User talk:ChrisO~enwiki

Old discussions now at /Archive 1 / /Archive 2 / /Archive 3 / /Archive 4 / /Archive 5 / /Archive 6 / /Archive 7 / /Archive 8 / /Archive 9 / /Archive 10 / /Archive 11 / /Archive 12 / /Archive 13 / /Archive 14 / /Archive 15 / /Archive 16 / /Archive 17 / /Archive 18 / /Archive 19 / /Archive 20 / /Archive 21 / /Archive 22 / /Archive 23 / /Archive 24

Please add new comments below.

Archiving suggestion

Hiya, if it's helpful, you can automate your archive listing with this syntax: {{archives|auto=short}} (or if you like the longer format, just use {{archives}}). That'll automatically keep track of your archives for you, and you won't have to keep adding links to new pages. If you'd like, I could also setup a bot for you, which would autoarchive old threads. Up to you though!  :) --Elonka 17:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Need guidance re. Arbcom ruling enforcement

You recently left a suggestion on my talk page[1] that I report some Israel / Palestine edit warring, BLP concerns, etc. concerning Historicist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), to WP:AE. I was reluctant because that could be seen as a process fork of an active WP:AN/I report, but no action was taken there so after announcing my intentions, and after the edit war/incivility problem persisted[2] I did file an AE report. Phil Knight opined that the arbitration decision does not apply to BLP articles. Do you think that is the case? If so are there any other things for me to do? Go to 2RR and beyond on the latest BLP vios? File a new arbcom case or ask for Arbcom enforcement / clarification on RFA? I'm kind of stuck right now and I don't want to let editors turn biographies into partisan screeds just because other editors are more tendentious in adding the material than I am in removing it. Wikidemon (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Questions

Hi, I understand you had a problem with User:Brewcrewer statements on my userpage series of personal attacks against other editors and a call to treat Wikipedia as a battlefield. I wasn't familiar with the rules and didn't object/defend his statements at the time, but as a result I've found something you might be interested in: Spotfixer, another by Eleland Jewish and obsessively Zionist admin baited me until he ran out of his 3 reverts on User:Eleland's Talk page.

This is all according to Wikipedia is not a battlefield, which you introduced to me at my arbitration.

Sorting through Eleland's talk page will bring up more discussions similar to the ones posted above. After comparing it to Brew, I thought you might be intrigued as it surpasses any negative/personal attack interpreted there in my opinion.

Let me know what you think!

Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Rammstein_inferno.JPG

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Rammstein_inferno.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

IRC

I've lost track of how to get onto the Admin IRC channel, could you email me about it? You can just reply to my email I sent you which I don't think you've read yet. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 21:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)

The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

I have nominated Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Russian submarine K-152 Nerpa

Hey Chris! I noticed that you reverted my last edit on Russian submarine K-152 Nerpa (the removal of the infobox). While I believe the section being summarized to be too small to warrant summary by an infobox, I'll concede to your wishes and leave it to be decided by others. I did remove the casualty and injury numbers from the infobox as was discussed in the discussion page. If you'd like to discuss the change, please do so there.

I'm relatively new to Wiki and fully accept the fact that I will make mistakes and be wrong but discussion is the only way I'll learn. If you'd lke to talk more, we can do it here, my talk page, or preferably the Russian submarine K-152 Nerpa discussion page.

Thanks for your time. OlYeller^Talktome 08:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:RfArb regarding West Bank vs. Judea and Samaria

I have started a Request for Arbitration regarding the use of northern/southern West Bank vs. Judea and Samaria. Since you have been involved in this debate, I have included you in the request.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 25.02.2009 09:33

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tznkai (talk) 04:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Chris,

In the upcoming J+S ArbCom case, I'm worried Elonka's limited topic ban will be used again to cast undue doubt on my conduct. Since 1) Elonka confirmed it was based on a misunderstanding on her part and 2) she promised to lift or at least reduce it after one week, then forgot about it and went on a Wikibreak, and 3) the stated infraction was first changed, then never specified beyond a vague "based on the recent pattern of reverts, and working your way through several Israel-Palestine articles and making Samaria-related reverts", and 4) the only two Samaria-related reverts I had made in the preceding week [3] were in order to fix problems with claims that were either unsourced [4] or sourced exclusively with highly partisan refs [5], I wonder if and where I can appeal to have the ban lifted? MeteorMaker (talk) 08:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Update: PhilKnight informed me about the proper procedure and the whole affair is now a thing of the past [6]. Will now focus on the ArbCom case. MeteorMaker (talk) 11:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)

The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Robert Knox (sailor)

You claimed that he was the first person to bring Indian hemp to England. Would you be so kind as to provide a reliable source for that please. 72.255.26.202 (talk) 12:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama conspiracy et al

