User talk:Christiaan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

Human Shields query

Firstly, what was your involvement in the Human Shields? Also, I note that the article Popular opposition to war on Iraq has the following:

However, upon reaching Baghdad, those who were to act as human shields discovered that whilst they wanted to protect buildings like hospitals, the Iraqi regime wanted them to protect targets of genuine military value. Most of those who had gone to Baghdad left shortly thereafter.

Do you know if this is accurate? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:43, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the delay, I didn't know I had this page. I was a primary organiser, along with Ken O'Keefe. If you go to Popular opposition to war on Iraq you will see that I have removed the above passage and replaced it. The short answer is no, it wasn't accurate by any means. Christiaan 12.25, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nice talking with you

It will be nice talking with you if you would not make comments such as the following:

  • You're not one of these Born Again nutters are you??

I am a born again Christian, and I take offense at your characterization of BA's as "nutters".

Please review Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thanks, and welcome. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 17:27, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Port of Napier

Hi, Christiaan. Wikipedia contributors normally create articles rather than asking for information. If you don't have any information at all about the Port of Napier and no one adds anything to what you have written in a short time, the article will be deleted because it doesn't have any useful content. If you do have any information about it at all (for example, you imply it's in New Zealand, but you need to say so, because other people won't automatically know that), then please include it in the article ASAP. Thanks. Deb 12:00, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi Deb, I'm in the process of creating a substub and adding links as we speak. Thanks. --Christiaan 13:16, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Koru Flag

Hey, I was looking at your user page and noticed that you were interested in the New Zealand flag debate. I created the Koru Flag stub a few days ago as a sidenote to Friedensreich Hundertwasser but know little about the debate. I just thought I'd point it out to you as something you might be able to work with. Philthecow 16:28, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Hundertwasser is one of my favourite architects. Pity he's not alive to have another go at designing another flag for the current debate. Christiaan 17:35, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Categories

Hi Christiaan,

I've noticed you adding Category:Architects to the article Frank Lloyd Wright a couple of times. You are not the only one, but unless the policy has changed recently, its not normally a good idea to add a category when an article is already in a more specific category. In this case, FLW is already in Category:U.S. architects so the parent category, Category:Architects, shouldn't also be added to the article. -- Solipsist 21:14, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi Solipsist, okay but this seems counter-productive to me in this instance. Category:U.S. architects is not a subcategory of Category:Architects, it's a subcategory of Category:Architects by nationality, which is in turn a subcateory of Category:Architects so you have to dig quite far before you find Frank Lloyd Wright, for instance, who, intuition says, you would find on Category:Architects and not have to go looking under nationality to find him. If all architects were put into nationality categories I could see the sense, but they're not. Christiaan 13:18, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In a way I agree with you. I think the pattern is that categories get subdivided once they start getting too large. Biography categories tend to get sub-divided by nationality, with people from the less common nationalities being left in the parent category. It looks like Category:Architects has got problems - there are rather a lot of entries left in the main category and quite a few double counted in the nationality category. Le Corbusier for example who also appears in the Swiss architects category. -- Solipsist 09:26, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


"put it this way they've been around in peace for a lot longer than your petulant menace of a country" --your edit summary

You must have a limited view of peace that tolerates oppression of the individual. Why not be more responsive, and actually document what the Iraqi Resistance has proposed, and what "age-old" methods they would use if you can? You still have not specified what is NPOV about the language that the community had arrived at before you started inserting your POV.--Silverback 10:15, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Who are you to talk about political motivation.

You don't seem to view anything except through a political filter. I merely noticed that it had been put up for a VfD before for what looked like valid reasons, and looked very like an ongoing controversy about a Norway scolarship winner that either he or his freinds are trying to get entered into wikipedia. His article was deleted, even though he seemed more deserving than this cheap publicity stunt. I thought this indicated the views of the community might have changed, since the original request got very little attention. With this other incident in mind, it might enlighten the community's deliberations to have a similar incident to consider at the same time. Later I did a search that did find several press references. Do you know how his publicity tour after the action was financed?--Silverback 09:34, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Many people are either unaware of their bias or pretend it doesn't exist. I prefer to be open about my bias. What you have done is very different. You have targeted a page for deletion not because it was worthy of deletion but because you don't like the person for their political beliefs. You have even gone to the length of falsely accusing me of deceit which is now open for everyone to see. Maybe next time before nominating a page for deletion you should do some research first. --Christiaan 19:47, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Major / Minor

Hi Christiaan, thanks for your note. I did not consider my change major. The original text said, "without explicit". I merely changed to "implied (but not explicit)". That seems minor to me, and also accurate. Before I made the change, I read over the talk page to see if this wording had been debated and it had not. (Note - I did not check the archived talk pages). I think this is very good due diligence to have applied - especially since the article does not carry any sort of request to talk about changes prior to adding. So, I respect your view that it was a major change, but I disagree. Best. Johntex 01:24, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

From, Wikipedia:How to edit a page#Minor edits, Minor edits generally mean spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearrangement of text. Your edit was a major rearrangement in the understanding of a constroversial aspect of the invasion of Iraq, therefore it doesn't come close to a minor edit. See Wikipedia:Minor edit for more information. --Christiaan 10:15, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the reference, but I still disagree. I think my edit could qualify as a minor rearrangement of text. However, I will agree to keep my eye out for how other people use the minor tag in actual practice. Johntex 00:51, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Clarification

The foul language in the Iraq Liberation Act article was directed at the anon user, who has been following me from article to article since I got his pet articles protected. It was not directed towards you. TDC 16:19, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Election article not loading?

