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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) [reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

House demolition

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
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)[reply]

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:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
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)[reply]

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:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

~~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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"Right wing"

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hey Chris -I didn't hear back from you. So is that a "no"? <<-armon->> 23:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Armon, I've had a few other things on my plate. I'll take a look at MEMRI tomorrow. -- ChrisO 23:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Thanks. <<-armon->> 23:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO, haven't met you yet, but I appreciate your offer of help. A good introduction would be to read the talk page starting [here]. You'll see that there are a number of fairly minor issues that Armon and I are trying to reach resolution on. The current diff between our versions is [here]; plus Armon has just thrown in a new issue of what sounds like a major rewrite which was new to me and which has not been discussed at all yet. Thanks; I'm looking forward to your input, Jgui 00:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO, I'm continuing to try to address Armon's deletions by modifying to address his stated concerns; the latest diff between our two versions is here. Thanks, Jgui 15:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) [reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)‎[reply]

Unblock

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

Gazimestan speech

Are you taking Gazimestan speech to mediation? Can I help? PR^talk 15:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible ban evasion

As you were the original blocked or user:Jabbalzar, can you please comment on this report? Thanks. ForeignerFromTheEast 00:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rugova.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Rugova.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. Calliopejen1 12:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Viktor_yushchenko.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Viktor_yushchenko.jpg. 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:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
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 12:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills

Chris: Congratulations on this article. You have done a remarkable job in a very short period of time in putting together an organized, researched, and well-written piece. My only suggestion is consider discussing Sections 17-23 of the opinion in greater depth so as to avoid giving undue weight to the discussion of claimed errors. Great job! Regards, Kablammo 19:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also think its a good job. I'd say that the links to the New Party should probably be in the intro; and the science bits could be improved, but are a potential minefield; what you ahve there already is quite plausible William M. Connolley 20:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your comments. William, I did consider linking to the New Party in the intro, but I decided against it as we don't know the full extent of the NP's involvement in the case. Citing it in the intro risked risked putting a degree of weight on it which I didn't feel I could justify from my sources. We can always revisit this issue if more info about the NP's role comes out. -- ChrisO 23:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article advice?

You did such a great job with the article Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act and getting it up to FA status so fast, I was wondering if you could help me out with Trapped in the Closet (South Park) ? Yes, I have placed the article on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trapped in the Closet (South Park), but please do not consider this posting a request for you to comment there. Do so if you wish, and comment what you like. This is more a request for help on the article in general, if you have any advice on how to get it to be a Featured Article, either in the short term or longer term.

Also, as an aside, how can I find out when Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act will actually be displayed as a Featured Article on the Main Page ? Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 09:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Using sockpuppets to avoid user:COFS/User:Shutterbug article topic ban?

User:COFS AKA User:Shutterbug, per admin User:Bishonen is "You have been pagebanned for 30 days from editing scientology-related articles and their talkpages, per the terms of Article probation". Banned by Bishonen, per Arbitration
From this Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS page, it appears that User:Misou, among other editors, is a sockpuppet of User:COFS AKA User:Shutterbug and is editing from Church of Scientology computers.
Misou (talk · contribs), Misou contributions, the sockpuppet of the user that is "pagebanned" from "scientology-related articles", gets to continue to edit those selfsame articles ?

What am I missing here ? Should I log this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement ? Does this seem to you like a way of using multiple user names to avoid a ban and get around Arbitration Committee decisions ? I would appreciate your advice before doing anything else. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 06:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It certainly seems a bit dubious. I'd raise the question at WP:AN/AE and see what others make of it. -- ChrisO 07:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you, I'm glad I checked with you first though. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 07:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I posted it. -- I would appreciate your input, never posted to this board before. We'll see what the Admins and Arbitrators think. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 07:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Bearnstar

		Bearnstar of Surreal Imagery
		I wanted to give you a barnstar, but unfortunatly it was eaten by a pelmenyi-puppet [8] Humorous and educational, Thanks for the laugh --VartanM 09:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 19 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills, 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.

