User talk:ChrisO~enwiki: Difference between revisions

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

Please add new comments below.

Do you have any source of this picture?--Sanandros 17:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi, can you remove the spanish flag from the gibraltar talk page please? 212.120.228.1 18:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented on the AN/I page. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it appears the it has subsequently been restored, then deleted, then restored again. I'm not sure what you think needs to be done at this point. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't abused my admin privileges at all, but you have certainly abused yours. I expect you not to do it again. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the consensus on AN/I doesn't agree with you. You should take the hint. -- ChrisO 19:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you have misunderstood the word "consensus". Jayjg ^(talk) 19:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need the image here if it's on commons already (originally)? Just for the categories? El_C 19:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without the categories it won't show up in the relevant categories (Category:Maps of Israel etc) over here - correct me if I'm wrong? I should add that Jayjg deleted a placeholder with categories, rather than the image itself. -- ChrisO 19:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely following that. Are all or most maps on commons duplicated on Wikipedia for the sakes of categorization? El_C 19:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not duplicated. As far as I understand it (User:Timeshifter is the expert here, I think) placeholder pages are created here containing just categories, so that selected Commons images will appear in en: categories. Take a look at Category:Maps of Israel - every image in is on the Commons. If placeholder pages weren't in use for categorisation purposes, those images wouldn't appear in en: category galleries. -- ChrisO 19:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A compromise might be to use the <galllery></gallery>, to actually add the images directly to the category page itself, instead of adding categories to the images. Sort of the other way around... Smee 19:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Interesting idea, I hadn't thought of that. I'll suggest it to Timeshifter. -- ChrisO 20:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Category:Maps of the Palestinian territories and its talk page. I explain how it works there. It is not necessary to use gallery code for the images to show up on the category pages. Adding the category links to the placeholder image pages is much easier. It allows people to click English wikipedia images, which takes them to the placeholder page, where they can click the category links to find many more images. This helps editors find more images, and readers to learn much more. --Timeshifter 21:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Israel:

• Qiryat Shemona -> Kiryat Shmona
• Nahariyya -> Nahariya
• Akko -> Acre
• Herzliyya -> Herzliya
• Yafo -> Jaffa
• Ashqelon -> Ashkelon
• Qiryat Gat -> Kiryat Gat
• Mizpe Ramon -> Mitzpe Ramon
• Elat -> Eilat

In the occupied territories:

• Al Qunaytirah -> Quneitra
• Nabulus -> Nablus
• Ram Allah -> Ramallah

In Egypt

• Al 'Arish -> El Arish
• Abu Ujaylah -> Abu Ageila

In Jordan

• Al 'Aqabah -> Aqaba
• Jarash -> Jerash
• Az Zarqa -> Zarqa

I would also recommend getting rid of all the dots etc. around the names (i.e. Khan Yunis rather than Khan Yūnis). Hope this helps! Number 57 21:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. That's a lot more than I expected. I think that, before I go deleting anything, I'll ask the UN mappers what transliteration scheme(s) they use - I recognise at least some of those Arabic transliterations from maps I saw in the run-up to Iraq. -- ChrisO 21:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "official" transliteration schemes can be a bit problematic sometimes, and often vary considerably from the common spellings. With regards to the Israeli names, they seem to be those used by the country's statistical bureau, which are literal transliterations (i.e. based exactly on the Hebrew lettering and niqqud) with no regards for pronounciation. However, official Israeli spellings can still be inconsistent, and as I commented during another discussion, I have seen Petah Tikva (which I also consider a mistransliteration) spelt four different ways on road signs leading to the city! Number 57 22:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Mictlantecuhtli statue.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. "The threat has run its length". :) --Timeshifter 08:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Owing to your uncouth and ill-mannered indifference to my question, I will ask again. (Excuse me if you did not notice it, although I surmise you did.) Could you please remove the Spanish flag from the Gibraltar talk page? I hope you understand that its symbolism is somewhat 'unfavourable' with the Gibraltarian denizens, to say the least. It was the subject of a major discussion here in Gibraltar the other week. 212.120.228.1 20:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your full list link on your user page does not work. Thought you'd like to know.

Hello again. Sorry for being pedantic, but a quick question re: the map: Shouldn't it be "Israel with the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights" rather than "Israel with the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights", i.e. without the second comma? Number 57 12:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is optional. See: Comma (punctuation). I saw the map subheading in my watchlist. :) --Timeshifter 15:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Serial comma. :-) -- ChrisO 19:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my old-school British grammar rearing its head then! Number 57 23:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris. I see that you shut down User:COFS's good work in removing those links. Please see my page at User talk:Justanother#Reverts. Although I think that you should have not involved yourself due to your COI and should have posted the problem to AN/I, what is done is done. I would like to get going again on pulling those links. Please comment on my page. Thanks. --Justanother 21:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you take this picture and agree to release it under the GFDL? If so, please change the {{GFDL}} tag on the page to {{GFDL-user}}, otherwise the picture may have to be deleted. Thanks, Yonatan ^talk 19:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read your comment on ANI. If you meant that my trying to defend Asucena indicates that it is an alternate account I created, it is not true. I would volunteer for a checkuser. Meanwhile, for what it is worth, I am leaving my ip address. I am in Quebec, Canada. --Mihai (74.13.156.153)

• Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:COFS_reported_by_User:Smee_.28Result:.29 for examples of 3RR violations and multiple violations of WP:NPA, with warnings. Thank you for your time. Smee 19:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It appears that BrainKeeper has been deleted because of a lack of notability. I respectfully ask that the BrainKeeper page be allowed to be recreated since the company / product has been highlighted in several online / print magazines:

• Processor (where BrainKeeper is mentioned by a Forrester principal analyst: [Article]
• Miami Herald: [Article]
• CNet / Webware: [Article]
• Wisconsin Technology Network: [Article]

Thank you for your consideration.

