User talk:Iamunknown/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Mara the Lioness

Re your concerns dated May 2007 regarding the photos of Mara the Lioness - the photos were taken by Irene and Douglas Grindlay. They depict Mara as a cub plus Irene and Douglas, all of whom are deceased.

Uncle Douglas died 23 Nov 1967 in Mitubiri, Kenya, AFRICA; Aunt Irene passed away 26 Nov 1997 in Chichester, West Sussex ENGLAND. Irene and Douglas have surviving blood relatives in both England and Australia; I am the latter. Copies have been published previously by Irene and Douglas in Irene's biographical account of Mara's early years, including her rise to stardom in the movie Born Free. The book, published in London in 1966, was titled Velvet Paws. It is no longer in print although occasionally you may find a second hand copy in an antique book store.

The photographs in both colour and black and white, were taken by the family, for the family. On behalf of the family, I am happy to share them online so that others may appreciate the life of Mara. I trust the above has answered your concerns. Thank You.

--BasilBee 23:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thank you very much for being willing to freely license the photographs. They are excellent.  :-) Cheers, Iamunknown 03:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Web Etiquette

Is it just me, or are people becoming increasingly more nasty to one another? --Iamunknown

No. Now shut up and go away, you cretin! -- But|seriously|folks  05:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
To answer that in one word.....yes. I have noticed it too, sadly, yeah they are. That's why I stick with Riana, Phaedriel, and a couple close others that I know are still nice to everyone. - NeutralHomer T:C 06:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I was among them once, but I fell from grace! (hubris went to my head) :( Anyway, feel better, El_C 06:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
hmm.. I feel better knowing I am not the only one noticing more nastiness. El_C, btw, thank you very much for your recent work at WP:AE. We as a community are far too much tolerant of trolls, edit warriors, and dramatic nonsense. Perpetrators of such should be ejected from the community (or their pet articles) more quickly, especially if their continued presence is at the expense of good editors and/or admins. --Iamunknown

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites opened

Hello, Iamunknown. The arbitration case in which you commented to has opened. Please provide evidences on the evidence page for the Arbitrators to consider. You may also want to utilize the workshop page for suggestions.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 21:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Hey there

I happened across the Article Rescue Squadron earlier, as I was reading Andrew Lih's blog. When I saw your recent post on the talk page, and check out the stuff, I was a bit surprised. I must say, all this fervor to delete and/or severely restrict the squadron seems rather counterproductive to me. The incredulous statements of, "Who do you think you are?!?!?!?!?!" don't help much either. Kind of depressing. Hope this doesn't lower your opinion of Wikipedia too much. --Iamunknown 08:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for your kind words of support on my talk page and the other pages your commented on. It is good to see a positive tone now and then (I get people cranky because their AfD somethimes result in a keep) but I'm used to it now. Hopefully what doesn't kill the ARS, makes us stronger (We are dyslexic of Borg, your ass will be laminated ... etc). - Fosnez 10:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Fosnez, sorry for not replying until now. Glad I could offer kind words. Let me know if you need anything. --Iamunknown 22:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I find it ironic, Iamunknown, that you ask at the top of this page why people are getting nastier on Wikipedia, and then follow it up with an uncalled for, rude, and overly sarcastic response to a legitimate complaint on AN/I. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 04:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is ironic. Your observation, however, does not address your original rude, nasty, and uncalled for interaction with Fosnez. Are you going to flip out and act incredulous each time some newbie or someone who is simply unfamiliar with the Wikipedia bureaucracy templates you? That doesn't seem to me to be the spirit of WP:DTTR—which moreso addresses experienced contributors who template others with whom they are in a content dispute in order to provoke them-nor does it generate a very collegial or civil atmosphere, Swatjester... In fact, it is quite untenable if we want to retain content contributors who do not wish to become mired in Wikipedia bureaucracy. Now that I am acting in a less inappropriate manner, am I making sense? --Iamunknown 05:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
For one thing, I thought Fosnez was an admin in my initial action (I saw the AFD closing notice on his talk page, and forgot that non-admins can close keeps). Either way, he's obviously familiar enough with the editing process and the rules: I believe I saw on his user page something that he had well over 2,000 edits. It was a regular templating a regular without bothering to ask why he was doing so. Apparently there is broad support for my contention that the sentence does not belong there. Maybe not consensus, but there are a significant amount of editors and admins who believe that the sentence does not belong. It was quite actually HIS action that was out of proportion: I would not have been so immediately defensive if he had actually acted rationally and discussed his reasoning for reverting. That was why I was pissed: it wasn't some newbie templating me. I could understand unfamiliarity. But this was not some newbie. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 05:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I should note that my action is considerably less "nasty" than his accusation that I have a WP:COI violation, or that I am modifying the template for some reason to gain an upper hand in the AfD on an article I nominated. This is an accusation he has repeatedly put forth. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 05:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't think Fosnez was referring to a conflict of interest as defined in WP:COI ... see User talk:Fosnez#COI. As to why Fosnez templated you, as I said earlier, I think WP:DTTR is more aimed towards people intending to aggravate those with whom they are in a (usu. content) dispute, and I don't think Fosnez intended to do that. But reasonable people can disagree on whether someone "intends" or "does not intend" to do something. And now that I understand your original concerns, I see where you are coming from.
This discussion so far has been very productive. I wish I had started it sooner, as opposed to leaving my most unhelpful comment at WP:AN/I. I'll try to do so in the future. I hope you will accept an apology from me for how I conducted myself and how I treated you at WP:AN/I. I was rather foolish, hasty and nasty. --Iamunknown 06:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Seems to be the recurring trend around here (myself included). I appreciate it, and I have to agree with you that I see Wikipedia turning into a much nastier place. It's not heartening. Looking at the list of respected users and admins who have left in the past months is upsetting. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 07:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree; it is both upsetting and disheartening. I am especially saddened (and, frankly, disturbed) by the treatment JzG has been through for his efforts to protect the encyclopedia and its editors. --Iamunknown 01:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Adopted users from R

Please see here for a reply. Thanks --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 11:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My userpage

Thanks for this. I didn't know that could be done :-) Happy editing! --Agüeybaná 23:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing. --Iamunknown 02:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cool images

STS-104
STS-104
Atlantis launches at sunset. The sun is behind the camera, and the shadow of the plume is cast across the vault of the sky, intersecting the rising full moon.
Atlantis launches at sunset. The sun is behind the camera, and the shadow of the plume is cast across the vault of the sky, intersecting the rising full moon.
Aerial view of the STS-2 launch taken by astronaut John Young aboard the STA
Aerial view of the STS-2 launch taken by astronaut John Young aboard the STA
And, one of my personal favorites, STS-109 pre-dawn launch.
And, one of my personal favorites, STS-109 pre-dawn launch.

Okay I found a few for you, and going to put a couple you may not have seen from Commons here as well.

For the life of me, I can't figure out where Commons got the image I put on my userpage. It says MSFC, (Marshall), but I've checked archives there and KSC, and the closest thing is the image above. I'm going to keep looking though, because it has to be there somewhere, lol. I'll let you know when I find it. Ariel♥Gold 04:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emerson Page

Hi, yes it was. I submitted it with several other pictures used in the article and forgot to tag it with this: "This image has been obtained or derived in whole or part from Mr. Ernest R. Emerson. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to license this material under the GNU Free Documentation License, and evidence of this has been lodged with the Wikimedia PR department, under OTRS ticket number 2007010410021786."

