User talk:Bdell555

Welcome!

Hello, Bdell555, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Potsdam Declaration

Here some quotation from the "Official Gazette of the control council for Germany" (Documents relating to the establishment of the Allied Control Authority) - published by the "Allied Secretariat" in Berlin, Elssholzstrase 32.

Under item VI (Statement by the Governments of the United Kingdom, the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic and the Provisional Government of the French Republic on the zones of occupation in Germany) they write:

"1. Germany, within her frontiers as they were on 31st December, 1937, will, for purposes of occupation, be divided into four zones, one to be alloted to each Power as follows ..."

Under item VIII (Report on the Tripartite Conference of Berlin) and there Article IX concerning the western frontier of Poland they write:

"The three Heads of Government reaffirm their opinion that the final delimitation of the western frontier of Poland should await the peace settlement."

Until this peace conference the disputed territories "shall be under the administration of the Polish State and for such purposes should not be considered as part of the Soviet Zone of occupation in Germany."

So keeping in mind this facts sincerely it´s obvious that the (West-) Allies didn´t order any transfer of Germans out of their ancestral homelands because by doing this they would have created a fait accompli.

Actually Russia and Poland created such accomplished facts by expelling most of that Germans - even quite long before the Potsdam Declaration.

(Comment: Any forced transfer of population is a crime against humanity; and this it was already at times of 1945 - Nazi-Germany was trialed exactly for such crimes, too.)

-- Wikiferdi 13:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

There isn't much point in examining this much further as long as Witkacy is still out there reversing both our edits automatically.Bdell555 02:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello Bdell555,

how does it work "reverting automatically"? I think it´s against the rules of Wikipedia, isn´t it?

--Wikiferdi 09:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

ihr reversion

In reading the discussion at Talk:Holocaust denial#Description of reversion policy needed, regarding the reversion of ihr material, the discussion you may have been referring to probably took place here, User talk:Willmcw/archive6#Harry Dexter White, and not on the White page. nobs 19:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Bdell555.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Bdell555.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then 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. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- Longhair 13:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I should think it would be obvious that I created the image. Would I post the image of someone else to this page, after writing BDELL555 right on the image? If I can't be trusted to not pass off the image of someone else as my own, how can you be satisfied with my claims to copyright? I suppose I could just create it again, at which time the rules may just change again without regard for common sense...Bdell555 21:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Redlinks

Hi there! A redlink, where the subject of the redlink is significantly related to and helps understand the context of the article it's in, and where the subject of the redlink also merits an article of its own, is not only allowable but encouraged on Wikipedia - where the great majority of useful articles started out as redlinks, and many endured as redlinks for a long time before a volunteer took on writing them up.

Telling another editor to go create an article, on the other hand, is generally discouraged; we're all volunteers here, and subject to not doing anything to lower the quality of Wikipedia, railroad reasonable consensus, add fuel to fires, etc., we should all try to trust each other to contribute on the noteworthy subjects that interest us, in the ways that interest us, at the times and paces of our choosing. As it happens, I'll start something up on Mary Jo Leddy right now; it's just something to keep in mind going forward.

Anyway, all small issues. I appreciate your work to help make Gerard Kennedy and other articles accurate, referenced and well-written. Thank you! And cheers. Samaritan 00:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well someone actually said “It's usually better to resist linking these items until you get around to writing an article on each one” in the Wiki guidelines, so I would suggest you also correct that person for attempting to tell other Wiki editors what to do, just to stay consistent. Not that I find the Wiki guidelines necessarily infallible, since the guideline that linking policy should be governed by a consideration for what helps “readers to understand the current article more fully” (a policy I fully appreciate) is directly contradicted by the notion that links to nowhere help reader understanding. In my own case, the request for an article was conditional, with the condition being that somebody somewhere actually wants an article, as opposed to just a link. The fact an article has now been created is satisfactory proof that somebody somewhere wants more than just a link.Bdell555 15:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for photos!

Thanks for photos of various places in North China that you've uploaded recently to en.wikipedia.org! Would you however consider uploading your photos in the future not to en.wikipedia.org, but to Wikipedia Commons (commons.wikipedia.org)? This way they will be immediately usable not only in English Wikipedia, but also in all other Wikipedia projects, with the same syntax. Vmenkov 22:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

3-revert-rule violation

You have violated the three-revert rule on Alger Hiss. Any administrator may now choose to block your account. In the future, please make an effort to discuss your changes further, instead of edit warring.

I have chosen not to report you at this point, because you did not receive a warning during your spree of unsupported reverts against the clear consensus of involved editors. But understand, you inarguably violated the very clear and straightforward three-revert rule with the following four reverts in the span of less than eleven hours: [1], [2], [3], and [4]. I will note that in violating the three-revert rule, you reverted not one, not two, but three other Wikipedia editors. If you violate the rule again, you will be reported and you will be blocked.—DCGeist 07:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

1) re the above exhortation to "made an effort to discuss [my] changes further", I have literally written THOUSANDS of words with respect to my changes. And that's just today. Words that you have greated with silence.

2) A common sense definition of a reversion is an edit which makes no changes other than back to the previous version. I have NOT done that 4 times within 24 hours. For example, I accomodated the Redspruce's request to drop "in any case" in one of those edits, which makes for a rather bizarre "edit war", does it not? Seriously, I think you have quite confused who is contributing and who is reverting here.

3) My remarks in the section above concerning "Reversion policy" would apply here. I advance some proposals there for minimizing edit warring and working collaboratively to build up an article that have received no response from you.

4) Why don't you report yourself for violating the Wiki policy that calls for a "common reference text" cite for summary conclusions about an issue while you are it. That's the very same policy you called up and demanded I adhere to earlier. Or do the rules only apply to me and not you?Bdell555 09:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Alger Hiss article

Bdell555, thanks for making a better edit. Well done. Call on me for back up on other articlce. Jtpaladin 12:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I think they've more or less given up contesting the issue on the Talk page, so it will probably just go to an edit war. I think fair-minded people will support our edit so we just need to get more people involved.Bdell555 20:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobs was blocked for a time, but then something else happened, so I am not sure. Sorry. --Cberlet 18:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR

You may be aware that a report has been made about you at WP:3RR. While the report is not yet complete, I have looked at some of your editing and would like to politely remind you that threatening to start an edit war by numbers is really not a good idea at all, and may see you blocked. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 14:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Please note that I wasn't actually accusing you of anything - I was merely suggesting that such an edit-war would be completely counter-productive. You will notice that I closed RedSpruce's 3RR notification as closed without any sanctions. Please do not feel that this means you cannot edit the article in question, only that edit-warring over it is not a good idea. Thanks, ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 20:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Apologies if it seemed like that. I usually copy one previous quote into the new page so that new users can see where the discussion starts, and yours was a bit long :) However, as you say it is a bit unfair, and so I'll start afresh with a blank page. It genuinely wasn't an attempt to show you in a bad light. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 21:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    • You are clearly quite reasonable and fair. My only reservation is your advice to Redspruce to "don't hesitate to take it to 3RR (if applicable), or WP:RFPP," when just in the past few days Redspruce ran to WP:RFPP to block a user, now registered as Reargunner, for removing the word "apparently" from the article and today Redspruce is in an extensive argument with not just Reargunner but with others as well over the word. The matter should have been left to the Talk pages from square one, IMO, with everyone retaining equal rights to edit.Bdell555 21:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

nobs

Nobs is perma banned by order of the Committee (Nobs03 and others) Dagomar 19:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I dont know what the infraction was, but given the fact there are other users, such as Amalekite, who was banned not because of anything he ever did on or to Wikipedia, but because of political associations outside of Wikipedia, I can't help but wonder if politics had anything to do with it. I remember Nobs' editing of and Talk commentary on articles like Harry Dexter White and thought that, subject to some reservations, he was a generally a calm, reasonable, and, most importantly, well informed editor.Bdell555 21:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Continuation of McCarthy discussion from Flanders page

Dear Bdell,

I offered to bring the discussion across from Talk:Ralph Flanders to Talk:Joseph McCarthy on the summary statement that you felt needed improvement, but I see a presence there from you, already. Unless you expect more from me, I'll hope that you and those interested in the Joseph McCarthy page can find a mutually satisfactory solution to the issues that you raise. You're welcome to alert me, when you feel that has happened.

Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 23:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Bdell,

I noted your last post on the Talk:McCarthy page. I tried to send you an e-mail about it. My suggestion is that we "assume good faith," but call the editor to account if we see a violation of that good faith. I recognize that you feel that there's been a violation before. When the violation is made is when to address it. There are plenty of people watching to note any such a violation in this case. My concern is that your post continues to whack the hornet's nest of an acrimonious discussion after the hornets have gone to bed. My feeling is that it would be more politic to delete your post and be watchful.

Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 17:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

My reading of Redspruce's comments about reverting a "consensus" is that he wouldn't view it as a "violation" of anything; it would simply be making the article better (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RedSpruce#Alger_Hiss_summary arguably supports this as well). I think we should "assume good faith" accordingly. In other words, I think you are begging the question to assume it would be a violation of good faith. Indeed, I simply asked whether he would revert in the future, regardless of whether he, or anyone else, would see that as some sort of violation. In any case, I had made the mistake of assuming that "the hornets had gone to bed" before and see little point in others repeating that mistake. How bout if I decline to ever post again to that McCarthy Talk page thread? Redspruce or DCGeist could then get the last word and it would be impossible to continue any debate there, whether "acrimonious" or otherwise, no? I also think our primary responsibility is to ensure that Wiki articles are not inaccurate, as opposed to ensuring that any related discussion is not "acrimonious". All of your observations about being welcoming, being polite, not engaging in personal attacks, etc. all continue to apply, of course. My primary concern is that bad edits persist in Wikipedia when editors are intimidated into not challenging them because the discussion would quickly turn "acrimonious". I think we need to speak clearly, logically, and as politely as possible without detracting from "clearly" and "logically". When the other side engages in personal attacks, we should try to be magnanimous and ignore them, as opposed to getting away from the text of the article by making an issue out of them. I totally recognize your point about how distateful it all is and I am no fan of confrontation. I made the comment I did in the hope that we could avoid repeating the whole acrimonious process again in the future. In any case, if you want to delete my comment, I have no objections, since it would simply be too much for me to start an argument with YOU.Bdell555 03:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Bdell,

For my part, I feel that your participation in the discussion of the McCarthy and Flanders pages resulted in an improvement of both articles. So, I would hope that you would stay in the game. It appears to me that the topic "neighborhood," pertaining to the whole Red Scare era, is a rough one where civility seems to be an exception, rather than the rule.

So, it seems that the approach that you suggest above is appropriate. You might want to look over the page that I was looking for the other day at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I found the advice to be very useful for when one is operating in a tough neighborhood.

As to deleting the comment that I alluded to above, that seems moot to me now, given the FYI posting below.

Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 20:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

fyi

WP:STALK If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter. RedSpruce 17:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The one difference between your vandalism (to one article in particular) and that of most other vandals is that I think you would stop if you were ever compelled to apply the principles you demand of others to yourself, Redspruce. Hence the value of noting those occasions. And there seems to be no interest in resolving the issue where it is occuring, hence the necessity of noting those occasions. Trying to bring a resolution to an edit war (for the second time, I might add) is not "disruptive". I am interested not in some sort of childish one-up-manship but in what you believe since consistency across your beliefs would resolve our biggest disputes.Bdell555 03:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

McCarthy FAQ

Thank you for your edit, Bdell. I feel that you're right to defuse the language there, even if it was probably technically correct. Sincerely,--User:HopsonRoad 14:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

GA Review?

Dear Bdell: Would you consider performing a GA review of Ralph Flanders? You have commented on the article with respect to his relationship to Joseph McCarthy. He was also notable as an industrialist and an advisor on economic policy. The article has received a peer review.

You appear to be committed to Wikipedia standards and have the judgment to assess articles therein. I should note that I did reinstate "sensational," after it was restored at Joseph McCarthy, following my policy to let that article hold precedence on terminology. I did, however, post my proposed change in Talk:Ralph Flanders and waited for comments, so that it would not appear that I "sneaked" it back in.

For my part, I try to do at least one GA Review for every one that I request. So, I've agreed to do one on Dick Cheney. If you would consider doing the review, please check out the Wikipedia:Good article nominations page and see what's entailed. Sincerely,--User:HopsonRoad 14:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your review, Bdell. It was critical in the best sense of the word. N-J Seigel expressed similar concerns. Perhaps I'll try paring down the article to a minimalist version and looking at what's essential. it would be most helpful if another editor with a fresh eye had the expertise and interest to get involved. However, there doesn't seem to be such out there.

I've found the Time article and will look for the Vermont Encyclopedia. It's ironical that you appear to be off yonder "across the pond" and have access to the VE and I'm in Vermont and didn't know that it existed! My assessment of Flanders is that, apart from the McCarthy episode, he was undistinguished in politics; so, the less "fluff," the better. I'll post specific replies to your review after I've had a chance to look over the sources. Sincerely,--User:HopsonRoad 14:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I've posted my replies to your review here. I've also made some changes to the article, including three new citations (two at your suggestion), plus a new link (reflecting your suggestion).

Having just done a GA review of Dick Cheney, I know that it's a daunting task. However, if you would consider doing it for Ralph Flanders, I believe that it would strengthen the article further. Sincerely,--User:HopsonRoad 17:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Bill Ayers article

• Warning - for ongoing incivility and edit warring in an attempt to introduce point-of-view material derogatory to a living person. The material you keep adding in an attempt to discredit and cast doubts on the veracity of the subject's statement is improper, among other reasons because it is argumentative and introduces analysis. I am removing it yet again. You are at WP:3RR on this today. Please stop, or you may be temporarily blocked from further editing the encyclopedia. Wikidemo (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Guys...both of you should take this to Talk. Kaisershatner (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Kaistershatner.Bdell555 (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Second warning - for this edit[5]. Incivility getting close to wikistalking. Please do not make further comments like that on my talk page.Wikidemo (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Who was the first one to make a comment on a Talk page, again? I'm just poking some fun at your logical consistency there, buddy. I'd say "please do not make further comments like" THIS on MY Talk page, but frankly, you, and everyone else, can pretty much say whatever you want!Bdell555 (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Trying to figure this out. You agree with the label terrorist yes? I wholeheartedly agree and think the term, which is merely a factual label, should be included in the entry. The use of the term "radical" seems to be okay, but radical in what sense? Radical in the sense that he set bombs to coerce the government into doing something he wanted them to do...which is the dictionary defintion of terrorism. I was going to make the edit, because the article starts with him being a professor then on the side mentioning he was a radical, but it's deceptive in that form. I will wait before I make any edits or argue any points on the talk page.216.135.32.226 (talk) 16:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You have previously shown an interest in the Barack Obama article. Please state on the Talk page of the Barack Obama article whether you Support or Oppose Scjessey's version.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama#Let.27s_see_whether_you_really_have_a_.22new_consensus.22_.28version_2.29

