In general, I prefer conversations about specific articles to be held on the corresponding article talk pages, so that other editors can follow them too.
If you are referring to a particular edit, it is best to use a diff link.
I usually reply here. I am often working on several things at the same time, so if I haven't answered yet even though I am online and editing elsewhere, please have some patience - if it is really urgent, write a follow-up comment.
You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)
You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
Again, welcome! - UtherSRG 01:01, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Hey High on a tree: Thanks for fixing the mistake on the Nabokov page (acrostic for anagram). As the guy who made the mistake, I'm grateful. Bds yahoo 00:44, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for reminding me. Half of my remark probably belonged more to the Fashionable Nonsense page, but I re-added the other part – which said that, in essence, Sokal attacks postmodernism thought as a legitimate academic discipline. David.Monniaux 05:50, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Latest comment: 20 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
That was rude. Why didn't you edit groove appropriately? Wikipedia:Wikiquette: "Assume the best about people whenever possible". I did read, but I don't have unlimited time. I would have much prefered a comment on my talk page. Hyacinth01:36, 14 May 2004 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. It did indeed take little time to turn groove into a disambig, which you could have easily done. Assuming I was a new user you should have educated me on my talk page. Assuming I was just too lazy isn't assuming the best. Thanks for the apology. However, I'm a little confused, which "small entry" should I have read: Riddim or Groove (software)? And what "content was already there"? Hyacinth02:18, 14 May 2004 (UTC)Reply
Ah, duplicating groove was a mistake. I always use Ctrl-F before, and (apparently) usually after, I click "Edit this page". I hadn't even noticed this edit comment: "read before you edit - this information is already in the second paragraph". This led to my confusion in our discussion, as I was responding to your next edit comment: "read before you wikilink - groove is about something else". I contributed to this confusion by not quoting this on my first message to you.
Thank you for keeping a cool head. Regarding melody, I was going from http://www.jahsonic.com/Riddims.html. The only olive branch I have to offer is to ask you to read Break (music), as you obviously have more knowledge of electronic music as witnessed by your comment on Talk:Breakbeat.
I'm pretty busy in RL at the moment, but times will come when I again have more time for Wikipedia. I haven't given up on you yet, guys! :-)
A side remark: You asked if I "still am interested" - yes, most certainly. I do not consider Wikipedia to be a discussion forum, where one have hot topics-of-the-week. However, given what happened with the article on anti-American sentiments and my serious attempts to improve that article, which were rebuffed by an administrator in a way I personally perceive as rather arrogant or nonchalant, I'm not prioritizing work on that very article for the moment - and most probably not for any foreseeable future. But of course I'm happy if others do.
As a more personal sidenote, I could explain my interest as that Finland's (that is my country of origin, although not of birth) 20th century history may have contributed to making me particularly sensitive for greater powers' interference in what ought to be other countries' internal affairs, which for instance made me unhappy with the European Union's reaction on Jörg Haider, although I politically have very little in common with him. The way USA treated Germany in the last years reminds me too much of how the Soviet Union treated Finland. /Tuomas 20:26, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yet again. Thanks for putting that first sentence in. I just felt funny being the only one modifying the article. Is there any reason not to put in the picture say that's in the German WP page? I love that tie, BTW! It's a new concept in loincloths! CSTAR 17:43, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:
Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
OR
Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, thanks for noticing the interwiki mishap. There is a very easy way to prevent bot from making that mistake again (which it will really soon): create a conflict. The link to Joseph Joubert exists in every language wiki. To solve it, they all have to be removed. The easiest way is to create either a page fr:Joseph Joubert that's linked with Joseph Joubert, or, alternativelly, create an english page Joseph Antoine René Joubert and link it with french fr:Joseph Antoine René Joubert. Remmember that the link must be two way - from fr to en, and from en to fr. This way, bot will show an error next time it sees it, and let the bot master solve it. Thanks!
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The compromise is nice. I'm in no way againsts lists and orders and so on. They just seem so irrelevant. When you look at the bios of other heads of state/government, "Order" is not there. So, for reasons of consistency, the cell shouldn't be there. I suppose it has been put there to single out Germany in the first place. Thank you and best wishes, --wpopp16:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for your comments, sorry about the delay in reply. 'Martyr to dissipation' has wonderful overtones in English of both irony and moral outrage which makes it I think almost impossible to translate exactly into another language. Thank you for memorialising Pinto's exact anniversary (which I completely let slip myself). I have added to the Pinto article a link to (my) review of Tom Wakefield's CD which is I think a real collector's item. Did you perhaps see the stuff about Wagner, Semper and Judaism on my own website? Best regards --Smerus20:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
There seems to be a dispute between your edits and those of User:Diegorivera2 on the BearingPoint page. Since he didn't list reasons for deleting your additions, I restored them, though I made one verb into the past tense (currently defending vs. defended) to make it more accurate. I've contact him about the dispute, too, so hopefully this will be resolved with the most accurate information available.
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Dear High on a Tree,
In the emoticon article I tried to revert an edit which was made by an anonimous which reads for nearly two pages A4: o.O o.O o.O o.O o.O o.O o.O o.O o.O o.O o.O o.O o.O o.O o.O o.O o.O o.O o.O o.O o.O o.O o.O o.O o.O o.O o.O o.O o.O o.O o.O o.O o.O o.O o.O o.O o.O o.O o.O o.O o.O o.O o.O o.O o.O o.O o and so on. I personnaly don't think that entire sections are lost when you are removing this edit.
The second example was a "wipe-out" (in my opinion: a complete delition of the text in an article) of the lemma "Weird Al" Yankovic (see the history of the article), I just put the version before the "wipe-out" back, which was a revert made by Tawkerbot2.
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You know, I have no idea why I reverted your edit. I must have meant to revert something in another articule. The only thing that I know is that you did the right thing and that it was a mistake in my behave.
"Jerrymander" can be found as an alternative British spelling in The Concise Oxford Dictionary, as I already remarked in the edit comment when I created this redirect. It is also mentioned, along with a comment about how the current pronunciation of the first consonant (in either spelling of the word) differs from that of governor Gerry's name, in this web page which has been used as a source for the main article, Gerrymandering.
It is not unusual for alternative spellings to become "official" over a period of time, and this word is almost two centuries old.
This spelling is not official and the page you cited gives an Internal Server Error. The ratio of Google hits for the two spellings is about 900 to 1,000,000, so it's hardly even an alternate. Regardless, I've marked it with {{R from alternative spelling}} instead of {{R from misspelling}} to avoid warring with you over a trifle. Mike Dillon15:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
The link has worked and is still working for me. It the first reference from Gerrymander#References and has been there for quite some time. If you question its validity you should bring this up on the article talk page.
I'm sorry, but some references do require visiting a library to confirm them if you don't happen to have the book. I find it really strange that you dismiss the authority of the most respected scholarly dictionary of the English language in favor of a Google test. And if it's in such a dictionary, it can be in Wikipedia, "alternative British spelling" doesn't mean it's not official.
However, I appreciate your sense for compromise and I have no objection to leaving the redirect like that.
No chance to break the quota (75% support required), but I'm not bothered. For one thing, not having to do that job is also fine, and I may invest the time saved to try to get better coordination and quality assurance institued in physics. "Mehr Bürokratie wagen" wasn't the most popular slogan. I assume. --Pjacobi22:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, on 6 May, 2007, you have tagged several articles (15-16?) as copyvios and informed the creator of those articles as to the procedure to be followed. It is great to see someone applying themselves diligently in the way you did, by tracking all the contributions of that editor.
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello! Just to let you know that hoaxes or suspected hoaxes are not criteria for tagging articles for speedy deletion. They need to be prodded or taken to AfD instead. Regards, (aeropagitica)04:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Well, I know what you mean (sometimes legitimate stuff get mistaken for an hoax by undiscerning or overzealous editors), and I am usually quite cautious in proposing speedy deletions, several of my normal afds have been speedied afterwards by others. But in this case.... let me quote from the policy that you linked to:
"Occasionally these can be deleted as vandalism if the article is obviously ridiculous".
I would think that these articles are "obviously ridiculous" enough, it takes about 15 seconds to see that they are fakes. But I don't insist on speedy deletion, you are free to hangon, prod or AfD them. I just thought that Wikipedia had already been embarassed enough by Rhapsody Hard Rock Tour having survived for nearly two days :-o
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
My articles about these men, were taken from the English Parliment records, to name a few. Their birth and death dates, were from their tombs when possible. Also family history, Project Gutenberg Ebooks and A2A. I use many sources and check them carefully, if i make a mistake, i change it. The articles about World War II were from Thunder From Heaven. Also from my dad and uncle, who were in the, Headquarters of the 17th and the 82nd Airborne.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Randall O (talk • contribs) 06:49, 24 May 2007
Thanks (belatedly) for replying and naming these sources. You should still write these into the articles themselves, so readers will have a chance to know, too. Regards, High on a tree14:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Well, I agree that a suspected neologism, i.e. an entry that doesn't (yet) cite sources to show that its subject is an established notion, should not be speedily deleted. In this case however, the author himself seemed to describe it as a case of WP:MADEUP. To quote from the article:
This word was created in a random school on the west coast of the U.S.A. It was started by a random kid whose name I cannot disclose. This word is widely used by the students at the school and is spreading.