--Wizardman 17:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of apartheid deletion

Have I missed anything here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Allegations_of_apartheid_(fourth_nomination)? Lothar of the Hill People 20:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Editor's Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I saw your work at Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act, and after recently getting my first successful article past WP:FAC, I know how much effort it can truly take. Great job! Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 09:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a multitude of Germany?

While there were "two german states" for some decades, there was and is only one Germany, and only one Europe, even though some books speak of "two Europes". Or "three Americas" and even "five Australias" for that matter, what ever that means. Regarding the FRG/GDR situation from 1949-1990, I strongly suggest using the proper description "two German states", and not a rather sloppy and possibly offensive term.-- Matthead ^discuß! O 00:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know it sounds strange, but the term "two Germanies" was in fact the common usage in English during this period. You can find many examples here. I deliberately chose not to use "two German states" because this is ambiguous with the (West) German Länder. In English we would use the word "state" to mean both a country and a federal territorial unit. The ambiguity doesn't exist in German because you would use two different words - Staat and Land respectively. -- ChrisO 00:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At Google Books, the 768 "two german states" are outnumbered by the 895 "two germanies". The ambiguous state is still better than bogus "Germanies" which is not even a proper English plural as "proper nouns (particularly those for people or places) ending in a y preceded by a consonant form their plurals regularly: Germany - Germanys (as in The two Germanys were unified in 1990)". Fritz Stern (born 1926) has written a book "Five Germanys I Have Known" which in German is called "Fünf Deutschland und ein Leben. Erinnerungen." as there is no plural of Deutschland - and, frankly, none should be constructed in English. Lets use two German states for 1949-1990, and for the subdivisons, German states for those before 1806, and States of Germany after 1949. -- Matthead ^discuß! O 02:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 25 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Djordje Martinović, 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 15:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Zero

There is no point in leaving messages for Zero, he hasn't edited for four months and he's obviously quit the project. I've sent him several emails that he hasn't replied to in the interim.

Zero's last edit was to give an explanation to the Arbitration Committee on why he had deleted an article started by Zeq, whom the Committee had just forbad Zero from taking administrative action against. That came on the heels of a failed RFAR on Zero's part to have Zeq banned. Quite frankly I think it's pretty clear that Zero quit in disgust and I can well understand why. He was a committed editor who went to great lengths to thoroughly research his edits, and he was one of the most knowledgeable editors on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Zeq by contrast is - well let's just say he's closer to the other end of the scale and leave it at that.

Wiki loses a lot of good editors because of lack of support from the community, and I think this was a case in point. Anyhow, I have blanked Zero's talk page and just left the "left Wiki" template because people continue to leave him messages. If you want to restore your message you are free to do so of course, but I really think you're wasting your time. Regards, Gatoclass 03:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration?

In the vein of WP:FT, feel like working together with me to improve an article along a topic series ? Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 03:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

East London Line, 23rd October 2006

Well over a year before this fact's verfiability is questioned. On the article, on the statistics of the Underground, you put that

"According to TfL statistics, the East London line carries 10.429 million passengers per year. This is far fewer than any other Tube line with the exception of the Waterloo and City line; average per-station usage is only 0.862 million passengers per year, the lowest of any Tube line."

Even checking this with when Shoreditch was open i have found this second figure to be wrong and also seems to be WP:OR. (Straying into OR myself, the average number of passengers per year was roughly 1.159 million per year)

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/corporate/modesoftransport/tube/linefacts/?line=eastlondon

The current usage will be updated and for some strange reason i feel like a robot!

Just thought you would like to know. Simply south 17:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible personal attack from User:Misou

In this comment, Misou refers to myself and another editor as "book burners":[9] Could you please take a look at this?--Fahrenheit451 19:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoofer?

