User talk:SkeenaR - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pokipsy76 (talk | contribs) at 08:08, 5 May 2006 (→Is Pokipsy a vandal?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 08:08, 5 May 2006 by Pokipsy76 (talk | contribs) (→Is Pokipsy a vandal?)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages!

Here's the standard welcoming template - it should help you get oriented - now that your'e officially a Wikipedian...

Welcome! Hello, SkeenaR, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

I look forward to working with you! Blackcats 02:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Cool. This seems like a good project. And thanks for the advice.SkeenaR 06:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC) A /dispute page has been added.

Re: Alex Jones

Hey - Thanks for writing. To find out who did what edits, you can simply click on the history tab link and compare the different versions for the Alex Jones article it's here. Here is the edit where it was added. It was added by User:Algore2008, and are his contributions, which do not include the Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11, where the pods stuff was added, so if the same guy added that then he did it under a different account or as an annon. He did start the James Crabtree article though - about some non-notable blogger from Austin Texas (where Alex Jonese lives too), so I think this user is either a friend of Mr. Crabtree or Crabtree himself. The user added a bunch of other crap to the Alex Jones article. I've put the Crabtree article up for deletion, and I would urge you to go vote for deletion there, but since you've just signed up here, it'd probably be best for you to wait at least a couple of weeks before you start partisipating in the votes. (If someone's just recently joined and/or only has a few edits to their name then people sometimes are hostile to them at the votes.) Anyhow thanks again for writing and feel free to contact me again if you have any questions.

Talk with you soon. -+-Blackcats 05:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: images

Regarding the images - the onest that are GDFL or gvt. public domain you can deffinately use on your page. A couple of the others are marked as copyright screenshots, which fair use only allows to be used in the context of critical commentary about the film or software or whatever. According to the strictest interpretation, you probably aren't allowed to have those on your user page unless you also critique them (ie add a caption which says "Brave Heart was a great movie!"). So I'd say you could go ahead and do that now if you want, or it wouldn't hurt to wait til someone complains... Blackcats 01:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Link hijacking

See the section on the hijacking of one of your links in Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories Adam Adler 20:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Chomsky

Hi SkeenaR: thanks for the link on Chomsky: Noam Chomsky - Controlled Asset Of The New World Order. I'll read it through. In the Northern California 9-11 Truth Alliance we debated Chomsky about two years back. I don't remember what conclusions we came to. But I do recall that Peter Dale Scott seemed to believe in him, even though they had differing opinions on 9-11 (based on some of Scott's comments in one of the presentations we organized). And I can say that Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent was a seminal book for my understanding of how the pentagon and major corporations run media campaigns to manipulate public opinion. Kaimiddleton 06:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theory" title neutrality proposal 2.0 voting has begun

See here and Misplaced Pages:Title Neutrality. zen master T 20:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

images

In the left column there's Special pages, under which is the gallery of new files. I think the current idea is to keep the images at the Wikimedia commons. There's a lot of stuff over there. I don't actually know how to do an image search on wikipedia. The commons are set up with categories. What might be easiest is to do a Google image search, choose 'advanced,' and restrict the search to wikipedia.org. Tom Harrison 22:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Honestly I know very little about image use on Misplaced Pages. These are the references: Misplaced Pages:Image use policy, Misplaced Pages:Copyrights, and Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags. It looks like one of the images uses an obsolete tag, so you might want to correct that. I didn't see anything on PrisonPlanet about use permissions. I wonder where he got the pictures. Tom Harrison 00:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

User pages

Adam Adler is not a user page; That is a page in the article namespace, currently unused. If Adam Adler were a famous man, that's where his Misplaced Pages article would be. User:Adam Adler is the user page for that Misplaced Pages editor. It is empty until someone adds something to it. Is he having trouble with it? Tom Harrison 21:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I see a vertical line left of center; Is that the 'crimp?' Tom Harrison 15:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess you could make that happen with well-placed charges, but it looks like about half the buckling failures I've seen. Tom Harrison 20:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I have seen structures (not buildings) collapse inward without the use of explosives. We did it with models on a shaker table in school, to simulate the vibration from an earthquake. Things naturally fall straight down unless they are pushed laterally. In an earthquake there is usually some lateral motion, but even then a composite structure will often collapse in on itself. An explosion inside a structure is by its nature more likely to push things outward, unless things are carefully set up. A building collapsing under it's own weight because of column buckling may fall partially outward, or entirely inward, depending on how it's built and what structural members fail in what order. Here are a few links: This is a good intro; these are pictures in no particular order.