Still, it would perhaps have been wiser to use prod or afd. The article has meanwhile been deleted on the instigation of other users.
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Dear User, exactly because MathSci started insulting me with questions "am I ill, or in medication" I have used some of the words quoted by you, but NOT agaisnt Mathsci, I was talking about ME - "I am not idiot" .. etc, etc. Also it seems that user Mathsci himself has complained and continues to SPREAD FALSE INFORMATION!!! The speculation about Smarandache is ridiculuous - I do PhD in molecular pharmacology, and you can check that publishing or not in physical journal has nothing to do with my career, nor is vital for me. Also the fact I work in physics in my free time, all this is for fun, and I participate in heated discussions with various PhDs in physics, but this is NOT vital neither for me, nor for my research. I am tired to be accused by vandals in false things, and one of their huge curiosity is "why I am editing in physics"?? Obviously they think that I must have PhD in physics in order to edit such topics. My reply is - I edit whatever I like, and for example when I enrich the entries on Japanese culture with info and photos nobody asks me if I have PhD to do that. Mathsci reverts my edits on entry Smarandache, and he is the guy who has problems. I think it is not acceptable for spitting over the others in the main articles, and this is what the anonymous Mathsci does. If he had exposed his name, he wouldn't be so brave to spit over Smarandache. I do NOT question the practise for anonymous editing on all topics EXCEPT BIOGRAPHIES OF LIVING PEOPLE!!!!!!! One cannot spit anonymously over the biography of living person. If you can suggest where i have to post my proposal for changing the Wikipedia rules, I will appreciate that. My thesis is very concrete -- biographies of living people should be immunized for malicious editing from anonymous users. Kind regards, Danko Georgiev MD10:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
Reply at Talk:Florentin Smarandache (it is a bit offtopic there and I am not sure if you are still following that page, but I couldn't edit your user talk page which has been locked following your indefinite ban from Wikipedia). Sorry for not having replied earlier. Regards, High on a tree14:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
When tagging a coipyright violation with {{db-copyvio}} you must use the "url=" parameter, or the source URL is not displayed for the deleting admin to check. Thank you for findign this copyvio. DES(talk)22:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, I will try to remember this. The confusing thing is that often the URL does appear even if one leaves the "url=" out (I tried it out again just a few hours ago). And it is not clear to me why the template should require it anyway. Maybe I will bring this up at Template talk:db-copyvio some time. Regards, High on a tree14:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
The reason why the template requires it is technical. Many URLs include equals signs. But an equals sign will not be included as part of a template parameter unless it is a named parameter. DES(talk)14:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Please review your citation template on the Joseph Jenkins stub created today. If you were also responsible for speedy deletion of Welsh Swagman, you could also consider reviving it as a redirect. Otherwise, there'll be no further action nor enquiry from me. Cheers --Aeronian11:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for providing the references. Somebody else just beat me to removing the tag. But anyway tags like this are not "owned" by anybody, so if you sincerely feel that the reason for which the tag has been added has become moot due to later improvements to the article, and expect that the user who added it would agree, you can remove it yourself.
According to the deletion log, an entry called Welsh Swagman has never existed (and I would not be the one who deleted it anyway, I am not an admin here).
I will, as soon as you have demonstrated that in the English language the expression "Book 7" is universally regarded as a synonym of "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows". I had assumed that no one would think such a thing and therefore my impression was that your edits had been in some way unintentional. Regards, High on a tree02:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion
Look I started the article with the summary under construction. I am compiling various sources together. Yes direct copywright is not acceptable but it was only for two minutes while I intergrate sources -remove what is not really needed and polish it. Look I have contributed many articles to wikipedia and have rarwely had complaints.♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦"Expecting you?"Contribs17:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
I do respect your other contributions to Wikipedia (as I wish that you would respect mine and not call me a "freak"), but we have a problem here even if you rewrite the article, because the old versions still contain copyright violations. I don't know how to request version deletions on the English Wikipedia, but if you take care that those versions get deleted, I will consider the problem settled. By the way I see at least 25 different copyright-related complaints on your talk page for July 2007 alone. Regards, High on a tree18:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
OK I owe you an apology sorry - its if the article is tagged with an "under construction" and this was asserted when I initially started I thought my intentions were pretty obvious to rewrite it. I am trying to help the encyclopedia after all and haven't had two DYK'S in two days for nothing.
I only lost my temper when I saw you had removed my work again and speedied it again ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦"Expecting you?"Contribs18:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
I think so. Prasat Andat still has a sentence which obviously is coming from the source, but you changed the wording, it should not be a problem. In general it is hard to draw a clear line between copyright violations and text which is sufficiently rewritten not to infringe on the copyright, but with Prasat Phum Prasat it was a clear case of copyright violation - many sentences copied verbatim, others only slightly changed. What are you now going to do about the older versions of this article, which are still online? Regard, High on a tree18:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hmm well I doubt many people are going to be searching the history of this particular article. I guess I should get back to be old habits of writing the article first in my sandbox -this way the articles won't be affected by historical copywright!!! It is difficult often though writing about the same place to avoid any familiarity in content. I understand you tagged in good faith as you saw a problem - sorry to snap at you. I have going to creating many articles on Cambodia as it is very poorly covered. I really want to see more even coverage on wikipedia!!! I began to develop the Phnom Penh articles earlier which will need a great deal of editing. I am always trying to expand and improve ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦"Expecting you?"Contribs19:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Facts are not copyrighted, of course. Similarities can become a problem when a longer text has the same structure in the way it selects and presents facts, and verbatim copying (like in this case) should always be avoided.
And don't worry, I'm not worried I know many Wikipedians makes useless redirects without meaning to, yes I will check a dictionary next time. TheBlazikenMaster12:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks. I have a working knowlege of how approvals can be done, and if I can help you when you are establishing stable versions - I'd be glad to try, though we never got it down to a system, really, we did learn to work together on CZ. No hard feelings about your comments about the complex number article, you were right, it was difficult and awkward. You were not right about the hierarchy, the editor-in-chief there had little to nothing to do with the actual work of writing or approving. Anyway, I will write this on your talk page, as well. DrSculerati04:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
actually, i've nominated all the members for speedy, except Calamari, since there seems to be an assertion of notability. Perhaps add him to the AfD? Cheers! Flyguy649talkcontribs05:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
I had already added all four of them. Usually, I would regard being a member of a notable band as an assertion of notability, but in this case... Regards, High on a tree05:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Was it really necessary for you to place a {{references}} tag on this article when I had already stated in my earlier edit summary that I was in the process of adding information to the article? This is the kind of thing which causes edit conflicts. Whatever happened to assuming good faith? --Eastlaw06:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
I clearly said in my edit summary that it was just meant as reminder and that you were welcome to remove it later. The article is fine now, but you did not announce specifically you were going to add references, and many authors still forget this, so it is better to remind them as early as possible. Now, obviously you are not one of them, and sorry if this upset you. However, it takes one about ten seconds to remedy an edit conflict which comes from adding a simple tag, and if one wants to avoid it at all costs, there is still the option of clicking "Show preview" a few more times instead of "Save page". Regards, High on a tree07:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
If you want to use someone's real name, rather than their username, reveal your own High on a Tree....—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanshaeoc (talk • contribs)
You are referring to my remark at Talk:AGL Energy? I did not "reveal" anybody's real name. I just drew the connection to another article that you had created yourself (and I didn't even say that you are Matthew Horan. If you are - well, nobody forced you to create that article, in fact it is strongly discouraged, see Wikipedia:Autobiography).
My only interest in doing so is because of WP:COI concerns about your edits in AGL Energy.
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello High on a tree,
I am a new contributor, so I started by copying another page and matching it, but then added other things, which I (innocently) thought would be interesting to the readers. Alas, this was not the way to go.
Following your comments and others', I have made significant changes to the page, which I believe (and some others agree) have made it much better.
You seem to be quite active and quite helpful. I would really appreciate your guidance on how to make the page on Ronit Baras a good Wikipedia page.
Given your initial objection to the page, I will be happy to follow your advice until you remove your objection and request for deletion.
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You are correct that the first reference doesn't back up the statement that "sleep is the deepest state of natural rest", but it doesn't support the original sentence either. I think the wrong page from that site is cited anyway - it should be to the definition of sleep page. Anyway, how would you suggest resolving the problems raised about the lede?
