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

Please add new comments below.

---

pallywood

you're invited to leave your commentary here: [1]. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Pyramid Power and Patrick Flanagan

Thanks for stopping User:82.13.27.143's insertion of pseudoscience as fact into the Pyramid power article. I would, however, like to draw your attention to the same type of edits this IP has made to the article on Patrick Flanagan, which I recently made significant efforts to clarify and correct. Anon IP has reverted said edits, and I have reverted his back to the corrected version of the page, but I strongly suspect that he will revert them yet again to the previous poorly sourced and NPOV (undue weight, specifically) former version of the page. I'd greatly appreciate it if you could keep an eye on the Patrick Flanagan article. Thanks. -Interested2 00:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: 86.27.165.72 - rdns "client-86-27-165-72.popl.adsl.virgin.net"

82.20.58.74 - rdns "client-82-20-58-7.brnt.adsl.virgin.net"

82.9.16.123 - rdns "client-82-9-16-123.manc.adsl.virgin.net"

82.13.27.143 - rdns "client-82-13-27-143.brhm.adsl.virgin.net"

Four IPs, all from the same service provider, all in the same area, and all editing the same set of articles in a short span of time strongly suggests to me that this is one user with a dynamically assigned IP address. -Interested2 00:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and thanks for the heads-up. I've semi-protected the Patrick Flanagan article. As for Pyramid power, it's not in very good condition (lots of unsourced material); I'll have a go at rewriting it. -- ChrisO 07:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

nice work

just thought i'd give a good word for resolving the last issue properly with this edit.

editing on wikipedia has become a serious discomfort lately with people taking this place as a soapbox and mocking the idea of promoting articles with some attempt at rational thinking.

cheers. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem, it's a perennial issue isn't it? Going to the sources is always the best way to resolve that sort of thing. -- ChrisO 21:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Monckton

Are we still waiting on you to check your newspaper archive?[2] I have an archive I can access if you'd like some excerpts of reporting on the home sale. Another user has proposed some language.[3] Is there any objection to using it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 4 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article fox tossing, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 14:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)

The August 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

3RR

you've made 4 edits within' the past 24hrs on Pallywood, kindly read the cited sources and revert your latest edit. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't a revert, so 3RR is inapplicable. -- ChrisO 22:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Viktor yushchenko.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Viktor yushchenko.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

hey brother

I just ran accross one of your documents that you poseted about the Origins of Himariotes and Corfiotes and their immigration to Italy. Would you happen to have the whole article, or more of the sort? ... btw I speak Italian and Albanian as well :D, so I don't have a problem reading it (even Latin).

Thanks, and let me know.

Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epirjoti (talk • contribs) 06:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Scientology Navigation template

user:wikipediatrix still insists on their untenable position regarding the placement of the Xenu link, despite the constant (although apparrently pointless) discussion over it's obvious belonging in the doctrine section. Please help make sure this ridiculous argument stops here. --Krsont 02:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Other anti-Scn editors, such as AndroidCat, have let the "Xenu in the controversy section" version stand for some time now. One has to ask oneself why, since Xenu is still clearly in the template, it makes SUCH a big deal to Krsont that it just must, must, must be in the Doctrine section. I've also suggested other ways we could revise the template to get around the whole matter, like ditching the word "Doctrine" entirely, but they fell on deaf ears. wikipediatrix 02:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: Zekka and WP:BLPN

Thanks for reverting that ridiculous report they posted. I'd been reverting their edits all night; they made some all-caps spam article about their family supergroup, which I had to re-tag with a CSD several times, as they kept removing it, and persistently inserted wikilinks to that and other articles that they'd created, as well as the (all-caps) material into existing articles. They threatened with legal action against Wikipedia after everything was said and done. How do you think I ought to respond to it? GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 18:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Amadeus

Yes, I actually have watched Amadeus (it actually came out before that manuscript was discovered). Still, after deleting thousands of nonsense articles, any connections that Mozart may have to modern hip hop stars continue to surprise me. Academic Challenger 22:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose, if you'll excuse the mixed linguistic metaphors. -- ChrisO 22:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Response

I think the responses of others on the AfD page have been sufficient to answer your question. There is little more that I can add. Personally I think that you should stop haranguing people who disagree with you, stop trying to dominate the discussion, stop trying to signal potential closing admins about which comments you think should be ignored, and just let people give their opinions. Discussion is one thing, trying to shout people down is something else. 6SJ7 00:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Question on deletion of 'Twas the Night (musical)

I had a question about this, I believe per Wikipedia policies I should ask you as the approving admin? My comments are: The original deletion request was based on it only being "locally notable" (which is specifically listed as NOT being a reason for non-notability, and also the claim that it is only performed in one place is factually incorrect, based on information in the article) and one of the votes for deletion was "per nom" (which I understand is also not a reason to vote for deletion). Even the other Delete vote seems shaky, since it refers to "no reliable sources" when there were several sources listed.

