User talk:TJive

Totalitarianism

Hello! When you're adding internal links, it's important to make sure that the relevant article exists; the fact that the link isn't red can simply mean that there's a redirect — e.g. right-wing, Jews. In those two examples, the fact that one is adjectival and the other plural is a strong suggestion that the names can't be right. Also, when possible you should avoid piping — e.g., Chilean rather than Chilean. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didn't realize that appending the suffix around the enclosed link would still highlight the entire word (as I recall not seeing this occur on an article), though at any rate it seems to be a pointless quibble.

George Galloway

I made several mistakes regarding my interpretation of several things on the George Galloway page, for which I have apologised on that page. I am not a Galloway apologist, although I tend to believe that the subcommitte may have jumped the gun on their interpretation of the evidence against him. I did not appreciate being called a liar, I made a mistake. Jooler 09:24, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CP and African-Americans

I disagree with most of your comments, but I'll wait to see what you put back into the article itself (you indicated that you didn't intend to revert all of it) so that we can focus on what we actually disagree on. --Italo Svevo 03:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

sup

Pepperidge Farm from GF. J. Parker Stone 06:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Trey Stone is Pepperidge Farm? Fascinating. ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 00:08, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, there are certainly things that are neglected here, I'll be the first to admit that. Well, now I know why he made a "**** wikipedia.org" topic a few weeks ago. ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 04:55, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I find that there is some subtle bias, even when the community thinks we're being as neutral as possible. I think the socio-economic strata of Wikipedians tends to intrinsically influence articles. Wikipedia is still a wonderful resource, but there probably needs to be some changes if it wants to be very useful for politics or history. ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 06:01, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Haha. I didn't mean it like that, but I'll go with it. More money for me after the revolution anyway. :P ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 06:22, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Quite so, but I don't think that restricting the use of user pages would do much for the articles in the mainspace. User pages are mostly out of sight from the average internet user.

We should talk more about this on AIM, as we both have a lot to say and this form of communication is a bit cumbersome. ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 06:45, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

...dude. J. Parker Stone 6 July 2005 07:09 (UTC)

vfd for Puppet state

As a courtesy I am just letting you know that I recently put Puppet state up for vfd, since you seem to have put a good deal of work into it I thought you might want a heads up, the vfd can be found at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Puppet_state. Jtkiefer 05:24, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Wikipedia's guidelines ask that you always use an edit summary. This is especially important when editing a contentious article, such as Noam Chomsky, so that other editors can follow the changes you are making. Please use edit summaries in the future. RadicalSubversiv E 28 June 2005 21:33 (UTC)

Cummings

Thanks for the clarifications. I always think that there are three simple guidelines for working here: Wikilove, Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Sadly (to quote a phrase), these seem to be breached more often than they are observed. I really would suggest taking the Cummings affair to Wikipedia:Mediation cabal, who seem to take an admirably light approach to dealing with these things. Filiocht | Talk June 29, 2005 11:47 (UTC)

I hope you agree that page protection was better than getting into a situation were people would be blocked. I am continuing to try to reach some sort of understanding with Blankfaze that will allow unprotection. Filiocht | Talk June 30, 2005 08:49 (UTC)

Clearly, the page cannot remain protected for too long. I am still talking to Blankfaze, but we may reach a point where we inprotect and he takes his chances on being blocked. Filiocht | Talk July 1, 2005 07:09 (UTC)

Hey YIN

good edits on the totalitarianism article. now help me out on the FRAPH article if Viajero tries to revert it to Blum extract.

well, you don't have to, but it'd be good if ya did. J. Parker Stone 06:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Magdoff

Thank you very much for your well studied presentation of the evidence. It is in no way my intent to engage in an edit war or a partisan dispute. My interest is purely as an historian and chronicler of factual events. Being somewhat of a newbie, I may request of you some guidance in pursuing this matter, seeing there obviously is some effort to supress open source data and common knowledge, and perhaps divert wikipedia from it's stated goals as to being a resevoir of factual information. Do you have any suggestions as to the path that I need to proceed? Thank you very much. Nobs01 19:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In case you are surveying this page, I responded at your talk page. --TJive 20:04, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Done as you said. thx. nobs 22:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Check the mail. nobs 16:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One more. Also [1] this too. nobs 18:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC) You might wanna check the mail. nobs 14:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have mail. nobs 20:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Check the mail.nobs 17:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the mail nobs 15:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You got mail. nobs 01:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good to go. nobs 01:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My latest e-mail is important. nobs 01:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You got mail. nobs 21:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Check the mail. nobs 16:59, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amen. nobs 17:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Check's in the mail nobs 20:27, 31 July 2005 (UTC) You got mail. nobs 00:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Resend. nobs 03:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mail call nobs 05:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC) Resent lastnites & todays. nobs 18:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent two emails to myself to two different accounts since last nite I haven't recieved. Let me know if you got any of the two above. nobs 19:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mail nobs 01:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

more mail nobs 02:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

resend nobs 02:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC) nothing yet; I'll be gone in about 5 minutes. If this keeps up we should discuss how o handle it. nobs 02:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chomsky

You may want to keep an eye on the Chomsky page. Chamelion and Cadre are systematically censoring the page.

Prachanda

Can you explain your reasons for moving Prachanda to his birth name Pushpa Kamal Dahal, which as far as I can tell hardly anybody uses? My sense is that revolutionaries are often most commonly known by their noms-de-guerre, and that if this is the case (as with Prachanda) Wikipedia should use the commonly known names. (Also, bear in mind that these are self-descriptions – it's different from me deciding that Charles, Prince of Wales should be moved to Chuck Windsor.) QuartierLatin 1968 19:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As near as I can tell, his pseudonym appears completely out of context from his real name which is as opposed to, say, Lenin and Stalin where there have been many variations from the point of them being "revolutionaries" throughout their ascension to power and thereafter. Thus those articles utilize the real names in conjunction solely with the false surname. "Prachanda" doesn't even have the benefit of a term being so recognized that it replaces all other references, as opposed to Pol Pot and Ho Chi Minh, so there is no real need. "Prachanda" should stay as a redirect to the real name as of now. --TJive 19:55, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

With respect, I think most of your points there are weak. If I understand your "out of context" argument, it would make a difference to you if he occasionally went by "Pushpa Kamal Prachanda"? But what difference does this make when, as is often the case with political figures, the person in question is known primarily by their surname? (Robespierre, Trotsky, Metternich, Lafayette... It is quite superfluous to mention their given names in ordinary discourse.)

I also think you should loosen up your ideas of what a "true" name and a "false" name is. A name is simply that by which something is called. You'll notice that we have Pope Benedict XVI and George VI of the United Kingdom called by those names, not Joseph Ratzinger or Prince Albert (the names by which these two men were known, respectively, during most of their lives). Wikipedia naming policy is unfortunately schizophrenic, but one key consideration of it is how the person named is most commonly or widely known. Which brings me to my second point.

