User talk:Noitall/archive 2

Your view on Category:LGBT rights opposition

Noitall- You are completely correct on Category:LGBT rights opposition, totally POV. This category should be deleted ASAP to comply with Wikipedia's NPOV. People like Senator Rick Santorum, are not necessarily against giving rights to all those people in the acronym, but just opposed to changing the law to create brand new rights for a minority of the US population.

7/24/2005- Yetiwriter

• Thanks. I lost the vote in a big way, so I'll take my lumps. If they called it something different and filled it with both sides, perhaps it would be ok. But then it wouldn't be any use to them. Oh well. --Noitall 04:35, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

9/12/2005- Anon user from Lincoln pages

Noitall, for someone who claims to be balanced and impartial, you do one heck of a job taking sides. Unlike you, I'm from Illinois. Unlike you, I've read books about the time period and places Lincoln lived (and not just the idiotic popular books by celebrity historians either!). I've even known people who did research based on IL State Archives material that was published decades ago about the life of Lincoln during his legislative years. I tried citing this, and you declared it "original research." Claiming I balanced the overtly biased and one-sided statements with other biased statements is fine, but it angered me when you deleted everything for what seemed to be a mere whim and an antagonism to the truth. I never once claimed Lincoln was gay. I simply was opposed to unfair criticism from pseudo-experts, like the Time magazine man you favor (as if Time was ever intellectual!). I will continue to try and balance articles on Lincoln and Speed, et al, and I will complain every time you force non-relevant psychological garbage on Wikipedia. Your opinion that an anti-gay sentence, for instance, is the correct balance to a non-biased sentence that merely raises the issue of Lincoln's alleged homosexuality, was obvious to the person who later deleted it (not me that time). It should've been obvious to you, and if that's what you think of "fair and balanced," then you need to buy a better dictionary. Signed, Anonymous Illinoisan

You have written a book on here and I have no idea what you are talking about except that you are pushing your POV. Please don't write another book that does nothing but attempt to justify your blanking on another page. --Noitall 04:32, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

The book I've quoted to you already, for you information, is called, "Lincoln's preparation for greatness: the Illinois legislative years," by former Illinois Sen. Paul Simon. I was incorrect on the original publication date- it seems it was 1965, even earlier than I said, and it was published by University of Oklahoma Press, at Norman, Okla. Signed, Anon in IL

Questions on Ishmael Talk page

Please see questions I've put up. I'm trying to understand what your position is. RossNixon 09:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Moving cats

Well, as it turns out, there is a Categories to be renamed or something like that mentioned at WP:CFD...but what I did was just to create the new cat name, since the number of links was minimal, and just fix the various misspellings. The problem is that apparently there's a subst tag that I was supposed to have used, but never saw, so now the listing shows up (because I manually inserted it from the link on the misspelled cat page) on the CFD log for today, but it doesn't show up on the main CFD page.  :-/ Tomer ^TALK 21:59, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the help and work here. If there is anything I can do, let me know. --Noitall 22:02, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

It appears to have worked itself out. :-) Tomer ^TALK 22:21, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, I added 2 stub tags to the United States Naval Academy Cemetery article...I would have added Template:Cemetery-stub, but such a stub doesn't seem to exist. I don't know if that's been discussed previously in the cemeteries or stubsorting projects. Tomer ^TALK 22:25, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

OK...the offending misspelled cat has been whacked. Anything else I can help with? Tomer ^TALK 03:18, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

RfC for anon guy

Howdy, Noitall. I like to keep conversations un-fragmented, so I responded to you on my talk page. I sometimes forget that not everyone reads the notice at the top of my talk page. :-) android79 04:00, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Shehzad Tanweer

Tanweer is, with little doubt, the Aldgate bomber. However, there is as yet no evidence that he knew what the others planned. There is no evidence that he worked in concert with them on their attacks. He could simply have been handed a rucksack that morning and made his own mind up what to do with it. They might all have done so. The targets were not necessarily chosen with any particular care. So, frankly, that makes it a matter of opinion that Tanweer bears responsibility for any of the other killings -- something that we could discuss in the article but that has no real place in a statement of the facts at the start of the article. Remember, we are not here to put simply what the Western media suppose, or what we feel ourselves is the case. NPOV involves more than that. Some editors feel it is okay to be a bit loose with NPOV with subjects who are particularly vilified, but I hope you'll agree that those are the subjects where we ought to be most careful. I'll ask you to review your revert and return the article to the more neutral formulation that I suggested, or at the very least to defend the edit that you are so keen on reverting to, which subtly pushes an opinion about Tanweer and, subtlety notwithstanding, is not entirely neutral. Grace Note 05:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your argument. If there are specific doubts as to some culpability, then analyze such info down below. But they have excellent info already, tracking his movements and beliefs. I don't think Wiki needs to be held to Johnnie Cochran standards for assessment of blame. And I greatly object to a POV accusation that is clearly not the case, when tons and tons of evidence, including that picture, has been presented. -- Noitall 05:57, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Jesus

Want to explain this edit? What, in particular, was wrong with the edits that user made? They were sourced correctly and factual.

I must say, I'm not in particular impressed by your revert. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, that's sounds ruder than I expected. This was not my intent. I just am not sure why the material has been constantly removed. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Simple, I guess. I agree with Rossnixon and JimWae that the edits are bad edits and don't add anything except confusion. --Noitall 14:19, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

hmmm... that editor has clarified several paragraphs. Now I double-check the paragraph, you were all correct. It should not have been in the lead section. I actually think I said this... sorry, must have been having a bad day. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Discussion archive

Usually the discussion archive link is placed on the talk page at the top, instead of on the userpage itself. Might be easier to find that way for people reading your talk page. --tomf688^<TALK> 20:54, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Tom. I have found people misusing the archive, so that is why I placed it there. --Noitall 20:59, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Well whatever works for you. Just a thought. :) --tomf688^<TALK> 21:03, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

SIIEG invitation

please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:SIIEG --Zeno of Elea 04:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for keeping me informed about such issues. I must say, however, that I hold to the policy that a religion's beliefs and all the nuances can only be stated with accuracy by a believer in that religion. Thus I do not edit statements regarding the beliefs of other religions. It is also my opinion that if others held to this policy, there would be less editing diputes and a lot less aggravation on many articles. I will edit historicity and effects (e.g., Islamist terrorism), but the belief part is, in my opinion, not appropriate for me to get involved. --Noitall 22:16, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Apostles Creed

I've made a proposal at Talk:Apostles Creed#Proposal upon which I'd like your thoughts. JHCC (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Not taking poll seriously

I had hoped that it'd be clear that by starting a poll I'm willing to back down on the issue if I'm outvoted. But you can't even show the common decency to vote seriously on it, opting instead to call me names (again). Why don't you want to follow the officially suggested channels for conflict resolution? DondleAtkinson 20:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I didn't call you a single name. I said that your action to insert offensive names and body parts into a serious article was juvenile. --Noitall 20:34, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Well I am sorry, I stand corrected on the name-calling. I am still hurt by your refusal to take the poll seriously. If you read the Wikipedia definition of vandalism you will see that that has not taken place. DondleAtkinson 20:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

You aren't a bad person, I just don't know why you insist on something clearly juvenile. It is vandalism, "Silly vandalism" and "Attention-seeking vandalism". --Noitall 20:59, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

It's not vandalism because it's not a joke (his name really is an anagram, and it really is in wide-spread common use as an example), and how could I possibly attain attention through it? Nothing can be "clearly juvenile" as juvenile is a matter of opinion. I don't understand why, when presented with the opportunity to get your way by playing by the rules (the poll), you choose not to take it seriously. DondleAtkinson 21:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

That's enough. Any further comments on this subject, please take to the Talk:Spiro_Agnew page where I can better ignore them. Thank you. --Noitall 21:23, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Hits

Oh, don't worry about me taking hits; I'm quite used to it. ;-) I haven't gotten around to looking properly at your issue yet, as I've had a lot of other requests, some of them time-sensitive. I did take a brief look yesterday and was going to look in today to see whether the reverting was continuing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:15, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

I stopped trying to insert my edit, so his reversion has stood. But all day today he trolled my edits and changed them and tried to stir up trouble on other resolved issues. --Noitall 00:18, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Can you give examples of the pages he's done this on? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:24, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Sure, just today:

• On Talk:Abraham, he reverted to purposely attempt to cause problems in a long-running dispute.[1]

