"In a non-binding resolution adopted by the European Parliament on 10 March 2005, The EU Parliament considered that clear evidence exists of terrorist activities by Hezbollah and recommended that 'The EU Council should take all necessary steps to curtail them'. MEPs urged the EU Council to brand Hezbollah a terrorist organization. However, the Council is reluctant to do so, as France, Spain, and Britain fear that such a move would further damage the prospects for Middle East peace talks.[16]"
So, they haven't officially branded Hezbollah as an organization yet, but, at the same time, a non-binding resolution recognizes Hezbollah as one (see Hezbollah article) WhisperToMe 17:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, well, thanks - it's good to have a registered users confimation sometimes. — Xyra e l / 06:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Syed is actually the most common spelling, but the editors of that article contend that "Sayyid" is the spelling most often used in academic texts, so I doubt a change would go undisputed. BhaiSaab talk 05:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Being subject to some considerable buffing and POV pushing - can you have a look please?
86.27.55.184 13:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
also are you suggesting we merge God and redirect allah to God ? Zeq 21:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
RE: this edit.
- It doesn't appear to me that this user's ( 189.162.8.77 ( talk · contribs)) contributions to TV Land were in any way bad-faith or intentionally disruptive. Asserting that you were reverting "vandalism" is disingenuous and does not accurately explain why you reverted those edits. If you didn't believe those changes were helpful, explain why. Thanks, Scientizzle 19:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me. I have responded here. -- Scientizzle 23:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Mad because I reverted your edits on the Nasrallah article? Do not provoke me. I blanked my own talk page because the block was expired. Go find another Arab to harass. Embargo 19:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I've been trying to mediate at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-19 Inayat Bunglawala. Zeq is getting pretty irate and hysterical, however, because I don't agree with him. Have a look. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Zeq's collusion
The three revert rule implies that, even if one hasn't reverted three times in 24 hours, the user may still be blocked:
- The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an " electric fence". [1] Editors may still be blocked even if they haven't made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behaviour is clearly disruptive. — WP:3RR
So if one is clearly abusing the 3RR or "gaming the system", as it were, then that user can still be blocked (at an admin's discretion). − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 18:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Proposed compromise
A compromise has been proposed. It is toned down to simply state that the allegation was made, and that the allegation was denied. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Stevegrogan.jpg. The image description 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.
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 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.
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Salam. I think Hezbollah has reached to good article criteria and I want to nominate it. Please write your idea in talk:Hezbollah#Good article nomination-- Sa.vakilian( t- c) 06:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your comment, the image was not deleted. It was moved down the page to eliminate whitespace. Dustbunniesmultiply 07:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
My understanding was that this is what was agreed. If you undersod differently let's re-open the mediation or maybe you can point out to me where I agreed to what you claim I did.
always assume good faith . Please appologize for calling me a liar. Zeq 18:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for offering feedback from the RfC (I assume that's how you got there). WilyD 14:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Tarc,
Since we had a diagreement on bugalwa I noticed you follow me around, vote where I vote, revert my edits etc... This kind of behaviour is a violation of policy. so buglawa or not: cut it out ! Zeq 23:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
great edit summary Tvoz | talk 01:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Please will you email me ASAP and I'll forward you an email regarding Emabargo's userbox? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/ talk 22:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Never bothered to validate an e-mail address, so it won't let me. Soon as I get my validation thing, I will drop you a line.
Tarc 22:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Cool, I'm going to bed now so I'll sort it tomorrow. G'night
Ryanpostlethwaite
contribs/
talk 22:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sent, please take the comment in the email about no further seriously. Let me know (via email) your opinions Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/ talk 00:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Cool, I'm going to bed now so I'll sort it tomorrow. G'night
Ryanpostlethwaite
contribs/
talk 22:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey. Any suggestions on how to deal with and possibly report admin Viridae? I reported two userpages that WERE offensive and inflammatory, User:Politicallyincorrectliberal and User:Matt57, and he replied by saying "Once again, none of which are as offensive as your original. The second one I can't see anything offensive about at all...?". He has to be reported, this admin is obviously biased. Emбargo 17:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like User:FayssalF deleted some of the stuff from User:Politicallyincorrectliberal's page. I agree, that was pretty ridiculous of Viridae to not delete that. What's wrong with User:Matt57 though? You can't really object to someone saying that they're an atheist.
- BTW, you really got to get rid of that "Judaism Without Embellishments" image though. Putting historical anti-Semitic cartoons on your page is going waaaaay over the line of something that I can support/condone.
Tarc 22:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- The userpage of
user:Matt57 contains a citation he claims to be Muhammad's that I find more offensive and inflammatory than the anti-Semitic cartoon and the original version of my userbox. And I find it very worrying that those who objected to my userbox refrained from dealing with these two user, among others.
Emбargo 23:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- I realize that, but "two wrongs don't make a right", and all that jazz. Anyways, Provoubiac deleted matt57's quote, and matt promptly restored it. It won't really accomplish all that much of you or I revert it, so let's wait and see what happens next. Particularly if the admins leap right to blanking + locking as they were so quick to do to yours. Tarc 03:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- The userpage of
user:Matt57 contains a citation he claims to be Muhammad's that I find more offensive and inflammatory than the anti-Semitic cartoon and the original version of my userbox. And I find it very worrying that those who objected to my userbox refrained from dealing with these two user, among others.
Emбargo 23:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
re polemical User pages
One of the problems with this is that after the hoopla dies down, the offending users just go right back to the versions of their user page that they had before (e.g. User:Prester John) Tarc 14:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Tarc. I am dealing w/ it. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 14:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey Tarc. Please share your thoughts at Talk:Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid#A_quick_straw_poll. Thanks, -- Urthogie 14:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from edit warring, as you have been doing at Mohammad Amin al-Husayni. If you have a dispute with another user, resolve it with polite discussion, or dispute resolution if that doesn't work, but repeated undiscussed reversions are unproductive. Thanks. Dmcdevit· t 21:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- I have attempted such things in the past with this user, and found him to be abrasive and unresponsive. He's been cautioned before about leaving these insipid "tidying" edit summaries, and when even other admins find him to do nothing but "push the POV"
[1] ...well, he ain't worth my time.