Kossack4Truth (talk) 02:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Political positions of Barack Obama

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Oren0 (talk) 02:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll respond to this on your user page.Bdell555 (talk) 02:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I know you're aware of this rule and I know you're trying to do what's best for the article (for what it's worth, I actually agree with your position) but edit warring isn't the answer. Oren0 (talk) 02:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(reply to your message on my talk page) I just used a predefined template for that warning. I'm aware that you've tried to use the talk page and that you're doing what you think is right but talk space is for making and building consensus without disturbing the article unnecessarily. Regardless of what you put on the talk page 3RR still applies (and a glance at this page indicates you're well aware of that rule). Try to build agreement and try not to break policy; I'd hate to see you get blocked for making edits I think are more or less correct. Oren0 (talk) 02:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of the need to build agreement. Indeed, that's just common sense, whatever the formal policy. That means use of the Talk page AND trying different editing approaches in the face of opposition instead of two or more parties just banging their heads against the wall. In essence that's why I objected to your use of a "template" to deal with the matter: tailored solutions that acknowledge what's happening in the particular are more appropriate in my mind. But that doesn't mean I don't recognize that 3RR applies: according to the policy, "a revert means undoing the actions of another editor". When I added the "other than his own", that was an addition (or a reversion of a revert from days ago, if you prefer). Likewise, adding "nonetheless" did not undo anyone else's actions.Bdell555 (talk) 02:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I shouldn't have used a template, I am aware of WP:DTTR. I'm not saying you are or aren't violating 3RR (I counted two reversions) but there's no question you're edit warring and edit wars are still disruptive to article space. Given your previous talk page warnings, you probably know this better than most. Oren0 (talk) 03:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. I don't believe I'm edit warring / "disrupting the artice space"(?), or if I am, it's under a technical definition that misses the larger and more important question of whether I'm responding to the other party with words and actions that reflect acknowledgement of their views as opposed to the "head bashing" I mention above. If your conclusion from my warnings is that I'm a problem editor, I'd remind you that it's just as possible the party warning me is the problem editor. I'd avoid jumping to conclusions without investigating the circumstances. If you never have confrontations with problem editors, good for you, but someone will likely confront them and that may even be desirable. If you have still have a problem with my editing, feel free to take it up with a third party.Bdell555 (talk) 03:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Bdell555. I just placed a compromise on Talk:Political positions of Barack Obama. Please take a look at it when you have a chance. Thanks --Floridianed (talk) 16:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Your past experiences with User:RedSpruce

I saw your recent post to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes/Proposed decision. While I certainly appreciate the additional information, I am disappointed that it was not available to Arbcom while the evidence-gathering process was still going on. Unfortunately, Arbcom took the case but refused to deal with the title issue of the arbitration. This has left RedSpruce still making a number of blanket reverts, though he has offered vague glimmers of hope for a peaceful resolution on his part. I will review your experiences more carefully as a guide for dealing with my ongoing issues. Alansohn (talk) 14:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Questions concerning Arbcom case

I originally drafted a number of BLP-related provisions on the case workshop because a significant portion of the evidence submitted in the case involved BLP matters; the proposals in the final decision were taken straight from that. Kirill ^(prof) 01:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

RSN?

I saw the argument you were having at Holocaust denial - and jpgordon's page, but not having the background, can't make head or tail of it. But it seems like the place you want to go might be WP:RS/N - the more details about what source you want to use and for what purpose, in what article, the better.John Z (talk) 08:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the link. I don't plan on trying that route right now since I think any superficial consideration would lead one to simply say, what? course not... never, and a deep consideration gets rather involved.Bdell555 (talk) 04:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Dresden

Hello, Bdell555. You have new messages at WilliamH's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Friedrich Kellner

Thank you for your help with this article. You were right to ask for a source regarding Fred William, and I also agree with the changes you made, based on your reading of the source. Rskellner (talk) 03:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It kinda seemed like there was some possibility Fred William might have some Nazi sympathies, but singing the Horst Wessel Song might not mean that much in Germany at the time for a young, anti-establishment guy (as opposed to that happening today), and joining the German American Bund doesn't really either, because I'd almost be more surprised if he didn't join, having just arrived in the US as an adult from Germany. I think he joined the US Army as opposed to being drafted, so any Naziism is more plausibly just a bit of opportunism, more revealing of a lack of enthusiasm for other codes of conduct than of a positive enthusiasm for Naziism (it seems he abandoned his wife and children in America, amongst other things). That's what my limited German suggested to me from the article, at any rate. I am in Stockholm now and plan to head to the Synagogue here in the hopes of seeing the diary.Bdell555 (talk) 04:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The exhibit in The Great Synogogue in Stockholm was for the month of October 2007, and it closed on November 1. But Lars Raij, the Director of the Library (the exhibit was in the library downstairs in the synagogue), might still have some of the material available. Regarding Fred William, I'm afraid his sympathies were very certainly pro-Nazi, as evidenced by the 20 page F.B.I. dossier that I have on him. In fact, it was the F.B.I. investigation in New York in 1943 that made him join the U.S. Army. But because the article is about his father rather than about him, all of this information is not pertinent to the article, so I will not add it. Too bad we weren't in touch earlier. I was in Calgary a few months ago when the Calgary Jewish Film Festival showed the documentary, "My Opposition - The Diaries of Friedrich Kellner," and you might have enjoyed seeing it (it was produced in Toronto). I believe it will air on Global Television again (it was shown on Global in prime time last June). Again, thanks for your help with this. I greatly appreciate it. Rskellner (talk) 04:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Obama

You make a good point on that talk page of Obama. I would agree with you there, but it's protected. Pop6 (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well I find it somewhat ironic that my edit is supposedly neither notable nor relevant (and should therefore be reverted) yet it attracts so much attention.Bdell555 (talk) 00:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Acorn

It's difficult to use opinion pieces as sources, although if John Fund gets something factually wrong in The Wall Street Journal he's going to get in trouble. The Pittsburgh source is also opinion. If we can, it's better to source to news reports. In fact, there are very few news articles that touch on this. So we've got potential WP:RS problems, potential WP:WEIGHT problems, and if we do too much conclusion-drawing, we start to have WP:OR problems. It seems to me we have some problems with a sentence saying not so much that Obama worked for ACORN, which ties us up in technicalities over how much Project Vote is controlled by ACORN. I think it's better to say that Obama worked with ACORN, something I think we already have sourcing for. It's been a while since I looked over the proposed language. I need to get to bed now. I'll try to take a look at it in the morning. I think just being able to tell readers that Obama worked with Acorn in some way would be helpful, and interested readers could then follow the link to the Acorn article. I'd forgotten about that "Early life" article. It's very short and there's so much information out there ... Noroton (talk) 05:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC) (((fixed typo Noroton (talk) 05:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC))))

