User talk:ChrisO/Archive 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Battlefield earth screencap.jpg

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)

The December 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Q:Retaining Talk and History after an AfD deletion

Greetings. I've been involved (helpfully, I hope) with the article and now AfD for Glossary of Jewish and Christian terms. It looks like most people want to split the article into a Jewish and a Christian glossary. Toward this end, several people have voted to Keep or DAB the article -- apparently, only in order to make sure we keep the long Talk and edit history. Is such a DAB/keep the best way to hold onto the Talk and edit history? Or might the article be deleted and the Talk transferred to the split articles? I'd appreciate your input, either to me or, if you wish, at the AfD. Hope this finds you well. Happy new year, HG | Talk 15:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Chris, thanks for your prompt and helpful reply. Take care, HG | Talk 03:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation

Hello there

I see you are interested in the Life On Mars Television Series, as I am.

At the moment I have A Life On Mars Wikiproject currently up for approval by the Wikiproject Approval Council. As you are interested in Life On Mars I was wondering if you would be interested in adding your name and joining. If you are interested you can find it on Wikipedia: WikiProject Council/Proposals its right at the very bottom you cant miss it as its titled ‘Wikipedia: Wikiproject Life on Mars (Television Series)’. And after your name is added to Wikiproject propsals please add it to the main page Wikipedia:Wikiproject Life On Mars

If you are interested by all means feel free to join

Regards

Police,Mad,Jack —Preceding comment was added at 19:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] STOP VANDALISING JUAN CARLOS PAGE

The ONLY one vandalising is you ChrisO, by insisting on adding clearly and demonstrably WRONG and FALSE information, which apart from being just plain wrong is also HIGHLY OFFENSIVE! "King of Gibraltar" is simply NOT one of the titles of the spanish monarchy, and I will NOT allow you to insult the people of Gibraltar or violate WP principles by suggesting otherwise. REMOVE IT NOW!!! How do you think the people of Kuwait would feel if you insisted Saddam Hussein was "King of Kuwait", or what would the reaction be if you called Adolf Hitler "King of Poland" or "King of the Jews"? I find your actions thoroughly repulsive and repugnant.

WP must reflect reality, accuracy and truth. The information you keep on adding IS A MYTH, IT IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE!

DO NOT DELETE! ARGUE YOUR CASE! YOUR BEHAVIOUR IS DISGRACEFUL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.120.239.57 (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Harassment of good faith contributors.

... Part of the problem in this topic area is that admins have steered clear because they've found that intervening in editing disputes leads to a barrage of abuse and personal attacks from some of the participants. Mastcell, ^demon and I have all encountered this at various points, and I'm sure other admins have too. I believe a number of editors are consciously trying to intimidate admins into leaving them alone to do what they like. If we're to get this topic area under control, it's going to be necessary to take a tough line against the offending editors. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

About the only admin I've implied was biased 'recently' was yourself on 21st Nov. In improving Patria disaster, you'd managed to further conceal the fact that it was the proto-Israelis themselves who carried out this bombing, killing over 200 Jews.
However, it wasn't personal or nasty, and it was evidence based. It was provoked by irritation that actions in the same article such as this denialist vandalism, easily meriting an indef-block for wilful damage to articles, was going to go completely unpunished. Admins would swarm to attack me if I dared even point out such cheating at any form of disciplinary.
When this ArbCom is over, hopefully we'll be back on track and have woken up to the fact that integrity is a vital quality for an editor. But you have my apology anyway, since it's not your fault that this feature has been so noticeably missing recently. (Other postings from me recently end with a little essay on how to complain to my mentor if I'm soap-boxing, I'll not bother you with it). PRtalk 14:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Do not reinsert User:Jayjg to this case unless the arbs overturn Morven, who is a sitting arb. You may file a request for this if you like though. If an arb does approve this, make sure that approval is posted onwiki. Neither you nor I has the authority to overturn a sitting arb. Doing so would be disruption and handled accordingly. If you want help filing an appeal, build your case and let me know. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crushing by elephant

Crushing by elephant has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
—GrittyLobo441 (talk) 05:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unholy Three

No prob.  :) Cirt (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Battlefield Earth (film)

I added lots of {{fact}} tags, we need to parse through current sources and demarcate precisely which sources/cites are used at the end of which sentence. You seem to be more familiar with the referencing on this article, feel like helping out? Cirt (talk) 22:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC).

Sure. Some of the things you've tagged are actually covered by existing citations. I'll go through them and work out which is which. It'd be neat if we could get this article to FA status by, say, the anniversary of the film's release... -- ChrisO (talk) 09:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Phenomenal work of late! The only thing I'd say is that we should standardize all the cites with WP:CIT - that way we don't end up finding that the article uses lots of different citing formats in the references section. Also, it'd be nice if all full-dates in the cites were wikilinked. Cirt (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC).
    • Also, since you're so familiar with the subject matter, you may want to take a crack at the WP:LEAD, I expanded it a bit, but it could use some work. Cirt (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Suri Cruise

Look at {{Template:Actor infobox}}. The specification says it's for notable children, e.g. Kirk Douglas->Michael Douglas. Suri Cruise redirects to TomKat, so she is not notable in her own right; if she had her own article, she would be. Notability is not inherited. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kekrops ANI

Hi Chris, I just wanted to know where this discussion has been archived to, as I cannot find it on the main AN/I page. Could you provide me with a link? Thanks.BalkanFever 01:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not on AN/I - see WP:AN. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
OK thanks. BalkanFever 08:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Turkish Kurdistan

It is not my POV, it is an unofficial and controversial term. Regards.--Doktor Gonzo 20:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your input requested

ChrisO, I respect your judgment and your skill at improving articles and writing Featured Articles, and I'm getting some negative comments at Wikipedia:Featured article review/A Tale of a Tub. Specifically, the discussion over there seems to be straying from an actual discussion about the points I brought up in the WP:FAR and the content of the article, to, well to me personally and the nature of the FAR itself.

