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 / /Archive 18 / /Archive 19 / /Archive 20 / /Archive 21 / /Archive 22 / /Archive 23

Please add new comments below.

---

Message fro Osli

Dear Osli. I kindly invite you to work together on the article regarding dr Darko Trifunovic. At this point article is being consider as personal attack on living individual. It is poorly written without basic quotation. For example:

-"He formerly worked as a diplomat for the foreign ministry of Bosnia and Herzegovina"???? It is still on going trial before the Court of Bosnia. Recently there is Court decision that dr Darko Trifunovic need to be fully compensate for wrong doing and illegal dismissal from his post as First Secretary of Bosnian Mission to the UN.

-"After leaving the diplomatic service in controversial circumstances"???? Where is the source of that? Dr Darko Trifunovic was illegally fired, not living diplomatic service in controversial circumstances. So this is also bad quatation and directed as personal attack and referred to black paint dr Darko Trifunovic.

...."he authored a widely criticised report for the Republika Srpska (Bosnian Serb) government..."Do you have any quotation that dr Darko Trifunovic authored Srebrenica Report I???? so if is stated like that need to be support by relevant quatation.......

....."which denied that there had been a massacre at Srebrenica during the Bosnian War"???? Can you or others editor find where on which place Report I denied Srebrenica massacre? Please do not forget that dr Darko Trifunovic is academicians and there is right to make questions or challenge some date, specifically in situation where ICTY discovered around 2000 bodies. If you find out enywhere where dr Darko Trifunovic denied massacre in Srebrenica, please make reference otherwise it is to strong to not be consider as personal attack in order to black paint living person.

...."He moved on to his current position at the University of Belgrade...."????. Dear Osli, this is simply purely supported quotation without any reference. If dr Darko Trifunovic movd to his current position in article need to be stated what dr Darko Trifunovic did between 2002 when he was illegally fired from his job and 2004 where he was empoyed at University of Belgrade. So as you can see this is simply another missinforamtions directed to the personal attack to dr Darko Trifunovic.

....."where he has specialised in the study of Islamic terrorism".???? Dear Osli... please make any reference on that which will support this quotation. Dr Darko Trifunovic is employed from the Faculty of Security Studies of the University of Belgrade as The Secretary General of the Institute of Security Studies and in the same time as lecturer on Special Studies Security Management and Defense against Terrorism. Dear Osli...another misrepresentation of the facts...but as you can see that every sentence from beggining of article look like personal attack on living individuals.

....."His views on the subject have been criticised by many Bosniak organizations".???? need to be supported by relevant quotation. If you say Bosniak, that means Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Croat, because word Bosniak in history were first used by Croatian monks and priests.

Dear Osli, I am invite you once again to work on article, and please do not post any threat to me, since I am ready to work with you and any other editor's of Wiki for the improvement of this article. I appreciate you efforts and looking forward to exchange the views.

Battle of Mylasa

Hello you said the artical was bad why listen look at my user page and look at my proffsen please relpy on my talk about this thanks

Secthayrabe Ø

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Xenu nip-tuck.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of '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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

justification

see under "new proposal" --Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

0/O

Me a cowboy, me a cowboy, me a Mexican cowboy. (Mea culpa x 3, as per children's slang a half a century ago) :(Nishidani (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

In your copious spare time ...

• History of slavery in Iran (AfD discussion)

Do you think that it's rescuable ? Uncle G (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

ANI thread

An ANI thread involving you, has been started at WP:ANI#ChrisO's attack page. --Elonka 22:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Compromise

Hi ChrisO, would you mind if I edited your problems page with a suggested compromise? My object would be to reduce some of the offence caused while preserving the page for your purposes and not removing information critical to that purpose. If you give the go ahead, I can make a quick edit that I think will limit some of the controversy and then you can keep it or revert it if you like. Avruch ^T 17:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you could explain first what edits you would seek to make. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I have posted a list on the talkpage.[1] Would those be acceptable? --Elonka 19:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll review them. I'd still like to see Avruch's suggestions. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of the changes I suggest below is not to argue that you're wrong, or that what you've written violates policy. I think if you did not change a word, the article would most likely survive an MfD. (Although the motion on the RfAr page is a new wrinkle). On the other hand, I think your goal is to improve the articles you've listed. Even if you find yourself frequently in conflict with some editors, it still helps you to limit the scope of the conflict and to reduce as much as possible the "personalization" of the conflict. The page you have can be a useful tool in keeping track of articles that need help and editors who work on those articles, and to the extent that any inflammatory item doesn't contribute to that goal you should consider removing it.