Did you try a hard refresh of [1] (Ctrl+F5 in Internet Explorer)? It loads for me and others in #wikipedia. One person, however, got a "story unavailable" message at first, so I'm thinking that may be what happened to you.

[01:33] <Slowking_Man> Can anyone else load this?

[01:33] <Slowking_Man> http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7511753

[01:34] <kooo> "We're sorry...this story is not available."

[01:35] <iMeowbot> Slowking_Man: It loads for me.

[01:35] <Slowking_Man> That's strange.

[01:35] <Ardent> loads just fine for me

[01:35] <kooo> it loaded up now

[01:35] <kooo> it didnt just a moment ago, i just double clicked the link

--Slowking Man 09:41, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Iraqi resistance page move

Please vote to support the move from Iraqi resistance → Iraqi insurgency at Wikipedia:Requested_moves. Thanks! ObsidianOrder 13:13, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway's repeated and vindictive allegations

The following is a discussion between Tony and I that he has deleted from his talk page and replaced with allegations that he won't allow me to respond to. It appears that he doesn't like to be challenged and will cry wolf if he is.

I'd appreciate if you didn't implicate me in personal attacks in such an ambiguous manner. If you believe I attacked you personally—not a frivolous allegation—I believe it's only fair that you at least point to what you believe was a personal attack. Otherwise I have no choice but to ignore you. —Christiaan 14:17, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see no ambiguity there. one would be mistaken in thinking you have no interest in the surrounding debate. It was a mistake not to make this clear and I don't appreciate it. This is the second time that you have falsely implied that someone's opinion of your scheme is material to your claim that a third party has engaged in unacceptable conduct. This is the second time that you have made a personal slur against me, attempting to drag me into your petty disputes.
To summarise the reasons for my shock at your recent conduct:
  1. You persistently and repeatedly launch personal attacks on people whose opinions differ from yours (badgering David Gerard in the face of his clear and unequivocal statements, falsely accusing him of not answering your question, I count as another example);
  2. You have persistently flouted the Wikipedia:Assume good faith guideline;
  3. You have needlessly escalated a content dispute;
  4. You persistently confuse personal opinion and conduct and try to drag others down to your level.
Please mend your ways. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:47, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'll stick to your claim that my comment, "one would be mistaken in thinking you have no interest in the surrounding debate. It was a mistake not to make this clear and I don't appreciate it," is a personal attack on yourself (I'm not interested in the rest of your accusations as you provide no evidence and they appear only to be made to try and bolster your argument).
As far as I can tell my comment does not contravene Wikipedia:No personal attacks. In the first instance I simply questioned the absence of a disclaimer on your part that might lead a reader to believe that you didn't have an interest in the surrounding debate. When you said this was immaterial I responded by simply stating that you have an interest in the surrounding debate and that I believe that it was a mistake on your part that you did not make this clear, and that I didn't appreciate this. Telling someone you don't appreciate a mistake you believe them to have made does not amount to a "personal attack" so I'd appreciate it if you didn't continue plastering your accusations everywhere. —Christiaan 16:14, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well here you are starting to misrepresent your earlier statements. You stated as a matter of fact: It was a mistake not to make this clear and I don't appreciate it. Now you claim that you were only expressing an opinion.
First, let's get this clear: someone's opinion of your proposal is immaterial to the question of whether someone engaged in misconduct.
Second, you have engaged in repeated personal attacks on me and other users. This is a very good example. You falsely accused me of improper conduct. Upi repeated the accusation twice.
Finally you falsely accuse me of plastering [my] accusations everywhere. There is absolutely no basis for this apparently malicious accusation.
If you do not understand my shock at your conduct here, please spend a week or so thinking about it. Before you loose off yet another justification for your conduct that involves casting a personal slur on someone else. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:34, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
My statement that you made a mistake was just that a statement by me that you made a mistake. It was not qualified. Instead of clarifying with me you have made an assumption to get where you are. I believed and I still believe that it was a mistake on your part not to let others know that you at least have an interest in the topic (let alone having particpated in a heated debate with me on WikiEN-l). If you believe that is immaterial well that's up to you. But, you see, what I don't understand is that even if I was "falsely accusing of improper conduct" that still does not equate to a personal attack. So, again, I would ask that you refrain from this emotive approach and desist from making sweeping unsubstantiated allegations about my conduct. And unless you are willing to take this through the proper channels I would ask that you also refrain from emotively heading this discussion "Christiaan's repeated personal attack" and instead call it "allegation of personal attack" or "alleged personal attack"—Christiaan 18:08, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thirty-two minutes? Good grief, I suggested a week!

This is a final warning. Stop engaging in, and defending in the most callous manner, your repeated and compounded personal attacks. Your attempt to drag me into a petty content war took the form of a personal attack--the false and defamatory implication that I had misled others as to my status in a dispute of which I was unaware and in which I had absolutely no part. Your false claim that I was "plastering [my] accusations everywhere" was a personal attack. Stop. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:41, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm getting very tired of your patronising attitude Tony. Please stop harrassing me with your petty attacks. —Christiaan 14:45, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

comment to Tony Sidaway

why did you delete my comment to Tony Sidaway? -Lethe | Talk 23:47, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, don't know what happen there. Must have been some kind of edit conflict? —Christiaan 23:52, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Our friend

Take a look at these: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. It looks like some of these various usernames and IPs (six different ones in all) have voted four times at this VfD. [9] I suspect they are the same user because of the consistent editing style and areas of interest (list of slurs, comic books, Star Trek, and George Costanza). Based on the VfD voting, if these are the same person then there seems to be a case of fraudulent sock puppetry. -Willmcw 01:25, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC) (A second look also makes me suspicious of a couple of other editors who voted to "keep" on the VfD. [10] [11] )