I'd appreciate your feedback here on your talk page (we can keep it in one thread) as to my behavior in the FAR itself, and the point I mention.

Also, can you please weigh in at Wikipedia:Featured article review/A Tale of a Tub regarding two issues: (1) - People expressing a "Keep" sentiment way too early in the process, contrary to what's stated at WP:FAR "In this step, possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "remove"." and also (2) - Your thoughts on what I have laid out as numerous WP:OR violations in the article's present state. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC).

  • Nevermind, input not needed anymore. Cirt (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC).

[edit] WP:TFA

Congrats! Cirt (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC).

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

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Piod_museum_eugenics.jpg. I notice the image 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. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If 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 non-free media 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. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Piod museum origins.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Piod museum origins.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia 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 non-free media 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. jonny-mt 02:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Piod museum warning.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Piod museum warning.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia 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 non-free media 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. jonny-mt 02:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Piod museum controlling.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Piod museum controlling.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia 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 non-free media 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. jonny-mt 02:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Piod museum children.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Piod museum children.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia 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 non-free media 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. jonny-mt 02:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Piod museum entrance.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Piod museum entrance.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia 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 non-free media 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. jonny-mt 02:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry about all the WP:NFC warnings!

Hi ChrisO,

Sorry about all the warnings on your talk page. Long story short, the images listed above are improperly licensed, as photographs of museum exhibits/the inside of non-historic buildings are considered copyrighted by their owners unless otherwise noted (and http://www.cchr.org/ bears a copyright notice). Since the original uploader on Flickr didn't have the right to release the images, the free licenses previously on the images are invalid.

Sorry for the trouble! --jonny-mt 02:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'll get them sorted out later today. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Oca graph.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Oca graph.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia 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 non-free media 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. Cirt (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:English oxford capacity analysis.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:English oxford capacity analysis.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Cirt (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 January 19

See my response. Cirt (talk) 05:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Also, looks like some of the above images you recently added fair use rationales to are also missing image licensing tags. Cirt (talk) 05:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Disputed images and Wikipedia:No original research

Hi Tariqabjutu,

I've proposed an amendment to Wikipedia:No original research that would strengthen (or more accurately, reiterate) the requirement of editors to reliably source interpretations of images in articles. This would particularly apply to depictions of allegorical or symbolic artworks or artifacts, where the meaning was not immediately clear or was subject to differing interpretations. You can see the text of the proposed amendment at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Interpretation of images - please feel free to leave comments.

Another editor involved in the discussion has suggested providing an example of "an actual ongoing dispute to illustrate the problem". I believe you're active in editing or monitoring articles in controversial subject areas, and I was wondering if you were aware of any such ongoing or recent disputes. It would specifically have to concern something like an illustration of unclear meaning, which editors were disputing what it represented, maybe because of a lack of reliable sourcing about the image itself or about its interpretation. If you've come across anything like this scenario, could you please chip in at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Interpretation of images? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the dispute at New antisemitism may be what you're thinking of. I haven't been following this dispute much, but the issues centers around what should be the lead image to the article -- one of the two images currently at the top of the (protected) article, or both. Part of the issue with the Zombietime image appears to be whether it actually illustrates that article (see the top comment in Talk:New antisemitism#Comment/Reiteration by CJCurrie, for example). Again, I haven't been following this issue that much, so maybe this (a) is no longer an issue or (b) was never an issue and I'm misinterpreting it, but this seems to fit the bill. -- tariqabjotu 08:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I haven't been involved in that article at all (I stay well clear of the anti-semitism/zionism fever swamp for good reason) but I'll take a look at it. Thanks for the heads-up. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:English oxford capacity analysis.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:English oxford capacity analysis.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Cirt (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

  • It's still copyrighted, so you need to add a license tag, but I don't know which one to add. Feel free to remove that deletion tag once you do. Cirt (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Battlefield Earth (film) and the potential quickie WP:GAR

I had added a note to VanTucky (talk · contribs), who is really good at doing quickie Wikipedia:Good article reassessment for GA Sweeps, but so far, no response. Alternatively, if you want we could put the article itself up for review at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, which would mean the reassessment would be done by multiple editors, I think. Cirt (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Nevermind, VanTucky (talk · contribs) messaged me and he's going to do a quickie GA Sweep on the article.  :) Cirt (talk) 03:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sources on Scientology and the Internet

The sources in question were PRLog, Wikinews, and Fox News. Tell me, which of these three are unreliable? Hierophantasmagoria (talk) 23:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I'll reply here and say that the first two aren't really that great, but the last one, is. Cirt (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, the Press Release is also Verifiable, and as far as Wikinews, I'm not sure what Wikipedia's take is on that as a source - more like a relevant place for info to get other sources, perhaps... Cirt (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll answer on the article talk page. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] House demolition

I still think it's worth having a go at FA status for this article. Raul654 (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help requested understanding policy

ChrisO, I have gotten involved in a mess at Jewish Lobby, getting sanctioned for making four edits in three days, and now am involved in a mediation. I have no experience with either. I am very much a lone editor and don't know any admins, so I sent you email asking if you could help me sort through what is required of me to deal with these. Let me know if you don't get my email and I'll re-send. We could do it here but I'll have a lot of questions so it seems unnecessary to clog our Talk pages with it. You can use the email link on my user page or reply here. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You probably already know about this

but just in case you haven't heard, you might want to take a quick look at this article on WikiNews. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] a thank you note

Thanks for participating in my RfA!
Although it failed 43/27/0, I'm happy because the outcome has been very helpful in many meaningful ways. Your support and remarks contributed so much to this. If you followed my RfA you know what happened. Most of the editors who posted opposing opinions have never edited with me. Some articles I edit deal with controversial topics and with respect to a very few of these, editors who didn't know much about me had some worries about confrontational editing and civility. Since I support their high standards I can easily (and will gladly) address this. The support and ecouragement to run again soon has been wonderful, thanks again. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 05:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Battlefield Earth (film) FA nom?

