User talk:Tarc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
User talk:Tarc/Archive0, User talk:Tarc/Archive1

Contents

[edit] WikiProject Alternative music December 2007 Newsletter

The Alternative music WikiProject Newsletter
Issue 9 - December 2007
"He didn't really talk until he got his girlfriend, and somehow that jump-started his ego, and he went from 'I am Lou, I am nothing' to 'I am the greatest.' He just went ffffft, just flipped the scales. And then he started talking a lot. And then I was realizing from a lot of the things he was saying, 'Hmmm, maybe I don't like Lou.'"- J Mascis
Project news
New members

Pjoef, WeBuriedOurSecretsInTheGarden, Argezas, Pbroks13 and Paper Back Writer 23 joined the alternative music fold during December.

Editors

User:CloudNine
User:WesleyDodds


You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for WikiProject Alternative music. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, or would like to receive it in a different form, add your name to the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated xihix(talk) 05:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC) .


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Mut@geMix@geCover.jpg

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Antisemitism for deletion

Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_January_3#Category:Antisemitism...thanks. Ra2007 (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Kftlclgo.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Kftlclgo.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —PNG crusade bot (feedback) 22:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Kftlclgo.gif)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:RAtM-BattleofLosAngeles.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:RAtM-BattleofLosAngeles.jpeg. 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) 07:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


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

Thanks for uploading Image:TyrannyForYouSilver.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) 08:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:STPpromo.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 09:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opposing bias

Hello Tarc, I wonder if you follow the article Six-day war. There is a tiring effort there by some biased users (and their sock puppets) to delete anything which does not suit the official line of one party in the conflict. I wonder why none of the critical and neutral editors whose contributions I have come to appreciate are present there. Paul kuiper NL (talk) 01:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I have not been to that page in recent memory, no. Not surprising to see the usual suspects banded together, though. I am hoping that the current ArbCom case will finally reign them in rather than sputtering into deadlock as the previous one did. Tarc (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. You are quite right. Still, if you can spare the time, I would welcome it if you could join the discussion there occasionally as I can hardly defend the article`s neutrality on my own. Cheers. Paul kuiper NL (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


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

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


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

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Alternative music January 2008 Newsletter

The Alternative music WikiProject Newsletter
Issue 10 - January 2008
"I still have people come up to me like, 'I really, really liked your last record.' 'Oh, thanks!' 'Are you going to do "Loser" tonight?' I'm like, 'Look, I'm six foot six. Beck is five foot sex, all right?'"- Thurston Moore
Project news
New members

Skeeker, Dethzone, Sceptre, IN THE EFFIGY, Crislee 88, Grrrlriot and Indopug joined the alternative music fold during January.

Editors

User:WesleyDodds


You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for WikiProject Alternative music. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, or would like to receive it in a different form, add your name to the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated xihix(talk) 00:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC) .

[edit] Poorly Cited?

How is Slate poorly cited?--DatDoo (talk) 03:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

No...I do not fail to realize that...I completely understand that policy and why it is necessary. In my opinion, it doesn't apply to that bit of info however.--DatDoo (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW...Just because something is "puerile"(in your opinion), doesn't take away from the fact that it is a significant point of interest and belongs in the wikipedia.--DatDoo (talk) 03:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW...I do not have grubby fingers. I was only trying to do a favor. You think userboxes suck and should be banned so I got rid of yours so you wouldn't have to get all bent out of shape about it. If you don't like them, don't have one and keep your grubby little mouth shut.--DatDoo (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

1. You do not understand the policy. At all.
2. See #1
3. There is no excuse for petty vandalism. Do not edit my personal page again, and do not confuse this for a request.
Tarc (talk) 06:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
So lemme get this straight. You think userboxes suck and should be banned yet you have one. The only logical thing to do would be to get rid of it...unless, of course, you are dealing with an emo kid. That is another nonsensical problem altogether. Oh wait lets use numbers thats fun.
2. See above
3. See above
4. Take it to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and see what happens.--DatDoo (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems that the concept of irony is wasted on you. Tarc (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I've always wondered what irony was. Thanks for filling me in.--DatDoo (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

My IP is 74 something, check my talk page.--DatDoo (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Psu seal lowrez.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Psu seal lowrez.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) 04:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary Block on Raphael1

At this location, admin Sam Korn asks for feedback as to why Raphael1's temporary block shouldn't be lifted early. You might wish to voice your opinion. Thanks. Art Smart (talk) 16:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] forget it

It's not worth the aggro, let him have his wikidrama and let's get on with business. --Fredrick day (talk) 02:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I know, that's why I canned it right after submitting. :) Tarc (talk) 13:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. With his flagrant assumption of bad faith, Georgewilliamherbert‎ now owns the whole problem, insofar as I'm concerned. Art Smart (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Hamas designation

