User talk:Sherurcij

Communications receiver

The photo you added to the article depicts a transceiver, not a communications receiver. It does not apply to the article, hence I shall remove it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

"Alleged assassin" issue

Hi, I'm the guy who previously posted on your talk page about this subject while editing anonymously. I feel that the current wording should be more in line with the wording on RFK's article, and that "alleged assassin" is too tendentious a phrase to be using. I posted a message to the talk page of the article in question, and to your talk, asking for discussion of the matter. After a while with no reply, I went ahead and made a change to what I felt was a compromise version, making a notification on the talk page that I was doing so and asking for discussion. You reverted my edit, blanked your talk, and did not reply to my message on article talk. I see from your history and contribs that you are a good-faith editor, so I would like to discuss the "alleged assassin" issue with you here (or at article talk) before I make any further changes to the article. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 02:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, good. Didn't mean to sound accusatory; I was just worried you might be one of those non-talk guys or something :D I like "presumed assassin" too. You're right that my original use of "assassin" was probably too POV, as there is still genuine controversy over the issue. The status quo from the LHO article works best, and "presumed assassin" seems like the best summary. I have no idea why I said "RFK" up there, haha. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 04:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Whitman-canisters.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Whitman-canisters.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 19:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Whitman1963Yearbook.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Whitman1963Yearbook.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 19:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

AR

My reason for deletion of each image is in the IFD discussion for the image. In my judgment, the arguments presented to keep the images gave no support for the significance of the images to the article so they failed #8 of the non-free content criteria. I closed them pretty much identically because they all had the same problem meeting the NFCC. I nominated the other images because they also had issues that do not meet the standards for image use on Wikipedia. Please discuss these images at the appropriate IFD. I will change the speedy delete for the Whitman yearbook photo to an IFD. If you believe my IFD closures were improper, then please list a review request for them at WP:DRV. -Regards Nv8200p talk 21:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• I see you have already fixed the source problem on the yearbook photo. -Thanks Nv8200p talk 21:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Then why is the image on the article page still marked as "This image is a candidate for speedy deletion. It may be deleted after seven days from the date of nomination"? Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I took care of that -Nv8200p talk 21:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

self pubished

you would have to ask the original editor what was supposed to be self published furthermore, stop haphazardly inserting images that add no encyclopedic value to articles as you did with Danny Dietz‎,Michael P. Murphy‎,Matthew Axelson‎ and M203 grenade launcher‎ SJSA 22:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The images of Dietz, Murphy and Axelson's deaths definitely relate to their articles, see Charles Whitman, John F. Kennedy or Adolf Hitler for comparison. We do not censor articles "for the sake of the family". Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 22:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

the pictures are already on the article about the operation, which is linked and do not need to appear on the individual article pages as well "for the sake of the encyclopedia" SJSA 22:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, missed your first point. If there is no self-publishing concern with the article (nor one addressed on the talk page), then the template can and should be removed. If there is a concern, it should stay. Nobody can name the concern, and there doesn't appear to be one -- so it should be removed. Per the images, they are the images of those people, so they should clearly stay. (And for what little it's worth, the image was also removed from the operation's article -- I had to re-add it). It's no different in my mind than the images of death at our Holocaust article. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 22:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. SJSA 23:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You sick human being. Those were my friends and if you dont take those pics off i sware to god that I will have me and my fellow SEALs make you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.179.79 (talk) 22:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Make me? Make me a cake? A frilly apron? A pizza? A Made man? What exactly are you going to make me? Make me remove them? Do you need my address? I see you helpfully included yours. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 22:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Listen to me you ungrateful sick son of a bitch I am a Lt. Commander in the US Navy. I served 3 tours in Afghanistan and it is impotent freaks like you that give this country a bad name. Its bad enough Murph is dead, but you had to put a pic of his dead body. have a heart or ill rip it out and shove it so far up your ass that not even your cell mate will be able to get it out.