Mr Emerson filed his permission with Wikipedia for the images I uploaded belonging to him, this was one of them. I can't correct it now as the images are protected, although the text isn't and the page has been getting heavily vandalized all day and my writing being criticized as an advertorial. --Mike Searson 19:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

As an OTRS member, I can confirm the above statement. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the help!

Thanks for the assist with the IP Vandal on my userpage. He's been unsuccessfully trying to get that article deleted. Thanks also for helping with that and being so level-headed as opposed to these other folks.--Mike Searson 14:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. It appears he has come back, I'm trying to figure out if these are proxies or dynamic IPs or something. --Iamunknown 14:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Dynamic, he came back after Raul blocked his other account for two weeks for similar garbage...both originating out of Bell Canada in Toronto.--Mike Searson 14:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
He's on another one now:70.53.110.234 Mike Searson 14:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The calm during the storm.  ;-) Don't let anyone get you down about your article - it is fine. The call for the deletion of a good article, and the reflection on the Wikipedia community in general, is kind of disheartening. --Iamunknown 14:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Templates

Would it be easier if I just went ahead and deleted them? --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 22:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that it would be easier. --Iamunknown 12:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

No need to revert - I endorse both versions similarily :) Daniel 04:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I'll revert back - I like that version better, and it is probably more palatable and less inflammatory.  :-) --Iamunknown 05:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA comment

You're very welcome! Yes, I hate it when people leave discussion points and don't participate, so I was happy to share my views. Don't worry about the wording, we all do it like that, and go on to endure the afterthought! Do you have any views on what RfA should be like? A sort of test maybe rather than a cummunity vote? Cheers, Lradrama 19:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the really late reply.  :-( I've replied on your talk page.  :-) Cheers, Iamunknown 05:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] vandalism problem

How do I report an IP address or username? Just discovered two vandalizing pages. 1)149.4.115.5 2)username Briangleven

thanks for any assistance Enigmaman 00:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Enigmaman, I'm really sorry for the late response. I just now responded on your talk page. --Iamunknown 05:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Georgakis monument in Corfu.JPG

Hi Iamunknown, my image has been listed for deletion in the Commons here. If you can assist it would be great. Many thanks. Dr.K. 03:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I will try to be of assistance. It may take me a week or so to get a translation into English of Greek copyright law. Do you know of any such translations? --Iamunknown 04:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I can't believe the speed of the response. Thanks so much and I apologise again for the disturbance. I will ask and let you know. I have no idea about the subject matter. I thought it was not serious but now that I saw the relevant info I still think that Greece makes no such distinction. Let's not forget that it welcomes tourists. I can imagine the Greek state going with copyright claims after tourists who photograph national heroes, I mean it's ridiculous. Anyway just in case, would the same picture be safe in english Wikipedia? Thanks again and take care for now. Dr.K. 04:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
No need to apologise. I don't mind helping out with images/copyrights stuff.  :-) The photograph may be able to be freely licensed, and thus may be okay at Commons ... but without examining Greek copyright law I cannot say. Even if the photograph cannot be freely licensed, however, it would be safe here at the English Wikipedia, where it would be considered "non-free". If you wish to upload the photograph here in the event that it is deleted at Commons, then, I would recommend that you keep a full-resolution copy on your home computer and that you upload a lower-resolution copy here. I recommend that because our non-free content policy requires that non-free media be lower resolution.
If you want to learn more about the legal aspect (which, again, is not entirely clear for Greek copyright law), Wikimedia Commons has a good page explaining it at Commons:Freedom of panorama ("freedom of panorama" original comes from German, "Panoramafreiheit", which doesn't translate very well into English).
Anyways, glad to be of assistance, and I will attempt to find a translation of the copyright law.  :-) --Iamunknown 05:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
If the copyright law is in Greek I can check it out. Dr.K. 12:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I found a copy in English here. I'll try to read it asap. Dr.K. 12:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! I'll read it this weekend too.  :-) I thought I looked at that website... I guess I missed it somehow. hmm... :-P --Iamunknown 12:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
No the thanks are mine :-) Dr.K. 15:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your time and advice. I could come up with a few points but I guess it would be ok if I uploaded it here as you suggest. For sure it will save me some time in needless arguments. Dr.K. 21:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Undeletion

Hello! Done! Justin Berry/Authors NCurse work 20:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, NCurse! (Sorry for the late reply... :-\) --Iamunknown 05:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 21:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ooops

I'm doing a billion things--I apologize for not reading your comment better. I get too defensive on Wikipedia. KP Botany 05:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Responded on KP's talk.  :) --Iamunknown 05:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Sorry for getting to you so late, the amount of work I've been doing for school has been a burden. I am unaware of any other version of that image available for public domain. Too bad, it is a great painting. Best of luck.--Pericles of AthensTalk 06:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Responded on Pericles' talk.  :) --Iamunknown 05:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

I was looking at the history for the Christopher Columbus page, and I saw this: "(moved HAGGER??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????" What on earth is that page and what is it doing there? Can you help? Thanks Enigmaman 04:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, Enigmaman. Someone either was testing out the wiki and decided to do a rather odd page-move ;-) or vandalised that article by moving it to the questionable title. In the future, if you come across a page like that, feel free to revert (see meta:Help:Moving a page for info about moving a page)! Sometimes you won't be able to revert page moves, and an administrator is required, but if you want to try, just click the "move" button at the top of the page, type in the correct title, add a reason (usu. "revert page-move vandalism" or "revert move to weird name" would be fine), and then click "Move page".
If an administrator is required, feel free to start a new section at the "Incidents Noticeboard" at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and request an admin fix it.
Again, sorry I couldn't be of help sooner. Glad to see you around! Let me know if I can be of further help.  :) Cheers, Iamunknown 05:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the help! Enigmaman 06:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
One more question: I found the user responsible for this, and they performed huge amounts of vandalism one day. The account seems to now be blocked from further edits. Can an account be recommended for outright deletion? Enigmaman 06:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Accounts are almost never deleted. (There was once a request to delete unused user accounts – see bugzilla:6614 – but it was rejected.) This is, in part, because of the requirements of the GFDL license, under which all textual contributions to Wikipedia are licensed (including your and my conversation! :-). That the account is now blocked indefinitely should be enough. Btw, if you ever want to check if an account is blocked, go to their user page (in this case User:Centaurioid), click "User contributions" on the menu on the left-hand side of the screen (Special:Contributions/Centauriod), and then click "Block log" near the top of the screen (http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/l/o/g/Special%7ELog_block_4a41.html). (If that was confusing, feel free to ask for clarification.  :-) Cheers, --Iamunknown 15:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I read the bugzilla page you linked, and as it turns out, I agree with the reasons posted for deleting inactive accounts. Ah well, another battle lost. Enigmaman (talk) 09:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "No known restrictions on publication"

I'm glad they're making a serious attempt to vet those before making such a pronouncement. Thanks for the link! -- But|seriously|folks  05:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Replied on BSF's talk page  :) --Iamunknown 05:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IfD of the TIME intelligent design cover image

