User talk:Stevertigo/Archive 7

Re Jiang: It probably was an inappropriate comment, and I wouldn't have made it to many people, but I find Jiang's habit of inserting ill-considered, pedantic and ungrammatical comments into articles very annoying. Jiang is in any case an American college student, not an oppressed Chinese peasant.
Re Mother Teresa, I have suggested a new version at User:Adam Carr/Mother Teresa. Comments welcome. Adam 00:45, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Heads up. The adoption of Cleanup finally went through with such mild murmurs of dissent that I will be striking (well caressing like Uri Geller) the iron while it is hot. I will gradually start dropping very circumspect hints that some articles on VFD might have benefited from having first passed through Cleanup... Let's see what follows, and how far we can usefully press the matter. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 03:34, Oct 23, 2003 (UTC)

Evening. I note you're listed as an ambassador to the Spanish Wikipedia - could you cast an eye over Oscar Jofre and see if there's an article lurking in there (either for here, or the Spanish 'pedia, or both)? I've listed the page on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/foreign language, so if it's no good, it'd be good if you could say as much there. Ta --Camembert

what does Attn:* mean? Adam 05:57, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

re: Corrie photo. I'm still not 100% it's going to be fair use for us and for all downstream licensees. I might be convinced otherwise if you added a solid fair use rationale - see wikipedia:image description page. I'd still prefer to promote GFDL content over fair use content, especially given that both images seem equal aesthetically. Martin 18:34, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hi, I've called a vote on Talk:Mother Teresa to clarify once and for all what people think about the current article and what we should do about it. Please express your opinion. lol FearÉIREANN 23:05, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me about disloyal statements, it is suprising that there is so little written on military justice on Wikipedia. — Alex756

Hello Steve

Could you go and talk to the user adding music articles on meta, to talk to him, and check which articles are relevant or not please ?

This user is also posting google translated articles on fr, and the result is quite ugly. Could you help please ? Anthere

No problem Steve. I checked your contributions a couple of days later, and draw my own conclusions :-) I hope you are just well and appreciating the off time. I am preparing one for myself :-) you were missed around. Well, at least by me.

Me too. Sorry to see you are not around so much any more. :( Angela . 23:54, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi Steve, Not sure if you are around at the moment, but if you are here's a heads up. Someone listed File:ReddFoxx.jp on Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements.... any chance you could explain where the image came from? Cheers.. Pete 10:56, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

About the spanish embassy

Greetings and happy holidays Stevertigo:
There have being some changes of the embassy in the spanish wikipedia due to the resignation of Youssefsan, and I have been designated the new embassador. We are updating the information and found your name. What is your current status as embassador of the spanish wikipedia?
Salut, Jorge GG 23:15, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation

Hi. Look what I did! Don't be mad, k? I figured it was better than nothing, and Ed told me to take my problems there, so... let me know what you think? JackLynch 12:50, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hi. Nice to see you back. --snoyes 21:06, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'll second that. :) Angela . 06:22, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)

Shall we have a vote? :D --snoyes 06:26, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

's there an echo in here? -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 11:31, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)

echo..o...o... PomPom

:)-戴&#30505sv 20:44, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hello :-) please read this [1] if you are not currently reading the ml. Thanks Anthere

yeah, I will update the article. Not that I do not know about it, since I wrote most of the Islam in France, but I mildly feel like writing articles these days. Anyway, will do later.

Wikipedia:Conflict resolution is probably the starting point for you.

As a reminder, Jimbo asked who was interested in mediation and arbitration on the 3rd of october. You answered obviously :-) Me too, but Jimbo did not understand it (interpret this as you wish, I read again my mail, it was in fact not crystal clear :-)). Beginning of december, Jimbo send a mail to the list. [2], appointing people. The next day, he wrote me privately to ask me why I did not apply. Well...so I applied again. TufKat as well a couple of day later. Later Lir asked as well, and JackLynch recently. Jimbo indicated later in december that he would update the lists in january. In fall, Cimon Avaro gave quite a bit of work over the mediation issue on meta (two articles I think) and some people work at Wikipedia:Conflict resolution as well as on a proposal.

Yesterday, Jimbo suggested that we started moving on the topic. So, the arbitration team is just doing this. As for the mediation one, Cimon does not seem to have had time this we, Ed is away for 3 days, I talked a bit about it with Angela on irc, and exchanged a couple of mails with Sannse (in particular, on the topic I raised by email). Alex756 is busy on meta, reworking Cimon drafts on the topic. Yesterday, I began structuring the whole stuff around here a little bit. Here you are :-) Just on time :-) Ah, yes, I understood Alex did not volunteer to be part of the teams, as he wanted to focus on helping with his expertise.

Note that Jimbo has still not officially approved me, so I am perhaps participating only as an external, just as Alex. I am a bit disgusted by that point, having asked him the very day he asked for volonteers. 3 months ago...Anyway, it is unlikely I will mediate much, but I offered my help for conflicts involving a non english in particular (as I think I might understand some roots better perhaps). I am interested in knowing more on the topic and participate in setting up the whole mess. Then, there could be work to do on the other pedias :-)...I might be overstepping though...