Let's see what Rick Block, Wikidemo and some other editors have to say in the face of the evidence. I haven't seen a direct response to either my suggested language or the fact that this is a fact and is important in an ongoing way in his life for years and years. I'm a little tired of doing what I'm supposed to do and knocking myself out getting sources just to be ignored or told I'm talking too much. I've got to get away from the computer for a while. More fun tomorrow. Noroton (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia not editorial/tabloid

I'm quite distressed by your recent edits to ACORN. It appears that you are inserting and/or restoring highly POV material of no encyclopedic value, for purposes of editorializing against the organization. I'm not really sure if an article RFC or a user RFC would be a better approach; I suppose I'll wait a bit before either. But in any case, this pattern is alarming. LotLE×talk 06:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not distressed by yours (c'est la vie), and have in fact agreed with the vast majority of your many edits to that article that had the effect of making the article more favourable to the subject. I've really only taken significant exception to two of them, for reasons I've provided on the Talk page.Bdell555 (talk)

As requested, my argument for ACORN sentence, organized

This is a form message I'm cross posting on various user talk pages: As requested, I wrote up my argument in one spot, consolidating what I'd said before and adding just a bit. Please take a look at it at User:Noroton/The case for including ACORN and comment at Talk:Barack Obama#Case for ACORN proposed language, restated. Thanks, Noroton (talk) 03:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

ANI report

You have been mentioned in a WP:ANI report here. You may wish to participate in the discussion. Curious bystander (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Bdell, thank you for your kind comments on my Talk page. I have left my impression of the situation at User talk:HandThatFeeds. Curious bystander (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I know nothing

about Project Vote other than that B. as a community organizer is said to have directed some kind of voter registration drive. Could you explain to an ignorant but intelligent person like me what the encyclopedic facts are about the topic and what the kernel of the dispute between yous twos is? (Conversationally, not end-product boilerplate -- if ya want, throw in some kernel diffs. I've also asked LotLE the same question here.)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 22:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

If you "know nothing", how do you know that I and others have "ganged up" in order to "silence" LotLE? I dare say you must know quite a lot if you feel it is necessary to make that claim to the admin community, which is why I'm suggesting you share your knowledge with us ordinary users. You could start by contributing your "$.02" to Talk:Project_Vote#Stop_POV_edits. I don't see why a person needs additional knowledge in order to opine on the merits of that summary of the dispute I provide there, anyway. If you need to know what that "allegation" I allude to was, it was LotLE's claim that my edits constituted "vandalism".Bdell555 (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm being completely on the up and up with you, Bdell555 (eg I am not being sarcastic or cute in any way by saying I'm ignorant on the issue). And while, trust me, I've observed just lots-'n'-lots of over-the-top "attitude" from LotLE (which could be just my subjective impression from being reverted by him a few times)...in any case, Bdell555, I'd not written so clearly in that recent comment you mention in the an/i and what I'd meant to say, anyway, is that some editors had ganged up to silence the three guys topic banned from Barack Obama, is all.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 23:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

So would you also grant that they may be "ganging up" to "silence" "some editors" just as much (and possibly even more) than "some editors" are "ganging up" to "silence" them? If not, you must know why even-handedness is not appropriate here, and I remain interested in that knowledge.Bdell555 (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

So would you also grant that they may be "ganging up" to "silence" "some editors" just as much (and possibly even more) than "some editors" are "ganging up" to "silence" them?

I'm going to try and parse to myself what you're saying here.

Would I also grant that some editors -- by name, WD & company -- may be ganging up to silence them -- by name, Andy and company?(→yes)'......just as much and maybe more than Andy & company are trying to silence Wikidemo & company?(→OK, now I get it. Sincerely, I'm a little slow sometimes!)

Yes, you're probably right. In fact noone on Wikidemo's "side's" really been silenced.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 00:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If not, you must know why even-handedness is not appropriate here.

To be evenhanded, WP would have to topic ban some folks on "WD and company's" side as well; however what I'd prefer would be for WP to review the three who've been topic banned and decide to allow them to contribute again on a "probationed" and "1-revert-only" -enforced page.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 00:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

My point is, I and others have been effectively "topic banned" ourselves in that I can't edit Obama related pages without edit warring with LotLE et al. You just seem to be interested in speaking out against formal banning. If you are in a position to do that, you've presumably already expressed your opinion with respect to the particulars of LotLE's actions in order to help resolve the problems at the informal level. I nonetheless can't see any comments by you with respect to the Project Vote article, to take an example. I wasn't taking issue with what whatever you believe about those "three" but with your insistence on "doing the same now" for LotLE. I suggest first things first in terms of dealing with the dispute.Bdell555 (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm disposed to think inclusions of fact trump immediate concerns about weight. Yet, while Lulu has told me his take on Project Vote here, you've only told me to go the the article's history to figure out for myself what's your take; and ---- I'm lazy. :^)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 01:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

(Also of possible interest is this discussion here.)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 01:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm already aware of the fact that LotLE accused me of bad faith (i.e. I'm "convinced" of the "wickedness of ACORN" and "hope to tarnish" Obama somehow, as opposed to simply trying to get duly sourced, neutrally presented, notable material added to the Project Vote article), and you found that totally unsupported allegation of his "pretty convincing". I'm also aware that you considered his simply asserted claim that a (c)(3) cannot be an "arm" of any non-(c)(3) a "pretty convincing" argument. Never mind the fact that the ACLU says on its own website that "the ACLU Foundation (ACLUF) is the national tax-deductible, 501(c)(3) arm of the ACLU", as I note in my first paragraph of that Talk page section I referred you to, above. That paragraph, stamped 14:18 on 30 July 2008, spells out my response to LotLE about as concisely as I can put it.Bdell555 (talk) 02:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson's foe's said he had a slave mistress and his supporters said of course he didn't; and that ended the matter. Until Fawn Brodie laid out the claim's underpinnings in her controversial Jefferson biography. In Wikipedia content disputes some contributors take a part analogous to that of Jefferson's supporters and shut off facts possibly interpretable in a negative light, others that of Fawn Brodie, letting chips fall where they may; and I'd hope to be in the metaphorical Fawn Brodie camp.

See also: Thomas Jefferson § Sally Hemings controversy

Anyway, Bdell555, I actually had clicked on your provided link and skimmed the stuff there -- but alas didn't find it all so very -- skimmable; but what I'm merely guessing is that folks at ACORN created an affiliated non-partisan group to do voter registration (just as you show that the ACLU has created an affiliated foundation). So, then, apparently Lulu deletes any claim of an affiliation between ACORN and PV pending better "proof," but then won't budge despite whatever proof's shown? And, judging from Lulu's argument that, blah blah, it's obviously that you belive ACORN is evil, blah blah blah, would it be incorrect to surmise that ACORN is either demonstratably farish left or else somehow besmirched with ethical tawdriness? What's the scoop?  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 03:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

(indent) There are, indeed, a variety of sources that indicate that ACORN "created" Project Vote, but the claim at issue is whether or not Project Vote is currently an "arm". The New York Times and TIME magazine, amongst other sources, unambiguously say that it is, and ACORN even reprinted the NY Times claim on its website (why would it do that if the "arm" language implies something unfavourable to either org)? If you look at Project Vote's own Wiki article, you'll see that it is accused of fraud directly, and Project Vote rejects those allegations directly, such that it is quite unnecessary to tie in ACORN in order to tie into those allegations. It's also clear that Project Vote is concerned with "low income and minority voters" without any reference to ACORN. LotLE tried to insert "mostly" into that article quote "150,000 new African-American voters were added to the city's rolls" because he thought the quote suggested Obama was too concerned with minority voters without qualifying it. In other words, LotLE seems to imagine Obama as being "besmirched" by pretty much anything and everything, such I can't give you a coherent theory with respect to his specific problem with ACORN. Not that LoTLE's motivations matter anyway. If a notable, reliably sourced, neutrally presented fact "besmirches" a politician or suggests he's "far left", it should be included anyway.Bdell555 (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If a notable, reliably sourced, neutrally presented fact "besmirches" a politician or suggests he's "far left", it should be included anyway.