• Under the "disclaimer", change to :"This page is a systematic review that I have done of articles in the area of ancient Persian history, following a suggestion by Nickhh on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Mylasa, plus some additional issues on related articles. It's a work in progress so will be updated often."

• In the overview, remove the sentence: "Editors Ariobarza (talk · contribs) and Secthayrabe (talk · contribs) seem to be the lead authors of most of the POV-problematic edits and articles." You have these names in your table, so removing them from this graf does not compromise the utility of the page. Also remove the sentence: "A number of editors seem to have no understanding of basic content policies or willingness to follow them." It may be true, I don't know, but you know without having a reminder for yourself.

• In the first row of the table, change "Persistent original research by Nepaheshgar, who wants to declare a recently published POV to be "the truth" and to exclude academic sources on the basis of his personal disbelief of their qualifications." to "Persistent original research, and undue weight being granted to recently published work at the expense of academic sources."

Those are the most important changes, in my mind. Below are some of Elonka's other suggestions. I think you should consider making these, or approximations of these edits - not because Elonka asked you, or because you have to, but only because you can probably adjust what you've written to reduce any offence that might be caused and doing so will benefit you without damaging the utility of the page.

• In the "Articles of concern" section, remove anything in the table which makes a negative comment about another editor, or any kind of assumption about their motivation.
  • Under "Battle of the Tigris", remove "by Ariobarza"
  • Under "Cyrus cylinder", remove "Underlying issue" sentence

Let me know what you think. They are mostly very minor changes, I think, but they would certainly defuse this issue and allow you and us to address the other issues this problem has presented. I will say, to ChrisO and Elonka both, that you should be careful to avoid eachother in the future. Either as administrators or editors, it will be difficult for you to work together without causing unnecessary controversy. If you receive complaints about the other, consider forwarding them on to another administrator. Avruch ^T 20:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that. I shall certainly consider your suggestions and see which I can implement. I agree entirely with your comment about avoiding each other - I actually suggested this to Elonka several months ago, but she declined at the time. Her intervention in this matter came out of the blue; she wasn't previously involved in any of these articles and I had obviously not sought her input. I have no interest in feuding with her. I'd appreciate it if she could reciprocate. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Changes look good,[2] thanks Chris.  :) --Elonka 23:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I have been following these articles since the big argument on the Battle of Opis. I'd be glad to take part in the discussions. Thanks.Heja Helweda (talk) 03:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleting Red Links

ChrisO, why are you so eager to delete red links? When we get a chance to create these articles again, we will not remember they existed, because when the red link is not there, we will not remember after a long time, to go back into the template looking for red links again, just leave them alone, they do not do any harm. Bye.--Ariobarza (talk) 09:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Speedy deletion of User:ChrisO/Battle of Opis

A tag has been placed on User:ChrisO/Battle of Opis, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

this article has not been updated for almost 3 months, and the original Battle of Opis is nearly completed, so this incomplete version which has been forgotten, is currently invalid to be further kept, as we do not need two Battle of Opis's in the battles involving the Achaemenid Empire.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on [[Talk:User:ChrisO/Battle of Opis|the article's talk page]] explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Ariobarza (talk) 00:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

I have declined the speedy. Ariobarza, better would have been to just make a polite request to ChrisO as to whether or not the page was still needed. --Elonka 00:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo

Could you please take care of the little trollfest on Talk:Kosovo? Both sides seem to have forgotten that the article is under probation. Colchicum (talk) 13:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Balkan nationalist POV-pusher and edit-warrior (incl. move-warring)