Does that answer your question ? -User:Anthere

I was just coming back to sign :-(((( Anthere 03:08, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

道

"Way of warriors" maybe the original meaning of the character, maybe you can add it to wikionary? wshun 03:30, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Have you been to the bb yet

At the bulletin board there is, among other fun things, a vote ongoing about whether we (the mediation committee) should have a chairperson. Your input in that vote, and on the bbs generally, would be most welcome. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 04:58, Jan 24, 2004 (UTC)

note that the voting system which will decide the outcome of the vote has not been indicated :-)

would you give me an example of noun verb inversion ? :-) ant

You're not thinking of leaving the conversation are you? Though, I wouldn't blame you if you did. :) Fuzheado 05:40, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No, I don't play GO. I'm not smart enough to. This explains why I get roped into stupid debates with over medical practices. Fuzheado 05:54, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I learned the rules a long time ago, but never really got into it. I think mahjong got to me first, but I don't even play that very much either. Fuzheado 14:38, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hey Steve, it's nice that you're attributing views (like those in Vietnam War) to their holders (like Chomsky), but when you do that, would you please cite the source as well? That way, we can chase down your sources both to verify and get more information. Thanks! peace, DanKeshet

It has been argued that I am "easily offended". I do indeed take offense at the notion that my edits are amateurish, foolish, and incorrect. I welcome you to discuss any issue you may have with my edits. I particularly take offense when these claims are not substantiated by any evidence; I feel much of the complaints about me are simply based off hearsay.
- I am currently in an "edit debate" at New Imperialism over whether the "New Imperialism" has a noteworthy relationship with the Long Depression, World War I, and the Second Industrial Revolution. I am likewise being "troublesome" at DNA by insisting that a significant portion of the English-speaking community refers to DNA as the "genetic code of life" -- note, I am not personally advocating that DNA is such a code, I am merely trying to report that the phrase is used.
- I am more than curious to know what is so provocative about my edits, In short, I think I take my education very seriously.
- Stevertigo has stated that it is people such as Mr. Carr, Wik, and 168 who "provoke" me. This raises the question -- what do I do when I am provoked? As we all know, the most I tend to do is revert a revert; and I don't even always do that.
  - Lirath Q. Pynnor

I have repeatedly requested that you people stop calling me Adam. Furthermore, there is no reason why I should refrain from commenting about your statement that I am "amateurish, foolish, and incorrect". Yes, thank you for recognizing that I am not as rude as they claim I am. However, I am also not as stupid or incompetent. If I were to say, "Stevertigo is a nice guy, but he is also an uneducated moron" (which I do not think) -- but, if I were to say that, you would be justified in saying, "But I am not a moron". Lir

Being "argumentative" is not a crime. When someone says something that is incorrect, especially when it is along the lines of, "Adam is incompetent" -- there is no reason to criticize me for arguing that I am not incompetent. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Hi, I was wondering what WP:civil was meant to be for. Are you going to write a page for it to redirect to? If so, do you realise there's already page on Meta called incivility. I just wanted to check you weren't going to duplicate without knowing it was there. Angela . 21:30, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

yeah, he knows. He created the page m:civility :-) fr0069

Oh yeah. I forgot about that. What's the redirect for then? Shouldn't it redirect to Meta? Angela . 22:46, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

perhaps you did not understand what I meant :-)
I initially created m:uncivility and someone explained we should say m:incivility (i instead of u) but uncivil (u instead of i)...

Or is that the contrary ?

How am I supposed to remember that ?

Ant :-)

Ar

Hi, have you seen the message on the Arabic village pump? Could you have a look at the new logo on Meta to see if it's ok as you know more Arabic than I do. Also, I noticed that username blocking was not enabled on ar. It is on here and at ja and some other places. I think it's a good idea. Do you have any objections to enabling it there? I've asked Elian too. Oh, and I finally took up your nomination of me to be a sysop there. It was getting too annoying trying to revert the vandalism without a rollback button. :) Angela . 00:37, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)

You might want to reply at de:Benutzer Diskussion:Elian instead of here or my talk page, to keep the discussion in one place. Angela . 01:27, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)

Just to let you know, there's a new sysop on ar; عصام بايزيدي (aka Isam). Elian knows him and has vouched for his trustworthiness, and I felt we needed more Arabic speaking sysops to translate the interface. Hope that's ok with you. :) Angela . 02:06, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

"While the claim has little merit among educated people, the anti-socialist, pro-capitalist political leaders in the US often sieze the comparison as a way discrediting socialist, pro-labor, or liberal agendas, in a type of "guilt by association." The argument has some weight among lesser educated classes (often political majorities) who tend to be swayed by conservative political rhetoric, regardless if the claim has any substance or merit."

This isn't even close to NPOV. If this is how your major re-edit of the Nazism-Socialism page starts, I think you should stop now, since any such edits will be reverted back pretty quickly.

Sorry, it's not something I know anything about. Even if it were, I would not like to get in the middle of a disupte between you and Tim Shell. scary. Perhaps Wikipedia:requests for comments would be a better place to ask? Angela . 03:53, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

