User:Chris 73/Archive 007

Wikimedia Foundation

If you find this page on any other site than Wikipedia, then you are viewing this from a outdated mirror. Please direct yourself to the real thing at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chris_73 or one of the subpages there.

This is an archive of my Talk page. Do not edit this page! Please leave new messages on my Talk page.

(Old archives: 001 — 002 — 003 — 004 — 005 — 006 — 007 — 008 — 009 — 010 — 011 — 012)

Chestnuts on Fir0002 FPC

Hi Chris Hope you can have a look at My Chestnut Photos Thanks, --Fir0002 11:24, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Charibize thingy

Presently on WP:CP and WP:AN/3RR. The guy just doesn't get it. Radiant_>|< 12:06, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

• I'd say he's perfectly aware of Wikipedia policy, because he's already cited a number of them out of context. Radiant_>|< 12:30, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Dang!

Thanks, dude! I appreciate that! I'll look if i can find better satelite images, but even *that* pic is excelent! Thank you!

Project2501a 21:21, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Chris, I don't want to sound aggressive but I'd appreciate it if you could leave my vote the way it was. I'd like to use this template even if nobody else does. And although the message above it saying that it has been proposed for deletion pains me, I'd like to use it while I still can. --Fir0002 09:59, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Nishina Stamp

Hello Chris, I am working on a documentary about Japan's Atomic Bomb project, I came across your article about the subject. Anyway, I found this stamp image of Prof. Nishina in your Public Domain page and I'd love to use it in the documentary. Is this picture really in the public domain/expired copyright? User:Daniel.thomson

Hi. Actually, I don't know. The image is listed in my public domain directory only because most of the images in this directory are public domain. The Nishina stamp, however, is fair use, i.e. you can use it for non-commercial purposes. I do not have a PD Nishina image, unfortunately. If you come across one, please upload it to Wikipedia. Good luck with your article. Also, if possible sign your comments with ~~~~, which will translate automatically in your signature like this: Chris 73 Talk 18:26, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Nishina Stamp

Hello Chris, I am working on a documentary about Japan's Atomic Bomb project, I came across your article about the subject. Anyway, I found this stamp image of Prof. Nishina in your Public Domain page and I'd love to use it in the documentary. Is this picture really in the public domain/expired copyright? User:Daniel.thomson

Hi. Actually, I don't know. The image is listed in my public domain directory only because most of the images in this directory are public domain. The Nishina stamp, however, is fair use, i.e. you can use it for non-commercial purposes. I do not have a PD Nishina image, unfortunately. If you come across one, please upload it to Wikipedia. Good luck with your article. Also, if possible sign your comments with Daniel.thomson 29 June 2005 14:06 (UTC), which will translate automatically in your signature like this: Chris 73 Talk 18:26, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Hi again Chris, thanks for your help. Actually its for documentary film, which is considered 'commercial-use'. But I've been in contact with the Nishina Memorial Foundation, who have granted permission and Tokyo Post, who should grant permission with the Nishina Foundation recommendation. So I guess if you want to source your image, there it is. The Nishina Foundatin are very friendly and have lots of pictures of Nishina.

29 June 2005 14:06 (UTC)~

MotoX pix

Hi Chris Hope you can have a look at these. Thanks --Fir0002 June 30, 2005 01:53 (UTC)

Thanks mate

I appreciate your support on my RFA! Lots of people to respond to :-) Ta bu shi da yu 1 July 2005 05:11 (UTC)

To: Chris

Hello, I was not doing any testing when modifying the magic exposure titles.

The purpose of a wiki and of the internet should be to improve life, not hurt the creators of magic effects which are for sale.

This is no different than a company spending millions to come up with a TRADE SECRET formula for a product, only to have the product exposed for free on wikipedia.

Perhaps some magicians do not have the legal power that big companies do, but exposing their products and hurting them from making a living is still very Unethical and should NOT be supported. 216.114.124.5 (talk · contribs)

This information is available freely. The text of our articles is not copyrighted by you. A method cannot be copyrighted. A method could be patented, but then it is still possible to describe the method. bad for you, but this information on Wikipedia is available for free. -- Chris 73 Talk July 2, 2005 19:35 (UTC)

Help!