Any chance I could get you to hold off for a bit? There are a lot more sources I've found that I could use to add stuff to the article that aren't yet in the article. Also, might be best to go for another peer review first, as the article changed so much since the last one. Cirt (talk) 08:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, no problem. I've drafted a nomination at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battlefield Earth (film) but haven't added it to the main FA page yet - I'll hold off until you're ready. Feel free to take off the FAC tag from the talk page for now. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'll try to get to it w/in under 48 hrs or so. Cirt (talk) 09:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I added new information from an additional (8) sources, w/ WP:CIT formatted citations. Could you look it over to make sure I put the info in the right places in the article, and also that I didn't add any dup sources by accident? Cirt (talk) 08:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I think I'm Y Done adding info from new sources. Cirt (talk) 09:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Fact tags

Can you please either restore the fact tags on some of the sentences I had marked, or deal with those sentences? Specifically, those that end with a quotation from a source actually do require a cite at the end of those sentences. Cirt (talk) 06:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ill see if I can get it sorted this evening - I've been a bit tied up with work these last few days. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
No prob. As an addendum to my above comment, I'm still in the process of adding some more info/sources. Cirt (talk) 08:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Question

Any reason Battlefield Earth is a disambig page, when there are only 2 articles on the project of that name? I think the majority of readers typing in the search term will be looking for the film, and anyone else will see the link to the novel at the top of the article. Mind if I redirect the disambig page to the film article? Cirt (talk) 10:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Patriarch Alexius II

I have made a suggestion at Patriarch Alexius II#Propose Protecting this Article that I think is workable. It changes the rules a little and should significantly reduce conflict. I would like to invite you to review the proposal and participate in the creation of a great article. It will stop edit warring by restricting work to the talk page in part because reverting another editors comments on the talk page is counter to WP:TALK. Jeepday (talk) 04:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TRNC

Hi,

Could you look at the points I've raised about Kekrops changes to the intro, specifically his use of the term "island country". Thanks, --A.Garnet (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! TomStar81 (Talk) 02:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notification of Arbitration Enforcement

I am copying this to you personally, as you are a major contributor to the Pallywood article.

Under the discretionary sanctions imposed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, the Pallywood article has been placed on a one-revert rule. Any editor who makes more than one revert (and this revert must be discussed on the talk page) in a 7-day period will be blocked. Please edit cooperatively, and seek consensus and compromise rather than edit-war. ~ Kylu 01:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, noted. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FAC

I did a bit more work on Battlefield Earth (film), and listed it at WP:FAC. We'll see how it goes... Cirt (talk) 11:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the update - and very well done on the article! -- ChrisO (talk) 11:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
You too. Cirt (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Could use your input at the FAC. Bignole (talk · contribs) has raised an issue regarding "neutrality" in the reception section. I am in the process of trying to find and add some positive comments from reviewers, but my point is that if 3% of 115 reviewers as shown at Rotten Tomatoes gave positive reviews, then that should be reflected in the reception section. Cirt (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry about it - I added some more positive balance to the critical reception section, and I think for the time being things are proceeding okay at the FAC. Cirt (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] King of Gibraltar

Although noting your critisism you will see that I did start a discussion on the talk page about this, however like many things its so obviously wrong that the logical thing to do is remove the nonsense.

Likewise I deleted the 'WPFC|nested=yes' template from the talk page as its illogical to include Gibraltar in a list of failed territories. I did not see the need to seek a consensus on that either.

Its wrong to describe the other item as being the Spanish POV as its only the opinion of some and not an OFFICIAL view. Indeed, it was not the view since 1966 when the foreign minister was harsher than today. BUT rather than delete the inappropriate nonsense I have added some extra material which puts it in context and trust that will not be so offensive that you feel the need to beat me up on my user page about it.

--Gibnews (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AE on ANI

You may want to take note of the discussion at WP:ANI#User:ChrisO gaming WP:AE. -- tariqabjotu 19:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

yes. I'm sure I'm not the only one who is interested in your comments. Spartaz Humbug! 19:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the notification - reply posted to AN/I. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Project Chanology

Quite interesting - what do these statistics mean, specifically? Is there some sort of aggregate average or average of other types of articles, FAs or something, to compare this data to? Cirt (talk) 04:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It's basically the number of times an article has been requested, as recorded by the front-end squids. User:Henrik has produced a simple graphical representation of this data plotted on a per-article basis, but currently there's no way of comparing multiple articles or averaging across article types - it's purely an article-by-article view. The data could probably be used to produce more detailed stats but I'm afraid I don't have any technical expertise in that area! -- ChrisO (talk) 08:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I did a quick check against something else that I thought would be much higher trafficked - the WP:TFA of the day at the time, Knut (polar bear) - but the Project Chanology stats are much higher. Cirt (talk) 11:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies

Apologies for the lynching joke on IRC, apparently some think it was meant in less than a humorous tone than I'd intended. ;.; In return, next time you see me on there, please smack me around with a whatever blunt instrument you find at hand. ~Kylu (u|t) 23:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad

Hi Chris,

What do you think of making the "two images which represent the uncovered face of Muhammad" phrase more noticeable by making it blue through wikilinking it to the depiction section in the article. Maybe I can discuss this tomorrow because it is way too late here. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 11:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Chris... relating to your comments on Talk:Muhammad, I would like your feedback in regard to some of the comments I made on that page.[1][2][3] It may tie in with your comment on expectations, because at least in my opinion the problem and the recent escalation is more to do with how we are presenting the depictions. I and other established editors - who had been making this point since the mediation last year - feel that decorating the top half of the article with four depictions isn't balanced when weighed against the fact that historically these depictions weren't a prevailing form of artistic veneration. I think there's an undue focus upon a relatively minority tradition given the scale and prominence of our representation. I think the article should have depictions, but it must be done in a sensible and conservative manner. I have elaborated in the comments linked above. Regards, ITAQALLAH 14:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Kosovo

Hi ChrisO I see that recreated the wikiproject kosovo
I wanted to recreate it myself but I was waiting for independence to be declared , anyway since you created it let me know if you need any help . I will be watching the project and will be helping were needed anyway
Thanks again for starting it --B.C. 19:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:English oxford capacity analysis.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Watchlist for WikiProjects

Could you please learn me how to do that?

