User talk:Blaxthos

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This is the talk page for Wikipedia user, Blaxthos.
The Signpost
29 April 2015

/2004-2007 /2008 /2009 /2010

Scott Lively - reply[edit]

Hi, indeed - the main reason I bothered commenting on his Talk page was to preemptively respond to any other editors who might follow his request to "see if the edit violates one or more Wiki policies". Thanks, AV3000 (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Apologies[edit]

I would like to offer my sincere apologies for jumping to conclusions with regards to your position. Soxwon (talk) 01:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Editor assistance list[edit]

A problem has been identified at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/list. You may like to read Wikipedia talk:Editor assistance/list#Problem with inactive accounts on the list. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Big Blue, IBM and Big Blue (disambiguation)[edit]

I must firmly contest the actions you've taken with these title articles. There is no primary usage of the title/phrase "Big Blue", thus, no way to justify the redirect you've setup. Please visit Talk:Big Blue#Proposal to discuss the matter further. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Response here. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Glenn Beck, Egypt[edit]

Since you commented on the situation earlier, could I get your opinion of the draft for inclusion? Soxwon (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I don't believe AF's disagreement's stem from good faith disagreement, but tendentiousness in such an atmosphere is incredibly hard to prove. I will give it a bit more work, but ultimately, I think I will give it up as a lost cause. Soxwon (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

At this point I have AF following me into other articles seemingly for the sole purpose of disagreeing with me, so I believe your assessment is correct. I myself am getting very tired of responding to his endless rebuttals. BlennGeck (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space[edit]

Hey there Blaxthos, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Blaxthos/Sandbox. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

  • See a log of files removed today here.
  • Shut off the bot here.
  • Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Civility[edit]

Assuming another editor's POV and then commenting on it is against the standards of article talk page use. You should know better.Cptnono (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Disregard. I completely misread your comment. Sorry about that.Cptnono (talk) 00:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
So your response to an apology is going to ANI. Wow. Good thing ANI deals with civility since I have some choice words I won;t be saying right now.Cptnono (talk) 01:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

ANI/I[edit]

Hi -- I know you to be an excellent editor. I just believe that the latest AN/I notice was not even worthy of an AN/I request, let alone actionable. No hard feelings I hope -- just expressing my view. (And yes -- I believe in a harsh hammer when actions are actionable, so I appreciate your being on the lookout ...). Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Blax, I'm surprised at you![edit]

A Better Business Bureau source flatly states that the Bureau's Wise Giving Alliance did not rate The Southern Poverty Law Center because the SPLC did not provide it with the information it requested, and you, apparently, thinks it's okay to use that same source to simply say that the Alliance did not rate the the SPLC. Looks to me like you've jumped the shark. Badmintonhist (talk) 13:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

ANI[edit]

I just want to point out to you, that Aerobic, Baseball Bugs and Epeche... first action was to investigate me and open up an ANI, when all I did was post a single opinion on the GB page. I believe this suggests my concerns about bias and a systematic attempt to control content is at work. No doubt they will have me banned shortly (I am sure I will be getting a civility notice or whatever else they can dig up). Just want to alert you to this fact, and to suggest you examine the history of the talk page. I am not the only editor to receive this treatment. If you review BB, A, EPECH and CPtono's histories, I believe you will see what I am talking about. 76.119.137.236 (talk) 13:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

New IBM Articles[edit]

Some years ago, when I used to log on, I'd run the following advanced Google search every week (with date set to past week):

-intitle:"IBM" "IBM" site:en.wikipedia.org

Articles found that were, in fact, IBM products, services, ... I'd rename (move), prefixing the name with IBM. Also removed IBM when appropriate to do so. No one every reverted one of those moves (a couple of my mistaken moves were reverted - the system works!). Didn't take long. Just mentioning, having noticed your comments re an IBM project.69.106.231.233 (talk) 06:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

user counter[edit]

Hi Blaxthos, I noticed your user timer (top right of User Page) is missing a space between Months and Days. I don't know if this is an internal thing or not, but I thought I'd let you know. I'm just doing a bit of impromptu browsing and noticed it.

Mongoosander (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Gold to go[edit]

Hi Blaxthos, The Gold to go wikipedia site is very outdated and many facts are not true. Can you update this site? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.253.170.170 (talk) 10:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

A Simple Plan (novel)[edit]

Are you still actively watching this article? If so, can you take a look at my most recent edit of the plot summary? Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 21:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

AfD for romney neologism[edit]

Here is Wikipedia's neologism guideline. My reading of it indicates that the references must actually describe the basis or origin of the neologism, rather than just using the word. I believe that the references for this article do meet that guideline. Debbie W. 01:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Two other editors have made a proposal that we should merge the romney neologism article into the Seamus (dog) article. Although I originally voted for keep, I like the merge idea because the two topics are related, and it allows us to retain the core material without having to justify a whole article on it.Debbie W. 05:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Lucent sign.jpg)[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading File:Lucent sign.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 '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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 06:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Mitt Romney & Animal Cruelty Databases[edit]

