User talk:Mark Richards: Difference between revisions

Archive 1 Archive 2

WikiProject Sustainability

Hi Mark!

You asked what you could do in WikiProject Sustainability. If you'd like to be part of the project please add your name to the participants list. There's now a long list of open tasks too to give you an idea of what can be done. I'm hoping to make Wikipedia a really valuable resource for sustainability and ecology.

Thanks for your interest!

--Pengo 10:57, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Been off for a while

I have been taking some time off Wikipedia for a while, so in case there was anything that I said I would do that I didn't, I havn't! Mark Richards 17:29, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You've been missed, Mark. I hope to see you back often. :-) In your absence, I've become an arbitrator, so I need more than ever to hear your excellent voice of dissent and consider the perspectives that it raises. Best wishes, Jwrosenzweig 00:41, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

beta Systemic Bias section

Hi, if you wish to help contribute to a beta version of a Wikipedia page section designed to counter-act Wikipedia's systematic bias, please sign the bottom of this section on the Village pump - Wikipedia:Village_pump#Systemic_bias_in_Wikipedia. If not, no worries.--Xed 03:26, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

beta Systemic Bias section opened

See User:Xed/CROSSBOW. Please feel free to add to the discussion. --Xed 12:56, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Notability

Good evening, Mark. In a recent VfD discussion thread, you said that "notability" is not one of the deletion criteria. As we commonly use the term, actually it is.

Notability is often a proxy for verifiability. It is not enough that one person can theoretically verify the existence of something at the time of writing. For Wikipedia to retain credibility, we need a critical mass of informed editors who are willing to watch each particular article and protect it from subtle vandalism for years. Topics that are extremely non-notable generally can not meet that standard and can not be maintained.

The "notability" test is also a part of our defense against bias (which is the real reason that we delete Original Research, Vanity and Wikispam - it's just too much work to keep NPOV). A topic that is insufficiently notable is very difficult to defend against bias, especially if the subject of the article is a Wikipedia participant. By limiting the topics of discussion to "notable" topics, we are far more likely to have enough editors to ensure that the topic is addressed neutrally. The community consensus is that if only a few people are talking about topic X, the burden of proof is on the article's contributor to provide evidence that the article can be saved.

You might want to look at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and some of the related discussion pages. This is a topic that gets discussed a lot. Good luck. Rossami 21:54, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to imply that "notability" was explicitly discussed at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. I just wasn't sure if you'd seen it yet or not. Your list of "reasons for deletion" sounded suspiciously like the synopsis at Wikipedia:Deletion policy. WWIN is generally considered to be the controlling page. If there is a discrepancy between WWIN and Deletion policy, WWIN wins. Apologies if I'm telling you something you already knew.

You also asked where, exactly, the definition of "notability" is written down. One of the problems with Wikipedia is that we are guided by community consensus rather than top-down dictates and authority. (It's also one of our greatest strengths but that's a different discussion.) The consensus emerges through discussions, debates and precedent all over the Wikipedia. Few of the consensuses (consensi?) are promptly updated to the various policy pages. (Assuming you can even find the appropriate policy page - another problem that we have been wrestling with lately.)

The consensus on the notability "rule" emerged across months of individual VfD discussion threads just like the one on the programming languages. The rationale for the rule has never been written that I know of. The standards for implementation have been drafted for a few specific cases but even they remain contentious.

• For people, see Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies
• For schools, see User:Dpbsmith/BEEFSTEW
• For towns, the consensus is "if it's in the Census, keep it". In one contentious precedent, we kept an 80-person housing unit. (By the way, I'd love to find that discussion thread again. In my opinion, that was the genesis of the "maintainability" argument.)
• There's also a general rule that "if the content of each article is small, a single list is better than a mess of sub-stub articles".

You are correct that we need to balance the "notability test" against the "I'm not interested so delete" votes. All I can say is that after watching VfD for months, I have become convinced of the good faith of most participants. They (we?) show a great deference for facts and logical arguments and remain true to our greater purpose of writing an encyclopedia. The few people who abuse the system are pretty consistently shouted down. Many esoteric topics are kept. It just takes a couple of people whose comments show that they are both interested and expert enough to maintain the page. Hope that helps. Rossami 22:49, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Chillies.jpg; it's very pretty. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know whether it's released under the GFDL, whether fair use is claimed, or what? Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 02:52, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

wikifun

i noticed your reply and wondered if you wanted to add any ideas or even to do a colaboration. also where would i be able to stick a link where people would see it?? --Larsie 21:54, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Coconut crab

Hi. A couple of months ago you left me some praise on my talk page for my article on the Coconut crab. Thanks! I just nominated the article on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, so please let me know if you have any comments or suggestions about what I should add to the article. Thanks -- Chris 73 Talk 03:21, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