I need it for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Montenegro. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, I gave a reply to you at the WikiProject's talk page. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I have a very huge problem to find the criteria for the articles in the scope of WikiProject Montenegro, because of MNE's highly unique status of "overlapping" with Serbia and the Serbs. What should I do? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
P.S. I formally invite you to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Montenegro. :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Pax. :-) Yes, I know what you mean about the criteria. Ultimately I think it's up to your judgement. It's OK if articles overlap (i.e. if they are in more than one WikiProject) - the point of WikiProjects is to involve editors who are interested in the subject matter. If you have articles which are directly relevant to both Serbia and Montenegro, don't hesitate to include them in the WikiProject. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
In precise what bothers me is should I include articles of persons of Montenegrin origin/descent or just the 'native' Montenegrins (Western understanding of the Nation concept)? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd suggest including both groups. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Even though the first would include some 60%-70% of individuals at the List of Serbs article? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:The nation 200506.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:The nation 200506.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 02:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:White tower banknote.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:White tower banknote.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Chris, do you know the copyright owner for this critter? You once had some information about its printing history, didn't you? It obviously doesn't belong to the website we took it from. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
According to a former Greek foreign minister, "On January 15, 1992, a publishing firm in Skopje issued a set of “souvenir” banknotes". [4] No more info than that on the identity of the publisher, though. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abecedar

If you want to stick to the source, use quotes. Otherwise it gives a specific tone to the article itself and not to the person you quote.--   Avg    21:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FYROM and lower-upper cases

I know that it has been passed around here the lower case "f" (as officially used by the U.N.) with or without a definite-article (lower or upper case "t") (e.g. as used in the Council of Europe or within the U.N. domain etc). However, there are many instances which the plain name "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (i.e. without a definite article nor with a lower case "f") was and still is being used by various organisatios (e.g. WTO, WIPO) appeared and still appears in popular media (e.g. BBC) as well as in various documents of official, semi-official or informal way by various internantional (even within the U.N. domain) or national bodies, organisations and/or institutions from various countries, including (officially) English-speaking nations. I just want to make that clear. Regards --LapisExCoelis (talk) 22:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Chicoutimi fire damage.jpg

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Lighter under tower bridge c1928.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lighter under tower bridge c1928.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Battlefield Earth (film) made WP:FA

Great work, thanks for all your help! Cirt (talk) 05:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28! --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 12:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kosovo

Since you're interested in the subject, I've decided to repost this to you.

The Serbian Ministers and Parliamentary Club Chiefs will spend the following days in Kosovo Serb enclaves. The Government has adopted a plan how to react, so far the only known are that it will withdraw all ambassadors from countries that recognize Kosovo's independence and maintain only formal diplomatic links (those in Germany, France, Italy, the Vatican and Belgium have already packed their bags). The National Assembly had adopted a resolution protesting and dismissing the acts of the PISG institutions, which have announced to declare independence on Sunday, 17h. The Government will also on the moment of declaration of independence possibly declare a State of Emergency, for the 4th time in modern history. There are severe protests already, one of the first major ones to follow is going to be tomorrow in front of the Slovenian embassy

The Kosovo Serb municipal boards have united into the Serbian Assembly of Kosovo and Metohija and have adopted a similar resolution and North Kosovo is preparing to peacefully reintegrate into the Republic of Serbia after the UNMIK leaves (which is packing its bags), whereas the terrorists/extremists of the Albanian National Army are in that case planning to martially take over North Kosovo. The Serbs are preparing massive protests in all Kosovo Serb enclaves, most are expected to gather.

On Nikolic's initiative Boris Tadic and Vojislav Kostunica are supposed to speak at a numerous gathering prepared by the Radicals, the State is supposed to finance the people to come from all over Serbia. Their goal is to gather 1,000,000 people in one location and show national unity. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lord Monckton

You recently reversed A change I added, and I feel it was unfair. The quote currently on the article does not say where it originated or citation, and with the phrase "vitriolic attack on climate change science" can hardly be seen as unbiased. Yet the quote I gave, has a source and was unsolicited. The quote was used on the jacket, but that does make it biased other then the producers of the DVD liked the quote. It's after all a presentation and stating anything other than, "I watched this movie," will have some kind of bias attached to it, good or bad. My quote is simply better because it names who the quote is from.

Yes the site is his sponsors, but the person who stated the quote is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Callonjim (talk • contribs) 20:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Also the title of the DVD is simply wrong, can I put a separate specific change for that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Callonjim (talk • contribs) 20:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Freewinds

Lawrence Woodcraft was an architect on the Freewinds renovation. He swore an affidavit about what he witnessed firsthand on the ship. His affidavit is a reliable source.

Sean Paton is a Bonaire resident who hosts a daily radio news program. He's also a journalist for the Bonaire Reporter, the island's main English newspaper. He knows what is going on there. I thought I had seen something about the documentary being televised, but I can't find that at the moment. I will follow up. WillOakland (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The problems with the sources are twofold: XenuTV.com is a personally published website, so we can't use it as a source (see WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper); and we're not allowed to link to copyrighted clips on YouTube (see WP:YOUTUBE). Additionally I'm dubious about using an affidavit as a source, particularly if it's not been the subject of reliable third-party reporting. Anyone can allege anything in an affidavit and they're effectively self-published items, leading us back to the problem with self-published sources mentioned above. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Congrats on Quneitra!

