User talk:Timeshifter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.

Feel free to use any of the above banners on talk pages. Just copy and paste the code below:

{{WikiProjectNotice|Arab-Israeli conflict}}

{{controversial}}

{{talkheader}}

{{Calm talk}} --Timeshifter 01:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Timeshifter! Welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• If you haven't already, please add your name to the new user log to let others know a little about yourself.
• Read the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the Sandbox.
• Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk or ask me on my talk page.
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!
Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 23:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes). You should always sign talk pages (also called "discussion" pages), but not articles.

[edit] New Pro-cannabis userbox

This user is pro-cannabis.

If you would like to have this on your userpage, just add {{User:Disavian/Userboxes/pro-cannabis}} to your userpage, and the box at right will appear on it. Also, if used in your user space, the page will be listed on Category:Pro-cannabis Wikipedians. If you would like to share it with someone else, type {{User:Disavian/Userboxes/pro-cannabis|stamp|right}}

Also, consider weighing in on the Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll.

Stand up and be counted while you still can,

StrangerInParadise 16:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Incarceration rates worldwide.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Incarceration rates worldwide.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The image is in the public domain. The November Coalition statistical graphs page says "These graphs are in the public domain." Near the bottom of the page. http://november.org/graphs - It seems there is currently no suitable category in the drop-down menu of the wikipedia image uploading page for this. Someone else had the same problem. See here. They were told it was OK, and to put the template {{PD-release}} on the image page. --Timeshifter 01:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incarceration

Thanks for your intervention. I don't think this is as serious as it might initially appear because it only happened, I believe, because an image link had two external links in it, which is very unusual. I've always been impressed with AWB's ability to deal with nested ]] and ], I will pass this detail on to the developers. I will also scan for other occurrences to check for other errors. Thanks again. Rich Farmbrough 09:13 28 August 2006 (GMT).

Yep, I found, I think, about 24 articles with two or more nested []s, only a few had ISBNs, so I was able to ensure the problem did not re-occur for this project. And of course programmers count "0, 1, many" so I hope that AWB will be made perfect soon! Any comments to my talk page please. Rich Farmbrough 11:06 31 August 2006 (GMT).

You said also that Smackbot caused the image not to show up due to 2 external links being in an image caption. One of the links was at the end of a caption. ISBNs were not a part of this particular problem. But are you saying that 24 images did not show up after that run of Smackbot? And has the problem been fixed? I need to know whether I can put 2 external links in a caption, especially if one link is at the end of the caption where the brackets stack up and confuse the bot. What about 3 or 4 external links in a caption? Does the problem only occur if one of the links is at the end of the image caption? --Timeshifter 19:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

No I forget the details, but I think one other article had been broken, possibly. The problem with the tool has been fixed Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser#Nested_square_brackets_bug by the main developer and author of the tool, so apart from people using old versions, which won't last long (the tool itself will insist on being updated), you should be fine to put what you like. In fact you shouldn't worry too much anyway because it's easy to roll back an edit if needed. Rich Farmbrough 20:28 31 August 2006 (GMT).

Thanks. It looks like the problem has been fixed. The other note about it here on the same page says that the problem was occuring with just one external link in the caption too, if the link was at the end of the caption. But it has been fixed in any case.--Timeshifter 11:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photo from sr: wiki

Yes, photo was taken in Belgrade, and it is Global Million Marijuana March first in Belgrade in 2005. Correct month i don't know but i can ask user who send that image about that. Licence for image is GFDL. --SasaStefanovic • 19:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I just find out that MMM was held in May 7 2005 in Belgrade and that there was about 50 participants. --SasaStefanovic • 19:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iraq War infobox

Hey Timeshifter, sorry to be such a pain on the Iraq civ cas. I'm just trying to keep the infobox from becoming so long as to be unhelpful. Good edits to the Iraq civil cas, tho--very necessary and I'm glad there's finally someone who's making sure they're up-to-date. Publicus 20:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Were you the one who did all those great edits (such as mentioning where to get the info) for the Iraq casualties? If so, good work. Czolgolz 03:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks. I added some additional links to several Iraq casualty pages, and the casualty section of the infobox on the Iraq War page. Also added some links, and some more hidden notes with links, for the template page: Template:Summary of casualties of the 2003 invasion of Iraq --Timeshifter 03:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iraq War, Image stacking

Can you descibe the problem you were having with "image stacking"? I never heard of this before and now the article isnt formatted around the picture, almost making it better to just remove the image for sake of layout and design. --NuclearZer0 13:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iraq Body Count project

We cannot semi-protect a page to stop an edit war. If you are having problems you need to check out our dispute resolution process. Have a look at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Thanks—— Eagle (ask me for help) 18:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to ask me questions on my talk page.