Tarc 04:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- That's why I said to pursue dispute resolution if discussion doesn't work. You'll notice that that dispute resolution isn't just one thing to be tried, but a series of processes, even including, at the very end, arbitration, which has the power to impose bans. If past dispute resolution has failed, and it's because of conduct issues as you indicate, I would suggest you try something like arbitration, or maybe some of the steps that come before that. Dmcdevit· t 07:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not well up on this topic, but if you had your e-mail engaged, I could have sent you some supposedly good information! Or post me on andy.dyer9@tiscali.co.uk
PalestineRemembered 17:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- The e-mail link should work now, try it again. Tarc 19:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Tarc,
You have been violating WP:AGF. Plaese appologize and retrac your accusations. You can disagree with my viwes but not to question again and again my good faith editing to improve this encyclopedia. Zeq 20:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- May I quote from WP:AGF ? "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary."
Tarc 22:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I dont have the time right now to do a search, but I do recall that Sec. of State Rice as well as the Pres. did declare the Hezbos as a Terrorist Org. They definitely did give Israel the green light to take necessary action against them. That in my book is in effect policy. I do have a strong background in poly-sci and I do work for a contractor that deals with Israeli companies and Hezbollah is definitely treated as a terrorist organization in regard to rebuilding of infrastructure and aid. Jilbear 02:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Jilbear
Hi, the nominator of this AfD now agrees the band passes WP:MUSIC, so I think you're probably good to go if you want to try cleaning the article up. I'm not good at that sort of thing - I can't get my head around Wikipedia style and format (it took me hours to do the tiny bit at Kirlian Camera (band), for example), and never heard of Out Out. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 21:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds good, thanks. Tarc 01:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I now realize the way the wikipedia system works. I apologize for my previous errors. I dont currently have the time to add to the article about the misuse of sunds but here are some reputable reportign sources on it: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30653 http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_pa_corrupt.php http://gloria.idc.ac.il/columns/2006/rubin/02_07.html http://www.theprismgroup.org/articles/eu_inquiry_into_funds_misuse.html Jilbear 22:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Jilbear
- If you think that trash like worldnetdaily or palestine facts are legitimate sources, then apparently you still have a long ways to go. Tarc 23:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that you took part in State terrorism by United States of America argument for deletion. You may be interested that there is a user right now who is deleting large portions of the article. 69.150.209.15 17:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, a request for mediation has been filed given the deadlock at racism by country. You previously offered comment on it, but were not involved in any edit warring. As such, I'm inviting you to add yourself to the RFM if you feel that you're part of the dispute. You can do so here. If you feel you're not involved in the dispute, please disregard this message and thanks for your earlier opinion. WilyD 21:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
...is one of the only ones I've ever agreed with. Accordingly, I'm sure you'll be happy to see this: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Louis88/Mormonism Thanks for bringing it to my attention, and always feel welcome to do likewise in the future. Proabivouac 09:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- I just don't see the need to make pretty boxes to tell people about their liking cheese or fluffy clouds or whatever, there is some really, really stupid shit out there. I did poke around for some formalized place to put/report these kinda things, never though to look in the Miscellany for Deletion. I can just bring em there rather than bugging you every time, but thanks. :) Tarc 13:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
RfC on User:Mike18xx
Hi Tarc. As you have participated at the ANI discussion regarding the behaviour of the abovementioned user, i just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC on themselves in response to the concerns raised during the discussion at the ANI and their avoidance to solve the issue. The RfC is located here. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 10:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tarc, I won't go into why I thought to create that "admin-bashing" barnstar, but suffice it to say that I thought the better of it nearly immediately and removed it. ALM scientist must have found it useful, for he restored it. Thanks for blanking it again. (SPA has since moved onto User:Albertbrown80.) Proabivouac 16:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
|
This file may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading Image:NirvanaNevermindalbumcover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia 14:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems you are trying to prove some WP:POINT at Image:Dying to Kill by Mia Bloom cover.jpg. I suggest you stop it. ← Humus sapiens ну ? 23:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
If you need assistance with Wikipedia policy, then point your little browser to the Village Pump. They are always more than happy to help out newbies.Tarc 23:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)- Hmm, this was an interesting revelation tonight. I assumed you were just another POV warrior who was in need of a bit of refresher on the Wikipedia's fair use policy, hence the pointer to V.P. But now I see you're an administrator, so I really don't know where to direct you to, since you shoulda known this stuff already. Tarc 02:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Chicago8.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Chicago8.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. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rlest 12:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Soundgarden - Bleed Together.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source 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 Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
yes. shitty site. good that you removed. Zeq 20:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Note that I've responded to a message you left at User talk:Pcg13#Rolling Stone album reviews. -- PEJL 00:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- I guess so. But the way it is now, isn't it still incorrect per
WP:ALBUM ? Both the RS link and the Entertainment Weekly one should have something like "(favorable)" or "(mixed)" for a rview, rather than just a link?
Tarc 14:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, that would be better, but "incorrect" is a bit strong. Quoting from
WP:ALBUM#Professional reviews: "If you cannot summarize the review, just leave this second bit blank." --
PEJL 15:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Alrighty. Thanks. Tarc 17:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, that would be better, but "incorrect" is a bit strong. Quoting from
WP:ALBUM#Professional reviews: "If you cannot summarize the review, just leave this second bit blank." --
PEJL 15:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello Tarc,
For your information : scholars share the events between nov47 and apr49 into 2 main phases :
- a civil war (during the last 6 months of the british mandate of Palestine)
- the 1st arab-israeli war (after May15).
Our friend Haj amin participated mainly to the 1st phase because on 15 may, his forces had been defeated on all fronts and when they took part the conflit, the arab more often fought him (politically) and never supported him (military).
To be more precise, his only noticeable participation after May15 concerns the creation of the government for all Palestine where he became a puppet of Egyptians...
As a consequence, it is better to use the "accurate wordings" when possible and talk about :
- 1948 Palestine War divided into
Do you mind I correct the Al-Husseini article taking this into account ?