Just wanted to say congratulations for your work on Quneitra, today's featured article. Great job on a source of controversy. Oh and here's this...

The Barnstar of Diligence
For your superb achievement of converting the stub of Quneitra into a well-deserved featured article. –-Al Ameer son (talk) 04:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much! -- ChrisO (talk) 09:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kosovo independence?

If it's true what I've been hearing, you're going to have your work cut out for you on that page :-) BalkanFever 07:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention the country lists and templates. I expect a massive case of Balkan Fever these next few days....BalkanFever 08:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The non-Latin element of the Wikipedia:Username policy is discretionary, not compulsory. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course, but the emphasis is more on political, which is why I linked it. BalkanFever 11:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Is a placename really political? -- ChrisO (talk) 11:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Well in conjunction with the views the user has, isn't it? It is also the de facto capital of North Kosovo. Honestly I don't know much about this, just that country user names were banned or something - so I would assume capitals would be the same, but I'll trust your judgement. BalkanFever 11:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Listusers&limit=500&username=London :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 11:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
All good. :-) BalkanFever 11:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Really? So why was I blocked indefinitely for mine? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 11:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
That was a long time ago. The policy might have changed since then - I honestly couldn't say. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
It was changed, yes, about a year ago or something. Mainly in preparation for the big change that will make local accounts on any Wikipedia valid for all Wikimedia projects at once. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Free speech

Do you have something against free speech and opinion? Wikipedia stands for all points of view...I hope you know this.Косовска Митровица (talk) 10:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia is not an anarchy and also Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, I see there that I have all the rights to post my text there. And I also see there that you can't censor my text, I hope you realize this.Косовска Митровица (talk) 10:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
No, you don't. Read the first line of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines: "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." -- ChrisO (talk) 10:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh yes I can post any issue regarding Kosovo and this has to be exactly on talk page first'. if you have something against this see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#How_to_use_article_talk_pages. --Косовска Митровица (talk) 10:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I guess you missed the line that says: "Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." Well, you were given fair warning. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kosovo talk page

I'd like to thank you for maintaining a level of order on the Kosovo talk page. Also regarding the issues of maps the first question should be which map should be used on the Kosovo article itself? And what should it show do we have a new map ready for when the article goes live? The article in your user space could also use such a map. Hobartimus (talk) 13:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

map to be used?
map to be used?

I ceated this image using the one in the article since derivative work is allowed, but I'm not sure I did the upload right (with the licensenses) since this is my first upload. Could you help me with this or tell me if it's done right? Hobartimus (talk) 13:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

Please see the Intro section at Talk:Kosovo. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see the bottom of Talk:Kosovo. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quneitra

I saw your comment on the administrator's noticeboard. I've semi-protected Quneitra for a couple of hours, to give you a break. Raul654 (talk) 15:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually it wasn't Quneitra I was referring to. Kosovo has been fully protected - I'm not sure that we're supposed to do that. Advice? -- ChrisO (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Main page mention of Kosovo

"Kosovo's parliament assembly has unanimously endorsed a declaration of independence from Serbia, a move without the support of Russia or Serbia" - Would this be fine? Regards, Rudget. 16:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking Vitaltrust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). I was unsure of whether or not to do it. Glad to see someone else on the same wavelength. :) Rudget. 16:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know, he's appealing for a unblock. I've told him to sit it out for the time it has been set for and the discussion is over there. Regards, Rudget. 18:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Glina massacre

Thanks for your message, and for the rewrite of this article. I've added a 'keep' and said that I retract my afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glina massacre (not sure what the correct procedure is for this.) AndrewWTaylor (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. The easiest way is just to strike through your original afd nomination, like this. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Respond

I understand your anti Serbian frustration,the good example is 'Glina massacre' , I got some message that the text I wrote is something like my imagination. After that text is updated,and that is good. Everything about Croats and Eurasian Avars isbased on facts.I understand that you are not expert for everything,but next time I will put sources.So will be able to learn something new. The movie 'Behind the enemy lines' is tipical propagandic and stupid movie ,made for idiots.It is so obvious that the point of movie is propaganda. BTW Are you working for CIA ? Bg007 —Preceding comment was added at 03:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok,next time when I write something I will put sources especially for sensitive stuff. You wrote very good ,the article is excelent now.Thank you for updating.Sorry about some comments. Cheers Bg007 —Preceding comment was added at 08:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kosovo

Can you explain to me how my intro for the Kosovo article is badly written? The other intro was atrociously written, and suffered from a bad case of recentism. Look, I don't care if Kosovo is independent, part of Serbia or the 51st U.S. state, I only care about the facts and not to mislead readers. I reworked the intro using this goal and I think I suceeded, because it is the most readable, truest, most neutral version since before Kosovo declared itself independent. ☆ CieloEstrellado 04:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I meant the "A bit improper template" section. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Country

Regarding those qualifications, does Kosovo really qualify as a country / state in the sense of the word? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image source problem with Image:Haditha massacre.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Haditha massacre.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Superm401 - Talk 02:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kosovo style guidelines

You mentioned at Talk:Priština that you are developing Kosovo style guidelines for geographic names. I applaud your initiative. Although development and discussion of guidelines should certainly commence now, there should be acknowledgement that geographic usage outside of Wikipedia could change in the near future due to the independence declaration. Guidelines at Wikipedia tend to ossify quickly so recognition of recent political changes and their effect on English-language usage should be noted. Good luck with your effort. — AjaxSmack 16:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I'll keep you posted about the guidelines. I should hopefully be in a position to post a first draft on Sunday. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kosovo Liberation Army

