User talk:Brian0918/Archive 30

Leave a new message.

Wednesday 10 July 09:02 UTC Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 AIM screenname: brian0918

Raul's laws of Wikipedia Edit counter Check text readability Vandal Fighter Real-time server stats Server monitor Most active users Boilerplate text HTML character codes Special:Specialpages Wikipedia:Tools

• Translations

DYK

You're right, it shouldn't have. I looked over the articles, but I think I just missed this one. It has now been replaced. Nishkid64 19:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Better Source Request for Image:Sagegrouse21.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sagegrouse21.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talkpage. Thank you. MECU≈talk 01:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Click?

Hey, thanks for replying to my post on the main page's discussion section. I may be reading it wrong, but I don't understand how click would help get an image on the background of a table - would you mind elaborating on my talk page a bit - I'd really appreciate it. Thanks either way! --Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 22:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Haha, and by the way just in case you can't see it the link to my usertalk page it the "T" - or you can go to User talk:Danielfolsom - thanks again!--Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 03:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Haham hanuka and the Adolf Hitler article

Hi, I saw your comments on User talk:Haham hanuka about his conduct on Adolf Hitler. Since then he has continued almost pathologically to remove perfectly sensible edits on the article, including most recently trying to thwart almost every edit made. I have remonstrated, pleaded, etc, to no avail. All very puzzling because from his other edits he seems quite a decent editor and the edits he is thwarting on the AH page are not in any way pro-Nazi or pro-Hitler, in fact, quite the reverse. I wonder if there's anything we can do about it - do you have any thoughts? Thanks. MarkThomas 23:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Dershowitz_Alan.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dershowitz_Alan.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. 09:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007

The January 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.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

RAID copyright violation

Your edit summary here

remove copyvio; not only does the section clearly state that it was taken directly from an internet forum, but a simple google search shows: http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=952998

is a bit condescending. If you actually read the thread on the forum that you googled for you will find a user "Matt Welke" asked for permission. You will also note that User:Matt0401 posted the guide here and is most likely the same person which leads me to believe the author granted him permission. However, I can't find the author granting permission but have asked Matt to provide it (email, url, whatever).

You are clearly not a newbie but in the future you could probe a little bit further if your edit summary is going to emphasize ("clearly" and "simple google search") the lack someone else's research (read: mine) when you yourself didn't read what you found (the thread is only 3 pages). Heck, the author could have granted permission in the thread you linked!

Finding a copy of text somewhere on the internet does not necessitate it being a copyright violation.

That's all, no hard feelings, I'm not yelling, etc. etc. Just a request. :) You will note Talk:RAID#Copyright violation if you care to maintain an interest in this particular incident. Cburnett 18:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Statue of Liberty in Planet of the Apes.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 03:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...

for removing that "official debunker" jab; I assure you, I'm not trying to piss you off. I'd just like to see some sources that determine whether this is really a law or just an extremely prolific and well-documented rumor. There are a lot of grey areas in numismatics, like defacing dollar bills with counterfeit detection pens, or pressing pennies as souvenirs, or making belt buckles out of quarters. A lot of the documentation about that stuff is speculation and personal interpretation that hasn't really been put to the test. I just want to see what the applicable law actually says in this case. Kafziel ^Talk 14:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 10:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

POTY 2006

The arrangements for the Commons: Picture of the Year 2006 competition are now complete, and voting will start tomorrow, Feb 1st. All the featured pictures promoted last year are automatically nominated. As the creator of one or more images nominated for the election we invite you to participate in the event. Alvesgaspar 11:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Camera icon.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Camera icon.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Remember the dot (t) 01:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Edison light bulb video

I was wondering where you got the Image:Edison speech, 1920s.ogg video. I've just been trying to help decipher some of the words.--Dbolton 03:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Military History elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 13:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Los Alamos copyrights

National labs have independent copyright policies, that is true, but Los Alamos' policy is a free one for non-scientific work. See this page for a discussion of different DOE lab contractor copyright policies. They are not all non-free. --Fastfission 17:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

{{Wikipedialang}}

Hi, I was wondering if you could check out a suggestion of mine? At Template_talk:Wikipedialang#Cut-off_point_change, thanks :) Jack · talk · 22:04, Thursday, 15 February 2007