Agreed.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 14:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Alger Hiss

Hi -- I just wanted to make note of the rare and unusual fact that you've made an edit to this article that I totally agree with and think is good contribution.

Cheers, RedSpruce (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, that may be my only edit to the main page that's been left standing more than a day. Oshinsky seems to be moderate and/or nuanced enough in his general view of not just Hiss but McCarthyism in general that even opposed persons on either side of Oshinsky in the grand scheme of things may agree that readers should have the opportunity to read that .pdf that that quotes his remarks at length. Given that Neil Gross and Solon Simmons' "The Social and Political Views of American Professors" seems to have found that a greater proportion of Americans believe the moon landings were a hoax than humanities academics self-identify as "conservative", I find the specific quote about the "majority" telling.Bdell555 (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Tactics

Your note about how the East Prussian violance can be compared to the one in Georgia is interesting. Notice that Russian Empire's campaings in Turkey and Poland by Suvorov also used such tactics to enforce victory. IIRC what I read about it the tactic was adopted by military from Mongol Empire when Muscovy was under its yoke. --Molobo (talk) 11:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

So what?..

Our military spending in 2008 was $40 bln (figure from Wikipedia) which is 3.1 % of our nominal 2007 GDP ($1290 bln; since Russia's 2008 GDP will be bigger this percentage is even smaller). In case of Georgia the 2007 gdp was $ 10.3 bln and military budget was roughly $1 bln then ([6]). You can easily see which country is more militarised :))

Comparing absolute numbers can also be valid. In this case, however, not only Georgia should be compared to Russia but also SO to Georgia. Best regards. Alæxis_¿question? 16:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm rather surprised by your question. Why do countries usually spend their money this way?.. Russia by no means stands out against other countries whether you take absolute numbers (US, UK, Germany spend more), per capita numbers (US, UK, Germany, Australia, Singapore, Norway etc spend more) or a percentage of GDP (US, Israel, Georgia, Turkey, Singapore spend more). I myself wouldn't mind if all over the world less was spent on this. Alæxis_¿question? 17:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm inviting your comment

Here (and also, if possible, here?)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 05:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian intention to invade Georgia

I am ok with the current wording of that paragraph. It is just my opinion that both sentences (from Novaya Gazeta and AFP) should stay or both should go. It is not up to Wikipedia to make its judgment on possible intentions of anyone. I do not know if Russia really intended the invasion, but as a matter of a fact, neither does Pavel Feigensomething. That was merely his conjecture or an opinion, not a fact, and I am surprised that his POV survived in the article for that long, and I am pretty sure that it will be edited out later (not by me, there are enough zealots around).

It is however true that Russian exercise was conducted at the same time as USA and Georgia conducted their own joint exercise. Who am I to judge whether both sides intended the war? (Igny (talk) 22:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC))

I don't object to removing the whole paragraph if that's what you'd like to do. My problem was with the details of your editing (which suggested that the predominant view of US officials is that the Russian actions were largely a bolt out of the blue); one can't say the details are OK if they serve some desirable larger purpose. There were elements of WP:OR in your editing (e.g. it appears to be largely your research that reveals American military exercises to be notably relevant.)Bdell555 (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

They can not be any less relevant than the Russian exercise. There are references in abundance in Russian media linking these two events together, so it is hardly my OR. An example and another one.(Igny (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC))

As I recall the New York Times article specifically addressed the relevence of the US exercises and analysts and/or officials rejected their relevance. Again, at issue here was whether the NY Times was saying what you were saying it said or not.Bdell555 (talk) 18:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Please suggest major changes on discussion page first

When changing intro section on a controversial topic please suggest them on the discussion page first.Anatoly.bourov (talk) 17:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

If you review my contributions to the Talk page, you'll see that I made a variety of contributions to intro related issues already. The current intro seems to be significantly different, but that doesn't mean previous discussions of what should go in and out of the intro become no longer relevant. The edit here, which added just a few words, was also quite straightforward, in my view.Bdell555 (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you think?

In reply to your comment I created a new article, but it has been nominated for speedy deletion. What do you think? Is the new article appropriate?Biophys (talk) 23:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you please take a look at this and tell me if I'm off base here?

I've just reverted an edit by Wikidemo at Obama-Ayers controversy and explained it here on the talk page. Please tell me if I'm off-base here. Thanks, Noroton (talk) 03:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm on the road now otherwise I'd be able to contribute. Perhaps in a few days...Bdell555 (talk) 19:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for your opinion on terrorism and Weatherman-related articles

Hi, you commented on Bill Ayers' relation to terrorism on the Talk:Bill Ayers page a while back. The matter is up for discussion at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC. Your opinion there would be welcome. Thanks! -- Noroton (talk) 00:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Please take another look at Weatherman/Terrorism RfC

This is a message sent to a number of editors, and following WP:CANVASS requirements: Please take another look at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC and consider new information added near the top of the article and several new proposals at the bottom. If you haven't looked at the RfC in some time, you may find reason in the new information and new proposals to rethink the matter. -- Noroton (talk) 02:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

November 2008

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Project Vote. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Scjessey (talk) 16:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

From the reliable source PolitiFact, a highly respected subsidiary of the St. Petersburg Times in Tampa Bay:

"Michael Slater, the current executive director of Project Vote, said the two organizations are separate. And in 1992, the two groups didn't really work together, he said. They began partnerships on voter registration after Project Vote went through a reorganization in 1994, according to Slater."

You see the "1994" reference in there? Now self-revert your synthesis immediately. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Project Vote. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't deny that the current executive director says "the two organizations are separate". However, that doesn't mean the two organizations haven't been affiliated since PV's founding or that there are no sources of comparable reliability indicating such an affiliation. In any case, I suggest keeping cool and raising your objections to my edits on the article's Talk page. If you want to persist with the various accusations of bad faith editing, I'm obviously going to disagree, so I suggest you raise my behaviour with ArbCom sooner rather than later if it is that grevious to you.Bdell555 (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You still need to self-revert your synthesis. There is no consensus for your misleading version. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how you can speak of consensus when I have seen no Talk page discussion of the appropriateness of suggesting the two organizations did not work together prior to to 1994, or, for that matter, any discussion of the "tight relationship" alleged in the 22 Oct 2008 New York Times story. Whatever the case, we've reverted each other 3 times, so I suggest letting other users take up the editing guantlet, at least for the next few hours...!Bdell555 (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Stilwell