Stevertigo, please note that the edit war started when two users decided that all Palestinian actions labeled as terrorism should be relabeled "acts of violence" but did not take the same action regarding Israeli terrorism and related page. Your thoughts on that "one sided action"? and NPOV are of interest to me. Perhaps there are aspects that I do not understand. OneVoice 20:40, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You may want to look at my proposed Saudi Peace Plan page and its attempt to create a single format for peace initiatives that we can all agree on. (the HTML comments contain the format, some sections are perforce empty as the information is not available or the plan does not address those aspects.) I have been remiss in not preparing drafts of the other plans. I have not received any feedback on this matter from Zero0000 or Viajero. OneVoice 20:45, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate Ed's and your interest in this matter. How do we deal with it. I would not be opposed to revert the articles to their content before the edit wars and locking them....even to the point of allowing only admins to change them for good. We can submit changes as is the protocol on moderated mailing lists. The list of Articles includes: Golan Heights, Israeli terrorism, Refusal to serve in the Israeli military, Al-Aqsa Intifada, International Solidarity Movement, Terrorism against Israelis, and the pre-name change/redirect articles: Terrorism_against_Israel_in_2000, Terrorism_against_Israel_in_2001, Terrorism_against_Israel_in_2002, Terrorism_against_Israel_in_2003, and Terrorism_against_Israel_in_2004. OneVoice 21:02, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Stevertigo, thank you very much for continuing to deal with what must be a very troublesome, unweclome situation. OneVoice 21:53, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi Sv, haven't seen you around much lately. If you would like to lend a hand with some of the Middle East articles, that would be great, but perhaps you could first familiarize yourself with the issues before passing judgement on my (or Zero's) behaviour. Over the past weeks I have put a considerable amount of effort into discussions on the Talk pages, but pretty much in vain; I have come to the conclusion that user OneVoice is not interested in colloborating on a neutral encyclopedia but basically here to push his extremist pro-Israel/anti-Arab agenda, hence my increasing recourse to the terse revert. Maybe you will come to a different conclusion after reading the Talk pages and viewing the Page histories, but in any case, until that point, please refrain from criticizing my actions. -- Viajero 22:20, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

How can I be abusing my sysop privileges when I don't have any? You should pay more attention before criticising. If you paid attention you would know that OneVoice is here purely as an activist for the far right of Middle East politics. He is not interested in writing an encyclopedia as such. Fanatics like him make Wikipedia a much less pleasant place than it should be. --Zero 00:03, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi again,

I don't think anyone doubts OneVoice's sincerity, but as far as actually discussing the issues goes I find I accomplish nothing with him on the Talk pages. A sense of working together in a collaborative fashion towards a collective goal -- describing the issues in a neutral way without taking sides -- simply doesn't emerge. For example, please read the discussion on Talk:Elon Peace Plan. The text as it now stands seems pretty innocuous, but OneVoice kept insisting on removing any specific details of the plan and only including generalities. Assertions he made were even contradicted by information presented on the plan's website, and he repeatedly avoided dealing with substantive criticisms. After getting nowhere, I asked for the page to be protected and it remained so for a couple of weeks.

The situation repeated itself with The People's Voice. In his first version, OneVoice included specifics of the initiative, but then immediately removed them. I reintroduced them, as it seemed like vital information. He insisted otherwise and tried to impose a quid pro quo with the Elon article which made absolutely no sense, as you can see on the Talk page. Now, the amount of background information to be included in each of these articles was debatable, but in no way could we dispense with a brief summary of the details (ie, Jordanian citizenship) -- fundamental information after all -- as OneVoice kept insisting. I had the impression he didn't want readers to be presented with the actual facts for fear that they might draw -- for him -- inconvenient conclusions.

Another article called Terrorism against Israel in 2004 was started in early January by OneVoice and an anon user (companion articles for earlier years were also created). As you can see from the page history, initially it was a timeline of Israeli victims of atrocities. Danny was furious when he saw it, as you can see from his outspoken critique at the top of the Talk page. I agreed: I thought it was basically a propaganda exercise. User BL took it upon himself to salvage the thing by renaming it Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2004 and adding Israeli atrocities to give it more balance. OneVoice insisted on removing the Palestinian listings for a variety of convoluted reasons given on the Talk page. I supported BL's edits, and reverted OneVoice, and also reverted OneVoice's repeated efforts to undo the redirect from Terrorism against Israel in 2004. Finally, I asked Ed to protect it, which he did. After several days of reverts, Angela finally protected the page itself. As a reward for our efforts, OneVoice listed BL and me on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress, accusing BL and me of being vandals (and also being the same person.) Another sysop moved the complaint to Wikipedia:Conflicts between users.

The situation was similar with Terrorism against Israelis which Eloquence renamed to something else last year, someone else named back, and last week Eloquence again renamed again to Violence against Israelis. OneVoice refused to accept the name change and kept trying to undo the redirect leading to the situation where people were editing both versions (!). Again, I had Ed protect the redirect. Another sysop pointed out that there still many links in other articles pointing to it under its old name, and so I started fixing them, but OneVoice started reverting those as well. However, at the moment, the page itself is not protected.

As you will see from the Talk page of Violence against Israelis, OneVoice and StarOfDavid insist not only that every description of atrocities against Israeli's in Wikipedia include language which implies passing moral judgement against those who perpetrate the crimes (something intrinsically incompatible with NPOV) but also that Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression are in no way comparable. They maintain the Israeli victims are all civilians and the Palestinians are all military targets. The reality of course is not so straightforward: the suicide bombers also target IDF personnel and the Israelis also kill Palestinian civilians.