Alithien 10:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm.
- Sorry. I see now the modifications are due to Zeq.
- Nevertheless, your mind is welcome. Maybe you can be a mediator with Zeq.
- Alithien 12:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- I dunno, I was looking more at the layout rather than the content with that edit. Will check later. Tarc 14:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I fully support your edit: [2] If you need to get this guy blocked I'll fully support that. we must maintain standards and policy. Zeq 11:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Cool. Tarc 14:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I have difficulties making clear to User talk:Joebloetheschmo how to edit that article in a NPOV way. If you have time, take a look at the Hezbollah page... Count Iblis 21:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like he just 4RR'ed himself already. Tarc 23:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd have to say that it probably isn't very proper to go around like this and put this note on article talk pages. Having said that, I probably would not have known that all that was going if I hadn't seen Avi's revert. Just went over to chime in, so it was good to see in that sense. But in my opinion, you should probably not do this, and you should revert that msg you just restored. Its just going to cause more trouble than its worth. Tarc 21:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm baffled that this should be a problem. I'm constantly being reminded (often in aggressive, accusatory fashions) of all the major problems that have been put in my way (despite being largely cleared of most of them). I've even been accused of taking a "mentor" who was a sock-puppet - how outrageous is that?
- Whereas telling people that a sockpuppet has been operating in an article they (presumably) care about seems a pretty basic courtesy. Also reminds people that integrity does count, sockpuppetry is punishable.
- I don't need to revert anything I've done, another user has wiki-stalked me and done it already ... maybe they feel differently towards sockpuppets from what I do.
PalestineRemembered 22:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think you're missing the point; its good that you are letting people know, but not good in the way its being done. As to what the "good way" is, I don't know, contacting select people via their personal talk pages maybe? I really don't think article talk pages are the best avenue to take. As for stalking...I doubt Avi is doing that. Lots of us have a lot of Middle Eastern pages on watchlists; that's how I knew about all this is the first place, from watching Hamas.
- So, seriously, my advice is to relax. It looks like Isarig will be sanctioned for his boorish behavior finally. Between that and the Israeli apartheid ArbCom, there's hope yet that some of the people who have been doing serious harm to the Wikipedia lately might get reprimanded for real. Tarc 23:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:RageAgainsttheMachineRageAgainsttheMachine.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:GertrudBookCover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Funny userpage template. I think Templates suck,too.-- Onondagan opossum 10:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:School of Rock Poster.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 10:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Just a quick thanks for your recent edits/reverting of redundant info etc. Keep up the good work! LordHarris 22:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Who do you think you are? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosc ( talk • contribs) 18:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, leaving aside the weighty metaphysical considerations of such a question, the simple answer is that I am one of many who is tired of seeing you vandalizing Tokyo and other related pages. If you wish to make changes to a heavy-use template, then the smart move would be to discuss the changes you would like to make, via the template and/or article talk pages. Tarc 19:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- I am an anon who waltzed into this after seeing the "block" thing in the edit comment. I could care less about Cosc's vandalism, but I do care about improvement of templates, so there.
68.36.214.143 19:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think I am User:68.36.214.143. Other than that, who am I supposed to think I am? 68.36.214.143 19:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Your help and your mind are welcome on Talk:Mohammad Amin al-Husayni. Alithien 13:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, perhaps I shouldn't worry about your language. However, regarding Zeq, it seems to me that the Talk page has limited value in pursuing your concerns. Personally, I think it's hard to tell whether somebody is acting in bad faith, and it's not always convincing to generalize from past behavior. My advice is to try to assume good faith and insist on justifications etc. Of course, I realize you have your own approach to stuff here (we've disagreed elsewhere), but I do think you might consider pursuing user-conduct issues elsewhere. Thanks, Tarc. Take care, HG | Talk 15:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- The thing is, assume good faith is consistently used across the Wikipedia as a shield for bad behavior. A lot of people like to cite it in their self-defense, but they tend to pass over the "Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary..." line. As far as I'm concerned, there is strong evidence.
- As for the talk page, I realize that getting into it there is counter-productive. But people like that are so god-damned frustrating. The "recent calm" touched on in the ArbCom talk page will be gone in a heartbeat if this style of "I can revert, but you must explain yours" mentality rears its head. Again. Tarc 17:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you know how we can ask a page to be blocked Alithien 18:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Do you mean protected? WP:RPP. From what I've seen in the past though, they really take a dim view of requests coming from those that are actively involved in the dispute, so IMO I would not recommend making such a request. Let it come from a 3rd party.
- I probably should not have bothered with the last one, but after reading WP:LEAD and seeing though it and its talk pages that Zeq is pretty much doing what they advise against, leaving that crap in there was just hard to stomach. Tarc 18:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
gracefully accepted. Zeq 14:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tarc. Forgive the new section. I asked you a question at Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid, though I'm willing to pursue it thru our talk pages if you'd prefer. Thanks, HG | Talk 16:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:The Pretender FF New Single.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:DHRlogo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tarc,
I tried to edit in some information about assassination of Hezbollah leaders in that page, but I'm running into strong opposition there. I think that a legitimate discussion could be on where and how to mention it. But what is not legitimate is to leave this information out altogether. I mean how can one have a good article on any organization without mentioning the fact that the leader of that organization was assassinated?