Look at Bože pravde (talk · contribs)'s "contributions". Can anything be done with this? Colchicum (talk) 02:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I've warned him. If he persists, please raise it at arbitration enforcement for action and refer them to my warning. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yup, you sure did warn me. Nice to see people ignoring what's really going on here... I only reverted people who are pushing their pro-Albanian agenda (especially Cradel, or Bindi Capriqi how he called himself before) and when the neutral arguments on Talk:Kosovo and neutral consensuses are ignored by users that are pro-Albanian, nothing happens to them. The moment someone goes against the pro-Albanian bias, he or she gets a warning. I just don't understand why... --GOD OF JUSTICE 02:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a look at this if you like (just not right now, since I need some sleep). Could you provide some specific diffs so that I can look at these problems that you say you're reacting to? -- ChrisO (talk) 02:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I'll collect my material and write up what I noticed that other users are doing (after some needed sleep on my side as well). The first link in my previous post is quite disturbing, that people are creating a Lobbyist group on Wikipedia, and the Albanian user Cradel, together with a Bosniak and Croatian user, openly supporting such "anti-SerboGreek" actions. I'm glad that your approach is friendly and I'd like for you to take a look into it. I will also find more things that I noticed before, as well as things happening now. Thanks :) --GOD OF JUSTICE 02:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I'm happy to help. I look forward to seeing what you can provide. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:Ethnic Macedonians

Hi. Thanks for protecting the above until the arguments over it calm down. The metatemplate it uses has been recreated with a more accurate name, {{Sidebar with heading backgrounds}}, so would you update the first line accordingly, please? There should be no effect on how the template is rendered. Sardanaphalus (talk) 05:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

What I'm noticing

Hello again,

I don't want to overwhelm you with information that I noticed concerning Kosovo-related articles, so I'll list one problem at a time.

1. I made this edit on the Kosovan passport article. As you can see, I added an explanation at the beginning concerning the "Republic of Kosovo" (it was written like there is no dispute at all and Kosovo is an internationally recognized country). I also changed the sentence that was worded like this: "there are a number of countries that refuse to recognise it". This, to me, sounded like they should recognize it, but refuse to do so. It also made it sound like a minority of countries refuse to recognize Kosovo, while the truth is quite the opposite. So I reworded it and wrote something that is undeniably true: "A large majority of countries do not recognize Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence".

All of this was reverted [3][4] by User:Alchaemia, who, the first time, only gave me this comment: "please take your POV elsewhere", and after I asked for an explanation, I was told that he has "nothing to explain" to me. I also wrote on the talk page, and am expecting an answer. I don't understand why this is never noticed by administrators and if it's OK for Alchemia to "own" the article just because he wrote about it. --GOD OF JUSTICE 21:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Mitradates

Hi Chris,

I had another look at your list of Persian problems (I hadn't looked at it in over a week--busy with other areas) and saw the Mitradates article. Now, I ain't no expert here, but there is another Mitradates? Please have a look at the Talk page--I left a note there, mainly for the article's author. But what I want to know from you is, is there another? Cause if this is the same as is mentioned in Astyages, then Mitradates is entirely redundant, IMHO. Do have a look before I consider making it an AfD. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

There are lots of people by that name! I've redirected it to Mithridates. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Right. Thanks. So, another one to strike off your list! Drmies (talk) 03:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi ChrisO, you must do some research before redirecting an article (especially Battle of Pasargadae, which is now redirected to Pasargadae, and there is still no mention of the battle in that article it was redirected to, when I finish up making Battle of Pasargadae, the redirect will hopefully be deleted) to something that has nothing to do with it, Mitradates is not Mithradates. Mitradates is an important character in Herodotus' Histories, so is this character, Artembares, notice he has his own article. ChrisO your making it more difficult for us to edit Wikipedia by making unwise decisions. Please think before you press enter. And in all good faith, please try to be a more knowledgable contributer by desisting from pursueing a POV OWN revisionist policy. You must know how much this policy has given Wikipedia an negative atmosphere this past two months. I am trying to work with you here, yet you seem so eager to either, rewrite or delete important Iranian related articles, this gives a bad impression to those that are already concerned with your excessive reverts/ other rule breaking. Though the tone of this message may seem negative, this is not intended. So I wish at least this could began to start a truce or possible coaperation in working together to improve Iranian or other related articles. With best regards, I thank you.--Ariobarza (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