URGENT: Opposition to "Sam Spade": See User:Spleeman/Sam Spade

See a critic's tracking of SamSpade's activities on Wikipedia at User:Spleeman/Sam Spade Vote "NO", or reverse your vote, even at this late hour. This is criticle (and critical) information! IZAK 09:46, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See: User:Spleeman/Sam Spade#Political bias:

• From Sam's own user page: User:Sam_Spade/Theoretical_Biases
• Removes references to groups such as the KKK as "right-wing" [1]
• Attempts to sugarcoat racist views [2]
• The claim the Geli Raubal was Hitler's mistress is just that, a claim [3].
• Wants Hitler labeled as a socialist on the communism page (see Talk:Communism)
• Insists on including his personal theories regarding a relationship between nazism and Chinese communism in nazism article:
  • User_talk:Andries#Nazism.2FChina
  • Talk:Nazism#China
• From Talk:Socialism:
  • "I intend to do what I always have, which is insist that the Nazi's were socialist because... they were." (Sam Spade 00:32, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC))
• Called another editor a "fascist" (Talk:Socialism#protection). This is similar to his attempts to try to provoke me by implying that I was a nationalist, or not an anarchist:
  • "Enforcing american spelling is a sign of nationalism, and would therefore seem to suggest your not an anarchist? Or perhaps your a "anarcho-nationalist"? ;p" (Sam Spade 08:06, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC), User_talk:Spleeman#Nationalism)
  • "Censorship isn't very anarchist" (Sam Spade 23:25, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC), Talk:Anarchism/Archive10#deleting_links)
• More on belief in non-racial eugenics: Why Sam is Right Wing (a list by User:Stopthebus18)
  • Stopthebus18: "People (including our country) have done horrible things in the name of eugenics." (StoptheBus18 16:02, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC))
  • Sam Spade: "Seems to work in Singapore. Bad things have been done in the name of all sorts of medicine, but we don't stop going to the doctor, do we?" (Sam Spade 17:21, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC))
• Guess what everybody!!! "The attempt to paint them [the Nazis] as "reactionaries" is a propagandistic fraud." (Sam Spade 16:11, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC), Talk:Nazism) Wow! You learn something new everyday.... Not.
• Hmm. For some reason, Sam doesn't want anybody to know that white-supremacist Wolfgang Droege was involved in drug trafficking [4].

Blocking

I went on a blocking hiatus for about a week and I have seriously cut back. RickK 06:05, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Top Banana

Is your name a refernce to the fantastic game Top Banana? Mark Richards 17:56, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Hi Mark. Sadly I never experienced the wonders of the game you mention (I was an - gasp! - Atari ST user). I started using the name on a TiVo discussion forum, that being the phrase that came to mind when I finally grokked what they do. - TB 07:46, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)

The Recycling Troll

Gee whiz, someone with a play on "troll" for a username who is going around being a deliberate pain in the ass, I can't imagine who that would be. - Hephaestos|§ 12:40, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Margin of error (disambiguation)

Since this page does not yet point to more than one article, nor even mention what the other topics are, it's not yet really a disambiguation page. Should some material be added before you link to? The comment at the top of the page at margin of error seems like false advertising until that happens. Michael Hardy 19:36, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Poll

I have created a preliminary version of Wikipedia:VfD decisions not backed by current policies/poll. Your comments would be much appreciated. - SimonP 17:10, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

FYI

For Your Information-Vandalism is a legitimate reason for blocking. Eitherway since my point has been made and I did not make the intial blocks I won't revert on the block log. I would, however, think it to be appropriate if you discussed your unilatteral action with silsor considering he enacted the indefinite blocks. Thanks. Arminius 02:55, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Come join the AIW

You are not currently a member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians. We encourage you to become a member, by listing yourself as such on the AIW page. Posiduck 05:05, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Deletionism

Central High School the largest highschool in Traverse city is up for deletion. Schools stubs can grow and I believe are inherently important articles, i hope you will vote to keep this article :o). --ShaunMacPherson 20:29, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

WP:VFD/HS

Just letting you know that I thought you might be interested in taking a look at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/High schools, as well as what I wrote on Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 05:44, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

Creative Commons

Hey, just wanted to let you know that you can use the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template on your user page to update your Creative Commons license to include version 2.0 as well as version 1.0. -- Ram-Man 03:03, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

I've been following your thread over at the Village Pump. I mod for a Creative Commons by-sa based wiki, so I follow the issue pretty close. Here is a Village Pump thread I started when I first found out about GFDL/CC incompatibility, in case you want to read up on prior art. I was planning on getting back on the issue soon, but your thread left me a bit flat-footed. I've put in my two cents - hopefully I didn't hurt matters. Since the problem is technically complex, we probably ought to solicit advice from coders and other Wiki movers and shakers before attempting to go on the Village Pump again. Assuming, of course, that the problem isn't solved in the current attempt. Unfortunately, it looks like everbody is distracted with the upcoming holidays and the AbCom election. So, after the first of the year, do you want to help get a posse together? crazyeddie 23:04, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Image:Tulehu.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Tulehu.png. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much, – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 18:38, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. It's a great picture, by the way. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 18:41, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

What is damaging?