Cganskewiki 02:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of BrainKeeper. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cganskewiki 04:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would it take to initiate a CU request? I am increasingly suspicious that a particular user may be a sockpuppet of another, banned editor, whose diatribe style is very similar. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in this:

• WP:ANI#Admin Humus sapiens and his personal attacks, insinuations, and defamations.

He has jumped in on various attacks against you, too. See his one-sentence piling on here:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive223#Blatant abuse of speedy deletion by Jayjg

Also see his incoherent piling on here, too: Image talk:Is-wb-gs-gh v3.png --Timeshifter 22:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon (GMT time); I have accepted a Mediation Cabal case - requested by Ryan4 - to which you are listed as a party. Mediation has commenced at the case page, where you are invited to participate. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me via email or my talk page; I will try to answer all your questions as fully as possible in so far as it does not compromise my neutrality. Kind regards, Anthøny 09:13, Saturday May 19 2007 (UTC)

Mediation is now active; please see the case page for more information. Thank you — anthony^[cfc] 20:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, please take a look at this Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:COFS_is_editing_my_user_page. He has done some hostile, unauthorized edting of my user page and been very disruptive. --Fahrenheit451 04:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, you might look at it - please - and comment. As you are part of the Scientology issue it might not have the strength needed to fully calm this down but some exterior viewpoint can't harm. COFS 17:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, I'm on holiday at the moment. I simply don't have time right now to sort things for you. Please try to come to some sort of amicable solution between yourselves, or ask another uninvolved party to mediate it. -- ChrisO 18:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Illyrians: Hi how are your doing? I wonder if you can help me with one dispute. In the article about Illyrians under one of the sections I together with a Greek user of Wikipedia have wrote that according to Britannica Albanians are direct descendents of Illyrians. I have sourced everything I wrote. But some are removing this all the time and claiming assimilation of Illyrians by Serbs without providing any source and saying Britannica is outdated and not reliable. I wonder if you can do something with this. Maybe protect the article or tell those people that Britannica is reliable. Thanks in advance. --Noah30 06:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noah. I'm happy to have a look at this but it'll have to be in a few days' time - I'm on holiday at the moment. -- ChrisO 11:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Title says all--Jakerl 00:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, would it be possible for you to go over this list and tell me that you're indeed the author of all of them and agree to release them under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. With no disclaimers.

Thanks, Yonatan ^talk 12:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for nudging User:Ryan4 - it seems to have done the trick. I've added my bit; I'd be interested in your take on it. For good form's sake, I'll contact the other administrators involved in this matter and add them to the list of involved parties. -- ChrisO 18:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - I've continued the mediation, with a comment under Ryan4's statement #discussion section, which you may or may not wish to monitor — anthony^[review] 20:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi again. Can you please take a look at this template: [1]. Shouldn't Albanian language be mentioned first since 90 % of the population are Albanians? (I changed this but some Serb nationalist keep reverting my edit) I hope I am not disturbing you but you are one of few here I consider to be quiet neutral. --Noah30 06:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Kosovo is in Serbia, and majority of population of Serbia are Serbs, doesn't that by the same logic means that the first language should be Serbian? Nikola 12:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo is in planet Earth as well and the biggest ethnic group there are the Chinese, so by the same logic means that the first language should be Chinese! Give me a break. Skyfteri 19:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mind checking Macedonia naming dispute? An uninvolved user added the POV tag because "the Macedonian position is not elaborated on". I had tried my best in expanding Macedonia naming dispute#The ethnic Macedonian minority in Greece, the Macedonia naming dispute#Self-determination and self-identification, and the Macedonia naming dispute#Macedonian (Slavic) sections (also splitted the Mk-Greek and Mk-ancient languages for NPOV). There seems to be a citation gap in the official position of the country, which I had spotted and have requested help for numerous times. Are you of the opinion that the POV tag should stay, or should it be replaced by {{expand-section}} in the parts where more elaboration could take place? I value your opinion. NikoSilver 10:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that I have included the complete Danforth quotes. I isolated the quoted parts according to the article structure and included them wherever applicable. NikoSilver 10:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, if there is no "official position" anywhere to be found, is the article deemed NPOV, since it describes the situation according to the existing sources? NikoSilver 10:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may never forgive you for this. My health is bad, I have limited time I can spend at the computer - I have dozens of controversial articles I watch, I have other duties and responsibilities, and you gently and politely drag me into the fringes of the Kosovo/Serbian/whatever mess? Ah, Chris... you owe me. Also, you have my admiration for dealing with the constitutionally dense without losing your cool. How clear can anyone make it that copyvio is simply not allowed? Not to mention the interesting view that apparently any minor jobless professor with a bee in his bonnet is a RS if his vanity published writings back your view. Have fun, I'm good for a few more posts and links to policy and I'm out of it until the next time you send up a flare. You have my respect for dealing with this day in and day out. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article (other than the lead sentence, which is reasonable) reads like propaganda, no NPOV whatsoever (poorly written propaganda at that!). I've written as much in discussion [2] - I'd be interested to know what you think. PalestineRemembered 16:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You added (knowingly or not knowingly):

