User talk:Xed/Archive4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Contents

[edit] CSB numbers

For Wikipedia I simply used a Google site specific search first for one word and then the other. I then calculated a ratio of the numbers of results found. For the other encyclopedias I used the same procedure but I used their internal search functions. - SimonP 16:18, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you know of any programmer Wikipedians who could automate this process? - XED.talk 16:22, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Congo Free State

You did well, since my English is what it is...--Juliet.p 10:11, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Africa

You voted for Africa, this week's CSB Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. A short list of reminders has been placed on its talk page. I've taken a quick look at User:Xed/draft5. It's looking good and hopefully I'll be able to free some time and give it some attention soon, though I am not that knowledgeable about the subject at all. - BanyanTree 18:28, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Hi Xed, the New York Public Library has digitized and indexed thousands of images: NYPL. Most are public domain. I've done some searches already and am overwhelmed. Some searches you might like:

Hope you'll like it! Incidentally, when you upload pictures of this source, use the template PD-NYPL. Kind regards, — mark ✎ 10:00, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK, maybe I was a little overenthusiastic. Alarm pointed out to me that the Conditions of Use [1] seem rather restrictive. I quote from there: "The contents of this website are made available for individual private study, scholarship and research only. Any other use, including but not limited to any type of publication or commercial use, is prohibited without the payment of usage fees and the prior written permission of The New York Public Library as well as any owners of rights in the materials, if applicable. Regarding such permission, please contact the NYPL Photographic Services & Permissions office for additional information." So I guess it's best to wait until there is more clarity. There is also a discussion about this going on on the Village Pump (Miscellaneous section). Regards, — mark ✎ 13:29, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Looks like the site has been taken down. Hopefully they'll sort out their bandwidth and copyright problems. I managed to see it while it was still working and it seemed pretty good - the only bad thing was the poor advanced search thing which didn't let you search for pics out of copyright. Not too eager to edit articles at the moment anyway, after Snowspinner has attacked me for my "lack of good contributions" - Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Xed/Evidence#25_February_-_4_March_200. Ironically, I've cut back on editing because of his arbitration - and then he attacks me for lack of edits! Keep up the good work - XED.talk 19:53, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration Committee ruling

The case against you has closed. The Arbitration Committee has ruled that, for a continuing pattern of personal attacks and disruptive assumption of bad faith, which is unlikely to be resolved sooner, you are to be banned for three months. Please see the final decision for details. -- Grunt   ҈  04:04, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

[edit] Why I restored Xed's User page and Talk page

If you peruse the Block log, you will see that Xed repeatedly tries to re-edit. So long as he keeps showing up in the Block log, his page should continue to exist. Once he stops trying to edit, then we can remove his pages. RickK 23:00, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how that works exactly, but looking at Special:Ipblocklist, I can see only two cases of Xed being autoblocked, both yesterday. I've responded here. — mark ✎ 23:35, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Remember also that there is currently a problem with the auto-block that means it blocks even if you don't try to edit (for example if you look at certain pages, including the block log). I've verified that this is a genuine problem by blocking myself and trying various actions without editing -- sannse (talk) 23:42, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That's a nasty bug; Xed confirmed by email that he is only reading pages, so RickK was mistaken. This page can be blanked again, I think. Or reverted to Ed Poor's version. In any case, let's all try to stop romping with this pages. — mark ✎ 23:57, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Return

Hi Xed!

Welcome back! An entire swathe of articles has gone stagnant in your absence and I'm afraid Congo Crisis still seems to end at its beginnings. Would you like your page histories undeleted? Some of us were quite concerned that all the work you put into the Culture of the DRC draft would be lost.

It's good to see you editing again. Cheers, BanyanTree 13:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. My page history is fine deleted. I'll be doing some work on the DRC culture article soon. Cheers! - Xed 17:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfA, and welcome back!

Hi, it's good to see you've returned. You supported my first request for adminship; would you be interested in voting on my second?