Sorry about that - you are absolutely right. I've been seeing so much crap today that I've become lazy in reviewing edits. I'm drinking more coffee to compensate. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem - coffee should help. I've semi-protected the article for a few days while the fallout from the WND article settles - hopefully that will make your life a bit easier. :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Some vandalism

Didn't want you to be confused as to why that yellow bar has appeared, so I'm just leaving this to tell you I reverted some talk-page vandalism here (check the history if you're interested). BalkanFever 09:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Ariobarza indef blocked - again

I don't know if you had noticed Amerana (talk · contribs) but a CU has turned up the fact that Amerana was a sockpuppet of Ariobarza. I don't know if anything should be done about subpages of both users, what do you think? dougweller (talk) 10:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

AN/I

Hi,

My suggestion was made to insure neutrality. without going through the hisory of all the incidents I made a suggestion. I am in no way saying that you should incur administrative actions, if you were not involved in editing the article, but to insure neutrality on both sides of the issue, I think it better if at least by consensus, both editors are prevented from editing the topic. I will specify this on the noticeboard. Thoughts? Sephiroth storm (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Question about map

I'm writing a bachelor's thesis about the 2006 Lebanon War, and I would love to include the map you made[7] as an appendix. Unfortunately, my school has a pretty big bias against Wikipedia, so I can't cite it in its current form. I was wondering if you run another another website that I might be able to cite instead? Or even better, if you would be willing to email it to me as an attachment, then I could simply cite it as a 'personal communication.' Or if you have any other ideas, that would be great. Thanks for your time, Maethordaer (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Name of Dalmatian Kristallnacht article

Hi. I see you changed the name of the Kristallnacht article. You say it was without consensus. Taking that into account, I looked over the article history (article original name was Kristallnacht). The name to wich you changed the article was chosen without consensus either, by a Croatian editor. In fact, the only consensus was the name "anti-serb pogrom" which was arrived to with participation of both sides. I hope you can check that. Accordingly, I moved the article to that name, to which both sides agreed after a long discussion during proposed deletion, as you can easily check (no such discussio was done before dumbed down title "riots" for what is widely known in Yugoslavia as Dalmatian Kristallnacht) . —Preceding unsigned comment added by OdDjerdapa (talk • contribs) 10:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

To make things easier for you to review here is list of changes:

[8] Changed by Croatian user DrGonzo, per agreement with Serbian side, to pogrom - there was discussion in fact, as you can see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OdDjerdapa (talk • contribs) 10:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You can't cite a discussion that took place in 2006 (!) as evidence of a current consensus. If you want to change the name, you need to explain why you want to change it, and you need to get the support of other editors. I suggest adding your arguments to Talk:1991 Dalmatian anti-Serb riots and adding a link to the discussion on Wikipedia:Requested moves and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Croatia, so that other editors can contribute. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The current title was changed to next year (2007) by Croatian user Joy [9]; the support came from 2 other Croatian users, but was disputed soon after - there was no consensus in fact. Now a pro-Croatian POV title remains. As you can see from the article history, a war over the title name was present ever since the compromise name was changed. There is no current "consensus" as Serbian side never agreed to the present title. In 2006, after the deletion discussion, there were much more editors involved, and the title "pogrom" was in fact proposed by a Croatian editor as a compromise from Kristallnacht. So, it was agreed by both sides, who were aware of the title, including the people who later changed it. After the compromise from 2006, a year passes, and editors go away, and title is quietly changed. Since then it has been changed back and forth, so it is hardly a concensus name at this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OdDjerdapa (talk • contribs) 10:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Joy is not croatian user but wikipedia administrator.

Article history is having 3 confirmed puppets (user:Roramaster, user:Roremaster, user:Mylan) and 1 puppet master (user:Purger) which has tried to change article name. all in all situation is calm (if you look other articles about Croatian history)--Rjecina (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know - I see OdDjerdapa has now been blocked for sockpuppetry. I suspected something like that was going on; thanks for confirming it. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Darko Trifunovic

Chris, Trifunovic is a NPF and a minor one at that. He does not rate an article in Wikipedia, he is not a policy maker nor in the news, the article about him contains footnotes that go nowhere and do not mention his name. This is a pure case of making ants into elephants. However, the guy is having a hard time making a living ebcuase of the Wikipedia article about his minor association with news events. Please take an objective look at the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Resistk (talk • contribs) 14:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Via Egnatia Article

Chris, you deleted my contribution to the entry Via Egnatia. Why? It was about the most important initiative aiming at the preservation of the remains of the Via Egnatia. I think it should be mentioned in any article on this road. One could at least put a link to www.viaegnatiafoundation.eu in the article. comment added by Brui0976 —Preceding undated comment added 20:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC).