I don't know what makes you say that Prachanda is not "so recognized" – it depends by whom. I'm very confident that there are millions of people, in India as in Nepal, to whom the name Pushpa Kamal Dahal means nothing, but who would immediately recognize Prachanda as the name of the Maoist leader. Even the internet, which you can expect to be widely biased towards the global North, seems to concur: Google gives 37,200 hits for Prachanda against 5,210 for Pushpa Dahal (I'm being generous by leaving out Kamal as an extra search term and omitting quotation marks) and 631 for P.K. Dahal. Yahoo gives 85,200 hits for Prachanda against 5,120 for Pushpa Dahal. Google News search as of today gives 160 hits for Prachanda against 32 for Pushpa Dahal. Furthermore, a good measure of the hits for Prachanda's birth name are articles that begin with the words "Comrade Prachanda, who was born Pushpa Kamal Dahal..." and then subsequently refer to him as Prachanda throughout the article. QuartierLatin 1968 20:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Soviet spies"

As I am sure you are aware, I'm among a sizable number of editors with serious doubts about the "Soviet spy" series articles. We're in the early stage of preparing the case for a significant overhaul. When we are prepared, I will discuss the merits of Nobs' arguments professionally. I apologize for not setting a constructive tone in anticipation of these discussions, particularly comments that can be construed as personal remarks as opposed to fair-game characterization of edits. 172 | Talk 07:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on the verge of getting little sleep tonight as it is, so I will have to give you a full response related to the content tomorrow, for which I apologize. However, I'm not interested in a discussion on Ruy, as I have not been following, and do not wish to follow, the Khmer Rouge dispute. When I have observed his editing patterns, I have seen him work constructively with many editors in good standing, so I see no reason to disregard the policy on assuming good faith in my interactions with him. Beyond that I have nothing else to say about Ruy. 172 | Talk 08:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lopez

Thanks for your email. Next week when I am back from holidays I am going to prepare a formal case for the ArbCom to have Lopez and all his clones permanently banned from editing anything to do with communism. If you could gather the statements you refered to and send them to me that would be helpful. Also perhaps you could rally some other editors to support this effort. Adam 07:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Espionage-related articles

Due to professional obligations I lack sufficient time to participate effectively in the dispute over espionage-related articles. You and Nobs01 no longer have to concern yourself with my objections, at least for several months. 172 | Talk 22:17, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Revert war over Hudson Institute

I am posting this to both User talk:TJive and User talk:Bee Hive. Your revert war over Hudson Institute is very unproductive. This is not the way things get done in wikipedia. Please, both of you calm down and discuss your differences and come to some comprimise.--Rogerd 00:19, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

I see your point. Have you considered wikipedia:Request for Comment?--Rogerd 03:29, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Revert sockpuppets

The best place to take these issues is probably WP:AN/I. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Kissinger and Ronald Reagan

Since everyone else only seems to start minding on these articles if they get too "laudatory," I'm posting this here so you can look at the sandboxes that I've posted on their talk pages. When you have spare time and aren't dealing with reverts in your edit history any suggestions or help on implementing some of my suggested changes'd be appreciated. J. Parker Stone 00:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Magdoff

I really think that if we are to find a constructive solution, the material should be edited on the new page. It is directly linked from the Magdoff page. It is not hidden. You have to understand that I really don't think there is much merit to the text, and that I see it as an outlandish block of POV text in the middle of an article about a person who deserves NPOV treatment. You probably see it exactly opposite. This is a common technique for finding a compromise text, although often it is not on a linked page but a Temp page that is not linked. I really am looking forward to working with you and others to find a compromise, but if it were up to me the material would be reduced to about 200 words linked to offsite claims on both sides. I am already compromising. I am asking everyone involved to compromise. If we all think we are compromising too much, it is probably about right.--Cberlet 03:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to rename the article. I was pissed off when I wrote it. Needs to be changed. But I was saddened to see that you went ahead and created a VfD and Merge after asking me if I wanted to move it. Not a good start. --Cberlet 03:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to try a different way to resolve this issue or do you want to continue the circle game on the old page. I was trying a constructive alternative. Assume good faith. My opening statement on the new page was an honest attempt to start the discussion over.--Cberlet 03:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I read the applicable Wiki rules, and it seems that we should wait for the result of the votes you applied for rather than either renaming the page or moving the material back to the page. I prefer to the follow the vote results now that they have started.--Cberlet 11:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam War

Stevertigo has turned what was once a concise and accurate intro into a soapbox for editorializing on the colonial nature of the conflict. CJK has tried compromises but i personally feel the edits are mostly destructive POV and should be RVed. you got time, any help'd be appreciated. J. Parker Stone 23:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. i see someone also mucked up the Jorge Rafael Videla article with claims about "US Empire," i hadn't checked that article for a while. this site really needs a stricter policy against POV. J. Parker Stone 01:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make a custom message that explains the dispute is over the intro. Think outside the box. :)Superm401 | Talk 03:54, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't believe there is an appropriate template. Superm401 | Talk 04:12, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Steve's revision is mostly unsustainable, though the colonial/nationalism viewpoint is a real one that should be mentioned. But most of what he's added will have to go when the page is unprotected. Steve's obviously a bit out of control right now, once the storm passes the page can be brought back into line. The best thing to do is to move all his stuff to the bottom of Overview as a "minority viewpoint" and replace the original lead. It's important to stop our side from violating 3RR; there's tons of people who disagree with Steve's additions so it shouldn't be a problem.

BTW, I know you from Gamefaqs WoT board; I was ragnarok757, if you recall, though I never really go there anymore. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:29, 2005 August 7 (UTC)

Harvard is a lot of fun. I was surprised at how strong the conservative movement is there, its god enough good organization to outweigh its numerical disadvantage. Good classes too. I seem to recall that you went to Mars Hill at one point, but I think maybe you were leaving there? I don't quite remember. Anyway, it's good to see you've made the transition over to WP. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:37, 2005 August 7 (UTC)

Any email you sent me I didn't get...feel free to email me directly at cgparham757 /at/ aol /dot/ com. I don't trust that WP email function too enormously. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:56, 2005 August 7 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Stevertigo

Due to Stevertigo's actions, I have posted an RfC. Please submit your comments and consider certifying the RfC. Carbonite | Talk 01:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from Coqsportif

Strawman? Yes, I think I do.

Sockpuppet? No. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coqsportif (talk • contribs) 02:35, August 6, 2005

Hey

i got your email. don't know if you're around, but if so you may want to check out Revolutionary government of Cuba, which has recently been butchered by NWOG & co. an RV to the pre-NWOG version'd probably do it. J. Parker Stone 06:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

24 hour block

I know but by removeing it it isn't my problem any more.Geni 09:09, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Coqsportif on satellite state

Suggest you check the spelling in satellite state before reverting again. Coqsportif 12:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coqsportif

S/he doesn't seem to have violated 3RR at Harry Magdoff. If he's being disruptive, can you give examples? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:55, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

It does indeed seem to be a violation. Sorry for missing it first time I looked. He's blocked for 24. I'd normally warn first, but he's definitely not a new user. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:18, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I'll try to find the time later tonight to take a close look at the contribs. If the account is clearly disruptive, I may be able to block on that alone without having to show sockpuppetry. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:39, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I would welcome your comment on my recent edits. I have no desire to be seen as disruptive, and have never been accused of such a thing before. Obviously some articles are more sensitive than others and I would appreciate the feedback without you rushing to denunciation first. Coqsportif 15:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I got onto Ruy Lopez I think through an edit history of an article I think. I was interested in what he was writing, which seemed to be about communist articles and so on, something I know a little about. Maybe he'd say little about. You did the same thing I suppose by looking at my edits and reverting them, as others did. I don't mind really. I was looking at Ruy Lopez's edits as a guide to interesting areas in Wikipedia. I assure you I am neither him nor wanting to appear to be him or against him or for him or anything to do with him. Perhaps I'll stick to less exciting areas, attracting less paranoia. I think there must be a balanced way of reporting on Soviet spies who operated in America, condemning them or whitewashing are not desirable, they need a good encyclopedic treatment. As for my old user name, I have no idea atm, but will track it down eventually I guess. It's two PC's ago, so I'll have to find it among edit histories somewhere. I would ideally like to merge that record with my new one if that's still possible. Coqsportif 15:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The NED article I definitely screwed up, I thought I was reverting to a different version entirely, not the POV one I seemed to. Obviously wasn't concentrating. As for the vfd, I thought it was a clear case of someone wanting to control an article about themselves and when it didn't work they wanted it deleted. I don't know which way Ruy Lopez voted, or care, I thought it was clear-cut enough. Coqsportif 15:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coqspucfor's track is to insert links to ihr (neo-nazi) site. nobs 23:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Coqsportif 23:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mail