I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure what you meant by "but please, this is very damaging". Could you explain? Sorry \-: —siroχo 22:35, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Your concern is something I took into account before removing the pages from VfD. Yes, we do have a process and it's part of the deletion policy. If you take a look at it you'll see what the cases under which you can list an item on vfd are. (top of the "Problems that may require deletion" section) The ones I removed clearly did not apply to any of those cases, thus the process never even should have started. Its not even that another solution was found and we should wait a day to remove them, its that the listings do not comply with the deletion policy at all. I see no reason to let them linger. —siroχo 22:45, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps encouraging "education" of vfd-goers would help the most. I bet most people voting for the first time on VfD, and probably even several regulars are not entirely familiar with the deletion policy (hence the persistence of unqualified "non-notable"s as reasons). I don't think there is major need for reform considering the current deletion model, except that the policy should be enforced better. This would, in part, involve removing invalid listings as they appear, instead of assuming that its everyone's right to list any article they wish on VfD. Perhaps I acted a little rashly, but when an abuse of policy is entirely obvious, I see no reason to allow it to continue instead of taking steps to correct it immediately, even if it must be on a case-by-case basis. —siroχo 23:04, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

I see your point regarding subjectiveness of appropriate listings, and that premature removal could be dangerous. But at present there really isn't anything else stopping someone from listing several articles that do not merit deletion on vfd just to troll. I have to drive a friend to the airport right now, but I'll keep thinking on this. —siroχo 23:19, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Debate about deleting an image

Greetings. There is a spirited debate going on here about whether or not to delete Image:Nevada-Tan.jpg for privacy reasons. Since you have recently voiced an opinion on Wikipedia:Divulging personal details, I thought you might be interested in weighing in. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 18:46, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

After ten days, it was 8 to 8 or 9, and there was no clear consensus. On ifd, if there is no clear consensus to delete, the image stays. I removed the ifd notice from the pic. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 22:43, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Unverified images

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following image:

• Image:IndonesianSpider.jpg.JPG

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{fairuse}} if you claim [[Wikipedia:Fair use|fair us

Also:

• Image:ClovesDryinginWahaiSeramIndonesia.JPG RedWolf 21:10, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Another one

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following image:

• Image:Dugout_canoe.jpg

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}}:

if you release it under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{fairuse}}

if you claim fair use, and so on.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the image from, and I'll tag it for you. Thanks so much. Denni☯ 04:23, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at Wikipedia:Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

GIS tutorials

I'm actually rather new to GIS (only been working in the field for a couple years now - still so much I don't know). Sadly there isn't anything free on the Internet that I know of, but ESRI courses seem to be pretty good (if a bit pricey). See http://campus.esri.com/campus/coursesearch/search/processNewUsersCatalog.cfm?CFID=3901879&CFTOKEN=88883689 I've only taken a few of those courses, but I think they were well worth the money. Unless you know you will have to work with it, I'd stay away from ArcView 3.x and go with learning ArcGIS 9.x since the former is being phased out. --mav 01:13, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

VfD

I don't see how BM listing Lloyd House on VfD is 'deletion trolling', as you so eloquently put it. Just because you're an inclusionist doesn't mean that some deletion vote requests you don't agree with are 'trolling'. You are very much in the minority on the keep side on this one. hfool 22:49, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Of course, no harm done. Happy new year to you as well. hfool 01:42, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm curious as to what this means: "And please stop deletion trolling." I've noticed that you include that phrase on many of the numerous deletion pages you vote on. What exactly do you consider "deletion trolling"? Knowing that reasonable people can differ over what should be posted on VfD, wouldn't it be better to simply vote and leave it at that? Carrp 02:55, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Blocks are not expiring

I'm posting this message on every admin who has made a block in the last few days. The title says it all really: because of a bug in the new software blocks are not expiring when their time is up. Until this is fixed can you get in the habit of manually unblocking a few everytime you block one. If everyone does this we'll be able to keep on top of things until the bug is sorted out. Note also that another bug is displaying indefinite blocks as expiring at the current time and date. obviously you don't want to unblock those. If you want to reply please do so here Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 10:14, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

yes redirect would be correct...but

Asking for a deletion of Subtractive color space No I should not ask for a deletion. But If you try to redirect WITH kindly explaination and are ignored and redirected back, and have paragraphs of your data replaced with incorrect data, without discussion, for days.