We seem to have a new template that is really screwing with the sites formatting. See Template:TOCright. I have listed it on WP:TFD. To see how it is causing problems, see Daniel Pipes. I think this stuff should be dealt with using CSS. - Ta bu shi da yu 4 July 2005 08:06 (UTC)

Ethnic conflicts in western Poland

Chris, could you take a look at the article linked above? My first reaction was to delete whole "brutality of Prussian regime" paragraph, but then I thought maybe something of this could be npoved and what not. I have not got time for do it unfortunately :( Szopen 4 July 2005 12:09 (UTC)

I am reading through it. I will see what I can do. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 6 July 2005 15:08 (UTC)

Pennine Scenery

Hi Chris,
I was just wondering if you'd seen my adjustment to Image:Pennine_scenery.jpg. I kinda like it. --Fir0002 July 6, 2005 11:29 (UTC)

2005 London transport explosions

Hmm, this certainly isn't 9/11, and it seems to be smaller than Madrid. But go ahead if you're sure it's a good idea. Evercat 7 July 2005 12:19 (UTC)

Little Germany, New York

I translated the page you created in , but I think there is something that is not accurate :
You say that the neighborhood was in ''an area bounded by Avenues A and B and 7th and 10th Sts, but you give a population number of almost 500,000 people. How can such a little area be home to so many people ? I think the number of 500,000 is for the whole Lower East Side, where Little Germany was.
And thank you for this article, it's a very interesting one.--Revas 21:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

BTR-70

the text on globalsecurity is itself based on http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/btr-70.htm which is apparently public domain. (User:FarQPwnsJoo)

Hi again

Hi, Chris. I haven't crossed paths with you recently on Wikipedia (and I've had to significantly cut back my time here now that I'm out of school), but I just wanted to thank you again for nominating me for adminship. Especially now that I've watched WP:RFA for some time, I see that some excellent editors don't get nominated until they have accomplished far more than I, and I realize that had you not nominated me then, I most likely still would not be an administrator. Now that I'm a doctor, I can't participate in RC patrol and administrative discussions as much as I'd like, but I am still grateful for being able to roll back vandalism and block disruptive users who won't stop, and I'd like to think I have helped defuse a few conflicts as well. A recent experience on Commons where I was trying to stop a rapid-fire vandal made me realize how much I take administrative abilities for granted—I could not keep up with the vandal just using manual reversions. Also, after watching RFA, I have to admit that I'm surprised my nomination passed so easily. Maybe the climate there has changed? I had just 1000 edits and had only been here a shade over three months, and no one even commented on it. I feel like if the climate then were like it is now that I would get at least two or three opposes for that alone. Anyway, I want to thank you again for having faith in me and for drawing me further into this addicting world. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

World Community Grid

Hello, before you read on I would just like to say that I have so far only posted this to a limited amount of administrators for consultation. If you have any objections to its wider distribution or suitability for Wikipedia please let me know.'

Hi, I would just like to invite you to find out about the World Community Grid Human Proteome Folding Project. This is a purely philanthropic project and supported by a "blue chip" corporation in IBM. There is an ability to join a team once you have downloaded the software and another user has already established the Wikipedia team.

I would like to emphasise that I do not want to pressure anybody into feeling obligated and I understand the limited computer resources/access available to some. Feel free to pass this message on and thank you very much for your time, Mark83 21:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Significant objections have been raised to this. Mark83 10:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation

Hello, Sorry about this, but the image at Image:Mark_48_Torpedo_testing.jpg is, I believe, under different copyright to what is attributed. It should be under the Australian Department of Defence copyright notice, located at [1], not in public domain by the US Navy. This unfortunately means that no derivative works are allowed, and copyright is not allowed to be reassigned. The image has been listed on Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#July_27 --Nthnl 03:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators RFA

Hi Chris,

Can you take a look at Commons:Commons:Administrators. The voting there appears to be almost inactive, and given that the window for nominations is 7 days, it could probably benefit from a little more attention. -- Solipsist 06:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Abuse report

Hi Christ,

Please take a look at the user contribution of 210.213.253.74 to the entry Daniel S. Razon, he edited the entry to defame the personality of Daniel Razon.