I got 2, the short one & a long one. nobs 02:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC) No.nobs 02:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mail.nobs 05:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam War

I liked your edits, sounds like you're someone who actually knows something about the topic - as opposed to me (who has a smattering of half-remembered facts rattling around in his head) or someone who only has opinions. Keep up the good work! Uncle Ed 17:26, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Cuba

About the "in which near-unanimous yes votes are continually reported" clause which you added back — despite the fact that NWOG doesn't like it, I chose not to restore it, because frankly it's a piece of information that's not really needed in an article with a scope as broad as that of Cuba. It's a detail best left to the Politics of Cuba or Elections in Cuba article IMO. I'm also not going to unrestore it, because it's not worth it to me to revert it back out, plus I'm sure NWOG will be happy to do it for me. :) Caerwine 18:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your violation of 3RR in the George Galloway page

TJive, I draw your attention to your persistant reverting of the George Galloway page. This is a violation of the 3RR.

I have let your last revert stand and added a discussion on the topic on Talk:George_Galloway. I hope that you will take part and respect the majority opinion, whatever the outcome.

Request for Assistance

Hi! Could you please lend me a hand at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Agiantman? I am battling "Team Kennedy." I incurred their wrath at Talk:Ted_Kennedy. Thanks. --Agiantman 02:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Vandalism

Thanks for reverting it off of my user page. Any info on this particular vandal and what his problem actually is? I can't glean why I'm a target from his contributions. --TJive 08:40, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Search me, the vandal was working on an AOL IP which is shared by thousands of users. You must have done something truly terrible to upset him, the usual possibilities are:

You reverted some vandalism s/he made. If somebody vandalizes, leave the vandalism alone so that everyone can see how smart and clever the vandal is, by being able to vandalize a free content encyclopedia which anyone can edit.
You voted "delete" on one of the creations. Always vote "keep" on everything, even vanity and hoaxes, because voting "delete" always upsets people, and that is much worse than having the integrity of Wikipedia compromised.
You told off the vandal by sending him one of the test-templates. Never tell off a vandal. They know very well that they are vandalizing, so they don't need to be told that. Leave them alone.

Keep up the good work. :-) Yours, Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I always get the orange bar. It might be a delay or something. At any rate, it's a good idea to add your main userpage (and thereby your main main talkpage) to your watchlist. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bentley FBI deposition

Hi, do you know of a source (preferably online) for this? (Yes, yes, I know I could FOIA the FBI - that's a incredible hassle.) Bits and pieces of it are scattered throughout the FBI Silvermaster FOIA documents, but I don't think I've ever seen the complete thing in one piece. (The new edition of her autobio might have it, but it's out of print, and I can't find a copy used.) Anyway, I'd really like to see it, and I thought you might know where it is. Noel (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Item of Interest

You may want to vote on the proposed wikistalking policy here--Agiantman 00:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Resident NWOG

hey have you put up an RFC on this character based on continual pro-Castro POV-pushing? cuz if you haven't i'd suggest it when you got the time. maybe move swiftly to RFM and RFA after the RFC doesn't amount to anything as my wikicensors predict.

btw love the new userpage... well i love a specific part of the new user page... but still. thumbs up. J. Parker Stone 05:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comments

Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User:Robert_McClenon.--Agiantman 19:04, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR at Fidel Castro

You are in danger of violating the three revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. - ulayiti (talk) 22:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kissinger cross-post

cross-posted on 172's page, but if you get the time please check out my proposed Kissinger article rewrite. thankyouverymuch J. Parker Stone 07:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Odd name

I did hear that 2004-12-29T22:45Z is a sockpuppet, SqueakBox 15:58, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Would you please stop stalking me?

Please stop reverting

Hi, once again I would ask you to stop reverting the edits without further explaination. If you have enough time to revert edits, you have enough time to explain what your motivation is. I do not agree with your assertion and would like to solve the problem by discussing it. --Ebralph 22:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You seem set to constantly revert - very well. If that is what you want. I have time. I've repeatedly asked you to discuss why you want to revert the edits and you seem not to want to discuss it. You're obviously not interested in in a solution. Ok, then we will continue this game in all eternity. I'm patient. Tell me when you bore of the game. --Ebralph 05:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW - you might find this enlighting: Wikipedia:Talk_page#What_is_it_used_for.3F

I saw your answer on the page and would like to thank you that you answered. My point is following: if everybody went and edited something without discussing it, we would have real trouble. I really couldn't see what motivated you to see the edits as POV. You've made your (good) points and I'm just responding to it now. As you can imagine, I don't agree with you, but maybe we can focus on content and not on mechanism. I will be patient for your responses - and really ask only a few minutes of your time - to take in consideration the little time you have. --Ebralph 00:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

it's cool

it's cool dude, i don't have much time for this wikicrap now myself. but if you ever could get to it that'd be sweet. J. Parker Stone 04:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Krafsur

If you got a minute take a look Wikipedia:Speedy_deletions#Requested_pages. nobs 21:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:RKT.png has been listed for deletion

An image or media file you have uploaded, Image:RKT.png, 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.

TJive insulted me at GameFAQs

This guy aka YINever insulted me at GameFAQs and called my grandfather a fascist because he fought for China in the Korean War, yet ironically he supports Francisco Franco in the Spanish Civil War.

I consider this guy an American hypocrite. He thinks NPOV only applies to left-winged sources, and wrongdoings by leftists are stated as fact, whereas ones done by rightists are stated as alleged.

Americofascism

Sorry about that. I reverted your edit because it looked like vandalism, but then I read the article and realized it was indeed nonsense, so I deleted it as such. Then I decided it would be best as a redirect, so I replaced it with the same content. — Dan | Talk 03:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blind reverts

Please don't blindy revert ALL of a user's edits just because you think it is a bad user... some of them are actually good. Remember, reverting is bad in general, only revert if it is vandalism, otherwise, try to edit or add to the article. Thanks! Sasquatcht|c 01:27, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Nevertheless, you should still be wary of blind reverts (unless we're dealing with Willy on Wheels). The user may be accessing WP through other IPs (at work maybe?) but he hasn't done anything disruptive using those IPs so I see no reason to block them. Just a word of caution, nothing more. Again, regards! Sasquatcht|c 01:10, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Magdoff

Sorry to bother. I have posted a Request for Comment for the pages Talk:Harry Magdoff and espionage and Talk:Harry Magdoff. Endless revert wars and edit conflicts. Input welcome.--Cberlet 09:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely bad and nonfactual revert by TJive on the North Korea page.

Hey, if you insist on mentioning the 'Axis of Evil' talking point on the N. Korea page, at least do it in a factual manner. George Bush absolutely did not put N. Korea into the 'Axis of Evil' in 2005 as a response to N. Korea reveling that they have nukes, he did it in the 2002 State of the Union address, long before we knew they had an arsenal.

Please don't vandalize that page any more. If you would like to mention the Axis of Evil, please do so within a truthful context.

