete if an article absolutely can't be verified, not just because the editors who contributed lack knowledge about the policies here (or in some cases are just too lazy to follow them). A better tactic would be to see if sources are out there and just tag the article as unsourced if sources exist.--Isotope23 14:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC) Your use of PROD doesn't constitute a policy violation, but it isn't valid usage on some of the articles I looked at either.--Isotope23 14:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, this is getting confusing, to anyone else for this debate, please refer to the admin noticeboard as to avoid duplicate discussion and missing pieces. Alan.ca 15:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• I stand by the basis for most of my prods, wp:v#Burden of evidence. Please don't post here unless you have read it before posting. Alan.ca 15:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)