I could have cried and gave up.

I coud have tried mediation, but he was soooo insistant on his title and definition and would not speak to me. And truly Subtractive color space, really does not exist. Subtractive color theory, mixing methods, etc. yes CMYK color space, yes, and it utilizes the principles of subtractive color to generate its gamut. RGB space, sure

So I gambled, and was scared, but really felt his page did not have enough valid data to work from, nor would he have allowed me to change a word of it.

Fine Redirect. He'll just redirect it back. Subtractive color

peace love, and yes it is a redirect under any other circumstance.--Dkroll2 22:46, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

Image:Pearl.jpg

Hi! Thanks for uploading Image:Pearl.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much, – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)} 12:42, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Jackass:_The_Movie

I just read you are a sucker for the nasty stuff :')... so I'd thought you might wanna have a go at this article which is improving step by step. - RoyBoy [∞] 04:23, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ambon

Hi, were you the person who'd asked for any info on Ambon, and for whom I said I'd keep an eye out? In my West Papua research I'm going through Penders 2002 publication & come across some info for you -- because it's researched from the Dutch records & interviews it keeps coming up with a LOT of info not otherwise possible. page 196. of "The West New Guinea Debacle" published 2002. Contact me if you need a online copy.--Daeron 12:38, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Try http://www.papuaweb.org/dlib/bk/penders2002/03.pdf , email me if you need further contact. All Best :) --Daeron 02:41, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Coconut crab

I found one of our images under Coconut Crab.

Unfortunately the link pointed to an expired website so I have redirected it to the current one. I also changed your implicit permission to use to an explicit permission, which meant I had to put my name to it.

I hope the changes I have made are correct in the Wiki way of things.

L-Bit

Dugout canoe

Dugout Canoe same as with Coconut Crab

L-Bit

Reverting your talk page

I reverted GRider's message because he had spammed about 40 user talk pages with advertisement for a set of VFD votes, presumably because the people he was spamming had voted a certain way in the past. As you can see on my user talk page, my reversions made a lot of people mad, though my only motive was to keep userpages free of spam and VFD free of politics. I was certainly not trying to influence the outcome of the votes (about which I couldn't care less). — Dan | Talk 21:27, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Recycling Troll

Let's be honest here. To date, one user with troll in their name has ever turned out good, and that user changed their name when it was pointed out that it could be construed as them being a troll. This user is stalking RickK from edit to edit and trying to get RickK's goat, as it were. When, after the 24 hour block, Recycling Troll took it to the mailing list and was roundly told to stop harassing RickK. He came back and repeated it. The account is new, and thus disruption blocks apply. Furthermore, the deliberately inflammatory username, editing style, and taking it to the mailing list suggest that we have someone who's been here before. I see minimal basis for an assumption of good faith here, and quite a lot of basis for the conclusion that this user is trouble who should be sent elsewhere. Snowspinner 03:40, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Recycling block

I unblocked because I thought the original reason given, the user name, was inadequate, since the lack of a consensus one way or another about names of this type has been around for a while now. With respect to the subsequent blocks, which are justified on a theory of causing disruption via stalking and harassment, I think some of the evidence would support that theory, but I have little interest in analyzing every last edit. So instead I defer to the judgment of others and decline to get involved further on the question of whether a block is appropriate. --Michael Snow 17:25, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RC

The policy is quite clear; userids set up for the purposes of harassment or vandalism are blocked indefinitely. That said, what policy is it that you think I'm not following? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:24, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What "behaviour" are you talking about? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:36, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you're talking about the Recycling Troll, I've never blocked him. Why do you think I have? Jayjg ^(talk) 14:52, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cleaning department

Hi, if you're serious about the "I am prepared to undertake almost any unpleasant and menial task that is requested of me", there are a number of things listed in Wikipedia:Cleaning department that need to have people sign up for them. Noel (talk) 02:20, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Recyling.

This is not the equivalent of "watching how your congressman votes and writing to them on every issue". The equivalent of that would have been checking RickK's contributions and writing volumes on his talk page. This was the closest wiki equivalent to following your congressman around in his daily life, and making your presence constantly known, while wearing a nametag that says "Hello, I am a criminal".

