User talk:Meco

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, Meco, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  — Ambush Commander(Talk) 23:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Meco

Well, given that the English language Wikipedia is the only one with a different Meco, and knowing that my bot only links what has been previously linked when running in automatic mode, I found out that some othe bot, at the Netherlandish Wikipedia is to blame this error.[1]

Sorry for the inconvenience. I have corrected in all affected wikipedias so that no other automatic bot will link (unless trying to link pages with the same name in non-supervised mode).

— Carlos Th (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Testing the {{Helpme}} template

I'm hanging out in the #wikipedia-bootcamp IRC channel to see how the pgkbot notifies when I add {{Helpme}}on my Talk page. The reason is that I'm tentatively translating the template for no.wikipedia.org and would like to know if the bot could make the same notifications on the Norwegian channel #wikipedia-no where Norwegian admins and other able to assist Norwegian newbie users hang out. --meco 09:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

So far I've learned that it's Helpmebot and not pgkbot that does the announcing. --meco 10:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I have terminated the test.--Commander Keane 10:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hi meco

the following is a piece of text ive put on the clairvoyance tak page after they deleted the clairsentience article completely and redirected the whole page to clairvoyince...... childish ....

you said , one might need stamina to persist in the present zeitgiest .....zeitgiest i could deal with ... but playground games i have little or no patience for.....Thesource42 16:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hi guys

i see youve redirected the clairsentience article.... let me ask....what was the point of the weeks of discussions and rewrites if you guys were going to redirect it anyway....you should have told me t get lost out of here...... what was the point of it all? why did i listen to you ? at all? why did i remove all personal references? why did i reference and source all of my matereal diligently and in great detail ? why did i edit and re edit for style and content ? why did i make additional references to religios , anthropological ,socialogical , philosophical ,medical , physics , chemistry , botany , mental health etc so that all views were included and respected? why did i fulfill all of the above hurdles and hoops to fulfill wikpedia formatting and guidlines for you too to delete months of hard work and effort. your actions are without integrity or honour .....

[edit] clairsentience article redirect ?

Hi ..... whoever removed the clairsentience article and made it redirect ... can you please try and respect that the article that was there had evolved over a couple of months of discussion and many rewrites and multiple edits which involved much discussion over a long period...... .........i could delete this clairvoyance article.... but i wont because revert and delete wars then stupidly take place which is a real shame when a library becomes a bar room brawl......

..... i hope you can respect the clairsentience article...

..... ive been clairsentient for most of my adult life and it wasnt easy to come this far and to struggle for decades to articulate my experience in a way which makes rational sense to the world at large of which the clairsentience article is a manifest example..... so please try and respect the vast amount of struggle and work which has gone into it....


[edit] your user page

Hello Meco, the articles on your userpage appear quite interesting, could you tell me more about them? Matt V. 08:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I forgot I had put that there. It's not really supposed to be there. Anyway, Carl Johan Calleman is a Swedish scientist who has published some books on the Mayan calendar with particularly addressing the noted phenomenon of "the end of time" variously stipulated to be 21-12-2012 but recently, by Calleman, has been set forward to 28-11-2011 based on mathematical evaluations to which I'm not privy. I've only read one of his books in Swedish (which is free on his homepage).
I still haven't gotten around to reading those two articles, they're from a mailing list to which I subscribe. Calleman is involved in a global movement (of "new age" inclination) aimed at preparing individuals and humanity as such for the cosmic upheavals that are expected (and which many feel have already set in) to increase towards this transition or moving into a new dimension (ref. the biblical apocalypse and general eschatologies of various religious doctrines). From my personal self-realizing journey of the past 5 years or so, I have found Calleman's views to be somewhat in synchrony with my own understanding of the goings-on, although I have not spent enough effort absorbing his theories to be willing to vouch for their veracity. __meco 15:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


Interesting. Moving into a new dimension... For some reason that makes me think of predictions made by Robert Anton Wilson and Dr. Timothy Leary (among others) that many people will soon have already gained so called '5th circuit' or 'neurosomatic' consciousness, and that this will constitute and/or cause a great revolution in humanity. I shall have to look into it. Thanks.--Matt V. 07:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal categories

Thanks for bringing them to attention at WP:CFD, but they didn't need a full CFD debate. For categories (or any new article for that matter) that is obviously pure vandalism, you can add tags for speedy deletion. In this specific case, the {{vandalism}} tag is probably the one to use. That places the article or category into a special category that admins patrol, and its likely to get deleted faster. Cheers! --Syrthiss 15:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and Economics

Hi Meco, I'm curious why you would add Post Collegiate Confusion Disorder and High Hassle Factor Employee back onto the list of requested articles. The author placed these titles on the list, and then prompty created the articles himself. My understanding was that once articles are created, they no longer should be on this list. Is this incorrect? Besides, the articles are neologisms that will likely be found to fall within the deletion policy in the near future.