--Timeshifter 19:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC). I have moved the anonymous editor's comment to the discussion page for the Iraq Body Count project article. This way other editors of the page can comment also. IBC discussion page:

• Talk:Iraq_Body_Count_project#Discussion_about_anonymous_blanking --Timeshifter 19:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taba Summit

Hello Timeshifter, I'm just letting you know that you are in danger of violating the WP:3RR policy on Taba summit. If you revert one more time you could be blocked from editing wikipedia.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not revert. Your edit comment after deleting a whole section of a wikipedia page was "rv OR [original research], we can not add controversial and unsourced material because you seem to think it is 'common knowledge')". By the way that section was written by several people, not just me. I first deleted the more controversial material since it was already covered by another wikipedia page. I added "citation needed" tags. You didn't like that and insisted on deleting the remaining part of that section. So I added the reference links you requested. I added quotes, too. So I don't see how you can claim original research now. See the revision difference between when you requested sourced material, and my addition of it. You then deleted the requested sourced material that you asked for. You just blanked that whole section in violation of the wikipedia policy on vandalism: WP:VANDAL. See talk page at Taba summit before blanking again. --Timeshifter 06:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Your later edit comment was: "removing pov, your sources do not support your conclusion so this is still OR." There was no conclusion made after I added the sourced material. The section then consisted only of quotes with sources. But to further clarify I just added this sentence to the top of that section: "The issue of who ended the negotiations is disputed. There is no consensus. Here are some perspectives:" Feel free to add more perspectives. --Timeshifter 07:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Adding citation requested tags does not give a green light to add original research. Furthermore, the references you added did not support the larger argument of the section, when you use references to prove a novel conclusion it is considered original research. It is a difficult policy to understand, I also had a lot of trouble with it when I first began editing wikipedia. Also, please do not accuse others of vandalism when it is obvious that it is not the case.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

There was no conclusion made after I deleted all the previous info in that section and only put quotes with references for them. Show me the conclusions in my last revision. BlueDome also asked the same thing on the talk page: "The section starts with 'The issue of who ended the negotiations is disputed. There is no consensus. Here are some perspectives:' I do not see other conclusions, what are you referring to?" And you have not discussed anything at all on the Taba summit talk page yet. --Timeshifter 22:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

--Timeshifter 05:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC). Here below is my last revision of the section "Who ended the peace negotiations?" I had deleted all that was there previously. So there was nothing there from when you blanked the whole section. You did not blank this revision below. Amoruso did, though. 3 times in 24 hours. I pulled out and indented the reference links below, and put them in parentheses, so that people can see and follow them.

---

The issue of who ended the negotiations is disputed. There is no consensus. Here are some perspectives:

-

Uri Avnery of the Israeli peace group Gush Shalom wrote ^[1]: "It was not Arafat who broke off the talks at this critical moment, when the light at the end of the tunnel was clearly visible to the negotiators, but Barak. He ordered his men to break off and return home."

("Politicus Interruptus". By Uri Avnery. Gush Shalom. Feb. 23, 2002.)

-

A PBS page ^[2] has this:

But they had run out of political time. They couldn't conclude an agreement with Clinton now out of office and Barak standing for reelection in two weeks. "We made progress, substantial progress. We are closer than ever to the possibility of striking a final deal," said Shlomo Ben-Ami, Israel's negotiator. Saeb Erekat, Palestinian chief negotiator, said, "My heart aches because I know we were so close. We need six more weeks to conclude the drafting of the agreement."

("frontline: shattered dreams of peace: the negotiations | PBS".)

-

From the Palestine - Israel Journal of Politics, Economics and Culture David Matz writes ^[3] concerning a joint statement ^[4]:

The Taba negotiation began on Sunday evening, January 21, and ended on Saturday afternoon, January 27 [2001]. At the closing press conference, the parties issued this joint statement: “The sides declare that they have never been closer to reaching an agreement and it is thus our shared belief that the remaining gaps could be bridged with the resumption of negotiations following the Israeli election.”

("Trying to Understand the Taba Talks". By David Matz. Palestine - Israel Journal of Politics, Economics and Culture. Vol.10 No.3 2003.)

-

--- --Timeshifter 05:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding reversions[1] made on December 03, 2006 to Taba Summit article

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

— Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 12:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverting blanking vandalism can be done as many times as necessary according to WP:VANDAL. The only question is whether it is blanking vandalism or not. Amoruso was not engaging in any discussion on the talk page, so it is blanking vandalism. I think you should be blocking him not me. In fact I request a block of Amoruso and Leifern since they are tag-teaming in their blanking vandalism. I went through all the blanking warning templates up to the final warning. According to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism I followed all the instructions necessary to make this request. Leifern took over for Amoruso and is not replying in substance to BlueDome. And Leifern is blanking still without resolving anything in discussion first. That is the polite thing to do. Talk first, and then make changes, before resorting to blanking first, and then non-substantial discussion later. --Timeshifter 22:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone else is blanking that section without discussion on the talk page. Tewfik blanked what BlueDome put up in that section. I believe this comes under some kind of complex vandalism guideline. The "complex" link on WP:VANDAL goes to this page: Wikipedia:Requests_for_investigation. --Timeshifter 22:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I just checked the edit history again. Amoruso started the reverting of the completely new material in that section in question. There was nothing old remaining in that section after I replaced it. At that point no one had reverted anything 3 times in 24 hours. And Moshe did not revert that completely new section. It seems the blanking baton was passed to Amoruso. Amoruso was the first person to revert 3 times. It seems that his use of the word "non encyclopedic" in an edit comment, and on the article talk page, swayed your judgement more than my honest attempts at discussion on the talk page, and my use of the official blanking templates on the article talk page and on Amoruso's user talk page. I also mentioned the blanking in my edit comments. I think you blocked the wrong person. And I am appealing for a ruling from other administrators on this. The use of the phrase "non encyclopedic" should not give license to Amoruso to blank 3 times in a row. His edit comments also said "3RR" and "4RR", which were inaccurate. So I humbly say to you, Nearly Headless Nick, or Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington, I think you have been fooled. Amoruso first reverted the new material in that section. Then he reverted it 2 more times. His 3rd time was the time where he left the edit comment "4RR". When I reverted just after that it was my third time. That I admit to. But I thought reverting obvious vandalism allowed breaking the 3RR rule. From the WP:VANDAL page:

Blanking. Removing all or significant parts of articles (sometimes replacing the removed content with profanities) is a common vandal edit. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary. Due to the possibility of unexplained good-faith content removal, template:test1a or template:blank, as appropriate, should normally be used as initial warnings for ordinary content removals not involving any circumstances that would merit stronger warnings.

I believe a 2-word "non encyclopedic" edit comment, and talk page comment, is frivolous. And since Amoruso first broke the 3RR rule, I ask that he also be blocked for 24 hours, as I have been blocked. --Timeshifter 00:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

On checking the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR page again I find this: "If you violate the three revert rule, after your fourth revert in 24 hours sysops may block you for up to 24 hours. In cases where multiple parties violate the rule, sysops should treat all sides equally." I had not done a 4th revert. See the edit history and the above notes to see why. Amoruso had 3 reverts first, and then I followed with a 3rd revert. As I said above, I honestly thought Amoruso was engaged in simple blanking vandalism. He still hasn't really engaged on the talk page with anyone, including someone named BlueDome. BlueDome is not me, by the way. It seems there is a new series of blanking vandalism going on by Tewfik. I am not a part of that fight since I am blocked. Tewfik has not justified his blanking at all on the talk page. And it seems Leifern is not engaging honestly with BlueDome on the talk page. There are no conclusions as claimed by Leifern. See what I last had in the blanked section. It is posted higher up in reply to Moshe. Or go to this revision difference. --Timeshifter 19:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

---

It seems I am being blocked past the 24 hour period. When I try to edit pages I get a message that says I am autoblocked, and that to get unblocked I should put this template below on the bottom of my user page. --Timeshifter 18:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Autoblock lifted. It happened because you tried to edit while you were blocked. Tsk tsk... -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Buried deep on another page is something about 24-hour autoblocking starting when one tries to edit a page while blocked. If one has never been blocked before, then one does not know that one can't edit a page until one tries to edit a page. So then one reads their user page and finds out that they are blocked for a period of time. In my case for 24 hours. Then I come back after that 24-hour period and find that I am still blocked. Only by much searching through many wikipedia pages does one learn of this secondary autoblock that extends past the first 24 hour block. This is a great way for a blanking team to discourage people and info they dislike from getting on certain pages. Get a blocking newbie like me (with around a thousand edits and very few complaints against me) to revert their blanking vandalism 3 times in 24 hours, and then have to run this gauntlet of unintended (on wikipedia's part) harassment. It is time to change the autoblocking system so that people know they are being blocked for more time beyond what the block states on one's user page. Also, the sections defining simple vandalism need to be rewritten so that it is clear that blanking is not really considered simple vandalism that can be reverted many times in a day just as graffiti can be reverted as often as necessary. Blanking vandalism has to go through the warning template system, but spread out beyond the 24 hour period in order to avoid 3RR traps. Any editor can feel free to copy this info from my user page and use it in discussion concerning clarifying some of these wikipedia policies. --Timeshifter 20:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, don't take my comment too seriously... :-) I know, the autoblock functionality is messy - it's actually quite difficult to understand for us admins too... Does the system really not tell you you're blocked before you try to edit? I didn't know that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for unblocking the autoblock. Yes, it is true that one does not know that one can't edit until one tries to edit. There is a "new message" note, but when one gets new messages one can ignore reading it temporarily if one wants to check some ongoing wikipedia projects. When one finally goes to read the new message and finds the block it doesn't say anything about the block being extended if one clicks on an edit button. It just says you can't edit. Anybody with simple curiosity will want to see what happens when one clicks an edit button. It says you can't edit, but does not say that your block was just extended further for clicking an edit button. Then one goes to find out where one can complain if one feels wronged by the block. As I did. I went to the admin's talk page and tried to leave a note there. I clicked that edit button to try to leave a note. No luck there. Then I went to my user talk page figuring that would be the last place to be blocked and I was right. I could click that edit button, and could edit that page. I suggest noting the autoblock timing in the same block log as the original block. I also suggest some text there explaining that the block will be extended if one tries to edit anything except one's user talk page. --Timeshifter 20:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... Maybe this is something we ought to bring to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). If it should be changed, it would have to be done by the developers. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits at Fascism as an international phenomenon