As for hibernation, wordnet seems to think it's a form of sleep, but they also say that bears hibernate where this is generally considered inaccurate. Ciotog08:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
Well, I agree - I didn't add the original citation. (It was probably only meant for the "all mammals and birds, and in many reptiles, amphibians, and fish" bit.)
It appears that finding a good definition of sleep is a very hard problem, but that's one more reason not to make one up ourselves. Superlatives like this ("deepest") are always very dangerous - how can one be sure that there is not some exotic bird somewhere with a special rest state deeper than sleep?
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi,
You just undid an edit of mine on Finland (language section), while asking me to provide sources. Unfortunately you were very unspecific. As I am not aware of any of the facts beeing disputed, could you please inform me what sources you require.
Although the information is common knowledge (at least in Finland) it can also be found on legal databases like www.finlex.fi (I'm not sure it will be in English though). Please also inform me why you doubt the accuracy of any given information, as I don't want to spend my time tracking down a source just because you are uneducated (you can actually read things yourself without someone else finding it for you you know...).
In fact, personally I think that if you revert the burden of proof should actually be on you. As your user page clearly shows you are not a vandal, I would however be willing to give you a hand.
Cheers,
(194.252.5.6610:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC))Reply
We are talking about this edit. The first reason for my revert was that your had destroyed a number of citations (nos. 18-22) and wikilinks - it appears that you had replaced the wiki source text of this section by a copy+paste of the same text as it appears in the displayed article. If you do that, all the formatting and references contained in the source text will be lost - for example, you replaced
Most of the [[Finnish people]] (92 percent<ref name="Population">{{cite web |url=http://www.stat.fi/tup/vaesto/index_en.html |title=Population |work=Statistics Finland |accessdate=2007-05-07}}</ref>) speak Finnish as their [[First language|mother tongue]].
by
Most of the Finnish people (92 percent[18]) speak Finnish as their mother tongue.
(Reference "[18]" will not appear anymore after that, or it will point to the wrong citation, because the entry in the References list is generated by the "ref" link that you removed.)
I thought it was clear for which statement I had requested a reference: The sentences "Education in the other domestic language is compulsory in Junior High School for both Finnish and Swedish speakers. The exception is the autonomous Åland Islands, where Finnish is not compulsory due to Swedish being the sole official language of the province." that you had added. I did not say that this is wrong, but that it needs a reference. There are many good reasons why Wikipedia requires references and does not accept arguments lik "but it's true!", "look it up yourself!" or "everybody here knows this!" instead. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence.
Hi! Thanks for the response. It would seem I triggered some kind of automated vandalism notification by breaking the links. Ill try not to break them when I edit the page the next time. As for the sources, you can't source everything in English in foreign countries. No-one in Finland disputes the facts in the paragraph. The only discussion has been on if they are relevant enough to be in the language section of the Finland article (see Finland talk page).
I am sorry, but I will not spend several hours looking up information just so some ignorant brit/american will be convinced about a matter of which he has no interest&knowledge. It would seem your primary concern is maintaining links to usefull sources (point taken) and keeping out non-accurate information. For issues you have no clue about (like this one) please refrain from editing until you have some basic knowledge or see knowledgable users disputing the information. Finland is a page of pride for a lot of Finnish users so if the information is not accurate it will be disputed faster than you know (Finland is among the most IT intensive countries on earth and has lots of them)
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello High on a tree...I have tried for half an hour to find out where to post a reply to you ...no luck...so I am attempting it this way.. I will simply cut and paste here the response i wrote to you about your edits to my edits....
You also said: "Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. I have the impression that you are advertising her new book in several articles where it does not belong. Regards, High on a tree"" 16:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello High on a tree...first, I think you should remove those comments on the page of suzanne olsson..please take note that these issues were addressed last year when Gunther brought them up, and there is no further need to discredit her or demand this same information now...as an example, she wrote under several pen names and married names. It would be senseless and irrelevent to list them in association with the New York Times, the New Jersey Herald, or other newspapers she contributed to over 30 years ago. Please use a little common sense.
second, you make it rather arbitrary and impossible to respond to you when you provide no email or other means of contact. I followed your link to Wikipedia Conflicts of Interest (thank you for providing same) and found this:
"""When editors write to promote their own interests, their contributions often show a characteristic lack of connection to anything the general reader might want to consult as a reference. If you do write an article on area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party published sources."""
I also noticed that on several pages where reference to Suzanne Olsson's book appears there also appear reference to 'The Lost Tomb' of Tialpot, a very recent film and documentary that has come under heavy criticism. Then there is mention of other books related to the topic. Can this also be construed as promotion?
Suzanne Olsson lived in Kashmir and did the research there for her book. In fact the irony is that, for example, on the Wikipedia page for 'Yuz Asaf' (and several others) someone has directly lifted the latest research data from her book and included it there withour giving her credit for her research. She covers a 'lost tomb' theory, plus a lot more. The book was just released as a new edition in February 2007. On one hand you worry that this author is being 'overly promoted'. You said it appears (to you) on pages that are not relevent. I beg to differ with you.
The book is new and covers many theories (Roza Bal,Jesus and Buddhism, survivng crucifixion, Jesus in India, Mother Mary and Magdalene in India, tomb in India, Yuz Asaf,Jews and Hinduism,archaeologic terrorism, cultural terrorism, et cetera) then certainly you and Wikipedia would want to see all these relevent pages updated to include the latest research material available...I am attempting to update all relevent pages to include her book among the many others mentioned..it is not promotion, it is updating..
It's your call High on a tree.... What would you suggest? How would you suggest this be approached? Because now it begins to appear that you have signaled her out in an unfair way by denying information and updates about her research to appear along with the others mentioned again and again at these relevent sites..
my email is (oops..deleted due to lack of privacy) if you care to discuss this directly. I really do appreciate your attentativeness, but I would also like to insure that it is fair and accurate, which it does not appear to be at this time.. All the best Kashmir 2
Hi Kashmir2, posting on a user talk page like this is the usual way to communicate with other Wikipedians. (Sorry it took you so long to find out, maybe it should be featured more prominently on the help pages.) You can also use the "E-mail this user" link, however discussions about the contents of Wikipedia articles should be held in public, preferably on the talkpages of the articles in question. I will respond later to the other issues that you raised. Regards, High on a tree17:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hello High on a tree....to answer the question that seems to trouble you most, what has been the response to the research of suzanne olsson? Let's start with Professor Fida Hassnain, who has made many public comments about her book and research conclusions, and some of these appear on the back cover and in the forward of ther previous book. Dr. Hassnain is author of over 30 books and poublications about Jesus in India and the tomb of Roza Bal. For credentials, he was head of the India Department of Antiquities for 30 years. That is much better validation from the scientific and archaeologic community than many other authors have included here at Wikipedia. Further endorsements have come from none other than the Eastern orthadox churches, who also contributed their reviews on the back cover of her book. She was also featured in a film about the tomb that is due to be released shortly (made by producer Paul Davids, this also appears on the back cover of her book) The head of the BJP party in India Governemnt has expressed a desire that books such as hers will lead people to Kashmir to investigate claims about the tomb further. Then there is an entire religion, The Ahmadiyya community that supports her efforts even though she is a Christian. Then we have the fact that she actually obtained permission to retrieve DNA from graves in two countries, and one of the projects was to be led by the famous head of Pakistan Archaeology and antiquities, Dr. Ahmed Dani (now retired).
Regarding the awards she received in the past, she was writing under her maiden name first, then a previous married name, which would take a lot of explaining if someone looked up awards given to 'Olsson'...further, two awards were given 'in-house' by the US Government when she was employeed with them...they would not be generally known to the public at large.
Now let's return to authors and books mentioned at various Wikipedia sites such as those with the word Jesus as part of their subject matter.
. In this genre about Jesus certain names will appear repeatedly on many Wikipedia pages. These inlcude Gene Matlock, Holger Kersten, Kwaja Nazir Ahmad, Fida Hassnain, James Tabor, James Gardner, Laurence Gardner, Margaret Starbird, Karen Armstrong, Nicholas Notovich, and many more. Many of these names have pages here. Why do you consider that they are NOT promoting their books but Olsson is? I fail to see why you disconnect at this point, especially since Olsson's workhas been endorsed by the scientific and religious community. Further, she had been elected Vice President of a website representing this theory and attracting a quarter million hits per day from around the world. I am refering to the 'Tomb of Jesus' website. She certianly has a large enough presence worldwide that promoting her book is not necessary, but protecting her research and including her views certainly is.
Two Wijipedia reviewers from last year, Squibbix and Grutter, added several links to Olsson's page (I notice some are now removed)that endorsed her book and research. That seems to have settled the issues to the satisfaction of all until yesterday when you first posted.
I hope we have cleared up whatever problems you had...I honestly cannot imagine what further "endorsements" you could possibly require of her, especially since I see that no such issues affect more questionable pages here..