Also, I'm perplexed why you would characterize my edit as "spurious" in your edit summary. You should assume good faith as my intention was nothing more than to purge the list of two seemingly unnecessary entries. Also, please refrain from using edit summaries to express opinions. Please see Help:Edit summary#Wikipedia-specific information. Thanks, Accurizer 10:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Your perplexicity is well received and acknowledged. My action was ill-judged, and I will make an effort not to repeat any similar mistake. I appreciate your setting me right. __meco 10:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Meco, thanks for your response. When you get a chance, if you would remove the items again that would be great. I think it helps Wikipedia to remove them. However, I don't want to revert your revert myself, and create the possible appearance of an edit war. Thanks, Accurizer 11:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Status quo reestablished and I'm hopefully a bit wiser. __meco 11:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cunt

I removed the footnote - and have just done so again - because it is inappropriate. There is no point adding a note that seems simply to contradict the text. All the sources I have consulted state that the term does exist in Swedish as a dialect term. It is difficult to understand what purpose this footnote is supposed to serve, since it merely confuses the reader by stating the opposite of what the text says without any qualification. Paul B 11:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I am a native Norwegian. I can testify to the veracity of the footnote. The term is not listed in Norwegian dictionaries. And from the references I have looked up here at the university library in Oslo the only Swedish dictionary that has it listed is the 30+ volumes Svenska Akademiens ordbok. Therefore, it should be safe to conclude that it is a term which native Norwegian and Swedish speakers are not going to recognize, hence the rationale for the footnote should be established. __meco 12:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good job in Darfur conflict

Thanks for completing the refs. It is important job but I know how tedious and thankless it can be. I referenced a few sections and meant to complete the whole article, but got lazy sleepy very busy with something else. Here Image:Wiki-thanks.png. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusionism

Appreciate your introducing me to the ideology of Inclusionism in the deletion discussion for lists of farms in Oppland. I am Inclusionist & didn't even know it. Thanks - Williamborg 21:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I feel that people should raise their eyebrows to try and envision what this project (Wikipedia) can become, not simply gaze backwards to see "what an encyclopedia is". __meco 05:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks...

Thanks for the fix [2]. I still haven't gotten the hang of those footnote refs. I guess that's the great thing about a wiki. Other people can clean up my shortcomings. Thanks again. --Mark Neelstin (Dark Mark) 20:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Entheogen

Surely you're joking, right? This person just added several lines of garbage to an article and you want it kept due to an overly literal interpretation of "assume good faith"? Please! I'm reverting again - if you disagree, I suggest that we take this issue to an admin/moderator. Peter G Werner 13:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Love table

I totally agree with you, but I felt bad about having to move items around the existing page to make it all fit. I have to go now, but if you can think of a way of doing so please add it to the main page. Many thanks. Pydos 14:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attentiongrabbing signatures

 (aeropagitica)  (talk) 

 Netsnipe  (Talk) 

FearÉIREANN\(caint)

-- Mertens21  Talk 

 Slumgum T. C.  

[edit] Irrelevant comments removed

I have reverted your last two edits to Image talk:Autofellatio 2.jpg. Could you explain what was the rationale for placing them there in the first place? __meco 16:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello! I deleted KYLE MUENZNER and Sarah plotkin, both attack pages posted by a vandal, Szego and Tstst respectively. I noticed that their Talk links redirected towards this image but I thought that I had moved away from this page in order to leave the vandalism warnings. I will now attempt to warn the vandals again. Thank you for pointing this out to me.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Twins image and copyvio

I responded re: the twins image copyvio question, fyi.--BradPatrick 02:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bad behavior

perhaps the word "vandalism" was an overstatement. HOWEVER the edit was a bad one for two reasons:

1. a song from 1977 did NOT fit into the thesis of the shift of disco songs from the late 70s disco sound to the 80s. the song in question, "i feel love" was purely part of the euro disco sound. euro disco was pure 70s.