Sukiari 04:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, TJLive just informed me that the term Axis of Evil is not an important concept.--RPlunk 17:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I regret to see that you did not take my advise and warning seriously at Anti-Chinese sentiment. As a consequence, I have blocked you for 24 hours. I strongly advise you to stop reverting and warring, and attempt to discuss the matter on your return. Thank you. Rama 18:30, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is an excellent and I am sure a most productive, legitimate use of your administrator powers, blocking me for undoing the belligerent POV edits of an anonymous editor who has been harassing, threatening, and insulting myself and other editors for undoing his damage to articles, including ones so egregious they were unilaterally deleted (the same user, BTW, evaded a week long block placed on him by Sasquatch). Heavens why would I not discuss in minutiae why I would revert a rambling, original research article from such a person; you happen upon this particular conflict by way of warring with TDC and anointed yourself armed mediator. I assure you I have no interest in any such masturbatory process with either party. --TJive 18:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally I do wish to know when precisely administrators were given the same latitude in discretion for subjective blocks as the arbitration committee. I have not actually broken any hard, substantive policies of which I am aware. --TJive 18:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that Tony Sidaway proposed a similar initiative in an article subjected for a much longer period of time to a more fierce and determined war than this one, and yet the reaction for such a move was far from welcoming. Are you sure this is a road you wish to go down or are you testing the waters on your own part? --TJive 18:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just happened to catch something rather ironic about your action. As of late I have not had much time for Wikipedian activities, editing, discussion, or otherwise, so much of what I am able to do is engendered by a look through my active watchlist. I had just stopped by Talk:Fidel Castro when I noticed the orange strip on my screen, where? Talk:Anti-Chinese sentiment.

(diff) (hist) . . N Talk:Anti-Chinese sentiment; 11:23 . . Rama (Talk)
(diff) (hist) . . Talk:Fidel Castro; 09:49 . . 67.84.59.210 (Talk) (→"Great" healthcare and literacy increases)

I was given precisely nine minutes:

(cur) (last) 14:21, September 18, 2005 TJive (rv)
(cur) (last) 14:30, September 18, 2005 Rama (Blocked)

For an explanation (assuredly forthcoming) to the satisfaction of an editor, himself previously involved in reverting the article, who has taken upon himself a very novel role in administrating this site. --TJive 19:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You also made a bad revert on the North Korea article with no explanation. Sukiari 04:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My revert had nothing to do with the section that you discussed. Once I am able to edit again I will fix it how I intended to. --TJive 07:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, you reverted it anyway? Did you read the above post by me, about how you reverted to nonfactual material in that article? If you want to expand it that's awesome but I don't understand why you would revert to something that's not true. Sukiari 09:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You don't quite get it, do you? I went through the changes for several days and attempted to separate out legitimate changes such as yours from POV insertions, and I missed yours, unhappily. I do not disagree with the paragraph in question being changed and my revert had absolutely nothing to do with an opinion on that section. --TJive 21:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't understand at all. It would have been nice to mention what you were doing and why on the Talk:North Korea page so people know what's going on. As it appears from your first response to me, reverting that and other paragraphs was just the first 'phase' of a project you are engaged on in the North Korea page. Pray tell what phase two is? Sukiari 22:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would have done and explained precisely this, were it not for the fact of a block which still remains (preventing me from editing anything save this talk page), hours and hours after it was supposed to have been lifted. Other than that, I have no idea what you are getting at and do not particularly wish to. --TJive 05:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TJive, I do not clearly understand about what you are unhappy, so if you wish to complain, I will ask you to be more specific.

The blocking policy for sysops does include general disruption, and I regard your constant reverting of Anti-Chinese sentiment, without one single attempt at discussing on the talk page, as caracteristic disruption. That you kept this on after what I think was a very clear warning from me is a sign that you either do not care or wished to provoke me, which is certainly a motive for a block, or that you never read this talk page before your revert, which is undoubtly a sign that your attention had to be catched in another way.

I would once again warn you against the misconception that the system of rules can be toyed with. There is clearly a spirit in which the rules must be read, which is one of mutual cooperation and refraining from warring. "I have not actually broken any hard, substantive policies of which I am aware" is absolutely no excuse for twisting the rules and constantly going against their spirit.

If you have a problem with a particular user, the way to go is to talk to him, and in case discussion fails, signal the matter to competent "authorities" at Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress, Wikipedia:Requests for comment or Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection for instance. Thank you. Rama 16:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rama, my first encounter with this anon was the first trolling message he left on my talk page, of which numerous similar examples occurred on others' actual user page. He appears to know me, and did not exhibit any signs whatever of good faith behavior but merely that of a simple and dedicated troll. This is not someone I am going to repeatedly attempt to approach with very egregious POV issues.

Not only was I going to participate in discussion as you wished (though whether to your satisfaction I will never be sure), but I was literally on or beside the page when the block was enacted (as I described above). Essentially, you have decided that you, having yourself reverted the article without explanation, would enforce arbitrary rules on the page. A content dispute with a half-vandal is hardly disruption and at best it is a very weak case of any subjective violation, for which you neither reciprocated blocks against the equally offending user (see this, which is also an abuse of the edit summary field), nor did you actually remove my block within the 24 period. Please remove my block whenever you see this message. --TJive 21:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Further, the page in question is not "rambling OR." It should be re-named Sinophobia and expanded. Plz see talk there—which Rama is right you should be using before simply blanking a page. Marskell 19:13, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's about Sinophobia? That's funny, it doesn't seem to be the argument of the creator, nor does the article read as such. Incidentally, Sinophobia is a form of racism. If you wish to redirect the article for a legitimate article on Sinophobia, be my guest. --TJive 21:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to re-name the page Sinophobia as a more appropriate descriptor; if the article doesn't read as such, edit it, don't blank it and retreat into a belligerent shell. You didn't (perhaps don't want?) to respond to the talk there. As I said there we don't redirect an undescribed reptile or lizard to animal. It's an appropriate topic. You're suggested redirect is senseless. Marskell 23:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You read the article as being Sinophobia, which was not the author's intention. This was not my reading; it was that it was an original research, personal political rant of an anonymous vandal that was not worth a separate and distinct page. I am not required by any reading of any rule to treat bad, frivolous content in any prescribed manner by any other editor, administrator or not. Essentially you appear to be arguing for argument's sake, which is not conducive to anyone's ostensible goals. --TJive 05:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try. That article was translated from the Chinese language page. Clearly you have a feud against me and all so-called "Anti-Americans".

As for why I did not participate (when asked) it is because I was given precisely nine minutes to do so and still remain unable. --TJive 05:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If the topic of an article is not appropriate, the correct procedure is to bring it back on tracks, not to keep reverting it. Even if you had in fact been confronted with an unsalvageable article, I fail to understand why you kept on this pointless reverts rather than require the article protected, for instance.

As for your 9 minutes, you had enough time to revert the article; you might have chosen to engage in discussion, as I clearly enough recommended you did. Rama 07:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article as it stands could not have been translated from Chinese wiki as it very directly uses the lead to Anti-Americanism as a template—a lead which I wrote. The content is not "bad and frivolous" it's just not filled out. As for arguing for argument's sake I think that unfair. I was suggesting a move, that's all. Of course you're right you couldn't have responded on talk when I last posted. Plz do so in future and don't simply blank the page. Marskell 10:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah-ha. I didn't realize "Nice try..." was actually posted by the anon in question; perhaps indeed there is some bad-faith there. I suppose the upshot is don't blur motive and result. Why anon wanted to make the page (and why s/he is staying as an anon...) is one thing but the relevance of the page is ultimately something else. We have Francophobia, Russophobia, Anti-Americanism etc. China definitely warrants an article of this sort, anon's intentions aside. Marskell 16:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Castro Cult dispute

I suppose I don't need to tell you this, but for the sake of completeness, here goes. Considering the length of the discussion I've now written an abbreviation (Talk:Cult of personality#Fidel_Castro). I've also sent this message to the other previous contributors to the discussion, Cryptnotic, Willmcw, Mihnea Tudoreanu and Joolz. DirkvdM 09:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cold War

Hi. I have been engaging in a long discussion with CJK on all of the content that you just removed. Instead of reverting back to your reversion (and making the page history even more chaotic), it'll make things a lot easier if you either join that discussion first or wait until CJK and I settle on a version, and then start a new discussion on your proposals. There's little reason to not to use the talk page before making sweeping changes, given that just about all of the content was quite stable for over a year before you and CJK came along. 172 | Talk 16:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hey

what's up man. send me a message when you see this. wanna see how stuff's been going on wik and in general J. Parker Stone 00:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marxism

Why did you revert my changes and make no comment on the discussion board? TheInquisitor

Which Castro pic?