I added more comments to our discussion by 'editing' at the bottom of exisiting discussion...I probably did that wong.
Hope you found the expanded expanations. Waiting reply for 2-3 days..most anxious to resume updating relevent pages with your understanding and approval..
All the best
Kashmir2
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi High on a Tree,
Quick follow-up: I noticed that neither prostate nor breast cancer (as well as other cancers), had External Links to respective advocacy groups under their content areas. In fact, they had their own content areas entirely such as the Susan G. Komen Foundation. It looks like this is the acceptable approach to profiling organizations.
Although I am new to this, I had read the Welcome Page and the editing guidelines, but at the time of your edits didn't see conflicts with my External Links. Plus, it seemed like the remaining links under Ocular Oncology and Uveal Melanoma were, under the guidelines, inapproapriate, too, yet they remained untouched. That made your edits confusing and arbritrary to me. Which is why I immediately reposted them because I thought it was a mistake.
For instance, under the subject Ocular Oncology, the Eye Cancer Network links to a private doctor's practive. Under the subject Uveal Melanoma, the Mike's Page link deals with skin - not eye - cancer.
It appears that the solution is to create entirely new content that more precisely reflects the subject matter. In other words, the See A Cure Foundation should have its own content that is searchable under "Cancer Foundations." Private care doctor links (which amounts to advertising) may not even belong on Wikipedia. But since adult eye cancer is so rare - there are only 12 ocular oncologists - perhaps this decision belongs under the Discussion area. Of course, then retinal specialists who particpated in the COMS study would also have a right to be listed. And before you know it, every one-off practice in the U.S. has a link to their website under External Links.
So, I get it. There needs to be control. I just would have appreciate some additional feedback since the other links didn't seem to qualify either. Eye cancer is my area of expertise, even if Wikipedia isn't - yet. Reading your listings, it looks like you've been around the Wikipedia block a few times, so your feedback is always welcome. SeeACure13:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hi there: I have removed my personal blog (eyecancerblog.com) under External Links but reposted the See A Cure Foundation, since that is a legit, nonprofit, noncommercial site dedicated to eye cancer issues.
So thanks for the edit. In fact, I am going to follow your lead and move the Mike's Page link to the Melanoma page since that is about skin cancer not eye cancer.
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I am just curious: What seems to be the problem with the above article? {I was watching it because of the prod that was on it.). Cheers! --Stormbay15:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
I don't quite understand the question - since it was you who prodded the article, I'd rather ask you back if you are still seeing problems with it? I worked for a while on the article yesterday and now I think it does pretty well, except for one unsourced statement and maybe a few sins of omission. Regards, High on a tree16:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
No particular problems with it. I think it is marginally notable at best but it is great that it is being edited by you. I couldn't fnd anything solid for sources except insider vanity stuff so I did the prod. I thought you were having the same problem finding legit sources and wondered why you removed the tag if that was the case. (sometimes I don't understand me.) Happy editing...--Stormbay20:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
I find it unfathomable that given actual movement of the proposed guideline more toward your position you would revert all of the efforts at compromise, just to reinstall your wildest-dreams anti-flag variant, for which no consensus has even come close to developing. You and Garion don't suddenly constitute a consensus to turn the entire proposal on its ear. I'm sorry if I sound pissy, but you can probably expect reactions like this when you wander into a long-standing consensus-building process, months long, and start editwarring in support of drastic changes that do not have consensus behind them. Your first appearance at that document was Sept. 11! Its a bit late to start acting like you fully understand what is going on (which your latest rather angry-reading post and its embedded questions clearly indicate is not the case.)
You also seem to be insufficiently aware of how policy processes work here. Guidelines reflect practice, not vice versa. You cannot possibly hope to alter this guideline to be as negatively prescriptivist as you would like, and expect that it will ever become anything but a rejected proposal, ignored by everyone. You cannot force your views on the community. Continuing to try to do so will be self-defeating. It would be far more productive for you to calmly help work toward what level of consensus can actually be arrived at (as someone else noted, we may even have to pare it down to a leaner document if after another long bout of discussions consensus cannot be reached on certain points. My compromise edits clearly and handily identify most of those trouble spots.
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Between December 14, 2005 and June 7, 2007, I vandalized Wikipedia under my previous username (YechielMan) and under various IP addresses and alternate accounts.
I recently reviewed the contribution logs of all the accounts and IP addresses that I can recall having used. My goal was to identify all of the intentionally harmful edits I caused, and to apologize to the individual users who reverted those edits, or warned me, or blocked me.
Hence, I apologize to you and to all of the following users:
Adam Bishop, Amarkov, Antandrus, AntiVandalBot, Bdj (Badlydrawnjeff), Conk 9, CanbekEsen, DLand, Downwards, Eagle 101, Ericbronder, Gogo Dodo, High on a tree, Hut 8.5, Interiot, Jayjg, Jrwallac, Kingboyk, Kuru, Noclip, Patrick Berry, PFHLai, PhantomS, Pollinator, Rachack, Ranma9617, Rx StrangeLove, SlimVirgin, Tfrogner, TommyBoy, Vary, Woohookitty, Zzuuzz, and some anonymous IPs. (I also reverted one edit myself after it went unnoticed for three weeks.)
Thank you for maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia against everyone who has attacked it, including my old self.
If you wish to respond, please do so at my talk page.
You did a step in the right direction: The fair use rationale needs to justify the use of the images in the articles about these two persons, not in the article about the documentary (which does not exist). However, the new rationale fails to satisfy no 1 of WP:NFCC, since there is no reason to assume that free photos of these persons are impossible to create - both are alive and well. For this reason, I am going to nominate both Image:CliveChin.jpg and Image:BunnyLee.jpg for deletion. By the way, if you want to help finding free images for the illustration of Wikipedia articles, check out this new tool. Regards, High on a tree00:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
That would be great. Especially with articles about musicians, I think there must be so many music fans out there who made good photos decades ago, and would be happy to contribute them since they are just lying in their drawers anyway. But if the article already has an unfree image, the incentive for this is much less. Regards, High on a tree23:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Hi there,
I have placed a dispute tag for your replaceable fair use tag on the Image:2-Bit Pie.jpg page.
I have outlined my reasons as to why a free image is unobtainable of the band on both the image page and its talk page and attach a copy here.
"The fact that a band make music does not imply that they make public appearances or perform live. 2 Bit Pie are notable as per WP:MUSIC items 1 (mixmag etc.) and 6. 2 Bit Pie have never performed live and as such it is currently and will remain impossible to obtain a free image of them. Were the band's policy to change this would be subject to review. I have updated the non-free image rationale more fully to cover all the points in WP:NFCC. I hope this can be resolved to the satisfaction of all."
2 Bit Pie have never performed live - source? How is this list on your web page to be understood? And live performances are not the only possibility to obtain a free image.
Besides, I doubt the encyclopedic value of this image: It shows just two of the nine members (according to the article), and the image description doesn't even say which two these are! And the photo just shows what these two unknown persons look like, one can't see them doing what they are encyclopedically notable for (making music). All in all, it could be replaced very well by several separate photos of the members.
The list on the website is to be understood in light of the fact that they are all live performances by Fluke, not 2 Bit Pie, which can be deduced by the dates of the performances in correspondence with the article stating that 2BP formed in 2005. As for the encyclopaedic value of the image, the only argument I can produce is a "better than nothing" approach; no photos exist of them making music, no photos exist of them performing, there are a very limited number of press release photos, of which this is one. The FAC criteria (which theoretically every article should be aspiring to) specifies that an article should have images where appropriate - I assume that you are saying that this image is not appropriate and that no images are appropriate for this article. Without wanting to say "other crap exists" :P, many images are used in articles not showing the person undertaking the activities they are notable for - Thomas Pynchon and Salman Rushdie are not shown writing and William Tecumseh Sherman (today's featured picture) does not show the general conducting military affairs. Furthermore, if this line is being pursued, what encyclopaedic benefit is gleaned by having an image of a band posing with their instruments as opposed to pictures of the members in a different situation? Martin Hinks13:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
Well, I didn't mean to say that this image is not appropriate at all - if it were a free image, I would not object to having the image in the article (although I would still prefer not to place it in the infobox, since it does not represent the group as a whole, and thus seems of reduced encyclopedic value for this article).
Warning signPlease note that our policy usually considers fair use images of living people that merely show what they look like to be replaceable by free-licensed images and unsuitable for the project.
Wikipedia:Featured article criteria does not say that a featured article has to have images at any cost, on the contrary, it specifically demands that non-free images must meet one of the non-free contents exceptions.