Martello tower

Chris, Great map. When you get a chance, though, could you add a few dots, and change a name. Ideally, we would have a couple of dots up in Scotland, one inland in South Africa for the tower at Fort Beaufort. and one off the coast by Jakarta. (I have just added the little I could find about a Dutch East India Company Martello tower there.) The Spanish towers are at Minorca, or at least that's what the leading (and only) article I have found calls it, rather than Mallorca, and so that's the term I am using for them. Again, great map, and thanks. Acad Ronin (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Tarawet.jpg

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

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

insanity

Hi ChrisO,
Would you mind, as sysop, removing these comments from the history of my talk page (not just delete them) ?
Thank you for your help... Ceedjee (talk) 06:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Note

I initiated a discussion about indefinite schoolblocks and in the list I generated a few were set by you, I just thought I should drop you a note. –xeno (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you mind if you or I lift the blocks on the following; they've been in place for a while? cheers, –xeno (talk) 04:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

IPs

1. 193.63.87.227 ChrisO 20070226123640.00 schoolblock
2. 206.176.111.212 ChrisO 20070226182141.00 schoolblock
3. 216.162.84.225 ChrisO 20070226195622.00 schoolblock
4. 4.2.176.222 ChrisO 20070227141541.00 schoolblock
5. 170.161.70.98 ChrisO 20070227163507.00 schoolblock
6. 168.212.152.20 ChrisO 20070227164240.00 schoolblock
7. 164.58.184.212 ChrisO 20070227194436.00 schoolblock
8. 72.2.102.246 ChrisO 20070329132857.00 schoolblock
9. 202.146.15.20 ChrisO 20070515090723.00 schoolblock
10. 142.22.16.58 ChrisO 20070426184518.00 schoolblock: Incessant vandalism

Yes, no problem. Thanks for letting me know. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

cheers, this is  Done. –xeno (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Darko Trifunovic at ANI

I don't know how closely you follow the DRAMA boards, but this might be worth your attention. I'd agree that the article needs better sourcing, but I took a stab once and couldn't find many English-language references. Still, the hysteria over the article is getting out of hand. Thanks! // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 14:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, been traveling. I did manage to revert twice today, after the usual insertion of his resume and related nonsense. This is really getting tiring, and I'm considering asking for full protection. I honestly don't know what to make of his claims that we're violating his "basic human rights". I'm also curious about user:Resistk, who has taken a remarkable interest in the article and has rather poor spelling for a lawyer and PhD. He appears to be legit, but I smell meatpuppetry. I really don't see how to resolve this short of full protection though. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 03:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Resistk is Jonathan Levy, a lawyer friend of Darko Trifunovic. When Trifunovic was de-invited from the European Police Congress he and Levy proceeded to harass people who had complained about the EPC inviting a genocide denier. Their threats of legal action have not as yet been followed up a year later. Understandably. The DT-compiled first Republika Srpska report on Srebrenica - thrown out by Paddy Ashdown as High Representative - was published in 2002, after the ICTY had already found in the Krstic case that genocide had occurred at Srebrenica.

Trifunovic's report concluded in the face of the evidence in the public domain that "the remaining figure ... would be the number of Muslim soldiers who were executed by Bosnian Serb forces for personal revenge or for simple ignorance of the international law. It would probably stand less than 100." (p.34)

You can download the report from http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg-sreb101604.htm - scroll down the page to URL - http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/documents/srebrenica.pdf. The ludicrous incompetence of the report would make you laugh if it weren't about trivialising such a terrible event. It's certainly consistent with the standard of Trifunovic's other work that I've seen. If you want a bit more background go to http://www.zibb.com/article/4871228/Bosnian+daily+says+Muslims+targeted+by+self+styled+anti+terror+experts

Regrettably Trifunovic did actually win his legal action against the Bosnian Government for wrongful dismissal - helped by the massive incompetence of the Bosnian government, and to the dismay of many onlookers, particularly Bosnian taxpayers saddled with the cost of the award against the government. Opbeith (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw that this morning and was going to let you know; you beat me to it. I've added my comment below yours (and removed his resume again). Incidentally, thanks to Opbeith for the link to the report; I spent a lot of time looking for that a couple of weeks ago and couldn't dig it up. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 16:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I know you have a lot of things on your plate right now, but our favorite article is at ANI yet again - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attack_at_http:.2F.2Fen.wikipedia.org.2Fwiki.2FDarko_Trifunovic. Already dropped my comments there. Thanks! // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 17:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Aljazeera.com

In regard to the recent question about this web site at WP:RSN, as discussed in this edit, it is not clear to me that Aljazeera.com, the Dubai-based web site, is a "well-known major media outlet" -- at least not compared to Al Jazeera, the Qatar-based television channel whose web site is http://www.aljazeera.net . --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