Hi. Just some thoughts here at the moment. Per your last comment, I do recall the discussion about the Nobel image (I forget which one it was). Geez, yes, that felt like going through a gauntlet. I appreciate your mentioning it in the discussion on Alasdair's page. I do happen to think that class of public domain images is an important resource for WP going into the future (PD not renewed, PD no author disclosure, PD pre-1978 with no explicit copyright claimed, PD-pre-March,1989 no-explicit-copyright-claimed, etc.). In the US at least, the class of non-free-licensed images between 1923 and 1989 that are public domain is extremely large and contains many millions of images that are of potential encyclopedic value. That's why I advocated so strongly for it. If I remember right, we both had an opportunity in that somewhat extended disussion/debate/argument to see how the organizations or companies that put a "©" on a page are not always forthcoming about the actual status of such images. I'd say it's a heck of a learning process for the wikipedians interested in this area of involvement, and the progress has been visible, even if very contentious at times. Unfortunately some good participants have left in disgust -- participants on both sides of the arguments.

In the meantime, in significant part due to the efforts of Quadell, Wikidemo, and some others including Betacommand, PD images are now at least placed somewhat more squarely in the classification of "free images". Thus the definition of "free" has shifted somewhat from "free-licensed" towards "copyright-free". It's sufficiently important that I thought I should give you the heads-up about this somewhat important conceptual shift if you hadn't already noticed it. (If I were able to have a bit stronger influence in the discussion, my preference would have been to have PD put in a separate class because PD lacks an explicit free license, but the current conceptual shift is reasonable IMO.) Understandably, there's still more to debate about what constitutes proper use of non-replaceable NFC. I guess it will be interesting to see where the board will choose to go after March 2008 and after analyzing the trends of the running tallies so kindly facilitated by Betacommand, etc.. And Misza13 is in position to automatically speedy-delete everything that's not machine readable with a recognized template. So there we are -- a few unexpected twists and turns and WP is essentially ready for March 2008, indeed quite arguably is presently ahead of schedule. I imagine there's still work to do parsing through redundant templates like PD-self and PD-own and the like, but it seems to me WP is very close if not already fully compliant. It didn't escape my notice that this is in part due to your efforts too. ... Kenosis 16:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there are many images to get. I just discovered http://www.navy.mil/view_photos_top.asp, a site where one can download high resolution copies of many public domain works of U.S. Navy members. (I wonder if there are similar sites hosting works of other U.S. armed forces members?) Of course, every image I was about to upload had already been cropped and uploaded, so I am fairly certain that site is well watched by Commonists or Wikipedians alike.  :)
I disagree, however, to what extent we should allow some images onto the site - in particular, as you will note from our Nobel Prize-winner discussion (I too forgot the image and Nobel Prize winner), what criteria, if any, should be used to determine "no authorship disclosure" or "anonymous authorship".
That, however, is where I disagree with some other people! I would like to see the TIME magazine covers uploaded... and was disappointed to see that they had not been. Hosting high-resolution scans, however, would be risky for the Foundation, simply because TIME probably thinks that they still maintain copyright over the works, even if they do not. Thus, if they have not been uploaded, I would suggest e-mailing the foundation-l (and/or possibly commons-l) and opening a discussion related to the works. If the Foundation is willing to host the works even though risk may be involved, then I say "Go for it!"  :)
Anyways, I agree that there is a lot to be worked on, and much frustration does seem to come from this area of Wikipedia work.  :( That is why I have been (trying) to edit more articles recently, if only to add Commons pictures I find or upload, and to help out at Commons. Other things, however, including Real Life, seem to have their way.  :\ --Iamunknown 05:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Akashi-kaikyo bridge3.jpg

What exactly are the differences of the disclaimers of English and Japanese Wikipedia disclaimers? Your insistence to link to Japanese Wikipedia does not seem to comply with the policy here unless you can prove otherwise. Please note that this is English Wikipedia. You cannot except all users here to understand Japanese language.--Jusjih 16:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I neither know the exact differences, as I myself am (unfortunately) not fluent in Japanese, nor can I cite a relevant policy, as none describe this subtle point. I can, however, cite the GNU Free Documentation License, which states that
"The Document may include Warranty Disclaimers next to the notice which states that this License applies to the Document. These Warranty Disclaimers are considered to be included by reference in this License, but only as regards disclaiming warranties: any other implication that these Warranty Disclaimers may have is void and has no effect on the meaning of this License."
and
"Preserve any Warranty Disclaimers."
(when distributing a "Modified Version of the Document"). So, in other words, the specific "Warranty Disclaimers" under which a GFDL-licensed work is published are important, and ought be kept separate; in this case, the Warranty Disclaimers are those of the Japanese-language Wikipedia. --Iamunknown 05:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Navy Photos Website

Woah, great website! High quality photos for free! Great Wall of China, London Bridge, WTC memorial . . . I don't know of any other similar sites, but I haven't really looked for one. I'll keep my eyes peeled, though. Thanks for the tip! -- But|seriously|folks  06:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: RfA comment

Don't worry about it, I understand, no worries at all. Yes, I do think a better opportunity for such discussion would be welcome, although not on the votes section, which would probably expand to a great size and look messy as a result. Perhaps we could use the talkpage better? And yes I must admit I am a RfA regular, but I don't watchlist the pages, which has meant on occasions I have been late replying to comments, and I may have missed some. :-(

Another thing I don't really like about RfA is that some people don't seem to review the candidate properly. This is hinted by the fact that some just put either support or oppose with only their signature accompanying this, or something like per above comment etc. I know many of us don't write an essay every time we vote because we do it all the time and it would be just repetition. It's just sifting through the ones who can't be bothered which is the problem. :-( Lradrama 09:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you about people picking up on one or two blips and mistakes a user has made in their past. I hate it, because it often alters people's opinions when they see things like that and many people change to oppose. That's how my RfA failed. I made a stupid mistake and everyone swooped down on me like a tonne of bricks. Although to be fair, that was a few months back now, and my Wikipedia-space count was rather low. :-S Lradrama 17:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the tip. I'm becoming a regular over there . . . :-( -- But|seriously|folks  08:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thoughts about the Dmcdevit solution

Hey, CBM. I know you already moved the latest Dmcdevit solution-related thread to the archive, so I hope you won't mind if I post a few brief thoughts (if you do mind, feel free to archive ;-). I think that User:Dmcdevit/Thoughts is a great essay, and had read it prior to seeing your proposal on WP:AN with regards to the Dominionism-template. I think that short blocks for edit warriors is a good solution when there are multiple edit warriors. One example is the rules of conduct at the "Liancourt Rocks" article, one of the hotbeads for POV warriors.

In the case of the Dominionism template, however, it doesn't appear that there are multiple edit warriors ... just one edit warrior (specifically User:Frjohnwhiteford). In cases involving one edit warrior, I can think of two approachs: one, if the edit warrior is a single-purpose account, propose either a topic ban or an indefinite block at WP:AN/I; two, if the edit warrior works productively on other topics, propose a topic ban at WP:AN/I.