No one here is trying to condone Palestinian violence, least of all suicide bombers. We are simply trying to ensure that an honest effort is made to represent the complexity of the Israeli/Palestinian reality and to avoid grotesque caricatures and oversimplifications which are currently rampant in the American media ("Israelis = victims", "Palestinians = terrorists"). I hope you will lend a hand as well. -- Viajero 13:26, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I would like to formally invite you to join others at Wikipedia:Wikiproject_Arab-Israeli_conflict to work with us toward resolving issues that have arisen and resulted in edit wars here at Wikipedia. Also, I would like to formally request that you agree, along with the rest of us, to refrain from editting each of the articles that are listed as currently under protection or subject to edit wars on that page till the issues regarding that particular article have been resolved and we have removed that article from the currently under protection or subject to edit wars list. OneVoice 15:46, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

FYI....regarding the article Palestinian terrorism...User:Uriber reverted User:Viajero's most recent modification (please note that this was done before my call for discussion above...I hope to hear from both User:Zero0000 and User:Viajero on the Wikipedia:Wikiproject_Arab-Israeli_conflict page within 24 hours...they have always managed to respond to changes in the Wikipedia articles within that span of time.:

10:55, 11 Feb 2004 . . Viajero (#redirect Violence against Israelis)

Steveritgo an example would help me understand your statement:

With all fields of study, there are greater contexts above even the enourmous contexts. Similarly the Arab-Israeli conflicts cannot truly be discussed without the an understanding of the greater influence of Western power —this is often the most controversial aspect of discussing the peace process. As academic experts are largeley concerned with details, and laymen are more concerned with generalities, neither academic detail nor layman in fact reflect the facts and human truth of events, and we should be aware of this.

OneVoice 21:35, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Stevertigo, I would like to keep both the call to discussion and the responses promiently positioned on the front page of Wikiproject:Arab-Israeli_conflict. Should people choose not to participate and post-facto claim the results or not to their liking, their opporitunity and explicit invitation to participate and their declining to do so should be available for all to see. In other words, declining to participate should be interpreted as de-facto acceptable of the results of other participation. Your thought please regarding these two issues. (1. placing the call to participation and responses on the page. 2. de-facto acceptance of results.) OneVoice 14:31, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Steveritgo, User:Viajero seems to be starting/engaging in an edit war (with me) at Anti-Zionism (at issue is the word "Grand" in the title "Grand Mufti", I added, he removed. and whether or not al-Husseini (aka al-Husayni) was a high-profile collabrator. Could you take a look? OneVoice 18:58, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Stevertigo, I just told Viajero that I was adding Anti-Zionism to the list at Wikiproject:Arab-Israeli_conflict and now the list is gone. ;( OneVoice 19:33, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Stevertigo, you protected List of massacres committed during the Al-Aqsa Intifada without giving a reason, without adding the {{msg:protected}} header to the page, and without listing it on Wikipedia:Protected page. Please explain your actions, or, better yet, unprotect the page. -- uriber 20:31, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Stevertigo, I will continue to be patient, and to work on the important thing right now...have no fears...just take a look at me recent contributions. Wikipedia will keep on improving. More information. More citations. Noting which articles need WP:AIC and working to resolve issues there. OneVoice 20:49, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for the thought, but I'd rather stay out of it for now. A few too many other things going on. Good luck with it though, it seems a good idea. Angela . 08:13, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

Stevertigo, Viajero and Zero0000 have decided that all references to articles published in INN are to be deleted. In other words they have decided that the two of them may pass judgement on what is and what is not a news source. INN is very active in tracking the conflict minute-to-minute....there is not another source that I know of which manages to do this.

Regarding a money laundering probe involveding Suha Arafat, which I first saw reported on INN and placed in Current Events, the report was confirmed this morning on National Public Radio. Please note they object specifically to the source of the news. Viajero: "rm OLAF report. Cite "Die Welt"directly; IsraelNN NOT acceptable)" Zero0000: "rom now on I am going to delete all reports from Arutz Sheva until a real information source is cited"

Is it proper that two people can decide for Wikipedia what is and what is not allowed news sources? Will we be removing material from any site that is believed to be biased? PASSIA, ElectronicIntifada any others may fit this catagory as well. Could I ask you to speak with Viajero and Zero0000. OneVoice 15:40, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes I think it was appropriate. You can't put non-articles in the article namespace. I don't have any interest in joining a project about a lot of the articles I edit. If something is in the wrong place, I'll move it, especially when it is as important as an entire collection of pages being in the wrong namespace! You know you can't do that. I can't understand why you have a problem with them being moved. Angela . 23:48, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

Reasons:

Pages in the main namespace are counted as articles. You don't want non-articles adding to that or it'll look like a fake number.
Most mirrors only want to copy the main namespace. They want to be able to easily delete non-articles from the database. Having only articles in the article namespace helps them collect only the data they want.
If you have something that is signed in the main namespace (which would have happened with your original Oasis page), you then have links to user pages there, which mean people might follow those links on a mirror and get an automatically imported userpage if they are using the getwiki software. Some people think this is a bad thing. (See Wikinfo's village pump)
When the search is back on, and people are trying to search for your wikiproject, they will likely search for it in namespace 4 as that's where all the other wikiprojects are. If they have turned off the other namespaces in their search preferences, they would be unable to find these pages if they were left in namespace 1.
The Wikipedia namespace is a different colour, making it easy for people to know whether they are reading an article or something else. Without this, you might get the confusion of someone thinking it is an article and removing things unnecessarily on account they were unencyclopedic.

There are probably other reasons too, but hopefully that is enough to explain why I felt it was important these pages be moved.

Take care, Angela . 00:49, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)~

I wouldn't object to Wikiproject being made an official separate namespace, but I don't think it should be used as one until it really is one. And when it is one, all the wikiprojects will need to be consistent. Angela . 00:55, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

Vietnam war question

Hi, I put a note on the talk page for Vietnam war timeline but thought you might see it. Dumb how dollars take precedence over people, huh? But I was wondering whether the dollar figure you removed was incorrect? If not, it probably belongs in the article somewhere. Elf 01:05, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Comment on Meta

From http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/GLBT_Wikipedians: Stevertigo Not gay - I just own a copy of "Bona Drag." I like lesbians.