3rr

Hey Chris. I think you've gone over 3rr on Charles Enderlin. I also think it'd be a good idea for you to self-revert -- not because I'm intending to report you, but because, as you are well aware, there are many people who feel that the initial reportage was inaccurate, and the incident possibly staged. It's not merely "an aggressive campaign on the internet." Someone who didn't know all the source material as well as you do could be forgiven for making that mistake, but... Maybe you can self-revert and then take a crack at summarizing what the critics are actually saying? Happy to work on it with you. Plan? IronDuke 22:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if you feel that way, but I'm simply sticking to the wording of the cited article. Take a look at it - "Ne pouvant rester inertes contre la campagne agressive qui se propage sur la Toile, France 2 et Charles Enderlin poursuivent M. Karsenty en diffamation." You need to be very careful for obvious legal reasons when citing libelous claims - and let's not forget that the claims in question have been judged libelous. BLP compliance is a higher priority than strict 3RR in that circumstance. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

But you know there is much more out there that casts a wider net then merely "aggressive internet campaign" right? Do you not actually know that? Am I mistaken? And BLP is of course in no way relevant here, though care, as you say, is always warranted. However, it's going to get tricky if you constantly use that as an excuse to revert past three times in a 24 hour period. I really hope you won't. IronDuke 22:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is a biography of a living person so of course BLP is a fundamental concern here. I'm surprised that you seem to think that BLP policy doesn't apply to a BLP! To quote WP:BLP, material [must be] written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone." Using a Wikipedia article to endorse defamatory claims is about as categorical a violation of BLP as you can get. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you reading what I'm writing? I'm aware that BLP policy applies to BLP's. However, that doesn't mean vague insinuations that some unnamed material may somehow be defamatory entitle you to violate policy. If you have a stronger defense to make, I'm all ears, but right now I'm hearing you say you can revert at will on any BLP per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. IronDuke 05:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay... I see you have now reverted a fifth time. I'm not sure what to do. I'm loathe to report you for the aggravation it may cause us both, but I can't think what else to do. Can you please stop for a bit? This isn't a BLP issue, this is tweaking wording about a subject we can all agree on, that Enderlin was criticised. There is no BLP vio whatever. IronDuke 05:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not reverting - I'm trying to find a form of words that's mutually acceptable. You'll see that I've initiated a discussion on the article talk page; I'm glad to see you're participating. By the way, 3RR doesn't apply in cases of removing unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material - see WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you are reverting -- specifically and demonstrably. I am happy to break it down for you, if you'd like. And I'm not sure why you're continuing to provide links for me to BLP: I am aware of what the policy is, and I am aware you are claiming to uphold it. You can take that as read, and also note I'm not linking to 3RR, NPOV, etc: I assume you are familiar with these, and don't need to pretend that you somehow aren't. IronDuke 15:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Heyo ChrisO,

I got curious over the fuss and went over the most recent diffs. I don't see a BLP issue over the discussed content and edits but I do see some collaborative improvement in fixing up the content so cheers to that. Hope the working parties will find a way to be less aggressive in their styles (no one in particular).

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:History of the Republic of Macedonia

hi, would you please check a template? "Template:History of the Republic of Macedonia" has recently been changed by a user called The Quill, but I think it might not meet wikipedia standards (the view-discuss-edit options at the bottom do not work). Also he simply changed the symbol on the top of the template (flag with coa). regards 87.158.35.97 (talk) 02:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but have you tried discussing it with him? -- ChrisO (talk) 02:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

could you please help out?

I am currently a graduate student, working on a semester project regarding Wikipedia. I was hoping you would be able to privately answer a few questions in reference to your personal experience with Wikipedia in order for me to get your view on the website. The questions are on my user page, and if you could answer in them in word and e-mail them to the address shown that would be really helpful. Your anonymity is assured, and any personal information you give will never be used outside of this questionnaire. Thank you for your time.Curesearcher (talk) 02:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Main Page Moving

You are very right. In the Main Page, I did NOT see any "Move" tab. I only saw "Move" tab in the Discussion page. Could you move them simultaneously? Gercekkaynarca (talk) 10:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Lronhubbard_1943.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Lronhubbard_1943.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 16:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

ANI thread

Hi, ChrisO, there is an ANI thread you need to read. I strongly suggest that you take a look at the history of the talk page of the editor in question and follow the links that have been deleted - as one of them is about you (and the other, me). WP:ANI#Block review, sockpuppet? Aleta ^Sing 20:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Chris, I wish not to identify myself, however, as I'm sure you are aware, the individual whom this regards has made no attempt to hide the fact that he is who you all suspected. He is making requests to "track you down" and his minions are expending massive amounts of energy to do so. Honestly, I believe this is classified as "cyberstalking". Not sure what you can do, or even if you wish to do anything, but I thought you should be aware. Take Care

Notice

ChrisO -- This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty regarding an issue with which you were tangentially involved in February 2009 -- see Can a book in Chinese and only available in China be used as a reliable source?.

To clarify, you are not the subject of this ArbCom process, but the thread in which you participated was identified as relevant by one of the parties -- see here.