I find it rather obvious that images of musicians performing carry added encylopedic value - especially with bands, for example simply because you can see who plays what kind of instrument, how they play it, what kind of geat they use, and also because of things like body language while performing (example - compare the rather boring "official" portrait in the article). You are right that this argument is less important for writers, but on the other hand it also applies well to athletes, astronauts, dancers, etc etc. And the Tecumseh photo that you mention would probably not have become featured if it did not show him in his official uniform (i.e. in the attire of the job that he is encyclopedically notable for). It provides even more historical context, as the image description on the main page noted: "The black ribbon around his left arm is a sign of mourning over Abraham Lincoln's death".
But I am getting onto a tangent here. The point is, as I already noticed above while talking with Wwwhatsup, that there are a so many people out there which are willing and able to provide free photos to articles about musical groups and living people (with the advent of digital cameras, people are taking more photos on more occasions, you can see this change very clearly at most concerts), but as soon as there is an unfree image in the article, the incentive to do so is greatly reduced. This is how such fair use images are hurting Wikipedias mission to provide free knowledge.
By the way, Basic Channel is an example of an act which for many years had the reputation that photos of them were absolutely impossible to obtain (almost every article about them stated this as a fact), they were the very symbol of "faceless techno", much more than Klute or 2-Bit Pie today I would think - yet today we have a pretty decent photo of them in the article.
"non-free images must meet one of the non-free contents exceptions" - from my reading of WP:NFCC non-free images must meet ALL 10, not just one, of the guidelines. Wwwhatsup04:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
Yes of course. By "exceptions" I did not mean these 10 points, but rather different types of situations which satisfy these, especially with regard to 8. Significance. One of them would be the case of articles about albums, the case that Template:Non-free album cover was created for. Regards, High on a tree04:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
The tag read: "Adminstrators delete this image if explanation's not provided and revert the previous image" which according to tag did qualify as a non-free rationale image. So, if it did (which was an album cover and the one you deleted was a promo image) where is the previous/original image. I don't understand why all of a sudden images began to get rejected by some of the newer so-called adminstrators which provided much similar explanation as the ones uploaded before, especially when images that are subject to copyright, their use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws?.--Harout7202:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
First, I am not an administrator (on this Wikipedia) and therefore I also did not delete any images.
Second, I am not sure from which tag you are quoting - I was referring to your removal of Template:di-replaceable fair use from Image:Raffaele Riefoli.jpg, which does not contain the text that you quoted. Instead, it clearly says "Please do not remove this tag", as did the notification message that you got. Trying to provide a better fair use rationale is fine, but leave it to an admin to determine whether the new rationale is valid. Your rewriting did not adress the main concern: That this is an artist who is still alive and active, and thus it can't be assumed that it is impossible to obtain or create free photos of him (WP:NFCC#1).
The policy with regard to fair use images might have become a bit stricter than it was in the past, this is because of a resolution by the Wikimedia foundation from this year which is beginning to take effect on a larger scale.
their use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws? - sometimes yes, but Wikipedia's rules are stricter than U.S. law (see [1], for more explanations). And sometimes not: fair use very much depends on the context (how much the text around the image is referring to it), this is why Template: Non-free album cover allows the use of covers "solely to illustrate the audio recording in question,". In other words, one can't say "once this image is uploaded with some kind of fair use rationale, I can use it any way I like".
It seems that my answer did not satisfy you. I hope that the explanations of other were more successful in helping you to finally understand the difference between removing the link to an image from an article and deleting the image itself from the database, and grasping Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. [2], [3] . Regards, High on a tree (talk) 03:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hey Tree, thanks for removing the unsourced figures from the discography. I hate it when people add unreferenced/inflated sales and charts. It's more annoying than actual vandalism. It's good to see someone out there who actually follows WP:CITE. Thanks. Spellcast01:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, and let me return the compliment, I was glad to see you watching some of those pages too...
By the way, here is how to get a permanent link to a search result in the RIAA certification database: Enter the search terms at http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH. The small link labeled "First" on the bottom left of the results page is the permanent link. I think it helps a lot against the (apparently popular) faking of Gold/Platinum/Diamond certification numbers if one can quote these direct links as a reference.
Yea pop pages are always filled with fake figures. And about the permanent link, I use Firefox, so what I do is right click and go to "view page source". Then it would show the exact URL. But I see that's an easier method, so thanks again. Also, the RIAA database can sometimes be misleading. There are times where they simply don't update the certifications or don't list it at all. Spellcast01:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hi there High On A Tree, thanks for your message. I didn't quite know how to reply and I hope here is OK! I'm still a little dumb when it comes to the right etiquette on Wikipedia!! Anyway, in answer to your Q, no, I'm not related to Andrez Begen, but we have worked together in the media in Melbourne quite a bit - we were both writers at Inpress and then worked at TRM magazine in 2000/01, so we've kept in touch. Andrez sent me a lot of his old stories because I'm writing a history of independent music in Melbourne and I have put some of this information on the entries here for people he interviewed. I'm a big admirer of Melbourne techno (its my hometown, so I am biased I guess!) and i also wrote a listing for Voiteck which was deleted. Anyway I hope this clears things up and if you feel there is a conflict of interest I will stop adding info on him and/or the Melbourne scene. Sorry for any misunderstandings!!!! Nina phunsta 05:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I won't be reinserting the gay claim, because I know he has a long term girlfriend and have no interest in posting nonsense. However, i will be reinserting the Kerouac note, with this [4]. Things get very little more verifiable than the BBC Press Office.
And i understand your comments about hoaxes and vandalism because i revert several from this page a week in some cases.
Warm Regards --Tefalstar17:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for the message on my Talk page regarding the John Hagelin photo. I have almost no experience with photos -- this is the only one I've uploaded. This whole thing is confusing to me. It's not obvious to me that a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created. Where would I find such? I'm sure I could get permission from Hagelin's institute to use the photo, but I don't then understand how I can use that. Do I simply add a statement saying that i've received permission? Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Full disclaimer: I HATE the policy that says that Wikipedia cannot use fair-use images of living people. It's idiotic and stinks of copyright paranoia. That out of the way, I know you are doing what you feel is right. However, I must ask that you please stop posting messages on my talk page about images I've uploaded in the past. If you want to delete them, fine, but seeing the warnings on my talk page just makes me angrier at the policy. If the images are destined for deletion, so be it. Thanks, — Amcaja (talk) 07:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
I am sorry that this policy makes you feel bad. I can only ask you to take some time (later, once you have put your understandable frustration about your uploaded images behind you) and think about how these fair use images destroy the motivation and enthusiasm of people who would be able and willing to create free alternatives (there are many of them, Joi Ito wrote an inspiring blog post about this).
The notification is a standard procedure meant as a courtesy to the uploader. Perhaps it could be left out in clear cases. Anyway I didn't know if you would like to be notified or not - I suggest you put a little notice on the top of your talk page that you don't want to be bothered with this, I have seen such a notice before and respected it.
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You have removed images after previously stating I had two days to rectify the issue. You have deleted prior to these two days lapsing. Londo06 (talk) 14:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
As you seem to have discovered yourself in the meantime, I was not the one who deleted your images.
Above, you said you would "look through the system". What system did you mean by that, the Wikimedia OTRS? And what did you find?
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi,
I uploaded some images last year or earlier when my understanding of how fair use worked was different and when it was sufficient to just pick from the drop down list of choice for use of an image. At that time, there was a statement that if images came from someones "press" section, it was acceptable to use.
If you feel that this image no longer meets current criteria for fair use, please go ahead and mark it for speedy deletion. Thanks.
That's alright, my mistake! I misdirected you to oblivion. Some time ago, serious application was put in erasing the Turkish female out of wikipedia and it got worse the more they were good looking and successful. Probably some elephant-legged nanny somewhere! The article on the author in question will still look OK with the book cover. Joke and my paranoia apart, I just uploaded http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TimeCoverTankutOktemStatue.jpg for an article on a Turkish sculptor who died 2 days ago. I did my best for the rationale. I would be pleased if you take a look at it and comment if you judge necessary. Cretanforever (talk) 08:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
It has already been deleted - I didn't have anything to do with this, but managed to have a quick look while it was still there. If you are still interested in a comment about the copyright situation: There are two creators involved here whose copyrights have to be respected: Mr. Tankut Öktem as the creator of the sculpture itself and the photographer of TIME magazine who took the picture. It might be possible to use a photo of statue without infringing on Öktem's (or his heirs') rights by a fair use rationale (in an article with a significant amount of text commenting on this work of art) or per Wikipedia:Freedom of panorama. But as I understand the statue is still standing in public place in Ankara, therfore the work of the TIME photographer is not irreplacable (WP:NFCC#1) - somebody else could just go there and take a photo, too. In fact that is what I recommend you to do: Ask among Turkish wikipedians if somebody would be willing and able to take an own photo and upload it to Wikipedia, or Commons. That would also have the advantage that the resolution can be much higher.