I haven't laughed so hard in a long time :) →Raul654 04:25, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

Palestinian infiltration

Stevertigo, this page has been redirected to Palestinian immigration (Israel). I see that there was some dicussion of the word "infiltration" being NPOV. Benny Morris uses the word extensively. It is even in the subtitle to his book "Israel's Border Wars 1949-1956: Arab Infiltration, Israeli Retaliation, and the Countdown to the Suez War". Infiltration is not necessarily pejorative. The Germans used infiltration tactics (see Oskar_von_Hutier) in thier 1918 Western Front offensive after perfecting them in Russia and at Caparetto. These tactics were the forerunner of blitzkreig tactics...the tactics that all armies seek to use whenever the capability exists. (please note that this is somewhat simplified.)

There is a couple problem with page as it stands...it does not deal with the numerous illegal acts (per Morris theft, rape, murder both opportunistically and be organized elements) committed by the Arabs via infiltration.

How can we address this issue. I would propose moving the non-immigration material from Palestinian immigration (Israel) to Palestinian infiltration, resurrecting that page and checking its accuracy.

Your thoughts, please.OneVoice 13:45, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

History of Palestine

Stevertigo, could I ask you to take a look at the statement by Benny Morris that User:Zero0000 insists upon deleting from this page. OneVoice 23:17, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Page editted, Benny Morris's statements deleted by Viajero. Page protected by Viajero OneVoice 23:32, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Zero-byte image

Hello; I just deleted an image you uploaded back in September 2003, because it was zero bytes. It was Image:Cw1.jpg, and had no caption. It's quite possible you already re-uploaded it or know about the upload error, but I thought I'd let you know just in case. --Delirium 10:00, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)

Infiltration

Stevertigo, you wrote I agree that Infiltration is not the right term to use. Its pejorative - and to say "its not necessarily pejorative"....this confuses me, as I believe that I said that infiltration is the right word to use of those that crossed the armistice(sp?) lines for the purposes of theft etc. Using a different word for people seeking to change place of residence is to recognize the non-violent purpose of that activity. We should not conflate these two behaviors. This may be compared to a trepass situation....the child cutting across (trespassing) your property as a short cut to his friend's house is different from the person crossing (trespassing) your property in order to enter your home and steal your belongings. Both are legally trespass, yet to do not deserve the same response either from either the home owner or the legal system. So infiltration is the correct, proper, term for both cases, yet I understand wanting to use a different term for those people engaged in changing their place of residence. Hence my suggestion that we have two articles...one for each activity...one regarding infiltration and one regarding immigration. Your thoughts please OneVoice 22:14, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Comments on your thoughts on my page. This note to trigger the "you have mail^H^H^H^Hmessages" message. OneVoice 19:23, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your response regarding Norman Finkelstein and impeccable, perhaps I was misreading your statements...there are a number of people here are wikipedia that write what a considered person would hesitate to say, much less submit for public consumption. After several weeks of speaking with these folks, I may be over-sensitized, a virtual allegric reaction perhaps.

Could you respond to the other two paragraphs as well regarding infilitration and terrorism. Thank you OneVoice 14:20, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Stevertigo...another trigger for you to see what I have added on my talk page in response to your words. OneVoice 22:15, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This thing all things devours...

please refrain from calling other users names. you are being sucked into an argument that you cannot win because Marcusvox's goal is simply to get a rise out of you. please review Wikipedia:Wikiquette. thank you, Kingturtle 03:18, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I love what you did at Karl Rove. I tried something similar at Karl Rove myself. I warn you that those on the payroll of Dubya will editwar you. I just popped back to Karl Rove after regrouping. I shall back you up. I shall examine your changes before adding my own. You are very brave to mention the telemarketers in South Carolina -- I heard about this but decided to choose my editwars. If you wish to discuss this via email, my emailaddress is: Walabio @t MacOSX Dot Com ?alabio 03:09, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but you just copied the material wholesale, without editing it... I dont claim to know everything, I simply ask the right questions. And theres no bravery required to report the facts, unless one is a liar to begin with. The battle between truth and lie, good and evil, continues. -SV(talk) 05:44, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I did not copy the prose, just the timeline. One cannot copyright facts -- yet. If facts become copyrightable, WikiPedia.Org is doomed -- we could not write articles without purchasing the facts from their owners. Time lines, like phonebooks, have only one logical layout. Factually, I rearrange the words so the timeline was not exactly the same and corrected when entering the data in the new timeline (2000-03-12 does not come after 2001-06-??). You yourself used the same basic chronology. If one could copyright chronologies, the world would be in deep trouble.

Many people do not like Rotten.Com because it has pictures of people eating babies. In one area, it excels -- it is not afraid to tell it like it is. Rotten.Com took the official data about Karl Rove and fleshed it out with hundreds of hours of googling the Web, UseNet, and NewsSites -- Google.Com is useful ([[3]], [[4]], and [[5]] respectively). Basically, I trust the man admitting he frequents prostitutes more than the man denying that he frequents prostitutes because the man denying that he visits prostitutes might lie. Rotten.Com airs its dirty laundry; so, it has nothing to hide. Since I visit prostitutes, you can trust me. --?alabio 07:54, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Soon, copyright will last forever, facts will be copyrighted, and fair use will be a memory. Rich corporations will own all knowledge."