Anyway, I have discussed this in the talk page today, but I'm too busy with other things for the next few days. Perhaps you can take a look there. I'm not interested in starting a revert war, it is more imnportant to settle such issues via discussions. Count Iblis 17:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I've been away for a bit too. Busy weekend for Boston sports fans here. :) Tarc 16:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Cleopatralogo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Interlude.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Alternative music October 2007 Newsletter
 Issue 7 - October 2007 | |
|
Sorchah and Tarc joined the alternative music fold during October.
|
You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for
WikiProject Alternative music. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, or would like to receive it in a different form, add your name to the appropriate section
here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated
xihix(
talk) 23:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC) .
hey Thanks for your comments on Courtney Love's talk page Chickpeaface ( talk) 11:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- No prob. I opened a report at BLP noticeboard, so hopefully someone authoritative on BLP concerns will set him straight. Tarc ( talk) 18:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:RATMEvilEmpire.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 20:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Alternative music November 2007 Newsletter
|
Issue 8 - November 2007 | |
|
Cambrant, Chickpeaface, Atlantik and Thelastfetusdying joined the alternative music fold during November.
|
You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for
WikiProject Alternative music. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, or would like to receive it in a different form, add your name to the appropriate section
here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated
xihix(
talk) 00:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for letting me know about the rules with the album cover on the Lounge Act page. I have removed the image from the page and the other pages I added the cover on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Classicrockfan42 ( talk • contribs) 22:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
You are participating in an edit war. [3] Please stop and use the talk page to discuss. Also, be sure to investigate what the source actually says. Somebody, I am not sure who, is misrepresenting the source. Jehochman Talk 13:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
|
Issue 9 - December 2007 | |
|
Pjoef, WeBuriedOurSecretsInTheGarden, Argezas, Pbroks13 and Paper Back Writer 23 joined the alternative music fold during December.
|
You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for
WikiProject Alternative music. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, or would like to receive it in a different form, add your name to the appropriate section
here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated
xihix(
talk) 05:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC) .
Thanks for uploading Image:Mut@geMix@geCover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 20:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Category:Antisemitism for deletion
Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_January_3#Category:Antisemitism...thanks. Ra2007 ( talk) 21:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Kftlclgo.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — PNG crusade bot ( feedback) 22:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
Image:Kftlclgo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a
claim of fair use. However, it is currently
orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.
You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see
our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 05:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:RAtM-BattleofLosAngeles.jpeg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 07:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:TyrannyForYouSilver.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 08:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
Image:STPpromo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a
claim of fair use. However, it is currently
orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.
You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see
our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 09:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello Tarc, I wonder if you follow the article Six-day war. There is a tiring effort there by some biased users (and their sock puppets) to delete anything which does not suit the official line of one party in the conflict. I wonder why none of the critical and neutral editors whose contributions I have come to appreciate are present there. Paul kuiper NL ( talk) 01:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have not been to that page in recent memory, no. Not surprising to see the usual suspects banded together, though. I am hoping that the current ArbCom case will finally reign them in rather than sputtering into deadlock as the previous one did. Tarc ( talk) 13:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. You are quite right. Still, if you can spare the time, I would welcome it if you could join the discussion there occasionally as I can hardly defend the article`s neutrality on my own. Cheers. Paul kuiper NL ( talk) 01:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:SkoldAlbumCover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 05:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:SkoldAlbumCoverAlt.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 05:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
|
Issue 10 - January 2008 | |
|
Skeeker, Dethzone, Sceptre, IN THE EFFIGY, Crislee 88, Grrrlriot and Indopug joined the alternative music fold during January.
|
You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for
WikiProject Alternative music. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, or would like to receive it in a different form, add your name to the appropriate section
here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated
xihix(
talk) 00:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC) .
How is Slate poorly cited?-- DatDoo ( talk) 03:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
No...I do not fail to realize that...I completely understand that policy and why it is necessary. In my opinion, it doesn't apply to that bit of info however.-- DatDoo ( talk) 03:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
BTW...Just because something is "puerile"(in your opinion), doesn't take away from the fact that it is a significant point of interest and belongs in the wikipedia.-- DatDoo ( talk) 03:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
BTW...I do not have grubby fingers. I was only trying to do a favor. You think userboxes suck and should be banned so I got rid of yours so you wouldn't have to get all bent out of shape about it. If you don't like them, don't have one and keep your grubby little mouth shut.-- DatDoo ( talk) 04:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- 1. You do not understand the policy. At all.
- 2. See #1
- 3. There is no excuse for petty vandalism. Do not edit my personal page again, and do not confuse this for a request.
- Tarc ( talk) 06:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- So lemme get this straight. You think userboxes suck and should be banned yet you have one. The only logical thing to do would be to get rid of it...unless, of course, you are dealing with an emo kid. That is another nonsensical problem altogether. Oh wait lets use numbers thats fun.
- 2. See above
- 3. See above
- 4. Take it to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and see what happens.-- DatDoo ( talk) 20:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
My IP is 74 something, check my talk page.-- DatDoo ( talk) 20:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Psu seal lowrez.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 04:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
At this location, admin Sam Korn asks for feedback as to why Raphael1's temporary block shouldn't be lifted early. You might wish to voice your opinion. Thanks. Art Smart ( talk) 16:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not worth the aggro, let him have his wikidrama and let's get on with business. -- Fredrick day ( talk) 02:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I know, that's why I canned it right after submitting. :) Tarc ( talk) 13:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. With his flagrant assumption of bad faith, Georgewilliamherbert now owns the whole problem, insofar as I'm concerned. Art Smart ( talk) 19:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
We seem to be in a dispute regarding the European Union's designation of Hamas as a terrorist organization. I cite http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/26/AR2006012600372.html - "The election results stunned U.S. and Israeli officials, who have repeatedly stated that they would not work with a Palestinian Authority that included Hamas, which both countries and the European Union have designated as a terrorist organization." and http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6583080 "Hamas has been named a terrorist organization by the United States and the European Union." and http://www.tkb.org/Group.jsp?groupID=49 "EU Specified Group: Yes". If you can provide a rationale as to why these sources are unreliable, I won't reinsert it, but unless you can provide that, there's no reason it shouldn't be part of the article. -- Nate ( talk) 05:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- That is mistaken. That the Council has made such a designation is not the same thing as the Eu as a whole making a designation. That's be like saying a bill passed by only one side of Congress is representative of official US policy, when it clearly could not be. Please stop re-adding this; this topic has been touched on several times in the past. Yours is not a new argument, just a incorrect old one. Tarc ( talk) 15:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
We seem to be in a dispute about my edit on this subject. You stated in reverting my edit that "this isn't the place for original research or synthesis of unrelated issues". Please define what you consider 'original research'-- I did not publish the cited articles myself or do background investigation for them, I merely cited existing news publications. And as far as "unrelated issues", isn't the status of a non-Moslem minority within Gaza relevant knowledge about Hamas--especially juxtaposed after a Hamas statement about the ability of all religiosu faiths to live peacefully under Hamas rule? I would appreciate feedback. Thank you. Drmikeh49 ( talk) 20:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
|
Issue 12 - March 2008 | |
|
NewMarqueeDayMoonRising, Thundermaster, and SuperNeek joined the alternative music fold during March.
|
If you missed last the previous newsletter, you can find it at
Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music/Newsletter/February 2008.