Could be. If so, I can only suggest you source & explain, 'cause the bust alone doesn't do it. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 11:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Persons interested in more about Stilwell, in particular the Chinese government's view, should visit the Stillwell museum in Chungking. Where in the article are readers informed of this museum's existence? There no Wiki sourcing policy being violated here. The photo does not make the article significantly longer relative to the aesthetics having having so much text in the 2nd half of the article, and the museum is notable as objective evidence of Stilwell's popularity with the Chinese government. How about providing a reason for DELETION? I don't understand why you need to reason at all to remove another user's contribution to collective information besides your subjective opinion that it is not, in fact, informative. Why not let the reader decide that? In any case, I have attempted to compromise with whatever your objection is by making the photo smaller.Bdell555 (talk) 07:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I might add the that Korean war section of the Military Museum in Beijing is titled the "War of American Aggression in Korea". This is the background that makes a monument to an American officer notable.Bdell555 (talk) 12:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Unidentified Spider

Hello, the image you uploaded, File:Big spider in Mozambique.JPG, is an interesting specimen, The species might be a Nephilengys malabarensis or another species of Nephilidae. I even had a hard time identifying the genus, so asked for some help(which I rarely ever do), well, the species might just be a species that has yet to been described(Or I just planely don't know the exact species for shore, I'll get back to you on that). It would help if you can discribe the shape of the web, or if it had a funnel, or if it was just completely an orb web? Well, anyway if you wish to thank me or leave me a comment, You can do so on either my wikipedia acount, or my commons account, http://commons.wikimedia/wiki/user:bugboy52.4

Okay, just tell me when you get the pictures.

Bugboy52.40 (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Editing survey

Hi Bdell555. My name is Mike Lyons and I am a doctoral student at Indiana University. I am conducting research on the writing and editing of high traffic current events articles on Wikipedia. I have noticed in the talk page archives at 2008 South Ossetia war that you have contributed to the editing or maintenance of the article. I was hoping you would agree to fill out a brief survey about your experience. This study aims to help expand our thinking about collaborative knowledge production. Believe me I share your likely disdain for surveys but your participation would be immensely helpful in making the study a success. A link to the survey is included below. An explanation of my project is included with the survey.

Link to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=kLMxj8dkk_2bls7yCBmNV7bg_3d_3d

Thanks and best regards, Mike Lyons lyonspen | (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Meena Durairaj

How do you know that she was born in '78? I got fed up with the constant edit warring over the year, so I tried to find a reliable source giving her age, but I failed as there simply aren't any. '77 or '78 would be my best bet, but other editors have added dates as early as '71 or as late as '82. Do you have a good source for the year? Fences&Windows 22:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, this was a mistake on my part as I thought my sourcing was "good enough" that it was unlikely to be false and excluding the date would have been due to someone being excessively demanding. But when I google Meena Durairaj I now see various birth years coming up such that I acknowledge the argument for it not being 1978.Bdell555 (talk) 01:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Astroturfing – Brooks Brothers riot

You make a good point and I'm a believer in presenting all the information and letting readers make up their own minds. I overreached in deleting the term from the References section. Feel free to re-edit.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Message

Hi Brian, I have written to you at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative Views#WP:RS#Extremist_and_fringe_sources -- Johnfos (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Dede Scozzafava promo photo.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Dede Scozzafava promo photo.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY_sock ^(TALK) 04:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Doug_Hoffman_promo_photo.JPG

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Doug_Hoffman_promo_photo.JPG. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Garion96 (talk) 07:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

While you're in two candidate image squabbles, would you care to go for three?

I appreciate the time and energy you're devoting to images of the candidates in the New York special election. If you're up for taking on one more dispute, to equalize our treatment of all the candidates, please see my latest comment at Talk:New York's 23rd congressional district special election, 2009#Disparity in candidate photos. Thanks! JamesMLane t c 16:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

George Miok

Hi! I wrote an article about George Miok, but an other Canadian wants to delete that, because he thinks it's a memorial or he is not so famous. What do you say about this? Does it look like a memorial? You make a photo about the four soldiers, that's why I write to you. If I will need supporters to not to delete this page, I will contact with you again :) --Eino81 (talk) 22:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. And for that picture :) --Eino81 (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Although I should admit to a personal connection to the subject by way of 41 CER, I am generally just an inclusionist who reckons an article can stay if the article subject gets 1000+ hits on news.google.ca for days on end. It's not hurting anything to just leave it.Bdell555 (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Now I need your supoort: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Miok --Eino81 (talk) 09:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! That was avery good oppinion and a great support! :) --Eino81 (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You are right. That makes him special, that he was a foreigh-born Hungarian. Once I read that he was the third Hungarian, who was killed in Afghansitan. I wrote it into the article, but it was dleeted. Yes, he was a Canadian citizen, but he had a Hungarian father, a Hungarian mother, he had active role in the Edmonton Hungarian community and spoke opur language, why should not we say, he was a Hungarian? In hungary we are very proud of foreign-born Hungarian, but in this case it's more rlevant, he had so much connection with the old country. For the last time he was here in Hungary some months ago. I hope, at the end this silly argument will end well --Eino81 (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Asking for "support" is generally not advisable. One rather asks people to review material without asking them to take a position either way. Anyway I would avoid getting into an edit war with another user about any particular edit to the page when there is a fair possibility the article will end up deleted anyway. If it ends up deleted much of your material could be saved by creating a new section called George Miok in the 41 CER article.Bdell555 (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

7W charter?

Don't you think something would have to be changed at our Wind Rose Aviation article then? Greetings, Belgian man (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Community restrictions

---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement requested

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Bdell555. O Fenian (talk) 08:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Here at Wikipedia, we only use reliable sources. Social networking sites, yes even a verified or official Twitter or Youtube account is NOT ACCEPTABLE. So "PS reliable source not required for every claim in Wiki. Everyone knows how to verify this." is a bogus statement.

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Candyo32 (talk) 06:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The guidelines are, in fact, clear that questionable sources may nonetheless be reliable sources about themselves meaning that, in this case, Youtube's statement about what has the most number of views is a reliable source for what has the most number of views on Youtube. In any case, if there is a reliability issue, note that it is impossible for a secondary source to make it reliable when the secondary source says in effect that 100% of its belief comes from the very claim you have a reliability issue with. In other words, if Youtube can't be trusted, it hardly solves the problem to quote a secondary source that simply quotes Youtube. I find it ironic that you delete my sourcing at the same time you inserted the exact same fact (what has most views on Youtube) into another article without providing any sourcing at all!Bdell555 (talk) 07:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Even though all those words you stated sound good EVERYTHING ON WIKIPEDIA MUST BE VERIFIABLE. And about my edits, they are sourced on the respective article page. Candyo32 (talk) 11:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and pretty much everyone who knows what Twitter is about knows how to verify how many Twitter followers someone has. It is simply not true that every sentence in Wikipedia needs an inline citation, something you are clearly aware of when you are not applying the principle yourself. Just where, exactly, is the source for your unsourced edits?Bdell555 (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This isnt really my business but im going to throw in my 2 cents. Unfortunately Candyo32 is in fact correct. All edits (when changing, adding, or updating something) must contain a reliable source. If it doesnt it falls under WP:OR and will be removed. Regarding the edit to Baby which you cited earlier you are in fact correct that it does need a source, which i will add right after this. Regarding twitter/facebook/youtube, these are not deemed reliable sources and cannot be used to cite references, giving information about them, ex: "baby is the most viewed video in youtube history" would be allowed but needs a reliable source, linking to youtube doesnt count :) (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 00:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is not just whatever you say it is. Allow me to quote from WP:RS: The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged [by reasonable people], and for all quotations. "All edits" is YOUR policy, not Wikipedia's, and you should not be reverting other people inconsistent with Wikipedia policy, which generally reflects the consensus of the editor community. There was no sourcing to Youtube's website here. At issue was a claim of fact where the party providing the information was Youtube. There is also no 100% bar against citing Twitter, such that WP:COMMON sense would not apply. There IS a 100% bar against citing to sources like examiner.com, but that was not the case here. For what it is worth you don't seem to understand WP:OR, because WP:OR deals with a different issue than WP:RS. Some material can satisfy WP:RS but not satisfy WP:OR.Bdell555 (talk) 05:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Im sorry but i do understand WP:OR. Infact the opening line states Wikipedia does not publish original research meaning it needs a reliable source, no ifs, ands, or buts. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 18:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The Troubles