Unfortunately, WP:AN/I is not the ideal location for editing restrictions-related discussions, as it is high-volume, discouraging (at least for me) to wade through, and has a high-rate archival system. But, since WP:CSN is now rejected, WP:AN/I is pretty much the place to go.

Anyways, those are my thoughts. What do you think?  :) Cheers, Iamunknown 05:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't mind. I archived the other thread because it had run its course. Please bear with me if this comment is too long.
There was some discussion on the template talk page about the disputed wording, but in addition to using the talk page several editors would revert the main template on a regular basis to their preferred version. I don't think it makes sense to classify one side in such a dispute as "edit warring" without also classifying the other side as edit warring. In a hypothetical case, if the template was never reverted once the "lone edit warrior" changed it, that person would never need to revert again, so there would be no edit war. It requires the active participation of both sides to make an edit war, and the active discontinuation of reverting by both sides to stop the edit war.
In the case of the Dominionism template, the issue was just whether the template should say "Reported advocates" or "Alleged advocates", and without judging which one is better it is clear that a reasonable argument could be made in favor of each of those options. This means the disagreement is a content dispute, not a matter of vandalism. So I think that mediation would be a reasonable way to move forward, and I proposed that on the template talk page.
One way to handle edit wars like this is protection, but I have come to see this as less than ideal in many cases. For several reasons, including Dmcdevit's thoughts and my own experience handing {{editprotected}} requests, I have come to see that just protecting the page, when all the editors involved are experienced contributors, often delays the issue rather than resolving it.
My point is that, except in extreme cases, editors must be willing to temporarily accept the m:Wrong version of the article without it being protected. Reverting a few times at the beginning of a discussion is common enough, and usually tolerated. After a few reverts, if both sides appear as if they might be willing to continue reverting indefinitely, both sides need to stop reverting and just leave it alone until they resolve the matter some other way. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

Good to see you around still - lost track of you a bit. Hope things are ok, cheers --Herby talk thyme 09:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm still around ... ish. Real Life is currently quite demanding. --Iamunknown 01:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm getting kinda stretched too at present! I'm pretty removed from books currently and having been spending time mainly on Meta and Commons both of which I like. Good to be in touch again - take care --Herby talk thyme 12:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I know some strange people :) --Herby talk thyme 16:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
hehe --Iamunknown 05:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help with template you suggested

I cannot figure out any of these wikipedia instructions. The informal opinion option just spun my head around, probably because I was working on the template below, with no success.

{{RFCpolicy | section=RfC:Should articles be verified and referenced !! reason=Editor removes tags without fixing the problem, as if [[WP:OWN]] !! time=~~~~}}

Why do I never understand wikipedia directions and templates? What is a way of finding out how to understand these obscure instructions that are supposed to be "easy"? Is there a place to go that explains all this? I am so limited in what I can do because I understand so little. Mattisse 17:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone helped me with it, so never mind! Also, someone responded on the talk page of the editor in question and gave an excellent explanation of why referencing and sourcing is necessary. --Mattisse 19:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I was not around to be of assistance. Glad to see you got help quickly.  :-) --Iamunknown 05:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LOL

You know what I'm laughing at :). Good to see you around... I thought you'd disappeared! --SB_Johnny | talk 21:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I'm still here. --Iamunknown 05:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Great image!

I'm glad that he found a high quality resolution image, it looks great! Thanks for the heads up, it is a beautiful painting. I'd love to include it in one of the Song Dynasty articles. I will try and see if I can squeeze it in somewhere (the articles are now loaded with images in almost every available and relevant space for pictures).

Once again, thank you for notifying me about the painting.--Pericles of AthensTalk 06:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thanks for taking the time to comment on my RfA, which closed successfully at (51/1/2). I know you didn't feel I was ready for the mop yet, but I promise I'll be careful not to poke anybody's eye out with it!  :-) If you ever see me step out of line, never hesitate to take me to task about it.

I may not be perfect, but it doesn't mean I won't be careful. — Coren (talk) 23:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picasso images at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 October 17

No problem, I've been trying to catch up WP:PUI. I started on removing the Picasso images and decided I was "deletion fatigued" :-) and only deleted that one image. I don't plan to do any more for a little while. Let me know if you want me to restore that image I deleted if you wanted to tag it as fair use. -Regards Nv8200p talk 00:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with WP:CIVIL

Hi. I'm following up on comments from Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/MONGO 3. You said that you and others think that Wikipedia:Civility isn't a well-written policy. I'm curious; what would you change about it? -GTBacchus(talk) 06:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow-up question, GTBacchus. I apologize that I will have to answer it later this week - probably Wednesday night or Thursday. I am very busy today and tomorrow. Again, thanks, Iamunknown 08:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
GTBacchus, I'm sorry for the incredibly late reply. I have been quite busy in real life. I have, however, thought about your question a lot. I've tried now a couple of times to compose a message to you, but I can't seem to put my thoughts into words. I would point you to Proabivouac's comment [...], however, which I strongly agree with.[...] Maybe if we use his post as some talking points, I can post my own thoughts on wherever our discussion heads. --Iamunknown 00:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi. No worries about the pace of the discussion; I'm pretty sure there's no deadline in effect around here. I read the post to which you linked. I suggest deleting that link - I've bookmarked the page, and we can talk about it, but in the interest of avoiding pointless situations, I think it would be best not to host it here. Would you be willing to remove that, as a good will gesture?

That said, I partly agree with the post. I agree that MONGO and Giano are similar in certain respects. I agree that we have a history here of tolerating more bullshit than we need from some contributors. It seems clear to me that Proabivouac doesn't take issue with civility itself, but with "civility", suggesting that something other than actual civility is being promoted under that name here. I'd be open to talking about that.

But, what about the actual page WP:CIVIL is wrong? I haven't read it or anything, but I'm open to looking at any passage that you think is written in the wrong spirit. Honestly, we'd do a lot better if fewer people read the page WP:CIVIL and more people just acted civilly, which we all know how to do without a page explaining it. It involves treating others as you would like to be treated, no matter what. Anyone unwilling to do that will run into trouble, whether on or off Wikipedia.

I wonder whether the problem with our cultural ideas about civility are really located on WP:CIVIL, rather than in the culture itself. Does anyone actually adjust their behavior based on what a policy page says? I thought people only used those pages to guide their rationalizations after they do precisely what they want to do anyway.