Report Vandalism by --Mel Etitis and --Ragib

Dear Admin,

User --Ragib and --Mel Etitis are contionusly vandal the article rohingya. please see it in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rohingya&action=history. Such Violaton shall be stop . please keep wiki standard updated .violations would not be accepted by any reader of wikipedia . go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism. please advice. Thanks,--Bobjack 14:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

You are spamming lots of admin pages because of TWO DASHES???? Get real. The difference between the two versions [2] is absolutely minor, and anything but vandalism. Accusing people of vandalism when there is only a minor formatting dispute makes YOU look bad, not the others. My advice is to discuss the topic on the article talk page, and also be ready to accept that your preferred version may not be the overall best version. -- Chris 73 Talk 15:44, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Pic of the day

Hi Chris,

Just to let you know that your photo Image:Onsen in Nachikatsuura, Japan.jpg is due to make a reappearance as Pic of the Day on Friday. I've made several changes to the caption from last time, but you can correct any mistakes/make improvements at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/August 19, 2005. -- Solipsist 21:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire

Hi, Chris:

I have been cleaning up references to the Triangle fire, including redirect pages, to make them consistent. (There were about six or eight different ways being used.)

The standard I have chosen is Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire. Even the many redirect pages were not standard; some directed to themselves.

Anyway, if you'd like to 'get on board' this fascinating project (which I'm sure everyone in WikiLand will be talking about in no time), all you have to do is edit your wiki link.

Am I being too anal?

Paul Klenk 22:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Changed the link on my talk page. Usually, all redirects should point to the same thing (otherwise they do not work properly), but the links that go to the redirects are usually not fixed. Anyway, thanks for cleaning up. -- Chris 73 Talk 06:39, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Chris, thanks for the fix! It's great to do a "what links here" check and see a nice, even left margin with every single page pointing properly. Sometimes one needs a break from writing and research to do something completely mindless and mechanical. Paul Klenk 11:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Voting on jonquil flowers

Hi Chris!

Please vote on my latest indecisions! Hope you like them --Fir0002 10:22, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Typo on your map

Hello. I found a typo on your map commons:Image:Sea of Japan Map.png. "Shikkoku" should be "Shikoku". Could you fix it? --Nanshu 01:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Cute kid

Hey Chris, You have a really cute kid.

Thanks, but they are not mine. The pics are from another source. Happy editing -- Chris 73 Talk 12:36, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Shrimp farm

Hey Chris, i don't know if you have the time or interest to review an article, but if so, could you take a look at shrimp farm. The article is currently up for FAC, but I'm not asking for a vote there—I'm more interested in getting an outside view. One user keeps screaming POV, which I just don't understand. Have I developed a blind spot? (The article may still have room for improvement, especially in the economics section on the micro-economics of individual farms, and the topic of social impacts isn't explored yet, but good sources on both topics are hard to come by. But POV?) Anyway, if you look at it and think it's biased, too, break the news gently on me! :-) Lupo 10:20, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Chris. I really appreciate your taking the time to reassure me that I wasn't completely off the track. It rarely happens that I let something happening on Wikipedia touch me, but Bantman managed it. I think I'll go on with my work as I consider it right. If he doesn't like it, he should edit the article and show how to do better. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to be interested enough to do so. Lupo 14:41, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:ManganeseOreUSGOV.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ManganeseOreUSGOV.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag, so its copyright status is therefore unclear. Please add a tag to let us know its copyright status. (If you created/took the picture then you can use {{gfdl}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{fairuse}}.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know on the image description page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Otherwise, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. Thanks so much. --Nv8200p 17:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing that to my attention. When i uploaded the image I added a proper copyright tag. An anon deleted the tag for unknown reasons on February 10. I now simply deleted the image, since I have already moved it to the commons with the same name quite some time ago. Everything should be fine now. Thanks -- Chris 73 Talk 09:37, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Image:Mark 48 Torpedo testing.jpg