Do you have anything to do with User:ChrisFashion? The user's page had an admin userbox (which I removed) that indicated it was you. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 05:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he was trying to spoof me specifically but I agree that the userbox was misleading. Thanks for taking care of it. -- ChrisO 08:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Occupied Cyprus

I would like to remind you, that you keep threatening but not responding to the debate that i have repeadetly initiated, instead from a point of authority you push your POV. i would expect better from an admin. Poor job, im sorry. Where can i report your behavior?3meandEr 16:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to your original suggestion, I am now in favor of it. You may not be the right admin, since you have edited the article, but (from personal experience) I can now confirm that your diagnosis was correct. EdJohnston 17:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I tried. Blocking and possibly community banning now seems to be the only way ahead for 3meandEr, since he's plainly not interested in NPOV or reaching consensus. -- ChrisO 23:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3meandEr

While I agree with your take on the editing behaviour of 3meandEr (talk · contribs), I see no consensus for a block at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive108#Proposed 0RR on Northern Cyprus. All I see is a lot of people steering clear of the issue, and a recommendation to consider issuing a block. I have given 3meandEr a final warning, see User talk:3meandEr#NPOV warning. A ecis^Brievenbus 23:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How much more time do you propose to give him? I spent some time and effort on the talk page trying to educate him of the requirements of NPOV, but I don't see any prospect that he's going to come round. Do you? -- ChrisO 23:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It all depends on his behaviour. If he respects WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP and WP:CONSENSUS from now on, he may have a chance not to get blocked. But if he continues with this behaviour, he'll be gone soon enough. I've spent some time and effort on this article as well, the first time I protected this article was on October 7, 2006. I've seen pov pushers come and go, 3meandEr is not the first one. A ecis^Brievenbus 23:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but I'm wondering how exactly we proceed from here. Everyone seems to be agreed that his version is a non-starter. He plainly has no interest in discussing anything other than his own version, which he insists is The Truth™, with no regard for NPOV. You protected the article for two weeks; do you propose to put all the other editors through two weeks of further unproductive discussions with 3meandEr? Why are we going out of our way to accommodate him when he has shown so little interest in accommodating even our most basic policies? How, where and when do you propose to give him the chance to respect WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP and WP:CONSENSUS, when he's already been asked to respect them and has refused? Frankly, I'm not at all happy with this; I'm minded to take it to AN/I and request a community ban. He isn't contributing anything to the project and has had enough chances already. Please reconsider. -- ChrisO 23:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asking at WP:AN for a community ban of 3 from editing this article would be reasonable. The previous request made at the noticeboards was for a 0RR, which seemed novel and adventurous to some admins, but an article ban should be easier to get support for. If 3 were not participating, there would be no further need for protection, so it could be lifted. EdJohnston 00:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree with my decision not to block him yet, I would welcome a review at the Admin Noticeboard. Shall I ask for a review? A ecis^Brievenbus 11:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)

The October 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 13:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Mediation

I opened a mediation about Gazimestan speech at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Gazimestan speech. Nikola 08:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US/Israeli military relations

Wouldn't it be prudent to include [[10]] as a controversy in the US/Israel Military relations page? Checking with you despite my boldness to see if that would break NPOV... HawkShark 04:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Xenu nip-tuck.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Xenu nip-tuck.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of '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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 1 != 2 03:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Gazimestan speech.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 01:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

You may wish to comment...

On this. TML 21:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 01:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

Look Chris, this is really becoming quite tedious. I am not going to apologize for saying something I never said. If you can find a libel I've posted about you, please spell out what I've said, and how it fits the definition of libel. Until then, your baseless allegations are borderline harassment. Tomer ^talk 03:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Chris, I "disappeared" in August because I became overwhelmed with work at work, where I make my living, surprise, surprise, I don't get paid to edit Wikipedia, so it sometimes takes a very hind back seat, sometimes in the trailing dust. When I said I did not have time to sit around waiting for you and MastCell to call me into question on my talkpage, you seem to have misinterpreted what I meant...intentionally or not, I won't bother to conjecture. I did see, when I returned to WP after a month's absence, that you had howled and screamed (my interpretation) about what I had said on AN/I a month earlier, but felt no particular need to respond to it, since the episode was, by then, long past. I figured that discussing the episode at that point would serve no purpose, so I chose to let it go.