So I'm curious, what are your thoughts about how civility is understood around here? How are we getting it wrong? What have you observed? -GTBacchus(talk) 05:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree about the link, and have removed it. I'll think about your comments and post later today or tomorrow (in UTC time ;o). --Iamunknown 06:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Licensing

Well you know more about it than me and certainly from an en wp perspective. I came across Image:Goldenaxe3.jpg which on Commons would (I think) be deleted out of hand as a screenshot and so cannot be legally licensed? Same here, different, wrong :) Hope all is good - cheers --Herby talk thyme 10:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Herby. Sorry the very late reply - I saw your message, was constrained by IRL obligations, but I didn't intend to be this late. Anyways, I think that it would be deleted on Commons as it cannot be freely licensed (unless, of course, by the copyright holder - probably the game publisher). But here we have fair use!  ;o) I'll go give it a fair use rationale and what-not. Thanks for letting me know ~ Iamunknown 23:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes thought it could be that. Licensing was never a strong point I'm afraid. I came across it via a spam investigation. I'm no photographer but I've uploaded a few I've taken that I like (the one on en wp my user page is another that caught a moment for me!) so thanks for the comment. Hope all is ok - cheers --Herby talk thyme 13:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Most of my obligations will be over in a couple of weeks - so I'm down to the gauntlet, and pressed for time. Otherwise, I'm doing fine. Your pictures - I would love to travel to the British isles. They look beautiful.  :) The geography is so much more different than where I live - i.e. a desert ;-) --Iamunknown 16:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Hope the "obligations" go well - chat can continue anytime! --Herby talk thyme 16:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Morris (Slang Term)

Article and talk got deleted (by Kinu) before I could reply to your comment, so I'll respond here. Getting advice and clarification is always cool with me (no pun intended considering the reason the article was deleted). My reply was: I've seen new articles deleted as "non-notable neologisms" before, and have used this tag prior. If that is not a legitimate CSD, I stand corrected and will refrain from using this reason in the future. --健次(derumi)talk 07:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, thank you for replacing my warning tags with a welcome. :) You're a fast worker. --健次(derumi)talk 07:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Derumi, I'm very sorry for replying so late. I've been very busy. It is true that articles may be speedy deleted as failing WP:N. This is a frequent misapplication of the criteria for speedy deletion. I don't think you or anyone are bad for doing so; the criteria for speedy deletion are not very intuitive or clearly written, imo. But now that I look at the current criterion, WP:CSD#A7, I realise that it has been changed a lot. It says, "An article about a real person [...or other stuff...] that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." It used to say something to the effect of "An article about a real person/organization/etc. that does not assert notability", where assert was the key word. An article can talk in grandious terms about an organization, claim it has done a lot of stuff, and be transparently obvious that those claims are bogus, but it would not fail A7. Of course, some will cite WP:IAR and delete it anyways, but I am increasingly of the mind that deletions in general are not for the benefit of the encyclopedia. Note that I do indeed think that sometimes deletion is necessary - but more often when it is constrained by moral, legal or ethical reasons. --Iamunknown 23:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much. --健次(derumi)talk 19:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beautifulamazingalmostcompletleyfabulous

Eh, it was a spam account; they created a blatant spam page that was probably also a hoax ("Jasmine aka Diva and Zonnique aka Star together create a dynamic duo known as QT-Possie," etc etc) and then tried to stick it into an existing article. I just didn't really see any positive contributions coming from the part of this user. Also, the name may be unique, but it still is quite long. Anyway, I'm actually curious to know which other user the autoblock affected. Do you remember who it was? GlassCobra 15:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blohme

I have come to realize he is hotheaded, and it is going to get him in trouble. I have held back as I have yet to request a block and left him the instructions. He needs to realize that he is citing biased, POV primary sources - that is why I left him the instructions on how to do it properly. I am being patient as I do not want a newb to be screwed, but if he annoys someone who is not willing to be patient that someone is going to try to tag him as a vandal.

- Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 06:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC))

[edit] talk page

I decided to just delete it. The reason why I did changed it originally was because what he said wasn't even true and he even used the information I posted on the page, thus admitting it was factual and informative. He was slandering me without cause, which is why I changed it. He essentially was threatening to ban me for making constructive edits, which is why I made the somewhat humorous edit. Nice to see you again. Enigmaman (talk) 08:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

One more question: Does the incident get removed from the noticeboard after it's dealt with? It should, right? Enigmaman (talk) 08:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Nice to see you too! It's good to talk to familiar faces (well, online handles, I guess ;). The incidents don't normally get removed from the noticeboard immediately. If no one comments for (I think) the next 24 hours, they will get archived by an automated program. --Iamunknown 08:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. Enjoy your weekend! Enigmaman (talk) 08:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
He has now taken to personally attacking you. Sorry you had to get involved. Enigmaman (talk) 02:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Ya, I saw that - I won't reply, as per his wishes. I don't consider the personal attacks offensive, I'm just sorry to see the dispute be dragged on for so long. --Iamunknown 03:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, he took two last jabs and then forbade me to reply on his talk page, so I guess it's over now. :) Enigmaman (talk) 19:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 :o Wikipedia:The Last Word? ;o) --Iamunknown 20:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess that was his way of ensuring he got The Last Word. That is of paramount importance to many people, interestingly enough. By the way, when I sign my name, it's not showing up as a link with a link to my talk page anymore. Do you know how I can fix this? Thanks. Enigmaman 06:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enigmaman (talk • contribs)
First, make sure you are only typing four tildes as opposed to five. If that doesn't work, you could try going to Special:Preferences, and ensuring that the "Signature:" textbox is blank and the checkbox beneath it unchecked. -Iamunknown 00:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I am typing four. I always do. I will check preferences, though. Thanks. Enigmaman 03:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enigmaman (talk • contribs)

[edit] Like the user page!

The admin one seems to have been deleted! Have a good Christmas - cheers --Herby talk thyme 10:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks  :) You have a good Christmas too! --Iamunknown 21:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Rescue

Template:Rescue has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Benjiboi 21:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You asked

If I understood why Shimbimi or whatever that persons name is was blocked. No not really. But I hope to research it so I may vote in an RfA. I suspect I will vote No, because Shimbimi showed a lack of appropriate judgment and poor manipulation of the page (even if innocent), but I do not know yet. Are you neutral on the issue or do you have some feelings about it? --Blue Tie (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Queluz National Palace

This article, to which you contributed, will be featured on the Main Page on January 5, 2008.[1] Risker (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Derefer

Something has gone wrong regarding this template. I'm not sure exactly what it was supposed to have been doing, but the website it links to, ultimod.org, is now dead, so the template is broken. Can the template be fixed, or should it be removed from all the links it is currently contained in? I'm going to remove it for now from Perverted-Justice and To Catch a Predator, as these are likely popular articles and should have working links.--Xyzzyplugh (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think it should work now. I modified the template so it uses a different site which is currently up. --Iamunknown 17:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I just wanted to drop by and say thanks for doing some work on WikiProject Free book covers. It's a slow process but it makes a difference! Cheers, Chick Bowen 21:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Do you want to show me the policy where my block violates. I now think that my block didn't meet the unwritten standards that some people have for blocks. However, my block did not violate any policy that I'm aware of. I don't have any desire to break any of these unwritten standards so you can be certain that I won't make that kind of block again.

In aviation, recent accidents are often a series of failsafes that have gone wrong. This is the case here. There have been violations of written Wikipedia policy by more than one person. Do you really want to know them or just to let the matter rest? These series of violations cascaded leading to the block. If you don't want to let the matter rest but want to clarify policy (with or without naming names or actions), that's a valid opinion and one that I'm willing to contribute. Archtransit (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] letter writing back and forth?