Could you handle the reuploading to wikipedia and removal from commons of Image:Mark 48 Torpedo testing.jpg? As it turns out (per [3]) that it isn't GFDL or CC licenced, it shouldn't be on commons and the copyright tags here need to be adjusted. Thanks in advance. --fvw* 00:24, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and it'll probably have to be defeatured too. A pity, but such is life alas. --fvw* 00:26, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Could you please handle this so it can be removed from the WP:CP backlog? Thanks. --fvw* 21:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Opposers of the vote for Gdansk/Danzig

Since I see that you've been involved in the vote for the naming of the city, please do me a favour and have a look at the article for Georg Forster and its talk page, where User:Witkacy, User:Space Cadet and User:Lysy protest against the vote, deleting the note without an explanation although it had been added by an administrator and violating the rule in the article. I've just been banned, then unbanned, because of the 3RR thanks to Witkacy so before I can continue, I need some support. Thank you in advance :)NightBeAsT 18:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The vote was a year ago, and its alleged results put Gdansk as different than any other city (with exception of the cities which changed their names, like Kaliningrad etc); example: Vilnius. We have to have consistency in the WIKI! Space Cadet 18:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Space Cadet, there's no need to try (mis)enlightening Chris about the vote because I bet you he knows more about it than you do, maybe more than you'll ever do. Bevor ich es vergesse: danke Chris. Wenn du irgendwann mal Unterstützung bei einem Kommentar oder einem anderen Wiki-rechtlichen Schritt gegen Witkacy, Molobo oder Space Cadet suchst, oder bei einer anderen Sache in Wikipedia Unterstützung suchst, sprich mich einfach darauf an, denn ich bin nicht unbedingt undankbar, unerfahren oder nicht redegewandt genug. Vielen Dank nochmals =)NightBeAsT 12:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Vasco da Gama

An article that you've edited before (Vasco da Gama) is nominated for Article Improvement Drive. If you want go there and vote. Thanks. Gameiro 02:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Gdansk and Danzig naming war

If you continue to remove Polish names and replace them with German ones i will report you to the Administrators' noticeboard. Its not the German wikipedia here.--Witkacy 12:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Witkacy, obey the Gdansk/Danzig ruling result or get problems with admins. Chris acts according to the ruling, whereas you don't. The rule aimed at stopping such revert warriors as you who think they'd have to push through their idea of the naming. You say that he replaced Polish names with German? No, actually he reverts your deleting of the German names next to the Polish, thus according to the ruling, which I would call nationalism, just not on Chris's side but on yours. If you continue to libel users and intentionally violate the ruling of the wiki consensus, which means that you even compromise wiki rules in favour of your radical views, I'd say blocking might cool your jets. Who do you think you are, Witkacy??? I'd call you a tragic hero if you were acting heroically but you'll end up more like a hateful villain in a James Bond movie with your pigheaded behaviour.NightBeAsT 12:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Witkacy

I've also listed the incident on Wikipedia:Account suspensions, because of the possibly controversial nature of the block. I'm hoping that Witkacy has the sense to accept the Gdansk/Danzig compromise; I don't really want to see that forest fire flare up again. (Oh, and you're more than welcome to steal any or all of the Adm 1 / Sci 3 etc. boxes; they're at User:TenOfAllTrades/header.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I thought as much, Chris. While I believe to have a good personal relation with Witkacy, I disagree with many of his views and he knows it; and I already told him this self appointed crusade of denial of the Gdansk/Danzig Vote resolution could only bring him trouble. Unfortunately, I think it is highly unlikely that the matter will simply end here. The problem is rooted too deeply, and this issue is just a small syntom of it. Although there are many serious editors of Polish heritage who believe in true discussion of History and Politics (like Thorsten1 or Lysy), others simply unleash a blind wave of Polish ultranationalism and anti-German fury, and don't even care to hide it (like Molobo or Space Cadet). I'm not against Poles in the least; it's fanaticism of any origin what annoys me, and this is exactly the case, like me and many other editors have experienced in Erwin Rommel, Heinz Guderian or 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend. In fact, my levels of Wikistress have skyrocketed since I first tried to collaborate on the Rommel article, and for the moment, I intend to return to other less stressing projects that I've had on hold. In case I can help on this matter, please let me know. - Shauri 16:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

" others simply unleash a blind wave of Polish ultranationalism and anti-German fury, and don't even care to hide it (like [[User:Molobo|" A silly personal attack.I see now that addition of information regarding war crimes of SS is considered hatred and fury. --Molobo 16:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

No no, posting errors is, whether intentionally (hope not) or not. Now that's great, so now I join your club of "right wing propagandists", simply for asking for the truth instead of historical mistakes and/or POVs. And you have the guts to say "I" personally attack you? After my conciliatory message at your Talk Page, and after inviting you to take part of the debate at places like Erwin Rommel or Georg Forster? Great way to attack someone, Molbo - saying that your victim is in fact your attacker...