A week and a half ago, however, a [non-editor of Wikipedia] friend of mine asked me what "this business" was, about me being incivil was, and provided me a link to the AoIa RfAr, where you incredibly inappropriately attempted to name me as a disputant in that RfAr. Obviously, this raised my ire with you, not only for mischaracterizing my (several months previous, admittedly) statements, not only for attempting to unjustly drag me into a dispute in which I was not involved, but mostly for doing so without bothering to inform me of what, in my opinion, constituted "dirty politics". You attempted to associate me with a group of editors with whom you were in conflict, not only against my record, but in what I felt was an open and obvious attempt to besmirch my status as a diligent upholder of Wikipedia's NPOV editorial policy. To quote you, in the relevant WP:AN/I discussion at the time, "I AGF". Frankly, from what I see now, no sir, you do not. You AGF when it suits you, but are ready to toss AGF out the window at the slightest perception of anyone questioning your motives...whether they're actually questioning your motives or not (which, despite the accusations made in your and G-Dett's puerile flailings, I never have).

If you were to spend a few minutes searching, you would find that I was heavily involved in getting the "Allegations" of apartheid taken out of the former article Apartheid, when it was being used as a soapbox by the notorious Jews did Apartheid troll. That was my primary involvement, which had nothing remotely to do with the mess created by the strongly anti-Israel editor Homey, who has since been banned from editing. I have characterized CJCurrie as his "deputy", not necessarily in real life (since I don't know who CJCurrie is, in real life, while I do know who Homey is, as well as being familiar with all his previous User: incarnations on Wikipedia). Homey created a huge problem with his POV-pushing, in insisting that the "Israeli apartheid" article must contain all sorts of allegations to back up the crass assertion, which he managed to get upheld by changing the name of the article. I have opposed the entire series of "Allegations of" articles for the same reason Cerejota has, from the outset: they can never be anything more than a collection of politically-based assertions. There can never be any "proof", since the assertion is hogwash. This brings me to the most relevant topic: my saying that I can understand why people have said you are antisemitic.

The logic (illogic, if you prefer) goes like this: as a strong proponent of deleting every "Allegations of XYZ apartheid" article, while maintaining that the "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" article must stay (whence "uncharacteristically deletionist"), especially in light of the egregious violations of human rights committed by XYZ, the only rational assumption that can be drawn is that you have something against Israel. Since Israel's human rights record is much better than many of the human rights records of the subject of a great many of the other articles (Human Rights Watch's assertions aside, although they have, rather penitently and very quietly, retracted some of their latest lambasting of Israel in light of the fact that they have been used themselves, as a propaganda tool against Israel), the obsession with infractions by Israel, real or imagined, since they pale in comparison with so many others, coupled with the obsession with making sure that the Israel article remain while the others be expunged, leads very readily to the assumption that the rationale is hatred of Israel, and that that hatred is spawned by hatred of Jews. It's not a new concept, nor is it necessarily an especially Jewish invention. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. himself echoed the same sentiment.

As I have said previously elsewhere, the line connecting anti-Israelism and antisemitism is not always the soundest of logical paths, but it is there in the minds of many people—usually, it turns out, the evidence eventually comes to the fore. Someone who didn't know Homey is Jewish might easily make the same assumption about him. Many, if they knew he was Jewish, would, no doubt, quickly dismiss him as a "self-hating Jew". I happen to know, like I said, who he is. He has been, in fact, pivotal in the past, in getting one particularly foul antisemite banned from Wikipedia. That said, I pretend to speak for noöne but myself, and I maintain that, while I don't know enough about you to describe you as antisemitic, I still understand why others have chosen to do so. I bear no grudge against you, neither do I hold you in high respect.

Your actions on the RfAr in question, as well as your continual attempts to besmirch me, demanding that I rescind and apologize for imagined denigrations, rather than demanding explanation, have done nothing to elevate you, or your contributions to the subject, in my mind. Your manifest indirect violations of NPA and AGF, while claiming to have been personally attacked in the process, do even less. I wish I could sound more cheerful about our future interaction, but in my mind, at this point at least, ignoring my demand that you cite the trollish demand that I apologize for the imagined libel against you is not enough. You seriously need to apologize for demanding that I apologize to you. Tomer ^talk 07:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bombing no longer credited to anyone.