In the Qur'an, Abraham is described as ... father of ... the Ishmaelites, generally identified as the Arabs, through his son Ishmael (see:Arab connection).. I restored this, which Noitall deleted. It is definitely in the Qur'an - ask any Muslim (don't ask me, I'm not one). ~~~~ 20:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Where I thought I was being helpful getting rid of obscene material, he chimed in [2]

Porn is not a violation of the rules, and does not satisfy CSD. What is or is not suitable is heavily debated. Wikipedia is not censored, e.g. Image:Flaccid_and_erect_human_penis.jpg, and Image:Masturbation.jpg. If an article is pornographic, and considered inappropriate for any article whatsoever, it should be IFD'd. It does not meet CSD. See User:Evil Monkey/Nudity. ~~~~ 20:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• He followed me to your talk page to comment

Actually, I went to SlimVirgin's talk page for an entirely different reason (the "Sjakkalle's dictatorial move" section, and just happened to notice the section about me - it was called "-Ril-" so I could hardly not notice it, and responded there first. ~~~~ 20:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• This one is not as direct, but earlier he followed me on to this page to start up an issue that had been “resolved” and continued it today [3]

How is adding a link to a very recently created article starting up an issue that had been resolved? And I didn't follow Noitall there, I added the link to all suitable articles. See "What links here" at the bible prophecy article. ~~~~ 20:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• about 30 images that I labeled as obscene and labeled as Speedy Delete, he followed behind changing, see some discussion here: User talk:Android79. When I modified my edit, he then went back on and changed mine again. Here is an example (most of them are pretty nasty) from just 1 of the 30 images: [4], and then a revert [5] and another revert after I put an even greater explanation in: [6]

Again, porn is not a violation of the rules, and does not satisfy CSD (criteria for speedy deletion). What is or is not suitable is heavily debated. People's opinions of what is and isn't obscene also vary wildly, e.g. a picture of a woman's naked (lower) leg is generally considerd obscene in Iran. Wikipedia is not censored, e.g. Image:Flaccid_and_erect_human_penis.jpg, and Image:Masturbation.jpg. If an article is pornographic, and considered inappropriate for any article whatsoever, it should be IFD'd. It does not meet CSD. ~~~~ 20:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect. User:Noitall is correct that the images should be deleted. It has been stated many times that any photo whose sole purpose is to arouse, or otherwise depicts a sexual act should only be included if deemed absolutely necessary. Wikipedia is not a pornography site, and pornography has no place in an encyclopedia. Agriculture 20:47, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, most of the images were pornographic and not encyclopedic, but Noitall applied CSD tags to the images. They are not candidates for speedy deletion. They can be taken to IfD as -Ril- suggested, if deletion is desired. Most of them already have been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because no copyright information was provided with them. android79 21:00, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

--Noitall 01:06, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Deleted image

Were you planning on listing this on IfD at some point? The notice is rather pointless without the corresponding discussion on the image's deletion. Personally, I think that this doesn't need an IfD tag, as it already has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images, and there appear to be no other valid reasons to list it at IfD. Your call, though. android79 17:23, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

I think that having multiple reasons is fine, especially when the image is inappropriate. --Noitall 15:56, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

I think the point is that, as it is indicated on WP:IFD, there are 3 steps to put an image in ifd, not just tagging it with {vfd}, so he's pointing you the crucial step to add the entry to the list of ifd's images under the proper date. I've added the Kerissa Fare image that you tagged on such drini ☎ 04:30, 31 July 2005 (UTC)list under July 31 (since you missed to do it 2 days ago).

Thanks. Did not realize it took 3 steps (shouldn't there be some Wiki code or something?). --Noitall 04:32, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Move from CfD to VfD

Hi there. I have moved the discussion about Wikipedia:WikiProject Conspiracy: The London bombing Conspiracy Guild to this VfD as this is really an article, not a category. -Splash 17:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Lincoln

Lincoln, Nebraska is named "Lincoln". Lincoln Heights, Ohio is named "Lincoln Heights". Both of them were likely named in honor of Abraham Lincoln, but Lincoln, Massachusetts, Lincoln, Vermont, Lincoln, Alabama, Lincoln, Arkansas and Lincoln, New Hampshire (as well as others), which are all named "Lincoln", were far more likely named in honor of Lincoln, Lincolnshire, not in honor of good ol' Abe. Tomer ^TALK 22:53, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

• I got that part, I just have not gone through the list to see which was which. I thought that the headers on the page should state "Abraham Lincoln" or "Lincoln, Lincolnshire" or unknown. What do you think? --Noitall 22:56, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, I thought to just leave it be until somebody goes through and said which are which, and once it's known, then to go through and put a § or ¶ or whatever next to each, and then at the bottom, say something like:

§ Named in honor of Abraham Lincoln

¶ Named after Lincoln, Lincolnshire

Make sense? Tomer ^TALK 23:51, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Sure, but do we need to headers for things named Lincoln and Lincoln names? --Noitall 04:21, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I dunno. We should probably be having this discussion on Talk:Lincoln tho.  :-p Tomer ^TALK 06:15, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind at all... in fact, I consider it a compliment, which goes a long ways to balm the gashes I've been dealt here, and so, for that, I thank you. That said, I think the above discussion is worthwhile, and I really do think it should be taken up at Talk:Lincoln. The issues (both of them) are valid, and I'd like to reach some kind of resolution, at least as a place to start from, going forward. Tomer ^TALK 07:22, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Archive 1

I've noticed that you have an archive that is not currently linked on this user page. If you want you can add a link at the top of the page like this: [[User_talk:Noitall/archive_1]] or [[User_talk:Noitall/archive_1|Archive 1]] so others can access previous statements made on your talk page. Anyway I just wanted to bring it to your attention because it can help keep things organised for reference, etc. Derktar 01:56, August 4, 2005 (UTC).

If you read what's in archive_1 and the things said here already on this page, you'll find that noitall already knows that, and has specifically chosen not to link it from this page, because he doesn't want trolls vandalizing the archive. Tomer ^TALK 03:02, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you both :) --Noitall 04:20, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Oops sorry, I didn't take an in-depth look into the archive, my apologies Derktar 21:39, August 4, 2005 (UTC).

cfd? shouldn't that be vfd?

I think you munged the template. shouldn't that be vfd? JDR

I munged it alright. Thanks. --Noitall 19:05, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Charmer

IRC user "Tomer_" suggested that you might want to add this edit's summary text to your "list of charmers": [7]

Enjoy. -Harmil 00:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Pius confusion

Dear Noitall,

I have read your self-reverted post at Pope Pius XII and I want to explain it to you:

The current Pope is styled "His Holiness" - that's the equivalence of "His Majesty" etc, see Pope Benedict XVI

Those canonized as saints (Popes or not) are called "Saint ...", e.g. Pope Pius X

Those beatified (Popes or not) are called "Blessed ...", e.g. Pope John XXIII

One notch further down in the process of Beatification and Canonization is the declaration that someone's life was of "heroic virtue". After this declaration the person (Pope or not) is called "Venerable ...", e.g. Pope Pius XII or the Venerable Bede.

Note that "Venerable" is not used very often since the person mostly continues to "Blessed" and/or "Saint".

So no inconsistency.

Str1977 23:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I found some of that out and that is why I reverted my edit (originally thinking it was a descriptive term, not a title). But I do not know Wiki policy with regard to titles. Mick Jagger, knighted, is only known as "Sir Mick" as a sort of joke, and not on the intro to the Wiki page. It seems the consistency is that honorary titles are not necessarily used, but job titles are. So Queens and Kings and Popes are job titles, but I am still not certain about honorary titles. This must have been discussed before as some sort of Wiki policy. --Noitall 00:10, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry that I have to keep on reverting your edit on Zoroastrianism. Could you please elaborate on why you think it should be Persian. I don't understand why "anywhere it talks about origination or history it must be Persian" - that's valid only if it actually talks about Persians in the narrower sense.

I think Iranian is better since it encompasses not just the Persian people but other peoples of the Iranian culture as well, e.g. Medes and others. As far as I know, Zoroaster was not "working" in Persia but in Bactria. Also your versions links to Persian Empire that starts in 550 and to the article on it starting with 648. Though personally I'd place Z. in the early 6th century most disagree, placing him much earlier, way before the Persians.