Secondly sir, if you continue to misquote me, the possibility of productive discussion is going to disappear very quickly. 'You may feel that the entire "policy" system is broken (your emphasis)...' is not what I said. I said "if X, then Y". If we cannot block people for things that would earn them the real-world equivalent of a block, then the "policy" system is broken. Remember that the so-called policy is not some immutable law handed down from on high. The rules exist solely because they are thought to improve the functioning of Wikipedia. When they stop serving that purpose, then we have the option of making up new ones. Sometimes we have to make them up in real time. To quote Jimbo (on a different subject, but still applicable): "If they want to play games with us, fine. This is Calvinball -- we make up the rules, so we win." [5]

Additionally, the police (in the US, anyway) can arrest and detain you temporarily without charging you if they have probable cause. Probable cause in this case included imitating a hard-banned troll well enough to fool one arbitrator, stalking another user (that RickK is an admin is immaterial), and yelling very loudly through his username "I am a troll".

Do not think I blocked this person on a whim. I do not block people often or lightly. While I may yet be convinced that The Recycling Troll should not be blocked, the only mistake I'm going to feel I made was opening myself to criticism from people who think that Wikipedia is a game and that following the rules is the purpose of being here. -- Cyrius|✎ 16:41, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

More schools on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion

As of March 25, 2005, there are an additional (6) articles listed for deletion under the POV notion that schools are non-notable (even though this is invalid reasoning as per the Wikipedia deletion policy). Please be aware that the following schools are actively being discussed and voted upon:

• VfD: Blake Junior High School (renominated)
• VfD: Franklin High School
• VfD: Lake Dow Christian Academy
• VfD: Red Lake High School
• VfD: The Sage School
• VfD: Toowoomba Grammar School

In response to this cyclical ordeal, a Schoolwatch programme has been initiated in order to indentify school-related articles which may need improvement and to help foster and encourage continued organic growth. Your comments are welcome and I thank you again for your time. --GRider\^talk

Something that might interest you

crossposted, with apologies

A self-appointed clique calling itself the Wikipedia:Office of Investigations has empowered itself to decide who is a "problem user" who needs to be "dealt with", primarily through arbitration. Do you support this move, or are you worried about vendettas and bullying? Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Office of Investigations. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 22:48, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

History of the Grand Canyon area

FYI: I started on an article on the human history of the Grand Canyon area. My plan is to expand this article a bit more, then make abridged summaries for the Grand Canyon and Grand Canyon National Park. What to emphasize in each summary is still an open question but concentrating on history in the canyon for the Grand Canyon article and history on the rim and elsewhere in the area at Grand Canyon National Park may be a good idea. A lead section is also still needed at History of the Grand Canyon area (another thing I'd like to wait on until the full history article is complete). Any help expanding will be greatly appreciated. :) -- mav 12:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please vote to curb abuse of "conspiracy theory" in WP titles

Please consider voting at:

Wikipedia:Conspiracy_theory

to rename articles that use the pejorative term "Conspiracy theory" to denigrate the content of the article.

Do the titles of WP articles generally pass partisan judgment on the subject under discussion? Should they? BrandonYusufToropov 03:09, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging

Thanks for uploading Image:Carpet.png. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Until a more informative tag is provided, it will be listed as {{unverified}}. Could you add a better tag to let us know its copyright status? If you made the image yourself, an easy way to deal with this is add {{gfdl}} if you're willing to release it under the GFDL. Alternatively, you could release it into the public domain instead, by adding {{PD-self}}. However, if it isn't your own image, you need to specify what free license it was distributed under. You can find a list of the tags here. If it was not distributed under a free license, but you claim fair use, add {{fairuse}}. If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images by posting to my talk page. If you do this, I can tag them for you. Thanks so much, ~~~~

Inclusions not Deletions

Are you an inclusionist? Can you take a look at the Talk on apartheid? There is a editor Jayjg that keeps trying to delete a factual 2-Word Inclusion. Thanks.6920923073 16:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Important VFD

Please see the VFD for commons:List of victims of the 1913 Great Lakes storm. This is of vital importance. This list and others like it are being pushed off of the entire Wikimedia project. It started at Wikipedia, where they were VFDd in favor of moving to Wikisource/Commons. Now they are being VFDd off Wikisource (they don't really belong there, since they are not original source texts), with people there saying they should be on WP/Commons, and it is also being VFDd on Commons, where people don't realize that Commons accepts texts (says so right on the Main Page). This will set a precedent for any user-created lists. -- BRIAN0918  22:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Neutral Wikipedia?

Dear Wikipedia administrator

I am writting you about the issue of Macedonia, Republic of Macedonia, Macedonian Slavs (like Wikipedia calls the Macedonians) and the problem between Macedonia and Greece about the term Macedonia. I am aware that this issue is largely discussed here, at Wikipedia, and Wikipedia claims that it is trying to take a neutral side. But, that is not the case. Wikipedia is everything except neutral in this question. In the following lines I will explain you why.

