Could I propose you to look into the Gujarat Riots page.It is hardly neutral and at this point of time it reflects the opinions of BJP sympathisers who have two fold agenda: 1. Mix it with the Godhra train fire episode.BJP has been promoting the line that it was a natural repurcussion of the burning of train while the media and secularists tried to separate the two. (http://www.atimes.com/ind-pak/DE14Df01.html) 2. Showing that the events were beyond control of Narendra Modi the chief minister and improving his image when his actions and inactions were decried in national and international media and he was denied visa to the US on these grounds Ideally the presentation of the article should be:
1. Summary
2. Causes
3. Effects
4. Point of view of Hindu organisations and BJP
5. Point of view of Indian National Human Rights Commission
6. Point of view of International Human Rights Organisations and Governments
6. Enquiries into the incidents and their reports
7. Criticisms of the enquiry by BJP
8. Arrests and Court cases
9. Present Scenario
Thanks - there are some users who have presented their blatantly biased POVs on talk pages - they should be removed from editing
Hello, Bakaman. If you look at the edit history, you'll see that it was 62.189.60.30. Also, I didn't make the above-referenced proposal to please that particular user, but because I thought I might be able to help. Editing is now underway at 2002 Gujarat violence/2006 revision -- I hope you will participate according to the guidelines on the article's talk page.
One thing I might request you to do is kickstart the project ONLY when Netaji gets back. It is an article he cares about, and since I have Wikiproject:Bengal taking most of my time, he is usually the only person who moves the article from anti-Hindu stance to just facts. Right now, sorry to say, but the article looks like it was written by the Pakistani government. I have deleted some inflammatory lines. If you have any influence over terryJHo, please tell him not to make the page extremely POV, other than that I have to say you are a brave soul. BakamanBakatalk04:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess using "cesspool" was too adventurous but calling women and children Hindu zealots is extremely POV. I made some changes to the article and decided not to comment on the talk page anymore because of hounding by certain users that hate me. I will try to balance the article with sourced and fact-based edits.BakamanBakatalk
I have been working to cite sources. Could you tell me what "NC" means? TerryJHo has suggested that the whole attack on the train and riots were a conspiracy. Actually, just look at the article talk page its easier to sort through. BakamanBakatalk15:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like you to note this edit justifying the death of civilians in mass killings which the British daily Guardian referred to as "rightly described as Genocide" [1]. I suspect if edits from these editors could ever be neutral and encyclopoedic. Are there no guidelines/ actions on WP against such hatemongering. 62.189.60.3017:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, my name is Nick, my username is Potters house and I have encountered a problem with trying to provide any information about Johnny Lee Clary. I have posted this post off to other staff members also. I am not sure if this is the best route to resolve this, but can think of no other way.
The article Johnny Lee Clary has been deleted. I have known Johnny through telephone conversations and email for a short time now (about 3-4 months). He recently came and shared his life story in for our church group for the first time just two weeks ago. Before I met Johnny I became interested in his story i.e. his conversion from the head of the KKK in the US, to being a Christian Minister who now teaches against race hate groups. I found the article Johnny Lee Clary as it still is today, deleted, except for some small talk. If you read the talk you see what I have said at the time (notice I have gotten no reply, probable my fault as I don’t know heaps about WIKI policy). From my understanding Johnny Lee Clary was posting as The KingOfDixie and looks like he tried to change a few things on Wiki concerning the KKK. While this is a controversial subject, Johnny being the former leader of the KKK would probably know a thing or two and be able to contibute, but that’s another story. He eventually made an article about himself i.e. Johnny Lee Clary. Johnny being quite new to Wiki and ignorant of rules of conduct found himself at odds with some admins and had his site deleted.
Whilst observing Johnny over the last 3-4 months I have noticed that he is very outspoken against race hate groups such as the Neo Nazis, Skinheads, KKK etc. This, more often than not, lands Johnny in the hot seat. He has experienced persecution from racist groups for his departure from the KKK and voiced opinions against these racist organizations on his webpage, www.xkkk.org. Johnny has also received multiple death threats.
Because of his bold stance against these racist groups Johnny has become accustomed to hatred directed at him by those same groups. Johnny concluded that perhaps the guy who deleted the page Johnny Lee Clary was a white supremist. I am hoping to clear this up. Before he told me this, I started to create J L Clary, after hearing nothing from posting in user talk on Johnny Lee Clary's article. I wasn't 10 minutes into the J L Clary article when it was issued a deletion notice, and then before I had time to reply (about 5 minutes) it was deleted! I was amazed. I told this to Johnny and he said the main reason he was told that he couldn't have an article was because he was not prominent enough.
When David Wilkerson came to our town hardly anyone knew or cared, yet David Wilkerson is allowed an article (and rightfully so), but more people know of Johnny. As to whether he is famous or not, just Google search him and see all the TV interviews and radio interviews he does. He hangs with some of the most prominent Christian leaders in Australia. Besides this, just being the former KKK leader should be enough for an article (he doesn't even get a mention in the KKK one, and would be deleted). He was also a Pro Wrestler. So he is prominent in Christian circles, he is prominent amongst race hate groups, and he is also prominent in the WWE wrestling.