You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for
WikiProject Alternative music. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, or would like to receive it in a different form, add your name to the appropriate section
here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated
Giggabot (
talk) 09:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
In line with the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy, the words "Extremist", "Terrorist" and "Freedom fighter" should be avoided unless there is a verifiable citation indicating who is calling a person or group by one of those names in the standard Wikipedia format of "X says Y". In an article the words should be avoided in the unqualified "narrative voice" of the article. As alternatives, consider less value-laden words such as insurgent, paramilitary, or partisan.
The Black Liberation Army has been classified as such by both the U.S. Department of Homeland Security as well as Wikipedia's Domestic terrorism in the United States article. Thanks. Equinox137 ( talk) 04:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- You are misreading the guideline. That allows for explanation in the article of why such an organization or person of their terrorist ties and history. You still do not explicitly state "So-and-so is a terrorist" right in the lead. Tarc ( talk) 06:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Where does it say that? Or are you making up the rules as you go? Equinox137 ( talk) 19:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Disregard, you're right. I checked the other domestic terrorist groups in WP and they are not labeled as such in the lead of their respective articles. It wouldn't be fair to label just the BLA as such. I've reverted my changes back to what your last entry. My apologies. Equinox137 ( talk) 19:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thoughts aroiiivvve like buttaflies yeah we dont knowwwwwowow something wasted them awaeeeay y eah -- 99.235.43.93 ( talk) 03:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Man, if you're gonna troll and vandalize, at least get the lyrics right. "so he chases them away", not "wasted them away". Yeesh.
Tarc (
talk) 04:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- You mean to tell me you actually understand what he's saying!? :o -- 99.235.43.93 ( talk) 05:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Just saw your quick response to faithless - "encyclopedic value" of a Lewinsky image in the gallery? Well, no offense either, but I don't see how your response can be taken even remotely seriously It made me smile - a very good reply. Best regards, LordHarris 15:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- I keep finding myself having to double-check whether I'm logged into the Wikipedia or The Onion, that has become such a bizarre conversation. Tarc ( talk) 17:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
...only after they're dead.
Wikipedia is becoming quite the battleground; and only the Righteous have the stomach for it!
MickMacNee is really irritating the Hell out of me.
Enough said.
-- NBahn ( talk) 03:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Statement re Wikilobby campaign for the conclusions of an administrative review concerning the recent controversy over a mailing list run by CAMERA, in which your editing was discussed. -- ChrisO ( talk) 22:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
|
The Surreal Barnstar | |
| For being targeted by a group that organized off-Wiki in order to subvert NPOV. Of course, you also deserve an Original Barnstar for your solid editing efforts as well, but that will have to wait. |
I hope you don't mind. I would have considered it a great honour to be targeted by such a group, given their malevolent intentions. Happy editing. Tiamut talk 16:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Don't mind at all, thanks. :) "Surreal" is a pretty apt descriptor; I feel like Mulder at the end of the X-Files, as he comes to find that the cabal was real after all... Tarc ( talk) 19:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Tarc,
I think you are wrong here :
[4].
The reference is an article written by
Benny Morris who analyses Cohen's work. This is
WP:RS.
I think also the information is relevant and important. And from what I know, I think even palestinian biograph Philip Matter agrees with that picture of Husseini (more corrupted, than nationalist or fanatic...).
Would you mind reverting this ?
Ceedjee (
talk) 13:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
|
Issue 13 - April 2008 | |
|
Arleach, Panic!out, N0tverycreative, and Gallagher2x2 joined the alternative music fold during April.
|
You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for WikiProject Alternative music. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, or would like to receive it in a different form, add your name to the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated Giggabot ( talk) 09:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I take it you didn't read any of the reasoning I provided on the talk page? None of the reasons I discussed were related to the press.
I apologise if that comes off rudely, it's not supposed to. Seraphim♥ Whipp 16:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, I see you added your comments there. Thanks for the rationale :). Seraphim♥ Whipp 16:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
hey man, we are so right about that pointless Wright/Clinton picture on Wright's page. It is pointless, and just another "Clinton done it too" type thing, photo peddling if you will. We must work to keep it off, and try to find some more people who take our side. But what needs to get on is the Obama/Wright picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Barack_Obama_and_Jeremiah_Wright.jpg and I am having a lot of trouble getting on the page, as the obvious Obama lovers on this site keep taking it off, saying it violates the fair use of non-free image. The difference between this and the Wright/Clinton picture is that this one matters. It actually has had an impact, and is what Wright is known for, and this must be on the page. It would conform with fair use and NPOV because of it. I also say this because the pic is everywhere when talking about Wright/Obama, in the papers and on TV, even on antiDem commercials these days. It should also be on, according to Grsz's logic because "its part of Wright's life." I need help keeping it on Wikipedia and getting it approved. please help me out. We need fairness on this page that it sorely lacks with respect to Clinton and people who are not Clinton. Tallicfan20 ( talk) 06:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I don't want to bring this to the point where others are coming in and simply reverting; that is the fastest way to making this a very acrimonious situation. Having others join in on the Jeremiah Wright talk page and give their opinions on the matter, explain their opinion, and (hopefully) show that there's consensus to remove the Clinton-Wright image is the way to go. Tarc ( talk) 12:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Alice in Chains (album).jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check
.jpg){kind=link}
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
- That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thanks for your input at the arbcom case. you are extremely insightful. thanks. -- Steve, Sm8900 ( talk) 16:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Never saw the need for me own evidence or Workshop section...my part in this and Zeq's ploys is pretty cut n' dried...so just trying to slip in a bit of rationality here and there where needed. Tarc ( talk) 18:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Those are big diffs, can you narrow down the search for me? Post on my talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
|
Issue 14 - May 2008 | |
|
Seraphim Whipp, Guitardude3600, Lunar Jesters, Kristmace, Freedom (song), TwentiethApril1986, JD554, Thom, and Sethward joined the alternative music fold during May.