During the conflict roughly a million ethnic Albanians fled or were forcefully driven from Kosovo, several thousand were killed (the numbers and the ethnic distribution of the casualties are uncertain and highly disputed).

I may be wrong, but that is slightly a POV figure, mostly quoted by the "extremist" sources that tend to be pro-Albanian, just like pro-Serbian sources write "over 300,000 Serbs ethnically cleansed". I've seen 700,000 mentioned as the *middle* most reliable figure, and as I've seen, BBC tends to mention the whole span of possible refugees, simply putting 500,000-800,000. --PaxEquilibrium 19:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely "not knowingly" - I just reverted an edit from someone who seems to prefer a POV version written last year by Dardanv (remember him?). Please feel free to correct the figure appropriately (but make sure it's sourced, of course!). -- ChrisO 19:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, I put a post to the administator incident noticeboard, but I would like you to take a look at this: [3] --Fahrenheit451 23:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and please look one up on F451's NPA. Starting a fight and then going to mama to cry? Not ok. I decided to ignore him since a couple of days and editing is much better since. COFS 03:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:COFS I suggest you conduct yourself here in a civil manner as well. You have been the one who has started fights here. "then going to mama to cry?" Who is mama to you? The Administrator's Notice Board? That is a rather disparaging insinuation. I see no evidence that you have reformed yet.--Fahrenheit451 21:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:COFS states that "editing is much better since" I take it he is referring to this:[4]--Fahrenheit451 22:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misou (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

[5], [6] - I explained to him to follow the proper channels, on his talk page. Can you clarify this somehow? Thanks for your time. Smee 17:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

FYI, posted DIFFs to WP:ANI. Smee 17:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Chris again. I hope I am not bothering you but we have a user who are extremely disruptive and aggressive. His nick is User:Nikola Smolenski. I think he has several other accounts here. Something must be done since he doesn't do anything else than edit wars. --Noah30 05:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you worry, me and Chris are old friends ;) Nikola 06:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris he has more than 5 accounts. Are there anthing you/we can do? Please answer. It is not only me but tens of users are complaining. I don't know the rules and please, please tell me what I can do. --Noah30 20:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noah, can you identify these other accounts? Wikipedia:Sock puppetry is your guide to the rules on that subject. -- ChrisO 00:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
• Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, offline publication, article improvement contests, and other tasks.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 00:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a simple link of an independent research on page Golden Age of Tech and page Patter drill. The link added was

• Scientology: A ‘Golden Age of Tech’ A.D. 1996 or A remarkable tool if used as originally intended

3 different person have repeatedly removed it for the given reason:
Golden Age of Tech page:

12:05, 28 April 2007 Tilman (Talk | contribs) (3,939 bytes) (rv link to NWO conspiracy page)

05:53, 29 April 2007 Tilman (Talk | contribs) (3,939 bytes) (rv2 yes, the page has the words "new world order" in it and its URL. And who is this Michael Snoek anyway, and why should this link be added?)

Patter Drill page:

00:47, 29 April 2007 Antaeus Feldspar (Talk | contribs) (1,889 bytes) (rv. From page linked to: "Back to ‘L. Ron Hubbard vs ‘New World Order’ (2)’ index")

01:45, 29 April 2007 Wikipediatrix (Talk | contribs) (1,889 bytes) (rv to last version by Antaeus Feldspar)

Talkpage of Tilman:

I don't want to have a web page with "new world order" theories. Plus, how exactly is this page "worthy"? Who is behind it? Is this person an expert on scientology? --Tilman 05:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It is noted that the particular page linked to does not discuss or deal with NWO or New World Order. It appears to be part of a larger project. This particular page however solely addresses the subject of Golden Age of Tech. No NWO theories are in fact found on this page! Please can you have a look at this? I do not perceive I will be getting anywhere here, it will be continued to be reverted by these 3 persons. One shouldn't get such resistence when simply adding a link that provides for data that is directed relateing to and analysis the matter of Golden Age of Tech, and that in addition is very well documented with referencing to official publications. Sincerely, --Olberon 10:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're focusing on Tilman's NWO comment but ignoring his other questions, and I don't believe they were rhetorical ones: How exactly is this page worthy of an encyclopedia? Who is behind it? Is this person an expert on Scientology? Snoeck's webpages are very amateurish, personal-opinionated, and bloglike, and I see nothing that they contribute to the article as per WP:EL. (However, in the interest of fairness, I think the exact same things could be said for Tilman's own webpages (http://home.snafu.de/tilman/) which have been improperly used, IMHO, as sources in Wikipedia articles.) wikipediatrix 17:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The direct reason given for reverting is that the date found at the link is about New World Order. Fact is that it is not! Wikipedia is about verifiability. The pages on that site linked to give very extensive documentation. Verifiability remember. That site also has a page dedicated to responses received. To judge by these this site appears highly validated. Many Free Zone sites and a variety of other also link and refer specifically to this site (search on the Internet for this site address). These pages present objective studies that view from various angles, it is therefore not personal-opinionated. Your adjudication is an opinion lacking any substance or backup whatsoever.--Olberon 19:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is that not necessarily true (I see nothing "objective" about Snoeck's webpages), that still didn't answer any of the other questions asked by Tilman or myself. And "verifiability" has nothing to do with the External Links sections of articles. You have read WP:EL, have you not? wikipediatrix 19:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal opinion bears no importance in this matter. Various appear of quite a different opinion. These pages on that site have a strong touch of objectivity over them. It is factual and directly basing its tale on or is referring to reference materials. That you deny this does not concern this matter. Improve rather then revert says Wikipedia (from memory). What do you propose? Will you actively deny the Wikipedia readers access to this detailed study of Golden Age of Tech? What do you propose??--Olberon 21:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I propose is that you take the matter to a higher power if you really want to fight a prolonged fight to try to shoehorn this crappy amateurish webpage into the External Links section. wikipediatrix 21:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could but you'd have to remind me again on Tuesday. That's the earliest time I can get access to LexisNexis to retrieve another copy (I sent his copy straight from there, so I don't have one myself). - Mgm|^(talk) 22:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Actually, if you have access to LN, could you possibly also retrieve some related articles for me? Specifically:

• Serbia recalls an epic defeat / The Guardian (London) - 6/29/1989
• The anniversary of the Battle of Kosovo Polje / BBC Summary of World Broadcasts - 6/29/1989
• SLOVENE COMMENT ON KOSOVO CELEBRATIONS / BBC Summary of World Broadcasts - 6/30/1989
• CROATIAN GOVERNMENT BODIES ON EVENTS AT KOSOVO POLJE ANNIVERSARY / BBC Summary of World Broadcasts - 7/15/1989

I'll remind you again on Tuesday. :-) -- ChrisO 22:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ChrisO,

I'm a wikipedian (User:Rapotter) who is also working on the Citizendium project, and wanted to contact you to get your explicit permission to use your wikimedia commons image of New Scotland yard [7]. The editors at Citizendium insisit upon a "real name" release. If this is something you would feel OK granting, let me know via my user page at [8] and I would be grateful. Many thanks, Rapotter 04:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User 66.49.60.2 has been vadalizing a lot of articles. You have banned them before on March 6th. Is it possible to ban them again, or it is futile due to the fact that they have not registered an account? I am not familiar with the procedure to ban user. OneWorld22 21:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, I've blocked the IP address. -- ChrisO 21:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, it looks to me like Justanother has personally attacked me and is uncivil. Here is the instance:[9] Please consider if this needs to be dealt with.--Fahrenheit451 22:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 1 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Israel-United States military relations, 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.

--howcheng {chat} 21:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on the article! Your use of citations and images is especially impressive (especially in a five day old article!). --Kralizec! (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Experience pays off. ;-) -- ChrisO 21:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, please take a look at this:[10] --Fahrenheit451 01:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussed extensively on my talk page. By (5) editors yet. At least. Glen, do you know what "Dev'T" is? --Justanother 19:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let the record show that User:Justanother has also, on repeated occasions, belched disrespectfully, stuck his tongue out at me, uncivilly furrowed his brow, and passive-aggressively personally attacked me by whistling the Sanford and Son theme out of key. Something can be done about it!! wikipediatrix 19:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipediatrix, I will admit that F451 does tend to overreact to perceived personal attacks. I'm not saying that they aren't personal attacks; I'm saying that letting the kind of person who would make a personal attack think they've gotten to you with something that could be a petty personal attack is frequently a poor choice -- even if it was indeed a deliberately aimed personal attack.

However, I personally think that accusing someone of "Black Scientology", especially when the accusation comes from someone who believes that Scientology "tech" is a powerful force for helping people or harming them (in other words, Black Scientology) is a bit more serious of a personal attack than whistling a TV theme tune out of key. And it hasn't escaped me that Justanother has slipped a first name into the conversation; if he is trying to imply that he has reason to believe this is F451's real first name, that's definitely not a minor personal attack, that's an act of harassment, whether or not he's correct in that belief. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now see, I didn't even know anything about that, and neither did a lot of people, I'm sure. And now, here you are calling even more attention to it, which is probably not a good idea if it really is 451's real name. Nice going. wikipediatrix 22:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if that's F451's real name, and not just a bluff by Justanother intended to provoke more reactions advantageous to Justanother, it's very unfortunate that Justanother said such a thing. However, whether it is or isn't is a) irrelevant to the fact that Justanother committed an act of harassment and b) the damage that was done was already done, and done by Justanother. Your choice to single out for scolding someone other than the one who committed the wrong is quite interesting. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris, I see you were editing with G-Dett on the Pallywood page, but don't know if you caught the report against her on 3RR. Just wanted to make sure you were aware. Best, Mackan79 06:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again. I have many personal interests. I have started new articles on topics as diverse as Walter A. Starr, Jr., Phoebe Snow and Anthora. I've been able to cooperate with reasonable people on many articles on Greek and non-Greek related topics, without any problems.