Johnny asked me to test the waters for him to see if he was being persecuted by someone from a race hate group. So I created some sites, John ClaryWade Watts and Operation Colorblind - the name of Johnny's Ministry. These have been fine until yesterday. I cannot understand why these sites are just issued a deletion notice? Just because they mention JLC? I was hoping to discuss these things but they are just deleted. The one on Wade Watts is about a black gospel preacher who was one of the leaders in the civil rights movement in the US and was good friends with Martin Luther King. He took Johnny Clary under his wing and even ordained Johnny as a minister (to this day Johnny is the only white man ordained in the All Black Baptist Church). But his article is up for deletion because I mentioned Clary and had a link.
That is why I am writing to you to see if you can help. It seems to me that the person(s) deleting all articles which even mention Johnny Lee Clary has an agenda. I thought that wikipedia admins had to keep a neutral stance on every article. It seems like this guy has a vendetta against JLC. Why delete the Wade Watts article. That is guilt by association and could be proof that all deletions are because of racial discrimination! I hope this is not the case and would think that it is politically motivated, as Johnny is a strong supporter of George Bush and Antaeus Feldspar of Kerry.
My hope is that Johnny will be able to have an article like any other famous person, minister, former KKK leader, or pro wrestler, and that Johnny and anyone connected with him and his ministry will in future have certain rules set in place that do not allow the wholesale deletion of the articles associated with him, but that they will be at least discussed.
I thank you for reading this long winded post. I have only been using WIKI for about a year myself so I need your help, I don't really know what else to do. I hope you can help. I personally think that Johnny's story is one that is beneficial to the cause of reconciliation between races and to the3 unity of society as a whole. It would be a shame if WIKI became known for having covert racists. Of course I hope that this is a misunderstanding and that all will be cleared up soon.
Also note his contributions: Featured articles: · African American literature -- My first featured article. Thanks to everyone who gave feedback. While I didn't start the article, I obsessed on it for an entire month and wrote most of the copy. · Ku Klux Klan -- I began work on this article after it became a featured article. Since then I've mediated several editorial disputes on the article (including one of which kept the article from being delisted as a FA) and made a large number of edits. Potters house00:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC) Nick.[reply]
This topic has been heavily discussed on the talk page and a consensus has been reached. Then you just came and added deist without any evidence or saying anything on the talk page. Can you please show me where Washington says he is a deist? Unless you can provide it you are adding an opinion. Historians do not say he was a deist they simply do not know.
Perhaps I am mistaken, but looking at the talk page I can see no such consensus. Also, if you compare the current version with one from July 30 I believe that I have simply been one of many people to restore what has long been the general consensus about Washington's beliefs.
Also, I didn't "just come and add deist without any evidence or saying anything on the talk page" -- I simply restored information that someone who was not logged in removed in the last few edits -- again, as have many other editors.
Sry but an anon editor added deist to the infobox with absolutely no source whatsoever while Washington's religion wasnt listed for at least over 3 months for a reason. He added it from august seventh (Today):
If there is a source where Washington says he was a deist I will not touch it but until then it needs a source. Anon editors cant just come in and change big info without sources.
Both sides agree that the subject is a matter of debate as well as historians do not know. I dont understand why you keep reverting.
You asked me for advice on what I think regarding the reverts to the Truck article. The anonymous IP 65.87.105.7 added the word 'human' to create the sentence "A truck is a motor vehicle for human transporting goods." Regardless of the fact that this sentence does not flow as well, it makes it unclear if the truck transports goods for humans, or is for humans to transport goods. You reverted this change back to the original sentence, a change which I support. The anon IP came back two minutes later and made the same edit again [2] - which I promptly reverted back to your edit. The note you left on my talk page says "I do take an accusation of violating policy rather seriously", but I have in fact reverted the anonymous IP 65.87.105.7. The edit summary (automatically inserted and not of my creation) was directed at him, not you. I am sorry for any confusion this revert may have caused. --Llort12:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply, Llort. I now see what you mean. I've been inactive for a while, so I'm trying to be sensitive, but I was oversensitive in this case. Also, I haven't been around for the development of many of the automated editing tools, so I didn't really grasp the "good faith" part, but it is now clear. I'm sorry to have bothered you about it. Thanks again, BCorr|Брайен12:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand completely since my edit wasn't about the rfa itself, but I won't revert. Thanks for your courteous note. Attic Owl15:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again -- yes, your edit wasn't part of the RfA dicsussion, but that's actually the point. When there's a note asking that an archived page not be modified, it applies to the entire page -- otherwise the integrity of the page can be called into question, and there's also the slippery slope regarding what edits are acceptable: small notes? typos? misstatements? clarifications? changes of mind? And thank you for your courteous note.