Please consider this before reverting again. Str1977 00:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Because there was no Iran. Referring to Iran during Persian times is like referring to Turkey in the time of the Ottoman Empire and Persian times, it is an anachronism. We don't use the word Iraq when we are referring to Babylonian. As for the timeframe, the page works, but I am not certain I linked correctly to the right chapter for the correct timeframe. --Noitall 02:11, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Iraqi civil war

The article has recieved a re-write and I've given it a serious beating with the NPOV hammer - you might wish to take a look at it again and see if it deserves a keep on VfD. =) Xaa 02:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your supportive comments. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Please review my most recent comment. Thanks.69.209.216.128 07:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Suicide bombing

Nice additions, they add to the context of the article, although I'm a little unsure about the assertion that "campaigns involving the targeting of civilains have never won a war" - what about the FLN or certain factions of the African National Congress? I reverted the last edit by Humus Sapiens, because they just edited loads of material out, including the Yassin quote - which I think is one of the most interesting quotes in the article. I think a focus on the rhetoic employed by the terrorists is central to the article, and what makes it more informative than many mass media reports on the same subject.illWill 17:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. The article source addresses the FLN, stating that they transformed into a mass political movement. This is the closest case on point, however and only potential weakness to the argument (but it is Algeria, so even if it is an exception, one could hardly say that success was achieved). The ANC never intentionally targeted civilians, or even people, they targeted infrastructure. Their policy was the targeting and sabotaging the goverment's resources, with a philosophy of avoiding bloodshed at all costs. Most would say that this was not terrorism, certainly the kind of terrorism via suicide bomb attack that we are faced with today. Further, the ANC garnered sympathy and support not through violent means, but through world recognition of their oppression, which resulted in a mass political movement bring Mandela to power. --Noitall 19:25, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you on the Algeria point - I meant success in the sense that they got rid of the French, although it is certainly true that they left behind a legacy of violence which continues to cause problems for them. I wouldn't personally describe the ANC as terrorists, though there are certainly some parallells with PLO/Fatah in that they provided unofficial support (via Winnie Mandela) for factions which could certainly be described as terrorist - mainly via actions against other African groups.illWill 20:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I hate to undermine my own good argument, but I did think up 2 instances where a short term objective was achieved when the other side was not committed -->U.S. in Lebanon (withdrawal after barracks bombing) and Spain in Iraq (after Madrid bombing). Those were instances where the political will was very low or even unfavorable and the bombing was the little push they needed to eliminate foreign domestic support. But in either case, the "war" was not won (Syria invaded the first and we haven't missed Spain in the 2nd). --Noitall 20:33, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I think the Spain and Iraq one might not count (although it probably does to Al Quaida) - the election was going to be close anyway, and it was the ruling party trying to blame it on ETA in order to win votes which probably got them voted out in the end. Here in Britain, Labour may well lose the next election, but I'm not sure how much effect the recent bombings will have that could be separated out from a series of unpopular foreign and domestic policies - our presence in Iraq was already fairly unpopular with the general public. It would be very hard to measure, as the wording of an opinion poll could totally change the replies. I think most of these cases are grey areas, and it's pretty difficult to measure "success" when the two sides (assuming that there are only two) have radically different ideas of what that term means.illWill 21:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Iraqi Civil War, again

I like the contribution you made at the top, but I'm afraid it lends the impression right at the beginning that the article is contradicting itself. Also, I'm afaid someone's going to bean you on that first sentence and demand a cite. I want to keep that point in the article, however. Give me a few minutes to fiddle with it, then check back and tell me what you think. =) Xaa 02:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Excellent edit on the opposing views. My only comment is that at least one or two summarizing sentences need to be put in the intro. If there are more than one viewpoint, they need to both be in the summary. --Noitall 02:46, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Good point. Lemme fiddle with it some more - check back in a few minutes. =) Xaa 02:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

All set. Now how's it look? =) Xaa 02:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, nice tweak on the first sentence. I like. =) Xaa 03:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

It looks pretty good. I would almost change my vote. I'll have to sleep on it. --Noitall 03:16, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Okiedoke. =) Xaa 03:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism

I dunno. Like I said tho, I just hope it can be worked out amicably and not turn into a replay of Danzig/Gdańsk. :-\ Tomer ^TALK 02:55, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Iraqi Insurgency

Now you see why I jumped on board with this article. The "Opposing Views" section made it worth my time. I think "hidden" articles are going to be the only way to avoid edit wars until Wiki policy changes, simply because it's too easy for just two editors who have the same view to completely dominate an article, and change it to suit their personal political or religious outlook. I am currently working on a suggestion to attempt to address this problem. Xaa 20:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• I think the proposal I posted to here is a better solution overall - it resolves more than the VfD problem, but also resolves the very problem you are having right now; if it doesn't cite, it doesn't stay. Xaa 19:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• The problem I have (along with much of the Wiki world) is not with editing, it is with -Ril-, who is a very mean and vengeful vandal. As for your suggestion about editing, I think you already have it as the default position when editors get in a dispute. By making a formal procedure of it, however, it basically says just copy from news articles. I think there is much more to writing and sourcing than that. You are a good writer from your editing on Iraqi civil war and I think that policy is too limiting. If I were to get in a dispute with you over some argument or fact, however, the default is always to back it up with sources. --Noitall 19:29, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

RFC

The RFC is now (20:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)) live. You may comment. But

1. YOU MAY ONLY COMMENT IN THE "OUTSIDE VIEW" section, you are not the subject of the RFC (the only person entitled to edit the "response" section).
2. You may not add comments from other people. They must add their own comments if they wish to do so.

Violating either of these, and especially the second, is widely considered extremely inappropriate behaviour, and liable to result in an immediate block.

~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 20:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

GET YOUR THREATS AND WARNINGS OFF MY PAGE YOU VANDAL

• On a completely separate note, I was wondering if you might refactor the layout of your comments on this RfC. I think the addition to UC's response really belongs in an Outside View, or at least in an appropritaely titled separate section. It makes endorsement clearer and less ambiguous. Also, your addition to the Outside View is more by way of a comment and might keep things cleaner on the talk page, or as part of the new Outside View you could create as above. I'm not asking you to remove anything at all, just suggesting that the endorsements/not endorsements are clear in what they are endorsing. -Splash 23:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I am not exactly certain exactly the format you have in mind. I don't mind if you want to reformat or move things around. It would be good to have an outsider make things more clear. --Noitall 23:27, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I've done more or less what I had in mind. I don't think I have changed the meaning of what you said, although I had to play with '#' and ':' to make it work! -Splash 23:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Much better. Thanks! --Noitall 23:51, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

-Ril-/~~~~ trolling and stalking

-Ril- has stalked me on over a 100 pages by now, so I am going to monitor his trolling and stalking. I will be erasing any comments by -Ril- from this page. If -Ril- feels the need to say something, please say it on your talk page and I will find it and (maybe) respond. --Noitall 19:45, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

1. George W. Bush, see discussion [8]

• I see, then in that case there is no reason his ambiguous addition needs to remain.--MONGO 19:53, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

User -Ril- is rewording and deleting your comments on his talk page, I pointed it out and restored it but he deleted that too.[9] I put it back again, although it will just get deleted again.Voice of All(MTG) 20:14, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

He is also in violation of WP:3RR...I'd report him but low on time now.--MONGO 20:17, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

He just deleted my 2nd restoration too claiming that "it is his talk page."Voice of All(MTG) 20:19, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I would let him delete all he wants to on his talk page. The problem is his deleting all sorts of other pages. Let's not bother him on his talk page if he does not want it. But thanks for attempting to resolve a (probably) unresolvable problem. --Noitall 20:23, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Why hasn't he been blocked yet?Voice of All(MTG) 20:30, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know whether we need to file a seperate RfC directed against him or not. The issue is sort of being discussed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/UninvitedCompany. What do you think? --Noitall 20:33, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Report him for WP:3RR, POV pushing etc.--MONGO 20:37, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Possible page vandalism too...cut and paste IP: 81.77.0.25 into search query[10]--MONGO 20:43, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, wondering about that. Anyhow, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. --Noitall 20:54, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Anyone know where -Ril- is from? Any idea of his IP? Can only an Admin find his IP? --Noitall 23:51, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe...depends on the reasons...ask User:David Gerard maybe?--MONGO 00:30, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

He is apparently from the UK according to his discussions and user info.--MONGO 00:34, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

It is 81.156.176.160 and possibly in Amsterdam.