You removed the following sourced passage: On August 20, 1998, the U.S. Defense Department confirmed that al-Qaeda was supporting the insurgency in Kosovo. (Steve Rodan. "Kosovo Seen as New Islamic Bastion," Jerusalem Post, 9/14/98)

Please stop removing reliably sourced material. Thank you. --Hereward77 (talk) 23:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring on Serbia

Could you take a look please? Three users are essentially arguing over whether the map should show Kosovo or not. Two have gone way beyond 3RR, and a third is approaching. I've warned the first two, and I thought it might be quicker to come here rather than file a 3RR report. Thanks! // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 02:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I talked it out with one of the participants, and things seem to have stopped. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 02:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Move of Hillary Rodham Clinton article

I see that you are an admin, but this move has been frequently discussed by the editors involved on this article, and the subject of RfM's twice, and always rejected. See here and here for those RfM discussions. Are you sure you should be doing this unilaterally? Wasted Time R (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Quite sure, since our manual of style and naming conventions are explicitly clear on the subject. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Your comments seem to indicate you think 'Rodham' is her middle name. It's not, it's her maiden last name that she includes in the full name she self-identifies by, see her official Senate website for example. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. We seem to have a clash here between how she self-identifies on her Senate website and how she self-identifies in her presidential campaign (and, by extension, how the media refers to her). "Hillary Clinton" does seem to be more prevalent, though not by a big margin. I note that the article refers consistently to her simply as "Clinton", not "Rodham Clinton"; the current naming is consistent with that. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The more formal media (look at any New York Times story, for example this one today) refers to her as Hillary Rodham Clinton at least once in the beginning, even in the context of a campaign article, and then uses "Mrs. Clinton" after that. She uses the shorter form for campaigning because, well, it's shorter. The article does not use "Rodham Clinton" because she does not use it like that; it is not a compound last name, like the English have. Yes, there are competing considerations here; we have weighed these several times, and always ended up keeping the article under Hillary Rodham Clinton. With all due respect to your years and status in WP, I do not see why your unilateral decision should outweigh the long-standing consensus on this. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

May I ask if you have reconsidered on this move? And please note that even if your move was warranted, which I don't think it was, it was very incomplete. There's a lot more involved here than moving one article. The move created a number of double-redirects that need to be fixed. Moreover, the article's talk page has subpages that didn't get moved, and as a consequence right now the talk page FAQ is broken and access to all the talk page archives is broken. The main article has half a dozen or so subarticles, such as Senate career of Hillary Rodham Clinton, which are now inconsistently named relative to the main article. Moving each of those subarticles may also create double-redirects, which would need to be fixed. There is a navigational template for the whole set of articles, which is now inconsistently named and has old-name contents, which would need to be fixed. This article also appears in some other major nativational templates, which should be updated. Moreover, there is an eponymous category under the Hillary Rodham Clinton name, which would have to be moved for consistency, and as you know category renamings are a real pain unless a bot does them. Then there are effects outside of Wikipedia per se — the Wikisource, the Wikiquote, and the Wikimedia Commons entries on her are all based on the Hillary Rodham Clinton form, which would now appear inconsistent. There may be some other effects of this move that I'm not thinking of. So are you going to do all this? Needless to say, I would recommend not doing all this, and just restoring the main article to the consensus title it's had all along. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm persuaded that the naming issue isn't as straightforward as I had first thought. I've moved it back to its original title - thanks for your advice and input. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks! Wasted Time R (talk) 02:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Really?

Because normally the closing admin changes the target instead of the nominator, I'm not complaining, I can do that easily. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a big backlog of admin tasks to do tonight, so it would save time all round if you could perform this task - I'm sure you can do it quicker than I would anyway. :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Done. Well, I do have firefox and a high-tech computer, so yeah, it doesn't take me long at all to redirect them with tabs. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfD closures

Thanks for clearing out the backlog. I'm not sure if I was being impatient, but I noticed you closed two redirects as keep (Andranik Pasha and Gill Sans Schoolbook), but had not removed their {{rfd}} templates (that make them not be redirects during the discussion). I cleaned up those two. For WP:ITSSOURCED, the consensus was more to redirect to the user page, but that was a bad idea right? WP:WHATEVER should not go to user pages? For Kressler, the worries about the ArbCom injunction were misplaced, right? It seemed to me to violate the very letter of the injunction (to unredirect a character or epsiode). JackSchmidt (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You beat me to it, I was just working through the logs to action the remaining keeps/deletes. :-) Thanks for cleaning them up. Yes re WP:WHATEVER and Kressler. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again for staying on RfD. I've been cleaning up minor things on it for a couple of weeks now, and it is nice to have someone going through it regularly. I'm impressed at how much backlash you get for this. AfD seems kind of natural, since people have invested a lot of time into writing an article that will be deleted, but RfD is just helping searchers find pages and involves writing about 3 words. I found your explanation on the pov redirect very helpful.
My wife just fixed a redirect problem a little like user -> double play. A user redirected his user page to a main space article about himself. We were confused how to fix this, but it seemed fishy. Luckily the main space article was speedied for non-notable bio, so we decided to blank the userpage, since it was a confusing redirect to a non-existent article. Does that sound about right and/or is there a good policy to read/cite on such things? JackSchmidt (talk) 21:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kosovo