|
You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for WikiProject Alternative music. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, or would like to receive it in a different form, add your name to the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated Giggabot ( stop!) 07:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I really don't understand what you think is a POV problem with the image, as I said on Talk:Jeremiah Wright. No snark, please. I have politicial opinions like most other people, but try my best to leave them behind while editing Wikipedia in what I put effort into making a NPOV manner. While I watch/listen/read news, I may well have missed something if there is some sort of issue about this image as I am unaware of it. If you really think my edits are some sort of POV pushing, I urge you strongly to list me for sanction or blocking, with a full explanation, as should be done for any inappropriate POV pushing editors. However I am frankly baffled by the allegation. I am also somewhat resentful, as you allegation seems to me completely unsuported. Possibly we are editing at cross purposes somehow. I attempted to explain my actions per above, but if some aspect is not clear, please ask me for clarifications. At the moment, I find your actions and allegations as clear mud, so I would much appreciate if you made another attempt to explain them to me. Thank you much. Cheers, -- Infrogmation ( talk) 19:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping the Imam pictures there. I've been trying to keep them in the articles for a while, but still people come and take them off.
PS: Just for your own information, whatever Wikipedia's policies are, pictures are not prohibited in mainstream Shi'a Islam. Some of these people are Sunni vandals trying to force their beliefs on Wikipedia and Shi'a in general. -- Enzuru 20:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I'm going to take over this MedCab case and try to work this stuff out. I posted in the talk page what I would like all participants to do to start. Hopefully this all works out well, I have zero intention of leaning towards any one side in this dispute, and I only care about getting it taken care of. Wizardman 18:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Tarc, as you may know, there are current conditions for editing on the Al-Durrah page, one of which is 0RR (no reverts). This edit that you made, was a revert. [5] If you make any further edits to the article, please do not revert, but instead try to change the text, to something that is a compromise in accordance with current reliable sources. If you violate the conditions for editing again, you risk being placed under ArbCom restrictions, which could include a ban on editing certain parts of Wikipedia, or even having your entire account access blocked. Hopefully this will not be necessary. Right now you are not even listed on the ArbCom case page, and I'd like to keep it that way. So please, try harder to find compromise wording? If all editors do this, I am confident that we will end up with a high quality article. Thanks, El on ka 15:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- There was a compromise language already in place; Wikifan violated it, twice. These are the types of situations where the zero tolerance "0RR" thing begins to be a hindrance to the process rather than a benefit.
Tarc (
talk) 16:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- If you feel that there is a clear consensus for a certain wording, then please link to that consensus in your edit summary when you make a change. Otherwise, please try to change the text rather than just reverting. Add a source, rework the sentence, try a different compromise. But please no back and forth reverting (which, by the way, is a completely ineffective way of forcing a change into an article). Better is to try and find a compromise. Thanks, El on ka 19:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
|
Issue 15 - June 2008 | |
|
Fvasconcellos and Alternative_Idiot joined the alternative music fold during June.
|
You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for WikiProject Alternative music. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, or would like to receive it in a different form, add your name to the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated Giggabot ( stop!) 07:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Allegations of apartheid deletion notification
Some time ago, you participated in a deletion discussion concerning Allegations of apartheid in Slovakia and the Czech Republic. I thought you might like to know that the parent article, Allegations of apartheid, was recently nominated for deletion. Given that many of the issues that have been raised are essentially the same as those on the article on which you commented earlier, you may have a view on whether Allegations of apartheid should be kept or deleted. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination). -- ChrisO ( talk) 17:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for July 2008
|
Issue 16 - July 2008 | |
|
Arbocalaviv, Samushi101, Carbonrodney, Red157, and dmodlin71 joined the alternative music fold during July.
|
SoxBot II ( talk) 03:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
Image:HoleGoldDustWomanAlt.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a
claim of fair use. However, it is currently
orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.
You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see
our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 05:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for August 2008
|
Issue 17 - August 2008 | |
|
Corythepaperboy, Hiram111, Yozzer66, and Lugnuts joined the alternative music fold during August.
|
SoxBot II ( talk) 21:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for September 2008
|
Issue 18 - September 2008 | |
|
ThinkBlue joined the alternative music fold during September.
|
SoxBot II ( talk) 20:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Does accusing me of fraud really benefit the Joe Wurzelbacher deletion review discussion, or anything else for that matter? While I recognize that you feel very strongly on the issue, seeing such an obvious personal attack from a three-year veteran editor has me at a bit of a loss. -- Kralizec! ( talk) 12:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- I attacked your flawed rationale. Not you. Learn the difference, and grow some thicker skin, please. Tarc ( talk) 15:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The reason for closing the AfD as I did are in the rationale for the "keep votes":
- There are plenty of potential reliable sources to show this is a real film under wide release and there is reason to believe that the sources exist even if the article, in its current state, is below standard. (paraphrased -- Jayron32)
- The google search shows that the film was in wide enough release to presume that it is highly likely that, if one were to find some 1977 newspapers from Hong Kong, one would likely find the depth of coverage needed to deem this notable. (paraphrased -- Jayron32)
- Not to mention, looking on the internet for English sources for 30 year old film in a foreign language from a city that is now part of a country that notoriously censors their internet is kind of...counterintuitive...-- Smashville
- This is the problem with Mandarin/Cantonese language films and, well anything Chinese related on the web. Hong Kong was under the UK at the time and there are numerous Hong Kong films which do have details in English but a large proportion don't. The film is listed in all of the mainstream film sites plus it is directed by John Law who directed under Shaw Studio, responsible for producing some of Bruce Lee's films and unquestionable the biggest film studio in eastern Asia during this period. Law worked with Run Run Shaw, a noted film producer by world cinema standards for much of the 1970s. Alan Tang and Candice Yu (wife of Chow Yun Fat are both notable actors too. It just needs to be rewritten and problems addressed with (paraphraassed - Blofeld of SPECTRE)
The 1st article Impetuous Fire was flawed, as you noted, however, the other is more complete & does have some references. Having tried personally to find references for Mandarin/Cantonese-language films - and running into the same "great wall of China", I found that the rationale provided were good enough to redirect "Imeptuous Fire" to the more complete article. SkierRMH ( talk) 15:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- But the problem here...and I believe I detailed this on your talk page...is there was no "other article". Dr. Blofield (the above's new username) simply renamed the existing article, flaws and all. Tarc ( talk) 22:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Then please feel free to take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review. But I do think that the references under the correct title are sufficient to show notability for a Mandarin/Cantonese language film. SkierRMH ( talk) 00:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for October 2008
SoxBot II ( talk) 02:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Warplogo.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
- That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- FairuseBot ( talk) 03:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
Image:Sttum.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a
claim of fair use. However, it is currently
orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.