2. the IP user deliberately removed two songs that clearly were a part of that time and inserted the aforementioned song from 2 years prior.

noble of you to put your two cents in a HALF-HOUR after the fact. but the edit prior to the IP user's was more factual. ok? Drmagic 00:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for discourse. __meco 00:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


it's just disco. not that serious for a long debate. :) i appreciate how you handled this. take care. Drmagic 01:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use of images

Hi Meco. I noticed your comments on the Desparate Housewives page. If you are interested I'd like someone to have a look at the Big Brother (Australia series 6) article where there is a large number of fair use images that I think may be beyond reasonable. I'd like your opinion. Thanks. -- 13:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of examining a number of such images and articles, and I shall look into this when I have the time, hopefully today. Having taken a peek at the page you mention and there does seem to ve a number of violations of fair use practice there. __meco 13:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Meco. I noticed you removed the images from The Sopranos timeline as they had no fair use rationale. I respect your dilligence in helping wikipedia avoid copyright violations. I've added a fair use rationale for one of the images and reinstated it, I'm a relatively new editor but have been following the fair use dispute for TV programs on the Lost page so wondered if the rationale was appropriate (I modelled it after guidance in Wikipedia:Image_description_page). --Opark 77 17:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I doubt a fair use rationale could be supplied for a page such as this. However, I will take the issue up with fellow fair use-interested editors at Wikipedia talk:Fair use. You might want to check out some of the discussion on that page also if you are interested. I'll look into the discussion that you mention though. I appreciate your input. __meco 17:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC) (minor correction made on 08:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Orphaned image

Hi Meco, thanks for informing me about the status of this image. It was originally used on Valiant (film), but has been replaced by a different promotional poster. For some reason many editors don't list images they have orphaned at IfD, or at least inform the original uploader. I have deleted the image myself as I very much doubt we have any further use for it. Yours, Rje 17:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crash

Why did you take out those image. Those images were fair use. Let me know. Thank You.--Stco23 18:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe they simply served the purpose of illustrating the article. One image remains that is fair use. Should you find it prudent that more should be included there should be a detailed reationale provided for each individual image. Please see Wikipedia:Fair use about the limitations for the use of fair use images. __meco 18:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you put a DVD article about it because i won't be editing for a while because of an injury to my wrist. I want to keep that picture i uploaded. Thank You.--Stco23 23:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are asking me to do. I do understand that you would like to have those images onsite, however. If you later have the need for images that have been deleted, you could upload them anew, simply. __meco 00:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I can't edit with one hand. I need both hands to edit much easer. Please go to my talk page and see what i mean. I wan't you help out on a DVD article because i won't be able to. I hope you can make a good article with other people. Thank You.--Stco23 00:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Although I can appreciate your current predicament, I have no inclination to edit an article about Crash, if that is what you are asking of me. __meco 00:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I just don't want you to get rid of my photo. I worked hard on getting that on the Crash article and i want someway to keep it on Wikipedia please. I don't want to get rid of my Chash photo link on my page. Please find someway to get it on that article so i can stop editing for a while and rest. Please help me. Thank You.--Stco23 00:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

When there is no applicable rationale for keeping a copyrighted image it will be removed. It's that straightforward. I don't see there being a viable case for storing unused copyrighted images on Wikipedia until you get well enough to edit again. __meco 00:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

So do i have to do a DVD article about Crash all by myself.--Stco23 01:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not delete my upload or that other upload because when i come back to edit i want to edit a DVD article about Crash. Thank You.--Stco23 01:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Annoyance

The bot is starting to annoy me. It so far given me three warnings and the issue requires some debate. Please do not rush it. --Cat out 08:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a bot – it's just my machine-like efficiency… Humor aside, there are way too many copyrighted images on that page, especially the copious application of movie posters. The deletion notice will stay in place at least 7 days before any action is effected. This ought to be ample time to discuss which images to retain AND provide a sustainable fair use rationale for them. __meco 08:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] images Million Dollar Baby.