Possibly unfree Image:Publius_Vergilius_Maro.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Publius_Vergilius_Maro.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Iamunknown 20:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Question

Can you translate the following: "ﺃﺳﺎﻣﺔ ﺑﻦ ﻣﻨﻘﺬ" and "أسامة بن منقذ" The reason I ask is that you reverted the change here [1] and I need to know why for purposes of a study (Wikipedia:WikiProject Vandalism studies/Study1) we are conducting. Thanks Remember 13:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The info you added about the SEM images of snowflakes

I'm a former microscopist and my area of expertise was SEM, and in particular LT-SEM. You information about the SEM isn't correct...but I could tell your heart was in the right place. You said that "...the capabilities of the electron microscope allow observation of fine structures at over 100,000X."

Actually, the SEM can produce high resolution images upwards of 800,000X and greater, particularly more modern instruments using field emitters for their electron source. You might get me on a technicality by the fact you said "over 100,000X" but you aren't really giving the SEM the credit it is due.

As for the temperature of the stage where the snowflakes were being photographed, -170C is pretty cold and not a practical temperature to work at. I routinely operated between -40C to -60C and this was more than sufficient.

Take care,

Bob Holt —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.76.32.144 (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

• I didn't say that, I copied it from the USDA site. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-02-28 18:15Z

Ah, got caught accusing you when it was the USDA who got it wrong. I suppose I should write them. B~

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007

The February 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 14:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Facebook0918.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Facebook0918.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, then 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, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

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 04:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 04:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

titin's name and move for deletion

Doing research over the internet (heh, the internet), I recently found some things relating to you from science.slashdot.org while trying to find the word for titin.

You were responsible for putting the string of letters representing amino acid (which is proven by the history of the page itself dating back to march 2005) which came to being translated into a word by FlameViper.

The only reason for my message is to implore you for some help to stop them from trying to delete a template as it is still impertable to remain on wikipedia or at least devise an external/wikisource link. They claimed that a consensus was reached but from time to time, the consensus proved to be a facade as those links were broken/invalid.

I hope I can hear back from you soon.

64.180.240.190 11:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Anti-Japan2.gif

Hey, do you happen to know where you got this image from? It'd be better if it were sourced (and maybe on the commons) so that no one will be able to delete it for lack of a source. gren グレン 05:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Synesthesia question

Regarding the use of "sharp cheddar" or "loud shirt" our point in our articles on this is two-fold:

1. First, these are emphatically not *synesthesia*. Some people, espeically in the linguistics community, have referred to such metaphorical utterances as synesthesia, since they are, like neurologically based synesthesia, cross-sensory in nature. However, the word "synesthesia" should be reserved for the true automatic, conscious, experiences of stimulation in one modality eliciting an associated experience in a second modality. This sort of carelessness in the use of the term has hindered synesthesia research since the early 1900s (see History of synesthesia research), and if we are to move forward with scientific investigations, we must be clear in our usage of the term.
2. However, the same neural mechanisms that lead to full-blown conscious experiences of synesthesia in a minority (a significant minority based on recent data) may underlie everyone's ability to generate and understand such "synesthetic" or cross-sensory metaphors. Note that even if such metaphors were first generated by someone with a gift for metaphor, other people readily understand them. Part of what we, as psychologists and neuroscientists, want to understand is how do people do this?

What we want to suggest in our articles is not that "sharp cheddar" is an example of people who are not synesthetes "using" synesthesia. Rather, the idea (and hope) is that by examining the strong experiences that are present in people who experience synesthesia, we may be better able to understand the neural mechanisms of such cross-sensory phenomena that are present in everyone. Edhubbard 08:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

deathcamps issue

Dear Brian, please look here for the explanation (and follow the links if you wish more info):

- http://holocaustcontroversy.blogspot.com/2006/10/on-demise-of-deathcampsorg-how-fakes.html + All, any version of deathcamps.org with a hyphen is a counterfeit copy of the genuine ARC website and is in direct violation of our copyright. In addition: To post links or suggest linkage to a copytright violater is contrary to Wikipedia rules.

- http://holocaustcontroversy.blogspot.com/2006/04/quick-links.html#heartexposed + For anyone who questions these FACTS we urge you to visit WHOIS.NET and perform a domain lookup on the genuine deathcamps.org and note the dates of registration as 2002. Do the same for the counterfeit website with the hyphen and you will see the bogus site was created several months ago. THESE ARE FACTS not the anecdotal statements made on blogs.

