User talk:Monosig

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

monosig - the radical wikipedian

Contents

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Yehud-MonossonEmblem.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Yehud-MonossonEmblem.jpg. However, the copyright tag you've used is deprecated or obsolete, and should not be used. This could be because the tag is inaccurate or misleading, or because it does not adequately specify the copyright status of the image. For a list of copyright tags that are in current use, see the "Public domain", "Free license", and "Fair use" sections of Wikipedia:Image copyright tags.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to Yehud-Monosson

Hi, I noticed you edited several facts in Yehud-Monosson. Regarding the population, you are definitely incorrect, CBS clearly states that the population of the joint municipality was 25.1 thousand at the end of 2004. However, I'm curious about the name. The Hebrew Wikipedia says that it was formerly known as Yehud-Neve Efraim, while CBS still considers the correct name to be Yehud-Neve Efraim. Do you have any basis that it was never known by that name? If so, can you please provide a source? Thanks, Ynhockey (Talk) 21:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It's probably confusion related to the continuity of Yehud as Yehud-Monosson (de facto Neve Monosson was annexed to Yehud and Yehud changed its name, although de jure under the merger law, the merger was ostensibly neutral). That would mean that the population of Yehud was approx 22,500 on the eve of the merger, because Neve Monosson added approx 2,600. That is strange but there is no point arguing with the CBS and you are correct that this is what should appear in Wikipedia. However, it should be noted that there is large scale construction in Yehud all the time, particularly in and around Savyonim and in the urban renewal projects in old Yehud, and the population has certainly grown since 2004. The second point is rather complicated. Neve Monosson as a physical place on the map (as in bridge, river, etc.) is officially Neve Efraim. But that is only for physical 1:50,000 maps and the CBS which has not yet updated its site. However, its local council was officially named Neve Efraim Monosson (1962-2003). In January 2006, after the local council was merged with the Yehud municipality, the community, within its previous municipal borders, was declared a Borough by the Interior Minister under the name of Neve Monosson, the "Efraim' having been specifically dropped at the request of its reps. That declaration can be seen in Hebrew at [1]. As for the merged city; the 2003 law provided for the Interior Minister to determine the names of all the merged authorities, but that was only done a couple of years later after a consultation process. Meanwhile, all the merged authorities had temporary hyphenated names, and in the case of Yehud-Monosson that name was (mistakenly) Yehud-Neve Efraim (rather than Yehud-Neve Efraim Monosson). Finally, after a long dispute with the purist Names Committee, which adamantly opposed the foreign-sounding name, the city was officially named Yehud-Monosson in late 2005 by the Interior Minister. You can see the declaration in Hebrew at [2]. Monosig 12:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I should add that the Yehud article mentions a higher population according to the 2003 electoral roll. Monosig 13:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:TzipiLivni.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:TzipiLivni.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:TzipiLivni.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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 its not being deleted. Thank you. Arniep 16:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC) -- Arniep 16:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Tzipi Livni.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Tzipi Livni.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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 its not being deleted. Thank you. Arniep 16:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC) -- Arniep 16:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Sbgtnylogo.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Sbgtnylogo.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia 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. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 01:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This was re-nominated as it has been 10 days since the tag was removed, but it has not been placed into any article. It is a copyright violation and is not saved by any Fair Use claim as it is not in use.--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 01:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
It mistakenly duplicates SBGTNY Logo.jpg Monosig 17:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Untagged image

An image you uploaded, Image:Jerusalem Municipality Emblem.jpg, was tagged with the {{coatofarms}} copyright tag. This tag was deleted because it does not actually specify the copyright status of the image. The image may need a more accurate copyright tag, or it may need to be deleted. If the image portrays a seal or emblem, it should be tagged as {{seal}}. If you have any questions, ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 12:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

Please do not use popups or vandal-fighting tools to revert edits. These tools should be used exclusively for fighting vandalism. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. Now can you explain why you are repeatedly re-editing this "Israel was created" statement? I can't imagine that any other country is defined as having been "created". It sounds like somethiing between a biblical (Genesis) description and a science fiction one. Can you just leave my edit alone please? Monosig 18:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV insertions at Barack Obama

Your recent edits at the above article were distinctly POV, and as such have been reverted by another editor. Such edits, if continued, could be perceived as disruptive. Please refrain from editing in such a manner. The Obama article is currently at Featured status, and as such, should not be majorly overhauled without discussion at the talkpage. Thanks and regards, Bellwether BC 16:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

African American - the issue is discussed frequently but the article simply states that he is. All I was doing was pointing out that the issue is disputed, without suggesting any POV of my own (in my opinion he is African American, which is as much a subjective description as an objective one, and his family is obviously so, but this is not taken for granted). What is POV about his Muslim father, his Wahabi Muslim stepfather and education and his conversion to Christianity? The article totally ignores this aspect of his personal life. Is this an encyclopedia or an Obama election website? Monosig (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
If you have questions about why this encyclopedia article is structured as it is, there is plenty of discussion on the Barack Obama talk page - I think it's always best to keep discussions centralized rather than splitting them out. --TheOtherBob 18:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed. This was simply meant as a friendly warning that such POINT-y additions of "Wahabi Muslim" to multiple different sections of the article without discussing at talk could be considered disruptive. Bellwether BC 19:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disruptive move