If you look at the history you will see a pattern of people writing up pages on Greek-related matters, using the perfectly valid name that FYROM agreed to for its UN representation, just to have some come-latelys come in and put their opinion, frequently combined with false nationalistic "facts" in places where there is absolutely no reason for them (Vergina for example: it was never yours, it will never be, leave it alone). For months you insisted that Krste Misirkov was from Vergina, when he clearly was not according to FYR sources. But you don't let facts stand in your way.

Quite frankly, I'd have more time to spend on my favorite topics if it wasn't for pseudomacedonianwannabes like you, trying to put their mark on every page about Greece and Macedonia proper, and getting their facts wrong (like you did with EO/A2) at the same time.

Without any regards,

sys < in 19:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you prove my point. The EU does not accept that a place called "Republic of Macedonia" exists. Yet, out of the blue and without discussion, you went ahead and changed the EU map with your nomenclature. This is typical. You can't get what you want in the real world where there is a rule of law (United nations, European Union), so you go around bullying people in wikipedia where anything goes. Pathetic.

If you are so upset about this name, why don't you get the E.U. to change it? If they don't, you can punish them by walking out, and refusing to accept all the aid they give you.

sys < in 13:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am an MFD regular, going incognito for the while. It might help if you were to combine the dozen or so Vergina subpages into a single nomination. To do this, arbitrarily choose one subpage as the header, say "User:Vergina/Foobar", then replace the MFD boxes on the other pages with "subst:md1|User:Vergina/Foobar", and list on the main MFD page. That way people won't have to vote twelve times. Cheers from never-neverland. :) 129.98.212.146 22:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO, I've merged all of your MfD nominations for this user's subpages in to one, at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vergina/The state name Republic of Makedonia is disputed, it should help the MFD process run smoother. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 14:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ChrisO,

My coauthors and I would like to use a cropped version of your photo of the Elgin Marbles that appears in wikipedia here:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Elgin_marbles_frieze.jpg

in an academic paper on bas relief.

We will of course acknowledge you as the source, and the plan is to credit it to "ChrisO from Wikipedia". But if you have a preferred way for us to phrase it, we would be happy to change it to say something else. Let me know.

Thanks, --Adam

You are right there. While I didnt agree with his vandalism comments re yourself I saw nothing wriong with the complaint and am baffled as to how Juan Carlos can be considered King of a place where the Spanish absolutely do Not have soveriegnty. But no, I didnt know anything about Gibraltarian and wouldnt have restored his comments at BLP if I had known. if you had put that in your edit summary at BLP I wouldnt have reverted you. Cheers, SqueakBox 17:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no worries. I tend to just mass-rollback his edits, hence the lack of an edit summary. As for Juan Carlos' claims to sovereignty, did you know that the British kings claimed to be the legitimate sovereigns of France until as late as 1801? Royal titles often don't have much connection with reality. :-) -- ChrisO 17:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well do revert me if you like (as reverting a banned user isnt covered by 3rr), SqueakBox 17:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'll post something to the BLPN to ask the other users there to keep an eye on the article. Please do keep an eye on it yourself! -- ChrisO 17:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pages that so far have been sabotaged: Golden Age of Tech, Patter drill, Scientology controversy & Rundown (Scientology). The history pages of these will fold out that which is deleted and will also tell the reason they give for removing them. Persistently the argument has been forwarded that various of these discuss New World Order theories, which is an empty claim when one consults these pages where these external links lead to.

On user Tilman's talkpage one can read that both user Wikipediatrix and user Tilman are conspiring to remove a variety of external links from Scientology pages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tilman#Reverting_valid_links Noted is that both these are against Scientology and intend and are removing links that directs to information that may oppose their personal ideas and convictions. To my understanding Wikipedia is supposed to be about given views on both sides of issues!

I have contacted you earlier about this when I posted a message on your talkpage, I in addition send you 2 emails giving you details. You failed to give me any response to either of these so far. I contacted first you as you have been involved with the Scn subject. May I receive a reaction this time, or do I need to take this elsewhere and post it on some noticeboard??--Olberon 20:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take great offense at the suggestion that I am "against Scientology". As for conspiring to remove links to Snoeck's bloggy amateurish homepage, yeah, that part's true. wikipediatrix 20:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute! Are we trying to "keep every crank with a webpage from turning Wikipedia into their own personal linkfarm"? Cool!!! --Justanother 21:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Chris,

