-- TomasBat ( Talk) 22:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Lupin/badwords

Hi Chris, there's no need to add URL fragments to the badwords list when they've already been spam blacklisted. We need to keep the real-time checklists as short as possible for performance reasons. --  Netsnipe   ►  01:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Ohbijou

Please note the following links from CBC Radio 3, a national radio network which passes WP:MUSIC criterion #10; you will notice that the links in question simultaneously satisfy WP:MUSIC criterion #1:

• Chart position #30, October 26, 2006
• Chart position #19, November 2, 2006
• Chart position #16, November 9, 2006
• Chart position #8, November 16, 2006
• Chart position #12, November 19, 2006
• Chart position #6, November 30, 2006
• Chart position #4, December 4, 2006
• Chart position #7, December 14, 2006
• Chart position #15, December 21, 2006
• 2006 Year End Chart Position #34

In light of this, I believe you owe User:Cmedley an apology. Bearcat 09:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: DavidLeslie

Hey Chris, thanks for your message. I can't say I'm surprised to learn DavidLeslie was a sock of a banned user. :) Thanks also for endorsing my proposed block of DavidLeslie on the Talk:Parkinson's disease. It's always nice to have a second admin endorse an action or proposed action. Cheers, Sarah 03:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Natto

You described about the process of manufacturing natto as below: The beans are mixed with a special sauce containing salt, sugar, and yeast with the bacteria bacillus natto. Although you know natto very well, I wonder why you misunderstood. We spray water contained bacillus natto to the beans. And the water does not contain any salt, sugar, or yeast. So I edited the article. Nabimaru-jp 05:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for your contributions. -- Chris 73 | Talk 12:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Das.jpg and Image:DepAdSegColombia.png

User:F3rn4nd0 created Image:DepAdSegColombia.png. This is the logo for Departamento Administrativo de Seguridad and he added the tag as a work of his own. As far as I know, the owner of the copyright for the DAS logo is the government, and I dont think they would leave for free distribution and modification. On the other hand, my logo, Image:Das.jpg is a scanned image from the documents I receive every month from them and, since I`m not the copyright holder I added the logo tag. Also, he listed my logo as a candidate for speedy deletion in order to use his logo. What should I do?-- ometzit<col> 01:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Head's up

There are some rather unsavory insults about you in the history of a couple of pages, due to a recent spate of vandalism by User:Adftreds. Just thought I'd let you know. Of course, if you check the history of my userpage, I am a lesbian, prostitute and waitress (?!) and I don't really care...;) Dina 17:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Tuna head.jpg

hello, could you confirm that the pic (subject) is a tuna fish. I'm very surprised. where (area) did you take this pic, do you know the type of tuna ? thanks. Atchoum 20:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. The fish is from southern Japan, and I believed it to be Tuna, although I am not sure. -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thks, I do not think it is, anyway thanks again-- Atchoum 15:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. -- WikiInquirer 01:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC) ^{talk to me}