One of the things I've learned in the past two days is to be flexible when interpreting the rules. In retrospect, I shouldn't have blocked the other admin. If there is a policy discussion in the future, I'll try to remember your interest in policy. Archtransit (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Commented

at Talk:Politicization of science — Rlevse • Talk • 00:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Misuse of Redirection

It may have not been your intention, but your last edit erased important information on HD179949b, replacing it with a Redirection to it's parent's star, HD179949. Please be more careful of your editing. Thanks Androo123 (talk) 00:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the advise. It was not my intention to erase important information. I may be a bit confused, but am pressed for time and so will have to look into the situation this weekend. Just so you know (you may already know), there are currently three articles, one which duplicates the content on the other two; HD 179949, HD179949 & HD179949b. Again, thanks, Iamunknown 04:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My Rfa

Well, not this time anyway it seems...my effort to regain my adminship was unsuccessful, but your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 07:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: popcorn

Hi Iamunknown,
Yeah that should be fine - let me know when you've finished so I can see it! --Fir0002 11:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Hi iamunknown, thank you for your comment and suggestion on my page! It's appreciated. I looked at the WP:THIRD page because I thought it would be a good option, but I don't know now. My only issue with Addhoc is that he filed a WQA under someone else's name. He did leave an edit summary explaining his actions, but the complaint as he left it had only a third editor's sig on it, and thus looked as if it came directly from someone else. This would seem a bit out of line to me, but I don't know if it would be considered a straight-up editing dispute as much as a question of conduct. For the time being I'm going to leave it alone, and hope it doesn't happen again. Best, DanielEng (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

True, I was under the impression that WP:3O can be used for conduct and editing disputes, but I guess it mostly for editing ... meh, I'd just say go ahead and use it for conduct if this comes up again as an issue.  ;-) I can begin to understand why Addhoc did what he did what he did (though I don't agree), but I wish he were more willing to accept criticism.  :\ I don't think it is out of line ... more out of touch with how people would react to the post, thinking it was -yet another- one from the user in question. --Iamunknown 23:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Excellent points. I did notice that Addhoc apologized to the editor for any confusion that might have stemmed from the WQA, so perhaps he now realizes he was mistaken, even if he's not sharing that with me. :) In terms of what he did--I've always thought that moving other people's comments, without clearly acknowledging that they've been moved and are being used by another editor, are actions in the same vein as tampering with other editors' User Pages or altering their signatures--just Not To Be Done. Is there any official policy on that? Best, DanielEng (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not certain if there an official policy proscribes those types of edits. I agree that moving someone's comments without clearly acknowledging is unambiguously not a good thing, mostly because of the confusion and/or disruption it can cause. But regarding user pages and signatures - the modification of signatures has been a very heated topic in the past (see this request for comment as on example), and the official policy document regarding user pages is confused at best ;) (see this section of Wikipedia:User page, where it describes that user pages basically belong to the community - except not, because they are traditionally edited only by the user him/herself).
Anyways, this whole issue (starting with the fringe theories noticeboard, the WQA, admin invovlement, the admin noticeboard) seems to be escalating, which concerns me. I'm not sure what to do. --Iamunknown 21:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I just read through your comments on Zenwhat's page. Thank you for taking the time to sort through this mess and write such a concise, objective and accurate post! You've summed up the issue nicely, and I hope that the others involved will take heed. I think that at this point, it would be wise if all three of them--Addhoc, Zenwhat and BgHex--would just stop reading each other's posts and take a break from editing common articles for a while. I had no idea the issue of user sigs was so heated--that was interesting reading, and I thank you for passing it on. Addhoc's actions, and the fact that he still seems to see nothing wrong, do concern me. I've come back to Wiki tonight to see the escalation continuing on AN/I, and like you, I'm troubled by it. I don't know what the solution is, especially since none of them seem willing to back off at this point. I'm keeping an eye on it, but right now I don't even know what I could offer by jumping into the fray again. Best, DanielEng (talk) 09:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SSP case

Thank you for your support! I was beginning to think I was in the Twilight Zone! After your comment, an admin closed the case due to my wiki-naïvety, sort of a wiki "nolle prosequi." Thanks again! Sallicio (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Sallicio

Glad to help.  :-) (BTW, I totally agree that Wikipedia seems like the Twilight Zone - quite regularly, actually.) If you need advice or help another time, let me know. --Iamunknown 23:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • LOL! likewise for you! Sallicio (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Sallicio

[edit] Malagueña/Malagueña (song)

Hi. I've fixed that. Happy to help. Mark83 (talk) 13:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.  :) One question: I'm not very familiar with the deletion interface, but would it be possible these edits
# (cur) (last) 09:12, November 11, 2007 24.18.183.90 (Talk) (704 bytes) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 12:11, November 1, 2007 Design (Talk | contribs) m (634 bytes) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 12:06, November 1, 2007 Design (Talk | contribs) (575 bytes) (disambig) (undo)
that are currently at Malagueña (song) to instead be at Malagueña (since they are edits meant for that page)? --Iamunknown 21:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Popcorn

OMG, I loves! Thanks you! - Philippe | Talk 22:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, glad you liked it!  :) --Iamunknown 01:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HTML question

Hello, again! Would you happen to know how to stack (one on top of the other) the drop-down user box groups? My drop-downs are side-by side and I can't get them on top of each other. Thanks! Sallicio (talk) 03:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Sallicio

There may be multiple methods to do that, but the way I achieved it was adding a table starting above the first drop-down box, ending below the last drop-down box, with each drop-down box on a separate row.
So it would be similar to
{| align="center"
|-
| 

(drop-down box code here)

|-
| 

(drop-down box code here)

|-
| 

(drop-down box code here)

|-
|}
Does that make sense? (Btw, check out Help:Table for more info.) --Iamunknown 06:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the help, made the adjustments! Sallicio (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Sallicio

[edit] The Four Tildes

Hey! Ya know...I've been signing my name like that the whole time thinking that's what I was suppposed to do. It didn't even dawn on me to just sign with the four tildes by themselves. Oh well...rookie mistake. Good looking out! ahem----> Sallicio (talk) 06:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

How about this one... I think I'm getting the hang of this!----Sallicio\color{Red} \oplus 06:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks good to me. You added an extra indent, though. :) Enigma (talk) 06:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I tried adding the shortened version, but the code just makes that wierd symbol.----Sallicio\color{Red} \oplus 07:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Btw, sorry to chat and run, but I've got a few things to do in real life, so I'll be back on probably tomorrow (in UTC). --Iamunknown 07:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome (I do use Inkscape)

Thanks for the thanks for the Dahlak Archipelago map. Yes, I use Inkscape and usually trace a couple of existing maps by hand. I've found that no two maps are identical and so I usually combine the best features of two or more. I had wanted to add placenames to the map, but I couldn't find a reliable set, so I didn't

Inkscape to my mind it has a steep learning curve, but is a very powerful tool, and it's free. I would be happy to field questions about Inkscape if you have them.

I hope this answers your questions, MapMaster (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Metros Abusing Admin

I believe that User:Metros has been abusing his admin powers on articles I have been contributing to and I think he might be doing the same to you. Would you be interested in looking to doing one of these Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct with me to investigate his behavior? Dimension31 (talk) 04:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dimension31. I don't think I can be of much help filing a request for comment - it is generally an involved process, and I probably will not have enough time this week (due to IRL issues) to investigate and file WP:RFC/U (or investigate and then decide not to file one). I would not mind, however, looking into the matter and then simply commenting.  :-) Let me know if I can be of any help in that or other respects. --Iamunknown 08:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Today is the one year anniversary of my registering an account on Wikipedia. You were the first to help me, so I wanted to thank you. :) Enigma msg! 21:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on your one-year anniversary! (Well, now I suppose it is a one year and 3–4 day anniversary...) Good to see you writing articles—I have a few I'd like to write (I'd need a lot more spare time). I finding writing more pleasant than administration, though I guess both are necessary. ~ Iamunknown 08:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Ha, how did you see that I wrote an article? It shows up on my stats or something? Just curious. It was a pretty poor effort, but someone told me I should rewrite (or write) articles instead of nominating bad articles for AfD (it was only the second one I nominated, and it was a good nomination because it was overwhelming in favor of Delete!). Enigma msg! 00:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I peeked at your contributions. >_> See Special:Contributions/Enigmaman or the "User contributions" link on user and user talk pages. (If you are using the monobook skin, I think that link is on the left column.) --Iamunknown 00:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I used to use My Contributions exclusively, but now I use the watchlist instead. By the way, do you know if there's a way to view more than the last 250 entries on the watchlist? Since I don't know of a way, I'm unlisting a bunch of popular pages so I can view more. Enigma msg! 01:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not certain regarding how many entries can be viewed on the watchlist (I searched around a bit but found little). You could try the village pump at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). --Iamunknown 07:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment on main page deletion incident

As you made an edit to the incident listed in the Administrators notice board, it is requested that you confirm the details of the incident here (section 1.1.2)

This is as the incident is used as the basis of an argument and needs to be confirm by persons familar with the event

Regards --User:Mitrebox talk 2008-02-22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.11.244.78 (talk) 07:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image talk:HD.jpg

I just left a note there, protecting would be counterproductive to discussion & admins can override it easily. SkierRMH (talk) 23:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)



[edit] Please Help!

Or, please refer me to someone whom you believe would be able to help me.

I am in conversation with the creator of the page entitled "Straw Polls for the Republican Party" because it favors one candidate over the others.

I asked that the page be made fair to all candidates before Super Tuesday (which has passed), but it did not happen.

When in frustration, I edited the page myself, the author removed my corrections and accused me of vandalism!

First, the title does not match the content. The straw polls he used are not the actual Republican Party Straw Polls as indicated in the title.

In place of the actual 3,077 Republican Straw Polls (which are very easy to analyze because they use the same model), he used a few unrelated polls taken directly from Ron Paul's web site.

Since he entitled the page "Straw Polls for the Republican Party, he should use THEIR straw polls, or else change the title page and take "Republican Party" out of the title, since the Republican Party bears no relation with the polls he is using.

The page should be repaired as follows to be neutral:

1) Use the actual Straw Polls that were conducted by the Republican Party (and let the chips fall where they may).

(2) Or, change the title to something like "Straw Polls for Ron Paul."

(3) And, change the accompanying map so that it matches the corrected analysis.

I actually made an updated map on my talk page, yet the SAME map (from last fall) is still being used.

The map presently being used on this page indicates that Ron Paul is the "winner" of the "most" straw polls at a whopping 19 states. Yet, according to the actual 3,077 Republican Straw Polls, the states went to John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and Fred Thompson. In fact, Ron Paul was in the bottom third (single digits) with Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, and Sam Brownback.

Ron Paul hasn't won a single state, let alone 19. The current map is so error filled that it doesn't even give a single state to John McCain, who isn't even represented by a color choice.

The author responded the day before Super Tuesday telling me that it would take him a long time to check out my findings. I don't know why it would take him long to consider my research; these are supposed to be his own findings. You know that when you do your own research, you wind up knowing the parts like the back of your hand.

In fact, the author didn't do any original research for this page.

He also did not use standard statistical analysis.

[I have a year of statistics and polling study as part of my polysci degree; have worked in TV polling for four years, and have done statistical polling for campaigns. His methods are "unorthodox" to say the least.]

This page is a bogus creation, which is why it is difficult for some to get around my complaints. Generally, when an article has been put together for the best purposes, there might be an error or two. However, in this instance, it was a case of beginning with a conclusion, and then finding "facts" to fill in, which is why so much of it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

It also takes a great deal of effort for anyone to understand because it is such an odd device. For example, if the actual 3,077 Republican Party Straw Polls had been used, there wouldn't be any question because they all had the same model, in each instance. Because they are completely uniform in construction, they are easy to analyze, even though there are over 3,000 of them.

Example: The author made some completely bogus statements, such as claiming that the Republican Party used the phone to do their polling that caused some folks being missed, yet that is absolutely not correct. The actual Republican Party Straw Polls were all done in person (I should know, I participated), which accounts for complete security of ballots. To my frustration, when I correct these kinds of errors, he accuses me of "vandalism." This brings up another question on my part, and that is of why this author does not know how the Republican Party operates, yet he is writing about the Party. I wonder how qualified he is to be writing this article at all, since he is not familiar with the Party and doesn't even know how to conduct actual research in order to gain accurate information.

Example: The 19 states that the author claims that Ron Paul won, each represent different types of polls so each has to be analyzed separately (which I have done) but that means 19 paragraphs of explanation, which most folks glaze over before they finish reading all of them. One may rely on BBQ dinners, another may rely on a phone poll, another may rely on a county fair, and another may rely on a dinner dance. Most folks don't want to go into this much detail, but it necessary to prove the nonsense of this entire page, and how each was manipulated differently.

While my complaints hinged around making this page fair to ALL candidates, by being fair to all (such as giving those 19 states that he awarded to Ron Paul back to the actual winners of those states), the author now claims that I have an "anti-Paul bias." This is supposed to be a neutral page. He uses 100% Ron Paul sources. Then, he justifices those by citing 100% Ron Paul resources. Then, he creates other pages that "justify" this page, by using more Ron Paul material, then he justifies those pages by using more Ron Paul sources. IOW, there is Ron Paul "cross-contamination" (while not sourcing any of the other candidates) yet he sees no problem (statistically) from this bizarre situation. When I point it out, he claims that I have an "anti-Paul" bias.

I have been a Republican activist and officer for 44 years. I have a PolySci degree and have worked for a President. I am devoted to fairness for all candidates because the decision is up to the people, and it is my responsibility to keep the playing field as level as possible. My object is to not harm any candidate because when one is favored, the others are harmed. I am also familiar with the party and how it operates. I can't imagine favoring any candidate outside of the general election. I never have. That does not make me "anti-Ron Paul" but it certainly sours me on Ron Paul supporters, since they do not respect the neutral point of view.

Rather than addressing the specific charges, and correcting the glaring failures, the author continues to try to make ME the issue. He is certainly free to write all the papers he wants on his favorite candidate, but when a title claims a neutral point of view, then it should present a neutral point of view.

When I pointed out the (false) sources, I couldn't find anyone who cared if this bogus page was allowed to remain on Wikipedia. Since I have always trusted Wikipedia, I naively thought that when I pointed out the very real problems with the page, someone would immediately correct it or take it down. Why did this not happen? Why is this page allowed to stay up as it is written? Why has the title not been changed? Why do the powers that be, believe his false claims?

Please tell me how to better address a page that is completely bogus, in the future.

Thank you very much. I have researched for days and typed for hours on this since January 13 and have yet to see any results.