You have no obligation to do anything in this context. Thank you. --Tenmei (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Scientology arbitration

This is to notify you that you have been added as a involved party to the Scientology arbitration case; this is either because you have been mentioned in the /Evidence, the /Workshop or their talk pages, or because you are closely connected with it.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, KnightLago (talk) 13:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

New guide line

What is the best route for introducing a new guideline for wikipedia users/editors. thanks.Politis (talk) 16:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Bernanke

I got my check, didn't you? Tvoz/talk 01:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Alas, I've not been bailed out yet... -- ChrisO (talk) 07:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

God, Tvoz is a lucky guy. I have perennial problems with payment too [10]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Evidently he's too big to fail! -- ChrisO (talk) 08:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Darn

Darn, I suspected you might have the answer, now I suppose I need to get to work :-)Politis (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Syndicate screenshot.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Syndicate screenshot.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file 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 '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 media 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. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 00:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks re Archiving

I was getting so many edit conflicts that I gave up trying to remember the correct template, and when I managed to post the last last plea to take it to the article talkpage I forgot to include an edit summary and I never do that!!! Thanks, anyhoo. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator questions on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria/Workshop

Kirill has asked some questions here. You are invited to respond. --Tznkai (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Elite c64 advert.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Elite c64 advert.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file 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 '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 media 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. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 22:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Notification

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Move of the article Republic of Macedonia to Macedonia by User:ChrisO and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,--Yannismarou (talk) 03:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Log

As an administrator, can you clarify for me how and who establishes abuse logs (see,abuse log). I fail to see why my edit is there. You might agree with my puzzlement. Also, there is repeated identification of users according to nationality. I have repeatedly expressed that I find this unacceptable because it strikes me not only as racism but also based on assumption. I re-confirm my views to you and would appreciate a response. As I see it, on an anonymous site such as wikipedia, users can only be classified according to their editorial preferences. For instance, a 'Scotish' user may find him/herself in agreement with a raft of editors. Thanks Politis (talk) 12:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You might have answered but I cannot find it. Give it another go? Politis (talk) 15:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully, this helps more than this hurts.....

I've given my 2₵. It may or may not impress the Committee, but I figured, "what the hell."
Best of luck,
--NBahn (talk) 03:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, —— nixeagle^{email me} 03:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

British

Apparently you are British. If so (I will not know until I meet you :-)), you must be more than familiar with our standards when it comes to ethnic identification, our touchiness about certain issues on race. There is only political party I can think of that happily promotes ethnic differences, and it does not curry much favour across the land. If you are British I hope you will apply the same standards on wikipedia as you do at home. At least that is my opinion and you are welcome to disagree with me.

By the way, what is 100 diffs? As in "Keep your evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 diffs". Thanks sorted! Politis (talk) 13:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Greek Parliament was involved?

Sorry for disturbing you again. You wrote in your statement that:

"Any article that mentions Macedonia is a target for disruptive editing, which generally involves replacing the term "Republic of Macedonia" with "FYROM" or made-up terms like "Vardarska". This has even extended to anonymous vandalism from the Greek Parliament on an article that appeared on the Main Page recently. [1]"

The link [1] you give us, leads here, wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_the_Republic_of_Macedonia [11]; and the link in that edit leads here Macedonian Information Agency. I cannot find anything about the Greek parliament, only that 'Number of presidential candidates increases'. I am probably missing something, but I cannot see how the Greek Parliament was involved. I hope you can help out because it should make an interesting news snipet for someone, dont you think :-) Thanks. Politis (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not the link in the edit I was referring to - it's the IP address of the anonymous editor. Check it out; you'll see that it traces to the Greek Parliament. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Evidence

Thank you for adding evidence to Macedonia 2. We ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their evidence to 1,000 words. Please trim your statement accordingly. Neat, concisely presented statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee. KnightLago (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'll see what I can do to trim it down. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed it: [12]. Wonder whose post this is directed at? His or a way to discredit yours? (Taivo (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC))

Who knows, I guess we'll find out! -- ChrisO (talk) 20:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. KnightLago (talk) 23:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, it is fine at 1,090. There is some leeway allowed. KnightLago (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, but since I'm planning to add more I need to compress a bit further what's there already. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Precision in language

At Proposed Findings of Fact#Ethnic polarisation ..., I wonder if opposing is the best word for this specific context?

• See, e.g., Opposing force?

I'm persuaded that a near-synonym might be more effective in moving ArbCom's decision-making process forward at this point? I think adversarial would be better, not because it's more accurate but because it may implies a process and movement towards a yet-to-be-determined objective?

• See, e.g., Adversarial system?

As you know, opposing forces can exist in stasis or balance. It seems to me that an ArbCom case at this stage of development is well served by neither; and for this reason, the word "opposing" should be replaced by some other, more finely focused term.