The overwritten "Mitradates" article contained no verifiable information (no references, apart from Herotodus), and as Cyrus the Great makes clear, the info in Herotodus about Cyrus' early life is questionable. So this Mitradates seems like a minor figure in a folk tale; notability not established - there doesnt' exist two works that focus on this person, as WP:N requires - even Herotodus doesn't focus much on him. I call this a good redirect. Ariobarza, if you wish to add a paragraph to Mithridates mentioning that a person of that name is mentioned in the Histories, that might be appropriate. --Alvestrand (talk) 10:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion Alvestrand, but I want to hear what ChrisO thinks about this. As I know he is currently ignoring me. I wish I can resume dialoge with him, which would definitely benefit Wikipedia, therefore I want to acknowledge that I have made a lot of mistakes too, so I am sorry. I want to add that paragraph I had previously about him, thats if I can find it in its history before it was redirected, thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 04:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Crushing by elephant, refs

Hi, the article you've contributed to, Crushing by elephant, is now translated to Norwegian, and is now a FAC in no:wiki. Its a question about a reference, The Indian Review p. 160 by G.A. Natesan. What vol. or year is it? Grrahnbahr (talk) 17:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Recent persistent vandalism on Republic of Macedonia page

you may be interested in this.Alex Makedon (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey Chris. Your opinion in the talkpage is always of value. Please feel free to browse through the discussion and the sources, if you can filter out the trollish and out-of-place WP:OR comments (mine included); it's not that long. If you do, you will notice that two third-party editors (Fut.Perf.[5] and Jd2718[6][7][8]), acknowledging the two reliable sources provided, have modified the blunt mentioning of "Greek language" to a much milder compromise which, was -not accidentally- lastly reverted by Alex Makedon right before he contacted you for protection; which you correctly applied, alas in (as "always" lol) WP:The Wrong Version! :-) Alex Mak, with his non-exemplary (to say the least) background of sockpuppeteering and edit-warring blocks (just browse through his talkpage), is the only editor still fighting this mild sourced addition in view of the new sources, with all other ethnic Macedonian users simply abstaining from talk, and third-party editors consenting to the addition. There's no need to prolong the protection of the article for a week-or-so thereby prohibiting contributions from willing editors, when there's just one persistent (and non-abiding to policy) frenzy reaction, over an issue which largely deserves no debate in the first place... I'd post this to AN, but I'm sure you can see what's going on. Best, NikoSilver 20:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

lol desperate attempts to push a pov on Republic of Macedonia page. You went to dig out my second accout case from 1,5 years ago as if that would provide reliable information on some Greek linguistic minority. There has not been a consensus, i cant immagine what kind of consensus can be made when there are no reliable sources or relevan evidence. Fut.Perf. has not expressed an oppinion on the matter. In the contrary User:Luka Jačov , User: Jd2718, User:BalkanFever and many others have expressed concerns about the reliability of the sources provided. Despithe this few Greek users have continued to vandalize the page, and push their propaganda with the lies "back to consensus". Protection of the page unfortunately was the only way to deal with this disruptive editors. Alex Makedon (talk) 14:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)

The October 2008 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) 23:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Gibraltar, again

ChrisO, your calm temperament is in need at Gibraltar again. Once more I find myself pulling teeth with an editor there over what I can see are unfounded beliefs (this time, again, on whether the Gibraltar Pound is a separate currency). I've been trying to get some people who might know what they are talking about from economics related articles but noone has responded, so I guess we'll just have to interpret the sources ourselves and decide which is correct. I'd appreciate your input. Thanks. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 14:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia

Hi Chris. I see your protection of Republic of Macedonia is set to expire tomorrow. From what I can tell, the dispute hasn't been resolved yet, and so reverting will probably start shortly after it becomes edit-able. Do you think it should e extended a few more days? BalkanFever 04:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll let it expire, but I'll keep a close eye on it to see if the edit war kicks off again. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

OK. That would include reinserting the disputed info, wouldn't it? As I said, I don't see a consensus (yet). BalkanFever 10:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

And with that, Kekrops reinserted it (and I removed it). BalkanFever 00:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

And yet, the only person reverting (twice!) in this page after the protection expiry, is BalkanFever. So his message to you was actually a notification that himself is going to engage again in edit warring.--Avg (talk) 02:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Palace_westminster_pano.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Palace_westminster_pano.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 (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Random Note from Long Ago

I'm curious - how did you discover the Pallywood article in the first place? We seem to have had a lot of new editors on it in the last couple of weeks, and I was wondering if the article has been mentioned in the media. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I read about the phenomenon, came across the Wikipedia page, and was struck by its overwhelming and clear bias. Danielleb32 (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Ohrid and Lake Ohrid