- Short explanation: + Thank you.

- - deathcamps.org is now frozen, and it is "run" by a great person; + The ARC Team (deathcamps.org) - - death-camps.org is run by the founder and webmaster of former deathcamps.org, and the site is not frozen, so it has more up-to-date information.

- --Sergey Romanov 15:40, 16 March 2007

Brian, thanks for the heads-up. I put the "analysis" on my User-Page. The claims about ARC copyrights and ARC "representatives" that this fellow makes aren't true, as the groups itself doesn't exist since Oct. 2006 and owner of the domain does not equal owner of copyright. --Sergey Romanov 13:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Szmul Zygielbojm.jpg and deathcamps.org

I don't mind the fact that you changed the URL from death-camps.org to deathcamps.org, and I don't want to get in the middle of the battle over the issue, but you've turned a true statement -- "The version of used here is taken from death-camps.org/reinhard/allies.html, where it appears without attribution." -- into an untrue statement -- "The version of used here is taken fromdeathcamps.org/reinhard/allies.html etc.

The truth is that I took the photo from the death-camps.org site. Where they took it from, and where deathcamps.org took it from, and where it originated in the first place, are unknown to me (and the creators of deathcamps.org, I suspect), which is why I described the picture as "Undated photo of unknown origin." As I said, I don't care that you've changed the URL, but keep in mind that your zeal to "correct" every instance of death-camps.org may not be appropriate. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 17:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that you reverted your edit. Never mind. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 17:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Color focus illusion

I think it might be helpful to redescribe the illusion as colors at fixation (e.g., red when you look at the center) seem to expand as you move forward, and since there is only so much space for the colors, the colors in the periphery (e.g., blue) must correspondingly contract. When you fixate the blue, then blue would correspondingly expand as you move towards the image.

Because colors seem to expand when they are at the center of gaze (projected onto the fovea) at the expense of the colors in the periphery, one aspect of the illusion might be due to cone spacing on the retina. Since the cones are tightly packed into the center of gaze with many fewer cones in the parafovea and periphery (see http://webvision.med.utah.edu/imageswv/Ostergr.jpeg) we only really see colors well at fixation. I'm still not clear how this interacts with the direction of motion. We also know that things appear to expand or contract as we move towards them, so perhaps this expansion or contraction is simply continued for the colors away from fixation through a process of filling-in (or, in this case filling out) so that the effects seen on the colors at the fovea are extrapolated towards the periphery of the visual field.

One thing I tried was to change the image to grayscale, since it is known that contrast affects percieved motion speed (Stuart Anstis at UCSD has done a lot of work on this). The illusion completely completely disappears. It is also worth noting, based on the grayscale image, that the colors are roughly isoluminant (equally bright). This is probably important to the illusion, since the motion system (signalled by the magnocellular pathway)is more or less color blind, while the color system (signalled by the parvocellular pathway) is pretty motion blind. I'll forward this to some friends of mine at UCSD who are world experts on color and motion, and perhaps they'll have some better insights.

I don't know how much vision physiology background you have, but this is an excellent site for things of this nature: http://webvision.med.utah.edu/. I'll let you know if I hear back from my friends at UCSD.

Edhubbard 10:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

National histories

User talk:Brian0918/National histories — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-18 20:03Z

Project Black history biographies

I bring tidings that I wrote the final articles and that all 756 persons now have articles and the project is complete. SYSS Mouse 16:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Any version of www.DeathCamps.org with a Hyphen is a counterfeit Website

All, any version of deathcamps.org with a hyphen is a counterfeit copy of the genuine ARC website and is in direct violation of our copyright. In addition: To post links or suggest linkage to a copytright violater is contrary to Wikipedia rules.

For anyone who questions these FACTS we urge you to visit WHOIS.NET and perform a domain lookup on the genuine deathcamps.org and note the dates of registration as 2002. Do the same for the counterfeit website with the hyphen and you will see the bogus site was created several months ago. THESE ARE FACTS not the anecdotal statements made on blogs.

Thank you.

The ARC Team deathcamps.org —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.157.161.15 (talk) 23:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Question re: removal of account

Brian, I ask because you're somewhat "involved" is this issue now.

