User talk:Deus Ex

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note: I have left Wikipedia. I only monitor this page for new messages occasionally

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.

[edit]

Here are some tasks you can do:

You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

  • You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
  • If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
  • Before saving a page, it's a good idea to use the Show Preview button to review your edits.

Again, welcome! - UtherSRG 16:44, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Referenda vs. 'referendums'

The plural of the word 'referendum' is 'referenda'. Honest.
James F. (talk) 11:11, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

OK, having consulted the OED, I've changed my mind. Sorry I've made such a hash of things.
James F. (talk) 11:17, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] British Elections

From your deletion of your comments, do I assume that you figured out that I just doubled your numbers and changed to "adult male population"? I think that for the nineteenth century, it makes more sense to talk in terms of the adult male population, since the question of women's suffrage was not really at issue until well after 1885. john 20:15, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Language project

Hi there, I found you when I read your comment at the vote regarding Pro-American sentiment. Unfortunately no one has yet taken care of it. But there are more important things. I started a project about learning, mainly vocabulary. Some guys discussed it with me on my user page. Maybe you are interested, if so, please let me know there as well. Get-back-world-respect 19:29, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Edit attribution

Hi. Your request for edit reattribution was rejected. Please see Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit/Rejected requests. Regards — Kate Turner | Talk 06:13, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)

[edit] Home Nation

Do you live in the UK? I live in Scotland, and have NEVER heard the phrase "Home Nation" used except in relation to cricket. While it may (or may not) be technically correct, it is confusing. AlistairMcMillan 22:23, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes I live in England - maybe 'Home nation' is just an English thing then. Still, country is not accurate as that implies that it is an a sovereign nation with its own territory (the UK). Nation is a name for a group of people with the same culture/language/ethnicity etc - thats what England, Scotland, Wales and NI are. I'm not trying to demean Wales and Scotland or anything, its just they are not countries despite many people referring to them as that. Deus Ex 17:11, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I refer you to the fourth paragraph of Country.
Anyway I have no serious objections to your last edit to Scotland. Although rest assured that I'm keeping the page bookmarked so that the exact millisecond we win our independence back... :) AlistairMcMillan 21:45, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thats fine by me ;) Deus Ex 21:47, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Meta-human

Hi, Deus Ex, I think it was you posted Meta-human on Cleanup (if you don't mind my saying so, it would be easier to be sure if you signed the entries), so I'm writing to explain why I'm about to remove it from the list. When you posted it, it looks like it had already been listed on VfD, but the VfD nominator for some reason didn't add the VfD tag to the article itself until a good deal later — two hours later — so you had no way of knowing about it. Crossed wires, that's all. (Also, I think you may yourself have forgotten to add the Cleanup template to the article.) Pretty elaborate hoax, isn't it? It smells to heaven of copyvio, pity Google can't seem to pick up the scent. Best wishes, Bishonen 23:52, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, I tried googling it too but I couldn't get anything. I'll try and sign my entries next time. Deus Ex 10:55, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Cathedral of Magdeburg

Hey, thanks for nominating the article! Currently I am on a trip, but I will be back on thursday and then can add a lot of references, both paper and online. I added a comment about that to the freatured article page -- Chris 73 Talk 23:39, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

  • I added a number of references (most in german) and external links. I also changed the This makes the sculpture interesting to look at from all sides. into a more neutral wording. -- Chris 73 Talk 09:41, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

[edit] Bernard Williams

Deus Ex, thank you for reverting the vandalism at BW. I was so pleased to have this featured on the main page, and could have died when I saw someone had inserted that he'd studied the question: "How to live with pigs" !! Luckily, you spotted it very quickly. Thank you! Best, SlimVirgin 19:29, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maps

I'm afraid I have retired from map-making for the moment. Sorry, Morwen - Talk 15:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Images listed for deletion