So how is this normally dealt with? Is there a time limit before new users can vote in VfDs? —Christiaan 08:39, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't know how this is dealt with. I've alerted the editor who put the page up for VfD, so potentially he or she can look into the situation. I think that it is of perhaps more direct interest to you and me that the seemingly large number of editors on pages like list of political epithets may have been an illusion. Attempts to build consensus are complicated by having sock puppets echoing their puppeteer's comments. -Willmcw 09:06, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

True, it certainly looks that way, and I have my suspicions about who it is. —Christiaan 09:16, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Looks like 155.84.57.253 has taken to calling you "Chrissy." Is that really the best "insult" he can come up with? —Sesel 21:39, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hehe, I'm sure I'll cope. I've been watching him/her and s/he makes some good edits otherwise. —Christiaan 21:47, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Talk pages

Christiaan, I've reverted your edit to Tony's page again. You're going to get blocked for a 3RR violation if you're not careful (I'm not an admin, so that's not a warning, by the way). I don't know what this dispute's about, but we're all allowed to control what's on our talk pages, so please play fair. SlimVirgin 08:58, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

So you think people can post anything they like on their talk pages? I think it's only fair to point people to the discussion that Tony deleted. Don't you? Especially considering the sweeping and unsubstantiated allegations he is making. —Christiaan 09:11, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Maori

Hi Christiaan: just a quick message to say thank you for reverting Operaboy's changes again. Having read your main page I can see that NPOV is a big issue with you and I strongly feel that Operaboy's changes make the page ever so much more biased. The scariest part was the paragraph s/he tried to add basically saying that the Maori are responsible for racism in NZ because they are trying to defend their rights and therefore don't subscribe to "One NZ for all" or whatever that veiled racist motto is. We have to keep an eye on this. Thanks. Mona-Lynn 15:37, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi again! Nah, not in Napier, but was just there a couple weeks ago. Spent a whole week exploring the area. Very intersting place. LOVED the Art Deco tour and the gannets. I'm in the Big Smoke! Mona-Lynn 08:57, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Concentration camp

Good fix! I was just in the process of reverting back several edits to just remove the attempted explanation for Amnesty International's position when I conflicted with your much better edit. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:33, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cool, gald to be of help. :) —Christiaan 17:38, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

DU

Sorry, when I was saying 'unreferenced' I was meant the paragraph about Dr. Doug Rokke. When I first removed it, the only reference for it was a Sunday Herald article which, when I read it, didn't say the same things at all.

The paragraph I'm concerned about is the one about Arthur N. Bernklau. While undoubtedly true, I don't think it should be in an article about DU as it doesn't refer to DU in any way. It certainly belongs in, say, Gulf war syndrome, which is prominently linked to from the DU article. The ill health reported in that paragraph could be caused by a number of agents veterans were exposed to, not just DU.

Sorry about the confusion! Dan100 19:12, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Okay I see where the confusion is. The report he is referring to, by Moret, names depleted uranium as the definitive cause of the ‘Gulf War Syndrome’. I'll make that a bit clearer. —Christiaan 20:36, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Christiaan, check the talk page on depleted uranium. I left some info about why I deleted your edit. Hopefully we can come to an agreement. Bonus Onus 03:18, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Heather...

You can't win, can you? Should just let 158. and this new person fight it out. I wonder if User:LesbianLatke is a real user, or 158's sockpuppet. Guettarda 19:28, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually I think User:LesbianLatke, User:155.84.57.253, User:Can'tStandYa are the same. Who is 158? —Christiaan 22:19, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ooops, I meant 155... Guettarda 23:56, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Throw me a bone here. ;) Can you post the wikified username? -Christiaan 00:05, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your vote of confidence! Samaritan 04:14, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Human shield in Iraq

The article (mostly written by you I think) talks about how shields were deployed to about seven sites and then most were bombed in contravention to the Geneve convention. I was just wondering if you should put what parts of the Geneva convention in the article because how it is now almost sounds like hearsay (partly because I'm sure the US wouldn't say it was a violation). Either way I don't know if it was or wasn't but I'd like to know what parts. Thanks gren 11:42, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, good point. Done. —Christiaan 18:38, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
How does it feel to know that you were nothing more than a Shill for Saddam Hussein, and were lead around by your nose by his secret police? Does it feel good? I am going to laugh as I watch this article burn. TDC 03:20, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Dunno, you'd have a much better idea being the U.S. government lackey you are. Glad to see you're at least honest about your purpose here on this encyclopedia.—Christiaan 08:52, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


2003 Invasion of Iraq

Dear user,

I would like to say that I see the current revert war on 2003 Invasion of Iraq as very negative for the quality of the discussion, as well as for the article itself. May I please urge you to refrain from reverting further and discuss the situation on Talk:2003_Invasion_of_Iraq#Resolution_687 untill a solution can be found ? I look forward to reading your inputs there.