Blaxthos, I replied to your questions about Mitt Romney and the two animal cruelty databases on the Mitt Romney dog incident talk page. Below are two independent reliable sources that discuss the registries in detail. The first article is from the New York Observer, and the other is from the Denver Post. In terms of the registries' legitimacy, I included a link from the Virginia State Crime Commission that discusses the two animal cruelty databases. The National Animal Cruelty Registry was founded in 1986, and lists 20000 cases of animal cruelty, whereas Pet-Abuse was founded in 2001, and list 17,500 cases.

http://politicker.com/2012/04/dogs-against-romney-asks-should-we-have-a-president-who-isnt-even-qualified-to-adopt-a-pet/
http://www.denverpost.com/carroll/ci_20490663/romney-trapped-time-warp
http://services.dlas.virginia.gov/User_db/frmvscc.aspx?ViewId=1989 (read page 6)

71.255.95.103 (talk) 02:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Except for that one time . . .[edit]

when I mistook the anonymous editor for you, Blax, I think that I've always been pretty reasonable on Wikipedia. Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

A Simple Plan (novel) (again)[edit]

The IP editor is back again, reverting to the version with the long plot summary. I have requested page protection, as it seems like the only option to stop this incessant disruption. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 16:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

editor assistance[edit]

I write for editor assistance to see if I have somehow become a bad actor. Please reply on this page, and thanks for any help in advance. I would like amend the country-article first-sentence for the United States of America to include territories, as is done at the France article. I have sources and links. Opponents have links that support my position.
- The push back seems spurious to me. I see the United States as a federal republic of people, not a confederation of sovereign states. I have worked my way through wikipedia articles on the U.S. Constitution, Confederate States of America, American Civil War and found some success documenting the idea that the people are sovereign, not the states. On reaching United States article, I have no less than five editors saying that I am misreading sources, pushing a point of view, twisting sources, etc. Basically there is reference to the "widely held view" without any references. Only one other has recently come to my side. Since August, the back and forth has gone on since November? in archive 42 and 43.
- My opponents claim a judicial doctrine from "insular cases" of 1901-1904 that presumes in populations without Anglo-Saxon traditions they will never be protected by the Constitution or become U.S. citizens -- meaning at first by name, Guam, the Philippines and Puerto Rico. Well, what was unimaginable to jurists upholding Jim Crow laws has come about. We have U.S. citizens in territories that are not states. Both elements are enacted by statute with Organic Acts for DC and the territories. In Rasmussen the Supreme Court said Alaska, 'unincorporated' by treaty was really 'incorporated', intended by Congress to become a state because Alaskans were U.S. citizens and it had established a system of U.S. internal taxation in the place. Well, there is more ...
- I would be happy to supply an executive summary with date references to the edit history if it could persuade you to take a look. I suppose the exchange below would be my best foot forward. And I understand that I may be off base...I am an INTJ, and Meyers-Briggs says there is only 2% of the population viewing the world as I do. But it just seems so clear to me from sources, that for the official United Staes of America, the geographical extent of its federal republic is 50 states, a federal district, five territories. The nine uninhabited island districts are administered by the Interior Department. Please take a look. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
From Talk:United States

===Extent of federal republic -- by citizenship or incorporation?===

Reply to another editor trying to document as a legal brief, that Puerto Rico is incorporated in the sense of belonging to the U.S., its people are U.S. citizens, the U.S. has no second-class citizens, the Ponce federal district case is law until overturned at Circuit or Supreme Court, etc.
Common sense is original research. If you want to claim that the unincorporated territories are parts of the U.S., rather than present your own arguments you need a reliable source that says those arguments have been accepted. TFD (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
WP:OR "You must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are (a) directly related to the topic of the article", here, United States of America, "and (b) directly support the material being presented", here, geographical extent. How shall we describe the geographical extent of the U.S. federal republic? Let us consult sources, whether they refer to (a) U.S. citizens and nationals as “states, districts and territories”, or (b) incorporated territory as “states, DC and Palmyra Atoll”.
  • Judge Charles S. Chapel in Murphy’s U.S. Practice in International Law, 2005, p.34, is quoted, that courts had agreed that the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations "is binding on all jurisdictions within the United States, individual states, districts and territories."
  • In the |Homeland Security Act of 2002, "The term 'State' means any State of the [U.S.], the District of Columbia, ... Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, ... the Northern Mariana Islands, and any possession of the [U.S.]".
  • Professor Bartholomew H. Sparrow in Levinson’s, The Louisiana Purchase And American Expansion, 1803-1898 2005. p.232. "At present, the United States includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the District of Columbia and, of course, the fifty states."
  • State Department Consular Affairs Manual, | Acquisition of U.S. citizenship by birth in the U.S page 3, references Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA), that “the term '[U.S.]', when used in a geographical sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the United States.” From 1986, “the Northern Mariana Islands have been treated as part of the United States” by the INA.
  • |Executive Order 13423 Sec. 9. (l) '[U.S.]' when used in a geographical sense, means the fifty states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands, and associated territorial waters and airspace.”
  • Congress says the extent of U.S. jurisdiction today' in the U.S. Code of Law (USC), Title 28, “Judiciary and judicial procedure”, the jurists read “state” as directed by law: | 28 USC § 3002 – Definitions that the word "State" -- in Title 28 -- means any of the several States, the District ... Puerto Rico, ... Northern Marianas, or any territory or possession of the [U.S.]. — Example. | 28 USC § 1251 - Original jurisdiction (a) The Supreme Court shall have ... jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States. (b) ... [jurisdiction of] all controversies between the [U.S.] and a State (i.e., states, district, territories and possessions).