Take care! ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 19:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jean Charles de Menezes

Why are you simply reverting my revert without considering rewriting your edit? There are many problems with POV there, as well as misspelling.

Also, on review, I don't think that the Observer article states that many new facts. The bit about the Oyster Card and denim jacket were already noted under Disputed facts, and are sourced to JCdM's cousin. The two writers for the Observer state these as fact, but I have not seen anywhere in the media where the police have publicly confirmed the cousin's statement as truth.

It appears that the only new facts from the Observer are that the IPCC inquest is focusing on why there was a delay before SO19 officers were called in, and the fact that it is apparently confirmed that the CCTV footage from Stockwell is non-existent. -Kwh 19:55, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

The denim and oyster are sourced to the enquiries findings so far. Additionally, the police say ALL of the cameras were "not working"... - Xed 21:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to see a source on that, because the Observer does not source this information (denim and card) to the inquiry or the police. The substantive dispute is between Menezes' cousin's allegation and eyewitnesses. The Observer reporters are not eyewitnesses, so absent attribution, their statements are innuendo. The police have said very little on record on this, obviously because of their liability. Also, rightfully, the IPCC has not yet released the results of the inquiry publicly but when they do, their account can be integrated into the article. I've been following the news on this daily, so if there's anything official I have missed, point me to it. -Kwh 21:59, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
My understanding is that the Observer report is stating the findings of the enquiry so far, which have yet to be officially released. - Xed 22:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
That doesn't seem to be stated anywhere in the Observer article, it's just a news feature in a Sunday edition; I certainly hope the IPCC inquiry has found out more than that by now because everything in the Observer article is just a retelling of what is already known in the media via eyewitness interviews, etc.
Regardless, there are the following POV problems with this edit:
  • "In reality, he was just wearing a denim jacket." - 'Reality' and 'just' are editorial. The difference between witness and police descriptions of a 'heavy jacket' and a 'denim jacket' is not sufficient to describe a difference on the par of fantasy vs. reality, even if the denim jacket were a confirmed fact (which it is not).
  • "suspicions" - I don't believe there is any evidence extant to doubt that the suspicions existed. The essential thing which is in doubt is the wisdom of a policy which authorizes "shoot-to-kill" on the basis of such a low standard of suspicion. The scare quotes imply that the 'suspicions' were not in any way meritorious, which is a judgement for Police management.
  • "Later, the police falsely claimed he vaulted the barrier" - 'Falsely' is not necessary to state the facts, and implies bad faith upon the police.
  • "Apparently suspecting" - again, addition of the word 'Apparently' is unnecessary and implies bad faith.
  • "tripped...pushed to the floor...executed" - There is nothing in the Observer article confirming any new facts in this regard. 'Executed' is obviously a charged word, and again, implies a certain motivation by the officer.
  • "Police claim that none of the dozens of cameras...despite London being on high alert" - Bad style, 'despite London being on high alert' is an editorial, and the style might lead one to believe that the police actually said "Even though London was on high alert, the bloody cameras didn't work".
My suggestion - write an edit under the section Police challenge about the fact that the Observer special report is claiming that the firearms team did not arrive at Stockwell until JCdM was inside because of a delay. Also make an edit to Ticket barrier noting that the police have not "refused" to release CCTV footage, but that it is non-existent because of camera problems. If you want to point up the fact that that is extraordinary in light of 7/7 and 7/21 that the Station hadn't been diligent to make sure the cameras worked, I think that fits better in Disputed facts for the time being.
Based on that, I'm reverting the edit. If you disagree further, I would suggest copy/pasting this discussion to talk and asking for opinion/consensus from the other editors on the article. Thanks, Kwh 07:08, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Transition Gov in DRC

Yeah, why not. War is supposed to be over since the 30th of june 2003. A part of the article (30th june < ) comes from the 2nd war article.

Good luck!

Vberger 05:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)