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I had obtained permission from the DJ in question, and there are few promotional photos of him available. I believe I had sourced the image as coming from his official website. Coolgamer (talk) 01:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hi Coolgamer, I can't see a source at Image:Frolicbio1.jpg or in the page history. A permission which merely allows to use the image on Wikipedia is not enough. It would be great if you could get a permission by the photographer/copyright holder to release this image under a free license (which allows reuse outside Wikipedia) - see Wikipedia:Example requests for permission for advice on how to do this properly. You then still need to document this permission, for example by e-mailing it to OTRS, and mark the image with the correct license. At present it is marked as fair use, but images of living people which merely show how they look like generally fail WP:NFCC#1. Regards, High on a tree (talk) 10:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
As I had remarked in my edit comment, one has to take this "article" into account (the image was uploaded to be used there in a previous, speedily deleted version). And I also think that "[H.B.] is afraid of cameras, and is hiding underneath a swim cap" (quoted from the image description) qualifies as an attack. In any case, I find it hard to believe that I have to argue with an admin to get this kind of vandalism removed, where Wikipedia is abused for school bullying. Regards, High on a tree (talk) 02:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Paintball: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Nn123645 (talk) 02:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi! Saw your recent edits on Waiting for Godot. Thank you for helping with the revertion of vandals - all appreciated. If you do revert any vandalism, please can you add a warning on their talk page as well? There is a whole list of appropriate warnings on this page: Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace/Multi-level templates. Always use the lowest level warning (in other words, assume good faith), unless they have been recently warned, in which case you can go up to the next warning level. If you see that someone has been vandalising after a recent final warning, you can report them here: Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism - a lovely feeling when a vandal gets themselves indefinitely blocked :-) StephenBuxton (talk) 10:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the hint. I have been using {{test}} (or {{test2}}) for a long time, and will consider to do so more often, although I believe that perhaps they are not too effective - not for habitual vandals anyway -, but good for "omg I can edit this?" newbies. Another thing is that there are probably several 100 readers to one person who edits, and with vandals sharing IPs, changing dynamical IPs and/or ignoring the message link, it is quite likely that the warning reaches the wrong person. (I once answered an OTRS mail from a really upset lady who was quite angry of being wrongly accused.) Regards, High on a tree (talk) 10:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Please take note that I follow proper Wikipedia procedures
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
While you were removing the image although in good meaning you instead caused an edit war with another user. When removing an image you must ad the tag for the image and request it's deletion. When you sent your message I had already done the first and I just finished the second portion. It is wise to remove the image through proper procedure.
Exactly which "proper procedures" demand keeping copyvio images in an article for as long as possible until they are deleted? Please cite the Wikipedia policy pages that you have in mind. And wouldn't that just contradict common sense and run contrary to the interest of encyclopedic quality and the legal safety of Wikipedian?
Image:Sakurai.jpg was already tagged with the "AutoReplaceable fair use people" tag, which stated that it was up for deletion from today (16 January), so your additional IfD nomination was unnecessary. In any case, I tagged it for speedy deletion as the extra 5 days on IfD seemed not justified. It has been speedily deleted per Wikipedia:CSD#G12.
I am a bit confused why you blame me for an "edit war". I never submitted the same version more than once. And as I already remarked, I had taken the time to explain in two different comments[5][6] why this image should not be used, and I do not find it polite if someone just reverts me without adressing these concerns, at least by briefly explaining their point of view.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
sorry about that. tried to hide them in the text. will use talk page next time. how did you catch it so fast? do you have some kind of wiki watch software? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.20.16 (talk • contribs)
No problem. (If you want to hide a remark using HTML comments, it's <!--- .... -->.)
I happened to see your edit because I was watching the recent changes.
Thanks, that is interesting information, but even assuming that it would say something about notability, there are numerous other concerns justifying deletion. I think Wikipedia can endure the loss of precious encyclopedic information like "Another summer has come to an end, and it is time to head back to class as another school year begins!" until somebody else starts a proper article. Regards, High on a tree (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, High on a tree. Since you recently contributed to the lively deletion discussion for Template:Non-free promotional, I thought I'd let you know that I've continued the discussion about this template at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Template:Non-free promotional. The result of the deletion discussion was to keep the template, but there are still some questions about whether the current template serves a useful purpose and how to prevent its misapplication. Please contribute to the discussion if you are interested. —Bkell (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
High HOAT, My apologies for the Fitzwilliam college problem, I looked at it in a hurry and thought you'd removed the Category:Subhas Bose (opposed to {{Subhas Bose}} which you actually did), I dont disagree with the edit you did and dont really have a problem with that. Hope this clarifies. Good luck with your edits.regards rueben_lys (talk·contribs) 10:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Is the band "arco", who appear on the soundtrack to "Californication", notable?
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. A while ago I added a line to the "arco" page for the band "arco", who appear on the soundtrack to TV's "Californication". (The edit contained approrpiate verification info, ie "where to find the press release and the iTunes album".) But the edit was deleted.
Judging by point #10 in Wikipedia:Notability_(music) I thought this appearance on a major TV show and soundtrack compilation album was enough to satisfy musical notability guidelines.
I'd be very grateful if you could let me know what was wrong with adding this -
Be that as it may - I think that the FAQ should concentrate on the really frequently asked questions and the central arguments which have led to the current handling of the issue. Of course, I too would like to mention in a prominent position this Islamic scholar's opinion and other interesting arguments ... Regards, High on a tree (talk) 07:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
I don't understand what you are referring to. I added two fact tags, and unless I am severly mistaken, I didn't remove any fact tags from statements. (I removed one {{Fact|date=November 2007}} together with the two unreferenced sentences that it referred to - the statement about genealogy -, so no citation needed there anymore.) My edit summary also stated "please cite sources". Regards, High on a tree (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Dear Hoat,
Thanks for the reasonable comment to Alanyst. My concern on the arbitration has been that people seem to be very easily carried away with what at first looked like data mining and junk statistics (before Alanyst). I'm sure Alanyst will tell you that a careful investigation benefits from somebody watching over it.
I think that I've become something of a lightening rod for criticism in what has become a very nasty RFARB, so to a large extent I'm withdrawing from it. I'd be very appreciative if you took a look in on Alanyst from time to time.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You said "Unknown Police Department photographic records" is not a valid source. I found the image here. I don't know where it was taken but it appears to be mug shot. Source of this image is also "Unknown Police Department photographic records." because in cases like these it's very hard to find out where one was arrested and when. That's why the source information should be valid.
And what's the deal with Debra Lafave image? I think this is all about finding a proper license for this image, and I'd prefer it instead of deletion of image. But it seems there's nothing wrong with the license. The image is free and non-profit educational. For example, in James Nichols article there is mug shot of him on infobox. Hopefully these images I uploaded won't get deleted. Reverend X (talk) 14:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
There isn't a source, it just makes sense that if a man loves women and guys, that he is bisexual. I also wrote that it is suspected that George Michael is bisexual. Volkovtalk17:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
You removed two images from Bunji Garlin and Rikki Jai stating "unfree image which is used against its fair use rationale here ("solely to illustrate the audio recording in question", not to show how this article's subject looks like". No where in WP:NONFREE does it say that album covers are specifically NOT to identify the artist. It says album covers can be used to identify the artist's work. Surely what they look like covers identifying the artist's work. Right now non-free pictures of the artist are unavailable therefore using a source direct from the artist itself (album covers are promotional) do fall in line with my interpretation of the fair usage of images. rasadam (talk) 18:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for the reply and clarification. I did make searches on Flickr for alternatives (noticed the Machel one you nabbed was spelt Montana not Montano hence why I missed it), I will try to remember to take a camera with me when next any of these artists will be performing at a fete. I have Fay-Ann on the cards, was trying to finish out Machel's Discography first which I'm almost done. Neither Fay-Ann nor Bunji maintain websites so gathering information is a bit of a PITA. rasadam (talk) 02:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I am really confused why you chose to remove the texts by Helena Schrader who received her PHD in Germany by writing the works on Olbricht, Stauffenberg, the German Resistance and.
Here is some of her bio:
In 1993, Helena P. Schrader (then writing under her maiden name, Helena P. Page) wrote the first, full-length biography of General Friedrich Olbricht. This work was published by a leading academic publisher in Germany and at once harvested recognition and academic honors. The small edition rapidly sold out and a second edition followed the following year. Although now out of print, this biography is still the definitive biography of Olbricht. It incorporated much original research, based on access to archives in what was then East Germany, unpublished personal documents and interviews with family members, colleagues and opponents of Friedrich Olbricht.