Thanks for the revert. I did not realize I was actually reverting to a vandalized version. I just wanted to work on the border issue.--Getoar (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Judging from the logs we actually edited almost simultaneously, so I didn't even get to see your edit - sorry if I accidentally deleted anything I shouldn't have. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
That is all fine. I am trying to contribute to this article and by accident I reverted to a version that said KOSOVO IS SERBIA. Pure vandalism by User_talk:Tsourkpk (look at the bottom of this page). What do you think about the place-names issue. Before names were in Serbian and I believe they should be in Albanian now. E.g. it was Priština and it should be Prishtina now. Some suggest Pristina as the most commonly used in English, but why was the Serbian name used previously. Cheers and thank you for your attention.--Getoar (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The issue isn't a straightforward one. I'm working on a manual of style for Kosovo placenames (similar to WP:MOSMAC, which I also created) - hopefully I should have the first draft ready by Sunday. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
This individual is trying to frame me. The edit that said KOSOVO IS SERBIA was performed by another user as can be seen here [[5]]. All I did was perform a minor edit about place names [[6]], which he instantly reverted, only to be reverted again by yourself [[7]]. He then left abusive [[8]] and threatening [[9]] messages on my talk page. --Tsourkpk (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I think there has been a bit of confusion about who has been responsible for what edit. Not really surprising, considering the number of edits being made to that article at the moment. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing confusing about the diffs I have supplied above. He is clearly out to get me, as he has threatened on my talk page. Have you looked at the history section by the way? It was reverted to a highly POV, pre-protection version immediately after the protection was lifted [[10]]. This is by far THE most POV version of the history of Kosovo I have seen. I think the only neutral version was the one right before it, that began with Ottoman, and left the contentious ancient and medieval period aside. --Tsourkpk (talk) 01:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vote Request

Hi Chris, I saw your comment in talk saint cyril and wanted to ask if you could vote on the subject of merging the three poor articles into one that can be tidied up, this would also make it easier to contain drive-by edits. Thanks for your reply.

Xenovatis (talk) 13:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

The conclusion of the debate cannot be the one you claimed ]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_February_16#Israeli_Occupation_Forces_.E2.86.92_Israel_Defense_Forces] and the way you introduce the matters (to justify an experience you would have on the matter) is not a justification
I can play the same game a you but with other far more better arguments : I have written 3 (and soon 4) featured articles on wp:fr on the topics that have all been congratulated for their respect of NPoV. I suggest you refrain from closing such debates. Ceedjee (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It would help if you could explain where you think I've got it wrong, rather than just asserting it. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
What you write would mean you are a man who discusses and bases your judgements on arguments. (I am of course ironic)
1. Good : how many people gave the arguments you decided to use as your conclusion of the debate ?
2. Explain me the difference between concluding a debate you are assumed not to be involved in and imposing a mind ?
Don't give other arguments. Don't talk about anything else. Just answer my questions.
Ceedjee (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you may be misunderstanding how deletion debates work. Please see WP:AFD#How to discuss an AfD and Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus. They aren't votes; numbers don't count. Editors are expected to "make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." Those arguments, obviously, have to have a basis in policy. "Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." Conversely, recommendations that don't contradict policy have to be given priority. I've already explained in the closure where the balance of policy lies, so I don't propose to go over that again. But if you disagree with my reading of policy (which would be interesting to see, since I wrote the relevant parts of it) then you're free to take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I was just stopping by to thank you for the detailed rationale you provided on this closure. It's good to know what all the policies are for the next time I run into something like this. Matchups (talk) 02:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
No problem, I felt it was best to give a detailed rationale in this case because I anticipated that it might prove controversial; that way, everyone could understand the reasoning I used. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, as I guessed you didn't answer my question.
Could you explain me how you could judge the quality of the arguments given. If at least you would not be involved in these topics...
You are simply not able to do so. The way you answer me and the way you justified you at the beginnning of your argumentation proves this.
In fact, I lose my time. You clearly doesn't understand why NPoV is a policy of wikipedia and I fear this must appear in the articles you write.
In this collaborative project I will therefore jsut ask you never to close a debate related to the I-P conflict just on your own mind but leave this to other admins.
This is not mandatory of course.
And if you are not happy with my comments, there is unfortunately no policy for you to appeal this .
Ceedjee (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Your comments have been noted. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] North Kosovo

Shouldn't the article be updated? When Kosovo declared independence, the border crossings were closed, and North Kosovo was even factually separated from Serbia. The local Serb majority regularly protests every day practically, on 12:44 (symbolical mark of the resolution). They destroyed the recently raised border crossings, most of them have (working for the State of Serbia) now found themselves out of job and the general region is completely chaotic. The article doesn't reflect neither that, nor the current developments in Kosovo independence. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: IOF

Hey Chris, I realize I'm kind of beating a dead horse here, since the RfD you closed resolved to a compromise that I had already accepted. But I have to take issue with the claim that an article "Israeli Occupation Forces" is always a POV fork, rather than a neutral article about the term itself. If you look at the historical version of the article, you'll see that I was scrupulous in avoiding discussion of the underlying political issues which give rise to the "IOF" moniker; the closest I came was the note that "The term contrasts with the official name of the Israel Defense Forces, which [Pal. activists] regard as deeply misleading," and a "see also" to "Israeli-occupied territories." Maybe the term IOF isn't yet independently notable, and probably it doesn't need a whole article separate from the IDF one. But I just wanted to note that I don't endorse POV forking, and I don't think the now-article, at least by its content as opposed to its title, can be fairly described as a POV fork. <eleland/talkedits> 22:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I took the view that it would be a POV fork in the light of WP:NPOV's requirement that "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source." In the case of the IDF article, this would require the Palestinian (and other) views of the IDF to appear somewhere in the article. If there's enough content to justify it, there may be scope for a neutrally-titled article called something like Palestinian views of the Israel Defense Forces, but I don't think that stage has been reached yet and I certainly don't think it should be at a title like Israeli Occupation Forces. Frankly, that title would be a bit of a coatrack - the real subject is the Palestinian viewpoint, the term itself is merely an expression of that viewpoint. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image source problem with Image:Sea org.png

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Sea org.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 03:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In case you don't already know about this..........

Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents#Disruption on Kosovo article, potential abusive sockpuppets and Talk:Kosovo#PROPOSAL FOR THE HISTORY SECTION. Somebody needs to do something. BalkanFever 07:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MOSKOS

Hi Chris. This may be of interest to you:[11]. ArberBorici (talk · contribs) has found a source from UNMIK about the naming of places in Kosovo, particularly the order of naming. BalkanFever 09:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Countries of Europe template - inclusion of Kosovo

May I ask for your attention to this topic: Template talk:Countries of Europe#Request to admin: remove Kosovo from list or unlock the article. --82.183.224.40 (talk) 11:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks & KLA

Thanks, but my real plan was to permanently retire. :P

By the way, could you please check out Talk:Kosovo_Liberation_Army#Incredibly_false_and_POV_article? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:ChurchOfSpritualTechnologyLogo.svg

I understand your "Keep" rationale, and thanks for putting it so politely, I just think it is best to use an image that is verifiable to a document as the actual logo, as opposed to an individual's interpretation of it. I wish you hadn't questioned the merits of the deletion nomination itself, but rather just put up your "Keep" arguments at face value. Cirt (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if it came across as a bit harsh, but I honestly think it was a nomination too far. You've been doing good work in trying to nail down the licensing of other images, but in this case I don't think the argument that you put forward holds water. The image is a verifiably accurate rendering of a reliably sourced logo. There's no requirement to use what you call an "actual source" (by the logo owner, presumably?) - compare e.g. Image:Microsoft_logo.svg, which definitely wasn't produced by Microsoft. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps, but if we have a verifiably accurate document showing the actual image itself, I think it is best to use that image rather than a rendering of that image. For example, yes, with the Microsoft image I think it would be better to use a different image from an actual publication. Cirt (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
But thanks for apologizing, and thanks for acknowledging the "good work" I've been doing regarding the licensing on other images. That is much appreciated. Cirt (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kosovo

Hi Chris, the Kosovo guidelines look good, but I'm afraid I don't know enough about the subject to be able to give any in-depth opinion. Kudos to you for doing all that work. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 23:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Xenu nip-tuck.jpg

Can you please expand on the source information for this image, how you got it, etc. Was it a DVD capture, television screenshot, full/partial screenshot, etc.? Might be best to just add {{Non-free fair use rationale}} to it, while you're at it. Cirt (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image source problem with Image:Battlefield earth book cover.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Battlefield earth book cover.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 17:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Image page needs specific source info of whether this was a self-scan, and if so from which edition of the book, specifically, and if not, what online source it came from. Cirt (talk) 18:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Done. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kosovo again :P

hello Chris,

I don't agree that the opinion on Kosovo of the majority of UN Member states should be disregarded just because about 20 countries recognized Kosovo as a country. I know all the arguments for disregarding their opinions, but they are still not valid since all the countries that DID recognize Kosovo are UN Member states (except Taiwan and North Cyprus) and according to UNSC Resolution 1244, Kosovo is a part of FR Yugoslavia (now Serbia). Wikipedia should show the situation as it is generally accepted, and the majority consider it a part of Serbia. What do you think? --GOD OF JUSTICE 21:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not about "disregarding" anyone's opinions; it's simply a case of ensuring that the map doesn't explicitly endorse either side's position. A map that shows Kosovo as part of Serbia is a very obvious endorsement of the Serbian position. It's better to have a neutral map that simply shows Kosovo's location as a territory within Europe, rather than its relationship with Serbia. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
By presenting Kosovo as an independent country, Wikipedia is endorsing the views of the minority of the UN member states that have recognized Kosovo. It's as simple as that. However, how about I modify that map, without the dotted line, but a clear line, and maybe a different contrast of colors? After all, the zoomed in map is more clear then the map of Europe.. --GOD OF JUSTICE 23:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific naming conventions

I saw on the talk page for WP:Redirects that you're interested in naming disputes. Perhaps you could give your opinion on the comments at the bottom of that talk page, which concern the inconsistency of the naming of scientific articles? I would appreciate it.

Cheers, Fuzzform (talk) 21:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] About Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

I'm sorry but where's the wrong? This country's name is FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA and this is official from UN & E.U. Plus, accepting the name " Republic of Macedonia" to WIKI pages, which is linked to the Greek one (see GREECE) i don't find it objective.--Chronisgr (talk) 22:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't an agency of the UN or EU, and we're not obliged to follow their standards. We have our own naming rules - please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Macedonia-related articles). The bottom line is that "Republic of Macedonia" is the usual way that we refer to the country. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Chris, just wondering. If the current negotiations (under the UN auspices) conclude with the adoption of a name other than Republic of Macedonia, will you still object to changing all the relevant articles saying that this is not what RoM wants but what they agreed to use? (yes just like FYROM). --   Avg    22:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Which do you consider "the relevant articles"? Those where FYROM is currently used? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
All articles referring to the country. ROM or FYROM. I find this a great opportunity to finally have consistency.--   Avg    22:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The whole point of negotiations is to find a mutually acceptable solution. This is probably going to involve a constitutional name change. If the name is changed, and everyone accepts it, then there won't be a problem here on wiki. Except of course random nationalists changing it back to what they prefer. BalkanFever 06:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course and this is the basis of diplomacy. May I remind you though that FYROM was a provisional reference mutually accepted. It was not imposed. --   Avg    10:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, but now people confuse it for the actual name of the country (like the guy who started this thread). Either way, if ever it should be a clear cut matter of waiting for a declaration, (i.e. like Kosovo) I think we should have some kind of preparation, so that there can be a quick and simple transition. BalkanFever 11:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree we should be prepared for a swift transition. What I wanted to say is that as soon as the two countries reach the end of negotiations and (hopefully) a mutually accepted name, there should not be any internal debate in Wikipedia. All editors should abide by the names chosen by the two countries themselves for anything Macedonian (so for example taking one point of the proposal, no "Macedonia" alone for either the country or the province anywhere).--   Avg    16:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)