From the text in Wikipedia most of the people will conclude that Macedonian nation appeared during the World War 2 and Tito was the one who 'invented' us. The family of my wife (she is Mexican) read this and asked me is it truth. That was actually the first time I read what Wikipedia says about my nation, which was a direct reason for my reaction. My grandfather is born in 1911th. Yesterday I had a talk with him. He took a part in the strugle for independence since 1925th and he took a part in the 2nd world war. He is alive and personal prove that Wikipedia is full of bullshit and lies about our origin. He spent half of his life proving and fighting for that. He was shot 3 times, all 3 from the Bulgarians who wanted to ocupy Macedonia in the Balkan wars and in the WW1 and WW2. Just a 1 min with him will show you how many lies you suport in Wikipedia.

I tried to edit some of the text few days ago, but everithing I wrote was deleted. And all I wrote were facts. Fact 1. Macedonians (or Macedonian Slavs, like ONLY Wikipedia, Greece and Cyprus calls us) is the only nation of many living in the area concentrated inside the borders of the geographical region of Macedonia. This is a pure fact, something that you can even find on the CIA web page. Can you give any fact to deny my fact? If you can not, why you erased it from Wikipedia? Fact 2. Republic of Macedonia has diplomatic relations with about 150 countries in the world. Wikipedia says that "at least 20" countries recognize Macedonia under the name Macedonia. Guess what? That number is more than 100. And this is an officially confirmed by our ministery for foreighn affairs. Fact 3. Wikipedia says that my country Contraversialy calls itself Republic of Macedonia. This is a pure example of taking a side in the problem. Why you don't say that Greece contraversialy deny us the use of the name Macedonia? If you intended to be neutral, just write that we have the naming problem with Greece, but do not call my name "contraversial"!!! Fact 4. While explaining about the antient Macedonia, its kings etc. you highly support the claim for their Greek origin. I can give you 1000s of facts that that is not truth and I beleive that some Greek guy can give you 1000s facts that those claims are truth. That was 2400 years ago and there is no chanse for us to know the real situation. We can only guess. But, when you give the Greek suported version, why you ignore the version suported by the newaged Macedonians? In this moment I can give you 10 names of internationally respected scientist supporting our theory. If you are neutral, why you ignore it? Fact 5. Wikipedia says that the Turkish Empire were calling us Bulgarians. Strange, because the Turks were recognizing the uniqueness of our nation since the moment they occupied the teritory of Macedonia. Actually, the Turkish history archives are the biggest prove of our existance, history and culture. Did anyone of you ever read anything from those archives? Even on the birth certificate of Khemal Ataturk says that he is born in Bitola, Macedonia. And his autobiography is full of memories of his childhood spend with the Macedonians. Fact 6. Wikipedia ignores the egsodus of the Macedonian people from Greece and says they were running because they were supporters of the comunists. 1/3 of the Macedonians have origin from this part of Macedonia. They were runned away from there by force and you can find many historical proves for that. Again, big part of my family has origin from there. As a matter of fact, my grand-grand father was married to a Greek woman, my grand-grand mother. But, no matter of that, his house was burned and he was forced to run away for his life and the life of his family. How dare you deny this? Do you know that even today my grand father is not allowed to visit Greece, because he was a kid when his family runned away from there? Fact 7. There are about 500 000 Macedonians that live outside Macedonia, mostly in Canada, Australia, USA, Sweden etc. At least 1/3 moved there before 1930s. If we were a product of Tito, how can you explain that even they feel of Macedonian nationality? I have a family in USA which moved there in 1927th. Their ancestors (my cousins) do not even know how to talk Macedonian well. But, they still feel Macedonian. One of them is even one of the financiers of the party of the Macedonians in Bulgaria, trying to help their strugle to keep their national identity. I repeat, first time he visited Macedonia was in 1995th, far after Tito. And his family moved in USA in 1927th, far before Tito. Fact 8. Wikipedia claims that the book of Macedonian songs by Dimitar Miladinov is actually Bulgarian. Have you maybe seen a original copy of the book, printed in Croatia? IT says clearly "Macedonian". Not to mention that the same author wrote one of the most important books in the Macedonian history "For the Macedonian issues", again printed in Croatia, where it clearly talks about the Macedonian nation and non-Bulgarian origin.

All this was simply erased from the database. I didn't erase anything when editing these pages, I support the other side and I do not want to hide their facts. But why Wikipedia wants to hide our facts, which show that we are not a product of Tito's ambitions for the Aegean Sea. In Tito's time, the Yugoslav army was far superior in the region. If he wanted the Aegean Sea, he would get it very easily.

Many things in Wikipedia are very offensive for the nowdays Macedonians. Wikipedia simply ignores us, gives us a new name and supports the theories of denial of our existance, culture and history.