I've argued with you regarding only two SS issues, in which your false claims were easily debunked at the end by Ansbachdragoner, namely:

• Placing the 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend at Malmedy, and
• Placing the Fallschirm-Panzer Division 1 Hermann Göring at the Warsaw Uprising.

As long af it's true, I don't care at all what you post. Furthermore, I encourage you to do so. But the main point is that not only on Nazi Germany articles, but also on many German related articles completely detached from the Nazi period, you go and stain them with anti German POVs, like at Prussia or Konrad Adenauer. Now that's fanaticism , and it's not my saying, but that of serious Polish editors whose names I won't say. It's not anti-nazism that drives you, anti-Germanism is. Take off the mask and give it up already, Molubo. Shauri 13:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

In all cases I was correct.In case of Fallschirm Panzer Division they are at least two sources given and it was accepted.In case of Konrad Adenauer, I fail to see where I was antigerman.I gave multiple sources from western scholars confirming he sought nuclear capable weapons.I advise to read on the subject before posting.Please try to look beyond your prejudices towards Polish people and be objective.--Molobo 23:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Gdansk/Danzig

You might be interested in this conversation: [4] Jayjg ^(talk) 08:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

"*1st [5]

• 2nd [6]
• 3rd [7]
• 4th [8]"

If you notice, # 3 and # 4 are notr reverts but completely independent edits. Space Cadet 11:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

No3 reverted parts of this and No4 reverted parts of this edit. I was blocked for a similar "violation" by Merowinger. You shouldn't always demand consistency, Space Cadet.NightBeAsT 11:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

1-the vote was ignored in order to push forward German name of Gdańsk.Thus it is not binding. 2-You aren't putting an English name of Gdańsk but German one.English name of Gdańsk is Gdansk. 3-Please point me to official Wikipedia rule that makes majority capable of voting what is to be put in articles and makes it binding to other users. 4-You are putting German names, not English names.The cross naming sections says that the other name should include English common names for cities.Not those used in Germany. 5-The problem is you are trying to Germanise names,not give them English versions.For example Gdynia is widely used in English, and gives 2,370,000 hits on google, yet you insist on putting German version of Gdingen, used almost only in Germany and giving only 66,500 hits on google.

--Molobo 07:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Image of "Winnemem Wintu"

Chris -

I have removed the image of "Winnemem Wintu" that the History page indicates you added in November 2004, for two reasons. First, that image is copyrighted, and may not be used without permission. Would you be kind enough to let me know the source of that image, and I will make sure that the source understands that it may not be used without permission. Second, the image is not actually that of Winnemem Wintu. While the two young women are likely indeed Wintu, they are members of the Trinity River band of Wintu, not the Winnemem (McCloud River) Wintu.

Any assistance you can offer to track down your source of the image would be appreciated.

NorCalHistory 05:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Chris - I have removed that Trinity River Wintu image from the Winnemem Wintu article again, with the request that it not be reposted in this article. First, as noted, the image is not of Winnemem Wintu women, and so is simply inaccurate to be placed here. Second, I will be looking into the copyright status (I understand your position), and ask that the image not be posted anywhere pending resolution of that status.

NorCalHistory 15:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Chris - I have checked the source page for that Trinity River Wintu image, and the source page clearly identifies the image as copyrighted 2001. Please do not repost the image, and I will seek to have the image removed from Wikipedia Commons.

NorCalHistory 15:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Chris - Thanks for your courtesy on this image. You have tickled my interest on the odd question of what is the copyright status of a work created before 1923, but not published until recently. Under the rules at the time the work was created, unlimited common law copyright rules applied. The work was not published until recently. The New York Museum situation sounds different because I'm presuming those works were created and published before 1923. Thanks again.