I have listed these images for deletion at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion (June 9) since no articles use them. If you feel this is wrong, drop a note at that page or, at the very least, find an article where they can be used. Regards, Thuresson 00:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Image:Luxembourg ff.jpg
  • Image:Lithuania national football team logo.jpg
  • Image:Andorra national football team logo.jpg
  • Image:Argentina national football team logo.jpg
  • Image:Germany shirt logo.jpg
  • Image:Us football crest.gif
  • Image:Sweden national football team logo.jpg
  • Image:England crest.jpg
  • Image:Spain national football team.jpg
  • Image:NI FA crest.jpg

[edit] Royal Prerogative

I don't disapprove of your changes to Royal Prerogative but want to clarify your comment - which is inaccurate. The fact is that the Monarch does have a real choice - one that may go with the flow while popular support is lacking, but one can imagine a Monarch with popular support (not necessarily democratic support) that in the future could act against the elected government and legally move the country to despotism. In general, the British public are not protected by constitutional convention which can change with the times in ways that are against the public interest. Hence the 2003 parlimentary inquiry. Your implication that the Monarch is helpless is incorrect. - Steven Zenith 07:27, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for your response on my talk page. I do not have time to respond right now - but, I am English. I was raised in London. Briefly, you are under a false apprehension that is the product of Palace PR. And in my opinion it is dangerous complacency. Aside from that, the facts speak for themselves. It is the facts and not your opinion of the facts that Wikipedia requires. - Steven Zenith 22:22, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your thanks on the British Monarchy...

...but I'm still not 100 percent satisfied with the sentence as I rewrote it. All the facts are there, but it's godawfully mangled and hard to follow. Suggestions on how to revise it are welcome! --Jfruh 19:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] United Kingdom

elements cross-posted

Then you should have said so in the edit summary. That's what they are for. I would have thought that an editor like you who has been around for so long would know that.
James F. (talk) 2 July 2005 14:25 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't mean to make it sound like an accusation. :-)
James F. (talk) 2 July 2005 14:36 (UTC)

[edit] corecting mispellings

Hi Deus Ex, I think the self-referential mistake is a useful illustration of its point; it was certainly put there intentionally. Thanks for your keen eyes, though! +sj + 3 July 2005 02:24 (UTC)

[edit] Old/New Labour

I was no fan of the material that was collecting under these two headings, and also have _some_ sympathy with your sentiment that the proliferation was just that, too prolific. But it's a bit discourteous, I suggest, to merge (and apparently mainly loose) the material without consulting the other contributors. 'New Labour' especially, could still be expected to be a valid entry point to an article or relevant part thereof. Linuxlad 3 July 2005 15:28 (UTC)

Well I think it might be nice to vector the New Labour redirect straight into the right place in the article. I agree on most of the rest - pity about the Classic Labour tag - I've usually used it as a self-description, since I heard it (on my 50th birthday IIRC) :-)

[edit] Prevenient grace

Thanks for your comments! I will try in the days ahead to make those adjustments! KHM03 10:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] See?

If you had just said that in your edit summary the first time around, we wouldn't have any problem. That's what I meant about explaining your changes. --Golbez 00:54, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

I've already made an attempt, what do you think? --Golbez 01:09, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
As for your non-lead edits, reverting those was an error. I'll fix it when I finish dinner. I thought about your edit, and I thought it somewhat POV to say he fixed Germany's unemployment - which he did by instituting something close to a slave labor policy. I'll look at it again, as I said, after I eat. --Golbez 01:38, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SCOTUS article

Hi Deus Ex,

I removed the "judicial philosophy" section from the SCOTUS article; I'm informing you because (if I am not mistaken) you were the one who added it. I fear that judicial philosophy is far, far more general than this section implies. It relates not only to the SCOTUS, but also to every other court. Hence, dedicating a section to it in this article is not, in my opinion, necessary. Furthermore, the definitions are bound to be controversial, and will only lead to endless revert wars. Therefore, I felt that it was best to avoid labeling Supreme Court decisions as "activist" or "loose constructionist" or anything else. I hope that you do not take exception to the removal of the section. Thanks. -- Emsworth 15:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Labour - worth a separate article?