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. At any rate please do not do more than three reverts in a 24h period. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Jkelly 19:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You have exactly one edit on that page. That edit was to remove a large section of it. That is called blanking. The 3RR rule applies to you, too. I could put the blanking warning template on your user page, but you get my point. --Timeshifter 19:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. The distinction between a vandal's blanking and the removal of text designed to push a fringe point of view is not a particularly subtle one. I strongly suggest that you ask yourself what your goal is in edit warring and if your current approach is going to get you what you want. Wikipedia works on the basis of discussion and consensus. You may be able to maintain the article on your preferred version over the short term, but reverting every edit you disagree with is just going to lead to long term problems for you on this website. You should take the time to read our content and behaviour policies and determine whether or not you can agree to abide by them. Jkelly 20:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You should follow your own advice. I don't blank. I edit. I rarely delete sourced material. You deleted a lot of material. Several people contributed the info and links for that section. I was only the most recent person, and I added very little to that section. Ronald Reagan is not marginal: "Reagan says many New Dealers wanted fascism." New York Times. December 22, 1981. I don't agree with that viewpoint, but I don't delete viewpoints I disagree with. --Timeshifter 20:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I strongly advise everyone to keep a cool head in this debate, and avoid duplicating material between articles. Currently, the same text about corporatism and the New Deal can be found in three different articles (Fascism as an international phenomenon, Fascism and ideology, and Corporatism). This is obviously a highly undesirable situation. Since we seem to be unable to decide which article to put the text in, I suggest working on a completely new article, The New Deal and corporatism. -- Nikodemos 23:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Herald disambig merger proposal

I've proposed merging one disambiguation page (The Herald) into another (Herald (disambiguation)), and making the previous page a redirect to the latter. This way all related articles can be located using one disambiguation page. An alternative idea is to keep both, and include some form of "see also" notice on each page. I noticed you've made significant contributions to the the former, so any input is appreciated. -Tobogganoggin talk 00:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to merge them as you described. I also responded here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Herald_%28disambiguation%29 --Timeshifter 18:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please join Wikipedia:WikiProject Arab-Israeli conflict

{{WikiProjectNotice|Arab-Israeli conflict}}

The above code (without the underlying "NoWiki" tags) produces the banner above the code. Feel free to use the above code on relevant article talk pages. --Timeshifter 15:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cberlet

I made a report about his personal attacks here, if you wish to add something feel free. -- Vision Thing -- 12:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I left a comment there. --Timeshifter 13:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nominated War Corporatism for deletion

Check the page for links to the discussion--Cberlet 20:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Our mutual friend

Have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility, disruptive editing, and stalking-like behavior from Isarig. What do you think? Abu ali 20:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I went to the noticeboard you linked to, and I read the discussion there. I left a similar comment there. I do not know much about those incidents. I personally have not had any problems with Isarig. There were some disputes between Isarig and others on the talk page for Al-Aqsa Intifada. There were disputes between many people on that talk page. But it seems like the disputes have been resolved in the last few days. I think, though, that part of the problem I am feeling from reading the incident noticeboard, and on other pages, is that people are taking sides, instead of attempting to maintain NPOV wikipedia pages. I urge people who have strong viewpoints about the issues on such highly-charged topics dealing with the Arab-Israeli conflicts to set them aside while editing wikipedia pages. I hope people from all sides of these issues sign on to Wikipedia:WikiProject Arab-Israeli conflict and pledge to work on related wikipedia pages in an NPOV way. NPOV does not favor or block viewpoints on the Arab-Israeli conflict pages. NPOV allows all significant sourced viewpoints to be put on those pages. Some people have been favoring particular POVs by selectively censoring or diminishing other sourced viewpoints. --Timeshifter 00:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iraq war

In past discussion, a majority of users opposed the use of the phrase "Part of the War on Terrorism" subtitle into the infobox on the [[Iraq war] page. Nonetheless, Rangeley has repeatedly re-inserted it. I'm hesistant to just remove it myself again-- I know you've looked the situation over-- could you remove it if you feel it is appropriate to do so? --Alecmconroy 17:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

We should allow more discussion first, and more comments from others. --Timeshifter 19:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lancet [subsection title added later]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Lancet surveys of mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

You were also warned of a possible 3RR violation on the article talk page. 74.73.39.219 13:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked for breach of 3RR on Lancet surveys of mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule in regard to the article Lancet surveys of mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Other users in violation have also been blocked. The timing of this block is coincidental, and does not represent an endorsement of the current article revision. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future on the article's talk page (Talk:Lancet surveys of mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq).

The duration of the block is 48 hours. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. I guess the person who reports a 3RR violation should only report the last 4 diffs, and not be the person making the last reversion. I get it now. The previous admin William M. Connolley who blocked the other editor at the same article page did not seem to be blocking those reporting the 3RR violations. He seemed to be only blocking those being reported as breaching 3RR.

I saw multiple examples of people reported with more than 4 reversions in 24 hours. That of course means that both parties breached 4RR in 24 hours. But I can see the logic in both admin methods. But it is not consistent and discourages people from stopping vandalism. But I am happy to sacrifice 48 hours of wikipedia editing time in order to stop vandalism. I have successfully got this vandal blocked twice:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:74.64.60.148

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:74.73.39.219

Also, autoblock may still be screwed up. When one clicks on the user page links such as the ones linked from the above user talk pages, then one can be given another autoblock even though one is not trying to edit. I assume that is still true. I can not tell. One is just trying to read the user page. But Wikipedia interprets all visits to empty IP user pages as attempts to edit. What purpose does autoblocking serve exactly?