NorCalHistory 16:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Chris - I've chatted with a couple of friends who are copyright lawyers, and their reaction was "interesting question," and then "It's probably copyright protected" - if it was created long ago, but not published until recently. I have a few more inquiries out, and I'll let you know if they turn up anything definitive.

NorCalHistory 22:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Chris -

My copyright attorney friends have gotten back to me, and it turns out the answer is clear and straightforward - the image is definitely copyright protected. The while the image was created some hundred years ago, it was not published in the public domain and copyrighted until just recently.

The Copyright Statutes are contained within Title 17, Chap. 3 of the United States Code. Section 303(a) of that Chapter states: "Copyright in a work created before January 1, 1978, but not theretofore in the public domain or copyrighted, subsists from January 1, 1978, and endures for the term provided by section 302. ... [I]f the work is published on or before December 31, 2002, the term of copyright shall not expire before December 31, 2047." [[9]]

Hence, 17 U.S.C. Chap. 3, Sec. 303 (above) provides that the copyright "shall not expire before December 31, 2047."

You might also find the following chart, published on the website of Cornell University, to be valuable for future reference [Copyright Protection Chart].

I'm not sure about the source of the "common knowledge" that nothing created before 1923 was protected, but that is plainly not accurate! That "common knowledge" may apply to works published before 1923, but it does not apply to unpublished works.

I will seek to have the image removed from Wikipedia Commons. Thank you for your courtesy and thoughtfulness!

NorCalHistory 21:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Chris - Separately (although it sounds as though you have your hands full with other work), would it make sense for you to got through other images you have uploaded under the belief that all pre-1923 images were public domain - to double-check whether they are in fact copyright protected?

NorCalHistory 00:56, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

"disambig"

You created Einstein (disambig) and someone of course moved it to Einstein (disambiguation), where it properly belongs. One of your talk pages seems to be the only thing linking to the abbreviated version, so you may want to change that link. 160.94.219.194 21:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. Thanks for the info, I changed the links. -- Chris 73 Talk 19:54, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Palestinian terrorism and militancy

Many thanks. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:13, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

3RR

I just thought you may like to know, that the user that has accused me of breaking the 3RR has been reverting my comments on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 22:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:KidsPillowFight.jpg

Hey man, How did you add this "Metadata" table? I can't see any templates used in this pic's source. 80.178.152.156

This is part of the pic itself and was added by the digital camera. (see EXIF). If you download the full size image, and view it with a suitable viewer, you can get the metadata. (e.g IrfanView -> Image -> Information -> Button: Exif info). The coding of the Wikipedia software was changed so that the image page now shows this metadata. Another competingt format is IPTC (image meta-data). Also, the photo is not from me. -- Chris 73 Talk 21:04, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Your objections are groundless

I am going to include the foreign language names for Polish Gdansk including the german version.As to the vote it has been accused of manipulation and is dubious.Since I do leave the foreign name for Polish Gdansk however, I see nothing wrong at my actions.Please don't germanise Polish cities though.Wiki for objective information not for germanophile or german nationalistic propaganda.And please stop using your admin rights to push your own POV-its against Wiki rules. --Molobo 17:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC) There was no agreeement.The vote is a fraud. 12 votes were ignored to push naming of Gdansk Danzig in period from 1466 to 1793. The vote is not biding in my opinion since it was manipulated to ignore 12 votes.Not only that but the community has changed and thus the vote can't be seen as eternal.It is evident that the we are dealing with a fraud.--Molobo 17:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

