User talk:Davidpdx/Archive02

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive, Do not edit it in any way! If you want to leave me a message please use the current talk page

Archive January 1st to April 30th 2006

[edit] Vicki Walker

See if that is about what you were looking for on that page. Sorry it took so long for me to get to it :) -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 03:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible solutions

On your page you used {{TOCleft}} to accomplish this. -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 10:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Apparently someone deleted the picture on this article for having no source. As he was your grandfather, I wondered if it would be possible for you to upload another photo of him. Ral315 (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, you should have been notified on your talk page, which I couldn't find in your archive. Where did you get the picture, exactly? Ral315 (talk) 15:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, in that case the other person didn't respond. It really has to be from the U.S. Government, I'd wager...and I see you've re-uploaded it under correct copyright tags. It should be fine now. Ral315 (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom Double Voting

Hi, I'm just writing to inform you that you voted twice on my, Filocht's, and Golbez' ArbCom nominations. Don't know if you noticed that. —Ilyan e p (Talk) 16:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Davidpdx, it seems like your double votes on Filocht's and Ilyanep's pages have been removed; you voted twice on the same direction. However, in Golbez'z voting page, you voted support once and then oppose another time. I've indented your support vote, which came earlier, for now. Please take a look at this and make sure you've recorded your vote where you want it to be and then removed any excess votes that haven't been indented already. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay :) Thanks for replying. Ilyanep 23:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom Candidacy Voting

I want to thank everyone who took the time to vote on my ArbCom candidacy. I have placed some thoughts on this matter on my user page and would welcome your thoughts.--Edivorce 23:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello there! I wanted to thank you for taking the time to vote on my arbitration commitee nomination. Although it was not successful, I appreciate the time you spent to read my statement and questions and for then voting, either positively or negativly. Again, thank you! Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 22:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Johnski is at it again

Take a look at Dominion of Melchizedek. --Centauri 09:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Johnski. I will semiprotect the page if it becomes necessary. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Johnski arbitration

I assure you I'm not sitting idly by, I've been on the Arbitration Committeee for less than a week. I think you've misinterpeted my proposal, it's not a weakening at all, just a practical matter. I am (or I suppose was, since arbitration matters will fill my time now) one of the primary patrollers of WP:RFPP and protection concerns me. This semi-protction will block all new and anonymous users to the articles, even the well meaning and potentially constructive ones. It's against our very wiki collaborative nature to protect at all, and considered harmful. All my proposal suggests is that administrators be allowed to unprotect at their discretion, i.e., if they think Johnski's left or id not a problem anymore. This is common for pages we protect. I'd expect the admin(s) to watch the page and reprotect if they were mistaken about it being changed. But it's not a substantial change. I als don't think that "If necessary, Johnski, or any other editor believed by an administrator to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Johnski, may be blocked indefinitely by any administrator" is a very weak remedy. I have, by the way, asked the other arbitrators on our mailing list to get to this case, but you have to remember we have more than 20 others. Dmcdevit·t 19:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Good news re the Johnski ban. Hopefully this will result in a bit less daily Wikistress. --Gene_poole 22:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For you

I award this Barnstar to Davidpdx for his tireless work defending Dominion of Melchizedek.

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:BillSizemore.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BillSizemore.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. -- Longhair 12:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Johnski

This request for arbitration is closed. Dominion of Melchizedek and associated articles, shall be semi-protected. If necessary, Johnski (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), or any other editor believed by an administrator to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Johnski, may be blocked indefinitely by any administrator. The article may be unprotected (and reprotected) at the discretion of any admin who deems it safe to do so.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Ryan Delaney ^talk 04:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Kevin Mannix.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Kevin Mannix.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Longhair 10:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your support on my admin nomination. I didn't say anything because I don't want some of my more hysterical opponents to accuse me of campaigning for votes. That's a priviledge they reserve for themselves. --Gene_poole 01:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Marylhurst.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Marylhurst.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

[edit] a page that might interest you

Check out Hiroshima (film) -- a problematical page that essentially advances, as fact, some of the arguments against dropping the atomic bomb. The authors don't seem to understand the difference between an article about the film and one that regurgitates its arguments. It seems to fall within your area of interest. --Cubdriver 16:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evil twin

Greetings! Johnski is indeed still around. Did you notice the nonsense he posted at Karitane Shoal last week? Look at the talk page for a good laugh. --Gene_poole 09:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DoM