I don't care much about the decision, but when every editor changes the lead image on every edit, it just gets silly. Any of the recent pix are better than the old one (just because more recent, the old pic wasn't necessarily bad photographically), but let's just decide on one. Please participate in the informal poll on the Castro talk page. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

Why restore "disillusioned"

I know in the scheme of all the rhetorical excesses that various parties put in the article, this is minor. But as I discuss on the talk page, the word "disillusioned" in the Castro lead is really bugging me. I know the word is often used more loosely than its real meaning: but speaking carefully, someone can only become disillusioned with something they initially supported. Clearly, many of those who were alientated (or oppose, dislike, distrust, whatever) Castro's regime (especially in 1959-61), were never initially supportive by it. It's like saying that the Heritage Foundation became "disillusioned" with Ted Kennedy (in some year)... only more so. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mail

You got some. nobs 20:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Jong-il

Hi. You might be interested in the changes to the intro of the Kim Jong-il article. Now that I have stated my intention to no longer edit the article, only one or two users are left participating in the discussion and reversion war who actually know what the terms head of state, regime, government, state, and leader mean. 172 | Talk 19:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again

If you got a minute take a look Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Soviet spies to Category:Alleged Soviet spies. nobs 01:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for your help at Category:Soviet spies. Let me know if I can help on anything. nobs 18:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Khmer Rouge

Hey, you may want to check out this page cuz of the issue over "U.S. support." You may be more knowledgeable on this than I am. Stoned Trey 09:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration has been requested for this article (Khmer Rouge), do you care to make a statement? WP:RFAR CJK 23:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, chances are less than 1% that Ruy Lopez will emerge triumphant from this, IMO. Your name was added on the list of editors involved by Lopez, but I can remove it if you wish to distance yourself from this. If you change your mind, just add a statement below the others. If it is accepted, your evidence would be useful, thanks. CJK 23:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at it, but it may implicate me of being part of a "neocon cable" of "little eichmanns" or so says Travb. [2] [3]

Wow, I am touched and flattered that I am now quoted in apologist/jingiost circles. Maybe you can start calling me "little ward churchill" or "little stalin", I promise I won't demand to have you silenced as your cabal has, nor will I launch immature sock puppet attacks against your user pages.Travb 14:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, what are you talking about? CJK 15:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Potential solution

Visviva had a potential solution to solve this revert war at No Gun Ri incident/No Gun Ri massacre--change the name back to No Gun Ri. If you and your dear friend Ruy Lopez agree to this, we can end this debate today.Travb 14:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fenriswolf

I'm in the middle of my last finals right now, but I'll take a look at this in a couple days. I've left a polite comment on his talk page, though, to feel him out, and we'll see if he demands a more aggressive approach. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FPMR

"revert vandalism"

Do you imagine this to be convincing, or even inventive? --TJive 21:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I consider changing an internal link to point to an unrelated article to be vandalism. Kind of like going around changing links to [[Adolf Hitler|George W. Bush]] would be vandalism. Eliot 21:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem

If you can direct me to anyone making a death threat, I'll be more than happy to permaban them on sight. If they are simply being disruptive, then I can also envoke blocks on a shorter basis, depending on severity of course. Who is harassing you? Jus lead me to them. Anyway, I am mesmerized by the stupidity that anyone would defend Castro's Cuba as some sort of Democracy and or garden of Eden, can never seem to explain why a million plus of them fled the country over the past decades.--MONGO 13:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for reverting your Political compass revert

Sorry for reverting your quite correct reversion to Political compass. I got totally confused and thought the latest version was the one that included the un-cited assertions. -- Chris Q 15:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Hi, TJive, I'm very sorry to be so slow. When I offered to look into the problem I didn't realize RL was going to interfere so much, and not how complicated the problem was, either. But I'm starting to look now. Bishonen | talk 21:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Re:Sinophobia

I really don't see what is the IP's point. His version was inaccurate and misleading. People in Taiwan who are characterized with "sinophobia" are extreme supporters of Taiwan independence. I tried to clarify that, rather than having a link go to Republic of China, the very entity these supporters seek to abolish.--Jiang 21:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stalker

Hi, TJive. I agree that you come in for a lot of mindless reverting, mostly by anons, who are on those controversial articles certainly likely enough to IP-hop in order to game the 3RR. I'm not sure why you're so convinced that they're all/most of them one user, though. I may be missing some telltale phrasing habits; I do find it rather difficult to get a clear mental picture of the whole mess, especially as the anons rarely use any edit summaries. :-( I would like to take this further by requesting a Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser check of the ones you're pretty sure are puppeteered by the same person. Of course CheckUser is mostly used to identify the IPs of logged-in users, which isn't the issue here, but I believe it (or perhaps its operators) can often also see whether the IPs found are connected or connectable--for instance, in this case, to see if one person in one geographic spot would be able to post through them all. Or if they're open proxies. Such matters are mysteries to me, and I'd like to turn them over to somebody competent. The CheckUser tool is guarded by privacy rules, though: it's only allowed to be used if you can first make a case for the likelihood of abusive sockpuppeteering. In other words, it's not enough for CheckUser that each of the IPs behaves badly; their very sockhood has to be abusive, for example used to avoid getting blocked for 3RR vios. Could you give me a few selected pieces of evidence that they're all the same user? (The most informative thing would be if you could pick a few edits that also show them misbehaving.) The evidence doesn't have to be conclusive, "very likely" will do. It needs to be as recent as possible, forget about the ones that haven't edited since September.
That said, I'm very sorry to say that even if your pests are identified as one and the same, it's not always possible to do anything about anonymous users out to subvert the rules that logged-in users have to abide by. :-( Sometimes they can be routed by a range block, but sometimes that brutal measure affects innocent users too much; it depends on the size of the range. On the other hand, if the probe turns up open proxies, those can and will be indefinitely blocked, so we might strike lucky. I'd like to at least try. Bishonen | talk 17:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

your reverts - 'entering airspace'

I would like to see you argue why you think Brothers to the Rescue airplanes were not violating Cuban airspace rather than 'entering' it as you revert it to in numerous articles. With my last edit, it seems to me established beyond doubt, and I very much resent your mindless reverts without arguing your case on the talk page. It is bad Wikiquette. Jens Nielsen 21:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq Sanctions

Umm..why did you remove the figure of 500,000 child deaths?? It was not there to prove any argument. The purpose was to put a number to the ambiguos statement of "hundreds of thousands", that the passage starts with. What would be better (than reomving info.) would be that if you could post the figures calcualted by various insitutions with different views on the number dead. So, basically, we cold re-post the U.N. figures, as well as figures drastically lower, as calculated by other reputable organizations. This way the readers would be presented with differing views and exact numbers, rather than ambigous statements.

Thank You

I can't thank you enough for your contributions to the Ruy Lopez case. I'm currently trying to get away from Wikipedia, and simply unable to compile evidence outside of Khmer Rouge (which I may still have to add on, as it is not long). All the Arbs want to do now is probation but clearly they will be swayed over by the irrefutable evidence. (But I am still confused on why the cases were merged.) CJK 02:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What was your point on my talk page

What was your point on my talk page? I don't know anything about the author you cite, nor do I claim too. As I mentioned, what the author wrote on the book is not important "Not that it matters", what is important is how he misconstrued the facts in the Boston Globe article.

