User talk:Wikizach/Archive 4
Archive Number 4
NPOV tag
editI made a note of this on talk, but I am removing the unjustified NPOV tag again. If you feel we should brand the article in this manner, please justify with discussion per Wikipedia:NPOV dispute. Good luck in Lebanon. Cheers, TewfikTalk 04:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Elizabeth Cohen, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from As a copyright violation, Elizabeth Cohen appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Elizabeth Cohen has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If the source is a credible one, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:Elizabeth Cohen. If the article has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Elizabeth Cohen, after describing the release on the talk page. However, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Mr Stephen 22:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as John Zarrella, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://www.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/zarrella.john.html. As a copyright violation, John Zarrella appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. John Zarrella has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If the source is a credible one, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:John Zarrella. If the article has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at John Zarrella, after describing the release on the talk page. However, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Mr Stephen 22:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 | Please don't add copyrighted text to Wikipedia We appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept copyrighted text borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Please see Wikipedia:Copyright problems for more information on this topic, or generally, Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Please do not remove any copyright violation notice placed in the article or repost the suspected infringing text. |
Mr Stephen 22:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your creation of the article, Mary Snow, but we cannot accept copyrighted text borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Please see Wikipedia:Copyright problems for more information on this topic, or generally, Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Please do not remove the copyright violation notice placed in the article or repost the suspected infringing text. However, if you would like to rewrite the article in your own words, follow the link in the posted notice to create a temporary subpage. If your new article is appropriate, and not a further copyright violation, the reviewing administrator will move that new article into place once the copyright status of the original has been resolved. Happy editing! Mr Stephen 22:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Image tagging for Image:Drsquat5sm.jpg
edit
Thanks for uploading Image:Drsquat5sm.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Israel-Lebanon conflict
editI'm currently mediating a case on this conflict. Although it is not about the central issue, I'm afraid it might encompass everything related. If you have some time, please check the case page time to time, in case first-hand information becomes helpful. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 21:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Re: Esperanza ideas
editThanks for your ideas, Wikizach! It's great to see that other people are thinking about how Esperanza is run. :) Before we have a straw poll on anything, I'd suggest bringing them up for discussion on the Esperanza talk page, to see how other people respond to the ideas, and to figure out if a straw poll is even needed. Those (and other) ideas may not even need to be amended into the charter, for they may likely be able to be decided on in an informal fashion. Many things about how the elections run are not set in the charter, they have just been decided on previously. -- Natalya 22:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Re: Esperanza council/assembly meeting
editIt is currently waiting to be scheduled, due to technical issues. Because of the many time zones that the council/assembly members are in, we are opting to use the chat feature on Skype for our meetings rather then IRC, as with Skype, anyone in the chat can see the messages, even if they are not online. We are still waiting on a final council/assembly member to work out the technical problems with getting this to work, and as soon as that happens, we will be scheduling a meeting. -- Natalya 00:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Mediation
editHi Wikizach/Archive 4, Just to let you, I'm not involved in the mediation at all, I was the previous mediator, but decided to hand it over to another mediator. This is between Kierant, and Brightonkid. Thanks --Deon555|talk|e 23:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Friday Night Service
editI'd like to merge this back with Jewish services. At the moment it essentially duplicates the relevant section in that article but with the emphasis on Reform practice. As a rule, the term "you" should not be used to address the reader. JFW | T@lk 12:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for August 7th
edit
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 32 | 7 August 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
August Esperanza Newsletter
edit
|
|
|
Signpost updated for August 14th
edit |
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 33 | 14 August 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for August 21st
edit |
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 34 | 21 August 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Hellohello!
editWelcome to the Mediation Cabal! We encourage group work, so if you need any help or just want to get some suggestions on something, feel free to talk to me about. We also have an IRC freenode chatroom that we tend to use a lot for communicating, so check that out too. Good luck and have fun. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 22:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-09 Redbox
editWOW, i guess you have to use this alot to figure out how in the world to find someones email to reply or how to even leave a comment. Spent 5 mins looking for a way to reply by email. Anyway, this is in regards to Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-09 Redbox.