I don't think Harvardy is Johnski, though I reserve the right to change my mind. I'm thinking about unprotecting the article. If it comes under attack, I (or someone else) can always reprotect. What do you think? Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

They're still here, just quiet. [1] Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] arrests of protesters - Danish Embassy

Mate, please don't let the dispute between Tom & I stop you from correcting errors or contributing in any way. Please! That's been going on forever & it's fairly mindless anyway. This is an ongoing story that I don't get too much time to contribute to. The changes made so far have been intelligent & progressive. I really welcome them. Go for it! Veej 02:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 08:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:PeteSorenson.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:PeteSorenson.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 11:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for being bothered you, but I have searched for the license and found it is actually a copyright violation]. If you do not think so then please add appropriate information which does not violate any copyright status. If you have any other question regarding this please let me know. Thank you, Shyam ^(T/C) 12:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright problems with Image:PeteSorenson.jpg

An image that you uploaded, Image:PeteSorenson.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Shyam ^(T/C) 12:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David, please stop violating NPOV guidelines

Your edits on the Oregon 2006 Gubernatorial race have obviously violated NPOV. While I understand that you may be a fan of Pete Sorenson, that bias should not leak into Wikipedia. You placed into Ted Kulgoski's page a poll that shows his favorability is low (which is fine), but then have deleted, and attempted to "qualify" with meaningless data, other polls that do not lead to quite the same conclusion as your favored viewpoint.

I'm going to let you consider my words and revert some of your deletions, to put things back so that both sides are represented, because you're obviously a good contributor and it's easy to violate NPOV subconsciously when writing about strongly felt political beliefs. But if you don't, and your edits continue to have the strong "presenting only one side of the case" tone, I am prepared to consider all your material just political PR, and start reverting them.

Anonymous Wikipedian 21:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

- - -

David, if you can adaquately explain why you deleted the information about the open poll done by Riley Research, I am prepared to retract my statements. As it stands, however, I do not think you can quite so easily distance yourself from the edit history. You have to have a better reason for deleting information from wiki than adding it, and you have been making a number of questionable deletions.

The fact clearly shown by neutral polling data is as follows: 1] At the present time, Governor Kulongoski is not particularly popular with Oregonians. 2] At the present time, he is, never the less, still MORE popular than all his rivals. Perhaps I erred in making a speculative statement as to WHY this second fact is true. (It might not be the economy. Maybe Oregonians just hate all politicians. Who knows?) But it is clear from your later logged edits, that you are not merely interested in clarifying the summary of Kulongoski's relative popularity, but instead have repeatedly tried to remove reference to it and/or discount it, so that the clear implication of the edits you've made are as follows: "Kulongoski is unpopular. Here are links to his Democratic and Independent (but not Libertarian) rivals (that perhaps progressives might support)". It seems a pretty clear NPOV violation.

Finally David, I did not accuse you of bad faith. I specifically said that it looked like this was a case of subconscious bias, and asked you to reconsider your edits. Nor did I say you were the only one who made bad edits. I was merely pointing out that on a page that is already biased against its subject, deleting information that does not support that bias is particularly egregious.

Anonymous Wikipedian 19:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

First things first. I have no ties to the Kulongoski campaign. As you can see by my edits, I have added information that might be considered anti-Kulongoski, including the SEIU Local 503 endorsement of his rival, Jim Hill, for example. I will continue to add neutral information as it becomes published (and when I have time).

Second, I initially focused on this page because I do have particular knowledge of Oregon politics. Given my limited time however, I simply can't dedicate literally days filling in details, especially given the necessity of finding external references to things I already know.

I am going to assume from now on that you are trying to do your best, and will delete this accusation on your user talk page, if you desire.

Anonymous Wikipedian 19:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DOM edit