I am filing a request to ArbCom to clarify that the 1RR in the Troubles case is intended to be per 24 hours rather than per day. It will appear shortly at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification. Stifle (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The War Logs

With regards to this edit, I am not sure that the reliable source cited actually says that. Could you point out where in the cited source it actually says that? Thank you. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. In my view, the issue of how the last or summary sentence of an article introduction should read is not just a matter of whether there is a clear statement properly cited to a single source. It should be a reflection of the sources generally, since citing just one precisely could be placing WP:UNDUE weight on that source. So I did take a bit of liberty there... I provided a source because without a source it would surely be challenged and/or reverted. Anyway I have added another source, the UK Independent, which says

"The documents ... provide a patchwork of evidence on the progress of the war over six years to the end of 2009 and reveal that the Taliban insurgency is better armed and the US military's equipment less reliable than in the official picture sketched by the Pentagon's spin doctors."

This view is more or less in agreement with the "gloomy picture" mentioned by Der Spiegel, to the extent that "limited progress" against the Taliban should be a minimally controversial summary. I think we should be bit reserved in terms of the strength and specificity of what is said here, in order to preserve editor consensus.Bdell555 (talk) 05:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I removed this again before I had read these comments. You can add it back again if you really like. I didn't particularly disagree with what you wrote, but there were complaints on the talk page of POV, and I generally find the best way to avoid such complaints and reach consensus is to include direct quotes from the reliable source. Again, if you think a more general summary is necessary then you can add your stuff back in again, and I will revise the language if I think it can be improved. Thanks. Gregcaletta (talk) 11:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bdell555. You have new messages at Odie5533's talk page.
Message added 21:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Orphaned non-free image File:Kevin keller.jpg

⚠

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

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

ITN

--Mkativerata (talk) 08:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Ribbon devices

The standard and most common resolution is 106 pixels, might as well just go with that. The documentation for the template is at Template:ribbon devices. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I think there is a very good reason for NOT going with that, and that's that ribbons that big create exactly the sort of big distraction WP:ICONDECORATION was meant to avoid. What I don't get is what the technical problem is that precludes smaller displays.Bdell555 (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed this conversation and wanted to chime in cause it seems a lot of folks (mostly the non-military ones) have issues with the display of ribbons. Not too go too far into a history lesson the difference here is that the ribbons arent icons like flags of a contry or logos of a company, they are individual images that represent milestones in the career of a military entity. Sorta like Emmys or Grammys to an entertainer, only they are represented graphically instead of as a title. Just as you would display an image of the person, unit or the ship this is for displaying the individual ribbon or medal of that military entity (including devices where applicable). The table layout simply gives a dynamic way of doing that to best represent the multitudes of possible combinations without having to take a snapshot of each individual combination for each military entity. I hope this helps. --Kumioko (talk) 15:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bdell555. You have new messages at C628's talk page.
Message added 15:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

And again. C628 (talk) 16:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Unbalanced articles

An interesting comment on Lethbridge municipal election, 2010, do you care to reply? 117Avenue (talk) 03:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Not to start an argument again, but I found a user who is more deletionist than I. 117Avenue (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I encourage you to comment at User talk:XLinkBot#Exempt pages. Otherwise I will remove the candidate summaries that you convinced me to keep. 117Avenue (talk) 05:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anything has changed here, such that I continue to believe that deletion of candidate summaries that are sourced to non-WP:SELFPUB sources is fundamentally contrary to policy when the material is presented neutrally, and deletion of unsourced but non-controversial material like "accountant" is, while not fundamentally contrary, inadvisable. You previously wanted to delete properly sourced material in favour of external links to WP:SELFPUB sources and I in fact objected to both your preferred replacement and your deletion:

why are you providing external links to so much promotional material? You direct readers to reams of CLEARLY promotional materials about many candidates, while readers get ZERO information about those candidates who have not been promoting themselves on the internet. Can you call attention to another election article on Wikipedia where a consensus has supported this practice of linking to dozens of twitter feeds (a practice that is furthermore discouraged by Wikipedia:External_links#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest...?--Bdell555 21 September 2010

Bottom line is that you still have a peculiar idea of what constitutes neutrality. If the Edmonton Journal spends far more ink on Stephen Mandel than some also-ran who ends up getting 1% of the vote, MOST people are not going to automatically conclude that the Journal is biased. Wikipedia's idea of neutrality is perhaps better understood as the ABSENCE of a particular idea about what constitutes neutrality. Wikipedia follows, instead of leads. You seem to think that when there is an absence of reliable secondary sources for a topic the solution to this problem of ignorance is more ignorance: deleting entirely valid information OR making up for the absence problem by introducing dubious, wholescale linking in the name of "balance." That's just not the way it works, or can work. For most other election articles on Wikipedia, editors don't seem to be having the dilemma you see here. If a Bot is selectively deleting candidate twitter feeds or campaign websites, then, yes, one should delete for all, the candidates, but that's primarily because the argument for linking or citing to those sources is dubious anyway (not least because not every candidate has a twitter feed or website). I ended up in an "edit war" with you earlier not primarily because of the content at issue but because you seemed to have a rigid mindset, something that was especially problematic in my view for someone who does so much editing (or potentially admin functions). You may have agreed with me re keeping the particular candidate summaries I wanted preserved, but fundamentally there hasn't really been any meeting of the minds because you still don't seem comfortable with being flexible. Many editors have problems with the Twitter feeds. They should go. Most editors do not have problems with sourced candidate information. That should stay. "Let it go" and use discretion, especially community discretion, instead of looking for a broad rule to forcefully apply and the article will develop collaboratively.Bdell555 (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

U Smile

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on U Smile. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

The edits you keep restoring, they suck. They contain Twitter, and youtube, they are in no way reliable. The write up currently that i have restored is in standard with GA criteria, which this article is. Please stop as you have now hit 4RR which 99% of the time will get you blocked. Im not gunna report you cause your not a bad editor, just please stop reverting the page. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The facts never "suck," in my view, and the facts are that the video came out on VEVO before September 30. Sourcing to official/verified Twitter accounts is OK and, in any case, we have to exercise our judgment with respect to sourcing in order to keep them inline with what the ultimate purpose of the guidelines is. Whether it is worth fighting about is certainly a good question, but I do not get generally into edit wars when the edits are focused on the issue at hand. When I end up in these situations it is because someone is not selectively reverting me but engaging in rollbacks. As such, it has less to do with me than with how the editing community in general is being treated. Rollbacks to a previous preferred version ignore the fact there have been interim edits and ignore the contribution that those intermin edits made. Reject those edits, fine, fine at least give them the consideration they deserve.Bdell555 (talk) 21:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay lets get a few things straight. WP:TWITTER, twitter is NEVER allowed. According to current version (which i wrote) the video come out September 30, and it says that in the source, i also wrote the write up on Sept 30, because the video came out Sept 30. Now you keep saying im using "Rollback" which is not the case, because i do not have rollback. Now you say you dont engage in edits wars, but why did you constantly restore a version with half the information, and with unreliable sources when it was explained that the version your restoring in not reliable and is not as well written. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