We seem to be in a dispute regarding the European Union's designation of Hamas as a terrorist organization. I cite http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/26/AR2006012600372.html - "The election results stunned U.S. and Israeli officials, who have repeatedly stated that they would not work with a Palestinian Authority that included Hamas, which both countries and the European Union have designated as a terrorist organization." and http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6583080 "Hamas has been named a terrorist organization by the United States and the European Union." and http://www.tkb.org/Group.jsp?groupID=49 "EU Specified Group: Yes". If you can provide a rationale as to why these sources are unreliable, I won't reinsert it, but unless you can provide that, there's no reason it shouldn't be part of the article. --Nate (talk) 05:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That is mistaken. That the Council has made such a designation is not the same thing as the Eu as a whole making a designation. That's be like saying a bill passed by only one side of Congress is representative of official US policy, when it clearly could not be. Please stop re-adding this; this topic has been touched on several times in the past. Yours is not a new argument, just a incorrect old one. Tarc (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hamas--Christian community in Gaza edits

We seem to be in a dispute about my edit on this subject. You stated in reverting my edit that "this isn't the place for original research or synthesis of unrelated issues". Please define what you consider 'original research'-- I did not publish the cited articles myself or do background investigation for them, I merely cited existing news publications. And as far as "unrelated issues", isn't the status of a non-Moslem minority within Gaza relevant knowledge about Hamas--especially juxtaposed after a Hamas statement about the ability of all religiosu faiths to live peacefully under Hamas rule? I would appreciate feedback. Thank you. Drmikeh49 (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Alternative music Newsletters

The Alternative music WikiProject Newsletter
Issue 12 - March 2008
"Expressions of irony through clothing are very important.'"- Carlos Dengler
Project news
New members

NewMarqueeDayMoonRising, Thundermaster, and SuperNeek joined the alternative music fold during March.

Editors

User:WesleyDodds

If you missed last the previous newsletter, you can find it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music/Newsletter/February 2008.
You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for WikiProject Alternative music. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, or would like to receive it in a different form, add your name to the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated Giggabot (talk) 09:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia WTA Policy

In line with the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy, the words "Extremist", "Terrorist" and "Freedom fighter" should be avoided unless there is a verifiable citation indicating who is calling a person or group by one of those names in the standard Wikipedia format of "X says Y". In an article the words should be avoided in the unqualified "narrative voice" of the article. As alternatives, consider less value-laden words such as insurgent, paramilitary, or partisan.

The Black Liberation Army has been classified as such by both the U.S. Department of Homeland Security as well as Wikipedia's Domestic terrorism in the United States article. Thanks. Equinox137 (talk) 04:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You are misreading the guideline. That allows for explanation in the article of why such an organization or person of their terrorist ties and history. You still do not explicitly state "So-and-so is a terrorist" right in the lead. Tarc (talk) 06:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Where does it say that? Or are you making up the rules as you go? Equinox137 (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Disregard, you're right. I checked the other domestic terrorist groups in WP and they are not labeled as such in the lead of their respective articles. It wouldn't be fair to label just the BLA as such. I've reverted my changes back to what your last entry. My apologies. Equinox137 (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
No harm, no foul. :) Tarc (talk) 12:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] eeeveeeaaaannnn flooooowwwwww

thoughts aroiiivvve like buttaflies yeah we dont knowwwwwowow something wasted them awaeeeay y eah --99.235.43.93 (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Man, if you're gonna troll and vandalize, at least get the lyrics right. "so he chases them away", not "wasted them away". Yeesh. Tarc (talk) 04:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
You mean to tell me you actually understand what he's saying!? :o --99.235.43.93 (talk) 05:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I earned a B.S. in Vedderese. Tarc (talk) 12:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bill

Just saw your quick response to faithless - "encyclopedic value" of a Lewinsky image in the gallery? Well, no offense either, but I don't see how your response can be taken even remotely seriously It made me smile - a very good reply. Best regards, LordHarris 15:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I keep finding myself having to double-check whether I'm logged into the Wikipedia or The Onion, that has become such a bizarre conversation. Tarc (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] And the meek shall inherit the Earth...

...only after they're dead.

Wikipedia is becoming quite the battleground; and only the Righteous have the stomach for it!

MickMacNee is really irritating the Hell out of me.

Enough said.

--NBahn (talk) 03:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notification of review

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Statement re Wikilobby campaign for the conclusions of an administrative review concerning the recent controversy over a mailing list run by CAMERA, in which your editing was discussed. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Surreal Barnstar
For being targeted by a group that organized off-Wiki in order to subvert NPOV. Of course, you also deserve an Original Barnstar for your solid editing efforts as well, but that will have to wait.