Wikipedia's blocking, autoblocking and 3RR policies are designed to reward vandals and discourage people trying to stop vandals. The autoblock can double blocking time even if the blocked person is not trying to edit pages. And what difference does it make? They can not edit anyway so what difference does it make if they click edit buttons. It is arbitrary, abusive, and stupid throwing around of power. What is that phrase about "Power corrupts." It explains why so many wikipedia pages are being vandalized, and remaining vandalized. Few want to navigate Wikipedia's enforcement methods, and the minefield of changing admins, with differing interpretations of the rules, and mean-spirited enforcement.

Am I the only one who gets this? Are admins becoming clueless overall, and following blindly the deteriorating, illogical, enforcement rules and boards? Is Jimbo Wales watching over the admin herd anymore? Are wikipedia guidelines mere verbiage blindly overseen by admins who don't really give a damn anymore about consistent logical enforcement of rules? As opposed to arbitrary, capricious enforcement. Or do admins themselves also not have any power to make things more logical? Surely some admins can get together as a group and respond to these problems.

I think the lack of ad money is what is killing wikipedia, because there is a dire need for more paid staff to oversee the admins. Admins are heroes but there needs to be consistent oversight of admins, guidelines and enforcement. Only money can provide such oversight. Because who else but paid staff could put in the necessary hours to do this admin oversight well. See my user page for more info. --Timeshifter 16:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iraq war

Timeshifter-- let me caution you about edits like this one [2]. I know when things get heated, it's easy to get into a sort of "fight or flight" mindset where it's easy to act quickly towards anyone who opposes you-- but let me say, Theron edit seems to be a good faith attempt at a compromise, so-- if you're not comfortable with the compromise, probably best to talk first revert later. And if you do revert, best to do so politely, making sure to acknowledge the good-faith of the editor who made it-- so, for example, you mention this was the 2nd edit Theron's made in a while-- but that's okay-- he doesn't have to be a regular contributor-- if anything, we want more eyeballs. :)

Anyway, just a friendly suggestion. Thank you so much for your help on the article, Time!-- this would have been a very lonely and scary process without your support :). --Alecmconroy 22:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You are probably right. It would be better if I had discussed it first on the talkpage. So should have TheronJ for that matter. But I have to disagree about it being a compromise though. It is basically the same as what it all started out as... Quotes around WOT: "War on Terrorism". But I could have said that on the talk page. You might want to do that on the talk page yourself. I may not get back to wikipedia work for a few hours. --Timeshifter 06:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:IraqiWarDeaths.gif

You had a couple of questions about this infographic.

-The Iraq Body Count and Bush/US Military figures were nearly identical at the time, hence the two smaller grey maps appearing equal. The maps were created by numerically scaling a vector graphic of Iraq made up of 1x1 squares in 3D software package Animation:Master. Unless I subsequently made a mistake assembling the three versions in Photoshop, both grey maps should be slightly different, owing to Iraq Body Count being less vague. I'll double check this.

-The breakdown of Men/Women/Children/Elderly is based on a table in the Lancet II study. Men and Women are not double counted in either the Children of Elderly category. I don't off the top of my head recall the age cutoff for each though. (Since the Elderly category required a fourth color and silhouette, I would have liked to roll it into Men and Women, but I wasn't able to find the numbers.)

I should also say that "1 per pixel" is not perfectly accurate. Since I used squares, the large map may be up to a few hundred pixels off due to rounding errors. The smaller two will also be slightly off. I would like to revise it eventually, but since the rounding errors are still well within the margins of error of the three estimates, I'm not losing sleep over it. Replacing the squares with slight parallelograms and scaling X and Y asymmetrically should return much more accurate -- possibly 100% pixel accurate -- results. Always more to do...

(I typically only make light edits on Wikipedia, so I hope I'm responding in the correct manner here.)

{SpaceToast 01:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)}

Thanks for the reply to my note on your user talk page. I replied on the article talk page. --Timeshifter 18:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For Work on Iraq War "Part of WOT" phrasing

Barnstar of Diligence

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For diligence on the Iraq War subtitle debate and for helping solve a very tough issue. Also, nice work on keeping everyone(myself included) honest on the various casualties sections. Nicely done. Publicus 21:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 18:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Barnstar for Kindness

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For remaining cool and encouraging others to do so, while retaining editorial integrity and passionately advoacting for the truth (all POVs) to be presented :) Tiamut 10:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An honest suggestion

I've seen your edits on Alleged human rights violations by Israel during Al-Aqsa Intifada. I myself was dissappointed when an AfD that showed "no concensus" was used to delete the article.