Are you aware that you've almost disappeared the people who actually carried out this bombing? PR^talk 20:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've not replied to nor corrected the edit, despite having been back for two editing sessions since. The information on who sank the ship in the new sentence is a) buried in the middle of a paragraph and b) apologises for a bombing in which, for pure political reasons, Zionists killed over 200 Jews. Far from the bombing being for "humanitarian purposes" (the claim in the next sentence, left untouched), the landed Jews would have been trapped and murdered in Palestine if Rommel had broken through to Egypt, as he very nearly did.

It's not as if there wasn't massive POV in this article already, it's entitled "disaster" when, legally and morally, the bombing was an act of mass murder by operators of the Yishuv. This was an act, like so many others by the same people pre- and post- the creation of Israel, which has been assiduously covered up and blamed on others by the perpetrators - it's almost as if you were part of the same system.

I see POV edits to other articles, eg here, just this morning - removing the well known linkage between the death of the Palestinian Al-Durrah boy and other near inexplicable events such as the Ramallah lynching and the beheading of Daniel Pearl. The next editor is a full-bore denialist who cannot spell - dare I even try to correct this? Well, no, actually, it's more than my presence here is worth. At least one Israeli newspaper still believes the IDF *did* kill al-Durrah - you'd never guess this from reading the article. PR^talk 12:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on holiday at the moment, so I'm not able to respond quickly to messages on my talk page. I disagree about your comments on both articles - the role of the Haganah is still prominent (and you're misinterpreting the "humanitarian purposes" line - that refers to the British authorities' decision to let the survivors stay, not the Haganah's reasons for carrying out the attack). As for Pallywood, we simply don't need to reiterate the whole al-Durrah story. All we need is a summary description focusing on Landes' role and a pointer to the main article for the reader to get the rest of the story. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MKD and White Tower of Thessaloniki story

Hi Chris, some time ago you apparently added some sourcing and corrections to a claim made in various articles about early 1990s draft Macedonian banknotes showing the White Tower of Thessaloniki (recent re-insertion by Kekrops: [11]). I'd be interested to hear a bit more what exactly that source says about that story. Could you find it again? Especially, it would be interesting to know in what way the authorities expressed their "approval" of what was otherwise apparently a draft of a fantasy currency by a private company. See discussion at Talk:White Tower of Thessaloniki. -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Image:Uk outline map.png

A tag has been placed on Image:Uk outline map.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[Talk:Image:Uk outline map.png|the article's talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 00:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Surreydocks1941.jpg

Are you on leave? Anyway, over at commons there are some issues regarding Image:Surreydocks1941.jpg. Could you please come over there and handle it? Thanks. // Liftarn (talk)

Revisiting an old block

Hi Chris, Not sure if this is a good idea or not, but do you remember putting the indef block on Raphaelaarchon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) back in June of this year? She's been editing using an IP diff for add to GG article today and earlier diff signing as Raphaelaarchon (diff -same IP). Most of her contributions look OK with the exception of the Greenwald stuff/fixation (I have seen one other edit that might be of some concern, but I'll bring up later if necessary -might not be anything). Since blocks shouldn't be punitive, what do you think about lifting the block with a stipulation of a topic ban with respect to the Glenn Greenwald article? I would ask her if she would agree to that myself, but I'm pretty sure she can't stand me. Anyway, could be opening a can of worms, but what do you think? R. Baley 05:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on holiday at the moment, so I'm afraid I'm not best placed right now to have a look at this - I should be able to take a look next week though. As I recall, I blocked that user for repeated sockpuppeting as well as the Greenwald fixation. I'll review the logs to refresh my memory. -- ChrisO 07:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this might not ever come to much, but I left a note about this on her IP page diff after she commented at the GG talk page yesterday. Enjoy your holiday! R. Baley 18:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)

The November 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 01:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of article Bosnian Mujahideen - pls help me avoid an edit war

Hi, I'm having a problem with The Dragon of Bosnia and Grandy Grandy who are repeatedly deleted an article which I edit called Bosnian Mujahideen. I've requested Mediation as well as requested the assistance of several administrators. However, your matter of fact, logical and thorough approach to editing would be much appreciated. RegardsOsli73 (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. There were no Bosnian Mujahideen, just particular units such as El-Mujahid, so I redirected that made-up term to the article about the unit (redundancy). According to ICTY, Serb propaganda fabricated much of these stories so this is not a right place for that. For example there is the whole article about Serb propaganda in the Stakić verdict:The media

One example of such propaganda was the derogatory language used for referring to non-Serbs such as mujahedin, Ustasa or Green Berets, although at the time there were no foreign volunteers in Bosnia.