I have a feeling you just needed to vent as shown in this incomprehensible tirade:

"What, exactly, is it about the worst excesses of what is held to be among the worst and ignoble chauvinist indulgences of mankind, namely staunch anti-communism, which precipitates the abandonment of all rational discernment among what is a necessarily wide assortment of individuals and interests?"

and unforunatly, you choose my userpage to do it on.

Thanks for your convulded correction (I had to read it about 4 times to understand what you were trying to say--and I still don't understand it all)

I will strike this unimportant sentence which got you so frustrated from Talk:Richard Pipes.Travb 20:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in regards to your suggestion to read the book. Thanks for the invitation. I am not interested much in McCarthyism. I listened to a lecture series on it by an Ellen woman, but other than that I am not very interested. The books I read for fun, I am very selective. I will take you at your word about the book, and I have apologized for my mischaracterization of the book.

I am still intersted, what does this mean? Is it a quote?:

"What, exactly, is it about the worst excesses of what is held to be among the worst and ignoble chauvinist indulgences of mankind, namely staunch anti-communism, which precipitates the abandonment of all rational discernment among what is a necessarily wide assortment of individuals and interests?"

thanks in advance. Travb 22:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I argue that just as the left is blinded by the "imperitave of mccarthism" the right seems to downplay or ignore the rich history of political suppression of the left. There is at least 1% of the population that every society seems to suppress. America has a rich history of suppression of the left.

It actually was a lecture of Ellen Schrecker. What bothers me so much about the right's view, is how many innocents are rounded up in these witch hunts and that is considered okay. I am talking about beyond mccarthism

There were a lot of people who lost their jobs and careers during mccarthism who were innocent, or were using their freedom of speech.

Anyway, I am well beyond arguing these points with someone on the right, there is no point. You dont have to worry anyway, you or your family will never be in that 1% category.Travb 16:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets of TJive

User is well alive on User:YINever and User:141.153.74.246 to add right-wing rubbish.--PatCheng 06:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Fenris, how is your summer? --TJive 06:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add that these IP users took up the same series of POV edits exactly where Tjive left off:

72.65.64.85

151.205.51.11

151.205.52.27

151.205.35.185

151.205.9.211 Jens Nielsen 09:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Gun Ri

There is a disproportionate emphasis in this article on the Bateman account, giving what he has to say precedence over the US-S Korea account. I changed the emphasis and yet you reverted those edits. Further the article ignores more recent scholarship.

Will you take your disagreements with my edits to the talk page? Skywriter 08:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

Trying lodging an Request for comment if you believe that you cannot resolve the dispute 1-1.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your efforts towards keeping Wikipedia as a neutral reference source. Cheers, -Will Beback 10:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give Credit Where Credit is Due

Sorry, I did not mean to treat you like a fat broad back there, but "Chip" kept yammering on about what a tool Nobs was. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PatCheng

Hey, bring a RfArb against him, after going over the stalking page, only then did I realize how bad it was. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sin City Jessica Alba poster.jpg

You said: "Can you help me undertand specifically what is needed and what exactly it is I need to do rather than simply tag the images and move on? Thanks."

As you can see from the license text, you need a "detailed fair use rationale for each use". See this page for an explanation of what is needed to justify each and every fair-use image. It's kind of a pain in the behind but it's the only way we can legally claim fair-use on copyrighted images such as this one. --Yamla 03:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is to be done?

I am thinking of forming a political party within Wikipedia, possibly to be called the Wikipedia Whig Party, to argue for the attainment of encyclopaedic standards through the overthrow of democracy and the establishment of aristocratic rule (ie, for Wikiepdia to be controlled by a defined body of competent and literate editors who have some idea of what an encyclopaedia is for). If you want to be a founding member, let me know. Adam 02:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man

what up G. (just kidding, i haven't been that brainwashed by rap) i was actually trying to remember the username you use here (don't kill me) the other day. i thought i did have an email assigned, i'll check.

i'm on summer break and working at a movie theatre. busy day, but i get $8.50/hr, so it's cool. Dr. Trey 04:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

summer break from school. i'm going back in late august. Dr. Trey 08:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Syria Almighty

Thanks TigerShark 22:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks, I appreciate it. I'll admit to being very undecided right now about whether Wiki is worth it, because what is going on is becoming curiouser and curiouser. In the meantime, I'm wasting tons of time reading policy, policy, policy. Sandy 04:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not as dumb as I look, but I'm not learning fast enough, either :-) Isn't that WGee amazing. Been on Wiki only as long as clueless-newbie me (4 months), and only in high school. Incredible stuff. Sandy 06:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ya think that would help? Sandy 06:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"...long before I knew who you were..." I guess I'm late to the party :-) Sandy 12:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for clarifying. Sandy 13:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I finally caught up on the various talk page comments, and responded to the original comment you were also responding to. Now I see the context, and apologize for the mixup. Sandy 22:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted

That's okay TJive, perhaps I was a tad oversensitive in my interpretation of your remarks too.

It's just that I am very, very keen on the incrementalist tactics of Stalin apologia and am sensitive to selective uses of sourcing on the matter. I don't like to work much on the topic precisely because it brings out emotion and rhetoric from many parties, and I don't exclude myself from that.

I certainly don't regard myself as a Stalin apologist, although my views regarding the matter are less well defined than yours. Stalin had the misfortune to govern at a particularly turbulent time in European history, and I think his policies to some extent reflect that. Brutal times do tend to produce brutal leaders. It's easy for us, I think, from a Western viewpoint, to judge these things by "civilized" Western standards, but Russia was already a pretty dysfunctional before Stalin came along.

That's not to excuse the guy for his excesses, but I try to keep these things in mind when approaching the subject. I hope the above doesn't read to you too much like an "apologia".

Anyhow, the input of those with opposing views helps to keep us all honest, I'm sure.

You also won't see me anywhere near much having to do with Israel-Palestine either.

Quite agree with you on that one!

As I stated there, I have Applebaum's book, and I believe you mentioned that you might look up a copy. I strongly recommend that you do. It is one of the better works on Soviet repression from recent years

Thanks for the recommendation, I hope to get hold of a copy this week, along with a couple of additional refs. I look forward to expanding my admittedly less than comprehensive knowledge on the subject. Regards, Gatoclass 01:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the above doesn't read to you too much like an "apologia".

I'm afraid that it does. Russian history in context does not find any excuse for a Stalin figure, but merely serves to highlight that things managed, incredibly, to take a turn much for the worse. The Bolsheviks outpaced a century of tsarist executions in a manner of months and, in regard to everything that could be said about the actions and effects of the earlier, Leninist leadership, Stalin worsened it in every regard. Yes the 20th century was a brutish time in most of the world, but Stalin goes around the top of the heap in any honest account. --TJive 14:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I previously indicated, I really don't know enough about Russian history prior to WWII to have a firm view, so probably the best thing I can do at this stage is bow out gracefully from this discussion. Regards, Gatoclass 19:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for your concern. He DID libel me however. I threatened to petition him to be banned from Wikipedia is all. How can they justify punishing ME when he pulled out the "racist" card?--JohnFlaherty 04:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, slander, libel, or defamation of character are not to be tolerated on Wikipedia. True instances of such writing, which might legitimately expose Wikipedia to legal sanction, should immediately be called to the attention of an administrator and/or the community at large. Disagreements as to the identity of a person, their motivations for a given action, opinions of third parties about them, etc. do not fall under slander, however, and legal threats cannot be used to have points of view enshrined in an article.--JohnFlaherty 04:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I follow your last comments.--JohnFlaherty 04:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now, thanks, but I use my real name (which I did based on Wikipedia's advise!) and he DID libel me.