If you want to remove the images. Be my guest. I have personally gone through great lenghts to figure out the copyright information needed so that Wikipedia could keep nice images. I am unfamiliar with the current image copyright requirements and I placed them last year. If you want to remove them instead of just asking me the needed info to be able to keep them, then that is your prerogative. All the best.--None-of-the-Above 11:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I proved a link to Wikipedia:Fair use in the edit comment. My opinion is that these images don't qualify for fair use when they're simply used for illustrative purposes. This, I believe, is in line with consensus opinion among editors who work with fair use issues. This can also be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Fair use. __meco 11:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid to think of what else you would use images for than to illustrate. Seems like you like to remove a lot of images that basis. I prefer construction to destruction, but whatever floats your boat. Delete away.--None-of-the-Above 12:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Other than as simply ornamentary illustrations images can be used in connection with discussion and critical commentary. You would probably do just as well reading the guidelines that reflect current Wikipedia policy on the use of copyrighted material which I have have cited to you on a couple of occasions than projecting malevolent intentions on my part. __meco 12:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images at Aragorn

Hi there. I see you removed the images at Aragorn in this edit, with the edit summary: "Removing images with no applicable Fair Use rationale". I was wondering if you could explain this to me, as this sort of use of film screenshots is similar to use I have seen elsewhere, such as at Darth Vader. There are a lot of such images being used in the Tolkien articles. I personally want to see them moved down to a "portrayals" section, as seen at Frodo Baggins. I'd be willing to help clean things up if you could explain what images could be used where, but I'm not so sure there is a need to remove such images. See Fair Use images section. Carcharoth 15:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

As you have brought this issue to Wikipedia talk:Fair use I will participate in the discussion there. I was in fact going to copy your message to that page. __meco 18:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Talk: Disco

i was under the impression you did not want the passage in there for the reasons you gave on the discussion page. was i incorrect? i'll be more than happy to reinsert the paragraph if so. Drmagic 20:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I fully support your action. My copying was simply to ensure that the text isn't "lost" and also per recommendations in WP:V. __meco 20:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re archiving of Wikipedia talk:Fair use

OK, I've restored the section. I should have left the section in in the first place but didn't because, well, {{user screw}}. --Daduzi talk 09:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] yikes

do we have to have a consensus on everything? *LOL* Drmagic 21:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I became aware of your edit after I had submitted the talk page entry. However, as some seem very intent on placing that particular link, I feel it would be only fair to "open up" the process. __meco 22:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oversettelse av J.Brøgger artikkel

(sorry everybody, I'll take it in norwegian) I diskusjonen om Oeikrems bidrag til JBs artikkel på norsk, siterer du feil avsnitt. OEs påstand er at JB ikke var så godt ansett i fagmiljøet og er soleklart POV og uten belegg, så jeg støtter JB Jrs sletting fullt og helt. For så vidt greit at du påpeker at det pågår en disputt, men om du ser den seriøsiteten JB jr har vist i forhold til denne saken (som faktisk angår sverting av hans fars renomme) tror jeg at det er ganske åpenbart hvem som er ute etter en NPOV artikkel her. Se også diskusjonen om no:Liberalt_forskningsinstitutt, historikken til no:Sosialantropologisk_institutt,_NTNU... Det er vel egentlig en annen sak, men setningen du oversetter er altså feil. Pertn 14:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Fair Use images are disallowed in user namespace

Am I within the bounds of the legal red tape now? Dismas|(talk) 03:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

That's how I would do it. However, that would only have to be done for copyrighted images. __meco 03:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use of movie posters

[edit] Fair Use Pics on User Pages

uhm, i'm not aware of this 'policy'

can you directe me to where it states that this is a violation?

thanks LG-犬夜叉 08:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

nvm...i didn't even look at the link you gave me... sorry LG-犬夜叉 08:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
actually, plz show me where it says that it is a violation? i didn't find it in the page you linked LG-犬夜叉 08:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Policy, point #9. __meco 08:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
ahh, sorry, i didn't log on for about 3 weeks, and didn't remember to check here for your reply. Anyways, another user has removed them for me, and as of now there's not a single picture on my userpage. LG-犬夜叉 19:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IP vandal 142.59.75.179 and "edit war"

i replied to you on the Talk:Disco: page but i thought i'd repost this on your page just in case. but edit wars don't include vandalism and the reverting of the introduction of false content, which is what this user has done not only to this article but to other articles such as The Beatles and The Bee Gees. several times in the past this user has falsely put in articles that Yoko Ono was a member of the Beatles and that Andy Gibb was a member of the Bee Gees, both of which are FALSE. also concerning the Disco article, he has repeatedly added songs that clearly are not influencers of Disco (such as "I'm a Believer" by The Monkees.)

thus as a member of the recent changes patrol i am entitled to make whatever corrections i see fit. if we all abided by the 3RR there'd be all kinds of vandalism and false content permeating the pages of Wikipedia. so in the future when you see me reverting 142.59.75.179's changes, you'll know it's legit. Drmagic 13:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand. However, it was not all that obvious that this was vandalism. If your description of this person's m.o. is accurate it's very sneaky. Which means that I'm not the only one who might get the impression that it's an edit war going on. My suggestion would be to include some explanation in the edit summary, or, perhaps preferably, on the the talk page. __meco 22:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] inactive wikiprojects?