Possibly unfree Image:BackstrokeStart2.JPG

Possibly unfree Image:Bookstore.jpg

Thanks

Thanks for taking the time to read my post on AN/I and commenting on it. Regards, NN 00:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The matter has been resolved with an apology from Yannismarou. Thanks for your time and advice. NN 14:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The matter came late to my attention, many of the editors involved didn't even get the chance to participate. I am the only person who has been editing the article Sparta on a regular basis and I have closely followed Nev's actions. Please read the diffs I provided in my last-minute edits, Nev has been extensively edit-warring and has even invited other editors to edit-war in his stead (linked). This fact alone is a reason to have himself blocked, this is clearly mentioned in 3RR. Maybe WP:POINT was not the right reason, but this doesn't change the fact that Nev has been extremely disruptive and un-cooperative. His methods are unorthodox and against wikipedia's spirit, notably due to his constant refusal of following WP:ATT. As stated by Georgia, NPOV and the related fundemental policies are not respected in WP, and there are only limited means to keep track of an editor's activity. Only one side of the story was presented in the notice board, notably because the matter was rushed. For such a procedure to be fairly conducted, all participants need to be warned beforehand. For the above reasons, and all the reasons mentioned in the page, I think the result was unjust to Yannismaru. Miskin 18:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore I wish to restart a new section on AnI concerning Nev's behaviour. I have already gathered the related diffs and it's time to shed some light to the matter. Do you think it is relative to the board's scope? Miskin 18:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Precisely my point, Nev has made this look like a mob-like group of people have been co-operating against him, which only one side of the story, and a very biased one. This is pretty much the image that NN has been trying to pass since the beginning. I'm an editor deeply involved in Greco-Roman history and language-related articles, I don't see how that labels me as part of some Greek mob. I've been regularly improving Sparta for some months now, which in my opinion makes me more knowledgable than the people who appeared during the dispute and gave their opinions. When Nev came to the article, he started edit-warring on the limit of 3RR and later he actually invited Iranian editors to join him for the purpose of edit-war [1]. Nonetheless, I never tried to pass my edit under dictatorial means, as a matter of fact I didn't even remove any of Nev's edits, I just improved them, or reverted him when he removed referenced content. Out of all the times he started rv-warring, only once I reached three rv. The only thing I've asked from NN was to not remove referenced content unless he had a counter-reference to cite, the most basic of policies. Out of the people who supported NN's view, not even once was there a counter-reference against a wording that was proved to be in widespread use. Frankly, I couldn't care less whether Sparta is called a "superpower" or a "local power" or a puppet state, what I care is to abide by wikipedia's Policies. In order to compromise with an opposing view I need to see at least one source from the opposite party. Sad as it is, POV and original research does dominate a great part of wikipedia, and I've been frequently in disputes with editors because they failed to cite their source and insisted on a POV. In other words, NN's edits never respected WP:ATT, which makes him by definition a disruptive editor. The theory on the band of Greek editors can easily be refuted. If you take a look at the Talk:Sparta you'll find out that soon before the infamous block, I was actually arguing with Yannismaru and Nikosilver concerning the dispute. Not long before the block, I decided to leave my computer because I could not stand NN's un-cooperative behaviour anymore. Had NN not been disruptive, the case would have most likely been resolved - thanks to Yannismaru. Furthermore, I'm not suggesting that the block be justified, I'm only criticising the inefficiency of the board, and how its judgment can be so one-sided, without even giving the opposing party a chance to reply(!). To me (a person who edits by the Policy) it is inexcusable to witness a well-established contributor getting ripped at by a group of non-partisans, while at the same time, a user who since the beginning has been extensively disruptive and un-cooperative, become victimised and receive congratulations and apologies. It really makes me want to hate wikipedia and think that all its Utopic rules are for the eyes of the world. It simply goes to show that the editing and dispute-resolution systems are exploitable at a ridiculous degree. What is worse indeed is that non-partisan editor can never have a clear view of the past events, and therefore will pass unjust judgement. I really, really doubt that anyone actually read the entire Talk page from top to bottom, along with the edit-history of the article (which is normal). I don't believe that any sane person who'd do that would have taken NN's place. I don't have anything personal against NN, but he has caused nothing but problems since his appearence, all over one single word, and due to his own ignorance of WP:POLICY (which I must have quoted 88 times). Yannismaru was actually one of the few people trying to compromise, and NN wouldn't let him. Yannismaru was nearly discriminated because he happened to be a Greek administrator editing a Greek article, with a group of allegedly Greek editors involved. The fact that he never sided himself with the allegedly Greek side was simply overseen. Finally, in my humble opinion, NN did deserve a block, but only before the article became locked, and not per wp:point. He caused extensive edit-warring and invited other Iranian users (one of whom I had spotted as a pov-pusher in different articles) to openly edit war with him (proved in diff). All the people who said "NN didn't make many edits" had only seen the last hours before the article got blocked, and had obviously not read the article. According to the Policy an administrator can block an editor who starts edit-wars, even if he hasn't broken 3RR. Therefore in my opinion NN did deserve a block, but on different timing and for different reasons. On top of that, NN _did_ wp:stalk Domitius in a different article which he had never been involved before, and he did cause "disruptive edits" by much of the very criteria stated in WP:DE. Miskin 22:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: Thanks. :) Miskin 22:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the size of that... This is why I initially wanted to take it to the board, but since I'm only indirectly involved to the dispute at hand, I don't think it's a good idea. Anyways, thanks a lot for your attention. Miskin 23:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I recently found out that the word 'superpower' was also in use in Iranian articles for the Persian Empire (the ancient state contemporary to Sparta). NN admitted to have been aware of this, but never explained why he didn't care to remove it from those other pages. The guy has had a personal agenda since the beginning, I can only pretend to ignore it for the eyes of the world. You said to me before that it seemed as if a group of Greek editors were trying to pass their view over other views. Have a look at the article now, there currently is one Turkish editor making proposals and another 4 or 5 Iranian editors supporting him and making decisions on a Greek-history article they never cared about before. To sum up: A biased editor instigates/creates a ruckus, gains sympathy, and by unorthodox, brute-force methods other non-neutral editors (group of Iranian and Turkish) become suddenly the authorities on the topic and protectors of the article. Thinking of what you told me earlier about a group of Greek editors, this outcome is really ironic. Miskin 13:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't notice, but shortly after the AnI, NN started a section in the Talk page where he indirectly called me a liar. If it weren't for AniMate, no progress would have been made. But prior to the AnI event, it had always been like that, thus why no progress was made. So this has nothing to do with the RFC and its solution, which was in fact proposed by me. It has only got to do with my views on the motives behind debate, not referring to the latest developments and decisions. I cannot forget about the unfair AnI resulting to Yannismarou's demonisation and NN's victimisation. Many neutral non-partisans offerred their views but they were not the ones who turned the debate into a battlefield, and they were not the ones who jumped on Yannismarou during the AnI either. The dispute was instigated by people like NN, A. Garnet, Mardavich, Immortals, Marshed who I do not consider neutral editors. This has to do with personal experience in other articles, so there's no way to convince you about it, nor do I wish to do so. I posted my thoughts in the articles Talk page. It's not about WP:OWNing the article, I proved this in the past when I built an entire new section by trying to keep NN's POV edits into context. I became defensive with the article as a result of non-neutral editors' gradual appearence. As I told you before, I never really cared about the content-dispute per se, I only cared about its neutral and constructive solution, abiding to WP:ATT. The unbalanced AnI result damaged the neutrality of the dispute, therefore I cannot be satisfied, regardlesss the result. I'm not making those comments now because I'm not satisfied with the result, I have wanted to say those things ever since the AnI ended, but I didn't want to look like the person who disrupts the "procedure". I'm about to take a wikibreak anyway, for different reasons. Miskin 14:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Berners-Lee.jpg