Read: Wikipedia:No original research:

Wikipedia is not a venue for publishing, publicizing or promoting original research in any way. No original research, or NOR, is a corollary to two other policies:
Our original major content policy, neutral point of view (NPOV) encourages editors to add undisputed facts, including unbiased accounts of various people's views. It has traditionally forbidden editors from inserting their own views into articles, and demands that Wikipedia balance the relative prominence of differing viewpoints based on their prominence in the relevant field.
Our verifiability policy (V) demands that information and notable views presented in articles be drawn from appropriate, reliable sources.

Osli73, you were earlier blocked many times because of your behaviour: [12] so I advice you to stop propagating false info/original research.

You shouldn't misuse Wikipedia by uploading unverified photos, too. The war is over, propaganda should be over too. The Dragon of Bosnia 11:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are already articles called 7th Muslim Brigade, and The role of foreign volunteers. This is just redundant WP:OR article, based on unrelaible sources per WP:RS. On the other hand my sources are International court findings. The sources should be relaible, such as verdicts, verified documents, not blog, websites or unverified pictures/photo montague. You also tried to delete the cause of foreign volunteers arrival, and the cause were mass war crimes committed by Serb forces. This is the ICTY conclusion. So when you talk about NPOV, I juct can't understand your earlier actions. The Dragon of Bosnia 11:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banned User?

Hi, if you've got a second to spare, is this guy a banned user? After seeing some soapboxing on the reference desk and poking around a little bit, i thought he might be one you're familiar with.—eric 22:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're thinking of User:Gibraltarian. I think this is clearly someone else. Gibraltarian edits anonymously from a 212.*.*.* IP address and is obsessed with Gibraltarian articles - this other editor's editing pattern doesn't fit Gibraltarian. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Image

Hi Chris, would it be possible for me to see the image you are referring to here [13]? I'm not going to start something, I'm just curious to see the map. Alex 202.10.89.28 (talk) 05:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid not - unlike deleted text, you can't view deleted images. They're removed permanently from the database when they're deleted. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outline maps

Hi,

Since you uploaded Image:Bih outline map.png, I'l ask you for help :). I created Image:BH municipality location.gif and now I'm trying to merge those 2 maps. My map is not good for location maps because it is not in right projection. If you put those 2 over each other, they don't overlap.

Could you help me with this? Any idea will help. --Ante Perkovic (talk) 08:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Minister of the Republic of Macedonia

Hi Chris, someone (guess what nationality) moved the Prime Minister of RoM article to Prime Minister of FYROM. I don't know how to undo the move so can you please help? Funny thing is this happened more than a month ago and no-one noticed. Alex 202.10.89.28 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. Cheers. Alex 202.10.89.28 (talk) 22:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I've locked the move permissions so that the problem won't recur. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Scientology

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Template:WikiProject Scientology, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Template:WikiProject Scientology is a test page.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Template:WikiProject Scientology, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 10:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alex Makedon

Hi Chris. The user above has posted propaganda on my talk page [14]. I've warned him and also warned him for the content of his user page (it resulted in calling me a "nationalistic troll"). Am I entitled by the ArbCom decision to delete the nationalistic stuff from his user page? I also think he's a sockpuppet of User talk:Alexander Mak, if you see this. He also continues to edit anonymously from 213.140.6.120 [15]. Cheers, -- Avg 19:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris O,i asked you just to look at my talk page, and his, to see the obsession, and the private war AVG is making out of WIKI against me... he has threathened me, controlling my IP to see where i am!!!, has offended me right from the start, i have cleared the reasons for my post on the MK talk page with him, he has just ignored my facts and provocated me.

... And i ask you to reconsider the RM talk page from this point of view. If you consider my post propaganda - what isn't a political propaganda then???