Building 7

Hi, I just wanted to make a comment about the wtc7 image we were discussing, the one here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:WTC7.jpg. It has been posted onto the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories page and the purpose is to try to refute the idea that WTC7 has no visual evidence of the supposed fires that the reports claim. But like I said, it seems like a strange photo, the way that the smoke stops abruptly along the side of the building, and because you can't see where it's coming from you can't really say what that smoke is from. That's why I don't think it should be posted by Building 7. Bov 20:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the new additions to the page -- those are perfect. Bov

To clarify?

"Just to clarify, I have never once made an edit to the section on Isreal." I don't understand. Tom Harrison 04:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that would be my fancy administrator's rollback tool. It inserts those comments automatically. If a user vandalises and I hit 'rollback', it undoes all his work and restores the page to the last version someone other than the vandal worked on. In this case, I guess yours was the last good version prior to some vandalism of the section on Israel. Tom Harrison 04:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

He did some good work;) Tom Harrison 04:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Page rank

Interesting question. I sometimes wonder if anyone but us is reading. The short answer is, I don't really know. There is Misplaced Pages:Most visited articles and User:Dcoetzee/List of Misplaced Pages articles with at least 1000 hits. Unfortunately, 9/11 conspiracy claims regarding Jews or Israel, which redirects to 9/11 conspiracy theories, seems popular. Tom Harrison 04:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Editing a user talk page

I'm not sure I understand. Do you want something to be deleted and not have it appear in the page history? Tom Harrison 23:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything odd in the page history. What is it that has been added? Tom Harrison 23:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I see Blackcats added {{welcome}} when he welcomed you. I'm not sure of the terminology, but this is a 'live' template; Any changes anyone makes to the welcome template will be reflected everywhere it is used. If you look at Template:Welcome you can see the edit history of the template. Is the change you see on your page the result of a change made there? Tom Harrison 23:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you're editing pretty well without bootcamp. I'm pretty sure 'live template' is not the correct term, even though that's what I called it. I only use templates for vandalism. I put {{subst:test1}} on the vandal's talk page, and he gets a mild warning. The actual template is {{test1}}. By prefixing it with 'subst', short for 'substitute', the template is "dead"; the template is turned into a fixed entry and doesn't change thereafter, even if someone edits Template:test1. The people who know say it's better to "subst" these commonly-used templates, to keep down the load on the servers. Tom Harrison 00:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Good Work

Hi SkeenaR. Nice and clear improvement of the article :) --EyesAllMine 09:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

... well, at least as long as it lasted :( --EyesAllMine 11:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Careful

Don't violate 3RR on Collapse of the World Trade Center. MONGO will report you and you'll just get blocked. Your claiming his edits are vandalism won't be accepted as an excuse. This is clearly a disagreement about content, and should be worked out on the talk page. If you're blocked it will be that much harder to make your case. Tom Harrison 21:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Already done......please read the three revert rule carefully for future situations.--MONGO 21:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

At this point you are not blocked. You might leave a comment at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR saying you won't revert the page anymore. If blocked, you can edit your user page. I don't know about article talk pages. Tom Harrison 21:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverts on my part and in that article will continue to be perfectly legimate and not violate clauses or regulations. SkeenaR 23:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Please direct any further materiel for dispute on this matter to one of the following pages. Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center or /dispute. Previous comments have been redirected to /dispute. SkeenaR 00:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Fished In

He he. Man! Hooked ya! But good! Thanks for making my day buddy. Morton devonshire 07:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

That just ain't right! SkeenaR 07:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

That's better! User_talk:198.207.168.65 SkeenaR 03:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

I was just about creating that S9/11T article, but you did it, and it is very well written :) --EyesAllMine 08:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on the article. Nice work! Kaimiddleton 01:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

AFD

Thank you very much for your vote and comment. You would make me very happy if you could take a look at this AFD as well:

Thank you again. peace. --Striver 23:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Another AFD

I think that this may interest you: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gatekeeper (politics). Thanks, HK 06:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

rfc

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Jersey Devil --Striver 19:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:050905roberts1.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:050905roberts1.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

-SCEhard T 00:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:121105jones.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:121105jones.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 14:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Image Problems

Hi SkeenaR,
Sorry but my image expertise is limited to the stuf pre-uploading. I don't really know that much about licensing. I'd suggest contacting Solipsist who's always solved all of my problems ;-). Thanks for your message --Fir0002 www 05:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't say I'm an expert, but I have looked into a number of copyright issues, mostly in relation to photographers rights and art works. Sorry to say that most of the images that you pointed to on Images for Deletion, look like straight forward copyright violations to me. Some of the headshots might be fairuse under {{Promophoto}} (see Misplaced Pages:Publicity photos), but it would be better to source equivalent images from the individuals own web sites. Even then they would only be fair use on a page about that person.