This entry is edited everytime outside links that compete with the link redboxcodes.com appear. When I 1st came across this link there were 3 other external links listed. I then added my link to the list only to have it removed days later. I thought maybe I entered it wrong or did something incorrectly posting since i had never used this site before. I edited my link back to the external links as well as to the main text where I added my link in context to the link listed. I never removed anyones links and only added like content to the entry.
Now it seems that all the external links are deleted and everytime I go to add my link again there all gone except for the link to redboxcodes.com which leads me to believe that they are deleteing the competing links.
Hello
editRe: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-17 Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America You are a brave person. Hats off to you for taking this case.
Since I lodge the mediation request, the page has been unprotected and we are involved in a Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America/strawpolls. I started an RfC, and the next step may be arbitration. Thus far, after two days, there has been no edit wars-- so it appears like we may be making progress.
There seems to need to be some clarification on some issues, including what is WP:NOR, what is WP:RS etc.
Zer0faults and my debates have been particularly heated, with both of us virtually taking over the talk page in long running debates. Zer0faults has stated that he wants to call admins on me several times. Twice the admins have gotten involved.
I am willing to take out several sections of the article, and I have removed several sections before the page was protected. There appears to be no comprimise from those who want to delete large sections though. Those who want to delete sections state they are only following wikiguidelines, but I have argued repeatedly that they selectively interpret guidelines to mask their own POV.
I would like the name changed to a less argumentive title, without the word "terrorism", strangely those who want to delete all of the article or portions of the article, all want the name to remain.
- American political violence or United States political violence as per suggested at Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structures_which_can_imply_a_view..
This article would benefit from a name change because of the experience I had with the page, History of United States Imperialism, which was constantly being put up for deletion. I suggested changing the title, and another user came up with the Template:AmericanEmpire suddenly all of our work was not exactly mainstream but tolerated as a real encyclopedic article.
Since then there has been no AfDs, and much of the controversy and attacks from other wikipedians have disappeared, all because of a simple name change.
Anyway, this should give you a starting introduction. Thanks again. Travb (talk) 01:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your prompt response on my talk page.
- First I think retiring the straw poll at this point would be a really bad idea. I originally made a really complex graph, a kind of straw poll . After my debating with Zer0faults, he gave up the fight, and encouraged a straw poll. User Kalsermar, who initiated the AfD, built the straw poll. Thus far three people have voted in this straw poll, and two other people voted in my complex graph. The straw poll appears like the only thing that myself and other users can agree upon. There is no possible way to build consensus when wikiusers refuse to answer questions, such as: "does x section meet WP:RS WP:V" and these same wikiusers continue to raise the bar on what other wikiusers have to jup over to allow a certain section to remain. The same users who voted yes in the Afd are the same users who started deleting large sections of the article, leading me to protect the page.
- Second I just want to please know something that is really important.
- On this page, I initiated a sockpuppet request for a wikiuser. I was completly wrong, apologized, and requested the sockpuppet page be closed. The supposed third party neutral who closed this page actually was acquaintances with the user, and even volunteered to be his advocate. I have seen this before, an alleged third party neutral is really not neutral at all.
- Can I please ask if you have ever worked with User:Zer0faults, User:Morton_devonshire, User:Mongo, User:Kalsermar, or User:Tom_harrison before? These are the major users who want the page deleted, others include User:Tbeatty. If so, you may not be the best person to mediate this debate.
- I have never worked with you before, but on the keep side, the major "keep proponents" are rootology and Seabhcan.
- The entire list of users who have commented or worked on this page or voted in the AfD is found in my complex graph.
- I just looked at all of your edits, looks like we both became wikiusers about the same time, I started in October 2004.
