User talk:Phase4/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

The WikiProject Biography Newsletter: Issue II - April 2007

The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you BetacommandBot 19:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

CCB

Thanks for the message, much appreciated. Craig Williamson was from MI or MID a "sister-branch" of the SADF. I will check up on Peter Caselton and Bertil Wedin - don't think I have come across their names before. --Suidafrikaan 21:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Michael Russell.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Michael Russell.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale provided.Phase4 15:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Michael Russell.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Michael Russell.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Squids'and'Chips 01:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned image should be deleted.Phase4 10:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Long live the white African stereotype

Thanks for the moral support. The prevalence of apartheid apologetics on en: and af: is disturbing. It reinforces the white African stereotype: fascist, poorly educated, lacking in self-insight, xenophobic, culturally schizoid and obstinately Lilliputian. The majority voice is muzzled or indistinct. Hopefully in time, South Africa's political history will draw more black and international wikipedians who can project the subject out of its current parochialism. I guess this is simply a new, digital site of struggle. Suidafrikaan 10:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with any of this, but would like to add the word "blinkered" to the stereotype.Phase4 11:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope these labels are not specifically intended to apply to editors you have recently been in dispute with, Suidafrikaan. It would be grossly unfair. While I don't agree with all his edits, I've regularly seen Deon working to counter right-wing bias in articles about South Africa. So have I. Your dispute seems far more personal than political. Zaian 11:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

First, this was meant as an item of communication between myself and Phase4. Second, my observations relate to the corpus of articles on South Africa's political history. These are the result of a collective world view not the acts of individuals. Besides its many other facets, it is a world view predicated on positivism: i.e. one should be neutral in theoretical space ignoring the material and historical conditions in which this neutrality exists (read the more philosophical work of Heisenberg if this makes no sense). The reason this world view dominates on en: is a direct result of a) black marginalization and b) the global insignificance of South Africa. (aside: oddly, af: is different which I ascribe to the presence of several Dutch editors). If the demographic of SA wikipedians was proportional to the demographic of SA there would obviously be more progressive black editors. If the demographic of editors contributing to SA political history was proportional to the global demographic, the number of South Africans involved would miniscule. This would markedly change the so-called consensus you mentioned yesterday. I don't know if you understand German. If you do, you might want to compare de:koevoet with en:koevoet - you'll soon discover some subtle differences that are no doubt rooted in different world views. A more neutral example: If you understand French look at the fr page on separatism (Indépendantisme). Besides the fact that the French word is more positive having connotations with liberté, the québécois (who are surely the hallmark manifestation of late 20th century francophone separatism) are not mentioned in the text. They are relegated to a bullet much further down the page where their existence is drowned out in a list of international examples. It is as dangerous to employ situated neutrality on French pages as it is on en or af pages when it comes to political history. The en: SA political history pages need a reflexive loop. The future, fortunately, will provide it. Suidafrikaan 13:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help with Radio Northsea International. I've made some minor corrections (mainly to my own work), and probably ruined a few of your improvements.

If you speak Afrikans (?) can you look up Dutch recordings of RNI, esp programme Dreimaster, and tell me if RNI sounded warm and friendly in its Nederlands outsendung. Excuse my attempts at spelling.

Dankevel Sarahdarling 02:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Martti Ahtisaari

Hi, there is quite enough work with the serbian nationalists editing the ahtisaari article with complete and utter bull. Please do study the sources before reverting back to their unsourced material. If you study most of those claims you will notice they are not even close to going over the wp:living boundary. Serbian media seems to fabricate stories against m.a. actively, so i understand people there might find them real.

Gillis 22:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

If there are allegations (even outlandish ones) against Ahtisaari and they are sourced, say, to the speaker of the Serbian parliament, then they should be mentioned in the article. But such allegations have to be hedged with the necessary caveats.Phase4 10:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Radio Northsea International

Hi there, do you have any association with the station? Or are you just editing and improving it as a "random" article. There has been some very strange activity around this article lately, with sock puppetry, links to some sort of legal injustice, copyrighted photos and blocked users. It seems such an innocuous subject for all the drama! Can you enlighten me at all? --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 01:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No association, I'm afraid, nor is it just a "random" article. My interest in RNI springs mainly from its [generally little known] link to Edwin Bollier and the sale of Mebo II to Libya. The background of copyrighted photos, sock puppetry, legal injustice and blocked users is thoroughly baffling, and I can't explain it.Phase4 09:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes two of us! --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 11:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I'd check in with you. My interest in RNI is different than yours, and as I said in the discussion I think your issues are better addressed in other articles, as they have nothing to do with the radio station itself. But I acknowledge you are editing in good faith. I see from the above that you don't know what's going on with the page either. I am thinking of drawing it to the attention of Administrators, but I suppose I'd better talk to the editors who seem to be creating problems first.KD Tries Again 20:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)KD

Image:Elish angiolini.jpg

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Y not? 22:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Elish angiolini.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Elish angiolini.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The orphaned image can safely be deleted.Phase4 09:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about Olof Palme

Hello, I was really surprised to read your reaction on the things I had to say about Olof Palme. I fail to understand tour reaction on something I had to say on the discussion side. As you may have noticed, I did not change any edits on Olof Palme back I just stated why I thought a certain edit by me was relevant. Your reaction ('You talk but all I hear is mumbo jumbo') is regarded by me as uncivil. Personally, I try to write things on the wikipedia and I think we both have to assume good faith from each other.