Wikiprojects probably shouldn't be marked as inactive unless their main page hasn't been updated for a decent period of time. Marking them inactive just because they aren't on some list somewhere (especially when there's a dynamic list available) may not be the best idea. --Interiot 11:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Marking a project as probably inactive is not making it inactive. When the list of all subprojects isn't updated with regards to the activity of any given subproject the error should be corrected. I take it others will follow-up on the initiative I have taken. __meco 16:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kansas City Film Critics Circle Awards posters

You are removing the film poster s images from the Kansas City Film Critics Circle Awards article. Fair use rational is straightforward. The articles (all of them that weren't cut) show the poster for each year's best picture winner. The policy of using a fair use image "to illustrate the movie in question or to provide critical analysis of the poster content or artwork" clearly applies here. Please stop what you are doing. -- Jason Palpatine 22:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have misread the guidelines. There is no optional or about providing critical commentary / analysis. And there is in fact no such treatment of the images in the articles from whence they were removed. __meco 12:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rephrased

You are removing the film poster s images from the Kansas City Film Critics Circle Awards articles and the Academy awards. Why? Jason Palpatine 22:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Because their use in those articles fail to meet Wikipedia's criteria for fair use of copyrighted images. __meco 22:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] * Sake news page - Alcohol and Drugs History Society

I removed this link from the sake article. I saw that you posted it on all kinds of alcohol and drugs articles. I don´t see any value for the article. Correct me if I´m wrong. Best regards Sake-simon 23:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I, as well see you've put it on a bunch of pages. Wikipedia is not a medium for advertising publicising. Many of the articles have no need for this link. I will remove them as I see fit. Wikipedia shouldn't be an outlet for spreading a word about the site.--Neur0X .talk 03:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no personal interest in the site in question. My impression is simply that the Alcohol and Drugs History Society offers an earnest forum for exchanging information on a variety of subjects relating to drugs and alcohol. If you who take an active interest in the articles in queston deem the link not useful, then you should lightly remove it. __meco 08:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cite your edits Template

Hi, I noticed that on this page Methylenedioxymethamphetamine, you've applied the Cite Your Edits template I designed. If you don't mind my asking, where and how did you find it? Thanks. ThuranX 13:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember. It could have been browsing Wikipedia:Categories, howver I am not sure. __meco 08:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your request

Hi. Unfortunately, you happened to catch the poor guy (me) who was just doing a job since the info had been deleted so many times already. You can request the article be undeleted if you wish. There's a link on the page that will tell you how. Good luck. - Lucky 6.9 00:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The above in response to User talk:Lucky 6.9#Request for undeletion and due process
This is simply not correct as the deletion log attests. __meco 01:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Speedy out of process. __meco 01:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You are out of line, sir. I tried to help you and you're throwing me under the bus. I would suggest we reach a more amicable solution before we have a problem. - Lucky 6.9 01:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe that is what I did. However, I will post to WP:ANI request any revieq be postponed until we have finished our discussion. __meco 01:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Sorry if I bit hard. I was blown away that I'd be on the noticeboard over offering assistance. I'll recreate the article and we'll let the community decide. Thanks for being reasonable. - Lucky 6.9 01:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

That is what I would suggest, the article and its talk page which included my reason why it shouldn't be speedied. __meco 01:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Corrective action acknowledged and appreciated. __meco 01:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Lucky 6.9 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

[edit] Jack Sarfatti

Thanks for answering my question. It seems to me that whatever Jack Sarfatti may have done in anger over his perception that he was being misrepresented, that the public statements by Calton Bolick are reprehensible and damage Wiki's reputation if he is an "admin"? Two wrongs don't make a right. Also the little investigation I have done e.g. the FBI Patriot Act issue seems to be simply Sarfatti's shtick of melodrama not to be taken as other than a joke since it is obviously so ridiculous. To ban him for his histrionics really shows a lack of humor on Jimbo Wales's part. :-) Britjones

[edit] NAACP Image Awards

On 4-July, you removed images from 37th NAACP Image Awards and 36th NAACP Image Awards because they didn't have applicable fair use rationale. I accept that this is a good reason for removing the images.