Comes up as London for me.--MONGO 09:34, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Run 81.77.0.25, the vandal. --Noitall 09:39, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Preston, U.K. (England) 77% probability. One may originate from London or Preston, U.K. or vice versa to link with ISP servers. Also, your link to the Rfc didn't work or are you just starting it?--MONGO 09:45, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind, working now, thanks.--MONGO 09:46, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Why are there, like 3 or 4 users who go by the name "Ril", formated a slightly different way...to me they may not be sockpuppet accounts, but there also may be some interrelationship.--MONGO 19:29, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/-Ril-

"Some/others"

Shamil Basayev. What's this "some" and "others"? NPOV doesn't mean that you have to weasel your way out in an absolutely transparent way. --VKokielov 03:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I have no idea your argument. --Noitall 04:51, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

I think I found your problem. Please see that talk page on the section, "How to edit." --Noitall 04:59, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Writing RFC's

Believe me, I understand exactly how you feel. I've got three I'm working on half-heartedly. I feel like it's such a waste of my time that I have to write up a laundry list of other users' behavior in order to get something done about it. I'd be writing up 4, but the fourth problem editor never logs in!  :-\ No worries about your getting offended, I just hope you realize, now at the very least, that no offense was intended on my part. Tomer ^TALK 11:52, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely, I realy thought that the 72 hour ban and everything people said on the other RfC would just allow him to say that he won't edit my stuff, oh well. I hope I don't do any more, certainly not 3 at once! --Noitall 14:26, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

You need to wikilink in lots more examples of the alledged items, such as vandalism, sockpuppetry, stalking, etc....just to help you out.--MONGO 07:57, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Hey Noitall, just so you know I fixed the wikiformatting so that the numbering didn't keep starting over. Hope you don't mind. Tomer ^TALK 21:24, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Full Support

Hey Noitall, I know you and I have had our differences, but I would just like to let to you know you have my full support against User:-Ril- his behavior towards you is inexcusable. Should you decide to take this to ArbCom, I will back you 100%. Agriculture 18:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. We had our difference on one article and one instance in the past, but I think we are both past it. I realized the idiocy of what I was actually arguing for and am now attempting to take a break or try new methods if I do not get my way, especially depending on the relative importance of the issue. I also learned to try to be a little less obnoxious, something that is easy to fall into when you are anonymous. --Noitall 20:01, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

GWB

I took the info out. It was tied as far as the poll but kizzle, JamesMLane and one other person who registered up in option 1 also stated they didn't think the reference to Blair belonged. That made it more like 8 to 4 in favor of removal. It isn't that big a deal to me...tried to balance the garbage about the whole world being opposed to the Iraq war with their own medicine that 80 to 60 percent of those in the U.K., Germany and France all felt that the Iraqi people would be better off in a post Hussein Iraq. Can't figure that one out...how they are so opposed to the war, but still think that the world is better off without Saddam...it doesn't make any sense...did they think he was going to just step down? Anyway, maybe the entire section needs to be recrafted...I think the opinions of the President are not noteworthy on an international level...the part about them preferring Kerry to Bush also has no business being in an encyclopedic article.--MONGO 12:55, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Right. How do you distinguish from plain anti-American, anti-superpower, anti-foreigner sentiment? --Noitall 13:04, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Well, good point....but we need to substantiate that the bias is inherently against the subject (Bush, superpower, and probably anti-American) and thus likly to be without merit...I don't dispute that at all...--MONGO 13:12, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Image:autofellatio 2.jpg

Are you trying to propose this image for deletion? If so you'll have to list it on WP:IFD as well as tagging it. The speedy deletion tag you inserted isn't going to work because it doesn't fall under any criteria for speedy deletion. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 13:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. What about the fact that it was deleted once before? --Noitall 14:10, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I'd just like to say... holy crap, what is an image like that doing on Wikipedia. Agriculture 17:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I came here intending to deliver the same message as Tony, so I'll respond. As far as I can tell, it was not deleted once before. It failed to achieve consensus at IFD once before. It does not qualify for speedy deletion, and if you want it to face IFD again you have to list it there. LizardWizard 20:50, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Tony, slow up, give me some time to list it since I haven't done it before. --Noitall 21:14, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

No problem. I removed the csd since LizardWizard stated that it was not deleted before and I understand that obscenity is not a reason for csd. --Noitall 21:43, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget to vote yourself Noitall. Agriculture 22:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency

I thought given our mutual interest in Decency on the Wikipedia, and the on going vote for the image mentioned above, it might be a good idea to coordinate our efforts on future projects of a similar nature, and provide a forum to alert users with similar standards of decency and requirements that images be encyclopedic. As such, I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency, if you know anyone else who might be interested in the same sort of thing, spread the word. Agriculture 05:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Great. I support it. --Noitall 05:13, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I've advertized the WikiProject on several relevant talk pages (Talk:Christian, Talk:Roman Catholic Church), we should work on recruiting some members this week to bolster the power of the project and to spread the word about ongoing events to users who might not be aware of some of the votes to preserve decency, and thus unable to voice their opinion. Agriculture 07:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I have this terrible weakness

and now you know it.  ;) --VKokielov 22:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Pool of Siloam

I hope I have not stepped on your edits, nor you mine. --FourthAve 00:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

We will figure it out. The article seems to need a good bit more work before being submitted for anything. I am going to have to look for that BAR article.--Noitall 00:58, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Check my online references in the sources for the BAR article. The magazine does show up at larger newstands. I agree the article needs lots more work. It repeats information unnecessarily (partly my fault). We need to clarify which Empress Eudocia is referred too; the original article suggested she was busily reconstructing things for 40 or so years. --FourthAve 01:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I've done some more work. Beyond some tweeking, there is little more I can add. See my comments on the talk page. --FourthAve 02:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, great. I am going to get a couple sources and read up. --Noitall 02:49, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Vfd

Wake up...embrace the horror! Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency--MONGO 12:03, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Word of advice

Noitall, consider staying away from -Ril-'s user page. You have accused him (IMO justifiably), in your RfA, of stalking and trolling, that accusation will not stick if you leave yourself open to the accusation of doing the same back. Let others, less involved, fight this one. --Doc (?) 13:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, even though I think my message was appropriate. --Noitall 13:18, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

I erased my own comment. --Noitall 13:27, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Don't bother responding to the votes section in the Vfd...just add commentary below as you please...thanks for coming aboard, I hand you the wheel for the day, be back later.--MONGO 13:44, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Request for Assistance

Hi! Could you please lend me a hand at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Agiantman? I am battling "Team Kennedy." I incurred their wrath at Talk:Ted_Kennedy. Thanks. --Agiantman 02:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

On a related topic, I was wondering if you'd like to help construct a NPOV section on scandals around Ted Kennedy at talk:Ted Kennedy. I think some of the things Agiantman wants to add are valid additions, but probably don't require to be discussed at with extensive detail. His faction seems hostile to me though since I reverted the page to the last agreed upon version so I don't think I'm going to make any progress. Thanks--nixie 04:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Vfd again

Although there is a chance the Wikiproject may survive deletion efforts, I propose exactly what Jimbo Wales stated....a name change, updating the arguments of the proponents, removal of the tags...my propsed name change: WikiProjects:Wikipedians for Encyclopic Merit...give me your thoughts on this as it appears Agriculture is done with it.--MONGO 06:57, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

I like your name. We could begin it with Jimbo's statement, my favorite part:

One thing I like to emphasize in this context is that sound editorial judgment is not the same thing as censorship. We don't show full-blown mainstream pornography on the front page of wikipedia as a matter of editorial taste and judgment, not out of concern with censorship law.

--Noitall 07:06, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

yeah, perhaps as a form within some sort of mission statement. Let's see if those that voted keep (without posted reservations) what their thoughts are...care to start a commentary on the project talk page?--MONGO 08:25, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

I like the name change as well. Censorship is not good, but holding Wikipedia to higher standards is (although shouldn't it be "Encylopedic" not "Encyclopic"?. --tomf688^<TALK> 22:37, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to call it...but the mission statement should address what constiutes merit for inclusion....still it is very vague and is probably going to incite another riot. No doubt t=he focus of the project needs adjustment. I am opposed to quackery: far out opinions in biographical articles by "medical experts". I think if we can fabricate the core of the decency issue with a realignment to include a strong NPOV stance, it might pass the test if it ever comes up to Vfd again.--MONGO 23:46, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

My last act

I was just shutting down my account when I noticed that User:RonaldTaril has confessed to being a sockpuppet of User:-Ril-. He is violating his ban. Thought you might enjoy it, and the fact that he now most likely will be perma-banned. Agriculture 19:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess we could leave it to -Ril- to totally self-destruct. Hey, this isn't your last act. Take a breather and come back in a few weeks. Have a good vacation from Wiki! See you in a while. --Noitall 22:03, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, you might also be interested in reading this statement and this statement by two seperate arbitrators stating that there should not be a permanent ban. --Ron. 15:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

-Ril- or sockpuppet User:-RonTaril-, you call that support? Well, so much for those 8,000,000 edits you claimed (including harassment and vandalism), now you are back to 16, and counting . . . . . . .--22:39, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Interested in leaving a quote for the Signpost?