I will try to give you an example that includes with Mexico. I beleive that you know that the Maya civilisation was invaded by the Spanish kingdom. Spanish were ruling Mexico for centuries and millions of Spanish people moved at Mexican teritory. Later, after the liberation war, Mexicans formed its own country. Fact 1. Mayas were living in Mexico (same as Antique Macedonians). Fact 2. Spanish invaded them and great number of Spanish people moved to Mexico (The Slavs moved on the theritory of Macedonia and there was no reported fights or movements of people away from the teritory where the Slavs settled). Fact 3. Nowdays, everyone of the Mexican is aware that they are partly Spanish, but they still have Mayan origin (Wikipedia says that the people living in Republic of Macedonia are Slavs. When there was no reported resetling of the Antique Macedonians, how is possible they not to mix with the Slavs? It is a fact that the nowdays Macedonians are not same as the Antique Macedonians, but they certanly have a significant part of their genes. Same as I beleive that Greece has a part of their Genes, but they are definitly not their direct ancestors). Fact 4. Mexican speak Spanish. Reason: The Spanish culture was superior in that time. (The Antique Macedonians accepted the Helenic culture, including a variation of the Greek language. Reason: the Helenic culture was superior in that time. Everyone who knows at least little history will know that Hellenic and Greek are not synonims. Greek is nation, Hellenic is religion/culture. USA and England both speak English, both are mostly cristians, but they are SEPARATE nations. Aren't they? Same happens to Germany and Austria, or Serbia and Croatia, or Canada and France, or Brazil and Portugal, or the rest of Latin America and Spain)

And here is a comment about the claims of the Bulgarians, that the Macedonians are actually Bulgarians. If that is truth, I am going to kill myself. Bulgarians through the history made the worst for my nation. During the strugle of the Macedonian people for independence from the Turkish empire, at the end of the 19th and begginbing of the 20th century, the Bulgarians were the ones who killed the most of our revolutionaries, including 4 members of my close family which were members of the Macedonian revolutionary organization (VMRO). Whis is not something that I was told by Tito. My grandfather (the same grandfather from above) was in fact a member of the same organization. He personaly knew many of the revolutioners that Bulgarians claim are theirs, including 2 of the leaders: Goce Delcev and Gorce Petrov. They were Macedonians and they all gave their lives for free and independent Macedonia and they had nothing to do with Bulgaria. There was a part of them who were Bulgarians inserted in the organizations, who were actually the killers of the real Macedonian revolutioners, because it was in Bulgarian interest to weaken the organization, so they could take the lead in the organization and later put Macedonia in the hands of the Bulgarians. Thanks god, they did not succeed. Wikipedia claims that VMRO was pro-Bulgarian and the revolutioners were Bulgarian fighters. You suposed to see the face of my 94 year old grandfather when I told him your claims. Neurtal Wikipedia? I do not think so.

At the end I have to ask for Wikipedia NOT TO TAKE A SIDE IN THIS. I am not asking to remove the Greek and Bulgarian side of the story. But, why you ignore our claims, which are suported by many non-Greek and non-Bulgarian scientists and very largely through the web. There are just about 2-2.5 million Macedonians around the world. We do not have enought influence and strenght as Greece has, which is much more powerful and richer country than Macedonia. The Macedonian-Greek question is too hard and too complicated to solve. History can be interpreted in 1000 ways, especially on a teritory like the Balcany, where there are so many nations on so little space. Fortunately, DNA testings are getting more and more reliable and soon it will be possible to be used to acuratelly show the origin of our nations. I hope that then the denyal of me, my history, culture and existance will finaly stop. It is very disapointing that Wikipedia takes a part in all that.

With all the respect, Igor Šterbinski Skopje, Macedonia is@on.net.mk

Image:Minaret.jpg

Image deletion warning

The image Image:Minaret.jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. If you have any information on the source or licensing of this image, please go to its page to provide the necessary information.

Image:Samarkand Registan Small.jpg has been listed for deletion

An image file you uploaded, Image:Samarkand Registan Small.jpg, has been listed as subject to immediate deletion because it lacks a image source tag. Please look there and add the appropriate tag, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

--Calton | Talk 07:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Image source/licensing for Image:Boatconstruction.JPG

The image you uploaded, Image:Boatconstruction.JPG, has no no source information. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, ie in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. Unless the copyright status is provided, the image will be marked for deletion on 24 October 2005.

This message notification has been automatically sent by NotificationBot managed and run by AllyUnion. Please leave comments regarding bot operations at AllyUnion's talk page. Please direct all comments regarding licensing information at Wikipedia talk:Images for deletion. --NotificationBot 12:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Image source/licensing for Image:Boats.JPG

The image you uploaded, Image:Boats.JPG, has no source information. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, ie in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. Unless the copyright status is provided, the image will be marked for deletion on 24 October 2005.