I notice from the history of the New Labour article that you merged it with Labour Party (UK). Looking at the previous article, I can see why, but I think that New Labour - its creation being one of the most important events in British politcs in the 1990s - merits its own article, given the many, many volumes of books that have been written about New Labour and the depth of the subject. It shouldn't be too hard to work on a good article that, I think, could gain featured status if we try hard enough. I'll give you more detail as to what I'd like to see in a New Labour article, but what are your first thoughts on this? Many thanks. --High(Hopes) 17:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Many thanks for your reply. I had seen your note that you'd be away, so no worries about the delay. I suggest that I start drafting an article on my subpage at User:HighHopes/New Labour, which will first consist of the section as it stands in the Labour Party article before I radically alter it. I tend not to spend too much time on Wikipedia, but in the time I do I'll do my best to create a good article on the subject. I'm also relatively new here, so it'd be nice to make a worthwhile contribution. I'll start by listing the subjects I feel are worth exploring.
As for collaboration on the subject - feel free to mess around with the draft article on my subpage. I partly assume that your involvement with the Labour Party article was chiefly due to your interest in British politics rather than a desire to tidy up Wikipedia, so hopefully you'll have plenty of ideas on how to make the article good. Similarly, if you know of other Wikipedians who would like to edit it, point them at my subpage (assuming that's the done thing for working on draft articles; naturally it can be edited from the main encyclopedia once it's of a sufficient quality).
Finally, following on from an allusion I made earlier, is there a good page on how to become a good Wikipedian? I sometimes get the impression there's something of a chasm between those who edit articles or contribute a little and those who are well versed in Wikipedia's many rules and guidelines. The latter group seem to always make recognised and effective contributions, are far better with the technical side of WP (such as drawing tables, creating templates) and are generally well known. I'd be interested in any guidelines on how to be more like the latter and less like the former, if that makes sense! I've seen the open tasks list, but surely it takes more to get your name recognised than just to work regularly on them? How do established WPians judge a newcomer or up-and-coming WPian? Many thanks for your help! --High(Hopes) 19:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Labour/Old Labour/Classic Labour

Thanks for the steer

No No! - Old Labour and Classic Labour are NOT synonyms :-). Old Labour is usually pejorative and means a bit George Brown/Jim Callaghan era of smokefilled rooms (or, sorry your local labour party is full...) . Classic Labour means something in the (post 79) socialist mainstream - a bit more Robin Cook on a good day. As for the term, well I first heard it on my 50th birthday, just up the way in Nottingham (Local Gov Conference I recollect) and I thought it was too good to lose - sorry if you don't :-( Linuxlad

[edit] Fußball-Bundesliga

Hi. We need articles written on Fußball-Bundesliga seasons from 1969/70 through 1975/76, in order to take them off the Wikipedia:Most wanted articles page! Since you've worked on the main article's page, I thought you might like to take a crack at it. Cheers! -- BD2412 talk 20:33, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] writing about history on Wikipedia

Hello,

I’m an historian working at the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University (http://chnm.gmu.edu/) and we are very interested in digital, peer-produced works of history, including history articles in Wikipedia. We’d like to talk to people about their experiences working on articles in Wikipedia, in connection with a larger project on the history of the free and open source software movement. Would you be willing to talk with us about your involvement, either by phone, a/v chat, IM, or email? This could be as lengthy or brief a conversation as you wish.

Thanks for your consideration.

Olivia

oryan at gmu dot edu

[edit] New Labour (revisited!)

Hi, I left you a message recently regarding the idea of heavily reworking the New Labour article. It's been sat as a draft on my subpage, blissfully untouched, as I've been a bit lame and barely had time to get stuck in. I should be able to get going on it in a couple of weeks time, and I'll register back with you once I've got a skeleton outline of how the article might look.