What are these blind reverts (Lake Ohrid, Ohrid) suppose to mean? I am well aware of WP:MOSMAC and in the past I have called many times for its application and respect within WP. I do not do so, much, anymore since some people think that it "failed to establish consensus". I still believe though that there are many good parts in it. In any case, I think that we should treat the infobox of UNESCO World Heritage Sites as being within the scope of any UN article (obviously) therefore the only appropriate name for the state party is the name the organisation and party itself uses within i.e. "the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". I know all about the non-capitalization of the "the former" bit but I have opted for a capital "F" by following the naming convention of the official website here (or as part of a list of member countries here). I specifically take issue with this edit here and kindly ask for its immediate reversal, since it blatantly violates every aspect of, not only WP:MOSMAC, but also WP:NAME, WP:NPOV, WP:MOS and other policies and guidleines, as it directs our readers to the disambiguation page , "the Macedonia". And in a grammatically erroneous, if not plain ugly, way at that too. --157.228.x.x (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Care to comment? I will take the matter of the name used in the infobox of UNESCO World Heritage Sites to the articles' talkpage(s) soon. --157.228.x.x (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Stub of Peter Tobin

Hi there, I've recreated this article as a placeholder stub, pending further discussion. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me, thanks for sorting that out. Since I'm in the sub judice jurisdiction, I'm sure you can understand why I refrained from undeleting it myself. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm from Dundee myself, but currently living in America. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I'd call that a safe distance then. ;-) -- ChrisO (talk) 20:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War AfD closure

This AfD was just closed as no consensus, yet another admin that simply counts votealthough everone knows that this should not be a count and although there was not a single valid argument to keep the book. I have no time at this moment, but I suggest you take this to DRV. --Crusio (talk) 07:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I will, don't worry - it's the worst AfD closure I've seen in a long time. See the closer's talk page. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: Image:Lal masjid.jpg

Image:Lal masjid.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Red Mosque, Islamabad.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Red Mosque, Islamabad.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 13:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Jona Lendering

I am currently at my third revert on this article. Nepaheshgar keeps redirecting it to Livius Onderwijs. I have put forward several arguments on the article's talk page why Lendering is notable, but this is being ignored. I have proposed to take this to AfD, but get the answer that merge/redirect can be done without AfD. True, but only if there is a consensus, which there isn't. Any advice on how to handle this situation without violating 3RR will be welcome. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I do think there should only be one article, I'm not sure which is the most notable. Dab is no idiot, ask him on his talk page about it. This almost certainly related to the Farrokh/Shadows stuff of course. dougweller (talk) 21:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)

The November 2008 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) 16:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a revert-warring monster

Sorry Chris, I reverted a couple of things on the Macedonia dab page before noticing it was you who added them. Please see the discussion on talk page, there's been lots and lots of talk about the scope of that page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

To: CrisO From: Apollonia13 I noticed that you've reverted an article I had contributed to the page of Salman Rushdie. Could you please explain your reasons? Thank you ...') Apollonia13 (talk) 03:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Redirect?

With the closing of the AFD on Donofrio v. Wells‎ and the creation of the conspiracy theory article, should the original Donofrio v. Wells‎ article be reduced to a redirect to the conspiracy article? Brothejr (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Yup, doing it now. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I can accept your closure and redirect. I feel like I had been heard. One quibble: you need to move the "subst:at" template above the title. :-) Bearian (talk) 02:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

"et al."

I noticed your reversion of my deletion of "et al." in the name of the Berg case. You are right that "et al." appears in the docket of the case. But "et al." would appear in the docket or equivalent for most cases: only a small percentage of court cases consist of a single plaintiff suing a single defendant. Therefore, unless there is specific reason to refer to the fact that a case has multiple parties on one or both sides, the convention is to drop "et al." or similar terms and just use the last name (or corporate name) of the first party on each side. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll take your word for it - you're the lawyer after all. ;-) -- ChrisO (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Chris it looks like you did all that work. Very nice job -- though as i mentioned on the article's talk page i'm expecting a new "arena" to emerge from this -- as it stands now you've woven it all together very readably, with the right tone and emphasis, well cited, etc... Good on you.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Note about Fair-use