- Thanks for your time, good luck, you will need it with us :).Travb (talk) 02:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hope you didn't mind me asking if you knew the others. thanks for your response. I have had some really good results with mediators, so I am excited by your work, and have no doubt you will do great. Best wishes. Travb (talk) 06:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Too many invests occur in a year. Please don't start articles on them. There is an article policy within WP:WPTC. – Chacor 17:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Please tag it for speedy deletion under {{db-author}}. – Chacor 17:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Disregard the above. I have identified it as copyright violation ("Copyright © 2006 The Weather Underground, Inc."), and have tagged it as such. Please don't use copyrighted info. – Chacor 17:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
You might want to have a look at WP:WPTC and join if you haven't already. We are quite stringent with articles for systems, just as a note. – Chacor 17:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Dear Tropical cyclone editor,
As a member of the Tropical Cyclone Wikiproject, you are receiving this message to describe how you can better tropical cyclone articles. There are hundreds of tropical cyclone articles, though many of them are poorly organized and lacking in information. Using the existing featured articles as a guide line, here is the basic format for the ideal tropical cyclone article.
- Infobox- Whenever possible, the infobox should have a picture for the tropical cyclone. The picture can be any uploaded picture about the storm, though ideally it should be a satellite shot of the system. If that is not available, damage pictures, either during the storm or after the storm, are suitable. In the area that says Formed, indicate the date on which the storm first developed into a tropical depression. In the area that says Dissipated, indicate the date on which the storm lost its tropical characteristics. This includes when the storm became extratropical, or if it dissipated. If the storm dissipated and reformed, include the original start date and the final end date. Highest winds should be the local unit of measurement for speed (mph in non-metric countries, km/h in metric countries), with the other unit in parenthesis. The lowest pressure should be in mbars. Damages should, when available, be in the year of impact, then the present year. The unit of currency can be at your discretion, though typically it should be in USD. Fatalities indicate direct deaths first, then indirect deaths. Areas affected should only be major areas of impact. Specific islands or cities should only be mentioned if majority of the cyclone's effects occurred there.
- Intro- The intro for every article should be, at a minimum, 2 paragraphs. For more impacting hurricanes, it should be 3. The first should describe the storm in general, including a link to the seasonal article, its number in the season, and other statistics. The second should include a brief storm history, while the third should be impact.
- Storm history- The storm history should be a decent length, relatively proportional to the longevity of the storm. Generally speaking, the first paragraph should be the origins of the storm, leading to the system reaching tropical storm status. The second should be the storm reaching its peak. The third should be post-peak until landfall and dissipation. This section is very flexible, depending on meteorological conditions, but it should generally be around 3. Storm histories can be longer than three paragraphs, though they should be less than five. Anything more becomes excessive. Remember, all storm impacts, preparations, and records can go elsewhere. Additional pictures are useful here. If the picture in the infobox is of the storm at its peak, use a landfall picture in the storm history. If the picture in the infobox is of the storm at its landfall, use the peak. If the landfall is its peak, use a secondary peak, or even a random point in the storm's history.
- Preparations- The preparations section can be any length, depending on the amount of preparations taken by people for the storm. Hurricane watches and warnings need to be mentioned here, as well as the number of people evacuated from the coast. Include numbers of shelters, and other info you can find on how people prepared for the storm.
- Impact- For landfalling storms, the impact section should be the majority of the article. First, if the storm caused deaths in multiple areas, a death table would work well in the top level impact section. A paragraph of the general effects of the storm is also needed. After the intro paragraph, impact should be broken up by each major area. It depends on the information, but sections should be at least one paragraph, if not more. In the major impact areas, the first paragraph should be devoted to meteorological statistics, including rainfall totals, peak wind gusts on land, storm surge, wave heights, beach erosion, and tornadoes. The second should be actual damage. Possible additional paragraphs could be detailed information on crop damage or specifics. Death and damage tolls should be at the end. Pictures are needed, as well. Ideally, there would be at least one picture for each sub-section in the impact, though this sometimes can't happen. For storms that impact the United States or United States territories, this site can be used for rainfall data, including an image of rainfall totals.