During more than 20 years in residence in Berlin, Germany, Helena Schrader became friends with several members of the German Resistance to Hitler. Ludwig Freiherr von Hammerstein, son of the former Commander-in-Chief of the German Army in the Weimar Republic, was her mentor establishing contact with various other resistance figures. Through him, Helena become friends with both Axel Freiherr von dem Bussche and Philipp Freiherr von Boeselager. The family of General Olbricht, most especially his widow, Eva Olbricht, and his son-in-law, Dr. Friedrich Georgi, were supportive in every way, providing countless details and documentation. Marion Gräfin Yorck von Wartenburg and Clarita von Trott zu Solz were equally encouraging, providing much insight above all into the motivation and life-style of those courageous opponents of the Nazi regime involved in a conspiracy against a brutal and inhumane police state. Nina Gräfin Stauffenberg, the widow of Claus Graf Stauffenberg, granted Helena an extremely rare interview, and Helena was also able to spend many hours talking with Freya Gräfin Moltke. Last but not least, Helena was also able to interview several of the officers who helped put down the coup on 20 July 1944 as well as the widow of Generaloberst Jodl.
Combined with over 20 years of secondary and archival research these contacts along with interviews with over a hundred other survivors of Nazi Germany enabled Helena to write a novel, An Obsolete Honor, which helps modern readers to understand what it was really like to live in Nazi Germany.
So I honestly believe her books:
General Olbricht: Ein Mann des 20. Juli
and An Obsolete Honor SHOULD be listed as resources on the pages I had them as should her website which is all about the same subject. Yet everything was deleted, even the German book which had been on the German page for several years.
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I presume you are sure that is Mr. Lee in the pic. It's hard to recognize him altho I am only familiar with 25 year old images. The descriptive phrase Studio One Producer is particularly inappropriate, right? That said, well done for digging up a free pic. Wwwhatsup (talk) 05:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Wikipedia guidelines note, "A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the web site itself is the topic of the article or is being used as an inline reference." Thus, it is OK to use a Facebook page as a reference. 129.174.91.122 (talk) 16:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
When a cited booked has a url to a site that shows the book, esp. amazon, where the "search inside the book" feature can often be used to verify that cited info, that url is doing a useful service and should not be removed, unless you have a better url to replace it with. This topic was discussed on the page about the cite book template, or some such place, perhaps a year ago, so unless a more recent discussion has concluded that it's a bad idea, please stop removing them. Dicklyon (talk) 03:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
You are welcome to provide a link to that discussion. I would then also take the time and search for another discussion that I vaguely remember, in the context of the debate about advertising on Wikipedia, where it was argued that Wikipedia could profit a lot financially from including a link to Amazon as a standard part of book references - essentially what you want -, and it was rejected.
Finally, many of those links are actually affiliate links (look for "qid" in the URL, I think "ref" has similar effects), which means that someone else is making money from them - and in many cases, has inserted them into articles precisely for that purpose.
5. Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising.
13. Links to sites already linked through Wikipedia sourcing tools. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, consider the "ISBN" linking format, which gives readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.
I've been searching, but can't find that old discussion. I was not aware of the amazon affiliate bits, but certainly agree those should be removed; the consensus at the discussion before was the links to google book search and amazon and to publishers were all OK in the URL field of the book citation. There was a general feeling that the WP:EL criteria should not be interpreted the same way in the context of a citation, because the URL there is supposed to be helpful in finding or reading the source. I'd say that if you prefer not to have retailer link, you should find a suitable replacement, not just remove it. If you'd like to bring this question up again, we could re-sample the prevailing opinion. Dicklyon (talk) 23:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The images MVD1.jpg and Malagi 1.jpg were taken in Bangalore, and HSShivaprakash.jpg in New Delhi. These three images are in my possession. They have been published on wikipedia on a GFDL licence. (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2008 (IST)
Vijayan has a special place in the heart of the people of Kerala. It is a tradition in Kerala not to copyright photographs of men and women whom they hold in high esteem. The image of Vijayan at Image:Vijayan 1.jpg is widely circulated. It is not a property of [9]. Ideally, it should remain on wikipedia on a GFDL licence. If wikipedia finds this it contravening with its norms, the image may be deleted forthwith. (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2008 (IST)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. I'm just learning how to use this format-if I did something wrong, let me know. Have you read this book? It is a scholarly work from a historian who is a witchcraft scholar with a Master's degree in American and New England Studies.Witchmark (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[user:witchmark]Reply
My remark "please cite sources" was about your sentence At various times in Wikipedia's history, articles about these online venues have been tenaciously forbidden from existing within Wikipedia, which could be argued is itself a criticism of Wikipedia. If I understand it correctly, you tried to say that Wikipedia has been criticized for not having article about these web sites, so I asked whose criticism this was. And citing sources doesn't just mean naming somebody who said it, but also to provide a reference to a publication where they said it, so that this can be verified by others.
Btw, has Britannica ever been criticized for not having an article about Harvey Einbinder or Joseph McCabe? Shockingly, it even seems that they never had an article called "Criticism of Britannica"...
I see that you have decided that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia you are entitled to edit more than I am entitled to edit. That must be fun for you. -- Cool as a Cuke (talk) 03:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I am trying to reinstate an improved page at Wiki...as suggested by Gwen Gail, I would like several editors such as yourself to review the page in the sandbox and make suggestions before it returns to Wikipedia. The topics of Yuz Asaf and Roza Bal are most central to my life's work. Since you have done so much editing on those pages, I would like to include you in the process of making my new page as best as possible. Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SuzanneOlsson/sandbox
I look forward to your helpful suggestions. Thank You., SuzanneOlsson (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
After a brief look at the draft, I still see a lot of concerns, for example GeoCities pages are not considered reliable sources (and there is also likely to be doubt about Fortean Times). And you should use footnoted references (see Help:Footnotes), so that it is clear for each statement which reference supports it. Books and articles which have not been published yet obviously can't be used as a source.
I think Gwen Gale already gave some good advice here. It would certainly be advantageous to leave the article's creation to an editor without a conflict of interest.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hey HaeB, thank you for your speedy reply. I posted on the page advised to me by Stardust8212 but wanted your advice as well, so I apologize if it appears I am ignoring procedure (but this is not the case).
In terms of the advice given to me I could only see the following problems;
1) No sources.
2) Biased Language.
3) Not enough personal information.
I have read over the article posted yesterday, and I genuinely can not see that I have made the same mistakes as Justinsofley. I have included various sources and have stated no opinions at all. The article reads as a list of facts, a historiography of Stephen’s life.
The only thing you could argue as ‘biased’ would be the following;
“Confirmation of Stephen Arnold’s standing in the jingle world was confirmed when he was awarded an Emmy for his compositions for Comcast in 2003.”
However, I would argue that winning an Emmy award proves a certain level of professionalism.
In regards to my job, I find this a little unfair and unwarranted. The premise for me placing the article should have no bearing on the article itself. Stephen Arnold earns $3 million a year writing jingles for major TV Channels. Most of America listens to Stephen’s music daily without even knowing about it. Being a musician myself, I actually find what he does extremely fascinating – no less fascinating than Slash, Eric Clapton or Bob Dylan.
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I noticed that United Planet has been recreated (you had successfully nominated it for deletion in May 2008). Rather than speedy it, I thought I'd let you take a look—it's got slightly different info, but still no real sources. (The provided CNN source is about as trivial as they come.) Pagrashtak13:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I don't believe you are understanding the guidelines correctly. For one, we have NOFOLLOW settings that prevent sites from getting better pagerank/search results from links on Wikipedia. Promotion plays no part in this at all. Secondly, the part about being more specific is referring to having one link over another, but doesn't comment about having both at the same time. -- Ned Scott04:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
I am well aware [10][11] of Nofollow and the discussions surrounding it. While it has certainly reduced the incentive for linkspamming a bit, it would be naive to assume it eliminated it completely. For example, many Wikipedia mirrors (e.g. Answers.com) do not copy the Nofollow tags, which means that linking a site in a Wikipedia article will still increase that site's PageRank eventually. And of course the benefits from increased traffic remain untouched. Promotion plays no part in this at all - several editors expressed a different opinion in a recent discussion on Wikipedia talk:External links, which was actually what brought these templates to my attention.
I did not quite understand your second argument. The quote from WP:EL (Sites that are only indirectly related ...) is about the question whether such a link is appropriate at all. The fact that in each case the templates contain another, more specific and more appropriate link to the same site is an additional argument against these general links.
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Haeb,
There is no implied claim that Akcam was arrested for one of those particular posters. If I wanted to single one out I would have named it. The posters are simply ancillary information, and the wording makes this obvious. --Adoniscik(t, c)21:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hi Adoniscik, thanks for clarifying that no direct connection to the subject of the article was intended. In that case, the remark must be considered original research, or the information could even be seen as off-topic right away. Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
The assertion that he was arrested for distributing material such as that which is shown at [12]. This assertion is implicit in the placement of the footnote:
In 1975 he was arrested for distributing leaflets and placing posters around the city.<ref>For a sample of the posters disseminated by Devrimci Gençlik, see [http://www.devrimcigenclik.org/index.php?bolum=foto&tur=afis their poster archives]</ref>
If on the other hand no such assertion was meant to be implied, then the placement of the footnote is misleading and the information is off-topic in this article.