Hey, you might want to check out Image:Colosseum gladiator.jpg. An image that you uploaded some years ago. It is missing a Fair-Use rationale for the article it is being used in. You might want to check it out. Hope this helps. Thanks  Marlith (Talk)  04:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hey Chris,how are you? Can you lock the Albania article.It has been vandalized a lot of time,I can't keep up with it.Thank you.--Taulant23 (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		I, E104421, award you with this barnstar for fighting against the canvassing campaign during the arbitration committee elections. E104421 (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Authors' permissions for text on the Internet

Hey ChrisO, please take a look at User_talk:AndroidCat#Authors_gave_permission.3F. Do you know how to verify that indeed these authors gave permission for their works to be reposted in entirety to the Internet? If so, this verification should be posted on the talk pages of the articles about those books, for future reference. AndroidCat (talk · contribs) also brought up a question about where on-wiki the use of links to www.xenu.net as a source was last discussed/addressed? Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 04:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Notable people in Edessa and Kastoria

Hello Chris. I would like to bring to your attention the recent edit warring which has been going on. On the pages Edessa, Greece and Kastoria their has been recent edit warring in regards to the Notable people sections. Two people in particular, Jagnula Kunovska and Georgi Ajanovski have been deemed not notable by two users, despite the relevant information provided against their believes. They also believe that they should not appear on the respective list, despite being born in the respective cities. If you see here and here the reverting have been conducted by two users, Kekrops and Tsourkpk. Could you please intervene here and end the revrting and edit warring. Thanks. PMK1 (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The user above has also deleted an ethnic Greek from the List of people from Bitola, claiming that she was not notable. She was in fact a professor at the University of Belgrade from 1967 to 2000, and conducted the most detailed and comprehensive survey of the settlements and toponyms of ancient Macedonia. He claims to have had no Google hits for "Fanoula Papazoglou", but it's working fine for me whether in Latin, Greek or Cyrillic script. On further investigation, it appears the URLs he posted have some peculiarities. In them, her name appears as Fan%CE%BFula+Papazogl%CE%BFu. It turns out that %CE%BF is the Unicode code point for the Greek letter omicron, which would explain why he got no hits. "Fanoula Papazoglou" gets plenty of hits, but "Fanοula Papazoglοu" gets none. Notice the difference? I almost didn't. I would be shocked if an editor had to resort to tampering with a Google search just to prove a WP:POINT. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 03:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have realised the mix up and it was explained, no need for a cheap shot. Just as fanoula will be kept on the Bitola page, i would expect that Jagnula Kunovska and Georgi Ajanovski should also be kept. PMK1 (talk) 10:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The long promised ban proposal

Hi Chris. After some three weeks away from Wikipedia, I have finally come arround to draft the proposal to ban Ariobarza (at the moment less concise than I initially expected). I still have to look into Talk:Battle of Thermopylae. You may want to take a look at it before I present it at the administrators' noticeboard (no hurry). Feel free to edit it at will. - Regards, Ev (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Response on Ev's talk page; Ariobarza's topic ban

Please read the entire message with an open mind, so Ariobarza does not have to repeat it.

Hi Ev, talk about deconstructive comments. I thought we had put this issue behind us. Since November 2008, I have quietly gathered sources, and minded my own business. And now you want to propose a topic ban on me? This is dissapointing. First of all, for the Siege of Gordium I have giving up, and no longer care if it happpened, because overall consensus of the users here determined probably nothing happened, and I have even agreed with them, so Siege of Gordium is over (I was not the originater of the idea, like I said a thousand times, I copy pasted the info, added 1 sentence from the Gordium article itself). And at the end of the deletion debate, I agreed to delete Siege of Gordium. This is the last sentence I said at the deletion debate; Feel free to delete, it would have been interesting if there was a siege, but guess not, nothing happened at Gordium. Bye.--Ariobarza (talk) 07:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

For Battle of the Tigris, this issue was between me and ChrisO (which I now Do Not have anything against or any problems with that user [and respect him for pointing out my problems here]), it is not your business, I suggest not to involve yourself in this highly sensitive article which I am sure you know nothing about. I NOW have damning evidence of what I said before as the mostly the truth, yet now that I am so close to presenting the evidence, you come up with a topic ban for me, nice job.