With each message like this, with each accusation against good people like Chris who is merely following Wikipedia's rules and conducting himself with respect, with each edit summary like yours at Johannes Daniel Falk (added info on foreign names for Gdansk, including german name to satisfy germanophiles and nationalists-no breaking of "consensus"), you move a little closer and closer to RfC. Caution, Molobo - watch your step. - Shauri Yes babe? 18:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Shauri why waste your time here when there are still many war crimes of SS left to delete, Polish universities left to rename to "Polish highschools" and Polish professors to "Polish students" ? --Molobo 19:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Great work, Molombo, another uncalled for personal attack (which I won't even bother to respond)... one more step closer. Behave and learn to respect others - just an advice. It may save you trouble in the future. Shauri Yes babe? 19:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Just an observation of your edits regarding SS war crimes and Polish sources.It was very easy to check who wrote the article and where was it made.A Polish professor of a an university.Not a Polish student from a highschool.I won't even imagine what you wanted to achieve with that edit of yours. --Molobo 21:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Clarification: I suggest that you check at those edits of mine for the word "highschool". You'll see that it's nowhere to be found. The origin of such sources was unknown to me, especially since one of them was written in Polish. Query: if my interest was to simply remove all mention to SS war crimes, then why did I respect your edits and left the information and the sources you had posted previously, instead of simply removing it? Answer: I wasn't familiar with their origin, and I simply put the names of those who signed it, and left the task of clarifying the subject to you. Addendum: they still are the sole three sources in the whole wide world to my knowledge to mantain that the Hermann Goering division was present at the Warsaw uprising. Every other single exististing source, including official American and English reports, assert that it was fighting the Soviet at Modlin at the time. Although this is rather suspicious, I decided to keep them on the article as a measure of respect to your contribution. Query: would you had done the same? End of transmission. Shauri Yes babe? 21:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

" my knowledge to mantain that the Hermann Goering division was present at the Warsaw uprising. Every other single exististing source, including official American and English reports, assert that it was fighting the Soviet at Modlin at the time." If you would read the link, you would knew that there were elements of the division not the whole unit. " Every other single exististing source" I congratulate you on reading all the Polish books,scholary works and documents on Warsaw Uprising.This is something I am yet to accomplish. --Molobo 22:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC) As to Fallschirm division.I have detailed information about the elements that took part in Warsaw Uprising from historic site : http://wilk.wpk.p.lodz.pl/~whatfor/niemcy%20_w_powstaniu_warszawskim.htm If you want I can translate the information and put it into article.But its rather detailed, including the exact movements of the unit.You have a photo on the site with the soldiers from the Division. --Molobo 22:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Gdansk/Danzig again

You might remember that not a long time ago, I felt confused by the 3RR self-exemption of the Gdansk/Danzig vote. Since then, I've taken some time and looked at the archived history behind the vote and of the article itself and I think I understand now more of what happened there. I also think I understand why you are so firmly staying behind the vote, that you've authored.

I should mention here that I'm Polish, so I'm probably biased, even if I'm trying not to be. You're probably also aware that the issue of using German names for Polish towns is a highly sensitive issue in Poland, obviously because of the history.

However, leaving the above aside, I think you are mistaken, assuming that the voting result can be treated as an official policy in this case. Without going into too many details, I'm primarily concerned that such binding interpretation of the vote results contradicts the "Wikipedia is not a democracy" principle. Seriously, I consider this a very dangerous precedent. The vote results show that there are more people preferring the German name over Polish. I also think there are more German wikipedians than Polish. If we consider the vote as binding, than we agree that on Wikipedia a majority can always impose any view on a minority. Think of its implications for the quality of Wikipedia. I would expect, that being an admin, you'd stand for the Wikipedia rules and spirit. Please, do consider this and give it some thought as I did. Thanks in advance. --Lysy ^(talk) 21:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Example

An example of how this can be handled in a friendly and non-conflict manner might be the Vilnius article. Vilnius history is somehow similar to Danzig/Gdansk in that it is quite twiested, had significant ethnic majority etc. As you know, the city has been called Wilno/Wilna/Vilna throughout most of its history. There have been quite furious edit wars on historical naming in the article, resulting in at least one Lithuanian editor being blocked for a year. Obviously because of the sheer number of them, the Polish editors have much more "edit power" on the article, not leaving Lithuanian nationalists much chances in edit wars. The edit wars stopped some time ago, and the "Polish version" prevailed in history related sections. However, it seems that Polish editors also understood that they should be a bit more respectful and sensitive towards Lithuanian feelings, and eventually the Polish name was replaced with "Vilnius" and remains in the lead section only. Am I being naive ? --Lysy ^(talk) 09:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Not getting into too many details, I would like to seek for a better solution for Gdansk/Danzig naming issue. I appreciate the voting as your attempt to stop the edit wars. I think it was a first step in the right direction but we should not be stoping there. I believe you'll agree that so far it failed to avoid the edit wars, on the contrary, it has shown that there are two groups of editors that have extreme and opposite views on this, seemingly petty, issue. Obviously, one of the groups is larger, the other is smaller, but this looks much more like a conflict, not a consensus to me. What's worse the enforcement apparently irritates some more hot-blooded Polish editors, who are now wasting their (and others) time in revert wars and getting blocked, which only leads to more frustration. This is not the solution that you were looking for, is it ? Because the vote was prepared quickly, both its procedures and the results have many flaws that can be exploited either to circumvent or to question the outcome. I'm deliberately not listing them, but I'm sure you are already aware of many yourself.