More generally is the point that this is a "real" musical, published, available for other theater companies to perform, etc. For example this holiday it is being performed in a different theater than the one it is performed in each year. Somebody in that town might wonder what this "'Twas the Night" musical is about, and perhaps go to Wikipedia to find out more. Is Wikipedia really better served if they DON'T find anything about it?

Sorry for the delay in asking about it, I was going to ask sooner but at that time you had updates to this page blocked due to defacing.

Thanks.

- adam

Adamba 01:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of apartheid

Please see Talk:Allegations_of_apartheid#Propose_move_to_.22Apartheid_analogies.22. Lothar of the Hill People 21:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Neurophone rises from the dead

Thought you might be interested to know that the same anon. editor who was going to town on Pyramid power has unilaterally reversed the AFD decision to redirect Neurophone to Patrick Flanagan, and has rewritten the Neurophone page (the new version is very, very poor). I'm tempted to reinstate the redirect, but I haven't worked on any of these or related pages before, and thought you might be better acquainted with the people involved. --Dcfleck 02:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice - I've reinstated the redirect and semi-protected the page. People aren't allowed to unilaterally overturn the results of AfDs. -- ChrisO 07:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On September 12, 2007, a fact from the article Lick Me in the Ass, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

heh. lol.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Your input would be welcome

Hi ChrisO. There is an RfC at the Palestinian people page. I would appreciate your feedback considering that you wrote the naming policy and while it's not directly relevant here in that this is not over the article name per se, it's related to same concepts or precepts. Thanks for considering this request. Tiamut 19:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

House demolition

I think you should consider renominating this on the FAC. Raul654 08:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Map of Pharsalus

The map at article "Pharsalus" is an excellent outline map of the (?modern) prefectures of Greece, but has no dot or other mark to show the location of the subject of the article, the city of Pharsalus. Hope you can add one. --Norm_Mit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Norm mit (talk • contribs) 22:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it hasn't, but that's because it doesn't seem to have been coded properly. I'll have a look at it to see what I can do. -- ChrisO 22:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

Chris, please take a look at this mediation discussion and enter your comment if you would: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-09-14_Church_of_Scientology_Moscow_versus_Russia.--Fahrenheit451 00:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mont ventoux simpson memorial.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Mont ventoux simpson memorial.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media 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.  Barliner  talk  16:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Barbara Schwarz

Hi Chris. I've been following your advice and trying to change change the tone of the article away from attacking and making fun of Barbara, without removing information. One thing I've done is take out the cases where the same information is repeated 2 or 3 times. If you have time could you drop by and see what you think? Thanks. Steve Dufour 13:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. The article has improved quite a bit. I'm going to leave it alone for a while. Wishing you well. Steve Dufour 05:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Croato-Serbian wiki wars

You are interested in Balkan history and with your edit you have entered in our Croato-Serbian wiki wars so I will tell you what is my problem with this articles. Because of stronger and better organizated Serbian editors wikipedia today is not POV about this stuff. For that I will give you few examples about Croat and Serb war crimes. Story is starting with WWII and Ustaša moviment. In article Independent State of Croatia I have tried to explain that Ustaša hate toward Serbs has been born during dictatorial regime of king Alexander. Like source I have used statement of Albert Einstein. Discussion about that you can see on talk page of article, but short version of story is that this statement confirmed with link has been deleted. Second example is Jasenovac concentration camp and genius which has put protection on fundamentalist version of article. You have wiki articles where number of victims of this camp if between 53,000 and 700,000. Serbian users like very much to use data of The Yad Vashem center which is only international organization which write of more that 500,000 killed. Only problem is that they write number of victims which is greater of all killed in Independent State of Croatia looking to data of this center. United States Holocaust Museum is speaking of about 53,000 - 97,000 victims. Third example is story about Gospić massacre. We are having court decision put in question by questionable person. Last example is article House of Trpimirović where is put in question that Serbian royal dynasty is cadet line of Croatian ruling dynasty. First it has been asked source of statement. When source is given user which has asked for source has deleted everything. Look talk page of article. My point is that when we have Croatian crimes number of victims is going up in wikipedia and sources outside (international organizations, court, historical records) of any question are always attacked or without sources or with POV sources.