However, I don't understand why you didn't also clean up the text around them so that the page would look nice. It also isn't clear to me why you didn't follow through and remove the image from 35th NAACP Image Awards.

From looking over your talk page, it seems that you are very knowledgeable about fair use and spend a good deal of time working to enforce the policies. I appreciate the time you spend on this. ~ BigrTex 21:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category Scientology

Hello Meco, I would like to talk a little about that article. Can we just leave the introducory blurb out? If you read Category_talk:Scientology#Verbatim_from_scientology_article you see the issue of an introductory paragraph on the top of Category:Scientology has been talked about quite a lot. As Wikipedia editors we have ways of presenting information to the public. Yet there are articles, such as Category:Scientology, where it is not desireable to present references. As User:Justanother implies, these very same situations are present in other religions, too. As User:Justanother states, I just checked a number of categories (Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Government, Science) and none of them have an intro blurb. Those editors in those articles resolved the obvious difficulty (which POV to use) by keeping opposing POVs within articles, rather than being introduced at their Category page. Could we do the same, please? Terryeo 16:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe I have previously advocated your exact position. My last edit was simply based on me adjusting to the present status. __meco 17:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:GerdaBoyesenSW.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:GerdaBoyesenSW.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. 20:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sharon Weinberger on Wiki

"Jimmy vs. Jack Sunday, August 27th, 2006 I woke up Saturday to find that I had e-mail from none other than Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia. Wow, I thought, Jimmy must be writing me to address the Wiki War over my puny little Wikipedia entry.

No such luck.

Instead, I found that Jimmy was responding to Jack, as in Jack Sarfatti, co-founder of the Physics Consciousness Research Group. Actually, the response was to the entire Sarfatti list–the dozens if not hundreds of people who get e-mails every day from Jack and his colleagues about subjects ranging from wormholes to UFOs. The list is great reading, although Jimmy (or Jimbo as he’s called) does not agree:

“Including me personally on the cc list of random emails about the sorts of things you all talk about (UFOs, the future of Iran, etc.) is just totally not a good thing. –Jimbo”

Jack Sarfatti has been waging a long and hard battle over his Wikipedia entry, which has led to a rather personal war with Jimmy Wales. The batttle has had many incarnations, but right now it’s over a link on Jack’s entry to “pseudophysics.”

Wikipedia is a great resource, but I have been even more fascinated by a model of dealing with knowledge that could dispense with the elitism inherent in peer review. Wikipedia’s open editing model sounds so wonderfully subversive. But now that Wikipedia has a dominant web presence, it’s finding that allowing the masses to have free reign over knowledge has its downsides.

I have argued in many recent interviews about my book, Imaginary Weapons, that peer review, though an imperfect system, may be the best system we have for dealing with science–at least as it pertains to science funded by government. I’ve often doubted my own conviction about this argument, and had secretly hoped that Wikipedia offered some alternative–if not for funding science–then at least for propagating science that might be unfairly quashed by peer review.

This appears, so far, not to be the case.

For example, when I went to the Wikipedia entry for the isomer bomb, I found that it’s been merged with what was already an oddball entry for Ballotechnics, and that the latest changes were dominated by the same people who waged war on my entry, i.e. those who support the imaginary isomer bomb. The isomer bomb entry is now a collection of selective facts, bits of nonsense, and a definite bias toward Carl Collins‘ claimed results with triggering the hafnium isomer– results which have been rejected by the scientific community (that fact has been mostly wiki-edited out by you-know-who).

In fact, someone currently reading my book has pointed out how Wikipedia makes the idea of an isomer bomb now sound almost legitimate.

So, returning to Jack Sarfatti’s entry. Some people see Jack Sarfatti’s work as belonging to the pseudophysics category; Jack and his allies don’t. Jack himself has been banned from editing his own entry. Under the current Wikipedia system, to determine whether pseudophysics belongs on Sarfatti’s entry comes down to an edit war (and/or intervention by an administrator). Short of daily Wiki Wars, how are we to resolve this? Answer: Under a true open model, we can’t.

Jack has unconventional ideas about physics, but I’ve also seen him denounce plenty of pathological science (like the hafnium bomb). Maybe there needs to be some new category.