Just a thought ...? --Tenmei (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan12345

Hi ChrisO,

Since you're the admin that notified Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs) of WP:ARBPIA, I thought you might want to remind him thereof after this edit. Calling an article a POS and tacitly accusing its editors of Antisemitism is perhaps a bit off the mark.

Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 23.04.2009 13:23

P.S. Just noticed this has been taken up at WP:AN/I here. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 23.04.2009 13:46

Re: Please remove me from Samaria arbitration

I'm rather hesitant to fiddle with the list of parties at this point merely because there hasn't been any evidence presented regarding some of them. Being listed as a party isn't indication of anything beyond the fact that you've been given official notice of the proceedings; if there's nothing of interest regarding your involvement (or lack thereof), you'll simply end up mentioned in something akin to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes#Alex Bakharev, and that will be the end of it. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 03:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Re. Straw poll

Hello ChrisO. Thank you for contacting me. I do not present the slightest opposition to the recreation of the straw poll analysis page. I plan to add my evidence to ARBMAC2 this weekend. See you there. Regards, Húsönd 18:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much - I'm looking forward to seeing your evidence. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see that you found me quotable in your evidence and all. I like to try to get my writing to convey salient points sometimes, and looks like maybe I succeeded this time. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It was a good quote. :-) Do you plan to provide any evidence of your own? -- ChrisO (talk) 09:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I intend to provide evidence, yes, but I'm planning to wait until Husond and Fut.Perf. have presented theirs so that I have a better idea what matters still need coverage. What with the need for brevity and conciseness, and to avoid redundancy. Goodness knows the arbs need no more long-windedness than what they're already getting from some people who shall remain unnamed here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

File:North ossetia map 100px.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:North ossetia map 100px.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Lronhubbard_1943.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Lronhubbard_1943.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. Melesse (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Husond/Straw Poll

Hello ChrisO. User Shadowmorph is requesting on my talk page that this subpage of mine is updated to contain all participants of the straw poll, not just the ones until deletion. I see that the subpage is now fully protected, so do you think that the list should be updated as the user requests, or should it remain frozen under its current state? I'll abide by whichever you decide. Best regards, Húsönd 18:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, I haven't had time yet to add my evidence to ARBMAC2. Do you know until when will I be able to add it in? Húsönd 18:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Warning - action will be taken against you for your poor behaviour

There is no original research, the links were already there and both links are Danish Govt sites which use FYROM or fyr Macedonia. All I did is put Denmark in the appropriate section. I am reporting you for abuse of you position with immediate effect and will be posting this evidence of every page of every editor to add to your already questioned reputation as an Admin. Thank you. Reaper7 (talk) 13:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, finding of fact will be going up shortly. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, most the list for the Republic of Macedonia side is simple embassy pages which use the term Macedonia. I notice you have not handed out an 'Original research' warnings there. I am just giving you time to create a defence. This one is going all the way unless you show an immediate apology. Reaper7 (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't dispute that the page needs to be sorted out. However, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is no defence against adding crap of your own. You should be trying to find references that specifically address whether the constitutional name is recognised, not trying to infer it from documents which don't even discuss the constitutional name. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Reaper, whatever you do, "posting evidence on every page of every editor" would be very poor behaviour indeed, and I'm sure wouldn't be looked kindly upon under the present circumstances. As for the dispute at the country list, I've long said the whole list should be scrapped. It has always attracted just this kind of conflict over reliability of information. Fact is, most governments keep themselves pretty covered over this issue, and in many cases no information about their official diplomatic stance is easily available. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, on your latter point, there is a pretty good source for that info - whenever a country recognises Macedonia under its constitutional name, the Macedonian government announces that fact publicly. Its statements, and coverage by the local media, are picked up by BBC Monitoring and are available through Factiva and Lexis-Nexis. I'm too tied up at the moment to use either database, but I think most of the sourcing problems in this article could fairly easily be resolved. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, so far, nobody seems to have been able to tap into those sources. And if we found them, we'd probably have new problems, because in at least a few cases Greece and Macedonia have published conflicting claims over the stances of third countries, so we'd probably get editors demanding that sources must be official publications of the country itself. So far, the usual standard in the discussion on that page seems to have been that the best evidence is if you find the actual official text of a bilateral agreement naming the country, but in the absence of that, demonstrably consistent usage in the foreign ministry web pages of a country has also usually been accepted as good enough. The Danish stuff would probably qualify only for a listing under "incertain". BTW, I don't think this is really important enough to burden the Arbcom case with. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