My conclusion is that we should go a step further and make it into an official Wikipedia policy. This said, I don't think that a policy should focus on naming of a particular city (Gdańsk/Danzig) only, but should rather be both general enough to be applicable universally (e.g. for place naming in Europe) and simple enough to be useful. So what I'm saying is that we should work on an official naming policy now, that would not get questioned as easily and would not be perceived as unjust majority rule at the same time. What do you say ? --Lysy ^(talk) 08:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

An alternative solution could be allowing the revert wars on naming. If they want to fight, let them do it, as long as they don't vandalize the articles at the same time. I would then even make all the revert wars on place names exempt from 3RR, in order to make administrator's life easier. Or, another extreme would be imposing a 1RR rule on Gdansk/Danzig reverts. This should help keeping the revert wars down. But my suggestion is to work on official place naming policy, as I explained above. --Lysy ^(talk) 09:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

German names versus English accepted names

" For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) or Gdańsk (Danzig). An English language reference that primarily uses this name should be provided on the talk page if a dispute arises." Google 319,000 for Thorn Poland. 2,790,000 for Torun Poland.

13,400 for Ermland Poland. 210,000 for Warmia Poland.

19,500 for Frauenburg Poland. 72,800 for Frombork Poland.

14,700 for Gdingen Poland. 1,650,000 for Gdynia Poland.

If you are telling others to obey the rule, you should do the same, and put English accepted versions of names-Torun for Toruń, Frombork, Gdynia etc.\ You said on my page: -Please do not remove the alternative English name, since they are still in use for native English speaker- However it is you who removes the English used names in favour of German ones. --Molobo 09:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Wieder Moin Moin, Chris! Molobo has continued to remove Thorn and Braunsberg from Warmia and suggest that Torun (without diacretics) is the alternative that should be listed. I dislike revert wars, so I am trying to discuss it at Talk:Warmia... BTW, do you intend that your Cathedral of Magdeburg statement on your User page links to Historical Eastern Germany instead of East Germany? Olessi 01:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Thorn Poland 325,000 Google hits Torun Poland 1,070,000 Google hits Toruń Poland 533,000,000 Google hits --Molobo 01:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC) " If you do, you go against the wishes of over 70% of the voters at the Gdansk vote. " Really ? As I see it 12 voters were ignored.As to Toruń and Gdynia please use English accepted version of names instead of names used mostly only in German, remember that this isn't German wiki. --Molobo 09:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC) As to the vote-only version of Gdansk(Danzig) was agreed,nothing was said about using Gdingen or similiar German only names. Furthermore there is no official Wiki policy that makes the vote binding. --Molobo 09:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: User:KnowledgeLoser

Hehe—thanks, Bishonen and Chris, for your sharp eyes. I did find it pretty amusing, though. It looks like User:Iasson was upset that I blocked User:Bank Able today. At least this was more creative than the tired old user-page vandalism. And this is my first real impostor! — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Pufferfish

Hello, my thing is to document every featured article that made it to the Mainpage. After watching for a while it seem that some articles evolve and some devolve. I thought that documenting the Mainpage date is important in that it is sometimes pivotal in the article's future direction. Although Pufferfish no longer meets the FA criteria, it is important to recognize that it was on the Mainpage. Cheers from --hydnjo talk 08:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey

Thanks a lot for your contributions to "Hikikomori".