I've been through the stage you are going and have had articles created by me deleted. However, what I did is post the material from the article somewhere else. I suggest you do the same. The best way to make progress is to leave the article as a redirect. Begin mass-merging the content of the article into Al-Aqsa intifada. No one can blame you since you are doing something endorsed by the AfD. If and when the article becomes really long, the content will be moved back to this article.Bless sins 20:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice and experience! Tewfik and others are blocking the material from being merged into Al-Aqsa intifada. Do you have any ideas on where to put the material? Here are the links to the material depending on the current name:

Accusations against Israel of war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Allegations against Israel of war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Alleged human rights violations by Israel during Al-Aqsa Intifada (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

In effect I tried to put the material in a new location by changing the name of the article to Alleged human rights violations by Israel during Al-Aqsa Intifada. But that does not seem to make Tewfik and others happy. Maybe you can create an article called Alleged human rights violations by Israel? Are there any articles already on wikipedia that focus on Israel's human rights violations? Where else can we put the material? If we can not find a place I may take this up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

The only thing I can find is some info here:

Human rights in Israel#Israel's record: human rights in the occupied territories

The article that Tewfik keeps deleting (in spite of the AFD that he initiated and lost) has much more info. With many reference links. There really is a need for a separate article on Israel's human rights violations. There are several articles on human rights violations by Palestinians. I think we need an article titled something like

Alleged human rights violations by Israel in Palestinian territories.

Or maybe a more general article:

Human Rights under Israeli Occupation

The disappearing article can be found here:

User:Timeshifter/Al-Aqsa Intifada Archive. Old page

When I have time I may keep converting the links to reference links there. That way the relevant sourced info can be copied to the appropriate wikipedia pages.--Timeshifter 00:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Another possibility is creating a more general human rights article titled

Human Rights in the Palestinian territories

There is an overall article titled Palestinian territories

It is not possible to move the material here: Human rights in the Palestinian National Authority. That page does not cover human rights violations by Israeli occupation. For more info see

Wikipedia:WikiProject Arab-Israeli conflict --Timeshifter 22:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please join this mediation

I think this is the only way to find some way through this contentious and endless debate: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/National Socialism Please agree to this mediation.--Cberlet 16:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't currently edit on any of the pages listed except

The New Deal and corporatism

The reason I edited on any of the other pages in the past was to aid in keeping material on corporatism. That material has since been moved to The New Deal and corporatism. I don't see any need for mediation on that page. I am not interested in editing on the other pages. So whatever happens on those other pages is not of interest to me. --Timeshifter 03:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I am going to argue that the page The New Deal and corporatism is POV and biased towards obscure marginal views, and that it needs a disclaimer that many of the cites are to idiosyncratic views not shared by most major scholars. I think you need to participate in the collaborative construction of a solution to this longstanding debate.--Cberlet 04:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have never edited on the first 6 pages listed (the national socialism pages, nazism, socialism, collectivism). I don't currently edit on any of the pages listed except The New Deal and corporatism. I have no interest in editing on any of the pages listed except that one. You need to go through the normal dispute resolution process for The New Deal and corporatism. The other editors on that page have no problems with my edits on that page. --Timeshifter 04:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] cannabis wikia

thanx dude! both on information and on pro-cannabis banner. --Mladifilozof 14:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 15:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/National Socialism. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

[edit] Recognizing your hard work

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your efforts at organizing regional maps in the commons and your patience in explaining those effortsTiamut 22:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Million Marijuana March.jpg

Hello. I put this image to pl:Million marijuana march, but I can`t answer for your questions, but I don`t know it. I found it on commons. I look to history of this file. Commons user FlickrLickr uploaded it, when you can ask he.--pl:Witek1988 19:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Comparison of wiki farms

Hi. Thanks for adding the better coding for the table. Someone had added the "sortable" code earlier, but that caused the internal grid lines in the table to disappear. I had been trying other code to fix it, but with limited success. Your addition/substitution of

class="sortable wikitable"

fixed several problems. The grid lines are not as dark. They are now gray. That looks better. Also, the last column now has grid lines, too. The background of blank cells is now gray, instead of white. That looks better.

I used the code to fix the tables here:

• Comparison of raster graphics editors --Timeshifter 04:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the "wikitable" class is the standard for these sorts of tables across the project and gives, as you observed, grid lines and borders in a colour that matches the rest of the interface. What I imagine happened is that someone replaced class="wikitable" with class="sortable", not realizing that it is possible to use more than one class at once as I have done. (Another example is class="messagebox standard-talk" used on talk page templates, where the "messagebox" part gives it a border, centers it and makes it 80% of the width of the screen, while the "standard-talk" part gives it the orange-brown color) – Qxz 04:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GIF vs PNG

Thanks for the comments about Image:Israel.png. I agree with your comments about PNG (SVG is even worse!). As far as my very limited understanding goes, the scaling is done automatically on the server and cached after the first initial use of a particular scaled size. I assume that the file size problem is caused by the scaling script - presumably it's not optimising the image sufficiently. However, the decision has been made to use PNG rather than GIF, and I suspect that the remaining GIFs will probably be phased out in due course. -- ChrisO 08:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Image:Palestine election map.PNG

There is one image in the category, and adding other categories to this one doesn't change that there are too many categories for minimal content which only leads to confusion and difficulty finding information. Tewfik^Talk 05:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said there are more images in the subcategories. Also, I just found many more uncategorized images that belong in the top level of the category. I am adding them now.--Timeshifter 05:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Adding the categories doesn't make their pictures necessarily belong, just as the new ones don't belong (they are maps of Israel, not of other areas that also appear). Please keep ease of use in mind here. Tewfik^Talk 05:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

See how wikimedia commons categorizes these maps:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Maps_of_the_Palestinian_territories --Timeshifter 05:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I originally said that I wasn't interested in recreating the Commons' mistakes here. That you've decided to categorise even more images on the Commons and then use that as proof for why we should categorise that way here doesn't strengthen your argument. Tewfik^Talk 05:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of the images on the commons were already categorized in their present categories before I started categorizing them.