Sorry if you regard my comments as uncivil. I didn't mean to be unkind.Phase4 10:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:39419169 niger congo 203.gif

Image Fair use rationale problem

Thanks for uploading Image:39419169 niger congo 203.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Megapixie 02:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale validated.Phase4 07:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It's still replaceable with a map that we could draw ourselves. I have re-tagged the image. Megapixie 08:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

In fact it's so replaceable that I in fact replaced it in 30 minutes. I would seriously suggest reading WP:NFCC before uploading any "fair use" images. Megapixie 08:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well done, Megapixie: yours is a much better map!Phase4 09:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:39419169 niger congo 203.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:39419169 niger congo 203.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

As stated on the image page, it can safely be deleted.Phase4 19:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:ShukriGhanem.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:ShukriGhanem.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 00:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Radio North Sea International: Incivility

Hello again. Just FYI, I reported the latest behavior on the Talk page. I don't think the article can be worked on in these circumstances[[1]]KD Tries Again 15:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)KD.]]

Check User

In case you didn't see, your check user reported lead to some IP ranges being blocked. Hopefully it will clear the vandalism on RNI. I'll go through the accounts soon and delete any suspicious images. --Stephen ^1-800-STEVE 03:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. Let's hope the action taken will have the desired effect.Phase4 09:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Silly

Your strange comments are utterly incomprehensible. Where are you coming from? Feel free to drop me an email if you would rather. A baffled (but far from stupid) SqueakBox 22:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

New York Accords

I can't believe there was no page on this! This is how Namibia got its independence! Perspicacite 12:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Well done indeed for creating the article. I congratulate you on your perspicacity!Phase4 13:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

State Security Council

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have perfomed a web search with the contents of State Security Council, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/special_report/1998/10/98/truth_and_reconciliation/203927.stm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 16:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The BBC report was itself based upon the TRC report dealing with the SSC, and quoted extracts from it. I've removed the alleged copyvio tag and informed the maintainer's talk page.Phase4 16:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Pan Am Flight 73

Re: your reversion. There is no need for all that information in the "Significant events" section; some of it is unnecessary (such as the day the arraignment was set) and some of it refers to Pan Am Flight 103, which has little to do with the subject of the article. PBP 15:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

What you seem to ignore, PBP, is that Libya was blamed by The Sunday Times in 2004 for being behind the Pan Am Flight 73 attack. Libyans have been convicted for the Lockerbie bombing and for the sabotage of UTA Flight 772. Thus the common link is Libya, and you should not revert my "significant event" edit a second time without justifying yourself on the Pan Am Flight 103 talk page.Phase4 15:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I assume you mean Pan Am Flight 73. See, that's the problem--I think there's too much emphasis on Pan Am Flight 103. The page is about a 1986 hijacking and the information should deal mostly with that incident. The significant events section is cluttered with too much information not about Pan Am 73. Libya may have sponsored both incidents, but that can be explained with a paragraph and a link to the other articles.

Please tell me why the following information is important and does not deserve to be condensed, as I did:

• Early 2000 - Officials in Pakistan begin making public statements that the jail terms of the hijackers will soon expire.
• October 1, 2001 - Safarini appears before a federal judge in Anchorage, Alaska, and is ordered to be held and transported to the District of Columbia to face charges pending against him.

• October 2, 2001 - Safarini is arraigned before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan in the District of Columbia and pleads not guilty to each of the counts in the indictment. Safarini is held in prison pending trial.

• November 7, 2001 - The Court finds that, due to the complexity of the case, it would be unreasonable to expect the parties to prepare for trial within the time limits established by the Speedy Trial Act (usually 70 days). The Court finds that the ends of justice will be served by allowing the parties additional time to prepare for trial. Similar findings are made by the Court on May 3, 2002, and again on November 1, 2002.

• August 28, 2002 - A 95-count superseding indictment is returned by a grand jury in the District of Columbia, charging Safarini and four co-defendants. These charges will serve as the basis for the upcoming criminal trial of defendant Safarini.

• August 2003 - The Libyan government accepts responsibility "for the actions of its officials" in relation to Pan Am Flight 103 and UTA Flight 772, and offers $2.7 billion in compensation to the relatives of the 270 victims of the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing.

• January 9, 2004 - The Gaddafi Foundation agrees to pay $170 million in compensation to the relatives of the 170 victims of the UTA Flight 772 bombing. However, families of the 7 American victims refused to accept this Libyan offer: instead, they have lodged with a US federal court a claim for $2.2 billion against the Libyan government.