When we speak about Serbs or Serbia situation is different. In article Serbophobia like source has been used Yugoslav defensive claim on international court. In article History of Serbia on talk page we are having UN resolution which is saying that Serbia has attacked Bosnia and Herzegovina but this is not for article because UN voting has been POV ?? Everybody neutral know that Serbia has never started war of agression :)) In my thinking you will escape from this edits. If there is no so much propaganda shits on wiki about Croatia I will be now writing about Roman history and not this.. --Rjecina 04:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Quneitra FAC nom

I swear I'm going to leave this FAC nom until hell freezes over or until it gets enough feedback ;)

Tony didn't find anything big wrong with it - he requested that you make some minor punctation tweaks, and asked that you expand the political status section. Raul654 05:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Image deletion help

Last night I noticed that 5 images were deleted that I had put on my watchlist and was in the process of reintegrating in a new article for each of them (Image:MiamiViceDVD3.jpg, Image:MiamiViceDVD4.jpg, Image:Miami Vice S5.jpg, Image:Miamivice1-2.jpg, and Image:MiamiVice CompleteSeries.jpg). But when I went to add MVDVD3 it was deleted. I checked the deletion log and noticed that User talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson had deleted them. I posted a message on his talk page, but it seems he is ignoring me. Any way that you can undelete those photos? They're being integrated into their own pages: Season 1 etc. _{El Greco}^(talk) 15:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks anyway. _{El Greco}^(talk) 23:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Epping-ongar_branch.png

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Epping-ongar_branch.png. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image 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 the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 00:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:South_acton_tube_station_1933.png

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:South_acton_tube_station_1933.png. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image 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 the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 00:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:St_marys_tube_stn_map.png

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:St_marys_tube_stn_map.png. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image 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 the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 00:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Denial of Soviet occupation

You deleted the article just as I was posting a solution in the talk page which addressed the problems regarding "POV" which had been raised. The title is appropriate and, in fact, the Russian position is only ancillary. I was not "recreating" the deleted article, I was creating a new one with a specific template which would facilitate presentation of an important topic in a neutral fashion. If you read the AfD you will see people actually changed their votes from "delete" to "keep" based on understanding the core issue. Please read what I created and see if it really "recreated" the deleted article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vecrumba (talk • contribs) 22:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

As I know, the article was created by another user. Sorry did not notice the new attempt for re-creation.--Dojarca 01:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, your decision over "Denial of Soviet occupation" seems to be based on lack of knowledge about the topic. You claim that it is because it brings to mind Denialism. It does, and for a purpose. To quote the first sentence of that article "Denialism describes the position of governments, business groups, interest groups, or individuals who reject propositions that are strongly supported by scientific or historical evidence and seek to influence policy processes and outcomes accordingly".

1. The occupation of the Baltic States is a historical fact, strongly supported by historical evidence. I don't know how well you know European history, but already reading Encyclopedia Britannica or any of the standard works on WWII would show that this is the position taken by all historians. There is no doubt or debate over the matter.

2. This historical fact is denied by the current Russian government. Again, it takes no expert knowledge. Both the BBC and The Economist have reported on it, and I can think of few more thrustworthy sources in English. If you read French, German or Swedish you can find recent articles on the phenomenon in major papers in the these countries as well.

I'm sorry to say so, but your decision seems to be based more on a lack of insight on your behalf than on any errors in the article. JdeJ 08:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ever heard about user space harassment? BBC and The Economist may be "thrustworthy" as you put it, but trustworthy they are not. In terms of their coverage of Eastern Europe, they have the reputation of the vehicles for cheap irrational Russophobia: the Russians "do not just want our wheat and our pigs. They want our souls", etc, etc. I'm surprised that someone may insist on bringing this vile racist propaganda to Wikipedia. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes of course, BBC and The Economist are of course vehicles of racist propaganda. :/ I guess that comment says it all about the extent to which some users are prepared to go to press their own fringe views. What I'm more interested in is to hear if Chris also agrees that BBC and The Economist "racist propaganda" and "vehicles for cheap irrational Russophobia". JdeJ 10:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