If you look at my history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sergey_Romanov&action=history

you can see that there is some person (one might easily guess who) who tried to vandalize my user page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASergey_Romanov&diff=105571739&oldid=89670383

(You can check out his link, but it is NOT work-safe!)

Now click on his IP to see his contributions, and judge for yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.160.31.156

This is obviously the same "ARC-deathcamps.org" dude. Is this allowed in wiki, or can his account be removed? --Sergey Romanov 14:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Authorities have been put on notice regarding weblinks vandalized by Sergey Romanov

Brian this user is in violation of ARC www.deathcamps.org copyright and in direct violation of Wikipedia rules and regulations. Wikimedia has been contacted and made aware of this situation along with Google, Blogger, 1and1, the FBI and other relevant legal authorities. This behaviour will no longer be tolerated.

TFD

I think you're getting a little too worked up (I voted keep), just relax it's going to stay. Most people are voting keep the template's going to be fine. Tayquan 14:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

death(-)camps

Hey, Brian. You seem to have encountered the www.death(-)camps.org issue before. If you have a handle on who did what when and to whom, it would be very helpful at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Legal threats, counterfeit websites, oh my!. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Maintained template

Sorry for the intrustion but a solution to the insane mess re deleting this template has been proposed and supported:

• Strong keep with rewording to "The following users are interested in this topic and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources." I have placed this template on five articles I brought through the FA process: DNA, Enzyme kinetics, Enzyme, Enzyme inhibitor and Bacteria. This has resulted in a steady trickle of e-mail and talk page requests from people as diverse as schoolchildren and industrial chemists. These people might have had problems identifying any of the original contributors of these articles as the constant vandalism of FAs buries any constructive edits in the history under a mass of reverts. I don't see any harm being done either, as the history of Enzyme shows, having this tag certainly doesn't seem to deter people from editing the article! TimVickers 15:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep but reword as per Kevin. -[[User:SeanMD80|<FONT STYLE="italic"

• Keep but reword using Kevin's suggestion. ("The following users are interested in this topic and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources.") This compromises between WP:OWN and advertising editor assistance. -- Reaper X 15:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The following users are interested in this topic and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:

Originally it ended with a period but it should end with a colon as you have it, given "The following..."

Would you do the honors to the modify the template slightly to render the vote and insane 'delete debate' obsolete (given that it'll all be about wording that doesn't exist anymore)? Or shall I do it? I'll check back here in a few hours and if you haven't responded (or are in therapy for weeks trying to recover from the insanity you had to endure over nothing ... over and over again) I'll change it myself and you can always change it to whatever you like, whenever you like. But this 'delete' BS has to end ASAP.

Thanks for creating this template. It helps a lot and the only semi-valid issue I have ever heard of around it was brought up by me when I posted it in a section on the Toronto talk page to find out what others thought about it and to figure out the best way to enter data into the template for that specific article/talk page: it could look to anyone who doesn't know about the worthlessness of history lists in finding out anything, if they know about history lists at all, it could appear as though "the wiki-powers that be" (an admin or the like, even if they don't know that term) stuck the tag on a talk page and "appointed" someone as the official "verifier".

The solution to that was simple enough:

{{Maintained|{{user0|S-Ranger}} as of [[2007-03-14]]<br />
''If you would like to add yourself to this list, feel free to do so by clicking on the "edit this page" tab''.}}
<!-- If you verify that any reference(s)/source(s) cited in the Toronto
     article actually match up with whatever text/tables in the Toronto
     article, even one reference every six months, then please add your
     username above after the last one by adding a comma, space
     {{user0|Your_username}} after the last one.
     E.g. {{user0|S-Ranger}}, {{user0|Your_username}} as of [[YYYY-MM-DD]]
     where "Your_username" is the name you use to log in to Wikipedia and
     YYYY-MM-DD is the year, month and day (pad with 0 for 01, 02, etc.)
     you added your username to the list.  Thanks! -->

It's not as though text can't be added to or above and/or below the template to explain anything and everything and/or in HTML comments given that it's the only way to get a username added to the template; from the data file source code in edit mode. —S-Ranger 21:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

source cats

Can you comment on the suggestion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 24#Category:World Factbook? — coelacan — 03:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Help with Philosophy of mind?