Now, that is just plain fucked up. Is this your perm nick, by the way? -SV(talk) 22:06, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC) PS - dont talk as if such injustices are destined, after all, why would we bother to speak up if they were? ;) -SV(talk)

I hope that we can turn the tide. I fear that we cannot. This is my outline of a perfect world:

Copyright would only last fourteen years. Fair use would allow sampling up to paragraphs as long as one credits the creators. Facts and ideas could not be copyrightable. While we are at it, one could only patent working gizmos -- not businessmethods and software.

?alabio 04:20, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

fire department alert

We're having trouble tonight with a vandal, see Wikipedia:Block log. Some suspect it is the same user as User:Bird....if you have any way to help us stop this individual, it would be much appreciated. We are in IRC. Kingturtle 08:28, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Stevertigo, I have kicked up quite a stink about something you did not do. My apologies. I wrongly thought that you had edited the protected Terrorism page. You did change it, but only added one line. I thought you had done more than that. So I made quite a few complaints on Wiki until I became aware of my error. Believe me, my face is now as red as your politics (only joking!) Sorry. --Marcusvox 12:14, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

BioBox

Nice! now I need to run back over my edits and insert. Wetman 18:29, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

msg:religiousfigure

Are you planning to create that page, i.e. with info such as "This dude is a religious figure and this page may be NPOV, etc." ?

LDS and Protestantism

Mormonism is traditionally considered to be a branch off from Protestantism

Painting all Christian churches created (or restored, depending on who you ask) after the Reformation with the Protestant brush is inaccurate. Protestantism states:

Protestantism in the strict sense of the word is the group of princes and imperial cities who, at the diet of Speyer in 1529, signed a protestation against the Edict of Worms which forbade the Lutheran teachings within the Holy Roman Empire. From there, the word Protestant in German speaking areas still refers to Lutheran churches in contrast to Reformed churches, while the common designation for all churches originating from the Reformation is Evangelical.

In a broader sense of the word, Protestantism is any of the Christian religious groups, of Western European origin, that broke with the Roman Catholic Church as a result of the influence of Martin Luther, founder of the Lutheran churches, and John Calvin, founder of the Calvinist movement.

The LDS Church did not break with the RCC as a result of Martin Luther or John Calvin. Thus, it is not a Protestant church.

its development happened after the PR, and in the environment created by Protestantism (and American colonialism).

This is a POV statement, many people disagree in good faith. See _Mormonism: The Story of a New Religious Tradition_ by Jan Shipps, ISBN 0252014170. --Xiaopo's Talk 02:08, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

Almost no one considers UU a Christian organization anymore, neither they nor (almost?) any self-proclaimed Christians. Mormonism, on the other hand, is more controversial (and I'm not a Mormon, incidentally). It just shows that any categorization that attempts to be this short is going to be POV.

In any case, the issue is moot since the consensus seems to be that the list is unfeasable (see VFD). --Xiaopo's Talk 08:05, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

Template:Accuracy

Nested messages don't work out too well. That page should either be deleted or it should replace the other one. Do you know if there was any discussion on which one was preferred? Dori | Talk 18:11, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)

Not remebering what the message was called, I entered {{msg:accuracy}} and I got:

The factual accuracy of this article is disputed.
Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page .

instead of any actual text, or something signifying that the message didn't exist. Dori | Talk 18:25, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)

Al Gore/Views

Discussion at Talk:Al Gore's views.

Main Page

Please see the NOTE at the top of Talk:Main Page and MediaWiki talk:Itn. It looks like you copied directly from the Current events page. We also don't really need or want the outside source links on the Main Page. --Michael Snow 23:32, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Updating the In the news section is always a challenge. Putin was featured pretty recently, too, when he dismissed his cabinet. I'm happy to see things move along, and I appreciate your efforts, they just weren't following the guidelines (which is okay, I learned this rule the same way you did). --Michael Snow 06:49, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

VV comment removed to Talk:Americanism -SV

waouuu, I just click on going-on, and I just didnot know my pict was a featured one ! I am impressed :-) FirmLittleFluffyThing

Hi. Quick question: are you still involved in the mediation committee? Regards -- sannse (talk) 18:36, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've been making some changes to the mediation bulletin board including a poll. I feel we should get some voting done on policies and so on. I wasn't sure if you were involved, you are listed as a maybe on Wikipedia:Mediation Committee, so I haven't set you to be able to vote yet. Shall I change the Mediation Committee list and set you to be able to vote on the board? -- sannse (talk) 19:48, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

On the other hand, you could just be a freakin troll.

-SV(talk) 23:29, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm not hiding under the bridges :O) On the first hand I could be just me, a human being talking about people like you and me and seeing the First Amendment quote censored and cut as "stupid quote". You also need to be elsewhere - in all your minds :O) With enemies such as these, who needs help ? :O) - Happy editing :O) - irismeister 08:46, 2004 Mar 31 (UTC)

Thanks. Although I think it reflected badly more on TDC than on me. At this point I don't even know how to deal with it and if you have ideas you're welcome to suggest or do something, Slrubenstein

Hi Steve. Yes, I agree, but I am at a loss as to what to do about it. Danny 02:08, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Lie-to-children

Is a specific term that is found in a number of books that try to explain modern philosophy of science to the layman. I started the page and intend to maintain it and make it clearer. See the references. Kim Bruning 08:31, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Is it a common tactic to yell "VFD" to see if anyone will scramble to fix an article? ;-) Well anyway, I improved it. Kim Bruning 08:51, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, you had me looking at deletionism and inclusionism and so again. Hmmm! I guess I'm quite partial to [Eventualism]. Perhaps you'd care to defect?