Brian, it was great meeting you too. Have seen your name since the beginning of the Wikipedia epoch, so am glad to have a real-life meeting. Hope you don't mind if I contact you about your views on the early history. Cheers! -- Fuzheado | Talk11:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input. I did not mean to sound "final" as you put it. I merely said that I think all sources need qualification so that bias is not there. Since many sources ARE biased (liberal socialists, secular fundamentalists and radical Islamists vs hindu sources) we must be careful of this terrotory.Thanks and have a nice day.Netaji23:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather ask this user to mention all the sources that he considers as neutral and then we can have a detailed analysis of who is wrong and who is right.A secular fundamentalist would probably be more neutral than a Hindu or Muslim fundamentalist.Do you agree BCorr TerryJ-Ho
Yep, this is certainly civil. "move La Vérité to Truth#Classical philosophers section as per talk. Note: This is not removing the picture, as that would be in violation of User:Jim62sch's edicts". Primary point is that I despise censorship, and everytyime I see someone try to remove that picture I am reminded of Ashcroft having several statues covered because the showed, gasp, a breast. I assume you were also refering to my edit on the AfD for Truth Theory, yet there was certainly nothing uncivil in that edit -- Google is over-relied on. Additionally, I was hardly just responding to you, but rather making a point re Google and it's use to defend articles on Wiki. Sorry if you took it as incivility, but that was not the point. •Jim62sch•12:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW: I know that you're a good editor, you needn't defend yourself regarding that (at least not to me). I just get miffed about certain things and sometimes type in a fit of pique (or high dudgeon).
Oh, one other thing, this "(remove misleading faux infobox opinion about La Verite which has been placed into a box as if it were some official Wikipedia policy infobox)" was Jon Awbrey's, which everyone more or less agreed upon. •Jim62sch•13:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thoughtful and informative reply, Jim -- I appreciate it. I also apologize for my edit summary -- I was a bit testy, and I didn't need to mention you in it or refer to an edict.
I made an (erroneous) assumption that because the wording in your reply was similar to the infobox that you had created that as well. I am also sorry about that. I understand your position on these issues and detest Ashcroft (and Gonzalez) as well.
In terms of the picture, I had never though of any implications there might be from its presence on this page -- I just like the colors and the subject, and I really enjoyed my drive on the day I shot it (driving from Houston to Anderson, South Carolina in one day, via the SE corner of Oklahoma -- my only time in that state).
What I removed from the squid and the whale article was unfounded speculation with no textual verification that made the article unencyclopedeiac,as was that on the Andre 3000 article (speculated details about a celebrity's personal life taken from thier ability to ACT on a show are not wikipedia-worthy), and the description on Affirmative action as positive discrimination constitutes NPOV. Simple edits to articles, which anyone reading them with a certain degree of scrutiny might make, do not merit a talk page topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.192.235 (talk • contribs)
I'm afraid you still need to use the talk pages and edit summaries and not simply delete information without explanation or comment. This is especially true as you are editing without an account. Thanks again, BCorr|Брайен20:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read my edit summaries and the talk page (over the last few months) for the article. Also, I find it strange that you would use the term "vandalism" for my reverting to an older version to restore information that was part of the article being listed as a candidate for a good article, while not immediately restoring the dozens on in-line links. In any case it's been cleaned up now. And you might think twice before long-time editors of vandalism. Please see Wikipedia:Civility for more. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен17:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent edit summaries were misleading - in both cases, your revert was removing information; you weren't reverting the removal of information. None of Justforasecond's edits yesterday or today removed any information from the article. The fact that the article was a candidate for a good article and that you have been editing the article in question make your actions in removing significant amounts of information that much more questionable. Argyriou18:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back at them I can see why you might say this, but here is the situation. I'm including screenshots of the diff of this edit(with the summary "restore deleted information from the article and remove POV additions. I don't have time to re-add the web references now, but I will do that later today") that I made on my screen, it looked as though my edit (on the right side of the page) was adding in significant chunks of text. I did it quickly, and didn't look carefully through it to see that the balance between the left and right columns was uneven, making it look clearly like I was adding a lot back in, and simply removing some links to external (from Wikipedia) web pages.
I will be more careful in the future, but I will continue to watch the article for balance and to help keep it from turning into an article that focuses primarily on the criticisms of Dellums as hypocritical and as a sell-out. BCorr|Брайен22:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you use automated anti-vandalism tools here? The editing seemed to be a quite reasonable attempt to improve the article. Jkelly22:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. It seemed like a questionable set of edits with a somewhat obnoxious edit summary, and was from an anon IP on a very prominent page. I did think about leaving or reworking it, but the removed information from the first edit, I felt, ought to stay in the article, and the second edit I thought was not well written and its point was a bit fuzzy, so I went for the revert button. Perhaps it was a bit "the easy way out", but it was a judgment call on my part. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен22:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for removing my note on the Open Tasks page.. I have no idea how that one happened. Was trying to leave a note for an anonymous user... --Bobblehead23:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem -- sometimes the database does weird things. There was a while when notes on talk pages for one anon IP would show up on a completely different page. The mystery of the wiki.... BCorr|Брайен23:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When an user is engaged in what is approaching a revert war (as you were in the article as is demonstrated in the article's history, using the revert tool (a.k.a. "admin rollback", and which automatically does not give a separate explanation other than reversion to the prior editor's version) is reasonable and justified. You made the same basic edit 16 times in less than a month despite a number of different editors removing your edits as Nor following NPOV. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен17:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BCorr. If you have noticed my comments have been very civil. But some guys seem to act like big daddies around here, having their own vested pre-concieved notions, stalking the users who do not adhere to their diktats, don't u think so? Violates the spirit of Wikipedia to some extent I would venture to say. --Geek197512:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if calling someone a fascist is violation of Wiki-etiquette, fascism is a doctrine, some subscribe to it and advocate it, some don't.... should'nt be an offence, or am I wrong here? --Geek197507:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What a load of bull from Geek. He knows perfectly well TerryJHo meant "Nazi". He called the democratically elected president of India a fascist also in the same page. I request that you confront him and tell him and his tag team buddy Geek to stop name-calling. Also just because myself and Netaji do not subscribe to his POV, he has tried to get me indef banned. BakamanBakatalk14:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that this looked like a commercial plug, however I would like to point that the recipes are not the products, these are free recipe developed kindly by professional cooks:
So it appears to me that you are not consistent in your strategy, either this is authorized or not. If it is not then fair but remove the other commercial plugs. If it is permitted please reinstate my link.
Is is against policy. I noticed your addition and it did merit removal. However, I didn't go through and check all the links in the article. That in no way means that other commercial links are OK. We're all just volunteers here, and we notice and fix what we can. I will go back and remove the link you mentioned, now that I'm aware of it. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен19:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I left you a welcome message on your talk page.
I am new to editing articles in Wikipedia, so please forgive me for my mistakes. I read the Wikipedia:Spam page that you recommended. When adding the Hospitality Club link to the article, my intention was not to promote a site. I only thought that as the Hospitality Club is a peace organization, it should be mentioned in the peace article. After all, the Hospitality club has peace building as an objective and this is related to peace in general. That's why I added the link.
Thanks for your reply. There have been a number of people in the past who are connected to hospitality services and have shared your feelings about puttings links into the peace article. The general consensus here is that despite the goal of building goodwill and peace, these links do not belong in that article. The other issue is that generally external links are to provide more information on a topic, but not as a way to drive traffic to the external site. While it is a judgment call in some cases, sites with numerous Google ads or other revenue-generaing links (such as the one you added) usually don't make the cut unless they are extremely relevant to the article -- such as the AFS hospitality link you added to the AFS article.
I removed the deist from the info box because there was no information or source on it. So its ok to have unverifiable information on wikipedia? What kind of encyclopedia is this?
Having read the article on Wikipedia in the New Yorker, I was inspired to look at the history behind my entry, and noticed your quick and timely removal of the awkward slam inserted into my profile. I wanted to say I appreciate it, and was curious as to how you could identify and fix it so quickly.
Also, I have a question. The last item of my profile was added immediately upon a legal trouble I had last fall. I decided to leave it up, as recent news that was germane, but thought that, after a year, I would see about having it taken down, replaced with information about the book I am writing for Dutton on the subject. Would this be appropriate? I don't want to be accused of whitewashing my profile, on the other hand I don't think that means I have to leave insignificant negative slurs up -- the case was dismissed.
Neil Steinberg
Dear Neil,
Thanks for your note. I think I was probably just checking the recent changes to articles and noticed that someone who wasn't logged in made an edit wihout a summary, and when I looked at the article about you -- as you saw in the history -- the previous edit added in material that was neither neutral or terribly informative, so I removed the whole thing. A lot of the volunteer editors and administrators (like me), do our best to check for vandalism and biased editing when we have a bit of time. It's actually an important part of the culture of the "Wikipedia community."
In terms of the article about you, I would say that you should not edit it yourself unless you create an account and log in, and then first leave a note on the article's discussion page (talk page) explaining the proposed change. Even then, you might want to wait a couple of days, and then change only things that are completely incorrect. Alternately, you could leave a note on the talk page asking someone to make the change. But you are right to be careful and ask -- as you know, many people (including some of your colleagues in the media) assume that anyone editing their own entry is up to no good.
And finally, I will look at the article carefully and see if I (as an unbiased party) think I should edit it.
There is no correspondence between geek, terryjho and myself anymore. This is in response to his hate attack of me [5] and his vandalism of my user and talk pages. I am sorry to bring you this news but I feel it is necessary. The only Muslim user I will discuss with (at the moment) is Bhaisaab. I am really shaken by the past couple of days on wiki.(look at my talk page/talk page history)BakamanBakatalk22:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:SqueakBox doesn't like me. He has insulted me in the past and, recently, he was blocked for posting the following insult in his user page: "My greatest achievements here [...] have been [...] and restoring José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero from the POV of another user who claims to write about saints." (See the entry for August 21 in his block log) My nick, Hagiographer means just that, "to write about saints", so it's clear that comment is a direct attack against me. Furthermore, when I came to the article about Zapatero SqueakBox had already been banned from editing Zapatero's editing articles by the Arbitraton Committee (what can he restore?). And, in fact, I've never contributed or deleted information from any of those articles. I simply reverted some vandalism SqueakBox introduced as part of his harassment campaing against other user who was also banned by the same Arbitration Comittee decision. So, that paragraph is pure slander.
Taking WP:NPA into account, I believe that paragraph should be deleted or, at least, marked like what it is, a personal attack. I did just that [6]. However, SqueakBox removed it and User:Guettarda protected the page here. SqueakBox has had a lot of problems with other users and, sometimes, Guettarda has taken part in them. For example, in User:SqueakBox can be found a barnstar given by User:Guettarda in which he says that SqueakBox has gone beyond the call of duty in his fight against "strange" people in the article Javier Solana. WP:NPA states clearly that comments must be about content not users so it's clear that Guettarda and SqueakBox have cooperated in, at least, dubious actions against other users. It's also clear Guettarda is biased in favor of SqueakBox. In this edit in my talk page, he implies that I like looking for conflict, that I'm obsessed with SqueakBox that I've to settle down and so on, all violation of WP:AGF and unpleasant remarks.
It mustn't be forgotten that according to WP:OWN, user pages belong to everybody and I don't believe a wikipedian has any right to transform his user page in a platform to attack other users. So Guettarda's supposed protection of SqueakBox's user page (really of SqueakBox's insults) is very difficult to defend in my opinion.
I'm simply asking fair treatment. I don't believe I have to see how the Wikipedia is populated with insults against me. I believe SqueakBox can contribute useful edits without transforming his user page into a gallery of attacks. So please, either unprotect the page so WP:OWN can be applied, or remove the negative comment or mark it as a personal attack untolerable in the Wikipedia or, at least, explain to me why I have to bear that kind of treatment. SqueakBox has been blocked for that unpleasant remark, What is the use of blocking him and then keeping the insult? Thank you. Hagiographer07:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a reporter for Boston Globe writing a story about Wiki entries for local cities and towns. Interested to talk to contributors to articles. I saw your user name on the Newton history page. I'm on deadline, alas. Please contact me at [email protected] by Sunday, Sept. 17, if you'd be willing to do a brief telephone interview about Wiki. Thanks! Thomas
Hi. I recently did a bit of an overhaul on the Zakim Bunker Hill Bridge entry, including setting your picture (ZakimBridge20040307.jpg) at the top of the infobox. I was wondering where you were when you took the picture, so I (or you, or anyone else, for that matter) could give it a more descriptive caption than just the name of the bridge. It's obviously up the Chuck (heh), but I don't know if you were on a boat or another bridge (the Longfellow, maybe?). Either way, it's a great picture. Thanks. JayDuck04:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you figure out what is going on with this. It has been protected for almost 3 months now, with this fork, and I don't know whether the fork is good to go, etc. —Centrx→talk • 16:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you've looked at the article Race and intelligence recently, but it has over the years become a stockpile of information to support the genetic hypothesis. Myself and a few other editors have been working hard over the past few months to add more information about environmental factors, and other aspects of this topic, such as media portrayal to try to balance the article. I notice that you were active in the early debates on this article, and I'm hoping that I can convince you to come back and get involved again. What do you say? futurebird18:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just found the Lillian E. Smith page. It's very nicely done. I'm no good at using Wiki world bread crumbs. Could you point me to the person who put the page up so that i might thank them.
Robert Fichter, for the Lillian E Smith Foundation
You are being recruited by the Money and Politics Task Force, a collaborative project committed to ensuring that links between government officials and private-sector resources are accurately displayed in relevant entries. Join us!
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:WilliamSloaneCoffinJr-pressphoto.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast19:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the ever-evolving photo policies. I didn't see this in time, but I have replaced with a new image with a proper license. Thanks for your work! -- BCorr|Брайен11:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Bcorr/Plautus appears to violate current WP norms against posting emails and against maintaining pages of evidence on other users ("attack pages"). Since you do not appear to be very active anymore, and since the case is long since settled, I'm going to take the liberty of deleting the page. Please let me know if you object. ·:· Will Beback·:·04:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Will -- I really don't log in enough anymore -- I usually just fix things on the fly as I see errors. It's not a big deal, but thank you for letting me know. -- BCorr|Брайен01:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:WilliamSloaneCoffinJr-BiographyCover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! As a bureaucrat on Wikipedia, I'd very much appreciate it if you would fill in your details on the newly updated Bureaucrats page. Thanks! Majorlytalk14:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Second response available. I will assume from this point that you will continue to monitor that location until we reach a resolution. Cheers, Hertz1888 (talk) 04:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Me and my mate were wondering if there is any way of taking over (becoming a bureaucrat) on this wiki: Data crystal , we are asking you because it has been inactive for a long time, and we were hoping to try and take over to help fix it up. I have tried asking people on this wiki but no one is ever on besides me, the only other contributions are random IP addresses that spam the articles (even more then they already are). If you could please reply on my talk page it would be highly appreciated, thanks (This message has been sent to most bureaucrat's). --MỸŠŦЄЯỸЊӘҒҒ (talk) 13:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! I'm posting to inform you of an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrat removal, which is of relevance to you as an en.wiki bureaucrat. The discussion centres around whether bureaucrat status should be considered a 'lifetime' appointment like administrators, or whether bureaucrats should be subject to periodic reconfirmation in a manner more like the stewards. There is also consideration for a separate re-evaluation of the status of those bureaucrats who were promoted in the early days of wikipedia, when the standards at RfB were significantly lower than they are currently, and whether such users still retain the explicit trust of the community.
As an "inactive bureaucrat" (one who has not performed a 'crat action in the past year), we're particularly keen to hear your thoughts on these issues; in particular the following:
Do you consider yourself to still be a wikipedia bureaucrat in spirit, or is the flag essentially just a legacy? Do you have any intention of ever returning to being an 'active' bureaucrat?
What do you consider your position to be in terms of your 'mandate' from the community, in comparison to more recently-promoted bureaucrats?
Would you be amenable to surrendering the bureaucrat flag, or participating in a reconfirmation RfB, if asked to do so? In what circumstances would you consider such an action?
Your thoughts on these, and any other comments you may have, would be very much appreciated. We have set up a section on the discussion page, Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrat removal#'Crat comments, for such responses.
I have some extremely early documents on the origin of the name SANE (My father was a founder). I don't have the time nor energy to fully edit the Wikipedia article, but would like to discuss them with you since you contributed some "debunking' of the acronyms. Can we connect via email (or god forbid, the telephone)? You may reply to my talk page (but I may forget to check it) or via "jeremy_r" at yahoo (you know the rest). Thanks. --Techguy95 (talk) 03:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I came about your name in the list of bureaucrats and was wondering what you think about this proposition, not necessarily in its absolute form but the general idea? Thanks!--It's me...Sallicio!23:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Bcorr.. I see that you made {{LoC Country Studies}}. Was there something wrong or inadequate about {{Loc}} (other than the name?) If not, perhaps we can simply redirect LoC Country Studies to LoC, or copy over the template. Thanks! —hike395 (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! -- I had never run across it, so I didn't even think to check. Thanks for catching that (even though I was proud to have figured out how to make it based on the CIA one).
Hi, I noticed this edit to the article (removed (widely reprinted) "D." vandalism - Theodore Roosevelt didn't have a middle name). Since I noticed that you are the one who added the initial, I thought you might want to have a look. -- Luktalk08:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
{{cite web |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=SjYAAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA163&lpg=PA163&dq=%22Theodore+D+Roosevelt%22&source=bl&ots=_8Nlup6H4N&sig=B390EmU_dR22cVnvWOPqrW4cHkc&hl=en&ei=KALESdSiBOffnQfd7YnCDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result |title=Origin and History of the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America |accessdate=2009-03-20 |last=Sanford |first=Elias Benjamin |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=1916 |format= |publisher=S.S. Scranton Company|page=162}}
I'll go back there and leave a note for the editor in question.
I don't think it's a typo. I found it after discovering that his son Theodore Roosevelt Jr. more conclusively had the middle initial "D". This is demonstrated by the fact the the U.S. Department of the Navy lists him as "Theodore D. Roosevelt, Jr." in a list of Assistant Secretaries of the Navy at www.history.navy.mil/library/guides/rosters/assist_sec_navy.htm. While the NPS page is somewhat compelling, I wouldn't say it is enough to contradict the other sources, and the New York Times article is written in a rather humorous tone and makes a point about how the print media are often inaccurate, and I don't think it really is proof that TR didn't have a middle name.
That list is the only source on a search for "Theodore D. Roosevelt, Jr." and lists Theodore Roosevelt himself without a middle name. But David McCullough's Mornings on Horseback also explicitly states Roosevelt did not have a middle name" on page 19.
(His father being the original middle nameless Theodore Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt actually Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., and Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. being the third Theodore Roosevelt.)
The Chautauquan, p. 484; Published by M. Bailey, Publisher, 1895 (note carefully that the caption "President Roosevelt" underneath the iconic engraving refers to his being president of the New York City Board of Police Commissioners, not of the U.S.) In this, he is clearly identified as "Theodore D. Roosevelt," and there is not a reasonable doubt about its accuracy.
As I pointed out above, similar searches - such as for Theodore B. Roosevelt - return similar numbers of results (in fact, the search for Theodore B. Roosevelt returns more contemporary results), and it returns no relevant scholarly works. Roosevelt: The Lion and the Fox does not contain a reference to "Theodore D. Roosevelt," although the Google Books return places it there, and the return in The American Nation: a History of the United States from 1865 to the Present is a misparce of an image caption. If we are going to give Theodore Roosevelt a middle initial, B. would be the best choice, but the New York Times article that mentions the invention of a middle initial for TR (how, exactly, does the Chautauquan mention undermine the NYT article, aside from the use of a D. instead of a B.?) and the unequivocally middle-nameless Elihu Root I think supersedes "reasonable doubt" as to the accuracy of only two contemporary citations. Further, I am completely unable to find a name the "D." would refer to.
I'm not sure how useful a source Google Books is for determining Theodore Roosevelt's middle initial. I just ran through all the possible middle initials and the only ones Google Books didn't turn up (admittedly often frivolous, but still published and archived) results for were "Theodore K. Roosevelt," "Theodore U. Roosevelt," "Theodore X. Roosevelt," "Theodore Y. Roosevelt," and "Theodore Z. Roosevelt." Ultimately, I think the existence of Theodore Roosevelt's middle name or initial is unverifiable at the moment.
I noticed you left a friend request on Facebook for me, saying "it's Bcorr from Wikipedia." I haven't spent much time editing Wikipedia in years, but after looking you up I'm guessing you thought I was Sam Spade? When I used to edit, I was Asbestos.
— Sam Fentress 12:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.222.22 (talk)
Hi Asbestos -- I definitely knew that was you! I always appreciated your work and calm demeanor (I guess that goes along with the username). And BTW, unfortunately Sam and I weren't the best of wikifriends. In fact, he was the only editor that opposed my appointment to the Mediation Committee.
Thanks for the notice and apologies -- I should be more careful about drive-by editing! Looks like it's already been taken care of now. BCorr|Брайен14:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. I was wondering why there wasn't an image there.... I'm afraid that I just haven't kept up with all of the policies regarding images. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен21:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consider this a Brian-to-Brian greeting! It's always good to see another fan of Star Trek and vintage computers out there. I remember borrowing a TRS-80 from my grade school for a weekend and running some sort of program which animated a tap-dancing alien (I don't remember anything more about it than that!), but my own very first computer was a TI 99/4A. I ought to dig it out and play with the speech synthesizer some more. :) Happy memories! I tend to delete stray email messages unread, or I'll bounce them unread, by the way - you wouldn't believe how much misdirected email I get to my address. Best to have plausible deniability, I always say. :) - Brian Kendig (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have made several changes to the Social Credit article, and would like to remove the neutrality tag. When you have a chance, can you please look at the article, and either remove the tag, or make suggestions for changes?
Hello Bcorr! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 27 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
I am new to Wikepedia. MY first article was named for speedy deletion while I eas still working on it. Later on the same person nominated the same article again for deletion the second time based on same grounds. MY experience has not been good as my head was bitten off at the very beginning.
My reason for contacting you is because you have links on your page for newcomers and seem to communicate well.
I am trying to understand this consensus policy at Wikepedia. COnsensus is great as long it is informed consensus. Hypothetically if a handful of buddies get together and vote on Wikepedia that earth is flat, then consensus means WIkepedia to say earth is flat. What happens when consensus is based on false premise? Anyways, I will apreciate if you can enlighten me on this consesus issue. My experience so far is based on only one page titled Nigam Arora, the article that is now nominated for deletion. I have started a second page Radiation Monitoring in Nuclear Plants
As you may be able to tell, I am quite concerned about consensus that is not informed or based on lack of due dilligence. It appears that if something does not appear on first few pages of Google, it is deemed unverifiable. What happened to going to libraries? Google is great but does not show older references. References before 2000, are sparse at google. Also google does not include references fro subscription sites. Google also lacks in international coverage.All of the older paper based magazines, journal and newspapers are notavailable online or in digital form.
I Like Wikepedia and would like to contribute, but am greatly bothered by a process that seems to give weight to consensus no matter how ill informed or manipulated the consesus is. I DO NOT WANT TO BE A MEMBER OF FLAT EARTH SOCIETY; I am not saying that Wikepedia is a flat earth society, but rather trying to understand how to deal with editors when they do not do due dilligence and forcefully proclaim their ill informed opinions as facts.
I would request that you read the following comment and consider removing the tags from the Pantheism article. All edits and reversions by me since January 2000 have been made on the basis of very careful academic accuracy. If the article looks way better now, it is because of this approach. The revisions and reversions I have made are not at all POV - I am extremely careful to avoid that. The major types of pantheism are presented in a neutral fashion without bias towards any one version. However, it is very important to keep in mind the distinction between pantheism and panentheism, which is not at all the same as pantheism. Many of the people occasionally popping in to edit this article are unregistered. Many of the changes they made have been unsourced, inaccurate, and very clearly written off the top of their heads. Any article on a religious topic in Wikipedia attracts a lot of unqualified attention and revision. The space provided to explain an edit is very brief and so I give brief explanations. If you think I should explain every reversion in detail in the Pantheism talk page, please say so, as it is easy to do so. However, I think it is questionable whether inaccurate or POV changes by non-registered passers-by merit such treatment. --Naturalistic (talk) 23:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
COPIED FROM PANTHEISM TALK PAGE: The old conflict stemmed from the fact that the two most frequent editors were 1. An opponent of Pantheism and 2. A persistent troll who has been banned many times from Wikipedia. The conflict was with one or two heroic people attempting to restore accuracy and non-bias to the article. These people eventually gave up because the two editors just mentioned would revert the material sometimes within minutes of it being edited, time and time again. Right now I would urge that you think carefully before restoring the POV removals since January 2010. To do so implies that they were removed for POV reasons, so you would need to establish that. It would be a disservice to Wikipedia readers, who currently have a reliable version, to subject them once again to inaccurate material. Most of the editors whose material was removed were passers-by who rarely appear again - so "reaching agreement with them" will in most cases be impossible. There was also POV material being inserted by people pushing a pandeist or panentheist agenda. With edits that are inaccurate, how can there be agreement? If you want to list the removals that bother you, then I will address every single one of them or discuss them with you. --Naturalistic (talk) 00:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naturalistic (talk • contribs)
Thank you for your note, Naturalistic. I appreciate your explanation and I think it makes sense. I do think it would be quite helpful to add even a few words to your edit summaries giving an indication of why something removed was POV content or how the edit promotes NPOV. Having limited familiarity and knowledge of the topic, it has not been clear as I look at the edits and reversions. Also, I do have a sensitivity to situations where it might appear that someone is "guarding" an article, but it isn't clear to what end or with what understanding (even assuming good faith) -- perhaps based on my own tendency to do the same in my early days as an editor.
Thanks for uploading File:WilliamSloaneCoffinJr-BiographyCover.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).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. +Angr18:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I have a global account Impro, which is occupied by the English Wikipedia. I would like to make corrections in the English Wikipedia. Could You help me to take account Impro in English Wikipedia? My main account - in Russian Wikipedia Impro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Impro-en (talk • contribs) 13:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
hello! I am member of the Georgian Wikipedia. I have a Global Account in the name of David1010 but I can not combine it with other accounts. I do not remember my password or e-mail. Maybe you can help me to join the english account with other accounts. User:David1010--94.137.169.234 (talk) 11:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion has begun about whether the article Álvaro Moreno (comedian), which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Gigs (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Brian! Could you help me to explain: if I'm the only author of a flash site, can I upload its photos to commons.wikimedia, or thus I would violate the Adobe's copyright? --Søren 21:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceroi (talk • contribs)
The New England Wikimedia General Meeting will be a large-scale meetup of all Wikimedians (and friends) from the New England area in order to discuss regional coordination and possible formalization of our community (i.e., a chapter). Come hang out with other Wikimedians, learn more about ongoing activities, and help plan for the future!
My account was just created today, but I no longer want to use it so, since I can't delete it, is there a way I can change my username from KimCyanide to (NoName)? If you can do this, thanks a lot!KimCyanide (talk) 12:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)KimCyanide[reply]
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow
In this issue:
Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
U.S. Ada Lovelace Day 2012 edit-a-thon, Harvard University - You are invited!
Now in its fourth year, Ada Lovelace Day is an international celebration of women in science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM), and related fields. Participants from around New England are invited to gather together at Harvard Law School to edit and create Wikipedia entries on women who have made significant contributions to the STEM fields. Register to attend or sign up to participate remotely - visit this page to do either. 00:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I've given him a formal warning about his use of minor edits (I see he made one after being asked not to in an edit summary) and have reverted a number of his edits. Clearly an editor with a pov agenda on race. Dougweller (talk) 09:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your note, and know that it can be tough for an excited new editor. I'm happy to try to be of help as you navigate your way around the wiki! And by the way, it is great to see you keeping these items on your talk page: although you have every right to blank it, it helps others know that they are in dialogue with you much better than edit summaries do.
My problem was just my sheer stupidity. I'd done a complete history clear and purge because of another problem, and thought my admin tabs had disappeared. In fact, the had just reverted to a drop-down instead of the tabs I had originally selected. You said you were using a custom skin, does the problem persist in Vector?
Following the drama at BN, I'm trying to come up with a statement all Crats could agree to. Please take a look, below.
I am quite content to do this onwiki -we have always worked transparently, except where secrecy is essential (ie RTV). I think we should be able to wordsmith a statement acceptable to all, and I think it's an important thing to do.
In my opinion, this issue has come about through an unfortunate proliferation of documentation: policy, guideline, how-to etc
I am not convinced that there is community consensus on all of the points encapsulated in those various pages
I am unhappy at what may be described as some or all of: inconsistencies, inaccuracies or lack of clarity in that documentation
I do not believe that any of the issues we have faced have been caused by Crats trying to widen their powers
I would like to see the issues clarified, based on consensus, and for the documentation to be updated accordingly
I'd like to thank Griot-de for generously withdrawing the rename request
Hello, Bcorr. Can you help me to usurp my own (inactive) login? I've usurped it in my native wiki and I would like to unify my name (Ceroi to Søren). --Søren 23:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceroi (talk • contribs)
is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
Hey Bcorr! We've just deployed some fixes to the VisualEditor. These include:
"Edit" will load the latest version, not the version you're looking at (bug 49943)
"Edit" will load the latest version, not the version you edited last time if this is your second edit (bug 50441)
VE edit section links will load the latest, not original, version in diff view preview (bug 50925)
<big><big>Foo</big></big> and similar repeated tags will not get corrupted any more (bug 49755)
In the meantime, testing is proceeding well, and hopefully we can get some more fixes out over the next couple of days. If you're interested in helping out, we have a set of open tasks we'd really appreciate your assistance with :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 08:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Parameter names in the template dialogue now word-wrap (50800)
The link inspector will not show in the top left if you hit the return key while opening it (49941)
Hitting return twice in the link editor will no longer introduce a new line that overwrites the link (51075)
Oddly-named categories no longer cause corruption (50702)
The toolbar no longer occasionally covers the cursor (48787)
Changing the formatting of text no longer occasionally scrolls you upwards (50792)
Not specific bugs, but other things; cacheing is now improved, so people should stop seeing temporary breaking when the VisualEditor updates, and RTL support has received some patches. I hope this newsletter is helpful to people; I'll send out another one with the next deployment :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
French
Deutsch
Thanks for uploading Image:WilliamSloaneCoffinJr-BiographyCover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media). 
){kind=link}
. --Zenman (talk) 07:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 
Hello Bcorr! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 27 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article: 
Hello. This message is to inform you that an article that you wrote recently, Charles Pillsbury, has been tagged with a notability notice. This means that it may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please note that articles which do not meet these criteria may be merged, redirected, or deleted. Please consider adding reliable, secondary sources to the article in order to establish the topic's notability. You may find the following links useful when searching for sources: "Charles Pillsbury" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images. Thank you for editing Wikipedia! VoxelBot 02:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC) 