This message notification has been automatically sent by NotificationBot managed and run by AllyUnion. Please leave comments regarding bot operations at AllyUnion's talk page. Please direct all comments regarding licensing information at Wikipedia talk:Images for deletion. --NotificationBot 13:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Image:PatimuraUniversityAmbon.jpg

Please provide source and copyright information for this image or it will be deleted after 7 days. If you need help, please let me know. Thanks! -SCEhardT 03:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Good work!

I realize that you are on a wikibreak since March 2005, but I just came across Kansas City preventive patrol experiment(via Police Foundation, which I expanded a bit), and just wanted to thank you for writing that. It's good work, and I felt you should get some recognition for it. So, Thank You. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Saparua.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Saparua.JPG. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. --Admrboltz (T | C) 22:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

IMAO

Your opinion on the Imao_blog entry? FlyingSpaceMonkey 19:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

hello

how are you doing there mr.sunflower

Proposal on Notability

Because you're a member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians, I'm notifying you that the inclusionist proposa Wikipedia:Non-notabilityl is in progress to define the role of notability in articles. Please help us make this successful! Also note the proposal Wikipedia:Importance is a deletionist proposla that seeks to officially introduce notabiltiy for the first time. Make sure this is defeated! --Ephilei 22:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal on Notability

Because you're a member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians, I'm notifying you that the inclusionist proposa Wikipedia:Non-notabilityl is in progress to define the role of notability in articles. Please help us make this successful! Also note the proposal Wikipedia:Importance is a deletionist proposla that seeks to officially introduce notabiltiy for the first time. Make sure this is defeated! --Ephilei 22:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you please help protect this article from unfair deletionists?

Hi Mark! I was hoping you'd help me with International Institute of Management article . On August 10 an unknown person (no signature) marked it for deletion. Then —Ben FrantzDale conducted a good faith google search for “international institute of management” and it did not return a top result. – Which led him to support the deletion marking. Two other users followed saying that the website was not notable and the institute claims non-verifiable international connections. However, I have conducted a detailed research on IIM website, including IIM research section, press-releases, events and photos, as well as other independent websites and provided evidence of notability and verifiable references. However, my concern is that I’m only one vote against 4 vote and I do not know if any of them will change their mind (human nature!). Therefore, I kindly ask you to verify the links provided in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/International_Institute_of_Management and help verify the notability. I’m not asking for anything less than an ethical vote. I’m willing to return the favor and review a similar article.Miro.gal

Mary Celeste's cargo

Dear Mr Richards

Greetings from Beirut. I have been investigating the "Mary Celeste" incident and am rather amazed to note that there seems to be considerable ambiguity about the nature of her cargo. The Wikipedia article specifies it as having been methanol but most expert commentators appear to be of the firm opinion that it was ethanol. My own inclination is towards methanol, but I have not been able to find definitive evidence to this effect. It would be extremely useful to me if the writer of the article in Wikipedia were to disclose his source of information alluding to the cargo as methanol. The matter is an important one as I am adopting a toxicological approach to the bizarre behaviour of the ship's company in the final minutes on board before they took to the yawl. If you can help me, I would be most extremely grateful and would acknowledge your assistance in any paper I may produce on the incident. Kindly respond to me at bv00@aub.edu.lb (that's bv-zero-zero) as I have difficulty on finding my way around the Wikipedia website (being of that generation which is by definition one of digital immigrants rather than digital natives.) Thank you and best wishes

Barend Vlaardingerbroek, Ph.D. American University of Beirut

Dear Mr Richards

I have been trying to track down the cargo of the 'Mary Celeste' on that now [in]famous occasion in 1872 when she was abandoned. The Wikipedia entry reads 'methanol' but most commentators claim it to have been ethanol. I would be most interested in knowing what the source of the methanol claim is, as I consider it an important element of the reconstruction of what happened that day.

Thanking you

Barend Vlaardingerbroek, Ph.D.

Mary Celeste's cargo

Woops I have sent two similar messages. I did not realise the first one was......... whatever the technical term is, as I did not see it. Apologies. BV

Green Eggs and Ham

Hello Mark,

There is a query that maybe you can answer on the Talk page of Green Eggs and Ham. Yours truly, Opus33 16:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Glove.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Glove.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:AmbonCity2001.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:AmbonCity2001.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Boats.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Boats.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 it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 11:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Bay Valley Foods

Can you please help me save my Bay Valley Foods article? The deletionists are after me.

Thank you

BmikeSci 00:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)