You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see
our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 05:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
While I'm not generally a huge fan of it, the removal of personal attacks is a known practice on Wikipedia.-- Tznkai ( talk) 19:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- It was not a personal attack. That's twice now. Wanna try for strike 3?
Tarc (
talk) 19:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Actually yes, it is. Calling someone insane is a personal attack. The surest way to avoid personal attacks is to focus on content, and not the contributor. Its written in pretty plain language
here and implied
here and
here. You're welcome to the rest of your opinion (although I find your unwillingness to event attempt to find a compromise solution sad and against the spirit of how we do things here), but the insanity part has got to go.--
Tznkai (
talk) 19:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- No, it will not go, and you are completely mischaracterizing what I said, bordering on an outright falsehood. "Insanity is doing the same things over and over again expecting a different result" is simply a common and well-known saying. It is not personally calling YOUR mental health into question, it is simply a characterization of the futility of your request. I am almost humorously struck by the similarity between this and the faux outrage that conservatives had over Obama's "lipstick on a pig" comment. The idea that he was calling Gov. Palin a pig is just as ridiculous as your claim that I called you insane.
Tarc (
talk) 19:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- You're not calling me insane, you were calling Landon insane, or rather implying an intellectual deficiency because his actions were similar to an adage on insanity that you brought up. The thrust of it was insulting to Landon, and we can get too cute by half about it, but the end effect is the same. If I said your edits were pathetic, wouldn't you reasonably think I was suggesting you were pathetic? Even if you didn't, its certainly out of bounds as to civil discussion. If you honestly didn't get it before, I apologize for not explaining it to you, but its been explained now: your edits were demeaning to another editor, and that is unacceptable on Wikipedia.--
Tznkai (
talk) 19:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- I did not call anyone insane (in fact the response was directly to you, but I put it below Landon's on edit-conflict), and it was not demeaning. I really have nothing else to say beyond the rather succinct debunking I provided in the previous response, including the quite apropos Palin-pig analogy. Let's get back to the article talk page and discuss the actual issue at hand, that would be best all-around. And just in case we need to get all formal about this; I politely decline to edit my comment in any way, shape, or form. If you wish to bring this somewhere, kindly inform me as to where, and I will gladly provide the same explanation I provided above. If you yourself attempt to edit it again, I will be the one to initiate further actions.
Tarc (
talk) 19:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, so it was directed at me then, I apologize, in which case I don't particularly care. As it reads however, it looks like you're insulting Landon for the reasons aforementioned (Remember, good writing is not only saying what you mean, but making sure only what you mean is read). At any rate, whatever your intent was, the substance of your edit appears insulting, and that is something you should avoid in general. As the discussion is on track and everyone is more or less on topic, I'll let the matter rest. Oh! As a piece of friendly advice: block warnings should be carefully worded so they don't appear to be threats. People get twitchy about that.--
Tznkai (
talk) 20:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, look at that, Landon has posted a message on my talk page concerning the insane thing. I think a reasonable litmus test as to whether something was insulting is to see if anyone is insulted. Since I said I was going to let it rest, I won't do anything about it, but I'd suggest that you do simply as an act of simple common sense and decency for Landon.--
Tznkai (
talk) 20:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Good enough for me-- Tznkai ( talk) 20:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, look at that, Landon has posted a message on my talk page concerning the insane thing. I think a reasonable litmus test as to whether something was insulting is to see if anyone is insulted. Since I said I was going to let it rest, I won't do anything about it, but I'd suggest that you do simply as an act of simple common sense and decency for Landon.--
Tznkai (
talk) 20:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, so it was directed at me then, I apologize, in which case I don't particularly care. As it reads however, it looks like you're insulting Landon for the reasons aforementioned (Remember, good writing is not only saying what you mean, but making sure only what you mean is read). At any rate, whatever your intent was, the substance of your edit appears insulting, and that is something you should avoid in general. As the discussion is on track and everyone is more or less on topic, I'll let the matter rest. Oh! As a piece of friendly advice: block warnings should be carefully worded so they don't appear to be threats. People get twitchy about that.--
Tznkai (
talk) 20:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- I did not call anyone insane (in fact the response was directly to you, but I put it below Landon's on edit-conflict), and it was not demeaning. I really have nothing else to say beyond the rather succinct debunking I provided in the previous response, including the quite apropos Palin-pig analogy. Let's get back to the article talk page and discuss the actual issue at hand, that would be best all-around. And just in case we need to get all formal about this; I politely decline to edit my comment in any way, shape, or form. If you wish to bring this somewhere, kindly inform me as to where, and I will gladly provide the same explanation I provided above. If you yourself attempt to edit it again, I will be the one to initiate further actions.
Tarc (
talk) 19:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- You're not calling me insane, you were calling Landon insane, or rather implying an intellectual deficiency because his actions were similar to an adage on insanity that you brought up. The thrust of it was insulting to Landon, and we can get too cute by half about it, but the end effect is the same. If I said your edits were pathetic, wouldn't you reasonably think I was suggesting you were pathetic? Even if you didn't, its certainly out of bounds as to civil discussion. If you honestly didn't get it before, I apologize for not explaining it to you, but its been explained now: your edits were demeaning to another editor, and that is unacceptable on Wikipedia.--
Tznkai (
talk) 19:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- No, it will not go, and you are completely mischaracterizing what I said, bordering on an outright falsehood. "Insanity is doing the same things over and over again expecting a different result" is simply a common and well-known saying. It is not personally calling YOUR mental health into question, it is simply a characterization of the futility of your request. I am almost humorously struck by the similarity between this and the faux outrage that conservatives had over Obama's "lipstick on a pig" comment. The idea that he was calling Gov. Palin a pig is just as ridiculous as your claim that I called you insane.