In the final analysis, my issue with the entry isn’t even whether Sarfatti belongs to pseudophysics, but who gets to determine that classification. Wikipedians, Jack Sarfatti, Jimmy Wales, or perhaps peer review?

I don’t have the answer, and neither does Wikipedia, so I think Jack has a legitimate gripe."

Posted in Imaginary Weapons, Weird Science | 1 Comment »

http://sharonweinberger.com/?cat=5

The main offender is a person whose only claim to fame is resembling Chairman Mao both physically and ideologically as a shining example of Jaron Lanier's "Digital Maoist."

On Dec 10, 2006, at 10:44 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote: bcc

Hi Sharon On an important distinction that almost no professional debunkers of visionary out-of-the-box dissident physicists with credentials make especially in my case.

The real crackpot protests battle-tested ideas in physics like Einstein's theories of relativity and quantum theory inside their purported domains of validity.

I don't and never did that and I challenge any of my detractors to give a legitimate example where I did.

The visionary goes beyond the edge of respectability where the timid academic is afraid to go lest he lose his funding and his job.

Questions like

1. consciousness

2. paranormal, (telepathy, PK, precognition)

3. UFOs & aliens visiting Earth

4. Time travel and stability of wormholes. Aliens cannot get here without stable wormholes.

5. Harnessing dark energy.

Orthodox physics has no clear answers to these topics as yet.

On the other hand respectable physicists see no problem in working on string theory and loop quantum gravity with little connection to observation so far at least.

-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.123.46.73 (talk) 17:23, December 11, 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invite to Nursing wikiproject

Hello, this is an invitation to join WikiProject Nursing.


You may be interested in joining WikiProject Nursing. This WikiProject aims to improve the standard of all aritcles relating to Nursing, which includes articles which directly relate to the Nursing profession, including its history, the duties and activities of nurses, their role in the general field of medicine, and all related articles.

You can help by:

  • Creating new articles.
  • Expanding stubs.
  • Adding photographs.
  • Referencing articles.
  • Research topics.
  • Anything else really...

For more information, see the project page, and if you have any questions you can leave them at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Nursing and someone will get back to you.

— Rod talk 19:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Translation

Hello Meco I helped to edit on the article Where Troy Once Stood and I struck upon the reference to Iman Wilkens in the Norwegian Wikipedia. There is unfortunately no article about him or his book available in Norse. Do you know anyone who could rearrange the article I mentioned and work on it to create the article in the Norwegian Wikipedia :Iman Wilkens? Best Wishes, --Antiphus 21:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It is an interesting article and I find the theory somewhat analogous to Thor Heyerdahl's Jakten på Odin. I have noted the article and your enquiry, however, I cannot yet tell how I will procede with this. __meco 04:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick reaction. My Norse is pretty poor so if you could find the time you might find a way to place this under demanded translations if anything of that kind exists on No:WP? Anyway, best wishes, --Antiphus 06:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC) P.S. According to this theory "Hardanger Fjord" equals Homeric "Iardanos" and "Silde Fjord" is the location of "Celadon".
There is an article now about Iman Wilkens so you could add content from the above mentioned article if you like. On the other hand; I'm already content with it as it is now, so suit yourself, best wishes,--Antiphus 13:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I will read it, and pursue the matter if I find the right time. __meco 21:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] thesource42 reposts his re written article

it has better formatting and is now published elsewhere in online magaZINES , mandrake speaks oxford publisher and also on the integral wiki where it has stayed in its present form for several weeks http://integralwiki.net/index.php?title=Clairsentience —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thesource42 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Age category

Hello! If you are receiving this message, that means that your user page is in a specific year category. Per a recent user-category per deletion, all specific year categories are to be deleted. If you wish to continue using year categories, you have two options:

If you wish, you may do both. Hopefully, this change in categorization will be quick and painless. Happy editing! --An automated message from MessedRobot 12:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sex economy (essay) Proposed Deletion template removed

Hi Meco - The 5-day deadline was approaching so I went ahead and removed the PROD on Sex economy (essay). See the talk page there and on Wikipedia:WikiProject Thelema for more. I like the broad overview of the topic and I can see you did a lot of work on it. I don't think it should be deleted, certainly not without further discussion. Splitting it up between the theory and the essay as we discussed would be best, if you have the time to do it. Parzival418 07:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Jeff Stryker promo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jeff Stryker promo.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 fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 48 hours after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 08:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/e/c/User_talk%7EMeco_0db2.html"