True futperf. concerning the Arb, ChrisO was fully aware that this behaviour of his would not fly and he had a chance to apologise which he did not take. He is under investigation for his behaviour already and this was a very poor move on his behalf at such a crucial time. All editors who are curious can be contacted as this will go towards a general picture of his behaviour and has already now been totally documented. Reaper7 (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately Reaper7 went ahead with spamming other editors' talk pages in spite of your warning, so it does now probably need to be dealt with by the Arbcom. I've proposed that he be banned along with Avg. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the while discussion is in the wrong place. We are already evaluating the references in the Talk:Macedonia naming dispute. ChrisO I really don't have an opinion where should Denmark be placed. Today I am a little busy in real life. The thing I have noted is that two editors, who as far as I understand are not related with the two countries involved are making some effort to find better references. Yes, I think that maybe the documents provided are not perfect but are better than a dead link. Please, don't discourage editors by reverting their edits and giving warnings when there is not a serious reason. Always assume good faith. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere, old EU members (and EU as an entity) officially recognise the provisional UN name only. This has been the case since the '90s and nothing changed. But I've got an idea: who's up for contacting MFA's and end this once and for all? We could appoint one (1) person, in order not to spam them. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 02:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal of countries

Hello, Chris. Yesterday you had reverted my edition because it seems I have "thrown a lot of valid references" on the list of countries using RoM. Those references just mention Macedonia or RoM, but these ones don't really prove if those countries recognise Republic of Macedonia by its constitutional name. All these references are about random documents and lists using the name Macedonia. The whole list (33 countries and its sources) can be seen here. Thanks for your time, Der Ausländer: Was willst du mir sagen? 15:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I noticed that several of the references you removed did actually refer to the countries' position on the naming dispute. I'll address this on the talk page - thanks for the link. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

So, may I remove these 33 countries? It doesn't make sense keep OR information. Don't you? Answer me when you have checked the whole list of external links used as references. Der Ausländer: Was willst du mir sagen? 18:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you please leave it until people have worked through the list? It would be helpful if we could get agreement on what is actually OR and what is not. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Today, I have been searching new sources for these countries twice and I found nothing. I'm too the editor of the translation into Spanish of Macedonia naming dispute, Disputa sobre el nombre de Macedonia, now a FA candidate, an article where I checked all the useful references provided in the English article. I know this topic is quite controversial, but, don't you believe that cleaning the list would improve the quality at least in the lists of countries section? Anyway, I'll be back in one week and I really hope to see a possible agreement. Der Ausländer: Was willst du mir sagen? 14:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming arbitration has failed

The arbitration process has crashed and burned, because ArbCom's Admin Moderators have just jumped ship. See [13] and please suggest a remedy. Do we have to start this all over again? Or does ArbCom appoint new Admin Moderators? I write to you because someone suggested your name on the page I mentioned above. If you think you can help us, please do. -- Evertype·✆ 07:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It was I who raised your name on the project now that the moderators for the Irish naming conflict process resigned. I did so as I see you wrote the Naming conflict policy for Wikipedia and recently moved the Macedonia page to match Wikipedia policy. Regarding the Irish naming conflict problem, currently editors are trying to sort out the situation where the country called Ireland is situated at the incorrect title of Republic of Ireland with the island being at Ireland. As you were so proactive regarding Macedonia we were hoping you could give a suggestion on what you think the best solution should be? We could really use some input as Arbcom have failed to make any impact with their (rather weak) attempts at solving the problem and really need some guidance from someone who knows what they're talking about.MITH 20:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Considering your history, its surprising you haven't approached before on this issue. It has taken up an enormous amount of editor's time and a resolution could only be beneficial for Wikipedia. RashersTierney (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to forgive me - I'm totally unsighted about this issue. Can you summarise what it's about so that I can consider whether it's something I can help you with? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll try my best. For a few years now actually there has been a dispute amongst editors about the titles of the articles regarding the island of Ireland and the country of the same name. The country article is located at the Republic of Ireland - which is not an official name of the country but occasionally used as such in the United Kingdom. For years there have been move requests to move it but it never gained majority votes to pass. (Neither was there consensus support for the Republic of Ireland title, but remained as it was the status quo.)

Editors have tried setting up a taskforce to iron out the problems but it was deemed to not have remit to change article titles so a case was made to ArbCom. ArbCom decided not to do anything as they can't make decisions regarding content if I'm correct so they setup WP:IECOLL instead. Three moderators were put in charge of choosing a process in order to try find consensus. However the moderators devoted very little time and despite making a judegement on what they think consensus is, the Wikiproject is in limbo, meaning the issue regarding the article titles is still unresolved despites many normal editors giving their best efforts to sort it out. As you are an expert on these sort of things we were hoping you might have some insight on what could be done to solve the issue.MITH 21:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but was wondering whether you've decided whether you can help us on this issue or not?MITH 10:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please help if you can. I'm the one who filed for Arbitration in the first place. It has been disheartening to see the Arbitration process fail because the appointed Moderators bailed. -- Evertype·✆ 13:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay in replying. I'm still reading up on the backstory of this matter - I'll try to post a reply one way or the other later today. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