Hi again. I disagree with your reversion of me edit. Now that Johnski has been banned we can and should remove all weasel-wording from the DOM article. The article itself contains citations from reputable sources that show unequivocally that DOM has been directly linked to fraudulent banking activities - not merely "accused" of it - so I don't see how stating this at the outset is a problem. --Centauri 06:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem in general with removing it. My issue is that it will give Johnski an excuse to start an edit war. I realize he's banned, but that doesn't mean he's gone completely. In fact if you look at the DOM page, he's around and posting the same old stuff. That's my only issue with it. If you feel strongly, then go ahead and change it back. But I think we need to keep a really close eye on it. Thanks for letting me know. Davidpdx 08:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I think it sets a bad precedent if we let inaccurate information remain in the DOM article simply to keep Johnski "quiet". He's been banned - end of story. If he tries to create any further problems I'm confident we can deal with it easily enough.--Centauri 08:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I think a merge/redirect is a good idea. The DOM article is still quite a dog's breakfast, so if you add the Pedley material that could provide a good start on re-working the DOM article itself. --Centauri 08:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You might be interested to know that Johnski is on the edit-war path again concerning the opening sentence in the DOM article. I've just reverted it to Centari's version. --Gene_poole 22:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It is funny to see Centarui aka Gene Poole trying to make you think there is more than one person that agreed to change wording that was acceptable to everyone for a long time. I don't see how being "accused" of something is weasal wording, and it was added by what appeared to be a nuetral party between the edit waring. I only reverted to the version your reverted to because it appeared that was what you believed was best to keep the peace, otherwise I don't care, so do what you think is best. Harvardy 22:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem - we'll just have him banned again. As I said yesterday I think it's a very bad precedent to keep bad content in an article just to keep 1 banned editor "happy". If he doesn't like NPOV facts that's just too bad for him. --Centauri 02:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hiya. Looks like we don't have too much to worry about after all. - although I do note he's been posting a bit of his usual verbose nonsense on the micronation talk page. --Gene_poole 03:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enola Gay / pop culture

I guess the force behind why I bother caring about it is that it seems like nuking of these kinds of sections would open a slippery slope where quality bits of culture would be banned from any wikis concerned with controversial events. It just seems wrong to me that, say, Shindler's List may be removed from a wiki on the Second World War (to use a hypothetical example). Another thing is that we live in very ahistorical times, so any helpful little "reminders" of historical events through their echoes in pop culture may help to stave off mass amnesia. Lucidish 02:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enola Gay in pop culture

I've just read that you removed the informatio I wrote on Andrés Calamaro's song Enola Gay. I wrote this because I think it's an unknown information who can be useful for some people if they want to know something on this point of view about Enola Gay. I don't know if Pop Culture section eclipse the rest of the article, but I saw the section and I decided to collaborate. Just add that the song is not just related to Enola Gay in the title, but is a critical view of US and their governement linking it with Enola Gay bombing. Here you can read the lyrics of the song, http://www.camisetasparatodos.com/paginas/letras/letrasdedo1.htm ; if you don't understand the spanish lirics and you want to I can try to translante. Thank you (unsigned by User:Ferryslliria)

I unforunately never took Spanish, except to learn a bit for a vocal performance in college, so I wouldn't understand the lyrics.

I think there needs to be a direct reference to the plane to include it in the article. If you look at the talk page for the article, there is an on-going discussion about putting guidelines to prevent that section from becoming too overwhelming. Things that are as trivial as game codes(solutions to video games)have been put in, which really have no connection.

Thus, what we are trying to do is make sure the pop culture items that are put in are indeed closely connected to the topic of the plane itself. We also are asking people to reference the material they put in (much like anything else in Wikipedia) so that the reader can understand what the connection is.

If you have concerns about the guidlines, I urge you to visit the talk page and look at what we are working on. Nothing has been decided yet, but we are trying to implement something soon so that there is a soultion to the issue. Davidpdx 23:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] your suspicion

I could care less what you think about me. I don't care if you protect the DOM mess, because I have no intention of continuing wasting my time on your mysterious pecking order. Why are you so stubborn about every little edit? Please don't bother to answer my question, it is just for you to think about. Have a nice life. Whatsupdoc 02:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

You would be very kind to explain to me how my little iddy biddy edit had anything to do with propoganda, since it was only quoting three additional words from an official web site of the Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States of American. That's a little carrot dangling on a stick for you to bite. I really don't expect anything from you but more retoric, so fire away. Whatsupdoc 03:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, dear teacher, for correcting my spelling of Rhetoric. Whatsupdoc 00:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:John Kitzhaber.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:John Kitzhaber.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Johnski

Maybe he's just testing the waters. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] another micronation zeralot

Howdy again. It seems we have another zealot who is determined to add inappropriate content to Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands. If you could keep an eye on it I'd appreciate it. Apart from the inappropriate and badly-written conversational tone of his insertions, none of the material is verifiable. --Gene_poole 13:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the latest Johnski sockpuppet's unsubtle intrusion. I'll certainly keep an eye out. Sorry to hear about your situation - hope things turn the corner soon. --Gene_poole 13:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/a/v/User_talk%7EDavidpdx_Archive02_ce97.html"