(this message is sent simultaneouslz to User:TDC and User:Christiaan)

Thank you very much ! Rama 23:12, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PS: please allow me this is a general principle applicable also to, say, Hans Blix :P Rama 23:26, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

TDC has proven himself on many occasions not to be acting in good faith. My natural reaction is to revert when I see his username. —Christiaan 23:28, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Christiaan has proven himself on many occasions to be in love with Saddam Hussein. Perhaps he was raped by Uday or Qusay and now he has some kind of Battered Human Shield syndrome, I don’t know, but my natural reaction is to revert when I see his username. TDC's sock puppet 01:30, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think you are sailing very close to the wind with regard to the 3RR rule. I also see that convenient anonymous reverts happen when "your" turn was due for the next step of revert-warring. I suggets that you re-consider your way of contributing to Wikipedia. Refdoc 00:37, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well I've never violated the 3RR rule and don't intend to. I wouldn't be surprised if it was TDC himself who made that "convenient" edit, just in an attempt to make it look like me. You might notice that he had already violated the 3RR rule when that edit was made. —Christiaan 00:44, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

3RR violation

Contrary to your assertion you did indeed violate 3RR on Human shield action to Iraq and I have blocked you from using Wikipedia for 24 hours. You were warned by many different people that you are close to such a ban Refdoc 01:10, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I did not mean to make this 3RR violation and I would hope it's my first and last. If you look at my reverts you'll see I was reverting waffly edits that were not there to improve the article but to try and make a point. When you blocked me my revert was not the status quo, the status quo of which I was discussing with the other editor on the talk page, so my reverts can hardly be categorised as egregious (and I'm not particurlarly happy with Tony weighing in on this for various reasons either). I had already noted that I was open to a rewrite of the summary in question but that I hadn't yet seen a good one. It appears now that there is an alternative edit that I can live with, by another editor. —Christiaan 11:56, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

IfD Vote

Hi Christiaan, I seem to recall that you voted in favor of keeping the photograph inline at autofellatio. Well, its subsequent linkage has emboldened the anti-photo people to put it up for deletion on WP:IFD and start claiming it's a copyvio (which they can't prove). I'd appreciate your views on the subject. Thanks, TIMBO (T A L K) 02:19, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think as long as we have problems of systemic bias there's not much we can do about it. I've added my comment though, thanks for the heads up. —Christiaan 11:52, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Adminship

I nominated Sesel for adminship; if you are interested you can vote at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Sesel. Guettarda 21:47, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely, top man is our Sesel. —Christiaan 18:09, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Autofellatio.jpg vote

Greetings, Christiaan. I was counting up the votes to see where we currently stand on the autofellatio vote. I'm having trouble interpreting your vote. You said: "Keep if it isn't a copyvio." The trouble is, that's a highly contested question. Some claim that the image is absolutely a copyvio; others claim it's not. Images of the same actor performing the same act have been found on pay-sites. But that exact image has not been found. How should I count your vote? As keep or delete? Thanks, – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 17:59, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Keep thanks Quadell, sorry for the confusion. —Christiaan 18:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Hello, I greatly appreciate your contributions to 2003 Invasion of Iraq. I don't edit on Wikipedia as much as I used to, mostly because I've given up on it aside from subjects such as quantum mechanics and the like.

I see your contributions to Wikipedia really started only a few months ago. Already you seem to be aware of what you say (and I agree) is systematic bias on Wikipedia. You say it is due to the class of contributors, which I agree with, I would also say that Wikipedia is owned by conservative millionaire User:Jimbo Wales and that is part of it as well.

I have seen many people like yourself come to Wikipedia, think they can fight the tide, and eventually throw up their hands and leave. Administrator User:172 was here before me, and he just left in frustration - we had conversations and he held up hope for Wikipedia but he gave up. Admin User:Secretlondon was a nice girl from England (although not a kiwi like yourself) who was personally drive off by Jimbo Wales. I was just reading a front page article on Paul Schäfer and saw User:Cantus who has been flirting with leaving Wikipedia. And so on, I can think of many others.

Putting aside who owns and controls the servers Wikipedia is on, Wikipedia has a group mindset. They drive people off like 172, Secretlondon, me, and others, thus, that mindset becomes even more entrenched. Those driven off or who get frustrated and leave are isolated and can't do much.

Anyhow, I think a counterpoint to this is needed. One thing that I have seen not working is the 172's and Shorne's spending time fighting on Wikipedia all the time, getting frustrated and then just giving up. What is needed I think is just as the cabal promulgating systematic bias on Wikipedia goes around, there has to be a counter-group to this, a loosely organized network of people putting together a people's wiki encyclopedia.

Since I am frustrated with Wikipedia, I spend most of my time editing Infoshop's OpenWiki and Anarchopedia. There I can edit an encyclopedia without being hassled. I also contribute sometimes to the liberal/social democratic Demopedia and dKospedia. Or to Sourcewatch, which specializes in think tanks, PR firms, lobbyists and the like.

It would be nice to see these places reach some of the critical mass that Wikipedia has. User:172 contributed one last article before he left on George F. Kennan. Almost immediately someone changed the sentence "Although Kennan regarded the Soviet Union as too weak to risk war, he nevertheless considered it an enemy capable of expanding into Western Europe, given the growing popular support for Communist Parties in Western Europe, which remained demoralized by the consequences of the Second World War." to "Although Kennan regarded the Soviet Union as too weak to risk war, he nevertheless considered it an enemy capable of expanding into Western Europe through subversion, given the popular support for Moscow-controlled Communist Parties in Western Europe, which remained demoralized by the devastation of the Second World War." Of course, the adjective subversive is not used by this person on the next sentence regarding Kennan's suggestion of covertly undermining elections and labor unions. At Infoshop's Openwiki and Anarchopedia, you do not have to worry about this sort of thing. On the liberal Demopedia and Dkospedia, you don't have to worry about people putting in a conservative bias, although even for these people the concept of a European style Labor party or socialist party is considered radical.