I'm writing an article about the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency VfD debate. Your quotes would be greatly appreciated. See User:Ral315/Signpost. ral315 07:20, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Kennedy Anons

You commented on the large number of anonymous IP addresses that show up to support Agiantman, and wondered whether they are sock-puppets. Those of us who have been in the edit wars on Ted Kennedy think so. There is a pattern of anonymous edits from large numbers of addresses, especially when there is a survey or poll. I am not saying that Agiantman is the puppeteer. The fact that some of them say that this is their first edit and that they were asked to support Agiantman is a little strange, however. This sock-puppet behavior has been going on for at least a month. Robert McClenon 12:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

GWB

Nightbeast doesn't like your additions to George W. Bush...I reverted him twice and let it go at that. He claims it's unsubstantiated so you may want to open a line of discussion to protect it...otherwise, what's up?--MONGO 01:44, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Already commenced it here--MONGO 07:13, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Inappropriate for you talk page? Fine. Then be polite enough to answer me anyway or is your behavior even more inappropriate? You can *even* answer me on my talk page, for, if on-topic and with a reliable source, I wouldn't call it inappropriate at all.NightBeAsT 20:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

-->As you can gather by what I directly told you, the appropriate place for this discussion is the article talk page. --Noitall 15:10, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I'd be happy if you stopped getting personal and insult persons as "POV crowd", "anti-war POV warrior" etc. You couldn't back these accusations up anyway. Also try discussing instead of reverting and last but not least stop constantly trying to include your own speculations and bias and deleting statements to tip the NPOV balance. Thank you.NightBeAsT 14:53, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, can you please read your post, read it again, and keep reading it. You reverted me many many times without making a single edit or providing a single rationale. You continue to do so despite my going on at length about all edits and rationale. Please read your post again and try to abide by it. --Noitall 15:07, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Romoving NightBeAsT's misuse of this page and vandal behavior. --Noitall 19:16, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Signpost

What's there to say...that the radical left turned it into a fiasco? What a mess.--MONGO 09:06, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Also: could you set up a bogus email account?--MONGO 11:15, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean? --Noitall 11:29, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

You don't have an email account set up. ie: [email protected]

Item of Interest

You may want to vote on the the proposed wikistalking policy here--Agiantman 00:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Request for Comments

Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User:Robert_McClenon.--Agiantman 19:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Apology to Noitall

Quite by accedent I placed my comments on your User Page, rather than this here your User Talk Page, Please believe me when I say it was not as you afterwards put it on your user page. ie, "- vandalism to User page by Cathyleftwing " Therefore I ask your true forgiveness for a truly honest mistake, For I do not "vandalise" anything Sir, and I thank you for your time. (btw! I am a moderate Republican, Sir, and I will be supporting John Mccain for President in '08.) and I would appreciate it if you would stop referring to me as "Cathyleftwing" because I am not a "leftist" at all and am sorry for my mistake in posting on your other page, Shalom!(Cathytreks 02:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC))

No problem. But I really like the name Cathyleftwing. :) -Noitall 04:13, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Hey....No problem Mr Noitall, cuz I enjoy our debates Shalom...out, lol  ;-) (Cathytreks 04:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC))

Nomination

If you are so inclined, I nominated you to act as mediator in the decency project...the nomination discussion is here--MONGO 01:08, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Just to let you know that is work afoot to completely alter the page...I have tried to counter that by removing the templates and trying to refocus it more into a discussion of encyclopedic merit. I'm getting tired of that mess over there and have dozens of articles I have to write since a semi famous political scientist (who specializes in land reform) has agreed to allow me to use some of his pictures for my articles. I will help as much as possible...you may want to contact user visorstuff and banes and anyone else that voted keep without prejudice and see what can be developed from the mess.--MONGO 01:46, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I moved the page to here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit I'll let you take over--MONGO 03:35, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Decency Project Director

Are you going to take on the task of overseeing the project? Erwin Walsh

You must have trouble counting, Noitall.

Granted, you're paid to understand Maryland, not arithmetic. If I've violated 3RR, by all means, report me. Shem^(talk) 20:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Masking your POV-pushing by accusing others of "vandalism," Noitall? Misrepresentative, much? Shem^(talk) 21:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

No, I am accusing you of vandalism because you are doing vandalism to harm the article, and misrepresenting your reasons for doing so. --Noitall 21:34, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

"I am accusing you of vandalism because you are doing vandalism." A real crack accusation, Noitall. Shem^(talk) 21:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Images and copyrights

Noitall, can you tell me the source of these photos? If you took them personally, then you can enter them as your own personal work. If you got them from somewhere else, then that person must specifically give rights to enter the photo into PD or GFDL. It is not enough that a picture was taken in a public place, since it was taken by someone and so that person can claim rights to the picture.

• Image:Jordan_72.jpg, Image:Tiffany_Taylor.jpg, Image:Proper_Implants_edited.jpg

If you don't specify the sources, the pictures will be categorized as "unverified" and placed on the list of items to be deleted.--Kim Nevelsteen 01:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Your assertion as to copyrights is entirely unfounded. Further, doing so for the otherwise purpose of censorship is extremely bad faith. You don't know copyrights and you aren't the copyright cop. --Noitall 01:37, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know copyrights? Please explain them to me if you know better. Oh, and I DEFINATELY don't do it for the sake of censorship. Don't make assumptions about my intensions. You made another false assumption on the Breast Implant discussion page. --Kim Nevelsteen 02:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

True, I did make some assumptions, possibly false, but I assumed you were brought into the article by Secretlondon, but I am now guessing that may be incorrect. In any event, I have no problem starting over if you don't. --Noitall 04:02, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Ehm, I am just me. Don't have any alias or enemies yet, and I would prefer to keep it that way. A start over is fine, but actually not needed since your reputation is not in jeapardy. None-the-less the question still remains about the copyright issues on the pictures. And as you stated, I am not the copyright police, but if I don't ask, someone is going to soon or later. --Kim Nevelsteen 17:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Image:Proper Implants edited.jpg

Ok, the rest of the copyright issues have been solved, but can you please tell me where you got this image so that we can take of it as well? --None-of-the-Above 11:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Quick poll WfEM

Thank you for contributing votes to the quick poll I put up. I believe you might have slightly misunderstood my intention in the poll questions (perhaps you could suggest a clarification of the wording).

When I have a statement like "If an article is X, it should do Y" that is meant as a proposed WP style guideline. Voting "Disagree" to this does not imply "If an article is X, it should not do Y". Rather, "Disagree" just means "There should be no style guideline on this issue." In several cases, you voted "Depends", which really, under my intended question, amounts to "Disagree."

Concretely, in the first example (copied from MONGO's words, as closely as possible with the minor grammatical change):

 "If an article is about an overt sex act, no image should be used."

Disagreeing just means that there should be no style guideline about whether an image should be used for such a page. In that case, the decision should be made in the normal editorial process, page-by-page (judged by topicality, illustrativeness, aesthetics, etc).

Of course, you are free to vote however you wish. But I thought I'd try to clarify the intent of the questions. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:19, 2005 August 25 (UTC)

Correct, in my opinion, the vote Depends means that the guideline cannot be absolute and needs to be descriptive with factors for consideration, like a guideline, not a rule. --Noitall 20:30, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

So is your idea that there should indeed be guidelines in the areas I mention, but that those guidelines should be longer and more nuanced than the simple declarative sentences I present? Just trying to understand clearly where you're coming from. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:37, 2005 August 25 (UTC)

No problem

Well, I have a lot of tenacity and tend to wear my opponents out...usually with logic...you may want to examine this as I think it is the closing argument that no one can refute...hence...autofellatio images (pictures of ) should be banned. The Vfd's in favor of keeping it, the chiming in about the Miller test for definitions of obscenity and the rest of the arguments are rendered moot. As fascist as it sounds, the Wikipedia foundation needs to examine Wales comments and see if indeed some standard needs to be implemented.--MONGO 23:57, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Cricket

According to you, cricket is an "extremely minor sport" which, in terms of the USA, is true enough; but in world terms is totally incorrect. Cricket is without question the second most popular spectator sport on the planet after football. It also has an extremely high participation count.

