User talk:Marvin Diode

I'm back.

My Rfa

My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 04:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

EIR

If EIR is accurately reporting an opinion by LaRouche, that does not discredit EIR as a source, regardless of whether LaRouche's opinion is credible or not. I asked you for examples of cases where EIR reported something as fact which turned out to be incorrect. You are applying a completely different set of standards to LaRouche publications than you do to the self-citing by King and Berlet. --Marvin Diode (talk) 03:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have access to an archive of back issues of EIR or other LaRouche periodicals. Since no one is proposing using EIR as a reliable source, it seems like moot point. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Renewable energy

I see that you are questioning the NREL? Do you even know what they do? 199.125.109.102 (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Edits

If you are the user who is making continual revisions of Anti-nuclear movement and Anti-nuclear movement in Germany, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies before making any further edits. Your edits have been disruptive and contrary to Wikipedia policy, and could result in a block of your IP range. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually you are addressing the wrong editor. CDE3 is the one who has made continual revisions to anti-nuclear movement. 199.125.109.45 (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC

Hi, you recently left a comment on the CAMERA talk page. I was just hoping you might respond to the post I made after yours. Thanks, --68.253.50.109 (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Synarchism

It looks like your page protection request on Synarchism is really a block user request. They have both violated the WP:3RR rule and are blocked accordingly. Initial period is 31 hours; if they war again, I'll up the blocking period. It looks like before this week the article was fairly stable. I'll keep an eye on it, and deal with any miscreants. —EncMstr 07:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you can fix whatever needs fixing on the article now that there shouldn't be any interference? —EncMstr 08:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Robert Mugabe and Zimbabwe

Hi, can you tell me where the inserts I have written for the article have gone ref. political developments in 2008? Ivankinsman (talk) 14:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Synarchism protection

I have no "admitted non-neutral stance" on the dispute and haven't edited the article in months. Page protection is not an endorsement of any version. It's a blunt tool to stop editors engaged in fruitless edit warring and (hopefully) induce them to find a compromise. I suggest that you use the talk page to seek consensus. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Robert Mugabe

Hi. As a previous editor of this article your input on improvements for the article is actively sought. See Talk:Robert Mugabe. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you know you were being monitored?

Your name appears to be on a list that was kept in an admin's userspace, [1]. Were you aware that an admin was keeping tabs on your editing? Cla68 (talk) 12:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I know SlimVirgin only by reputation; as far as I can recall, I haven't had any quarrels with her. I have tried to clean up some of the LaRouche articles which had multiple BLP problems, just as I have tried to clean up bios on other controversial figures like Robert Mugabe. Apparently getting involved with the LaRouche controversies is what got me on her list. Question: why would she repeatedly make such a list, and then admin-delete it? Couldn't she just keep the whole thing privately on her hard drive? --Marvin Diode (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a good question. Cla68 (talk) 13:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

JzG RFAR merged with Cla68-FM-SV case

Per the arb vote here the RFAR on User:JzG is now merged with this case and he is a named party. Also see my case disposition notes there. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Chip Berlet

That one is a little problematic in that it was protected for BLP reasons and not simply because of edit warring, plus it has a long history of such protections. I would speak to the protecting admin if you want it unprotected. Hut 8.5 07:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 21

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 21#Category:American Criminals. Please flesh out your proposal to include subcategories whose names would be changed too.. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: "solely notable" and alternatives thereto

I see that you reverted me. Would you please discuss this issue at Category talk:American criminals#Solely Notable? Thank you! Aleta ^Sing 19:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Dude!

You're in an edit war with a bot on the George Soros talk page. I'm afraid the bot is infinitely more persistent than you are. Maybe you can forward date the RFC or something. Wikidemo (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Why did you delete my section on ANI?

That was grossly inappropriate. MSJapan (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No taunting

Taunting is a form of personal attack and if you continue you may be sanctioned. I'm going to archive the whole thread. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:AbruzziSpurRoute1.jpg

Hi Marvin - I've restored the image (and its presence in the K2 article) per your and other comments here - After reading all of the commentary I am happy to regard the licence as correct. Happy Editing - Peripitus (Talk) 21:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Further to this with your comment "when an image is being proposed for deletion, is there no mechanism whereby editors of the effected articles can be informed, so that they may participate in the discussion?" yes and no. There is a mechanism but it is, like most things here, not strictly followed. At the least the up-loader should (any mostly always) is informed. Given that many people don't live on the site often they will not see the notice until way after the debate is closed; so this is sometimes not enough. Per the instructions, nominators are also supposed to leave a note on the talk pages of articles where the image is used. In this case (and probably many others) this didn't happen, I've left a note on the process's talk page as I think this need a bot long term to make sure that there is notification. - Peripitus (Talk) 21:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:ZionismCampaigner.jpg

I was unaware that this image had been proposed for deletion. I think that it is extremely helpful to the article Views of Lyndon LaRouche, because one of the debates between LaRouche and his critics is over whether opposition to Zionism is a form of Anti-semitism. The magazine cover, which dates from the time of this debate, makes LaRouche's view that "Zionism is not Judaism" very clear, and I believe this is helpful because otherwise we are in dangerous waters with respect to BLP.

I'd like to add that I have seen the argument made before, I believe by the same editor (User:Cumulus Clouds,) that images who were uploaded by an editor who was subsequently banned must be deleted. I know of no Wikipedia policy which supports this view. Image uploads, like edits, should be evaluated on their own terms as to whether they are useful to the project. Therefore I request that the image be undeleted and restored, pending further discussion.

Finally, I'd like to return to my question in the previous section: when an image is being proposed for deletion, is there no mechanism whereby editors of the effected articles can be informed, so that they may participate in the discussion? --Marvin Diode (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The uploader was a sockpuppet of indefinitely banned Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thus he was banned before he uploaded the images, not after. Technically, that would have been reason enough to speedy delete the images. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Also looking at the image, and the article it was on I think that it would clearly fall into unacceptable use under the normal interpretation of Wikipedia:NFC#Unacceptable_use (images item 8) - "A magazine cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, and if the cover does not have its own article, it may be appropriate.". While a fair-use argument could be made for including the magazine cover in an article on the magazine itself (Campaigner) there is no sourced commentary of the magazine cover in the article - just discussion of the subjects covered in the magazine. This really means that the use of the image is just decorative and would also probably not meet consensus on passing WP:NFCC#8. - Peripitus (Talk) 00:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please take another look at Weatherman/Terrorism RfC

This is a message sent to a number of editors, and following WP:CANVASS requirements: Please take another look at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC and consider new information added near the top of the article and several new proposals at the bottom. If you haven't looked at the RfC in some time, you may find reason in the new information and new proposals to rethink the matter. Thanks! -- Noroton (talk) 03:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)