That's the reputation they enjoy here in Russia. The community discussed the BBC's skewed image of Eastern Europe elsewhere. The Germans, Romanians and Hungarians slaughtered about 20 mln Russians by the Volga. Unlike Germany, neither Hungary nor Romania has ever apologized for that. Now your favourite media outlets accuse the Communists/modern Russians (these terms are never distinguished) not only of having occupied the harmless countries, but also of "spreading tentacles across Europe", "wanting their souls", and probably eating their babies too. These generalisations have nothing to do with journalism. This is propaganda. --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the 5320 references to "Soviet occupation" in google scholar [4] and 2690 books that mention "Soviet occupation" in google books [5] is all just "racist propaganda" too is it? Martintg 11:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops. They allude to the concept of Occupation of Baltic states which is covered in the appropriate article. Let me refer you to that page. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

While the relevant section in 'Occupation...' should be expanded, and main/further/details template used to link it to the subarticle - and while it could be renamed - I have to disagree with the deletion. The votes seem to be very evenly split along 38 keep / 38 delete (+/- 1 or 2 due to my quick count), and as such it is a clear case of keep due to no consensus. Admins should not delete or keep due to their own feel, if you feel strongly you can vote - but if closing, you should respect the consensus (or lack of it in this matter). So as a fellow admin who does not like wheel warring I ask you to reconsider and undelete this, either with keep to no consensus or voting and recusing yourself from closing. Thanks, -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I was proposing a NPOV solution on the talk page when it was deleted, and then my attempt to create a new {{stub}} with that NPOV template was deleted and the Wiki-earth salted. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

We see that the history is repeating itself when yet another admin who stepped the POV-pushers' toes is being harassed. The admin who closed the previous discussion (Moreschi) commented [6] that he can not speedy delete the recreated POV-fork because he is in fear of a lynch mob which can be launched against him by the accounts in question. The activity at this page proves Moreschi was right. --Irpen 16:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Asking an administrator for an explanation is quite different from a lynch mob. I asked a simple question here, and Ghirla then jumped in with this madness about BBC and The Economist being racist and vehics of russophobe propaganda. As for mobs, you people give at least as good as you get. I agree, though, that this discussion should not take place here. JdeJ 16:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Madness is when a supposedly serious media outlet blabbers on a day to day basis about the evil Russians who want to steal the Europeans' souls and when some wikipedians claim that such irrational rants deserve to be reflected in our encyclopaedia. As for the rest, I agree with demon that the page should have been G4'd from the very start, if only to discourage the lynch mob from harassing the closing admin. --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Review of TV Links

An editor has asked for a deletion review of TV Links. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. topher67 05:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

User 62.38.216.95, 87.203.209.49

This user has been vandalizing the Athens page for atleast two months now. I took it to 3RR and they did nothing about it a while back, I got block because I reported him. This IP user is the same person just different IP acounts. He keeps reverting what seem to be my edits which are trying to conform the page to WPMOS, to a page that was filled with photos. (All I did was delete a picture that has no relevance to the climate section.) See Before and After. I don't know what to do with this user. I keep telling him to check his reverted edits and he ignores my request and continues to vandalize the page. Please help. _{El Greco}^(talk) 14:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Denial of Soviet occupation. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Martintg 01:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Psychiatric abuse DRV

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Psychiatric abuse. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

• Sorry, but this one just has to be reviewed. Dhaluza 10:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Your recent close

Hi Chris. I dispute your recent close of psychiatric abuse on two grounds. 1) IMO, it was clearly a case of "no consensus" with 7 clear keep vs. 9 clear delete. Both sides had strong arguments. There was no consensus. 2) I challenge your neutrality on the subject as you are an anti-Scientology crusader and that topic has Scientology interest. You should not have been the one to close it. Please amend your close to "No consensus" and restore the article. If you do not feel that I make a strong argument for that then I will have to refer this to deletion review. Thanks. --Justanother 13:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, obviously I should read first, post second. Still, please consider reversing yourself. --Justanother 13:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the deletion reasoning also--it's not a vote, so when you close based upon a vote you just raise legitimate issues questioning the closure. A clean closure for any reason would have been better than closing based upon a majority, which is a vote, which is not what AfD is. Please read the rules and understand the process before closing based on something that isn't part of the process:

== AfD Wikietiquette ==

...

• Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process,' it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself.