I live in England but I have many contacts in India through my IT work. As you may be aware, there are more than a billion people in India and cricket is the national sport there. One of my Indian friends estimates that "at least a third" are cricket fans, which means there are more cricket fans in India than there are people in USA. Hardly a minor sport unless, of course, you are saying that the world begins at the Statue of Liberty and ends at the Golden Gate Bridge, something that many Americans actually seem to believe.

If you wish to make claims on behalf of some American TV personality who is unknown outside his own country, I suggest you get your facts right about his namesake first. The Australian bowler Bill O'Reilly is a legend in world cricket. You no doubt believe someone like Babe Ruth is a legend. I think you will find that Bill O'Reilly is better known in the whole world, especially in Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, the West Indies, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and numerous other countries where cricket is played but baseball is not.

Oh, and by the way, football is a game played with the feet, using a round ball.

--Jack 10:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Being the #2 sport in the West Indies and India does not make it a major sport. There are at least 100 more major sports in the world in the olympics, which cricket is not, having been removed. Also, since India is extremely tech savvy and dominant in the internet, then Google analysis is an appropriate way to find out about the cricket "Babe Ruth." The cricketer: [11] 4,430, Babe Ruth: [12] 706,000, O'Reilly Fox News: [13] 246,000. I think that says it all. --Noitall 12:59, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

You have not read what I said. I told you that cricket is the second most popular spectator sport in the WORLD. That's world as in planet: not world as in Worldville, USA.

In India, home to a billion-plus human beings, it is the NUMBER ONE sport and it is estimated that about a third of those billion people are cricket fans. That makes it a very major sport indeed especially as it also the national (#1) sport in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and most of the West Indies states; arguably the #1 sport in Australia (given that Rules football is only popular in two states); definitely the #2 sport in Great Britain, New Zealand and South Africa. As for Google, I happen to be an IT specialist so don't try to blind me with technology. Google references mean nothing: as samples they are completely unrepresentative and I know a professional statistician who dismisses internet searches as meaningless.

Neither do the Olympics mean anything (except as exercises in corruption and drug abuse). If the Olympics is so important, why does football treat it as a minor competition for a handful of its under-21 teams? Surely it should rank alongside the World Cup? Are "major sports" like baseball and American football in the Olympics?

What I cannot understand is how Americans can be so arrogant as to dismiss something that is important to people in India (and the rest of the world) as "extremely minor".

Do you actually know anyone in India? That's India as in big Asian country, right? --Jack 13:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Please take the discussion to that talk page where I will respond. Your being a fan of cricket and India has blinded you to the realities of Wiki, where the issue is notability. Your sport got removed from the Olympics long ago and does not even merit a write-up by the International Olympic committee,[14] being less notable than the sports of Rugby and Tug-of-War. --Noitall 14:05, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Forget it. You are not worth communicating with, especially if you think the Olympics is so important. The Olympics is meaningless and is riddled with corruption and drug abuse. Cricket and football do not need the Olympics and both treat it with the contempt that it and its supporters deserve. End of discussion. --Jack 15:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Merit

Done arguing with trolling imbeciles over there...it is a waste of time. May move the operation to my userspace...not sure yet. That Lulu person is one of the most assinine morons I have ever spoken to. He created his own vanity page, starting it himself, and then argued against it's Vfd for being a vanity page...hell, I'm more famous than he is! But I can't and never would create a page on myself...he's just a pompous ass wannabe. Radiant! is being an obstructionist...I've asked repeatedly why vandals are allowed to stand as members, and none of the answers display anything other than bullshit. The others, well, at least they keep their mouths shut. I almost thought about refocusing again by suggesting that we should eliminate all "nekkid" images and resume tagging articles...just to watch them squirm. "Oh no...they're trying to take away pictures of nekkid people"...what a joke!

Image:JoanSeverance-PBApril1990.JPG

Hello. Your asked if the image should be deleted due to other reasons than a copyvio. The image is only used in a user gallery and is not used in an article. Low res images of magazine covers can be used as fair use, but it is not being used anywhere useful. With your permission, I wish to delete the image. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

It is a nice pic, but I don't see that it is needed in an article. So I would agree to its deletion as Wiki is not a storage for nice pics. --Noitall 22:33, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

@Zscout370....With your permission... Can´t believe it... Why don´t you ask me? By the way - this Vfd was ILLEGAL and you know that. Not amused MutterErde 23:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

@ Noitall. What you are doing in Bobbi Eden is VANDALISM - real VANDALISM, not that what YOU name vandalism. Me or another guy will revert. Not amused MutterErde 23:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

wikiproject

I support your sentiments over at the decency project. I was considering signing up, but it's been trolled to such an extent that there seems little point. Erwin

Arbitration

Would you be happy to go to RFAr, with the intention of stopping users Hipocrite and Lulu of Lotus Eaters - the two biggest trolls, from editing the decency project? I will happily fill out the details, as it's getting to the point where nothing else is going to work. Erwin

Yes. Not with the intent of discipline (although I am aware that they have gone on other pages and said bad things about myself and MONGO and the page) but just to free up the project. No one can do anything on the page right now. --Noitall 01:25, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

I look forward to the two of you brining an RFAr case against me. Please be aware that the Arbitration Comittee is not constrained in it's ability to sanction users - often users who bring an RFAr are often the ones who have their editing access modified in some way. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:56, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Do you achieve anything by threats after I specifically stated I did not want to target you personally but instead free up the page? --Noitall 17:08, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

There is no threat. Arbitration is not a process used to unprotect pages. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I am not an Admin and don't really care about such matters. I just want Project page editors to be free to address the issue they want to address. I have no idea whether the Arb process is the correct mechanism. --Noitall 17:17, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

WP:RFPPHipocrite - «Talk» 17:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration is the only body with the authority to ban users from editing certain pages. The intent of the RFAr will be to limit Hipocrite and Lulu's ability to troll the project. I will email you the template when I type it up in a couple of days; then you can decide if you want to support or not. Erwin

Hipocrite, your citation would prevent anyone at all from editing. That is the opposite of what needs to be accomplished. --Noitall 02:20, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, you want to block just people you don't like? Yeah, you'll want to try RFAr, but be aware that the Arbitrators are not limited in who they can, and will, take action against. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, back to threats again, I see. --Noitall 03:50, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Look - I'm being perfectly honest - if you bring an RFAr case against me and/or lulu, the Arbitrators will spend a lot of time in everyones history logs. I'm not even concerned about this - I am proud of every word I have written here, and look forward to being cleared, yet again, of spurrious accusations of sock puppetry. I strongly advise you to try other aveneus of dispute resolution, however. Meditation, RFCs and Third-opinions are all available, and widely used. A threat is something like going to everyone who dislikes you and trying to drum up support for an RFAr against you - something that I am not going to do. I believe people should work things out by talking, not by calling eachother names and going to mommy. If you feel differently, that's not my problem - it's yours. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

It is very simple. You do not hold any of the beliefs on that page and you and Lulu were very disruptive, basically causing the end of discussion from those who shared a POV. This was a project page and you and Lulu disagreed with it. If you and Lulu agreed to just not edit on a page you absolutely disagree with, in my view, there would not need to be anything to accomplish. In my own practice, I would not go on a Project page where I disagreed with the purpose. I think that is a good policy. --Noitall 04:13, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

That is not an accurate summary of the events. Keeping in mind WP:AGF, could you try to summarize events again? Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not summarizing events. It's simple, you and Lulu don't belong on that page as neither of you share any belief there. I don't believe this is about you or Lulu, because I can likely find a lot of areas of agreement with you both, even on such censorship issues. But on this particular page and concerning other editors, your edits are disruptive. --Noitall 04:22, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

You most certainly were. We most certainly do. Anyone can join any project they want. Were our edits as disruptive as yours to the anti-censorship project? Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this conversation is going anywhere or has much purpose. On that page, I made one edit accurately stating why editors (me) helped to create the decency project and it was certainly not disruptive. On this page, I attempted to help you prevent someone else from filing something and if you do not want to do it, then I can't do anything else. --Noitall 04:57, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

If you look at the history of my contributions to the page, you will realize how incredibly wrong you are. Additionally, I refer specifically to your edits on the talk page of the anti-censorship project. It's not at all clear what your goal on this page is - I believe you still want me blocked from WP:EM. Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:59, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