I am not a litigious person by any means I just wanted him to be given pause, to apologize, and back off. He was using "crimestop" to try and stifle discussion and accused me and others of having racist motives. I am not going to stand for that.--JohnFlaherty 04:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying that if I used the Wiki euphamism of "personal attack" instead of the more accurate "libel" I'd be aces? Okay. I'll modify my entry to appease the Wikipedia gods.--JohnFlaherty 04:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

Thanks! This may be the same guy who vandalized a couple of user pages a few days ago. Cheers, -Will Beback 00:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. Sorry for the distraction. -Will Beback 04:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use

Thanks for your edits to Jessica Alba. However, if you take a look at the license for Image:Sin City Jessica Alba poster.jpg and Image:Dark Angel Series DVD Packages.jpg, you will see that neither can be used as you were using them. The first can only be used to illustrate the movie itself (or to provide critical analysis of the poster) but not simply to depict the actress. The second may be used only to illustrate the DVD in question. Again, not to depict the actress. --Yamla 14:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Character

Hi Tjive, a character has popped up adding "F**king" something or other on my talk page. I checked the IP contribs and there was an addition to an article previously edited by one of your adversaries. Take a look and give me your thoughts if you have any? --Zleitzen 00:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, very curious - is was the connection to edits on a couple of pages related to China that raise my eybrows.--Zleitzen 00:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norm Coleman

I usually give in to POV pushers and idiots. But I'm going to draw a line in the sand on the Coleman article. Wikipedia can get so frustrating... I can't revert at this stage because of the 3RR. Would you be able to take another look at the article? Thanks. 172 | Talk 04:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

172, you are the king of class my friend. KING. Begging reverts from others. You're sad to watch.Yeago 19:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beard

Good edit on the Castro page, Tjive. I'm not sure if it's 100% accurate because of a constitutional amendment of wording in 1992 but it's as near as damn it. I would respond on the talk page but I'd need to navigate my way round Teemu's bewildering discussion-tree! --Zleitzen 04:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts at Fidel Castro

Your repeated reverts without participation in the Talk:Fidel Castro page are not constructive. I have asked you several questions which you have not addressed. Perhaps, if we communicate, we can find a compromise. BruceHallman 21:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fidel Castro

I like the language you've been inserting in the intro. Unfortunately, even with my high threshold for abuse, I don't know if I have the energy to get involved in the dispute on the page myself. I doubt that much progress can be made on the Cuba-related articles until both Bruce and Teemu are brought to arbitration. 172 | Talk 00:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

207.200.116.139

207.200.116.139 is an AOL IP. The contribution list could include the work of dozens of unrelated editors. The edits to Johnathon Earl Bowser are entirely inappropriate, though I doubt they are by the same editor as the Berlet edit. Wikipedia is not a repository of critical analysis. If the opinions were attributed to a notable critic then they'd be worthwhile. I think you'd be well justified in reverting the material. It's been reverted once already. Thanks for helping to keep Wikipedia NPOV. -Will Beback 08:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, for some reason I didn't even bother to look at the talk page to see whether the IP was shared. Oh well. --TJive 08:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User page cleanup

I happened upon the mess and started a gallery so that you'd see another option. Interestingly, in the middle of my work, your page was deleted by an administrator! I restarted the edit rather than risk reposting the offending information, whatever it was. --TJive 10:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, thanks for the heads up. Thanks for the changes. I tweaked your idea a bit, and moved it down to the bottom, as I use the cite tags way to much. Maybe I can move my little collage to the talk page, as the Bible says, no need to hide our collective talents under a bushel!

Maybe you and I can come to a truce, as other conservative editors and I have. Stranger things have happened, as I said to 172, when I floated this same idea with him.

The original inspiration for the collage came from Ispren and TDC (and now looking at your user page for the first time, with the saddam hussien photo, you had a part in it too).

Does this mean you approve of the collage? Not to many people do :) A marxist guy said he didnt like it. Why only piss off and alienate only one side when you can piss off and alienate both sides? :)

Best wishes Tjive.

~~Weren't you one of the users who gloated on my userpage when I was infinitely banned? I can't recall. There was so many people who did.~~

Signed:Travb (talk) 10:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(response on my talk page) Travb (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sinophobia

Re: User:Travb#Collage

Smart and funny! What a menacing combination! LOL. Thanks for making me laugh out loud. Travb (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jackbots

RE: my user page

I already have been jacked by the "jackbots", (whatever that means) big surprise. They attempted to take all the pics off my user page, citing fair use. I notice how your pics, CJK's pics, and everyone else's pics remain and are left alone. I have made an appeal to user:duk who unbooted me. Such peity jerks. Travb (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Category:Organizations accused of terrorism is up for deletion. Thanks, Ramallite ^(talk) 18:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prog Dems

Are you really suggesting that that's not what they're doing? The Prog Dems are,as far as I know, quite proud of expanding private influence on the health sector. "Reform" is grossly misleading and completely fails to convey Prog Dem policy in the health service and is most certainly not a "neutral point of view".

Drog Pems

...anyway, yeah that's my email address. Dr. Trey 03:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

Hello, TJive. I'm really sorry for all the trouble I caused you on WP. I promise will no longer automatically revert your edits, but discuss them. You're welcome to keep watch of my contributions. Please forgive me. --PatCheng 14:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are not understandable

For several days, you have been raging. Your anger seems to be overtaking your power to reason. I have no idea what you are talking about. Please identify what you perceive to be a personal attack. By the way, do you have any other mode than rage? Best wishes, Skywriter 03:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Mark Falcoff.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Mark Falcoff.JPG. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alarcón

Hey, you beat me to the clean up by about three seconds! Good work.--Zleitzen 08:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, but I also saw that you took out the "Law and Disorder" external link. [4] Alarcon is actually a guest on that program and talks about the Cuban Five (it is also the most recent interview of him I can find). So please be a bit more careful when taking out links. I already put it back in the interview section. [5] Thanks anyway for organizing them.--Jersey Devil 00:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I'd call it a "blog" really. It is a show that is broadcast through WBAI and on the site you can download the actual interview. The first time I heard it was in the car heading for school.--Jersey Devil 18:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zhirinovsky

I've referenced my contribution to the Zhirinovsky article. Cheers. Elie friedman 12:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parenti

Is that you who decided unilaterally to kill the previous effort to make the entry a little more like an encyclopedia entry, i.e. balanced in its view of the subject of the entry? If so, at least you could have retained the mention of the Democracy book for which Parenti is so well known in the academic world -- please reconsider. 68.162.128.24 18:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I needed a break. I was tired of fighting Gato. I do have a life. ;-) This is actually the first time I logged on in weeks.

Besides, others seemed to be willing to take a shift.

Why do you ask?--JohnFlaherty 01:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist weirdness

First, relax. Nothing is wrong with your account and you haven't been hacked.

Now an explanation.

The weirdness is due to page move vandalism. This is how it works. Some vandal moved some pages, giving them stupid names like "111111111112222222222222". Because some of the the original pages were on your watchlist, the new pages were added to your watchlist (this is done automatically on a page move, and is necessary so that page moves don't break watchlists). Then you looked at your watchlist and saw these new names.

Your watchlist hasn't been altered in a damaging way, and your account has not been hacked. If you like, you may remove these silly names from your watchlist, as they're useless clutter. But no harm will be done if you just ignore this.