(unindenting) Provisionally, I think I will be able to help you. I'll do a bit more reading and post something to the relevant discussion page later on. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much.MITH 08:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very, very much. -- Evertype·✆ 10:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

300DPI Image of Battering Ram

I was wondering if you had a 300DPI quality image of the battering ram picture. I have just completed my second book on Alexander's Sieges and am looking for quality pics for it. I would be grateful for any help you could offer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.200.228 (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure - I'll have a look. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)

The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

ELl v ELL. Thank you

Thank you for clearing out "East London Line". I did not have time earlier today so I reduced ELL to just "Needs deleting". I think I have been snared in the past by there being both articles. I have copied the ELL article to Word and will see if it is has significantly different truths from the contents of "ELl".--SilasW (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually there was no content at East London line - it was merely a redirect to East London Line. We only had one article on the subject - there was no other article on the subject. What you've copied - and what you erased earlier - is actually the full text of the article! -- ChrisO (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Links

Have you notice that in all references that you are adding, actual links are missing? Moreover, please try not to use MIA as the only source for this information. We are seeking for third party sources. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm using the news database Factiva. There are no links to web content - it's all database material. As for MIA, there's nothing wrong with that source - it's an official state news agency, after all. Please do not delete sources for POV reasons. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

For example in Pakistan we have that "The PM welcomes the Pakistani ambassador". How do we know that this means recognition by the constitutional name? It took so long to cleanup, I just don't want to see the list immediately being messed up again. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm saving copies of the sources. I'll add quotes later when I get home (since my time with this database is limited). In the case of Pakistan, for instance, the source says "Pakistan was one of the first countries that recognized Macedonia and established diplomatic relations under its constitutional name." I suggest you have a look at what I've just posted on the article talk page to explain the methodology I'm using. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Be travolta 100px.jpg

File:Be travolta 100px.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Be travolta in 2000 100px.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Be travolta in 2000 100px.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 02:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I/P articles

Chris, would you mind taking a look at this? [14] I feel it might address the issue you raised recently, namely how to deal with the intractability of the I/P dispute. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus

Hi, I wanted to call you attention to the situation on Talk:Northern Cyprus and specifically the section Voting for Moving the Article To North Cyprus. The "voting" process was initiated by a banned user and it is fueled by a group of novice editors, who seem to be pushing a POV agenda. One of these novice editors has now placed a move tag on the talk page. Could you please check if your semi-protection of this article is sufficient under the circumstances. Thank you. --Zlerman (talk) 12:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

E-mail

Hi Chris, e-mail for you. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Protection of Denial of Soviet Occupation

This page is the beginning of a double redirect. If you could change the redirect to Occupation of the Baltic states I would greatly appreciate it. If you reply, please do so on my talk page. Thanks MacMed (talk) 03:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Re John Carter

ChrisO, I received this email from John Carter:
"Look, I know you have claimed repeatedly that you are an academic. I have to say "claimed", because, in all honesty, the utter failure to even engage in the minimum amount of research required to do even a passable high school paper you have displayed to date forces me to call that into question. It is your responsibility as an individual to ensure that any comments you make related to anything actually deal directly with the subject at hand. It is not the responsibility of anyone else to ensure that you be made aware of relevant subjects, of which you yourself have stated you are "blissfully unaware". How you continue to see these opinions of yours, which seem to be based on nothing else but your own opinions, are still relevant to the discussion frankly astonishes me.

As you have been told before, ArbCom does not make rulings regarding content. It would have been extremely easy for you to verify that yourself, if you showed the willingness to do required research that it is generally seen as being incumbent on any academic to do in virtually anything they do. Their previous history is that they have created an advisory board such as that at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration here which attempts to arrive at consensus on the subject. Whether it actually ever does arrive at such a consensus is another matter entirely. And, yes, the three admins who were selected to try to head the discussion there have all recently withdrawn from it, making that attempt at compromise basically dead until such time as other admins can be appointed to fill those positions. It should also be noted that in cases like that the same people who were arguing before the ArbCom are generally still the parties who have to make the final call in the collaboration as well. How it is that you have completely failed to even try to understand the basic history of such matters and still seemingly insist that your almost completely uninformed opinion is relevant astonishes me.

And your repetitive, almost cliche, use of "red herring" is both completely misleading, because as you have been told the things you call "red herrings" are in fact the conduct issues which ArbCom actually does deal with, as opposed to the policy decisions you seem to believe that they deal with, and only further shows that you have made little if any attempt to understand what it is you are talking about. Basically, such repetition of irrelevant cliches itself tends to make any claims you may have to be regularly involved in academia even more questionable, or otherwise speaks little if those who are engaged in that work.

Please, try to at least have a basic understanding of what is being discussed if you insist on involving yourself in such discussion. Thank you"

Is this an assessment that you would agree with? (Taivo (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC))