User talk:Lurker/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Lurker. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Fascism portal
At the same time you created your template for the Fascism portal I started work on one too. I've saved my changes at Portal:Fascism. I think that this portal is going to happen so feel free to add what you want (with in reason, of course) to the new portal. - DNewhall
Joe 00:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)For the Bibliography section, I have a list of books on Hitler, and numerous tyrants and dictators in Latin America, which turns out to be quite a collection of committers of war crimes. I would be happy to add them, but there is currently no section entitled biography to edit. I'm not familiar with how to set that up, so if you do that small thing, I can add maybe 30 books properly cited to the Fascism portal. I didn't start out to read about the topic deliberately, but in trying to understand Latin America better, I have read the biographies of quite a few military dictators. - JF Dunphy
Query
Hi Lurker, could you show me what source said of the Miller verdict that it "therefore constitutes murder under UK law." [1] I'm curious because unlawful killing is not necessarily murder, and also because there is no such thing as "UK law." SlimVirgin (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- And could you also say which source said the firing was intended to kill him? SlimVirgin (talk) 02:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
User Name
My name does not imply anythign of the sort. Please do not vandalise my talk page. Oh, and if you post here without signing and as a non logged-in user, I will ignore you.
Confusion
Hi, When I saw that you had removed what looked like a warning from your user talk, I reverted instantly. Then I checked your history and saw that the warning had been addded by an IP, so I removed my warning and then reverted to your revert. In short, I was being overcautious, but it should be sorted out now :D. Martinp23 12:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank You
For correcting my Citing on Minimum Wage. Sprinkles 01:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Welcome
Noticed you posted today on the Esperanza coffee lounge- hope you decide to stay! EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 20:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
CELEBRITIES WORLDWIDE/UPFRONT TV
Hi there - you gave me some pointers in putting up the above articles, which are still scheduled for deletion - I have changed them quite radically - could you give me some feedback on the respective AfD Pages? Thanks mate! Sixorgansofadmittance 13:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Re : Bingoadvantage
Done. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 23:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Deletion of article Halogrid
About my article's[2] deletion, i am not meaning it as an advertisement. It is a famous site and has been included many times as a spotlight on Halo.Bungie.Org and has been mentioned as a site on G4TV.com. I am still making the article, I just published it as of right now because The site has a lot of information about it and its kinda long to write. If you have AIM, would you like to continue talking on thie subject of my article's deletion there? Please, I am not meaning this as an advertisement.
Longniddry Primary
Why have you queried the neutrality of the Longniddry Primary School page and quite probably made notable changes?
- I haven't made any changes, apart from adding the POV tag. If you want to know why, have a look at the revison before mine [3], full of "one of the best schools in Scotland" and "best class ever".
P.S I find it easier to respond to comments which are signed, and are made by a logged-in user with their own talk page. If you have an account, please log in and sign comments so it is easier to reply to you. If you don't have an account, consider signing up. Lurker oi! 13:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
August Esperanza Newsletter
|
|
|
Autoblock
Hi Lurker! Glad you're free of the autoblock at last. If it happens again, stick {{unblock}} on this talk page (your logged-in one) and a stick a copy-and-paste of the entire message you see when you try to edit. Any admin can then lift the autoblock in seconds. Well, minutes. Well, sometimes about half an hour or so (if the software is being uncooperative). Sorry you were inconvenienced by the block and glad all's well now! Happy editing! :o) ➨ ЯEDVERS 14:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Spam
No, I meant in a sandwich. WilyD 17:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Following a successful period of consultation WikiProject Scotland has now been launched. As a participant in the Scottish Wikipedians' notice board I wonder if you may be interested in this new endeavour too? If so, please sign-up here. The WikiProject will be replacing some of the functions of the notice board, especially those in the lower half.
While I am here, please also have a look at the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Scotland and give it a "Watch". It was started up by User:Visviva a few days ago, after long being mooted at the notice board, and effectively replaces all the AfD listings at the notice board. Being a transclusion of all the on-going discussions it is a much more useful tool.
Even if you do not want to spend too much time on the WikiProject, please give it a "Watch" and feel free to contribute to Talk page discussions: the more contributors the merrier.
All the best. --Mais oui! 11:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
September Esperanza Newsletter
|
|
|
You have mail
You have a reply waiting for you at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Admin coaching The Transhumanist 18:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
November Esperanza Newsletter
|
|
|
==Church article deletions==
I follow these and tried to get something going toward a guideline, but only got a few comments when I started a topic (now archived) at Wikipedia:Notability. I have saved a copy of it at my talk page, and I would welcome your thoughts there. I object to notability being restricted to megachurches, although they are usually notable by virtue of having lots of newspaper and magazine articles. Churches might otherwise be famous because of a famous preacher or member, because some religious doctrine invented there started a new important movement or denomination, because an important musician (Bach? Thomas Dorsey?) or style of music (Gospel?) or famous hymns originated there, or because the building is famous architecturally, or because it is in the news all the time (blown up in the civil rights movement, hotbed of radicalism) or because they were recognized by an outside body as important in some way. The key thing appears to be multiple independent reliable and verifiable coverage, as in newspapers, magazines, and documentaries. What do you think? Edison 18:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Demonic Computers
Hi Lurker,
I would just like to ask what is wrong with the article that i placed on Wikipedia? and please help me to regtify it... as we need your help on this matter. Regards,
Howard Shone
Re: Vandalism
Excuse me? This has already been discussed before. Please see Talk:East Lake-Orient Park, Florida or Talk: East Lake Square Mall. I don't take kindly that you're calling me a vandal. Please take the time to research before personally attacking me. Thank you --Moreau36 20:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Look, apologies for accidently reverting, but, next time, leave me a message before taking such action, so that I would be on notice beforehand. Please look at my history before you accuse me of doing something that I don't. I'm here to contribute, NOT to vandlize every article. Thank you. --Moreau36 15:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Spanish Gibraltarians
Hi Lurker. Is it normal that this article was deleted considering the lack of consensus? I feel something should be done about it, as this action seems to violate wikipedia rules....
Cheers!:-)--Burgas00 21:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I would appreciate if you gave your vote here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_December_4 Thanks alot! --Burgas00 15:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Admin coaching, etc.
Are you ready to get started?
The waiting time over at Admin coaching is long (some people have been waiting in line since July). I'm an admin coach with the project, and for my students I set up a group discussion page so that we could all learn from each other. The scope of this concept has expanded into the Virtual classroom, which is an open forum for the teaching and learning of advanced Wikipedia skills.
Anyone and everyone is welcome to participate, as a student, as a coach, or both. Every week or two a new major topic of discussion or classroom assignment is introduced, usually with a guest writer who presents his or her expertise on the current subject and who remains on hand to answer questions. Everyone is encouraged to participate in the discussions, such as sharing your expertise, asking and answering questions, etc.
The current topic of discussion is vandalism, and our guest writer is Budgiekiller.
All discussions are open-ended, so all previous discussion topics and classroom assignments are still there for viewing and further participation. There are also sections for posting miscellaneous topics and questions, requesting coaching assistance, etc.
In addition to inviting those who would like to learn, I routinely invite experts from all over Wikipedia to come and contribute for the benefit of all. The VC is rapidly turning into a clearing house of the best resources, methods, and techniques known for working on Wikipedia.
You are cordially invited to participate.
Here's an announcement box which you can place on your userpage or at the top of your talk page for keeping up to date with classroom assignments.
I hope to see you there. Sincerely, The Transhumanist 08:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Getting you an admin coach
Hi Lurker. According to our request page, you are at or near the top of the list. Would you still like a coach? If so I will match you with one. Please let me know. Thanks! --Fang Aili talk 18:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
WP:CHURCH resurrected from the dead
The WP:CHURCH proposed guideline was merged into WP:LOCAL which basically says anything which does not clearly meet WP:N with multiple independent references should just be given a brief mention on the article for the city. The merge was actually a redirect which put the proposed guide out of site. Then it was brought back when I commented that there had not been a consensus for eliminating it. It appears that WP:MALL was headed for the same fate. I note that Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games has a featured article, Torchic, which is one of the 493 fictional species of Pokémon creatures from the Pokémon media franchise. There are articles about video/computer game characters in games which were never released. These come from a project, which is a coalition of editors who are interested in a particular thing (video games, state highways, etc) and who have a project page to create standards for such articles, to improve stubby articles, and to list articles which are up for deletion. I am not trying to remove all video games and the character therein, but I would like to see churches or other entities presently getting deleted as "just another non-notable church" afforded the same playing field as articles about electronic or fictional entities. It strikes me that a fictional character in a video game which was never released is probably as dependent on sources which would not be judged sufficiently mainstream, verifiable, and independent for say a church, a library, or a shopping mall. The project for video games says "External links and references. Cite sources! If you're unsure what to include for references, game instruction booklets, guides, reviews, and interviews are all good candidates. Make sure to include a link to Wikibooks if there's a relevant Wikibooks article." They also tell project members to go to old video game magazines lurking in the closet. Now lets see how such a project could apply to churches: Check with the church archives, local newspaper, library, and historical society, as well as long-time church members for their clip file on the church. Check with the denominational magazine for articles about the church. A game instruction book or guide seems as non-independent of the subject as a church history for the local congregation. What do you think about a project for churches? One thing it would do is mentor article creators so they create an article with content which maximizes the chances of surviving AfD, and volunteers with access to large media databases could find articles the pastor or article creator couldn't. Edison 15:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Limbaugh mediation request
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rush Limbaugh, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. Kpedsea 02:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Would you please indicate your agreement (or disagrement) with the mediation request on the RfM page? (I listed you as an "Involved party"). Thanks! Kpedsea 02:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Request for Mediation
|
A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rush Limbaugh.
|
Rejection of WP:CONG/WP:CHURCH
There is a move to label this proposed guideline, to which you contributed,as "rejected." Please add your thoughts to the discussion. Thanks. Edison 05:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The article you wrote, Scald Law, is uncategorized. Please help improve it by adding it to one or more categories, so it may be associated with related articles. A stub marker or other template doesn't count - please put in an actual category in the article. Eli Falk 14:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Rush Limbaugh
Lurker, please do not revert Rush Limbaugh again if someone reinserts the material again so you do not run afoul of WP:3RR. I appreciate that you're trying to do the right thing and I don't think you would exceed 3RR, but I wanted to make sure you were aware that you've reached the threshold. Getaway has been reported for his 3RR violation. Again, not trying to be a dick, just giving you a heads up. Be well! Vassyana 05:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for leaving a comment on my talk page. Like I said, I didn't think you'd push pass the threshold, but I've seen some excellant editors go over the limit in the heat of edit wars. Apologies for my poorly worded note. I also hope the issue does not require mediation for resolution. While there are a couple very vocal and active editors trying to bull through it's inclusion, it does seem as though consensus is against them. Vassyana 15:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
3rr
Many people make mistaken 3RR reports. You're the only one I know of who has apologised. Don't feel bad about it William M. Connolley 15:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, I've always thought someone who makes a mistake should apologise, so I did so. It's the polite thing to do. Lurker oi! 15:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Fettes College
If it is sourced. I think you should point out where and how ? Noremacnomis.
Your edits to Go Daddy
Comment left at Talk:Go Daddy. GreenJoe 15:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
AfD
Lurker, could you please go and vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the writings of William Monahan-BillDeanCarter 11:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- I did so as you were posting :D Lurker 11:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Can you change your signature to remove the number string, since it is a DCMA violation? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 14:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't believe you have the authority to send takedown notices to me, as you are not a holder of one of the relevant copyrights. Lurker 14:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Nice signature! fraggle 14:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've changed it, for now. It was getting in the way of discussing the censorship issue on articles. I'd rather talk about the issue of how wikipedia handled this than just piss people off. Lurker 14:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Now, please do not add it back in. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 15:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've changed it, for now. It was getting in the way of discussing the censorship issue on articles. I'd rather talk about the issue of how wikipedia handled this than just piss people off. Lurker 14:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Nice signature! fraggle 14:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't believe you have the authority to send takedown notices to me, as you are not a holder of one of the relevant copyrights. Lurker 14:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Can you change your signature to remove the number string, since it is a DCMA violation? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 14:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about editing out ...
... that string of numbers you have there on the Gaiman AfD, but it was triggering Wikipedia's spam blocker. Beats me what or why, but I hope you're not ticked. RGTraynor 15:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, I noticed subsequently that I couldn't edit pages with that string in the sig, although the spam blocker did not prevent me adding it to the page. I've removed the numbers now, anyway. I've mentioned the spam blocker issue on my user page. Wikipedia seems to be using the spam blocker for a pupose other than that for which it was designed. Lurker 15:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Lurker (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I included a reference to the HD-DVD decryption key in a section of my userpage that repeated some comments I had made on the issue on Meta. Zscout370 removed the section, saying it was a DMCA violation. He made no reference to Wikipedia having recieved a takedown notice, which, as I understand it means there is no evidence it constitues a violation. Also, he removed the entire section, not just the allegedly infringing content. Doing this, he gave a false edit summary that he had merely removed a string of numbers rather than an entire section.
After I restored the section (giving my reasons for doing so in the edit summary), he removed the section and blocked me. No warnings, no further discussion. He made no attempt to address my point that I did not believe a DMCA violation had taken place. If he had shown that a DMCA violation had taken place, I would have been happy to remove the content. Instead, I was essentailly told "remove this because i say so- no other reason". Once again, Zscout370 removed content from my page that was not the string of numbers in question- something he had no reason to do. The section amkes it clear why I posted the numbers in the first place.
The block, my first ever on Wikipedia, is indefinite. I understand that indefinite blocks are not the usual response to a first offence. (This does not constitute an admission on my part that an offence has taken place) I also understand that people engaged in behaviour meriting a block are warned- partly because they are not aware that they are doing something against the rules. This is of course the case here, as Zscout370 never made any attempt to contact me or prove that the content merited removal against my will. There has been no attempt to assert what rule I have broken, or what part of the blocking policy has been invoked.
Instead, he seems to be under the impression that if he asks for content to be removed, then i must comply. And defying him is in itself reason to be blocked indefintely. This would seem to make this a case of an admin using blockign powers in a content dispute, which is explicitly forbidden.
The way in which the block was phrased was rather strange. It includes the phrase "Block will be lifted once removed." I have no idea what this means. It cannot mean that I should remove the content, and then I will be unblocked. I cannot remove the content. It does not apparently mean the block will be lifted once Zscout370 removes the allegedly infringing content, as I would be unblocked by now. I have no idea what this summary means. Usually, blocking admins give more meaningful summaries
Decline reason:
Wikipedia takes copyright seriously and is bound by the laws of the State of Florida. Until you are willing to abide by Wikipedia's copyright policy, you will remain blocked. —dgiestc 04:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Removed content
Content that was emoved from my homepage by an admin. This was a post I made on a discussion in Meta. My post contained a string of numbers an admin considered to be infringing (he didn't say that, mind you, he just said remove it- without giving a reason) A look at the admin's noticeboard confirms that not all of them agree the content is infringing. However, the admin deleted the entire section, none of which outside of a string of numbers was in any way infringing. (He gave a false edit summary when doing so, asserting that he removed a string of numbers.) So I'm reposting it. I can't repost what I put, as my user page's history has been wiped. But I can reproduce what I put on Meta. Lurker 16:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- If Wikipedia wishes to censor content (and unlike some of the digg-reading kiddies I can actually see why they would want to) they should do so honestly and openly. This is not a url, yet I was unable to add it to my user page because it is said to be a blacklisted hyperlink. Please Wikipedia- give your reasons for wishing to censor this content, and do so transparently. Not by fraudulent means. Lurker 10:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- There's an open debate on it at Wp:an#HD-DVD_decryption_key. Nothing is fraudulent, you just didn't know where to look. —dgiestc 04:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- That still doesn't change the fact that the string is not a spam url, or any type of url. As I said on Meta, I could understand why Wikipedia would want to censor this data, but it should do so openly- giving reasons for doing so- not via a spam filter as this is not spam. This is why I said "fraudulent". And it is easily circumvented, which was the reason I posted the key in the first place- to demonstrate this.
- If you want to debate the appropriateness of using the anti-spam filter to block the HD-DVD key, that is fine. If you want to debate Wikipedia's copyright policy or its use, that is also fine, but if you want to keep violating the copyright policy just to prove a point, you will remain blocked. If you want to get unblocked, you will need to agree to stop intentionally violating policy. —dgiestc 15:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- And he did, privately to me, so as the blocking admin, I decided to lift the block. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- If you want to debate the appropriateness of using the anti-spam filter to block the HD-DVD key, that is fine. If you want to debate Wikipedia's copyright policy or its use, that is also fine, but if you want to keep violating the copyright policy just to prove a point, you will remain blocked. If you want to get unblocked, you will need to agree to stop intentionally violating policy. —dgiestc 15:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- That still doesn't change the fact that the string is not a spam url, or any type of url. As I said on Meta, I could understand why Wikipedia would want to censor this data, but it should do so openly- giving reasons for doing so- not via a spam filter as this is not spam. This is why I said "fraudulent". And it is easily circumvented, which was the reason I posted the key in the first place- to demonstrate this.
- There's an open debate on it at Wp:an#HD-DVD_decryption_key. Nothing is fraudulent, you just didn't know where to look. —dgiestc 04:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Lurker, would you mind chiming in with a Keep again? This list unfortunately 9 days later has been renominated for deletion.-BillDeanCarter 22:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Lurker - I thought with the bondage piece sitting on the Saltire page that adding our Saltire Gown (which will be donated to the people of Scotland before the end of the year) might re-establish the St. Andrew's Cross to a higher place. I own both the gown and the image I am trying to share, that particular image is not on our website and has never been published). The language on the drop down menu is confusing to 'choose wisely' from - can you help? Teresa
oh and Lurker... why doesn't the Saltire page include the fact that the flag of Scotland is the oldest continuously flown flag in the world? (732 AD). Teresa
- I would read [4]. If you are the owner of the copyright, then say so in the image description, and license it under a free license see here.
If you can find a source for your claim that the saltire is the oldest flag in the world, please add it to the article.
BTW, when commenting on talk pages, please log in and sign your posts by adding ~~~~
Not sure how to email you Lurker or to find the space where you offer your responses to me. This is all very new to me. You can email me at teresa@thistleandbroom.com if that helps. Thanks, ThistleCEO 19:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC) ThistleCEO
Lurker, with regard to the image of Katie Targett Adams wearing the Saltire Gown, I am not sure what more is required to document that I am the owner of the website which features other versions of this gown with Katie wearing the gown. In that I didn't understand how to post an signed response to you previously I apologise. In light of the Scottish election results I have moved up my schedule to donate the gown to the people of Scotland (Jack didn't 'get it') in any case. I own all the rights to not only this photo but the gown itself (even after it is donated to Scotland) what documentation do you require to validate this? ThistleCEO 20:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)ThistleCEO
Dear Lurker - Can you please explain if I own the photo, and it's of intellectual property that also own how can the use of it not be fair? ThistleCEO 23:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)ThistleCEO
- I suggest you ask a wikipedia admin. Lurker 16:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Lurker/Archive 1, as a WikiProject Scotland participant, please check out this this thread and consider adding the bot results page to your watchlist so we can manually update the New Articles page. There are some false results for the first batch, but I'm sure we can collectively tune the rules to improve the output.
If we get enough people watching the results page, we'll be cooking with gas as they say :) This looks like a great helper in finding new Scotland related material. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 01:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Katie_-_full_long_view_in_Saltire.JPG
Dear Lurker - can you tell me what the hold up is about reconciling the image of the Saltire Gown being posted? I honestly do not know what else I can possibly offer (or should) to accomodate your concerns and you have yet to respond to my postings to you.
ThistleCEO 14:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Teresa
- I've responded to all of your postings here. Please ask at the helpdesk if you are unsure about how to assert the copyright status of your images, not here. Lurker 14:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Dear Lurker -
I note you suggest I contact a Wiki Admin, searches through the site provide no clear means of doing so. Since you indicated a concern over my owning the rights to the image in the first place can you please be a little less vague about what you would like me to do to fix this or remove the concern so the image can be posted?
ThistleCEO 14:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)ThistleCEO
It's up to you to assert the copyright status of your image, I've given you links that show how to do so. There's nothing more I can do, really. So I suggest posting somewhere like the helpdesk. Hopefully, someone there will be able to assist you Lurker
I've removed the db-bio tag on that article. While the article itself is pretty crappy, the "1963 World famous Middle Eastern Dancer" is at least an assertion of notability. Feel free to take it to AfD or even try a prod though. I doubt it will last long. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 17:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Raasay
Many thanks - that's the quickest GA turnaround ever!Ben MacDui (Talk) 11:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yep, I spotted it on the Scotland Wikiproject, not by looking at the good article nominations page. So I was able to skip the backlog. Lurker 15:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)