The moving Gladys the Swiss Dairy Cow to your strong POV title is not only considered vandalism and a blatant violation of WP:CONSENSUS, but a violation of both WP:POINT and WP:DISRUPT. If you have an opinion as to the existence of this article, you need to bring this opinion to the article's talk page. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. --Oakshade (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for breaching the WPs that you mention. However, the impossible bureacracy that they represent mean that within a few years Wikipedia is going to resemble a low quality blog, not an encyclopedia. You may have noticed that Gladys remains in Wikipedia, despite all the polite attempts to remove it according to the highly inflated body of rules and procedures which have evolved over time. If these depressing processes continue, I hope that someone opens up a more disciplined venture soon, to which we can happily migrate! One in which Gladys the Swiss Dairy Cow will not be characterized as "the work of others" (as distinct from the Monroe, Connecticut village website, and with all due respect to Jimmy Lebinsky's major work of art, the type of which can be found in their dozens on the street corners and parks of many major world cities). Monosig (talk) 12:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
That's your opinion and you are welcome to it. Unilateral, contrary to consensus, disruptive to make a point editing is not appreciated. Gladys survived two previous AFD's. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gladys the Swiss Dairy Cow (2 nomination)), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gladys the swiss Dairy Cow) If you are convinced of its unsuitability, I would suggest nominating it for deletion at WP:AFD. Given the way AFD discussions have evolved, number three might well succeed. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please be civil

Hello Monosig,

Your POV on Wikipedia has led you to post comments that I feel are personal attacks with an underlying tone of incivility. I ask you to edit your posts to correct this.

In addition, I have posted a request for others to review your posts in wikietiquette nd to offer constructive advice to the both of us to avoid this situation moving forwards.

--James.lebinski (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that anything I wrote should be interpeted as personal. My point relates to Gladys and the Gladys phenomenon, which is a perfectly legitimate argument, with which you are obviously closely interrelated and totally identified. My point in relation to you personally was that you are only in Wikipedia for Gladys, that you are not a real contributor with a Wiki-agenda (which would be the case even if you were only editing a single, but real, entry) and that this is part of the problem - once again, the problem not being you, but Gladys. However, the point is directly related to Gladys and I can do no less than impute to you the entry which you are fighting to maintain, despite all the deletion recommendations. Why don't you move Gladys to Wikitrivia? I'd be happy to put some stuff there myself. For instance, Bulls of Tel Aviv, an terrific outdoor exhibition which I am sure you would enjoy! My best regards to Gladys Monosig (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Your conduct was inappropriate, whatever your intent. Please familiarize yourself with the relevant policy. You may want to also review this policy as well. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Precisely - what is considered a personal attack. I read it closely. Where is there anything there appropriate to my criticism of Gladys/Gladys-dedicated user? Monosig (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Making comments about other people's "ego" for starters, not to mention doing so while vandalizing Wikipedia and assuming bad faith. Also, do not modify others' comments. Comments like this are also quite rude and inappropriate. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


Hello, and thank you for the reply.

I perceived your comments on Oakshade's talk page as uncivil and a personal attack. The warning placed on your talk page by cheeser may be an indication that at least one other editor did as well.

Here's some of the text I'm referring to:

Oh, and I might add that User:James.lebinski has contributed nothing to Wikipedia to date except endless edits and lobbying entries for Gladys and a semi-fictitious article called Business Technology Management in September 2006. I'm not saying that he should be doing anything, but it is clear that Gladys is his sole raison d'etre as a Wiki user and that his requesting "protection" from "vandalism" is an abuse of the real spirit of Wikipedia (as distinct from its much-later-developed labyrinth of rules). Anyway, if you guys do let this decline continue, at least some of us have the non-English versions of Wikipedia to retreat to. In my case, the highly-qualitative Hebrew version. Gladys would never be tolerated there! Monosig (talk) 13:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Oakshade"


I wonder if you would consider a few points, and re-read your comments through what may become a different lens. If you agree, I ask that you make corrective edits to the talk pages to correct inaccurate facts, remove the possibility that any of the text could be seen as a personal attack, and refocus your comments specifically to the content, rather than the contributor.


1) How would you have changed your comments if my username were different?

Substitute the words "random contributor" for my name in your comments see if they are out of context when not referring to "me" (if it is even me) as a specific person. I'll point out that absent a bit of un-safe computing on my part user-id wise there would be no apparent connection between the sign in name you perceive as the editor and the artist who creates the notable works. Begs the question: There's no validation or id check for an editor's name - am I even the same person?

2) Did you purposefully mis-spell my user-name, believekng it to be my real name, in a way that could be seen as insulting e.g. "Jimmy".

3) Your tone appears intended to minimize my contributions as an editor. Your statements are not factually accurate. You may wish to state your concerns more objectively based on the following verifiable facts:

1) As an editor, I have contributed to three different articles on three widely varied topics. 3 falls within the definition of multiple. Multiple is not a synonym of sole.

2) Wiki policies make it clear that the job of an editor to continuously improve content on wikipedia. As such, edits to any article, even if it is the same one over time are defined as proper behavior.

3) There are no quantitative contribution metrics that an editor must live up to be deemed worthy. Moreover, per wiki-policy even if an editor is an SPA there is nothing wrong with that.

4) Please defend your comment that the BTM article is semi fictitious. You may wish to refer the best selling business books upon which the article is based to cite specific falsehoods. Perhaps you would like to order a copy of one of the four published works on Amazon, at http://www.amazon.com/Winning-3-Legged-Race-Business-Technology/dp/0131877267 to further your research. I invite you then to state your case to challenge the conclusions of the contributors, including Dr. Michael Nobel and/or Harriet Mayor Fulbright as to the veracity of the subject. Further, you may wish to argue for a change of the major bookseller's categorization of this topic from "business management" to "fiction".

Have a great evening, and I look forward to your reasonable response!

--68.191.39.78 (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Yehud-MonossonEmblem.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Yehud-MonossonEmblem.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) 03:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Masada TV Series.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Masada TV Series.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) 00:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)