I hope this isn't stating the obvious, but we should be cautious not to discuss what's happened within the Labour Party since the inception of New Labour, but to look at New Labour as a concept (lots of Anthony Giddens and so forth) in itself and perhaps discuss policies, decisions etc. that bear the hallmarks of Blair & Co's radical overhaul of the party. I intend to dig up a few old essays about it and see what material I've got. --High(Hopes)+ 01:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sources for European Parliament election, 1989 (UK)

Hello, good work on European Parliament election, 1989 (UK), and thanks for the contribution. However, you did not provide any references or sources in the article. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a push to encourage editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. From what websites, books, or other places did you learn the information that you added to European Parliament election, 1989 (UK)? Would it be possible for you to mention them in the article? You can simply add links, or see WP:CITET if you wish to review some of the different citation methods. Thanks! Lupin|talk|popups 00:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Barcelona within Barcelonès.png

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

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

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{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 media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 02:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

We cannot assume the license is GFDL. There is no license tag on the catalan wikipedia image so we have no idea where that user got the image -Nv8200p talk 13:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leicester City

Some good works being done, I try to chip in when I can. On the colours, I'm sure when we started out we played in brown and white in a design like the current Blackburn kit, I had a book with it in, but can't find that or any net pages with this info. Also the managers needs changing. We could produce a table like Arsenal but it's pointless with out detail like nationality and record. And you took away my fact about the ten clubs in the top two teirs of English football, I thought that was a good fact. The history will be hard because when all said and done the first 100 years or so were pretty uneventful appart from a few FA Cup finals a League cup win and a last minute relegation escape, while the last 15 or so have been a bit crazy. Well keep up the good work, and I'll try and help where I can, but the boss keeps sticking his head round the door. Jimmmmmmmmm 09:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Rykov-alexei.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rykov-alexei.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then you need to specify who owns the copyright, please. If you got it from a website, then a link to the website where it was taken from 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 then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as 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:Fair use, 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 23:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 23:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:San_Marino_national_football_team_logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:San_Marino_national_football_team_logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — Rebelguys2 talk 19:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:German_wedding_figures.jpg

An image that you uploaded from stock.xchng or altered, Image:German_wedding_figures.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images#SXC_images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. OrphanBot 03:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

03:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Northern ireland national football team logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Northern ireland national football team logo.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.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 03:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Northern ireland national football team logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Northern ireland national football team logo.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, then 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, then 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-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, 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 03:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 03:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Northern ireland national football team logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Northern ireland national football team logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Northern ireland national football team logo.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Northern ireland national football team logo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

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.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 06:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Henry_Rollins_of_Black_Flag_live.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Henry_Rollins_of_Black_Flag_live.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. Rettetast 20:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Old_giolitti.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Old_giolitti.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, then 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, then 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:Fair use, 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 23:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Contriblimits.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Contriblimits.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 23:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Thatcher_europe.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Thatcher_europe.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 23:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Independentfrontpage10-05-05.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Independentfrontpage10-05-05.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Old_crispi.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Old_crispi.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, then 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, then 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:Fair use, 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 23:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Young_giolitti.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Young_giolitti.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, then 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, then 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:Fair use, 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 23:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Killed versus murdered

Please see a discussion regarding this here. The consensus (which is in line with WP:NPOV) is to use killed to describe the death of somebody (unless a source is being quoted directly, in say a "Reactions" section), and to use murder when describing a conviction (eg "x was convicted of murder", which is the actual charge). The McMahon article follows that convention in the main body, but the change you made to the lead does not. I've reverted your edit to that article and the Knatchbull article. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 13:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Please thoroughly read the linked discussion above. It clealy says what context murdered is used in, and it is not the one you are using it in. One Night In Hackney303 16:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid Wikipedia editors very much decide how information is presented on Wikipedia. One Night In Hackney303 16:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Clearly, and often at the expense of reality. --Counter-revolutionary 16:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Uh, no. The agreement for convictions is "x was killed" and "y was convicted of murder". Then again, you seemed to forget the agreement when you edited Norman Stronge recently didn't you Cr? One Night In Hackney303 16:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, apparently I care more for representation of fact. --Counter-revolutionary 16:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

