User talk:GrandPhilliesFan

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, GrandPhilliesFan! Thank you for your contributions. I am Swarm and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Swarm 19:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Lizzie Phelan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lizzie Phelan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lizzie Phelan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Journal of Foreign Relations for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Journal of Foreign Relations is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Foreign Relations (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Cameron Scott (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright ownership

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:%28R-to-F%29_Walter_Fauntroy,_Thierry_Mayssan,_Lizzie_Phelan,_August_28th_2011_South_Mediterranean.jpg Hi - did you take this photo? Have you got the original? Are you the owner of the copyright? Off2riorob (talk) 01:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I answered to that already. The picture is copyright-free, as it was first published in a copyright-free publication which allows its republication under fair use. Hi to you too GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 07:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence of that, have you go any? Off2riorob (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'There is no evidence correction: you have no evidence. Fortunately, Universal knowledge does not overlap wth yours. Cheers GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You as the uploader are the one that needs the evidence - or without it is shouldn't be here and I will request it deleted. Are the links you are providing working for you? Is the picure a composite or a real time single photograph? Also , if the picture is decided to be commons licensed could we/you attempt to upload it the wikipedia commons where it will be available to multiple projects and where I can make derivatives of it as it currently needs splitting in the article it is in, the picture is more correct of the subject alone and not of a group of people, thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 14:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith and wait until say tomorrow that the Voltairenet site is re-established, you will find the copyleft information on it. GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 15:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume good faith, that does not restrict me , in fact it requests of me to investigate and determine ownership of uploads, thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

old account?

Have you had an account here before? the structure of your responses at AFD seem familar to me rather than you being a nobody to me. (bear in mind you don't have to answer this and if you don't want to, just delete it). --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Namely you mean Am I Dream Focus. Answer: No, I am not Have I edited WP before? The answer is yes, a long time ago, although some may challenge this point. Is it my very first account? The answer is yes. GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 10:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2011

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on Centre d'Etudes Diplomatiques et Stratégiques. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Crusio (talk) 11:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:(R-to-F) Walter Fauntroy, Thierry Mayssan, Lizzie Phelan, August 28th 2011 South Mediterranean.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:(R-to-F) Walter Fauntroy, Thierry Mayssan, Lizzie Phelan, August 28th 2011 South Mediterranean.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. Off2riorob (talk) 13:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Dehaene-Changeux Model for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dehaene-Changeux Model is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dehaene-Changeux Model until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Dehaene & Changeux 2005 PLOS (ccreative commons).png

Thank you for uploading File:Dehaene & Changeux 2005 PLOS (ccreative commons).png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Eeekster (talk) 21:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Solved: I have added the appropriate license tag. --Crusio (talk) 06:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfied new, New World Order

GrandPhilliesFan - I userfied the article for you. It is now in your user space to work on as necessary here User:GrandPhilliesFan/Drafts/New New World Order (politics) Later today, I will try and provide you some advice on how to proceed. At the moment I am recovering from a week of travel and am getting prepared for a trip that starts tomorrow. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's how I might proceed with this article if I were a relatively new editor. First, understand that because this topic has already been deleted once, it will get more scrutiny when it shows up again. Knowing that, you'll have to be especially cognizant of both notability and OR issues as you work on this article. I really see two tracks here. 1) Familiarize yourself as much as possible with notability, verifiability and Original Research policies. Read the discussion pages on these policies to see how others are interpreting them. Take a look at and monitor the different noticeboards on related to these policies--Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard for example. These boards will allow you to see how others deal with and interpret specific content issues. Above all, review the structure and content of other political doctrine type articles to see how the community has written for this type of content in the past. 2)Like you'd do for any good research paper, begin to outline the new article. If New, New World Order is indeed notable and there are sources to back it up, focus on explaining it in a clear, concise encyclopedic way. Avoid including periferal content that might lead others to believe you are engaging in Original Research. Stick to what the sources say about New, New World Order. Even if the resulting article is only 25% of what it is now, that's OK. Don't get in a hurry. Do the reasearch, both on policy and the articles content. 3)Ask others for help. If you have a specfic question whether specific content you would like to include is OR, ask the question on the OR noticeboard and accept the advice of the community. The same goes for notability and source reliability questions. Enlist the support of WikiProjects such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Cold War for their guidance. Additionally, you can always ask me on my talk page any question you want. When and if you get the article ready for the mainspace, I'll give you a hand getting it there. Good Luck--Mike Cline (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Sir. In first review, I see that the section about the "Obama bowing controversy" has to be removed as no article that I know of associates it with the concept of an NNWO. yet we can make a whole article on it - with due care for neutrality - as it received immense coverage and I have found at least ten reliable third party sources. Having mentioned the event in the past, I remembered it had been very notable. So I suggest refitting the article, a removal of the Obama bowing section to a full article with additional pictures per the British coverage that actually provided them all in this order which would include the picture with Doug MacArthur and a complete rephrasing of the "scholarly overview". Maybe the original contributor had actually read this article... I'll also underline that NNWOO is more of a journalist term that was appropriated by the community in geopolitics like the BRICS. Then I'll wait for your approval to air it. enjoy your trip --GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 14:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there GrandPhilliesFan, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:GrandPhilliesFan/Drafts/New New World Order (politics).

See a log of files removed today here.
Shut off the bot here.
Report errors here.
If you have any questions, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]