So, don't say that the vote (a clear majority) showed something and close or keep based on that in AfD when AfD is not a vote and treating it as if it is one, particularly with already contentious subjects just makes it seem like Wikipedia cannot keep its policies straight--which it can't, but that doesn't mean we need to show it in such full glory. KP Botany 02:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Chris. I'm wondering if you could make the (1) article content and (2) talk page for Psychiatric abuse available to me. At a minimum, I'd like to have a record of the talk page. In addition, I may want to use the content elsewhere in wikipedia. If for some reason you can't provide both, please provide what you can. Perhaps you can move the material to this user page or email it to me. Thanks for your time! Best wishes, HG | Talk 02:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. RSVP on my Talk page, ok? Or is it ok for me to ask another admin for this? Thanks, HG | Talk 15:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• I apologize for bothering you again. Another user pointed out that I was wrong to paste from the deleted article without the edit histories. I've undone two cut-and-pastes, but another (Falun Gong) already has various intermediate edits. I'm wondering if you'd help me deal w/the GFDL concerns, or perhaps you'd prefer I ask another admin. It seems to me that one option, which various folks have recommended already, would be to restore Psychiatric abuse as a redirect or dab page, which would thereby allow access to the edit histories. Please let me know on my Talk what I can do at this juncture. (I'd be glad to deal w/writing the dab or deciding where to redirect.) Again, I'm sorry. Thanks. HG | Talk 14:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

"Right wing"

The source you referred to on Pallywood is offline -is this a copy of it? <<-armon->> 09:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

That's the one - note the line "Right-wing bloggers have dubbed that "Pallywood."" -- ChrisO 09:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, then you're right. I personally find left-wing/right-wing a simplistic descriptor and kind of meaningless, but it's cited. <<-armon->> 09:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You have a point - after all, the supporters and opponents of Israel hardly cleave into a simple left-right split - but I suspect that if you were to research the usage in depth (I haven't) you would probably find that it's more used by (non-Israeli) conservatives, simply because they tend to be the strongest supporters of Israel. -- ChrisO 10:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be shocked if that was true. Anyway, I only removed it because I thought it was a bit of uncited editorializing. <<-armon->> 10:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, and thanks for being so conscientious about checking for possible POV. I just wish everyone took that sort of care. :-) -- ChrisO 10:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, would you mind doing me a favour? Can you take a look at the MEMRI page? Specifically, could you look at my series of edits from here to here and give me (and Jgui) some feedback on talk? Given that you and I have disagreed on various issues, (though not on core policy) I think your input would be helpful, and I couldn't be credibly accused of soliciting some sort of "partisan" assistance. <<-armon->> 11:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible deal

Hi ChrisO. I just made an offer on Talk:Barbara Schwarz‎ which could take me out of Project Scientology. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. Steve Dufour 07:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)

The September 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Your AfD closes

You seem to be pulling out the big brains in formulating your AfD closes. Keep up the good work. -- Jreferee t/c 00:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Quneitra

Wow! Amazing job man. The FAC was like two months ago as I recall. Great! You'll want to update your user page then. ;-) Cheers, Anas ^talk? 02:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

A request

Hello. Your doing a fine job. May I ask one thing however, that you do not use administrative tools on Vergina Sun. Very respectfully, Mercury 20:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

ANI

Hi. I just wanted to let you know that I have raised the issue of your apparent content dispute on Vergina Sun on WP:ANI [7], including my concerns about your use of the protection facility. Thanks TigerShark 22:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the resolved tag from ANI, as I feel that further community input would be useful. I genuinely have no strong feelings on this, except that we need to give the opportunity for further input. Thanks TigerShark 23:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You've been blocked

You've been blocked for 12 hours for violating the three-revert rule. Once the block expires, you are welcome to discuss changes to Vergina Sun at the talk page. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 23:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)‎

Unblock

I have unblocked as I am sufficiently convinced you will not edit war in the future. Mercury 01:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, but in the interests of fairness it's reasonable for me to serve out the block - I've self-blocked myself for the remaining time on the clock. -- ChrisO 01:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well when your ready to edit, just unblock yourself (reverse your own block). I already reversed Maxim's. Mercury 01:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The other guy shouldn't have been blocked either. Just FYI, I guess I'll unblock him too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 01:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not know the other was blocked also. Meh, we all make mistakes. Mercury 01:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

ChrisO, you are my hero. Let your behavior here serve as an example to all users. Thanks, ➪HiDrNick! 03:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)