I would like to send a very deserving barnstar to a User here. He has recently been made an Admin, and his tireless works deserves a lot of kudos (he is User:Anthony.bradbury). How do I go about doing this, and finding the appropriate Barnstar? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, best wishes.--RobNS 21:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The April 2007 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 13:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The discussion on ANI was regarding the main 'puppet master' of the account, not the puppets. It was deemed that tagging ChrisGriswold's main account as a 'puppet master' was excessive and should not be done. But the other accounts are suspended and were used primarilly as tools by ChrisGriswold to deceive and abuse other Wikipedians. Those tags on those accounts should stay in place and not be removed. Also kudos on showing me—via the way you handled this—there is a way for a sysop/admin to reverrt a change without it showing up on a 'watchlist'. Very classy and not sneaky at all. Cheers! —SpyMagician 16:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I have put this issue to rest. Obviously the 'mob has spoken'. But when ChrisGriswold returns I'm sure he'll be quite good and polite to begin with. But soon enough afterwards, I'm sure the same behavior will reappear. He's clearly not as remorseful about this as one would think and is highly territorial. Looking forward to seeing these comments/diffs referenced by another admin in future discussions about this user. —SpyMagician 16:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got a message on "User talk:68.162.122.196" about spamming. Could you please tell me specifically what it was that you consider spam? I don't remember the last external link I added, so I don't know what it is that you consider inappropriate. Pha telegrapher 17:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't have been you - the spammer was another user from the same ISP using the same IP address. -- ChrisO 12:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris

I happened to see your fantastic picture of Pont du Gard in the article with the same name. I really would like to use that picture for my mathematical board game if possible. Could you possibly read and answer the email I sended?

Smeddan

I was wondering if we could discuss what I had in mind.

Firstly I'd like to point out this article was mostly writen using copy/cut paste. Some of the contributors such as User:Diyako (one year), User:Moby Dick (indefinite) had been banned from editing wikipedia for disruptive editing. Syrian Kurdistan article was deleted for being a POV fork while it's content was salvaged. Article itself agrees that the term "Turkish Kurdistan has no administrative basis and is very open to controversy".

As for this article's actual content the "regional history" seems mostly relevant to Kurdish history or Kurdistan as a whole and not just this "Turkish Kurdistan" part. In fact "Turkish Kurdistan" is not even mentioned until the Treaty of Serves section.

Serves treaty section also seems to be relevant to Turkish History, Kurdish history, and Kurdistan as a whole rather than just "Turkish Kurdistan". Treaty of Sèvres article desperately needs more content. Also IIRC Serves talked about a "Kurdistan" region as a whole and not as a "Turkish Kurdistan"

WP:SPINOUT is not the case because the material presented here was cut pasted from other articles and a greater detailed article for the content presented here does not exist. For instance the Serves section on the Turkish Kurdistan article has more content than the actual Treaty of Sèvres article as a whole.

So after the mergers no content is being sacrificed and overall the quality will be improved since there would be a greater detail in the relevant articles. Whats left can be a section under "Kurdistan" article as it originally was. We do also have a Kurds in Turkey article to cover Turkey-Kurd issues which can be the WP:SPINOUT. Turkish Kurdistan can be redirected to Kurds in Turkey just like how Syrian Kurdistan redirects to Kurds in Syria

-- Cat ^chi? 12:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems reasonable to me. Multiple articles can make use of this main article. Recommend merging, with reduced, summary text left intact with pointer to main article. --Durin 18:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems reasonable, based on my admitted lack of knowledge with regards to Turkey and Kurdistan. ~Crazytales 21:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Cool Cat, I have to admit that my view of your proposal is somewhat coloured by the knowledge that you've wanted to get rid of the article for a long time, as in your proposal to delete it just over a year ago. Because of that history, I'm uneasy about your motives for proposing this. However, I'm not going to dismiss your idea out of hand - it may have some merits. Let me have a day or two to think about it. -- ChrisO 23:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even my deletion nom was not intended to delete the "content" but that particular page. Content can and should be salvaged whenever possible.

You spent a great deal of time with this article and last thing I'd like is that getting waisted. However despite your good efforts several other editors made less than perfect edits. Existing material would need to undergo a cleanup (with or without a merge). I made some cleanup myself, I would more than welcome you to help out. Should you decide in a merger, you are welcome to preform it as well.

-- Cat ^chi? 00:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, whats up? -- Cat ^chi? 17:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, some sources seem to say that people on Teegeeack (Earth) are the ones who had cars and clothes like the present day, but this source says it's the planet Coltice that looks like that. Which is it? wikipediatrix 21:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked my sources. Seems Hubbard was talking about the Galactic Confederacy as a whole - he didn't describe a particular planet in those terms, he framed it as "this confederacy of the 21 adjacent stars and its 76 planets." -- ChrisO 21:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hello, can you pleaseee do me a favor? Go to the Kosovo Liberation Army article and take a look at the victims- section. The only source used is a book/website published by Serbian authorities. Don't you think this is against the rules of Wikipedia, WP:NPOV and WP:Reliable source?? I would also like to ask you what I should do in cases when someone due to POV reasons removes somethings I have added with reliable sources or adds something which is purely POV and refuses to listen to what I have to say. It is sad to see so much polarization in the Kosovo related articles.--Noah30 07:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, I believe that my comments here were quite reasonable, and I'd appreciate if you could modify the entry accordingly and/or engage me in discussion. The ridiculousness only becomes more apparent now that the criteria has been modified to "US made", acknowledging the lack of sourcing for any other statement; considering the proportion of armaments produced by the US, about how many of these lists can we expect elsewhere? The whole enterprise is quickly becoming OR of the first degree. Tewfik^Talk 04:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; thank you for soliciting my feedback. I do wonder though, if just 'Macedonia' (piped) may and should be used to refer to the republic as needed, particularly in Wikipedia listings of countries where this sense should not be ambiguous -- e.g., the table at Europe > Macedonia. Compare with Ireland/Republic of Ireland -- e.g., the former appears in the 'Europe' table. Otherwise, the conventions look OK. I will comment on that talk page and/or make edits. Thoughts? Thanks! Corticopia 19:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point - after all, the country name "Ireland" overlaps with the regional name "Northern Ireland", a situation rather similar to that between the Republic of Macedonia and Greek Macedonia. -- ChrisO 19:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; thus, I think the 1st convention should be tweaked and loosened. I've gotta go now, but I'll take a crack at it upon my return this evening!? Merci! Corticopia 19:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology indeed did steal my ideas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hagrath (talk • contribs) 23:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hello, ChrisO. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Distance from Pristina Prizren.JPG) was found at the following location: User talk:ChrisO/Archive 11. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 02:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ChrisO. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Distance from Vancouver Winnipeg Toronto.JPG) was found at the following location: User talk:ChrisO/Archive 11. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 00:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Battlefield earth planetship.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 19:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 05:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note. I greatly admire you for the statement you gave on the evidence page. Being a relative newcomer to the project, I didn't want to cause any ill-will by offering a statement, but now you have said everything that needed to be said. Best regards, nadav 23:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris. Fredric Rice is looking for you, something to do with media. If he didn't reach you, send me an email, I will reply with his email where you can write him without having to go through his spam filter. Raymond Hill 12:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the mistaken error message. Please note trolling by banned users in edit summary when you revert so we can understand more easily. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 18:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you protected the page Juan Carlos I of Spain, it seems. Would you be so kind to exchange the picture of His Majesty with Image:Juan Carlos I of Spain 2007.jpg? Like that I won't have to create an English Wikipedia account. Thanks, -- א

No problem, done. Excellent picture! -- ChrisO 20:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! -- א

MoabMoab is Barbara Schwarz. Sounded kinda like a movie ad. Anynobody 04:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd post this on WP:ANI like I did the last one but since you've handled many prior issues I figured it'd be more efficient this way. Anynobody 08:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• StarbrightStarbright (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Another one. Smee 03:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:V1 fall.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kjetil r 20:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be the first to welcome a new airline, however Fly Gibraltar is an article about a speculative airline which is most unlikely to fly. I'd welcome your assistance in deleting the entry as I may not have the correct formula.

--Gibnews 20:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a bit of time to think about this now. I think there are legitimate reasons for keeping this article mostly as it is. Each of the four "Kurdistans" (Iraqi, Iranian, Syrian and Turkish) have significantly differing post-Ottoman history and politics, and present somewhat different issues. There's more than enough content in both Turkish Kurdistan and Iraqi Kurdistan to justify the separate existence of those articles. Having said that, I think we could probably move some of the pre-1918 content in Turkish Kurdistan into the main Kurdistan article, along the lines of how Iraqi Kurdistan is structured. -- ChrisO 15:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-WW1 histories as you point out should be merged. Turkey was formed after the fall of the ottoman empire and officially started to exist after the Lausanne.

The content regarding the treaties should be merged as soon as possible. I would welcome you to do this. The serves treaty proposed an entire Kurdistan country and was never just a "Turkish Kurdistan" part. Lausanne made "Kurdistan" to cease to exist as a proposal.

After those two merges you'd be basically left with a single paragraph.

As stated on the talk page, "Once you have Kurds in Turkey and History of the Kurdish people, is Turkish Kurdistan really useful?". The post-ottoman issues are being discussed at Kurds in Turkey.

-- Cat ^chi? 15:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris,

Unfortunately (but not so unpredictably, I would imagine) it is fair to say that the discussion regarding the name of the article is not going anywhere. I would like you to join in and propose a solution as an administrator (in a form of a mediator). Otherwise, we could leave the disputed sign indefinitely (a 'non-solution solution').--FreedonNadd 06:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris. I noticed you have created locator maps and location templates for a few countries. I was wondering if you have the resources and access to create a reference map and a location map template for Syria. If you do, I would really appreciate if you can offer any help. Best regards, Anas ^talk? 13:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, my brother, thank you so much! I truly appreciate the help! I will conduct some tests and try to implement this into an infobox; if my tests fail, I shall contact them. Thanks again, I owe you one. Best wishes, Anas ^talk? 20:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you check out this edit, by 211.224.128.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Same editor Raphaelaarchon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as before on Glenn Greenwald (see history of Talk:Glenn_Greenwald). I've also placed this at the BLP noticeboard. R. Baley 07:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, is there any reason why the Glenn Greenwald article doesn't show up on my watch list anymore? I think this has also happened with the sockpuppet article. Just wondering . . .R. Baley 22:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLP violations are an admin issue, not a content dispute. But feel free to unblock and re-block, if it makes you feel more comfortable. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My God, Chris, that's stupendous work! The article is looking much better now; I'm considering hitting GA status with this one. Thank you so much, again. Have a nice day! —Anas ^talk? 07:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

warn the fyromian who keeps putting the propaganda up, do not message the greeks who see it up there for days uninterrupted by any admin and than post a response. Just logic no? Reaper7 13:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm looking for photos of the catapult that are available in high resolution (8X11, 300 dpi). Do you sell your photos on a website/stock agency? Are they large files? Thanks Debbie Yea Photo Researcher Chirp, chickaDee & OWL magazines