You appear to be involved in an edit war against consensus on Nicholas Knatchbull. Please stop. One Night In Hackney303 16:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Both parties can be guilty of 3RR. --Counter-revolutionary 16:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Do be careful Deus. Don't get blocked. --Counter-revolutionary 16:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Hackney, this discussion is getting tiring. Exactly the same rationale exists for McMahon article. McMahon was convicted of murdering Knatchbull and the others-you've finally accepted that now- even though it was crystal clear in the BBC source all along. Therefore Knatchbull was "murdered", i.e. his death was caused by someone who was convicted of murdering his person. This is very simple application of common sense, I'm not sure I can make it clearer. Please stop bringing your agenda into these articles, or I may have to report you trying to bring a POV into an article. Deus Ex 16:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to try. The discussion above is quite clear, "x was killed", "y was convicted of murder". That's the consensus, if you don't like it please start a new discussion to try and change it. One Night In Hackney303 16:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I will if you revert the change. You haven't explained why an informal discussion that is also a self-reference has any bearing or authority on this issue-perhaps because it hasn't? Why do you call it a 'consensus'-it is not a wikipedia policy, it is a thread that a small number of editors have contributed to. If you don't disagree what the definition of murder is, then stop reverting changes. Deus Ex 16:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Again, the edit you made was not in line with the discussion. We do not say "x murdered y" or "x was convicted of murdering y", we say "x was convicted of murder". If you had read the discussion I linked you to before reverting your changes you would understand this, but you failed to do that and edit warred against consensus. Do you actually understand how consensus is formed? Through discussion, so the discussion is wholly relevant to this issue. Take a look at Wikipedia:Consensus, and you'll see how wrong you are. One Night In Hackney303 16:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
You have been reported for breaking the three revert rule. One Night In Hackney303 17:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't have to accept that discussion just because you say it is a consensus. I didn't participate in that discussion, only a handful of editors did and there is not a clear consensus on killed v. murdered from that page that everyone that contributed to the discussion agreed to. I now remember why I left this project, because individuals and groups get together and for both good or bad intentions decide that is OK to pervert facts. By your logic, you should be changing every page about someone that was a victim of a murder to say x was killed rather than murdered. You should change pages about the victims of serial killers and child murderers too, not just about people killed in politically motivated murders. Are you going to do that? Deus Ex 17:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
As I said above before you carried on edit warring, you are welcome to start a new centralised discussion. To stop edit warring across articles that discussion took place and has been accepted by all parties (save the occasional slip-up) ever since, so there is a consensus. If any other articles need changing in line with that consensus, feel free to go and edit them, this is Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit.... One Night In Hackney303 17:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
That discussion is informal, has a very small sample size of editors and has no clear conclusion. I do not accept its validity or relevance. That is my argument. My argument is to stick to facts, not opinions. I do not have enough free time personally to start a new discussion. Deus Ex 17:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Are you saying "x was killed" and "y was convicted of murder" are in any way not facts? Facts that give exactly the same amount of information, only in a slightly more neutral way? The discussion took place on the Village Pump, it doesn't get much more public than that, so anyone was free to take part. One Night In Hackney303 17:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The facts are 1. Knatchbull was killed 2.His killer was convicted of murder, therefore he was not only killed, he was murdered. You're using killed in the sense that 'Herman Goering was killed', rather than 'Herman Goering was executed'. Killed isn't incorrect, but why use it when murdered (in the Knatchbull example) or executed (in the Goering example) carry more information? The only reason I think of that someone would want to use killed rather than murdered in the Knatchbull example is because of some kind of sympathy or empathy with Thomas McMahon or the IRA. That isn't appropriate in Wikipedia. Deus Ex 17:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
So, you agree that what I previously said presents the facts and not opinions then? Good, we're getting somewhere. Now for us to progress any further you'll need to take this to a new centralised discussion at the Village Pump, as I have no further interest in discussing it with just you. One Night In Hackney303 17:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Wow, you missed or ignored the point of my last post entirely. I can't be bothered to repeat the same points over and over again. Now I remember why I stopped making more contributions to Wikipedia. This project is a complete waste of time, unless you have hours and hours a day to argue with other editors over common sense points. I don't. Goodbye. Deus Ex 17:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Your analysis is correct, Deus.
Hackeyed will consistently just ignore any valid point(s) made in the hope onlookers will not notice them. It's a very effective argumentation technique.
However, Hackneyed seems to believe (with some justification) that just as Reuters has it's own housestyle (laid down by its executives), WP has had its housestyle and list of "naughty words" laid down by the discussions of little groups of editors. And, as you hint Deus, the more logical, erudite and less partisan of our editors can't afford the time or patience to keep on arguing in favour of clear, unambiguous wording for ever.
Please note, Hackneyed, that where a murder took place (and there is no significant cited viewpoint that it did not) and a murderer was convicted (and there is no significant cited viewpoint that conviction was unsafe or inappropriate) then to say otherwise is just silly (or very sympathetic indeed). Frank 84.13.10.123 17:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The point of 3RR