Thus one can write original articles in peace. I think there are diminishing returns and nothing but frustration which leads one to eventually throw up ones hands and quit wiki's altogether from trying to win battles on Wikipedia, but there is probably something that can be done on Wikipedia by demanding NPOV be held to, although I don't feel it's worth the effort. One thing for certain is it's impossible to fight two, three, four people by ones self. The type of people who would be around to help like 172, secretlondon and so forth have all been driven off or quit in frustration. Ruy Lopez 00:12, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Ruy, thanks for your considered comments. It's quite some time ago that I committed to what I believe is a information "war" taking place in our societies, long before I started editing on Wikipedia. Wikipedia, even though it pronounces not to be, is a part of it. I don't tend to get put off by the sort stuff you have to put up with when contending with people of deep delusion. I'm pretty used to arguing with them, especially the Nth American version. The key is to realise they're really in need of pity rather than anger. That tends to smooth out any frustration. At the end of the day I enjoy it. I would also put far more weight on systemic bias than I would any political affiliations that Jimbo has. (I do edit over at Anarchopedia by the way)—Christiaan 10:31, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Christiaan, although we haven't met before, I think I can say that you are doing a good job fighting systemic bias, with too many white males from the US (for the record I'm from East Asia). I myself am currently in an edit conflict on the articles on Liberal bias and FOX News (although I'm doing others as well), just for your information, I and a few others are having problems with a user named Silverback for the one on FOX. I'm not requesting for your help here, I'm just here to thank you for helping provide an alternative viewpoint and monitoring pages like Depleted uranium. Currently I think there is way too much conservative bias on political pages (esp relating to the US). The only way to resolve this is to contact others who hail from all over the world, but for some reason a lot of my friends do not want to contribute to Wikipedia, even if it's something simple like vandalism watch. But in any case, I wish you best of luck to your efforts on Wikipedia. Ethereal 10:25, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Autofellatio vote

Greetings. I'm contacting you because you voted to keep Image:Autofellatio.jpg, but you indicated that part of your reasoning was because the image was not demonstrated to be a copyright violation. Someone recently found the image on http://www.wowboy.com/welcome.htm, a porn pay site, with the notice "© WowBoy 2001-2004, All rights reserved". I don't know if this changes your vote or not, but I thought you might want to know. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 02:27, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

I contacted wowboy.com and they're not the copyright holders. See deletion page for more comment. —Christiaan 22:06, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nice job on acquiring an image that's definitely not a copyvio. --SPUI (talk) 04:17, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ditto! The picture is even better than the first, IMHO. TIMBO (T A L K) 06:29, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Ron of Rudebox Media Inc. was extremely helpful. He gave me a number of choices and I took the one where he got the whole thing in his mouth and appeared to be the least "pornographic". —Christiaan 09:31, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Autofellatio 2.jpg

Image deletion warning Autofellatio 2.jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. If you feel that this image should not be deleted, please go there to voice your opinion.

Image copyright tags

Thanks for uploading Image:New Zealand flag-Lockwood.png and Image:New Zealand flag-Troup.png. I notice they currently don't have image copyright tags. Could you add these to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much, Tagishsimon (talk) 16:42, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Tagishsimon, thanks for the heads up. I was in the process of getting the authors to choose a licence but I haven't been onto them. Will get onto it. —Christiaan 20:18, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Hi, just a heads up on an edit conflict that occured when you edited Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion: [12] Can you be a little more careful in the future? Cheers, Christiaan 11:17, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not following you, that diff dosen't explain much to me. I don't recall deleting that piece of text. Maybe it was a glitch, I'm not in the position to tell exactly what happned. I don't think it happned in the past, I would have noticed it long ago. Please reply here, if you don't mind. Regards, El_C 11:33, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just read that comment. Makes a good point. El_C 11:37, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
When you made that edit you accidently removed my comment and a comment by someone else (the ones in yellow on the left in the link above). —Christiaan 12:03, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I just don't see how (specifically) I would have done it. Oh well. El_C 12:06, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Me neither, maybe you were editing a old version? —Christiaan 12:09, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
But then, would it let me submitt it? El_C 12:11, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, it just gives you a warning that you're editing an old version. —Christiaan 12:13, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oh! I never actually (purpusfuly) tried. Mystery likely solved. Thanks for all your help! El_C 12:23, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
no problem, cheers —Christiaan 12:25, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chamaeleon

Hi there! If you have an opinion on me, here's the page to say it on: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chamaeleon.

If not, excuse the intrusion. Chamaeleon 14:21, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear, it's not going very well, haha! Do you have any ideas about what to do about certain bias in Wikipedia? I though accepting the nomination for adminship would be a good start, but that's not working. Chamaeleon 20:32, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
lol, yeah see my userpage where I discuss systemic bias. At least you won't have to be "more of a mediator rather than a participant when there are disputes". Your editing is so good I'd rather see you participating. —Christiaan 20:37, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I see some really silly things are being said on the nomination page, lol. Oh well, I'm afraid you will be losing me for a while as a participant, because I'm a bit busy at the moment. I'm also planning on doing a little experiment: it will be interesting to see if they accept a leftie as an admin even if I do everything they say (be nice to everyone, etc). If they still say no in two months, then they'll look really biased. P.S. Isn't it sickening when people pretend to be neutral? Chamaeleon 00:16, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the message. I saw that he was up and had already voted, though the odds don't look that great. Guettarda 20:48, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism

Christiaan, you're behaving like a bully and a terrible POV-pusher over Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism. If you want to place the POV tag on it, you have to give clear, addressable reasons on its talk page; otherwise the tag is being misused. I want as much as you to see this article NPOV, so please list your concerns on Talk: Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism. Otherwise I will remove the tag. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:18, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Also note please that you're in danger of violating 3RR. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:22, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
I'm going ask you again that you stop attempting to label me a bully. Labelling your political opponents is very much a bullying tactic in itself and I do not in the least bit appreciate it. We are in disagreement, please do not resort to such underhand tactics. —Christiaan 22:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing underhand about it. Your user contribs clearly show that you've recently been going around deleting my edits, as though you own certain articles and must approve all contributions. I am therefore informing you that I feel you're trying to bully me, and I'm requesting that you stop and allow me to edit articles. If you object to my edits, please say why on the talk page and we can discuss them, but do not go around deleting them. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:27, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

My deletions having nothing to do with the fact that you made the edits. I was making such edits before you were making them. I am now informing you that I feel you are trying to bully me by attempting to label me a bully, and I ask again that you desist from such underhandedness. Do you always attempt to label your political opponents when they disagree with you? —Christiaan 22:31, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Also note please that you're in danger of violating 3RR. —Christiaan 22:33, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have watched you do this to editors before, Christiaan. Please don't be so aggressive with me. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:22, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
I've watched you do this to editors before. Please stop trying to label me. I'm becoming rather concerned by your efforts to do so. —Christiaan 00:05, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Slim, please refrain from bullying Christiaan. It is against policy. Chamaeleon 00:10, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Christiaan, you realize it's rather absurd to place an NPOV tag, which states: Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page, when no such discussion exists on the respective talk page. El_C 23:44, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Missing a few pieces of the puzzle maybe but I dunno about absurd. I guess the VfD is enough. —Christiaan 00:03, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's absurd for a reader to encounter a tag which directs them to non-existent comments, is my point. It was not a statement on the article or VfD, specifically. Please try to be more careful in the future. Thanks. El_C 00:12, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes I have to agree with actually. —Christiaan 00:22, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Heh, well, now we're even (I'm just joking, or am I...?). El_C 00:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Haha, that's weird I didn't even realise it was you. How strange. :) —Christiaan 00:30, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re: Goodbye Pork Pie

Yes, as of recent - I watched 'Goodbye Pork Pie'. A very cool film. I never knew that this film had "cult status" here in New Zealand until recently, very popular. It also shows the New Zealand Railways in it's prime, too.

I have a copy of the DVD, that was very hard to get. But im glad I got my hands on it

--GardenState 23:04, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Some thoughts on your thoughts on Wikipedia

Hi Christiaan, I couldn't resist making a comment about your contention (on your user page) that there is systemic bias on Wikipedia due to the overabundance of white, male, American, white-collar editors. I don't happen to fall into that demonized category, and I also curiously have found that I don't actually run into masses of editors who can be categorized as such (there seem to be more Brits and Australians than anything else, at least in my limited contacts). The few that I do run into don't seem to be of a monolithic Weltanschauung either. I usually find that broad generalizations and assumptions about people fall short of reality. With all that said, I must say, however, that your idea about openly publicising the demographic of our editorial membership is a great idea. It would be nice to know the makeup of our community, if a method of recording demographic info could be done in a way that ensured privacy, although I think it would be more informative to include a little more than the four areas you highlighted. You might want to bring it up on the mailing list or to the developers. --MPerel( talk | contrib) 01:47, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Heya MPerel, from my experience this is very much the case. However I'm not actually the first to make this comment; I picked up from elsewhere. I'll see if I can find where it originated from. You right though I should get there ideas into the system, thanks for the kick, Christiaan 01:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I was randomly browsing around today and saw this and it occured to me that it is probably the origin you were talking about. Let me know when you pursue the demographics gathering suggestion and I'll chime in support. --MPerel( talk | contrib) 17:33, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

I think it is actually quite offensive and possibly racist to categorise editors in this way. I certainly would not under any circumstances fill in such a survey I think many think the same. This is quite separate from the systemic bias diagnosed, whose existence is obvious. Refdoc 17:42, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What do you find offensive about it Refdoc? And why would think a census of editors could be contrued as racism? —Christiaan 19:21, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The emphasis needs to be placed on the systemic bias itself, which is above all other things, First World centrism. The focus should not be the editors' innate traits which they can neither do, nor should they want to do, anything to change. The bias itself is the key, the edits/encyclopedia — not the editors/community. El_C 07:49, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The systematic bias "itself" might be "First World centrism" but such "First World centrism" is simply a result of the make up of editors. Focusing on "First World centrism" would be like painting your bathroom when you should really be building a kitchen. I'm not suggesting a focus on editors, I'm suggesting a focus on the make up of editors. Hence I put more effort into recruiting editors who don't fit into the categories mentioned above than I do others. —Christiaan 23:30, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fighting with Slim, etc

You might want to tone things down a little - you're starting to sound like an actual anti-semite on Chamaeleon's adminship vote. It's a lost cause anyway, and his comments are only digging a deeper hole for himself. You're bound to clash with Jayjg, given your positions, but there is no benefit in making an enemy of Slim - she seems to be willing to compromise/talk on most issues, and strikes me as someone you can work with even in you hold very different positions. Anyway, feel free to ignore this advice...I think you are a valuable editor, you represent a POV that is underrepresented at Wikipedia, and I think you can get more done if you are less confrontational. There are a lot of people here who will listen to someone they consider a reasonable editor (even if they disagree with them) but won't listen to a "loose cannon" (even if they agree with them). But then, what do I know...I'm by no means a "harmonious editor" myself. Guettarda 00:25, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC).