Owlkids 10 Lower Spadina Ave., Ste. 400 Toronto, ON M5V 2Z2 phone: 416-340-2700 x 318 fax: 416-340-9769 deb@owlkids.com www.owlkids.com

Hey, when you blocked the Allison Stokke page you linked to the original AfD discussion, but the second one is probably more relevant. Lampman 11:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The May 2007 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

ChrisO,

I noticed that you protected the Haditha killings article, and in your edit summary you said you were reverting to last. Seems that the protect took, but the revert did not.[11] As the previous editor had been blocked for 3RR, it seemed out of line to keep the protected version on his last revert; so (as I think was your intention), I undid his last revert. — ERcheck (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had a database error message when I tried to revert, so evidently it didm't take that time. Thanks for sorting it out. -- ChrisO 21:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the matter of the 3RR violation, just a small thing but I thought I'd call it to your attention. You blocked one of the trolls for breaking 3RR, but not the other troll User:Randy2063 whom he was editwarring with - please note User:Randy2063 also broke the 3RR rule. I'm not saying you have an agenda in that block, it just appears that way. Is there a reason for only one of them being blocked that is not immediately apparent or that I have overlooked? Elmo 00:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you could help with the other two sub divisions since you made great progress in Turkish Kurdistan.

Material in Iranian Kurdistan should be moved to Kurds in Iran (mere redirect at this point)

Iraqi Kurdistan seems to be confused. It is supposed to be an article on geography but it is about the Iraqi Kurdistan Government. Geographic aspect of the place should be explained in the article Kurdistan

-- Cat ^chi? 13:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Chris: I left this message with another admin who didn't appear interested in the issue at hand. Please do let me know what you think. Thanks!

The article is Perro de Presa Canario - a rare breed of dog. The article is straightforward and informative and is generally positive in tone regarding the dog. Unfortunately, however, there have been two separate cases since 2001 in America where somebody has been KILLED by an attack by one or more of these dogs. A little bit of research leads me to believe that on average appx. 10 people TOTAL are killed by dog attack in the US per year. With numbers so low ANY fatal mauling is news and strikes me as being encyclopedic. One of these attacks involving Presa Canarios was very high profile - the case of Diane Whipple who was killed in the hallway of her apartment building by two of these dogs.

To make a long story short, there is a group of editors who are Presa Canario lovers who are refusing to allow references to these attacks in the article. I have made the language regarding the attacks as matter-of-fact and npov as possible: From the article:

• On January 26, 2001, Diane Whipple of San Francisco, California was attacked and killed by two Presa Canario dogs in the hallway of her apartment building.
• On Friday, August 18, 2006, a 120 lb. Presa Canario fatally mauled a Florida woman, Shawna Willey of Coral Springs. The victim, the dog's owner, was giving the dog a bath when it attacked. Police responding to the emergency felt threatened by the dog and shot and killed it.[12]

-End from the article This group, at least one member of which appears to be a dealer/breeder of the dogs, repeatedly remove this section from the article, claiming that reporting the sourced stories of these attacks is POV - as well as unfair, untrue, inaccurate, etc.

I'm at wit's end regarding this. I and any number of other editors have laid out the facts time and again on the article's Talk page, to no avail. This has been going on since August, 2006 when the second dog attack occurred.

Do you have any opinion? Advice? Course of action?

What say you? --AStanhope 00:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a misrepresentation of the facts. For starters, I'm not a breeder, dealer, etc. (see PdPC discussion, item 1) Second, this Astanhope (or one of several sock puppet identities he's been posting under - Gauche, Timeonmyside1 - while being blocked for vandalism) has been working the article for full hysterical bedwetter impact by habitually reposting, for the past several months, the bold header "Attacks Against People," and various gratuitous representations of the gruesome details. Third, it's a fact that the dogs involved in the Whipple tragedy were, in fact, mastiff mixes: http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid45596.asp - and you know, if it's in an actual ODT publication, it must be true - I seem to recall one of his multiple identities making this argument at some point. Fourth, isn't there a 3RR something or other? This guy's edits are straight up sensationalism, plain and simple. See the PdPC discussion for the whole story.

Several issues... (A) Yes - I was blocked for awhile due to vandalism on the Jerry Falwell article. (B) This particular Presa Canario advocate (Frangible?) isn't the only one removing the dog attack section of the article. Somebody named "Presa Truth" is the editor who has been accused of being a breeder. (C) I haven't been involved with sockpuppets. --AStanhope 04:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved user (requested by AStenhope here. I can see where people might not want a favorite breed of theirs to be associated with this kind of info, nevertheless, it does deserve a small treatment (due to the widespread media coverage) in the Perro de Presa Canario article, including links to other appropriate article(s) for further details. R. Baley 18:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

== Quneitra

==

On 13 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Quneitra, 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.

--howcheng {chat} 00:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]