Previously, COMPROMISE PROPOSED

- To date, there is no counter source referencing "incorporated territory" for the geographical extent of the U.S. federal republic as, "50 states, DC and Palmyra Atoll”, because (1) that concept does not apply to the 2012 U.S. except as original research anachronistically applying principles of U.S. 1901-1904 injustice, and (2) no citation contrary to the six above offers a reliable source quotation connected to the geographic extent of the U.S. federal republic entire. Interpreting charts and counting search engine hits is original research at best. References to the British Raj, the French Constitution, etc. fail the WP:OR test "directly related to the article" quoted above. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
"At present, the United includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the District of Columbia and, of course, the fifty states." (Levinson, p.232) TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 5:44 am, 22 December 2012, Saturday (16 days ago) (UTC−5)
As I said above, that is the opinion of an expert (Sparrow) who argues against the accepted view that US possessions are outside the US. Note that the US is in dispute with the UN over the status of Puerto Rico - they say it is an "overseas territory", while the US says it is in "free association" with them.[1] The UN had listed Puerto Rico as a Non-Self-Governing Territory, but in 1952 it was relisted as an "unincorporated organized territories". Neither side has argued that it is part of the US. Sparrow also calls the United States an empire as part of his argument that the territories are part of the US. If we mention the first claim we must mention this one as well. Do you think we should change "is a federal constitutional republic consisting of fifty states and a federal district" to "is an empire consisting of fifty states, a federal district and overseas territories"? TFD (talk) 2:04 pm, 22 December 2012, Saturday (16 days ago) (UTC−5)
(a) You have no source as yet for any view other than Sparrows. Four Wikipedians on a Talk page are not “the accepted view” in any academic subject at WP. Please pick any reliable source other than Sparrow published in geopolitics, history or law – purporting to EXCLUDE U.S. dependencies for the U.S.A. and likewise EXCLUDE French dependencies for the Republic of France, in direct contradiction to the WP article France including territories in its first sentence.
(b) We should NOT use 19th century common-place expressions inappropriate for a modern encyclopedic style, such as “The U.S., empire of liberty in fifty states, district, territory and possessions.” We should NOT use “The U.S., a shining beacon of liberty to all the world marching bravely across the world’s stage in states, a district, territories and uninhabited islands.” No, thank you.

- However, if you were serious,

(c.1) -- YOU can accept my proposed language, “The U.S. is a federal republic consisting of fifty states, a federal district, five territories and nine uninhabited islands.[n.]” With (1) appropriate links and (2) a reliable source, verifiable in published scholarly literature, and –- (c.2) -- AND I will accept as a friendly amendment, what I take to be your serious proposal -- a footnote to the country-article first-sentence – you pick and choose from the menu -- documenting for places that the U.S. claims as under its own jurisdiction, stating in a clear balanced way with online links wherever possible, (1) international forum disputes by Haiti, Cuba, and several others, -- (2) U.N. 2012 investigation including Guam and others,

-- (3) U.N. cases in U.S. favor including Puerto Rico, Northern Marianas and others, -- (4) Bi-lateral 2012 negotiations undertaken by the U.S. State Department, perhaps two currently --or any combination you think most significant for the footnote, appropriate for the general reader. And you might kindly not ask me to defend the indefensibly archaic "empire" terminology for a modern encyclopedia hereafter. Please reply on this page. Thanks for any help in advance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 4:05 am, 23 December 2012, Sunday (15 days ago) (UTC−5) TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

User RFC on Arzel[edit]

I noticed that you have had several conversations with user:Arzel on his talk page. I would like to do a request for comment on user conduct. Guidance for the process can be found here. He has a history of disrupted comments that can be documented. I would need another editor who also has had problems. Thanks. Casprings (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Reply here. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I will let you know if another editor will cosponsor this with me. Casprings (talk) 00:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

You may wish to comment here. Casprings (talk) 19:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

RFC/U on user:Arzel[edit]

You took part in a discussion that dealt with user:Arzel, which took place here. Based on that discussion, I started a WP:RFC/U, here.Casprings (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:SquirrelSystems HQ.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:SquirrelSystems HQ.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation[edit]

Your upload of File:Choppa.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Lucent HQ photo permission[edit]

Hi, I see you are credited with File:Lucent_HQ.gif, and it is marked PD, but due to the Moiré pattern, it is obviously a scan of printed material. Do you recall the material in which it was printed? Can we be certain it is PD? Thanks for your attention to this detail! -- ke4roh (talk) 13:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)