You should also note that FairUse images and screenshots can only be FairUse on the the pages the discuss the programs. In other words they shouldn't be used on user pages. -- Solipsist 06:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

DUB

I like it, and will leave it up. Thanks for being a cheerful Wikipedian. Your bro Morton devonshire 02:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories

Why are you vandalizing it? ILovEPlankton 00:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't vandalism. See your talk. SkeenaR 00:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It was funny but it should still be removed. ILovEPlankton 00:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Looked like vandalism to me, too - I was about to give you a warning for that. Please take the time to think about whether or not something's appropriate for an article talk page before putting it there. CLW 00:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought his addition wasn't that bad for a talk page. SkeenaR 00:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images on user pages

I asked you politely well over a month ago to remove the fair use images from your user page. However, you have refused to do so and have blanked my original messages relating to this request. Would you please now remove these images? If you refuse to remove these images, you may be blocked from editing. Thanks, CLW 11:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I did remove them initially, but changed my mind at some point. I will remove them again in a couple of days when I have found some new content. SkeenaR 00:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, dealing with copyright violations isn't a case of doing it when you can be bothered or when you get round to it. I'm therefore removing the bottom section of your user page. Please feel free to reinsert anything that doesn't violate copyright, but reinserting any free use images is likely to result in a block. Regards, CLW 10:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Cheney?

Nah; A robot would be a better shot. Tom Harrison 03:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Vote

Could i ask you to change your vote to "keep or merge" here: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/People questioning the official American 9/11 account? Thanks. --Striver 10:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

afd

Did you see what happened to the Jones-Sheen interview?! --Striver 22:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories vs Controversy

Hello! As a wikipedia newby, I'm asking you how should i proceed regarding this dispute. I already asked for informal moderation, but i wasn't answered and don't think it will solve anything.Normal nick 23:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for your answer!

You said: "Hello Normal. (...) The thing is, you can only do so much when faced with strong opposition, especially when administrators are involved. SkeenaR 23:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)"

Isn't this opposition "strong"?! I never imagined WP to be such a chaos while reading it...
What can I legitematly do to get admins involved?
My argumentation barely proves that NPOV principles are beeing violated, despiste the subjectivity to them inhenrent. Doesn't this has any value?
In my actions, What shouldn't I have done from a "veteran" point of view?

I think you need to keep your cool most of all. On other pages, e.g. Timeline of evolution, the discussions are much more polite (even though you can imagine that topic has potential for controversy). Obviously people have strong opinions on this topic. One person who is instructive to look at is User:Tom harrison. I don't always agree with him, but I think he does his due diligence when it comes to researching the issues that folks around here bring up; and furthermore, I think he takes a respectful tone. Kaimiddleton 05:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Motorized?

Do you mean where people can or can't use motorized transport in parks? In U.S. Forests, forest access roads it is allowed, any paved road in NPS sites allowed. In Bureau of Land Management areas, there are the fewest restrictions. Wilderness areas allow no motorized uses, including mountain bikes. Check with the local area you venture into for clarification...I assume this answered your question.--MONGO 03:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Accusations

If you ate accusing me of being a paid webspammer, you better prepare your defense or provide an immediate apology.--MONGO 03:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I made no legal threat. I meant arbitration. Accusing someone of being a paid webspanner or censor is a pretty serious matter.--MONGO 03:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I did not cover up anything. I said that 50kb of new additions had occured since that wrongful innuendo. I created the last two or three archives and at no time have a I covered up anything. If I was going to cover it up...as an admin, I could have just deleted it. I will once again ask for an apology.--MONGO 03:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't try and set me up, Mongo. I hope that's not what you are doing. SkeenaR 04:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

page hits

Basically the answer is 'no'; We used to try to keep track, but the burden on the servers was too great. There is some historical data. Tom Harrison 16:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not what you asked about, but you might find these wikistats interesting. Tom Harrison 00:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Fun n Games

Yo momma! Man-o-man what a bunch of whiners those Bush-haters are. Pretty much a humorless crowd. Makes the conspiracy crowd seem tame by comparison. I would have alerted you earlier, just so you could enjoy seeing me pilloried and castigated, but I didn't want to draw you into the fray so that they would paint a target on your head as well. Hope you are enjoying yourself over in the Bat Cave while I'm occupied over here in No Humor Land. Nice to hear from you friend. Cheers. Morton devonshire 12:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Checked mail -- didn't see anything. BTW, I would stay away from the Daniel Brandt pages, as those people really take disagreement personally over there. I've watched both those pages and Brandt's website, where there's also a discussion board. Pretty intense stuff. The Wikipedians who discuss Brandt really have a huge axe to grind with him, and get more strident (and aggressive) each day. My advice is stay away, unless you have a Wiki-death-wish. I'm hoping that page will eventually burn itself out, or that the people just tire of the subject and leave the bloke alone. Yeah, I believe the Information War is real, but of course I see the culprits as mainly Lefties, and you see it as Rightists. That's what makes the world go round. Cheers. Morton devonshire 07:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Doorap.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Doorap.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Misplaced Pages because of copyright law (see Misplaced Pages's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Misplaced Pages are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Nivus 10:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I took care of it for you. Morton devonshire 20:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Non-Expert Investigators

Not trying to be divisive there, just trying to find a descriptor that satisfies both sides. My point is that there are many people who write about the 9/11 conspiracy theories, but as far as I can tell, none of them are actually qualified to render an expert opinion about any of the issues they write about. They are more akin to investigative journalists, which is fine, but not really "researchers" or "experts" either. Have you thought about the issue? Morton devonshire 23:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Right up your alley

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 Morton devonshire 18:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

About "9/11 conspiracy theories"

Why that page is frequented by so many defenders of the official POV and so few defender of the skeptic POV? Today I was trying to make an almost innocuous edit in the intro and 3 people have repetedly neutralized my attempts in all the ways.--Pokipsy76 22:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Is Pokipsy a vandal?

"I'm also going to point out that calling such minor edits as that vandalism is really really stretching it. Putting that warning sign up on this page is way overkill. I'm just going to suggest getting a little more practice at this before acting like a big tough administrator and doing a wholesale POV article rewrite of a controversial subject. SkeenaR 00:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)"

This was the change Pokipsy made in response to Tom's edit with the edit summary of "even more specific" It can very easily be viewed as retalitory vandalism after the heated debate we had all been engaged in. I used the template that Misplaced Pages provided as per their policies on WP:Vandalism. I wasn't trying to "scare him" by pretending to be an administrator, I was following the procedures layed out by Misplaced Pages. And he really was going too far.--DCAnderson 00:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Tom's edit *was* vandalism (at least in the same way of mine) and you defended it, so you are not in the position to accuse anybody of vandalism. I was going just as far as Bill. Did you follow the "procedures" with Bill? :)--Pokipsy76 08:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

No, he's not a vandal. Yes, if he persists in personnal attacks, incivility, and edit-warring someone will post to his page soon, telling him he's been blocked for one or all of those. You know very well that it won't be me blocking him, but an uninvolved admin. Is he a well-meaning guy who just wants to help write an encyclopedia? Maybe. I suppose User:Zen-master meant well. Certainly he was sincere. Maybe I'm wrong to see any other parallels between his and Pokipsy's behavior. I guess time will tell. Tom Harrison 00:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Isn't yours a personal attack? Aren't your defense of vandals, unmotivated cuts to the article and your total unability do make a democratic discussion (I can't find one in the talk page) a form of incivilty and edit warring?--Pokipsy76 08:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Read the Article

Yah, attempts at manipulating the press are nothing new. We call it "spin." The press in America have been a little too willing to blindly swallow what the Administration has said. Things have changed though, and come on these guys couldn't even hide the missing WMDs or their involvment in the Valerie Plame affair. Do you really think they could have hid a 9/11 cover-up?

I think Stephen Colbert summed up the relaitionship between the Bush Administration and the press quite well during his routine at the White House Press Corp banquet (which was ironically performed only ten feet away from the president, you should read it, its hilarious!):

As excited as I am to be here with the president, I am appalled to be surrounded by the liberal media that is destroying America, with the exception of Fox News. Fox News gives you both sides of every story: the president's side, and the vice president's side. But the rest of you, what are you thinking, reporting on NSA wiretapping or secret prisons in eastern Europe? Those things are secret for a very important reason: they're super-depressing. And if that's your goal, well, misery accomplished. Over the last five years you people were so good -- over tax cuts, WMD intelligence, the effect of global warming. We Americans didn't want to know, and you had the courtesy not to try to find out. Those were good times, as far as we knew. But, listen, let's review the rules. Here's how it works: the president makes decisions. He's the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put 'em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know - fiction!--DCAnderson 02:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

ON VIDEO

Colbert with Bush Colbert with Kristol

SkeenaR 02:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yah, I believe they should be presented, but they shouldn't be allowed to run rampant over serious debate. If every "blog topic of the week" Conspiracy Theory has to be given equal weight, the Signal to Noise ratio of these articles is going to get out of hand real fast. There is a reason Misplaced Pages has those clauses about "Undue Weight" and "Giving 'equal validity'" in their WP:NPOV policy.--DCAnderson 02:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)