I have just cheked and i have by error, once posted anonymously, its about a color change of few characters in my post, so i dont think mentioning this is resonable. And this "he also continues to edit anonymously" are the kind of fake accusations, taking the matter too personally makes you make up.

I count on your neutrality !

Thank you. Alex Makedon

ChrisO i have seen that you have deleted my post on the Republic of Macedonia talk page, and you have not stated any reasons for this in 24h time. I have even asked you the reason of your act via e-mail, till now i havent recived any answer.

As for the AVG's acusation against me i have just a few things to note;

1) the supposed political propaganda:

I wrote: Best regards to you Greek Friend by Macedonian citzen from Republic of Macedonia :-) and here is a little link from Macedonians living in northen Greece[16] many happy cheers from all of them too :-) Alex Makedon (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[17]

- Its clear that AVG is accusing for political propaganda anyone that has different political wiews from his, even for a post where there are no discussed political issues. Naming Republic of Macedonia is not a political propaganda, as well as naming or linking the site of a European Party as the Rainbow Party - if someone protests for my naming this internationally recognised objective facts i have the right to ask for the attention of an Admin for trolling

2) About his provocations, taking the discussion on a personal level:

Avg wrote: -Thought I should be polite and say goodbye before your block[18] - a threat

-I'm sure there are a lot of other nice things to do in Milan! :-)[19] - spying my IP !!!

-people are offended if you support annexing a part of their country[20] - i never did, infact if you take a look at the discussion, all i kept saying is that im talking about the Minorities rights and culture recognition - apparently this is still a thing too hard to accept for many...

-you advocate that you want part of my country[21] - same as before, ... and no, I dont want a piece of your country, its not a chocolate bar..

He even asks permission to "clear" the things he personally dislikes from my user page! Even after proving that his preocupations are unfounded.

Its clear that he is fighting a personal battle here, and using the admins too, for personal reasons. If you take a look i have alwayes been pretty moderated, I have often apologized seeing him so offended, and most of the times I refferd to him as friend, or I insisted on the fact that we should leave the disputes for out common good. -you dont have to be so threatened by Republic of Macedonia. Its for our common good to create good positive friendly realtions[22]

So i ask you not to let this kind of personal fights, stand in the way, or are taken for good resonable arguments... Thank you Alex Makedon (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copy Paste move

Hi Chris. It seems a user called Balkanfreezer has made a copy-paste move from "Principality of Pindus and Voivodship of Macedonia" to "Principality of Pindus". While it doesn't matter to me what the name is, losing the history is a bad thing. Could you please revert the move or transfer the history or something? Thanks Balkan Fever 10:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Doctorates

Wiki Doctorate is a new scheme designed to recognise the people who "do all the work" on Wikipedia. It has been mainly developed for Wikipedia administrators however if you have done lots to keep Wikipedia on "the straight and narrow", including being members of different groups which help Wikipedia i.e "The Welcoming Committee. We have selected to email you because you can apply for the doctorate and we would be very grateful if you did and put the userbox on your user page to boost advertising. The following link will take you straight to our homepage.

Yours sincerely

--Dr.J.Wright MD (talk) 23:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Battlefield earth screencap.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Battlefield earth screencap.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 (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)

The December 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Q:Retaining Talk and History after an AfD deletion

Greetings. I've been involved (helpfully, I hope) with the article and now AfD for Glossary of Jewish and Christian terms. It looks like most people want to split the article into a Jewish and a Christian glossary. Toward this end, several people have voted to Keep or DAB the article -- apparently, only in order to make sure we keep the long Talk and edit history. Is such a DAB/keep the best way to hold onto the Talk and edit history? Or might the article be deleted and the Talk transferred to the split articles? I'd appreciate your input, either to me or, if you wish, at the AfD. Hope this finds you well. Happy new year, HG | Talk 15:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, thanks for your prompt and helpful reply. Take care, HG | Talk 03:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Hello there

I see you are interested in the Life On Mars Television Series, as I am.