• March 28, 2004 - Days after British Prime Minister Tony Blair's state visit to Tripoli, Jon Swain reported in The Sunday Times (London) that Muammar al-Gaddafi and the Libyan government were behind the Pan Am Flight 73 attack which, as alleged in relation to Pan Am Flight 103, was said to have been carried out in retaliation for the U.S. bombing of Tripoli and Benghazi in April 1986.

A lot of this is procedural information about Safarini and quite unnecessary. And as you can see, most of what I deleted had nothing to do with Pan Am 73 and had to do with the other bombings. I personally think we should do away with the bullet points and put the information in paragraph form. Thoughts? PBP 17:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been away for several days, but am now back to deal with this issue. You're right I should have referred to the Pan Am Flight 73 - not the Pan Am Flight 103 - talk page. The crux of the matter about the three flights - it seem to me - is the compensation claimed by US lawyers on behalf of the victims/relatives. No compensation has yet been paid by Libya for the Pan Am Flight 73 attack, although the same US firm that is claiming $2.2 billion from Libya for the American relatives of the UTA Flight 772 bombing are seeking much more from Libya for the Pan Am Flight 73 attack. I don't see how the significant events of these three flights can be isolated from each other in the way you suggest.Phase4 21:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

What I'm going to do is condense the information into more sections instead of the current bullet points. I'll keep in stuff about the other bombings since apparently they are important as well. My main point was that the section was too long and cluttered with unnecessary info, like the public statements from Pakistan and such. See how the revision looks. PBP 22:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

How do the following changes look? I've condensed the information into two sections, removing the bullet points:

The two new sections look fine. I've done some tweaking of the "legal action" section.Phase4 09:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hijackers

On July 6, 1988, five men were convicted of their roles in the hijacking and sentenced to death, but the sentences was later commuted to life in prison. On September 28, 2001, Zayd Hassan Abd Al-Latif Masud Al Safarini was captured by the FBI in Bangkok after he was released in Pakistan and was on his way back to Jordan. He was taken to the United States where on May 13, 2004 he was sentenced to a 160-year prison term at ADX Florence in Colorado. At the plea proceeding, Safarini admitted that he and his fellow hijackers committed the offenses as members of the Abu Nidal Organization, also called the ANO, a foreign terrorist organization. Safarini and the other hijackers were initially prosecuted in Pakistan and convicted of numerous crimes pertaining to the hijacking.

In 1988, a secret message written on cigarette packets and foils is delivered to Pakistani journalist Masror Hausen of The Muslim, who covered the trial. The hijackers revealed the true motive behind hijacking was, "to fill up the aircraft with explosives and hit the Israeli defence ministry, using the aircraft as a missile. ..."

Legal action

Libya has been accused of sponsoring the hijacking, as well as the bombings of Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988 and UTA Flight 772 in 1989. In 1991, a press briefing for an indictment by the U.S. Justice Department over Pan Am 103 said that "Libya provided financial and logistic support to the Abu Nidal Organization hijacking of Pan Am Flight 73 in Karachi, Pakistan" and that "the Libyan People's Bureau in Islamabad assisted at least one of the hijackers by providing him with travel documentation."

In August 2003, Libya accepted responsibility for "the actions of its officials" in respect of both airliner bombings, but was silent on the question of the Pan Am Flight 73 hijacking. Libya offered $2.7 billion in compensation to the families of the 270 victims of Pan Am Flight 103 and, in January 2004, agreed to pay $170 million to the families of the 170 UTA victims. The seven American UTA victims' families refused the offer and instead filed a claim for $2.2 billion against Libya. From 2004-2006 the U.S. and U.K. opened up relations with Libya, including removing sanctions and removing the country as a sponsor of terrorism.

In June 2004, a volunteer group of families and victims from the incident, Families from Pan Am Flight 73 (panam73-at-hotmail-dot-com), was formed to work toward a memorial for those killed in the incident, to seek the truth behind this terrorist attack, and to hold those responsible for it accountable. On April 5, 2006, the law firm of Crowell & Moring LLP, representing the surviving passengers, estates and family members of the hijacking victims, announced it was filing a civil suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking $10 billion in compensatory damages, plus unspecified punitive damages, from Libya, Muammar al-Gaddafi and the five convicted hijackers. The lawsuit alleged Libya provided the Abu Nidal Organization with material support and also ordered the attack as part of a Libyan-sponsored terrorist campaign against American, European and Israeli interests.

British media reported in 2004 that Libya was behind the hijacking. Pakistani media, as reported by South Asia Tribune, said that one of the hijackers in Adiala jail, Jamal Saeed Abdul Rahim al-Fahid, had confirmed the Sunday Times story (via his counsel). Al-Fahid said that the Libyan leader Gaddafi "masterminded the attack" and "he has taken the responsibility of executing the hijacking at the behest of Col. Gaddafi."