You are quite confused on the issue here. If you want me to never again edit on the anti-censorship page unless I absolutely agree with the purpose and other editors, I do hereby agree. Now, if you did the same on the other page, you may solve some problems. --Noitall 05:03, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

We welcome all responsible contributions over at the anti-censorship project. We do not welcome totally unfounded accusations of pedophillia in contradiction to WP:NPA. Nothing you can do will stop me from editing any page I want to edit, when I want to edit it in accordance with the rules and guidelines of this project, none of which require a user to agree with other members of a wikiproject before joining or contributing. Hipocrite - «Talk» 05:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I tried. This page is not to be used for mediating this dispute anymore. We will do it on another page. --Noitall 05:11, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Where? Hipocrite - «Talk» 05:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Just like to openly state that I am in favor of mediation, not very much in favor of Rfc or RFAr. I am vehemently opposed to those that have signed on as members with the sole intent to disrupt. I don't necessarily see Hipocrite as being an obstructionist. My view on FCYTravis, Zoe, Lulu and Brennemen(sp) is that their membership is obstructionist. Neither Zoe or Travis seem to have contributed in anyway to the discussions so I'm not sure what their purpose serves, in light of their comments when signing on as members. The Anon is a troll as is the gigamabob character, yet Radiant locked the page so these type of "members" can't be eliminated. I agree that an olive branch should be sent out to all "members" and to Radiant as he/she has been active in discussions, for a request for mediation. Furthermore, the scope of the merit project needs expansion to discuss uses of referencing, deciding what quantifies as an article that won't be deleted: vanity pages, obscure unlinked isolates, etc. and a through discussion of what will make Wikipedia more respected as a source of citation for research by outsiders. My main interest in the project has waned as I simply don't like a few of the "members" (Hipocrite I have no problem with) and simply didn't want to discuss much more with them.--MONGO 20:48, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

I cast my votes with MONGO, especially given that Erwin has proven to be a sometimes troll. Agriculture 05:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I also agree with that. I am against RFAr if there is another altenative. Mediation is the way to go. Banes 07:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Baltimore Orioles

OK, in contrast to all these controversies, here's a warm and nostalgic question, I hope: What's your earliest memory as regards the Orioles?  :) Wahkeenah 06:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

When they played the Pirates in the 1971 World Series, if I remember the right one correctly. --Noitall 19:36, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories

Sigh. Kevin Baas is at it again. [15] Jayjg ^(talk) 08:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I tried to move and redirect and I think I gummed it all up. You have to give me simple things to do like editing. --Noitall 19:22, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, you might want address the below message. --Noitall 19:28, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zephram Stark

I have filed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zephram Stark. Please contribute to it. – Smyth\^talk 18:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories edits

Noitall - I don't know what your problem is, but you keep blanking the 9/11 conspiracy theories page and turning it into a redirect (to a page that is already a redirect) which is just flat out wrong. If you keep doing it, I'm going to block you for vandalism. Also, you might want to be more careful whom you label a vandal. →Raul654 19:22, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, my ability to use Wiki is deficient, see above note to Jayjg, so I appoligize for that. This page had stabilized back in July and I had not been on it in awhile. When I was just now alerted to what was happening, I realized that editors, and I am not naming names because I have not investigated who, entirely destroyed the article including going against the long-time multi-year consensus on the name of the article. So I will restrict my activities to editing, but the article needs to be put back into shape. --Noitall 19:32, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

What I am trying to do is consolidate all these damned conspiracy theory articles into a single one. 9/11 conspiracy theories seems the logical name choice. →Raul654 19:35, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I certainly acted without thoroughly investigating the issue. Which ones were consolidated? --Noitall 19:38, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

From my contributions:

1. 13:23, September 4, 2005 (hist) (diff) 9/11 conspiracy theories (Copy and paste from teh rumors page -)
2. 13:20, September 4, 2005 (hist) (diff) 9/11 conspiracy theories
3. 13:19, September 4, 2005 (hist) (diff) Rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks (Merging) (top) [rollback]
4. 13:14, September 4, 2005 (hist) (diff) Talk:9/11 conspiracy claims regarding Jews or Israel (→Arab bashing) (top) [rollback]
5. 13:12, September 4, 2005 (hist) (diff) 9/11 conspiracy claims regarding Jews or Israel ({{mergeinto|9/11 conspiracy theories}}) (top) [rollback]
6. 13:11, September 4, 2005 (hist) (diff) 9-11 domestic conspiracy theory (top) [rollback]
7. 13:11, September 4, 2005 (hist) (diff) 9/11 domestic complicity theory and evidence (top) [rollback]
8. 13:10, September 4, 2005 (hist) (diff) 9/11 complicity theory (top) [rollback]
9. 13:10, September 4, 2005 (hist) (diff) 9/11 "domestic complicity" theories (top) [rollback]
10. 13:10, September 4, 2005 (hist) (diff) 9/11 "domestic complicity" theory (top) [rollback]
11. 13:10, September 4, 2005 (hist) (diff) 9/11 domestic complicity allegations (top) [rollback]
12. 13:09, September 4, 2005 (hist) (diff) 9/11 domestic conspiracy theories (top) [rollback]
13. 13:09, September 4, 2005 (hist) (diff) m 9/11 domestic complicity theories (top) [rollback]
14. 13:09, September 4, 2005 (hist) (diff) 9/11 domestic complicity theory (top) [rollback]
15. 13:09, September 4, 2005 (hist) (diff) Bush Knew (top) [rollback]
16. 13:09, September 4, 2005 (hist) (diff) 9-11 domestic consipracy theory (top) [rollback]
17. 13:09, September 4, 2005 (hist) (diff) Bush knew (top) [rollback]
18. 13:08, September 4, 2005 (hist) (diff) 9-11 domestic conspiracy (top) [rollback]
19. 13:08, September 4, 2005 (hist) (diff) 9/11 domestic conspiracy theory (top) [rollback]
20. 13:07, September 4, 2005 (hist) (diff) 9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories

Most of those consist of fixing double redirects (Of which there were *MANY*) and then I cut and pasted the rumors page (which was VFD'd and the consensus was to merge) into the 9/11 conspiracies page. It needs a hefty copyedit though. →Raul654 19:40, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

I also added a merge tag here →Raul654 19:43, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Wow, what a mess. I had no idea. I think the main page before was 9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories. How do we track edits? Yes, something certainly needed to be done. --Noitall 19:44, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand your first question. What do yo mean when you ask how we track edits? Second, yes, something needs to be done. That something is to merge them into one article, which is what I was doing, although someone is going to have to clean up the page into which we merge them. →Raul654 19:48, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I agree that some page needed to be used to merge all this junk into. I made many edits on one of those pages, who knows which one, but I don't mind starting over on one page because it is better than a zillion of them. --Noitall 19:50, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Important notice, for immediate attention

This message has been posted on the talk pages of all users actively editing the Decency project. The RFAr has now been completed, documenting an extensive range of disruptive edits by Hipocrite and Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, and is available on request.

Before the RFAr is submitted, I think a conversation on Noitall’s talk page User_talk:Noitall#Arbitration should be read, where Hipocrite seems to indicate he might be open to mediation. Perhaps the mediation process might be productive on this occasion, and I am willing to extend an olive branch before banning is contemplated. I will file a mediation request in the next few days, unless there are any objections on my talk page. Of course, if Hipocrite and/or Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters do not agree to mediation, the case will go immediately to arbcom. Erwin

Sarbanes

Thanks for moving the succesion piece, I had expressed mild concern with it being included in the bio.Kyle Andrew Brown 14:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, feel free to edit Maryland Congressional election, 2006, it needs to be filled in with more. Polls could eventually look like Maryland gubernatorial election, 2006#Polling. --Noitall 03:05, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Wiki Applaus

Nice job setting up the election page.Kyle Andrew Brown 01:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again Kyle. --Noitall 07:36, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Baltimore Washington Monument

I thought you woule like to know that I nominated the picture I took of the Washington Monument in Baltimore as a featured picture. It doesnt seem to be getting many votes so I thought I would let ytou know it was up for vote if you go here. You seemed interested in the article so I thought you may like to vote as well. It's got 3 votes so far, all in support, but it'll need more than that to get Featured. Thanks and I hope you check it out. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 15:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Done. Good job. --Noitall 05:33, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding your comment about keeping the older picture of the Baltimore Washington Monument on the Washington Monument page, I just thought since the color one is now a FP it would be nicer to have. Does it need a picture of the Balt. Wash. Monument at all you think? --ScottyBoy900Q 03:04, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