At the moment I have A Life On Mars Wikiproject currently up for approval by the Wikiproject Approval Council. As you are interested in Life On Mars I was wondering if you would be interested in adding your name and joining. If you are interested you can find it on Wikipedia: WikiProject Council/Proposals its right at the very bottom you cant miss it as its titled ‘Wikipedia: Wikiproject Life on Mars (Television Series)’. And after your name is added to Wikiproject propsals please add it to the main page Wikipedia:Wikiproject Life On Mars

If you are interested by all means feel free to join

Regards

Police,Mad,Jack —Preceding comment was added at 19:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STOP VANDALISING JUAN CARLOS PAGE

The ONLY one vandalising is you ChrisO, by insisting on adding clearly and demonstrably WRONG and FALSE information, which apart from being just plain wrong is also HIGHLY OFFENSIVE! "King of Gibraltar" is simply NOT one of the titles of the spanish monarchy, and I will NOT allow you to insult the people of Gibraltar or violate WP principles by suggesting otherwise. REMOVE IT NOW!!! How do you think the people of Kuwait would feel if you insisted Saddam Hussein was "King of Kuwait", or what would the reaction be if you called Adolf Hitler "King of Poland" or "King of the Jews"? I find your actions thoroughly repulsive and repugnant.

WP must reflect reality, accuracy and truth. The information you keep on adding IS A MYTH, IT IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE!

DO NOT DELETE! ARGUE YOUR CASE! YOUR BEHAVIOUR IS DISGRACEFUL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.120.239.57 (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment of good faith contributors.

... Part of the problem in this topic area is that admins have steered clear because they've found that intervening in editing disputes leads to a barrage of abuse and personal attacks from some of the participants. Mastcell, ^demon and I have all encountered this at various points, and I'm sure other admins have too. I believe a number of editors are consciously trying to intimidate admins into leaving them alone to do what they like. If we're to get this topic area under control, it's going to be necessary to take a tough line against the offending editors. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the only admin I've implied was biased 'recently' was yourself on 21st Nov. In improving Patria disaster, you'd managed to further conceal the fact that it was the proto-Israelis themselves who carried out this bombing, killing over 200 Jews.

However, it wasn't personal or nasty, and it was evidence based. It was provoked by irritation that actions in the same article such as this denialist vandalism, easily meriting an indef-block for wilful damage to articles, was going to go completely unpunished. Admins would swarm to attack me if I dared even point out such cheating at any form of disciplinary.

When this ArbCom is over, hopefully we'll be back on track and have woken up to the fact that integrity is a vital quality for an editor. But you have my apology anyway, since it's not your fault that this feature has been so noticeably missing recently. (Other postings from me recently end with a little essay on how to complain to my mentor if I'm soap-boxing, I'll not bother you with it). PR^talk 14:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not reinsert User:Jayjg to this case unless the arbs overturn Morven, who is a sitting arb. You may file a request for this if you like though. If an arb does approve this, make sure that approval is posted onwiki. Neither you nor I has the authority to overturn a sitting arb. Doing so would be disruption and handled accordingly. If you want help filing an appeal, build your case and let me know. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crushing by elephant

Crushing by elephant 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.
—GrittyLobo441 (talk) 05:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unholy Three

No prob. :) Cirt (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Battlefield Earth (film)

I added lots of {{fact}} tags, we need to parse through current sources and demarcate precisely which sources/cites are used at the end of which sentence. You seem to be more familiar with the referencing on this article, feel like helping out? Cirt (talk) 22:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Sure. Some of the things you've tagged are actually covered by existing citations. I'll go through them and work out which is which. It'd be neat if we could get this article to FA status by, say, the anniversary of the film's release... -- ChrisO (talk) 09:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suri Cruise

Look at {{Template:Actor infobox}}. The specification says it's for notable children, e.g. Kirk Douglas->Michael Douglas. Suri Cruise redirects to TomKat, so she is not notable in her own right; if she had her own article, she would be. Notability is not inherited. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kekrops ANI

Hi Chris, I just wanted to know where this discussion has been archived to, as I cannot find it on the main AN/I page. Could you provide me with a link? Thanks.Balkan Fever 01:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not on AN/I - see WP:AN. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. Balkan Fever 08:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Kurdistan

It is not my POV, it is an unofficial and controversial term. Regards.--Doktor Gonzo 20:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]