Hi Brian,

I am sure that the last thing you need is more battles (I've seen your heroic work on the Atheism page, great stuff!) but there is a user who is insisting on adding unreferenced (poorly written) WP:OR to the Philosophy of mind article. Francesco and I have reverted his additions up to our limits. The user sometimes edits under his username User:InternetHero and sometimes logs out to edit under his ip address, 63.135.9.214. He might be violating the WP:3RR (we're both close), but the most troublesome is the rants that he has left on my talk page[2], and Francesco's talk page [3]. He seems to view this as purely a battle of wills, including the calling upon of other (previously banned) wikifriends, rather than a matter of logic, reason, and referencing. At this point, I have simply reverted, and insisted that his additions are OR each time. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Edhubbard 20:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The only reasons for your arguements are Wiki rules and the fact that I reverted to your tactics. My strategy is logic and has been from the start. You have yet to refute my edits on both your and Lactosias's talk pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by InternetHero (talk • contribs) 23:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

I love it!

Thank you for changing the atheism intro! I'm much happier for it. Thanks, thanks, thanks. You earned it!  :))))Modocc 22:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy of Mind

How do you make a talk page.

rv = no sense.

As stated earlier, my additions in questions are all from other Wikipedia articles and can post the links if needed.

Talk pg! = They have yet to reply to my edits on their pages.

death camps

Hi. Both death-camps.org and deathcamps.org links are being blacklisted and deleted due to copyright concerns and complaints to the Foundation.[4] Since it's impossible to edit any page with those links, I have taken the liberty of disabling the link above so your talk page won't lock up. I'm one of several people going around disabling these links on a rush basis. --A. B. ^(talk) 20:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Ephesians 2,12 - Greek atheos.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ephesians 2,12 - Greek atheos.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

The March 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.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 18:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Reasons for atheism

Thank you for the invitation. Unfortunately, I have to take a short wikibreak for a few days, as some real life issues are getting out of hand. And I was just in a content dispute that I need to cool off a bit. If the project isn't completed when I come back, I will be happy to help! --Merzul 18:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Postulatory atheism

"Postulatory atheism. This view of atheism, usually taken by scientists themselves, is based on keeping gods outside of the epistemological system (that is science) in a first instance, thus not postulating any gods, unlike theology. Theistic assumptions, however, can later be re-admitted in areas at the scientific fringe, or in areas that are unexplored or considered inexplorable. (example: Stephen Hawking's pre-Big Bang God). This form of atheism is often represented in connection with the pragmatic or nominalistic atheism described above."

Took some liberties and casual license, hope it helped anyway. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Chaperon

Have you checked this with the fashion project etc? Personally I have never heard the word headwear before. Since I was clearly in the middle of editing, you might have warned me - as it is I lost a complicated edit. Are you always like this? Johnbod 03:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Headgear is used throughout WP in all the categories etc. Headwear is, imho, not a real word, though perhaps useful if you want to buy helmets wholesale. You should have raised this on the talk page. Sadly I don't think I can revert you, can I, or I certainly would. I will raise this at the project level; if you wish to pursue the matter please do the same. Otherwise move on. Johnbod 03:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I won't be able to, now the old title is a redirect, will I? Why you think gear sounds more protective than wear is beyond me - its the other way round surely? Johnbod 03:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

ok reversal seems to work - I thought you could'nt move to an existing name. I understood you ok, I mistyped my comment. Johnbod 03:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Atheism

Okay, the translation is at Talk:Atheism\reasons, as is a rant about why using the German article isn't going to solve the problem. —Angr 08:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

AAFG

Hi Brian0918 - After a few months of editing Wilikepdia and occasionally citing WP:AGF as a friendly reminder of behavior standards, I came across the essay, Assume the assumption of good faith (AAGF) in about January 2007. Until I read your statement "the very act of citing WP:AGF assumes that the opponent is assuming bad faith," I had not realized that my friendly citation of WP:AGF probably was not being received in a friendly manner and, in fact, may have antagonized the situation. I gave your profound statement much thought and it really opened my eyes as to high standards towards which I can work. As we all essentially are equally positioned in Wikipedia, the very act of supporting judgmental statements with a cited policy, guidance, or other process may not assume good faith in some circumstances. I strive to guide my posts by the higher standard AAGF and wanted to thank you for posting the AAGF essay. -- Jreferee 16:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. It gave me a second quote to use, which promoted me to start my quote collection at User:Jreferee. -- Jreferee 17:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Animated Gun Turret

I notice that you voted against the promotion of the Animated Gun Turret on the Featured Picture Candidates pages; however, User:Emscopes, the creator of the image, has retooled it to reflect the suggestions of those who voted oppose. I was wondering if you would take another look at the photo and see if the new version warrented a change in your vote. Thank You TomStar81 (Talk) 21:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Nonbelief

Moved to talk:atheism.