Tarc (
talk) 19:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Actually yes, it is. Calling someone insane is a personal attack. The surest way to avoid personal attacks is to focus on content, and not the contributor. Its written in pretty plain language
here and implied
here and
here. You're welcome to the rest of your opinion (although I find your unwillingness to event attempt to find a compromise solution sad and against the spirit of how we do things here), but the insanity part has got to go.--
Tznkai (
talk) 19:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- What I have done (independent of this, as I was editing it at the same time) is shift my comment so it is now directly under yours and indented. Would have figured it was obvious that it was a response to you regardless, as I air-quoted your "workable solution" wording, which was not present in his entry.
Tarc (
talk) 20:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Tarc, if that comment was not intended for me then why did it say something along the lines of "the only workable solution is for you to realize that your POV is the minorities? I'm clearly the one that was reopening the thread more than once, not Tznkai. Does Tznkai even have a POV on the issue? It was also conveniently under my comment. I'm new to the said talk page but if Tznkai has been pushing the thread be reopened with and has a POV I am not aware of it. Regardless of who it is directed to, calling someone's actions insane is calling them insane. Landon1980 ( talk) 20:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- What I have done (independent of this, as I was editing it at the same time) is shift my comment so it is now directly under yours and indented. Would have figured it was obvious that it was a response to you regardless, as I air-quoted your "workable solution" wording, which was not present in his entry.
Tarc (
talk) 20:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- It was not a personal attack, you are misinterpreting, as I have explained. Please go find something else to occupy your time other than the continued flagellation of expired equines.
Tarc (
talk) 22:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Calling someone insane is definitely a personal attack. If it was not directed at me then answer my question. It doesn't matter who it's for or even if you intended it as a PA. The fact is I view at as a personal attack, so does an administrator. The comment is without a doubt a PA. Calling my actions insane is calling me insane. Landon1980 ( talk) 22:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- It was not a personal attack, you are misinterpreting, as I have explained. Please go find something else to occupy your time other than the continued flagellation of expired equines.
Tarc (
talk) 22:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Bill Clinton has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Michael Johnson ( talk) 00:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Eh. Have a sense of humor about it. The title is harmless especially given that Baseballbugs is one of the main people in the discussion. Having a little humor around won't cause the project to self-destruct. JoshuaZ ( talk) 18:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for November 2008
|
Issue 20 - November 2008 | |
|
A Stop at Willoughby and Trap The Drum Wonder joined the alternative music fold during November.
|
SoxBot II ( talk) 02:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I had already provided a reliable source but you decided to delete anyway.
The source was an Elle magazine scan in which Courtney Love herself has spelt it as "Nobodies Daughter".
So obviously i thought it is her album surely she knows how to spell it.
If you want to look at the scan it is under the references section in Nobody's Daughter and is posted as "Elle Magazine"
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beautiful&Dying ( talk • contribs) 15:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- A single source isn't going to cut it, when multiple other sources still refer to it as "Nobody's...". Until this becomes more reliable, it should remain with the old name. Tarc ( talk) 18:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I see your point, but I'm not sure it applies here. It's not necessarily not a profession because it doesn't require a special certification or demand a large salary. I will think the matter over and bring it up on the talk page. Cheers. PhGustaf ( talk) 23:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
To bandy about the label "tendentious" in order to stifle legitimate debate from a position that you merely disagrree with is irresponsible and intellectually dishonest. It is also disruptive to the collaborative nature of this project. Please cease the disruptive behaviour forthwith. Die4Dixie ( talk) 20:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- I pointed it out because your approach to editing this matter could reasonably be described as "tendentious". Not because I disagree with you. I'm not responsible for hurt feelings.
Tarc (
talk) 23:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with hurt feelings; but rather the attempt at stifling debate to which I object. By your standard, everyone in that discussion is tendentious, including you. You are intitled to your own personal definition of "reasonably", what you are
not intitled to is using it to attempt to intimidate and stifle debate. Thar behaviour is anathema to the purposes of the project. The issue regarding your behaviour is over as far as I'm concerned
Die4Dixie (
talk) 23:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- There is no attempt to stifle debate. There are stricter rules being enforced for the editing of this article, which you have already been
made aware of in the past. That is there all there was to it here, so let's cut the eDrama, please.
Tarc (
talk) 00:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- The bottom line is that I was not editing the article, I was debating about additions to the article. Wikilawyering about article probation inorder to stifle a voice on the talkpage about additions, which is what the page is for, is the source of any "eDrama" that might exist. The issue is resolved, as I finally encountered someone who woould give reasons other than WP:DONTLIKEIT and spurious use of adjectives like "tendentious" rerefernces to the article probation to stifle a view with which you disagreed. It is your talkpage, and you can now have the last word. If you want to continue the discussion, reply back at mine.Or you can view it as I do : closed. Die4Dixie ( talk) 00:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- There is no attempt to stifle debate. There are stricter rules being enforced for the editing of this article, which you have already been
made aware of in the past. That is there all there was to it here, so let's cut the eDrama, please.
Tarc (
talk) 00:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with hurt feelings; but rather the attempt at stifling debate to which I object. By your standard, everyone in that discussion is tendentious, including you. You are intitled to your own personal definition of "reasonably", what you are
not intitled to is using it to attempt to intimidate and stifle debate. Thar behaviour is anathema to the purposes of the project. The issue regarding your behaviour is over as far as I'm concerned
Die4Dixie (
talk) 23:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel ( talk) 01:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to give a note of my appreciation and thanks for your valiant work both there and on the talk page as well. Well done, sir and please keep up the good work!
--NBahn (
talk) 12:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)