The policy is to stop edit warring. Period. Both sides shouldn't be edit warring in the first place, there should have been discussion on the talk page and then if that didn't work there's a clear dispute resolution process in place already. See Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Nowhere does it say "revert the page repeatedly." I'm sorry if this is unfair to you in this case but you guys shouldn't have been up to it in the first place. Sasquatch t|c 20:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

But you could have stopped anytime. There wasn't an urgency to revert and I believe you were well aware of the consequences. I'll watch the page and I have blocked other people for pure edit warring regardless of 3RR. Just avoid this whole thing and use the channels available next time. thanks. Sasquatch t|c 20:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adolf Hitler

I'm sorry if you feel "insulted" by my edit summary but from my POV I was simply stating facts.

This is part of your edit: The Nazi Invasion of the Soviet Union and Attack on Pearl Harbor caused the Soviet Union and United States to enter the war on the side of the Allies. "The Nazis" did not attack Pearl Harbour, the Japanese did. The statement is at best seriously ambiguous and at worst completely ignorant of history. I'll take your word for it however that it was an unintentional ambiguity and not plain ignorance. But that does not excuse it.

Then there is the statement that "...The German Invasion of Poland in 1939 triggered armed conflict between the British and French Empires (the Allies) and Germany. In 1941, The Nazi Invasion of the Soviet Union and Attack on Pearl Harbor caused the Soviet Union and United States to enter the war on the side of the Allies." In 1941, "the Allies" did not include France, France was defeated by Nazi Germany in 1940 and reformed as Vichy France - whom the British and Americans actually went to war with. So again, it's completely wrong. If that's not garbling the history, what is?

Also as I pointed out in the edit summary, even though your edit is longer, you actually managed to neglect to mention at all that Hitler was responsible not just for the death of "six million Jews", but for the deaths of tens of millions right across Europe.

In the previous edit you made, you also left a few clunkers. For example, you said:

As the political leader and ideological architect of the Nazi State, Hitler's ideas and policies were responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people. While war was waged between the armies of the Allies and Axis, the Nazi's policies of racial subjugation brought death and destruction to tens of millions of people

Here you've managed to duplicate in two consecutive sentences the statement that Hitler's "policies" brought "death" to "tens of millions of people". That is totally redundant. You also left an edit summary which said you were making the intro more "concise" but actually you added a couple of hundred extra characters. And yet, there is virtually no more information in your longer intro than there was in the previous one. And it also messes up the chronology. The war ends in the third paragraph, and yet it's still being fought in the fourth. Messing up the chronology is confusing for the reader, a summary of events should always be referred to in one chronological sequence wherever possible.

That version also says "the Allies landed in Northern Europe". Actually, they landed in Western Europe - which is why it is called the "Western front". And it wasn't "the Allies" who landed - the Soviet Union did not land there - it was the Western allies - again your summary potentially confuses the reader. And why not just say they landed in France?

So I'm sorry if you didn't like my edit summary, but given that both of your edits suffered IMO from a number of serious deficiencies, and you were seemingly unaware of them, I felt I had no choice but to speak plainly. Quite frankly, I get the impression you need to work a little harder on your prose skills, and editing intros on highly visible pages like "Adolf Hitler" is a long way from the ideal place to practice. But rather than taking my comments here personally, I hope they will encourage you to take a more critical look at your own contributions next time around. Regards, Gatoclass 15:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Miltonballotpaper.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Miltonballotpaper.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) 17:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Spectator anti-Europe.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Spectator anti-Europe.gif. 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) 05:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Diet Coke.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Diet Coke.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 may 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) 13:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)