Image:Borlaug2003.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Borlaug2003.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. grendel|khan 15:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Your work on the Atheism article

I just wanted to congratulate you for what I believe to be excellent work on the Atheism article. Your efforts have transformed the article into something that should be seriously considered for featured status. The final section (criticism) still needs a teeny bit of work from what I can see, but everything else looks great. Articles like this are hotbeds of controversy, and I think anyone willing to "grab the bull by the horns" with these sorts of subjects is brave indeed. -- Scjessey 15:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Great Lakes Storm of 1913 FAR

Great Lakes Storm of 1913 has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding the situation. I will try to review the article later today and add my suggestions. Regards, Anas ^talk? 17:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

RFD notification

Hi. A number of redirects which were created as a result of pagemoves you performed have been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, it can be found here. Cheers, Black Falcon 01:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm in the process of closing the discussion and it looks like these redirects should be deleted. I just want to confirm that the fact you haven't made any objections means your happy with the deletion of these redirects (User:Brian0918/List of people in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography - A through User:Brian0918/List of people in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography - Z). I am uncomfortable deleting pages in another admin's userspace without permission. WjBscribe 14:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank. WjBscribe 14:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for reverting Atheism

Sorry for reverting Atheism without explanation. The sentence The most direct criticisms made against atheism are claims that a god exists, says the same thing as the last part ... to arguments for the existence of God. I think the last part should be rephrased or omitted, but I may be mistaken. Good work on the article, by the way! Nivix 15:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the beautiful work

Moved barnstar to user page

New Talk:Atheism Archive?

Could you archive subjects 1-41 of the talk page so that I don't have to scroll so much? Thanks :) johnpseudo 16:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you. --Ragib 21:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice try, Brian. Where may I ask do you see *myself* in making revert war?? Didn't expect such frivolous comments from an admin. --Ragib 22:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You claimed I reverted 4 times when it was only 3. As for the revert war you've been in, see [5]. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 22:15Z

I have provided references for your 4 reverts. And I reverted it once, that doesn't justify your fake 3RR warning. --Ragib 22:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I only reverted 3 times, so your notice on my talk page is just as justified as mine on yours. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 22:19Z

Please count the 4 diffs provided at the TFA/requests page. Thank you. --Ragib 22:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I only count 3 reverts. You have added an unrelated side-discussion to the tally, which of course is nonsensical. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 22:22Z

Brian, there are four reverts, not three. To revert is to undo changes made by another editor(s). I count the first revert as occurring at 16:59 18 April 2007, and I think you can tell that there were three more afterwards. Nishkid64 22:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Your argument is based on ambiguity. There were 4 reverts to the article, but 3RR as I knew it was never a per-article tally. Someone has decided to broaden the policy without informing all administrators of this change. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 22:49Z

What do you mean "per-article tally"? I don't when the last time you looked at 3RR was, but during my time here, I know it's said 3RR block is applicable when four or more reverts in 24 hours are made to any article. The same content does not have to be reverted to make it 3RR. Frankly, I don't see how you didn't know this earlier. Nishkid64 22:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't had to look at WP:3RR in at least a year; I can't help it if a random person introduces a change to a random policy without my knowledge. Frankly, please assume good faith next time, or at least assume ignorance. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 22:58Z

(edit conflicted)I was assuming good faith. I only came here to handle the 3RR request, and I wanted to know why you were saying you didn't know of the new 3RR policy. Anyway, the matter appears to be resolved. You know now, so that's water under the bridge. Nishkid64 23:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Atheism rv