Thank you for replying after all this while! Would you still VFD the extended article? ;-) Kim Bruning 20:18, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nazism and Socialism

Glad I'm operating in the 12th grade - although that's rather sad, as I was grading undergraduate papers on the Third Reich last semester. Ah well, this is what edit disputes on wikipedia does to one. You'll notice that the original article I wrote to replace the hopelessly horrible one did not really discuss left and right at all. It was mostly AndyL who brought that in. I would say, however, that "left" and "right" had pretty clear meanings in post-WWI Germany, and that the Nazis were pretty clearly on the right. Of course, "left" and "right" have no eternal meanings, and only mean anything in context, and perhaps my point against Sam was rather weak - I was only trying to say that his definitions of left and right are utterly idiosyncratic, while the ones used in the article (mostly put in there by AL - you can see in the archives that I was trying for a while to argue against too much argument about why the Nazis were really on the right, before I gave it up as a waste of time to argue against someone I mostly agreed with, when Sam Spade was there waiting in the wings) are fairly standard, at least in discussions of European politics and history. I would agree, however, that the article is probably pretty ridiculous, in general. Of course it's a worthless enterprise. Discussion of the Nazis' quasi-socialistic ideas ought to go in Nazism, and that should be the end of it. But we're stuck with this article - see the VFD vote on it, in which a sizeable majority voted to keep it. Uncritical use of "left" and "right" is, indeed, problematic, but far less problematic than leaving out any notion that the Nazis were on the right. In a contextual definition of "left" and "right", that is to say, in the way that people saw it at the time, there was little doubt that the Nazis were on the right, whatever that means (foreign policy revisionism, anti-semitism, anti-liberalism, anti-socialism, extreme nationalism, primarily, I'd say). Ah well... john 04:33, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

wikiquette

I reccomend you behave better in talk. I chose to respond with a bit of humor and insight to your hokey ad hominem, but that doesn't make it less silly. Try to be respectable enough to deserve a thoughful reply next time, if you want to speak to grown folks, you'll need to come correct. Sam Spade 19:08, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

An example of point-by-point response

I reccomend you behave better in talk. - You misspelled 'recommend.'
I chose to respond with a bit of humor and insight to your hokey ad hominem, but that doesn't make it less silly. -"Hokey" - no. "Ad hominem" - not at all. I finally get the humour, but it wasnt really funny. Continued on N&S talk page.
Try to be respectable enough to deserve a thoughful reply... -Now, I understand that there are situations where you might not want to give a "thoughtful reply," but you just might consider that the case in point was not one of them.
...if you want to speak to grown folks, you'll need to come correct. - Well, I'sa just learnin' bouts talkin ta gro-nups and setch... mebbe, inna cupa-a yee-arz (when I'm sixty-fo) I'sa gonna be able for accomodatin' ya. Re-gards,-Stevertigo 00:53, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. Ramir 23:43, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC).

Abuse

I saw you already banned TDC for suggesting someone "try and suck your own dick." Directly afterwards he answered 172 about an edit war "believe you me that you have met in TDC the biggest most stubborn prick on the face of planet earth, and I will not stop until your stomach churns with bile at the site of [TDC]." Now he addresses my concerrns about the neutrality of an article he contributed to by writing "If your hero gets a little dirty GBWR, then there is not alot I can do to soothe your bruised and enraged ego." [6] What to to with such an abuser? He now awarded me the title "crybaby of the year" on his page. Could you please deal with this? Get-back-world-respect 11:36, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I do not know why you are trying to offend me on my user page. I never called anything "wimping out", I do not know what you mean by "the drivel that I wrote" nor can I agree that attempts of insults like "crybaby" can be defended in any way. Trying to insult someone says more about the person who does it than the person who is the target. Get-back-world-respect 21:30, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Am I going to get an answer to this? I am a bit puzzled a mediator behaves as you did. Get-back-world-respect 22:05, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Seems as if you feel no need to apologize or even answer. In case this changes leave me a message at my talk page since I stop watching yours. Get-back-world-respect 13:59, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Hi Steve. I don't know if you have seen, I've nominated Danny for the mediation committee - the vote is at Wikipedia:Mediation_Committee#Nominations_for_mediator if you want to comment. You may also want to pop into the mediation bulletin boards if you haven't been there for a while. The main discussion at the moment is whether we need a new chairman. Regards -- sannse (talk) 14:47, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Totalitarian Democracy

Thank you for a masterful job of subheading this page. I knew it was a job that needed to be done but just cuz I wrote it doesn't mean I know how to slice it. BTW, it looks like we have a newbie (I'll be so glad when the Webbies are done) who dropped an NPOV header on the page but left no discussion anywhere as to why that might be so. I'll leave a polite message on his (still virgin) talk page. Denni 03:24, 2004 May 7 (UTC)

Hi again. (Denni wipes virgin newbie blood off his hands.) After trying to find out why said newbie left an NPOV tag, I went through the article again, and noted you'd added a para on American hegemony. I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiment, (especially after the last 72 hours), but since I still had this knife in my hand... I felt it was a bit POV, especially since the Soviets were and the Chinese are pretty much guilty of the same behavior, so I modified it just a tad. I like it when I can say "If the shoe fits..." rather than "Here. Eat this fucking shoe." Less chance of a 2x4 in the side of the head. Denni 05:20, 2004 May 7 (UTC)

Rumsfeld

I perceive you wimped out on the reversion, but at least spell it right.