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. Chowbok ☠ 13:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The Commons Ambassador Barnstar

• Feel free to add to your user page and/or leave here on your talk page as you see fit. (Except, of course, this message itself.) Smee 17:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Hi Smee: Many many thanks for the Barnstar! I have added it prominently to my user page. Damn, I love Wikipedia! Happy Editing! -- Chris 73 | Talk 02:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Harry Collinge High School

Just a heads up, you missed some vandalism when you reverted the article. If you're not in a hurry, it's usually a good idea to check the page & associated revision history after you revert - just incase. -- Michael Billington ( talk • contribs) 06:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Blarneytherinosaur

Hi Chris,

Thanks for getting that vandalism on my userpage. Strangest I've had yet, not that I'd normally turn down a barnstar. Blarneytherinosaur talk 06:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I've replied to your message on my talk page. Blarneytherinosaur talk 00:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Men's Rights

I thank you for recently placing a capital 'F' instead of a lower case 'f' for 'Fitzgerald' in the men's rights article. However, it needs a lower case 'f' in order to properly link the Matthew Fitzgerald article. I created that article and for some reason I can't put a capital 'F' in the title. Any ideas why? NiceguyC 14:19, 17 Mar 2007 (GMT)

Vandalism

Hello. This is Think Fast. I see that you reverted edits that I made to Embargo of 1807 ( diff). These edits look like vandalism, but I really didn't mean to vandalize. If you look back at my edit summary, I wrote that I was reverting multiple edits. I was in a rush and I guess I choose the wrong version to revert to. Sorry. :) -- Think Fast 02:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Alonzo Mourning

Please respect users' rights to edit articles. I think it would be a good idea for you to check out Wikipedia's welcome page to better understand the purpose of Wikipedia. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.33.166.92 ( talk) 00:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Editing an article is a privilege, not a right. People who mess articles up, may have this privilege revoked. Luckily, this is not the case with you. Regarding your edit here, we're writing an encyclopedia, not a blog, and I removed it because of the very sloppy wording (assuming this may have been a test of yours since it was your first edit). Your next edit here looks much more appropriate. Thank you for that bit of information. I hope this clears things up. Best wishes and happy editing -- 00:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Veteran Editor IV

gas mask

gas mask has been tagged as unreferenced for over a month and there is still not a single reference. Original research should be removed. Please discuss on talk page. Lotusduck 00:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Longest. Block. Ever.

Here. Geologic timescales, eh?. <grin> -- MarcoTolo 00:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)