Hi, You seem to know more about the Britannica numbers for atheists than I do so I'm fine with you changing that back, but I don't understand why you reverted all of the changes I made instead of selectively changing the ones you disagreed with. Please see Help:Reverting#When_to_revert Tritium6 22:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no way that 18% of the world has any idea what the terms strong atheism or weak atheism mean, much less would so many refer to themselves as such. The other change- using names instead of "some", makes the statement meaningless with no context as to who these people are or what their statements might indicate. johnpseudo 23:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you suppose that one must know the vocab words in order to be considered an atheist? Under that philosophy it is logical to say "I believe there is no God, but I am not an atheist", which to me is nonsense. If I'm afraid of spiders, but I don't know that the name for this is arachnophobia, does that mean I don't count in the statistics of those afraid of spiders? No. Atheists are defined by their beliefs, not by whether they consider themselves atheist.Tritium6 17:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I actually thought I was reverting that entire addition by NBeale (thus my edit comment referring to it), but then you did it for me after my edit. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 23:11Z

oops

Try this:

<div style="position:absolute; z-index:100; right:100px; top:-0px;" class="metadata" id="donate">
<div style="text-align:right; font-size:80%">''Your '''[[Wikimedia:Fundraising|continued donations]]''' keep Wikipedia running!''
</div></div>

I forgot about the clear all text. This should work.  Razorclaw  20070418234324

• Done. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 23:58Z

Thats odd.

Log out and look here. Maybe it can be centered? That might help... Razorclaw

• I don't see any problem. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-19 01:21Z

OH! I forgot to clear my cache. Nevermind. Thanks for changing it for me. Razorclaw ;)

Darwin protection

Aren't articles featured on the main page supposed to be left completely unprotected to provide an example of Wikipedia's openness to editing? Has policy changed on this issue? -Silence 17:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• When there's rampant vandalism you can semi-protect for short periods to recover. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-19 17:46Z

Unnecessary recent additions?

I had added the following books at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#References:

• Mackie, J. L. (1982). The Miracle of Theism: Arguments For and Against the Existence of God. Oxford: Oxford UP. ISBN 019824682X
• Martin, Michael & Monnier, R. (Eds.) (2003). The impossibility of God. Amherst, NY: Prometheus. ISBN 1591021200

These two are essential reading! I have absolutely no idea why you think that it's unnecessary to mention them. — Editorius 15:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply to your message:

(1) Mackie's atheological masterpiece is not just any one among "a billion such books". It is doubtless one of the best and most sophisticated refutations of theism. It is definitely necessary to mention it in the entry on atheism. You may ignore the 999,999,999 other books but not Mackie's.

(2) You seem to have overlooked that "The Impossibility of God" (2003) and "The Improbability of God" are two different books with different contents, and not just two editions of the same book.

Editorius 16:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Brain Trust

Haha... how do you know I'm an atheist? ;) — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-23 17:04Z

Well I just figured you had to be because of how much work you put in to that article, plus every one one Wikipedia has to be/act like a atheist so as not to have a NOV Max ╦╩ 17:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I have bullied NBeale a bit too much already, so I think it is best I don't get too involved in this. I easily lose my temper when dealing with him. Now, if there are reliable sources about, for example, agnostics who think this definition is usurping on their domain, then this should be included in the article, but I don't see the lead as terribly biased. The main complication is that while the broader def is less common, there is absolutely no consensus in the sources about which of the two narrower ones to prefer, and so it makes good sense to start with the broader definition. --Merzul 16:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

At least NBeale is citing sources... Do you think the sophomore philosophy on the Talk:atheism will get us anywhere? I'm very doubtful... --Merzul 01:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on the FA!

Congratulations! It looks like Raul654 is in the process of upgrading Atheism to Featured status. johnpseudo 22:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Please undelete Nicholas Beale

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

Brian. I honestly think that your decision to delete my article was wrong both in substance and in process. Since you have reverted many (but not all) of my edits on Atheism you should not be involved because of CoI. I should have been informed of the AfD proposal. And to close the debate after 3 days is wholly inappropriate even for a non-conflicted editor IMHO. NBeale 22:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Brian - sorry I misread the AfD (and have amended my complaint accordingly). I have redirected by request to the Admin who closed it. But I do think you should have informed me that you were AfDing it! NBeale 23:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW what exactly is the connection between you and Ryūlóng (other than both being US students of about the same age and WP Admins?) 13 minutes after your, perhaps understandable but quite mistaken comment about puppetry, Ryūlóng prematurely closed the AfD Debate? NBeale 13:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)