England's NYT photo

People are wondering on Talk:Lynndie England whether it is a copyvio to post the NYT's picture? Can you check the source and see what the image credit is according to the NYT, then report on the Talk page? Thanks. — Miguel 03:34, 2004 May 9 (UTC)

Merci Steve. ant

Well, just monitoring essentially; Not really around these days. I have all my time eating up by

the candidacy to the board
preparing a meeting to present Wikipedia in two weeks somewhere in France; I should be doing it "right now" :-)
finding a new great house, with a garden and large windows...where I could put flowers and herbs and veggies...with plenty of room to put all my mess...hmmmmmm

SweetLittleFluffyThing 19:21, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Request regarding Mediation Committee

More than two weeks ago, on April 25, the Arbitration Committee referred a case to us which it had considered regarding Anthony DiPierro and a number of other user to us here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#Issue_of_Anthony's_reverts_and_alleged_trolling.

While Anthony has agreed to mediation, so far, there has been no response from another party in order to begin working on the Anthony mediation. We have drafted a statement at User:Bcorr/mediation statement draft that we would like to post on the Requests for mediation to the Arbitration Committee and all other interested parties, but before we do so, we want to check with the rest of the Mediation Committee. Please review the statement and let me know if you approve, wish to make/suggest changes, or have another way you'd like to suggest that we proceed.

Also, in that statement we refer to ourselves as co-chairs of the committee. There was discussion at the mediation bulletin board on the bottom half of the page, but we wanted to confirm that there was agreement on our being co-chairs for the period noted there before we post the statement. Also, if people are amenable to our serving as co-chairs, I will add that information to the Mediation Committee page.

Please take a moment to comment on these issues at User:Bcorr/mediation statement draft.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 01:52, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

I've made a change to the statement to add in llywrch's comment. Please let me know if you object. Unless anyone dislikes this change I will pass on the statement tomorrow evening. Regards -- sannse (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Go

Thank you for the invitation. I've never played it, and since I'm not much on board games, I'mnot sure I have the patience to learn. Is there a reason you think I would want to? -- Cecropia | Talk 07:07, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll respectfully pass for now. If I begin to play interesting board games, I'll spend even less time putting substantive material in Wiki than I do now, not to mention neglecting work-work. And I'll return the compliment on intelligence; one rarely enjoys arguing with Epsilon-minus semi-morons. ;-) Maybe in the future if the offer stands. -- Cecropia | Talk 17:08, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

page protecting

Hi Svertigo,

Next time you protect a page, could you indicate in the Edit summary that you have protected it when you add the {{protect}} (so we know who protected it) and explain why you are protecting it on Wikipedia:Protected page and the article talk page? This is standard sysop procedure as described in Wikipedia:Protection policy. Thanks. -- Viajero 08:22, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

question about your reply

You answered a question I posed to Viajero on his talk page. Are you one and the same user? I'm not familiar yet with different people's old and new aliases. - Tεx τ urε 17:14, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking Wik

Wik has you listed at Wikipedia:Requests for review of admin actions. When you blocked Wik on May 5 for violating the 3 revert rule, which articles did you have in mind? Fred Bauder 14:33, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

Berg image

I don't have a good answer to that question. My ideal bio-image placement is top/right, facing left... having it top/left facing right seems odd, as the image then pushes the start of the article over, rather than being a float off in the margin—print magazines, for example, rarely start a image closer to the left margin than 1" or so, so text will always flow on the left side of the image (the image itself will either be towards the center or on the right). An image at the top/right facing right is a bit odd though, I'll grant. I don't personally think it looks terrible, but a flip might be okay. The only problem with a flip is that it makes the image a bit oddly out of tune with reality, distorting features so they appear on the wrong side of the face (for example if there were any distinctive marks, or even things like the side of the head the hair part is on). --Delirium 02:08, May 16, 2004 (UTC)

your thoughts on Jesus and antisemitism

You posted the following (unsigned) on my talk page:

--ah...Jews are hypocrites. An important part of Jesus's legacy. No, Jews just happened to be what the people around at the time were called, and "Jesus" was "Jewish," hence "a mans enemies will be members of his household"; if Jesus were born in Rome, he would have been pointing these things out to Romans. The legacy is not one of anti-Semitism; that is the most un-Christian understaning of it, be it from Christians or not. The accusation is actually a bit insulting, and such claims by "Christians" embarrassing. Rather, the moral expressed is that power and hypocrisy, even in ones own household, can be challenged by the resonant power of truth.

It cannot possibly be in response to anything I have written. I suspect you meant it for someone else. - Nunh-huh 19:14, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Memory fails me once more. I should remember also that irony translates into print poorly. What I meant to convey was that arguing that "Jesus criticized Jews for their hypocrisy" is tendentious: Jesus didn't criticize Jews as a group at all, and a writer who (or article which) suggests that he did seems to be pursuing his (its) own agenda . I am not sure if that means I agree with you or disagree<G>. - Nunh-huh 21:24, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks back. You're right that excessive terseness doesn't always help communication, and I'm glad to agree with you on this point! - Nunh-huh

Do you want to make some comments at Talk:Augusto Pinochet#Another poll? 172 15:12, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]