Many of the images belong in both of these categories:

Category:Maps of Israel

Category:Maps of the Palestinian territories

Where applicable the images are put in both categories. --Timeshifter 05:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see any map there that should be categorised as both. They are maps of Israel, focused on Israel, and including information relevant to Israel. Categorising them as anything else is not accurate, in addition to adding a level of confusion by creating layers of contentless categories. Consider that a map of France wouldn't be labelled as a "map of Andorra", even though that whole state is undoubtedly displayed. Tewfik^Talk 05:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Maps often cover more than one nation or territory. So both wikimedia commons and wikipedia have a long history of categorizing maps in multiple categories. As far as I know none of the categories are contentless. --Timeshifter 06:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to be more clear. Those are maps of Israel. That is their focus and title. A map of Italy is not a map of the Vatican or San Marino. A map of South Africa is not a map of Lesotho or Swaziland. And I meant contentless save for the one appropriate map. Tewfik^Talk 06:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Maps are given various names by their uploaders. The maps are then used by other people on many different wikipedia pages. Those wikipedia pages concern different nations and territories. Thus the maps are categorized under multiple nation and territory categories. The maps are not owned by the original uploader, nor by the name the original uploader applies to the map. Oftentimes the uploader only puts the name of one nation in the image name. There is not room to put all the nation and territory names. It would make the image name too long. Category content includes the subcategories, too. --Timeshifter 06:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about filenames, but about the actual images. They deal with a specific topic, and not with others. Tewfik^Talk 06:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I am talking about both the filenames and the maps. The maps cover multiple nations and territories, and not just one nation or topic. --Timeshifter 06:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This is going in a circle. I hope my objection is clear, perhaps reread it. I'm not sure I understood your latest reply, but I don't think that you've said something different there. Try to categorise some other regions like you're trying to here and see what happens. Tewfik^Talk 06:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Your objection is clear to me. But it goes against a long history of wikipedia and wikimedia map categorization. I have been categorizing many maps. From other regions, too. As far as I remember I have had only 2 complaints. I went along with the other complaint. I disagree with your complaint. --Timeshifter 07:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "a long history of wikipedia and wikimedia map categorization", but I have never seen a map categorised as something that it isn't; if it was, it shouldn't have been. Tewfik^Talk 07:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Look at

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Maps

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Maps

You will see that maps are often categorized under multiple categories representing the nations and territories covered by the map. --Timeshifter 07:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Where maps show Israel and the Palestinian territories at an equivalent level of detail, as Image:Israel.png does, they should be listed in both categories. Where either Israel or the territories are shown only as an outline, as in Image:Cia-is-map2.gif, then I agree that they should only be shown in one category. I've used those criteria to categorise those particular maps on the Commons. -- ChrisO 15:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I am in agreement. --Timeshifter 15:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Common's categories

It seems like there is a dispute going on here as to the acceptability of these categories. While I've got an opinion on the matter, it is not a strong one, and I am trying to avoid getting in to this dispute. What I have a srong opinion on is simply that we should not speedy delete categories on en: if doing so will leave red-linked categories on other pages, and thats about it. Category talk pages and if it comes to it WP:CFD is the approriate venue to discuss this. Thanks, — xaosflux ^Talk 15:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

--Timeshifter 18:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC). Thanks for the link to WP:CFD. I followed the other category-related administration links from there also. I found the helpful info below from this page: Wikipedia:Category deletion policy#Speedy delete policy

• Empty categories (no articles or subcategories for at least 72 hours) whose only content has consisted of links to parent categories.

• This does NOT apply to categories listed on WP:CFD, as the discussion may merit renaming or prompt population.
• Caution: Be sure to check the history of the category. If it has a non-trivial history or isn't relatively new, it is likely that the category once did contain articles, and deeper investigation is needed before deleting the category to make sure that it wasn't emptied just to bypass WP:CFD.

[End of excerpt from wikipedia guideline]

--Timeshifter 18:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC). The categories that Tewfik tried to get speedy-deleted all had images in them until he removed those images. That requires deeper investigation because the removal of those images will not show up in the history. There was/is some info though about the images in the discussion pages of some of the categories. Another admin has locked an image he uploaded to keep Tewfik and others from removing the image from the category.