The article did not assert that he distributed those particular posters. The mere presence of a footnote does not apply that. My edit summary, "link to some posters, typical of the times," also makes clear that they are merely typical, or representative, of the types of posters that leftists organizations prepared. This information is relevant, because a reader will wonder "just what kind of posters were they, anyway?" One does not have to provide a link to the particular poster he got arrested for in order for the link to be informative. --Adoniscik(t, c)22:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Your edits on the above mentioned article refers. You did note that the reference should be from published sources. If you read carefully, you will realize that all the references are all from third party published sources. Edmonton Journal or Calgary Herald (both notable newspapers in Western Canada) are published references. Please stop editing the article if you have nothing positive to contribute to it. Thank you for your cooperation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colsmartcol (talk • contribs) 08:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
HaeB, I do not agree with your premise. Wikipedia article is not all about "important and influential" but all about knowledge. I have reviewed the references and find no basis for your criticism.
The fact that the subject is a President of a reputable institute such as the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada in Alberta makes him notable enough to be featured and be a subject of study... Your comment seem to denigrate this feat or achievement of the subject.
The reference to the linked page is meant to substantiate the fact that the subject is indeed an Associate of the firm. I hope you are not suggesting that the reference in question here has been faked.
Your comment that "Home stories in local newspapers do not carry much" does not apply in this case because; the Edmonton Journal is not just a local newspaper but also a source of research information used by notable universities like the University of Alberta. Moreover, the subject is not only published in one newspaper, he was also carried on numerous regional newspapers such as the Windsor Times in East Canada, Victoria Columnist in Pacific Canada and in the Calgary Herald. There are many architects but I think only few can boast of being featured in numerous regional and national newspapers. I can send clips from these newspapers if you so desire.
You also ignored other references such as the RAIC websites where the subject was featured.
At no point did the article claim that the subject is important or influential as you insinuated and I do not want to believe that you are trying to suggest that Wikipedia is an elitist portal. Ndiye thabo (talk) 12:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
On fanboy you wrote, "According to the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary, the earliest known use of the term "fanboy" in an English-language publication dates to 1919." Your reference was this, but when I try that link I don't even get an entry. Am I missing something? --Allen (talk) 05:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
hi! sorry i have not quite gotten used to how to edit wiki yet so my reply to you will be like so... sorry!
the only way i am affiliated with "geosmart" is by the fact that I've been reading up on geodemographics for australia, and have found nothing on wikipedia for geodemographics in australia! geosmart is something ive research more on the web, and thought i should share! i am trying to be as neutral as possible in terms of describing the system, but if it feels like it is advertisign for them, then will just not write a page! sorry about that haeb Hinjae (talk) 02:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)hinjaeReply
thanks haeb!!! i will use the wiki guideline and your advice to write it in the best way! Hinjae (talk) 03:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
hi haeb, im just editing that article again, giving more reference to my source, and rewording it as much as i can.
for the geodemographic segmentation article, i was wondering whether it would be better to, instead of listing all the segments per system for CAMEO, ACORN< MOSAIC, and GEOSMART, but whether to try to find the list on their website and refer it to there? or would that encourage traffic to their respective websites? By the way, I've also removed the leading terms used to describe the five systems. thanks again haeb! Hinjae (talk) 04:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi HaeB, you recently deleted some fact-marked statements in the Gauss article. Could you please explain or otherwise justify your edits? I'm no expert on Gauss, and to me the claims you deleted may or may not be true. I am curious though, because there are many other fact-marked statements in that article (same fact date), which you apparently found no reason to delete. So what were your criteria? I checked briefly on the edit history for July-2007 (the fact date), but cant find any deep justification, to say the least, for the fact-tagging, and I know from experience, that some editors spray out fact-tags with a rather loose hand. Thank you. Power.corrupts (talk) 12:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hi Power.corrupts, please read WP:BURDEN: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, not with the one who removes it - there isn't any "deep justification" necessary. Granted, there are cases where demanding sources is not appropriate, namely if the information is obvious or can be assumed to be known to the average reader, but that is not the case here, as you have stated yourself (to me the claims you deleted may or may not be true). - You may know that one of the biggest problems our project has had to face for years is concerns about its reliability, and enforcing citations has turned out to be the most effective way to prevent or reduce the insertion of fake or unreliable information. It also greatly enhances the utility of Wikipedia for readers which need a reliable, quotable source for the information they find on Wikipedia.
The content I removed was mainly of the more gossipy personal kind (the sort of unsourced content which under the WP:BLP policy would have to be removed immediately if Gauss were still alive). I'm certainly not saying that there isn't other content in the article which lacks sources, but sometimes it might be better to give editors the chance to name the references that they used while the content is still in the article; the authors of the removed material had had that opportunity for 14 months.
I was unaware of WP:BURDEN, thanks. That policy seems to be in slight disconcord with the organic growth of Wikipedia though. A lot of useful info is added by anon IPs. They are not regular editors, and will not respond to fact tagging, so most of their contributions could be erased, strictly following WP:BURDEN. I think I had hoped that your reply would be, that you had read a biography on Gauss or something. But OK, WP:BURDEN holds. Power.corrupts (talk) 12:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Well, the question is what one wants to have growing organically - hearsay by anonymous Internet users or well-referenced information? And by the way the equation "regular editor = logged-in editor" isn't correct, there are many people who have been editing Wikipedia for years as an IP, and many accounts who make a few edits and never come back. I think most people who have contributed significantly to an article will check back from time to time out of curiousity alone.
In defense of the page, I had put a merger proposal on both pages and felt that a decent amount of time had passed before completing the merger. No one had bothered to oppose the merger or to question its notability, so I assumed that it was a reasonable course of action. As for citations, I feel that the sections have a sufficient amount of reliable citations to prove its verifiability.
Please read the general notability guideline. I don't see significant coverage in independent reliable sources - a results table is not sufficient. Have the math teams from this town of ca. 30,000 inhabitants been the main subject of books, or articles in major (e.g. US nationwide) newspapers? Regards, HaeB (talk) 11:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Eh, Lexington must be a very notable exception (and it is a very exceptional school) haha. Very well. As soon as I find the time, I will work on re-integrating the page back into the other pages. (But in response to the reliable source table, those are from the official websites of the competitions. So...erm, yeah...) Tklalmighty (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have 2 references on the new Lemur Conservation Foundation page, aside from the reference to the organization's own web site: the National Primate Research Center (Primate Info Net) and the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (which mentions it's Myakka City Lemur Reserve specifically). I'm not sure if I can find any sources that give as many details about their facilities as the organization's own web site. If you want, I can point to individual primate fact sheets on Primate Info Net that state that the Lemur Conservation Foundation is actively involved in a lemur species' conservation. What else do you recommend?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Visionholder (talk • contribs)
I had explained in my edit summary that while the PIN entry is published by an independent institution, it looked more like self-submitted content in the style of yellow pages entry than like "significant coverage". But thanks for expanding the article, it look better now. Regards, HaeB (talk) 11:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Shouldn't the statement that the NYT has been accused of liberal and conservative biases be followed by the surveys where people respond back saying that the newspaper is either liberal or conservative? At the very least, the sentence is now just a stub paragraph. GaryKing (talk)18:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Surveys are just one possible source of such accusations (and not necessarily that for the most substantiated ones). Previously, after the summarizing statement we had the Rasmussen survey, the UCLA study and Okrent about gay marriage and the Iraq war to expand on it. I moved the sentence about FAIR/Reagan there because it is such an accusation, too (of conservative bias, in this case).
But it should perhaps be made clearer that this part of the section, after the summay sentence, contains examples of such accusations. I have now tried to achieve this by structuring the examples part with bullet points.
Even if you disagree with the placement of the sentences, I would have expected you not to revert my rewriting of one of them without good reason. I assume the diff view was a bit confusing though (unfortunately this often happens when chunks of text are moved)...
My reason was that the "According to a 2007 survey by Rasmussen Reports" paragraph talks about the bias. This doesn't necessarily mean that "The Times has been accused of having either a liberal or a conservative bias." is only based off of the following information; the two paragraphs were together because they were related. It would probably be better to rewrite "The Times has been accused of having either a liberal or a conservative bias." a bit rather than splitting it into two paragraphs, which makes it flow not as well. GaryKing (talk)18:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
I didn't say that is was only based on the following information, but that these are examples supporting that summarizing statement - in this way the Rasmussen part is related to the "has been accused" part, yes, but so are the other examples.
It seems we agree that the text from "The Times has been accused ..." until the end of the section forms a logical unit. The extra paragraph separations were not intended to break that unit, but to have more structure within it - I would still prefer it for readability reasons to separate the examples by bullet points or paragraphs.
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Paintball: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Nn123645 (talk) 02:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
_cropped.jpg){kind=link}