I'm happy to take any heat for the accusation of anti-Semitism secure in the knowledge that it's laughable and that I'm relatively conscious of any racism that had been instilled in me as a white male of European decent and colonial ancestry, and that, most importantly, Jews are a people I could not possibly have a bone to pick with (people who have never interacted tend not to have bones to pick). And yes, I will never, ever, let such comments as yours alter my sense of justice or my reaction to injustice. —Christiaan 22:21, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Not saying you should alter your sense of justice or your reaction to injustice. I admire what you have done (e.g., Iraq, from what I have put together of your user page and some talk pages). Part of what I tried to say came out wrong - there's nothing wrong with standing up in defense of a lost cause...I have spent my life dedicated to lost causes. I meant no criticism of your actions. It was just that the page was degenerating into a mess over what were taken to be anti-jewish comments. Online, without nuance, it's possible to interpret them in the worst possible light - and some people will. Of course, that is probably where my own demons come in. To begin with I am very sensitive about issues related to race...I could "pass" for white, especially in winter, and I often found myself facing the question of whether I was being accepted because I "passed" - would I have been less accepted if I had turned out darker? I remember a friendly acquaintance saying something about "these foreigners" with regards to an altercation between some (maybe Korean?) students. When I called her on it, her reply was "oh, no, you're different". It made things worse as far as I was concerned. I sometimes think I prefer obvious racists to closet ones - at least you know what you are dealing with. (I was told the same thing once by a South African "coloured" woman...she said she preferred the Afrikaaners to the "English" (South Africans) because at least they were honest). My other issue has to do with Israel and Jews in general. As the grandson of a Nazi I feel that, if I accept my grandfather's legacy, some amount of responsibility comes with it. At the same time, having grown up with stories of the war, being acutely conscious of the legacy of Naziism, I am especially disgusted by various forms of neo-Nazis. While it doesn't change my desire to "call a spade a spade" on issues of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, I would sooner bite off my tongue than say something which a neoNazi would agree with. Even if I said such a thing out of a sense of justice and fairness that recognises the wrongs done on both sides, that says that it is wrong to kill any person, and that believes that past injutices do not justify present injustices...I woud still rather say nothing than say something that they would approve of.
So, I was probably projecting in my intial comments to you. But the point still stands - Slim is worth working with, I believe. Better to have as an ally than as an enemy, and I think someone you would agree with more than you disagree with. But enough of my rant. I shall lie low for a while - I am on the edge of saying something to Ed Poor that would get me banned...I need to give it a few days before I read his reply to what I said to him. Anyway, all the best, and keep up the courageous editing (and the real life stuff too...so that I can claim to know someone who is actually making a difference, even if only online). Guettarda 23:18, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I hear ya Guettarda, your kind nudges are appreciated even if I disagree. Of course you're quite possibly right on Slim and I agreeing more than disagreeing. —Christiaan 23:38, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm,so ths is why you want my additions to anti-globalization removed, strikes a bit too close to home ehh? TDC 02:55, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Christiaan, thank you for all your support and good wiki-work. Keep it up, and don't let bad-faith or misguided editors get you down. I have confidence in you. Helpful Dave 13:33, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hello Helpful Dave, you sound really helpful. Thanks for your vote of confidence. :) —Christiaan 23:40, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anti-autofellatio campaign

Hey Christiaan, I wonder if you've seen the messages Achilles has been pasting into user_talk pages (12 of them so far, I think). I think he has every right to do it – his reasons seem pretty up-front and genuine – but I wonder if we should try to get out the vote among the past photo supporters.

Also, I know you've worked on meta about end-user image suppression, and I would definitely like to contribute to that if possible. Could you provide some links where I might get started? (It seems that there are a multitude of bloated pages dealing with "offensive" images etc., so it's hard to know where to get involved). Thanks, TIMBO (T A L K) 00:42, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely we should get the vote out. I haven't worked on meta:End-user image suppression for a while, I got tired of all the shit you have to go through to have such a discussion, however all the links are there. The main four parts to it are linked at the top of the page. —Christiaan 22:57, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Autofellatio 3

User:TigerShark (talk) has renominated Image:Autofellatio 2.jpg for deletion, claiming that it has copyright problems. I noticed you quoted a disclaimer in the last vote, claiming that the image was copyrighted. Would you please go to Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion and clear this up for me and others who don't know the exact copyright situation? Thanks, Meelar (talk) 17:51, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Autofellatio_2.jpg

Counting edits

Noticed that you asked on Lethe's talk page how to count edits. Thought I'd show you this little tool that lists the raw number.. --Laura Scudder | Talk 18:50, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a heap Laura. :) —Christiaan 23:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Get a room

[13] I don't know if this is harassment or fun, but either way it doesn't belong here. We're just here to write an encyclopedia. (Well, ok, a little fun is allowed.). You're both good contributing editors to Wikipedia and I hope you are indeed having fun. (Not too much fun.) Cheers, -Willmcw 10:07, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Reading that, I thought he was serious and was going to ask for evidence to be produced. Probably I missed the pun somwhere along the way... El_C 10:15, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
155 is not good and needs to be banned. 155 subscribed my email address to a heap of spam. I haven't even read what I keep removing from that page, it's just 155 trying to obfuscate. —Christiaan 12:14, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Email me the respective headers and otherwise pertinent evidence and I'll look into it. El_C 12:41, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
I can do better than that, I can get the website admin to independently verify 155's IP address. Are you a developer EL? Can you cross reference 155's IP address with usernames? —Christiaan 12:49, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I am not a developer. El_C 12:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Image:Human shields go home.jpg

Hey there Christiaan. I was wondering what the response was to this picture. There was a comment that said it received publicity, but I was unaware to what extent. The image page has a link to humanshields.org, but it is now defunct. Being a founder, what was the official response to the picture. Wow, I can't believe I actually get to talk to one of the main actors in the autofellatio controversy. Cheers. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 20:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Mark, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Human_shields_go_home.jpg - I've updated it. Cheers, Christiaan 16:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks buddy. Fairly interesting. See ya around. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 13:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Your smiling iraqi girl is up for featured pic

Hi... just to let you know: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hijab

I've taken the liberty of removing a fly from her head that some people didn't like, although I've made it clear that I liked your original just as much :-) Please come and support either version of your image if you agree!