I hope you don't mind. I would have considered it a great honour to be targeted by such a group, given their malevolent intentions. Happy editing. Tiamuttalk 16:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't mind at all, thanks. :) "Surreal" is a pretty apt descriptor; I feel like Mulder at the end of the X-Files, as he comes to find that the cabal was real after all... Tarc (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] al-Husseini and Peel's commission report

Hi Tarc,
I think you are wrong here : [1].
The reference is an article written by Benny Morris who analyses Cohen's work. This is WP:RS.
I think also the information is relevant and important. And from what I know, I think even palestinian biograph Philip Matter agrees with that picture of Husseini (more corrupted, than nationalist or fanatic...).
Would you mind reverting this ? Ceedjee (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Alternative music Newsletter

The Alternative music WikiProject Newsletter
Issue 13 - April 2008
"God is in your scrotum!'"- Perry Farrell
Project news
New members

Arleach, Panic!out, N0tverycreative, and Gallagher2x2 joined the alternative music fold during April.

Editors

User:WesleyDodds

You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for WikiProject Alternative music. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, or would like to receive it in a different form, add your name to the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated Giggabot (talk) 09:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Virgin killers

I take it you didn't read any of the reasoning I provided on the talk page? None of the reasons I discussed were related to the press.

I apologise if that comes off rudely, it's not supposed to. Seraphim♥Whipp 16:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see you added your comments there. Thanks for the rationale :). Seraphim♥Whipp 16:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
No prob, seems were going at this simultaneously...just hit the edit conflict replying here with a "I responded in more detail on the article's talk page" response. Tarc (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
It's appreciated :). Seraphim♥Whipp 16:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rev. Wright pic

hey man, we are so right about that pointless Wright/Clinton picture on Wright's page. It is pointless, and just another "Clinton done it too" type thing, photo peddling if you will. We must work to keep it off, and try to find some more people who take our side. But what needs to get on is the Obama/Wright picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Barack_Obama_and_Jeremiah_Wright.jpg and I am having a lot of trouble getting on the page, as the obvious Obama lovers on this site keep taking it off, saying it violates the fair use of non-free image. The difference between this and the Wright/Clinton picture is that this one matters. It actually has had an impact, and is what Wright is known for, and this must be on the page. It would conform with fair use and NPOV because of it. I also say this because the pic is everywhere when talking about Wright/Obama, in the papers and on TV, even on antiDem commercials these days. It should also be on, according to Grsz's logic because "its part of Wright's life." I need help keeping it on Wikipedia and getting it approved. please help me out. We need fairness on this page that it sorely lacks with respect to Clinton and people who are not Clinton. Tallicfan20 (talk) 06:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to bring this to the point where others are coming in and simply reverting; that is the fastest way to making this a very acrimonious situation. Having others join in on the Jeremiah Wright talk page and give their opinions on the matter, explain their opinion, and (hopefully) show that there's consensus to remove the Clinton-Wright image is the way to go. Tarc (talk) 12:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Alice in Chains (album).jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Alice in Chains (album).jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom case

thanks for your input at the arbcom case. you are extremely insightful. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Never saw the need for me own evidence or Workshop section...my part in this and Zeq's ploys is pretty cut n' dried...so just trying to slip in a bit of rationality here and there where needed. Tarc (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arb links

Those are big diffs, can you narrow down the search for me? Post on my talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Alternative music newsletter

The Alternative music WikiProject Newsletter
Issue 14 - May 2008
"I go to a fucking office and I write. I'm not one of these dickheads who opens a beer, high fives his mates and opens his mouth and shit pours out, which he then writes on a beer mat. It doesn't come easy."- Nick Cave
Project news
New members

Seraphim Whipp, Guitardude3600, Lunar Jesters, Kristmace, Freedom (song), TwentiethApril1986, JD554, Thom, and Sethward joined the alternative music fold during May.

Editors

User:WesleyDodds

You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for WikiProject Alternative music. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, or would like to receive it in a different form, add your name to the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated Giggabot (stop!) 07:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wright at the White House photo

Hello. I really don't understand what you think is a POV problem with the image, as I said on Talk:Jeremiah Wright. No snark, please. I have politicial opinions like most other people, but try my best to leave them behind while editing Wikipedia in what I put effort into making a NPOV manner. While I watch/listen/read news, I may well have missed something if there is some sort of issue about this image as I am unaware of it. If you really think my edits are some sort of POV pushing, I urge you strongly to list me for sanction or blocking, with a full explanation, as should be done for any inappropriate POV pushing editors. However I am frankly baffled by the allegation. I am also somewhat resentful, as you allegation seems to me completely unsuported. Possibly we are editing at cross purposes somehow. I attempted to explain my actions per above, but if some aspect is not clear, please ask me for clarifications. At the moment, I find your actions and allegations as clear mud, so I would much appreciate if you made another attempt to explain them to me. Thank you much. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)