Sincerly,

Suttonplacesouth (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Suttonplacesouth. I'm a bit pressed for time now, but I plan on looking into this over the weekend. I'll let you know then how I can help. --Iamunknown 05:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Straw_polls_for_the_2008_United_States_presidential_election The page has serious issues. The main contributor, Bulton, is heavily biased and an admitted Ron Paul supporter. Enigma msg! 06:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look at it Enigmaman. For the the past while I've been looking into it, and I initially agree with your assessment. I was wondering how to go further, so I appreciate outside input.
I have not examined all of the polls & sources yet (there are a lot), but one that sticks out to me is the first Arizona poll. The source (bizjournals.com) indicates that Republican Professionals Association conducted the poll. When searching for the "Republican Professionals Association", I came across this page - http://www.republicanprofessionals.org/ - which states, "Paid for by Republican Professionals. Not Authorized By Any Candidate or Candidate Committee".
That combined with the introduction to the article, which states, "Straw polls for the Republican Party 2008 presidential nomination refers to straw polls held by the Republican Party for the 2008 United States presidential nomination", is inconsisent, because the straw polls were not held by the Republican Party.
I imagine that there are more examples. Regarding the one I mentioned above: I think it should be removed from the article. Does that make sense?
(P.S. I need to sleep now, but I'll try to be back in seven-or-so hours; any further comments would definitely be appreciated.) --Iamunknown 07:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you, and there are many more examples like that. I'm just not sure how to proceed. Comments have been left by Suttonplacesouth on the Talk page to no avail. I have to get up in a few hours, so I'm also off to bed. Enigma msg! 07:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi all. I have lately refrained from much editing on these because of the concerns of SPS (though I consider them easily overstated), as well as some different concerns by others. Certainly the statement "held by the Republican Party" is a mistake that has stood too long and I apologize for putting off its correction until I had my other improvements in line. However, in general, the problem lies chiefly in lack of consensus for what constitutes a reliably reported straw poll, and SPS's lack of any sourcing whatsoever for the alleged 3,077 straw polls (I don't believe, if they should become discovered, that they will actually turn out to be true straw polls). There is also some documented bad behavior by SPS, but there may be the hope of working this out by discussion now. Anyway, it's not an easy topic and my call for consensus on the talk page has also not generated it. Best wishes. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Image talk:HD.jpg

Done. In the meantime, you may want to upload a dummy image. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I've uploaded such an image. --Iamunknown 06:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your concern at Wikipedia_talk:IP_block_exemption

I have replied on that page. Briefly, it seemed that talk page consensus was leaning towards having an admin do the task instead of a checkuser, for diverse reasons. Please indicate on the talk page whether or not you agree. I will wait to take action until you reply. As I am biting my nails somewhat, please reply soon! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

(1 day later) Hello again! As promised I'd wait for any remaining concerns. In this case that means I'm waiting to see if the clarification you requested was sufficient. I await your reply at Wikipedia_talk:IP_block_exemption before proceeding. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've replied. --Iamunknown 18:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I've now marked as policy. Let's see what happens next! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Triumphant Achilles in Achilleion Cropped version.jpg

Hi Iamunknown. Sorry about this disturbance but I have a problem. Lupo, an admin in Commons after I asked him to delete a duplicate of the image Image:Triumphant Achilles in Achilleion Cropped version.jpg, now tells me that he wants to delete both. This image is covered under PD-50 but Lupo claims it was copyrighted again in 1996 and that the European Union doesn't recognise PD-50 etc. I have replied to Lupo here: diff. Lupo's original message was here: diff. Could you possibly have a look and let me know? Thanks for your time. Dr.K. (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Does PD-50 work on the English Wikipedia? Thanks. Dr.K. (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Dr.K. I concur with Lupo's description of the restoration of copyrights in the United States in 1996 (for a brief overview, with links to many source documents, see http://www.copyright.gov/gatt.html).
It is not clear to me what `PD-50' refers to. If it refers to {{PD-old-50}} (which I think it does), then I think that it does not apply in Europe Union member states. It is my understanding (though I have only relied on others' research) that copyright in European Union member states expires 70 years after the creator's death. I am uncertain, however, about the details of the rest of your and Lupo's discussion - international copyright is complicated. :\
Also, as I understand Template:PD-Old-50, the tag by itself does not imply that a work can be uploaded here. In general, copyright in the U.S. depends upon the date of publication of the work (see Hirtle's chart for some concise information), so a different tag would have to apply to the work in question for it to be declared `public domain' here.
As a side note, I recall a discussion where an experienced Wikipedian described that Template:PD-Old-50 was originally set up not to be used alone, but to be used in addition to other tags, in the interest of making images more useful for people publishing works outside of the United States. (This is useful for publishers in such countries when one considers that works uploaded to the English-language Wikipedia may or may not be in the public domain in other countries - including, possibly, the source country.) So, if PD-Old-50 works on an image, then the image should be uploaded here only if a U.S.-specific tag works too.
Hope this helps. Let me know if I help otherwise. --Iamunknown 03:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Oops, I had intended to offer a more concrete conclusion. I would recommend that you upload your photograph of the fresco here as a non-free or fair use image. (I now see you've done that.) I'm afraid I cannot be entirely certain, but it seems to be the most appropriate option, given the circumstances regarding copyright. --Iamunknown 03:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much Iamunknown. It is nice to know that I have an expert to ask (and, unfortunately, to bother) from time to time even as a second opinion. Yes the tag in question is {{PD-old-50}}. A final question: What do you mean by the image should be uploaded here only if a U.S.-specific tag works too? Take care and thanks again. Dr.K. (talk) 13:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Plus I checked Copyright restoration notice and searched for "Triumph of Achilles" or even Achilles by Franz Matsch and no copyright record pops up. They also say, on the website, that only "certain" works were restored in their copyright status. I would appreciate any input. Dr.K. (talk) 01:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind answering questions, so feel free to ask, and I'll answer when I can do so accurately. :) But I must stress that I'm not an expert - I may know more about copyright than some, but some details are still arcane to me.
Regarding {{PD-old-50}}, what I meant is that a work to which PD-old-50 may apply is not necessarily under the public domain in the U.S., so a tag that is specific to U.S. copyright must also apply. This is because, for works on the English-language Wikipedia to be considered in the public domain, they must be in the public domain in the U.S., the term of copyright is not equal to date of death of author + 50 years (Hirtle's chart helps).
Also, the documents listed on the U.S. Copyright Office website do not exhaustively list works for which copyright in the U.S. was restored - they list works for which copyright holders (often, but not always, the creator of the work) filed a "Notice of Intent to Enforce (NIE)". There are certainly other restored copyrights. As I understand your and Lupo's discussion at Wikimedia Commons, it seems that the copyright on Matsch's Triumph of Achilles is one such restored copyright. --Iamunknown 02:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I see. So in the website there is the NIE side of things but the actual work is technically copyrighted for four more years, except if published before 1923. Ok. I guess that does it. Thank you so much for all your hard work on this. I am very indebted. If there is anything I can do to repay this debt let me know. Take care. Tasos (Dr.K. (talk) 02:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC))
Glad to help. :) --Iamunknown 02:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)