I consider your proposal to be highly rude and disheartening at this time. You are attempting to waste my time and others for the next month over a topic ban debate on me. I am tired of waisting my time on quite frankly stupid (I don't care anymore, I said the word stupid, big deal, I am guilty as charged) and endless debates with revisionists with no lives, other than to waist others time.

Misrepresenting the issue, and presenting false information is not helpful here. I {suggest} if you have a personal grudge against me to say it to my face on my talk page. And not spread "Off with Ariobarza's head" pamphlets around the town. You stalking my movements on Wikipedia to see if I am breaking the rules has itself inspired me to leave Wikipedia. Coordinated group personal attacks on me shows how much Wikipedia is in danger of developing close nit gangs within its topics.

Of course its not Wikipedia's fault, its the fault of users that don't know squat on a subject, then when they see something they THINK is OR SYN, they jump on that user without looking or researching the evidence for it. So when Ev assumes its OR SYN, and later gets proven wrong (this time by another user who presents the evidence), Ev develops a grudge, and revenge sets in when out of nowhere a topic ban on Ariobarza pops up! A coincedence?

If you do not stop (what I consider a personal attack from you), I will never stop until your true intentions are exposed, possibly an RFC for your other menions too. You spending months on this issue to get me banned from the topic shows how determined you are to get rid of me, actions speak louder than words.

Me being not in contact with my Unofficial mentor or continueing making deleted articles in my userspace is not a violation of any law here. So with the little good faith I still have in me, I ask you to abandon this inapropriate proposal, you must either present the ancient crimes I commited here (which everybody got over) or present new evidence, which does not exist.

I am not saying you have a grudge against me, though it is a possibility. Anyways, I urge you to please stop this, and if you have any concerns with me, to come to my talk page so we can work something out, can we agree? Thank you.--Ariobarza (talk) 05:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

One final request

ChrisO I PUT the evidence on the my talk page, and on the ANI page. Please, if you are human, and not a malfunctioning robot, go and read it OncE. And if what I SAy is true, then its true. Until you do that, do not keep lying on the page to get me banned, its better if you spread the truth. READ IT, READ IT, could I say it any louder. I'll shout as much as I want, cause your apparently hard of hearing. You'l remember to read it, right? Respond on my page ASAP.--Ariobarza (talk) 01:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Barack Obama conspiracy theories

Are you denying the fact that Barack Hussein Obama served as chairman on the CAC? It is true, CNS News link was just another source to verify, but I removed it for you ;-) I am not the same user as Markdandrea. Also, please check the discussion board on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdandrea (talk • contribs) 02:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

I have nominated Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

the "lobby"

How can you say that it is sourced when you can't provide the exact quote from the article, which you claim deals with the influence of the "lobby". You suggest that I should trust your memory, but have you considered a possibility that you memory might have failed you? It was more than a year since you included the claim about "the lobby" in the article, and originally it was not sourced at all - there were no footnotes immediately after the statement which alleges the stong influence of the "lobby". It appears therefore that the statement was your personal editorial comment, not supported by relible sources. As such it has no right to be included in the article.Keverich1 (talk) 21:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it reflects directly the wording of the source. I've already said this on the article's talk page. You need to assume good faith and not infer or imply that I've invented it; you plainly don't have a copy of the source yourself, and so far you've offered nothing more than "I don't like it". As you point out, the line in question has been in the article for more than a year, so it will not do any harm to leave it there for another few days until I can recheck the source. Finally, I'd like to point out that the article is under arbitration sanctions, and I strongly advise that you desist from edit-warring on it; you may find yourself being blocked if you continue. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 06:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

History of Slavery in Iran

I have added some sources regarding the practice of slavery among Achaemenides. The article clearly suffers a great deal from POV pushing.Heja Helweda (talk) 06:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I would appreciate your input/view on the issue I have raised [9]. Thanks, Polibiush (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Image permission problem with Image:Brill branch map.png

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Brill branch map.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Israel Map

Hi, I found this file you've modified and uploaded it. Can I ask you if you can send its SVG file for me? I'm gonna modify this file for another language. My talk page is in Persian WP here: w:fa:بحث کاربر:Carl. thanks -- 89.165.80.153 (talk) 11:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)