I believe a category was temporarily speedy-deleted mistakenly even though it had subcategories in it. If one looks at Category:Maps and Category:Maps by country one sees that there are many categories that are only populated by subcategories. But the usefulness of these many wikipedia categories is obvious. Because they nearly all link to the commons also. So this is how editors find both wikipedia maps and wikimedia commons maps. Many wikipedia map categories also are populated by the English-language maps stored at the commons. This is done by adding a category link to the wikipedia page for the commons image. The image is still stored on the commons. But the wikipedia page lists all the wikipedia pages that are using the commons image. It is a very useful tool.

Here is some relevant info I posted in other talk pages:

Commons media in English wikipedia categories

Commons media are for the use of all wikipedia sites worldwide. The English wikipedia category pages for those commons media list the English wikipedia pages on which those commons media are used.

The commons page for a particular image does not list the English wikipedia pages on which that image is being used.

Sometimes better images are uploaded that can replace lesser-quality images. Without the list of English-language wikipedia pages it would be very difficult to find and replace a particular image on multiple English-language wikipedia pages.

There are images in English wikipedia categories that would not be accepted in the commons. Gif images, fair use images, etc.. So the link to the commons category allows for more public-domain images to be used in English wikipedia pages.

The existence of the English wikipedia category allows for links to be made to the commons category of the same name. So English wikipedia editors then know of the additional commons media available to them. Those images are sometimes better, as explained previously. Oftentimes there is a larger selection of images at the commons.

The existence of the English wikipedia category also allows a logical location for links to the English wikipedia subcategories.

Not all commons images are suitable for placement in English wikipedia categories. Images captioned in other languages for example.

As many others have done I put some of the English-language commons images in the English wikipedia categories. This saves editors time in finding images. Because they don't have to click many commons images to open them up and see what language is used on the image.

It is common for a map or media to be in several categories. There are many examples of this. Maps, for example, often show several nations, territories, etc..

See also the discussion here: Image talk:Israel.png. That is the talk page for the map that an admin uploaded. Admin is ChrisO. He also commented higher up on my talk page here. --Timeshifter 18:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

As for Category:Maps of Gaza Strip, I think that as Image:Gz-map.png (the only local image) is public domain, it should be transwiki'd to commons: then deleted. Then there would be no need for this category here, and the other projects would benefit from another image. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

And if the other images pages existed just to add it to a category here, they should be deletable as well, thus emptying the category. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[3]

Please cease creating pages for Commons media on Wikipedia simply to populate the categories that you are creating. I posted part of Xaosflux's response on the matter above (which you removed for some reason) to ensure that you've seen it, and the rest can be found on my Talk (which you already commented on extensively). This is not the Wikipedia Commons, and this action has already passed the level of disruption. Again, I don't understand why you think you must replicate the Commons' structure here, but that is not the case, as Xaosflux's words attest to. You can seek a clarification if you are unsure about any of the points. Tewfik^Talk 21:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You added the above 2 old comments from Xaosflux. I replied on his talk page. So he may have changed his mind since then. I removed them because you did not write anything to explain them. Those 2 old comments just appeared, but you were listed in the revision history. Some would consider that to be deceptive.

As to your latest comments. As usual, you ignore everything I wrote before, and then just repeat yourself, and go back to mass deletions and reversions. You have a long history of this. I refer you to my previous replies. I also refer you to the ruling by the admin ChrisO.

Also, you are incorrectly adding this template to some map pages:

Template:NowCommons

Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons

You are adding that template to maps that are already on the commons.

I explained previously about wikipedia category pages that include commons maps. Let me clarify. When one put a commons map in a wikipedia category, one is NOT storing the map at wikipedia. It is still at the commons.

Look at one of the map pages where you incorrectly added the template: Image:Gz-map.gif. It says on the wikipedia map page, "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. The description on its description page there is shown below."--Timeshifter 21:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The only "ruling" regarding ChrisO is that he is party to the content side of this discussion. He has no special standing just because he is an administrator. "As usual" you preface your comments with an "as usual" attack on me. Yes you did reply to those comments, and apparently that didn't stop you from ignoring their substance and specifically undoing what was recommended. Tewfik^Talk 22:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

ChrisO is an admin, and his opinion carries some weight. I did not ignore what Xaosflux said. I replied to it. He was incorrect about his idea of deleting the category. He hasn't since disagreed with me. I did not undo anything. I tried to save you some grief by removing a misplaced template you added. You added it back. So I left it in. It will just waste some admin's time in removing it and explaining why it was misplaced. Pointing out what you do is not an attack. --Timeshifter 22:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't try reverting the two images again. I have something else in mind. :-) -- ChrisO 21:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concerning Mexican general election 2006 controversies

RE: I did not violate the three revert rule. Additionally, I am not reverting your edits, rather I made an edit that you are reverting without properly addressing the concerns I present in the talk page. True, wikipedia cannot explain everything to every reader, however I am not asking about the origin of the atom here, I am asking for a logical link between the contested information and the article's presentation. At the very least, it should be properly explain why it is the lead to the whole section. Is it that this controversial piece is the main reason why the election was contested? Obviously not! Irresponsbility and inability to discuss logically/negotiate do not assume good faith, and that too is against wikipedia policy. Lets not make this content dispute transform into a personal dispute. I have nothing against you, and I do feel that this warning is rather premature. Hari Seldon 02:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)