- Aftermath- The aftermath section should describe foreign aid, national aid, reconstruction, short-term and long-term environmental effects, and disease. Also, the storm's retirement information, whether it happened or not, should be mentioned here.
- Records- This is optional, but can't hurt to be included.
- Other- The ideal article should have inline sourcing, with the {{cite web}} formatting being preferable. Always double check your writing and make sure it makes sense.
Good luck with future writing, and if you have a question about the above, don't hesitate to ask.
Welcome! – Chacor 18:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- In charge? Nah. :P We don't normally give anything less than tropical storms articles. There's been debate recently about new active storm articles, np agreement has yet been reached and we're taking it storm-by-storm. Generally, when there's enough impact or preparations information, or if hurricane warnings go out, we start an active article. – Chacor 18:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- To add, you might want to have a look at Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season if you intend to do Atlantic storms. That's where most of the discussion, both about systems and about whether they need articles, happen. – Chacor 18:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- To add some more, about sources, that's a reason why we wait for impact and/or preparation information - they're readily available through news sources or governmental announcements. – Chacor 18:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- I've seen. Just remember, WP:CITE and WP:V means we need sources. New information that hasn't been published should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. Good luck. – Chacor 18:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Mediation policy question
editThere are some policy questions being brought up about your mediation request. Just to let you know, if they become larger, I may have to refer this to the Arbitration Committee. WikieZach| talk 19:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Can you tell me what you are talking about? I have no idea. Travb (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- It's from a comment posted as follows, So just how do we determine what should be included here (and in similar articles), how do we name it in a way that preserves NPOV, and how should it be worded? Fagstein 17:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC) My response was that only the Arbcom or Jimbo can decide what is NPOV and so on. I just wanted to draw you attention to this in case it becomes a major issue as the mediation process continues. WikieZach| talk 19:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Goodness. Thanks for letting me know. I appreciate the beneficial work you have done thus far.
- I feared that the article would go to arbitration. When some wikiusers end goal appears to delete this article, there cannot be much comprimise in this respect. The article is either deleted, or it isn't.
- Also, as you have probably noticed, there are some vast ideological differences between the users which will be hard to comprise on.
- That said, I have been pleasantly surprised by some users (who wanted to delete the article before) are now willing to comprimise since you have started mediation. It must be satisfying in mediation to be able to bring out the best in wikiusers.
- I want to avoid arbitration, but being a pessimist (which Russians say is an informed optimist), I fear it may be inevitable.
- Your work these past few days gave me some welcome new found hope, but maybe that hope was premature. Travb (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
LostCasts AfD decision
editCould you please provide some additional rationale for your decision that there was "no consensus" on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/LostCasts? As you're undoubtedly aware, there was an external campaign mounted on a fan site to get people to come and vote, so nearly all the "Keep" votes that were cast were done so by people who'd basically never been to Wikipedia before, and who had no clue about how it differs from a fan site. I'm concerned about the precedent we're setting here, where sheer numbers prevail. A "no consensus" on an AfD is basically equivalent to a Keep, it seems to me. I'd welcome your thoughts on this. Thanks, PKtm 19:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- I stumbled across this message (it gave me an edit conflict when I was messaging Wikizach above), and I reponded to the user here: User_talk:PKtm#Re:_.5B.5BUser_talk:Wikizach.23LostCasts_AfD_decision.5D.5D Travb (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Formating
editHi; Could you fix the formating of the mediation tag you left on my talk page? It seems to apply itself to every comment that follows it. It's no big deal, and no hurry, just whenever you get to it. Thanks, Tom Harrison Talk 20:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Tom, I fixed it for you. Wikizach, to avoid this problem again, please remember |} at the end of your posts. Travb (talk) 20:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)