The page move vandalism has already been taken care of by other editors. --Tony Sidaway 16:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about the user that just appeared today? --TJive 16:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

watchlist

I saw your message on Will Beback's page--I hope you don't mind if I butt in. Sometimes, strange articles will appear on your watchlist if a "redirect vandal" moves an article to a new title, then someone else puts it back where it ought to be. For example, if you are watching Texas, and I maliciously move it to The Biggest Blowhard State in the Union, someone will notice and put it back. BUT that will leave you with The Biggest Blowhard State in the Union still on your watchlist. I don't think you've been hijacked. Joyous! | Talk 16:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Kamm

If you don't want your changes to be reverted, please abstain from adding factually false information. Sir Paul 22:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You got the priorities backwards. It is your resposibility to source the material you add. If you have evidence to prove that Kamm is a "long-time supporter of the Labour Party", then disclose it. (Tip: you don't have such evidence, becaue no such evidence exists.) Sir Paul 22:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, you describe my latest addition as a "hit piece", and you threaten to ban me before I ever wrote anything to you, and I am the one who's "completely uncivil"? You are, at any rate, obscuring the real issue: so far you have been unable to back up your claim that "Kamm is a long-time member of the Labour Party". If there is incivility here, is that which you are displaying by abusing your powers as an administrator without even taking the time to fact-check your additions.Sir Paul 22:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm going to ignore this whole dispute and focus on the arguments. I repeat that Kamm is not a long-time member of the Labour Party. I also stress that, if you are going to make such a claim, you should source it properly. You haven't done so yet.Sir Paul 22:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CfD

What are your thoughts on an Afd listing for this page? In the meantime, this category [6] stikes me as an even more obvious candidate for deletion. If you have time, please take a look. Thanks. 172 | Talk 03:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Political repression

I'm somewhat troubled by the category; but I don't know if it warrants deletion. I'll like to consider what other people have to say before making up my mind.

As of now, the category appears to have been used in a conceptually unclear and muddy way. [7] For example, the insertions of Legal challenges to NSA warrantless searches in the United States, COINTELPRO, and Anti-terrorism legislation strike me as politically loaded, given, of course, the negative connotation of the term "repression." Another problem is the insertion of Cuba; the repressive apparatus of the Castro regime is not synonymous with country/island/nation itself.

If the category continues to be used, I think it should be restricted to pages on concepts related to the different types/means/descriptions of political repression. For example, perhaps pages like secret police and state terrorism are correctly inserted in the category. Beyond that, I think pages on specific historical events/institutions/individuals should probably be left out. Classification there may bring us into the realms of original research and/or POV.

I can't say if the category is inherently unworkable. Still, I have doubts as to whether it can ever be competently applied on Wikipedia, as it provides easy fodder for POV-pushers. For one, its insertion in Legal challenges to NSA warrantless searches in the United States is on obvious polemic against the Bush administration, having nothing to do with making Wikipedia more encyclopedic. Still, I'm not really sure about outright deletion. What do you think? 172 | Talk 01:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the potential for political abuse discredits the concept as a whole either. For some reason, I missed the subcategories and only saw the article entries here earlier. I'll take another look. Thanks for letting me know. 172 | Talk 07:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and took a look. Nice job. It looks much better than the page I saw earlier, easing some of my reservations about the application of the category I laid out in my first post... I still have some questions. I'm not sure if individuals belong in a "political repression" category, given that we already have categories covering, for example, Chinese dissidents. (By the way, shouldn't the 'repressed' go in separate category from the "repression?" I'm not sure about the standards in other categories.) On first glance, I'd favor restricting the category to (1) political events/institutions (e.g., Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 and NKVD in the Soviet category, respectively) and (2) specialized topics related to political repression (e.g., internet censorship in mainland China). I'd be inclined to take the articles on individuals and slogans out. In particular, I'm not sure if the campaigns belong on the categories; in some cases the relevant articles on the campaigns might have more to do with the slogans than the repression... Thanks again for the message. 172 | Talk 07:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Politics section

I think the politics section is getting there in terms of accuracy, Tjive, maybe needing the odd increasingly minor tweaks of language here and there. It would be an acheivement because it's a nightmare to navigate, as you know. I've read endless similar summaries, both in established encyclopedias, international wikipedias and so on, and our version is looking quite good in comparison. The key is trying to depict the weird ambience of an almost invisible but universal force surrounding political culture in Cuba. It's difficult to establish because much of this is not tangible or clearly verifiable without heading into speculation. --Zleitzen 14:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stalin video on BBC Website

Hi:
If you go to the BBC World service website and do an inquiry for "Stalin" you will find an interesting video clip " Stalin Lives on in south Russia" dated July 4, 2006.--Woogie10w 01:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

China repression

Thanks for drawing this to my attention. The category brings together a useful collection of articles, although the title will inevitably be criticised as politically loaded. No doubt someone will create Political repression in the United States in retaliation. But that's the way Wikipedia works. As Chairman Mao says, "Dare to struggle, dare to win." PS please archive this page. Adam 04:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism/State Terrorism articles

Please desist from constantly deleting relevant sections about US involvment in terrosim that you obviously don't like. The sections are worded neutrally and are accurate. If you have a problem with them then rewrite them but revert wars help no one. Cheers. GiollaUidir 12:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mention your name

Out of courtesy, wanted to tell you I mentioned your name:

User_talk:CJK#They_found_and_deleted_TJive.27s_image_too

The full context of the discussion is found here:

User_talk:CJK#Fairuse_images

You are smart not to fight them. I have, and got booted indefinetly for fighting them.

On a completly different note:

Have you considered deleting the attacks on Ruy Lopez from your user page, especially since he no longer edits here?

I don't give a flying f*** either way, just a suggestion [that will be ignored :) ]

Signed:Travb (talk) 15:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Solution

About your problems with another user, see: Wikipedia:Resolving disputes . If the situation is as serious as it seems, I suggest you look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment on that page or something further on from it (the headings below it) because apparently, you seem to have a problem with editing. --huntersquid 20:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you?

I perceive you are well motivated on Fidel Castro but I don't get some of the arguments you and BruceHallman (or whatever his name is) get into. Are you a Cuban exhile? Doesn't seem like it, from scanning your Talk page. Maybe you have many irons in the fire, as we Americans say. Anyway, you are curious to me. KarenAnn 02:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Vida Guerra on Spanish television.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 06:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Sin City Jessica Alba poster.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 08:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Dushku.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:TGL.png)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Dushku 3.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Dushku 3.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Dushku 2.JPG)

Thanks for uploading File:Dushku 2.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to interview you via e-mail or an online messenger. Would it be possible for you to spare some time?

Dear Tjive, please excuse my abruptness. I am a university student, and this semester I am doing a research on Wikipedia. I am focusing on controversial issues and the process a version of explanation gets chosen. I have seen some works of yours, and they were truly interesting. So I thought that if your voice were included, my project would greatly improve in quality; it would be far more lively and contain something concrete. Understanding a process requires far more than just observing what is visible on the surface; I need to dig deeper. And I would really appreciate your help.

So, I hope to interview you via e-mail or an online messenger. Would it be possible for you to spare some time? If so, I would be grateful to receive a message on the User Talk within April. Thank you.

Little Sheepherd (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Monster Party.png)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear you are interested.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by 'intention', though; if you think that I'm trying to collect examples to demostrate the absurdness of some wicked, biased users and put it in contrast with some good users, there's a real misunderstanding. All I'm trying is to understand what USERS think and feel, whether I agree with it or not. And if someone can help me on that spot, I would honestly thank him(her); regardless of whether I agree or not.

I send you an e-mail with some details.

Little Sheepherd (talk) 04:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Forced abortion

Orphaned non-free image File:Dushku 4.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Dushku 4.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. JaGa^talk 01:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Ironsword Box.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Rebecca Schaeffer.JPG

Thank you for uploading File:Rebecca Schaeffer.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying user about missing file description(s) (bot - disable)

Files missing description details

Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as:

are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the images may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 22:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You still around?

Just checking in! No activity since '06, hope all's well! GhostOfNoMeme (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]