Cheers, ~ Veledan • Talk + new 20:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks for nominating it. Christiaan 16:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
I can't claim the credit for the nomination! Send a thanks to User:Richardkselby for that :-) All I did was hide the fly and add a strong argument in its favour, and you're very welcome to that. Your pics are absolutely outstanding by the way. After seeing the nominated one, I made a point of visiting your gallery and I'm sure we'll have another FP or two out of them as long as they are well-placed in the right article (they might be already, of course, I'm not saying they're not: it's just that I've been busy and haven't explored it yet) ~ Veledan • Talk + new 17:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Cheers for stopping by at wp:fpc and adding your comment. Could I persuade you to go back again though and add a bolded '''Support''' this time? When it comes to FPC nominations, it's perfectly the done thing to vote on your own, and since you're not the person who nominated it your vote will be counted even if it's the casting one :-) Some photographers like to add something like "as author" or "of course!" to acknowledge their 'bias' when they support their own pic, but it's not obligatory. I've had too much of a hand in this nomination so I won't be the one closing it if it's a tough decision and whoever does might not count your comment. Cheers again, I'll stop interfering now :-) ~ Veledan • Talk + new 21:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Done, cheers for the push. Christiaan 22:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Good to see you around again

I noticed that your talk page has come back to life, and that you appear to be around again. Good to see you around - we need people like you. All the best - Guettarda 13:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Guettarda. Good to see you're still plugging away. :)
Yep, still here, still having pointless conversations with the right-wingers - like as to whether Ann Coulter's statement that Tim McVeigh should have blown up the NYTimes is evidence of her support for him, or whether it was, as "everyone knows", a joke. Fun, fun, fun, lots of pointless fun :). I did get myself elected an admin somehow, in the midst of arguing that the NPOV policy shouldn't let us use BC/AD since it lets us assert Jesus' divinity, which would not be NPOV. Despite the acrimony, it was an interesting intellectual question. The Coulter thing is the same point really - what does WP:NOR mean? I'll probably lose the argument, because I am up against a couple of hard-right hard-Coulter fans...I could have debated that question in a number of other places, but if you're going to have an argument, might as well have it with people who have so skewed a world-view that they believe that this place is run by the left (if only we were so fortunate, I say tongue-in-cheek, since I would fall out with left-wing orthodoxy almost as quickly as I would with right-wing orthodoxy). Well, in the meantime I'll stick to my idealist's view of Wikipedia and have fun plugging along (instead of doing my job, publishing a whole lot, and getting a good tenure track job) - Guettarda 23:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:New_Zealand_flag-Lockwood.png

Christiaan, apologies. I can but assume when I looked at it in March, I saw no tag, though the history supports your assertion that you tagged it. My bad. Wikipedia:Deletion review seems to be the place to go next. I've listed it there. Now we wait & hope. best wishes --Tagishsimon (talk)

I've grabbed a copy from a wikipedia mirror here or better, here. You can grab a copy too & re-upload it with a license. In the unlikely event that is disappears before you get there, I have a copy on my c: drive. I notice that we have only one of the four alternate design flags which used to be on the article - and the one we have is not tagged, which sadly means it will be consigned to the trash-can soon if action is not taken. Not sure if your interest is specific or general, but thought you might want to know. best wishes --Tagishsimon (talk)

Merry Christmas

I would like to wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and all the best for the New Year. Guettarda 05:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Good to see you

I was just looking over some old archives and saw your name. I'm glad to see you're still editing here. Thanks for your contributions. Yes, you-know-who is still a pain in the 'pedia. The project survives anyhow. Cheers, -Will Beback 11:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

DOVO (Razors)

Hi, Christiaan. Can you explain what DOVO, the razor company is? If it is a razor company, you may want to start an article on DOVO as other people may be so unfamiliar with it that it gets deleted. Steelbeard1 22:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I have already, it's at DOVO Steelware. Check out the discussion page for naming convention. Cheers, Christiaan 22:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Socks of Shran/CantStandYa/155

FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Socks of Shran/CantStandYa - AKA "155". -Will Beback 07:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikilabs and a new proposal for Wikikernel

This is to let you know that I posted a note for you on your talk page at Meta. --Robert Horning 18:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Keith Locke PoV edit war

Hey there, there is currently a edit war brewing at Keith Locke and I wonder if you fancied chipping in. I am worried that I haven't followed the best process or introduced the best arguments and all. P.S. You might like to archive your talk page by year which I recently did. cheers - Drstuey 08:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Page Protected

Based on [14], I'm protecting this page. If and when you return to Wikipedia and are out of the news, feel free to contact me for removal of the protection. Alphachimp 03:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD
POTD

Hi Christiaan,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Sabaa Nissan Militiaman.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 27, 2007. Thanks for taking and uploading this picture. howcheng {chat} 23:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)