If Twitter were "NEVER allowed", a Template for using Twitter (see Template:Twitter) would presumably not exist. I'd reject a reply that the community has not considered whether that template should exist, since that exact question has been discussed in the past and the decision was to keep. If Twitter were truly "NEVER allowed", it would be impossible to use "Twitter" in an inline cite without Wikipedia objecting when the edit is submitted, as is the case with a number of sources that are truly recognized as never allowed. In any case, I may have to point to WP:IGNORE here regardless because logic still has to reign supreme. The same edits that deleted my addition added back "I took the opportunity 2 make a video 4 the fans, about a fan, and how we could fall IN LOVE." Where does that come from? A TWEET. I don't think it should be included because this is an encyclopedia, and as such we use words like "to" and "for" instead of "2" and "4". We also don't capitalize "IN LOVE" or, more generally, include un-encylopedic quotes or present material that smacks of Wikipedia:Fancruft. How does that tweet become reliable? Because MTV checked its reliability? How do you know that? More likely MTV just took it as an authentic statement by Justin Bieber. Which brings us to Colin Tilley. I identified the director of the music video as Colin Tilley and this information was deleted without explanation. Tilley says that it appears to him that there was a "leak". In combination with the VEVO timestamp, this suggests confirmation that the video came out early. There is no black/white here, we have to look at the totality of the evidence.

It is this rush to judgment here that is the real issue. If the editors involved here had put their minds to the issue, then, fine, I generally do not challenge without taking it up on the Talk page even when I disagree. But in this case User:L-l-CLK-l-l did what she called a "massive rollback" without any discussion about Tilley's suggestion of a "leak". When I say "rollback" I am referring to whatever this editor was referring to, not to the technical administrative-style action. As for "constantly restore a version with half the information", I don't believe that's true. It's true that I initially left out the synopsis. I didn't think it added anything. To verify its sourcing, you'd have to watch the video, and if you did that, you'd get all the information that was claimed in the synopsis anyway. But when user Candy wanted it back, I put it back. I responded to the other editor(s), trying to incorporate their perspectives, in contrast to who I "edit warred" with here, who made no effort to incorporate so much as a punctuation mark that I had added. There was another edit of mine that appeared to delete the synopsis, but that is just because there was a flurry of almost simultaneous editing and the version I worked on was Candy's instead of L-l-CLK-l-l's. This is, in fact, the reason why I "edit warred": because it will force a discussion like this on a user talk page or the article talk page (or the 3RR noticeboard if another editor took it to that) such that people would be forced to actually look at what the edits actually were instead of what they imagined them to be. I've been on Wikipedia more than 5 years now and the biggest problem continues to be not enough deliberation. Wikipedia rules are supposed to supplement examination of the details, not supplant.Bdell555 (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Photograph of China's Sea-battle museum

I would very much like to use this image in my forthcoming book:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sea_Battle_Museum.jpg

I was wondering if the photographer had a higher-resolution version of the image that I could use.

Many thanks and best wishes

86.27.178.244 (talk) 12:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately the higher resolution version is on a computer that I don't expect to have access to for another month or so. I'll try to remember to upload a higher resolution version when I return to Canada about that time, although even then the image will not be especially outstanding given the limitations of the camera.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Photograph of China's Sea-battle museum

Thank you very much indeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.178.244 (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Sea Battle Museum picture

I was wondering if you'd had time to find the higher-resolution image of the Sea Battle Museum yet. Many thanks!

86.27.178.244 (talk) 21:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

My travel plans ended up changing and I will not have access until Saturday, March 19. Thanks for the reminder, however - if there has not been a new upload on Sunday, March 20 please send another reminder.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, see Category:Sea_Battle_Museum. I think the photo should get the "auto adjust colors" treatment in Irfanview or "auto color correction" in Photoshop because it too grey as it is. But I have not done this because these sort of enhancements cannot be done losslessly and I don't know what your needs are. I also have a photo that zooms into the middle of the photo more (just the entrance and sign in gold letters above it, more or less) if that's of interest.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_response_to_the_Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_response_to_the_Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidentsGeofferybard (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Africa Videos

Hello,

I am an exhibit developer for a museum currently working on an exhibit about our African collection. I stumbled across your video footage from Africa on Wikimedia Commons. I think the video would make great reference material for the exhibit. I was wondering if you had any other footage that you could upload or send directly to the museum. I'm looking for shots showing scenes of daily life from sites across Africa in the same vein as the others you posted. Any additional locations in the same vein that you would be willing to share would be extremely helpful.

If you have any questions please let me know and I can give you more details on the project.

Best,

TheLastShot (talk) 15:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

OK. My most colourful video may be of the Timkat ceremony in Gondar, Ethiopia but have not yet uploaded it, in part because I think there is some quality loss with the Theora codec and I have been waiting for the Commons to support the WebM codec, which Google's Youtube uses and is now not proprietary. I suppose I could upload WebM or original MP4 to a file sharing location and then direct you to the URL. I wouldn't advise others of the URL such that you could describe the video as first displayed by your institution. I have some video from Djibouti, Malawi, Mozambique, Egypt, and possibly Zambia that I have not uploaded yet so if there is a priority amongst those feel free to advise. I have another problem at the moment in that I am in China and expect to be here for a few months yet and my bandwidth for uploaded video is limited... I may have timeout problems uploading.--Brian Dell (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

ibid

Hi, I'm fixing articles that contain ibid at the moment. You add here in Wojciech Jaruzelski the ibid. Can you explain me this edit correctly? Did you mean:

Malcolm Byrne, "New Evidence on the Polish Crisis 1980-1981," Cold War International History Project Bulletin 11 (Winter 1998), p. 165 citing 24 Session of the CPSU CC Politburo, Document No. 21.

Or? Please don't do this any longer. It can be easily broken by another reference in the middle of the two related. mabdul 15:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Normally I would use < ref name="name" >cite< /ref > for the first and then < ref name="name"/ > for the second but this case the second ref was merely cited by the first. I decided to separate the two completely since connecting the two may just create confusion.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

For your comments on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Holocaust_denial#Denialism_vs_Revisionism Thanks for not being afraid to show scepticism and challenge the conventions!

DarklyCute (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

1RR Violation

You are in violation of the 1RR on International law and Israeli settlements. ([7], [8]). I suggest you self-revert or you could be blocked for edit warring. This article and all other articles relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict are subject to discretionary sanctions. See WP:ARBPIA. Thanks. -asad (talk) 09:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Please accept this invite to join the Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism. Simply click here to accept! – Lionel (talk) 04:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Irish presidential election, 2011

Thanks for your imput , it clarifies the context in that part , there was a discussion on it after an editor removed the incident (I replaced) . With your addition I can see no problems . Thank you .Murry1975 (talk) 09:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

1RR violation

See [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Bdell555]. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 09:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)