What makes the Baltimore Washington monument unique is that it was first and it was a prominent monument in one of the largest cities of its day. That is why, in my opinion, while your picture is a fine picture of the Balt. monument in modern day, on the Wash monument page it is better to have a old picture that better demonstrates the uniqueness. It has nothing to do with the quality, although the one I replaced it with is one of the best quality old photos I have seen, but with what the photo shows. --Noitall 05:55, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

5 orphaned images

Five orphaned images of yours have been placed on ... Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2005 September 8 --None-of-the-Above 12:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Quit trolling my edits you vandal. If you do it any more from this point forward, I will file and RfC against you. --Noitall 12:34, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Oh boy. Assume good faith. Did you two cross before, or why are you reacting in such a way? Politely pointing out why you uploaded these images and tagged them the way you did might be a more promising conflict resolution strategy. Maybe both of you would even learn something from it. Lupo 13:32, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

There is no good faith when someone trolls your edits, makes inappropriate tags and attempts to delete your work. I only ran into this person once before and I do not recall getting in any serious disagreement. As I state in my message below, this will end if the User quits trolling, deleting and causing trouble. --Noitall 13:37, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Do you truly believe that name-calling resolves anything? Let me tell you a secret: it doesn't. It only makes for a tense discussion atmosphere and contributes to Wikipedia being a less comfortable place than it could be. Oh haughty one, you might try explaining patiently (even if it is annoying) what goes on and why you disagree with someone else's actions. Most people around here do listen. Did it ever occur to you that None-of-the-Above might just have made an innocent mistake, maybe out of a misunderstanding of copyright rules? Lupo 14:13, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

What he did was very bad. But the issue is done unless you want to start it back up again. It seems you are out to create problems yourself since your comments are not helpful to anyone. --Noitall 14:28, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry that you yet again jump to conclusions (as previously sideing me with SecretLondon). I try and edit images to correct tags. I also asked you nicely about the copyright on the breast image. If I have wrongly entered orphaned images on to the delete list it is because I simply concentrate on images. You are correct, that I did target a lot of your images, but I don't think I changed their tags inappropriately. I ask you to please stop being so negative and using personal attacks. This is not an attack against you. File an RfC if you like. --None-of-the-Above 13:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Good, this will end if you stay off my work. You have not improved anything thinking that you are the copyright police. If you want to contribute something substantial, there are a ton of bad images placed on Wiki by vandals, please focus on those. Thank you. --Noitall 13:37, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

I would still like to know the origin of the Image:Proper Implants edited.jpg, but since you have a problem with me targeting your work. I will leave your edits alone. --None-of-the-Above 13:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. We will have no more problems then (and the image was properly marked, curiosity will have to remain curiousity assuming good faith).--Noitall 13:51, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

There was an unverified flag present from RN and one previously from Hadal. Not from me, that is why I asked. --None-of-the-Above 13:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I believe so. And personally, sorry, I hope our paths never meet again. --None-of-the-Above 14:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Proper Implants edited.jpg

I can see you are having a bit of an edit war over Proper Implants edited.jpg. It looks as if none of the editors are properly getting across what they want. But i think you could end this edit war simply by adding a tag to the image telling where you got it from. I am pretty sure that it isn't owned by you or you would have tagged it as such when you uploaded it. "Fair Use" means that it was copied from another source, like television or a magazine. Therefore according to the rules you need to tell where the image was copied from for it to qualify as fair use. Since an image tagged with Fair Use is already copyrighted by the magazine or television show it came from you cannot add your own copyright (gnu license etc). This is simply illegal. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 10:22, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

You are incorrect on many of your issues. For one, I am not in any edit war because I uploaded a proper picture and correctly tagged it. The fact that vandals have attempted to destroy several pics does not make it an edit war but a Wiki problem. For another, fair use means no such thing. You only stated the most common aspect of it on Wiki, but this is not a part of the definition or any requirement. And every assumption you made is wrong. I responded to the issues you raised here [16]. Your assumptions and your being "pretty sure" about something with zero evidence to back it up is in violation of the Wiki policy assume good faith. --Noitall 12:13, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

If the author has consented to it's use, then the appropriate tag is [TTemplate:PermissionAndFairUse. According to Image_tags, "you should also describe as much as possible about the permission including who from and conditions." And you say I'm not a problem solver? Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I do not mind a different or more appropriate tag being placed on it, but that is not what was done here. And "should" is not a necessary condition, and everyone desires anonymity. By the way, there are a ton of pictures on Wiki done entirely under the policy assume good faith, and I continue to believe this was violated. If you want to be a problem solver, next time instead of trying to delete an image and increasing a revert war, suggest improvements on the talk page and refrain from accusatory tone. The image and tage were done in good faith and this should be recognized. --Noitall 16:30, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Unlike you, everyone else here has no idea where the images came from. If you look at what I did to the page, you'll find that I took your claims of fair use at face value untill you reinserted both the GFDL and fair-use tag - and then it was clear that there was a dispute as to the copyright status of the image. If you believe I violated any policies, I URGE YOU STRONGLY to contact an adminstrator or to engage in WP:DR with me. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

In the times I have had to deal with your disruption, you have requested an RfC or RfA about 9 times with me and other users. Do you really think that helps you? That is a rhetorical question. Don't bother answering because anyone who makes such statements has little respect for Wiki or other users. --Noitall 17:13, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of not understanding the issue. The issue is this, if you do not own the image it is ILLEGAL to add a license. Licensing can only be done by the owner, when the owner grants you permission to use an image he is granting you a license, only the owner can do this. You cannot add license to wikipedia an image you do not own. Let me reiterate, it does not matter what you personally think fair use means, even if the image is usable under fair use, that does not mean you can just add your own license to it. That is the only issue. I will make a chart for you.

• • • • Do you own the image?
        • YES: Then you can license it to wikipedia under a free license, or limited use license
        • NO: If you attempt to add the GFDL to this image you are breaking the law in all countries with copyright treaties with the united states

Note: If the author has given you permission in email; this is the license. GFDL is a different license, you cannot change the license the author gave you into the GFDL. This is the way licenses work. If the author has released the image under GFDL then the image is licensed and no longer qualifies as fair use, and the image should be changed to reflect this. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 09:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Your vandalism

Remember: Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Be civil and all the other WP:Policies.

Of course, a lot of criticism here because of your vandalism.

If you are to fill a rfc, you are to risk to be criticized and blocked yourself. Because you are, among many other things, ignoring talk pages of articles. Btw, I will leave these edits at Jordan (model). --Mabm 18:34, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

It is not a personal attack to call you a vandal. I have documented your vandalizing and blanking many pages many times. --Noitall 22:25, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Image:Hurricane Isabel 1- Sept. 27, 2005.jpg

Image deletion warning

The image Image:Hurricane Isabel 1- Sept. 27, 2005.jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. If you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, please provide the necessary information.

Please don't take this personally, but the site you listed as the source has a prominant copyright notice, and I was unable to find a copyright release anywhere. If I missed something, I apologize. The image was untagged. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I was able to find the copyright section on the anapolis site. It's clearly not free. [17] Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, Hipocrite, this is where we may have a very severe problem. I just uploaded that picture and have not had an opportunity to investigate what would be the appropriate copyright status or to tag it properly. Now, based on your past history, I would say you were trolling my edits and out to cause problems. I am not going to be immediately subserviant to you, especially when you are doing things in bad faith in violation of Wiki policy. So, if for some reason you are able to show some good reason that you were not actually trolling my edits trying to cause problems, this is your opportunity. --Noitall 23:13, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

I am now being harmed by your trolling. You put the image tag and attempted to delete it the very day that I uploaded it. You are trolling and causing disruption. I have uploaded many images all for the good of Wiki and never once had one deleted that I did not want deleted (because it was a duplicate). I attempted, several times, to say decent things about you, but each time you reverted to trolling and disruption. --Noitall 00:21, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

Of course I'm looking at your edits. The image in question is a copyvio. It can't be fair use, because it's not in use. Hipocrite - «Talk» 05:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Great, an admitted troll and vandal who asks for an RfC 20 times. You will get it for your disruption. It is your behavior that discourages people from editing here. --Noitall 05:08, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

Image:Hurricane Isabel 1- Sept. 27, 2005.jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file you uploaded, Image:Hurricane Isabel 1- Sept. 27, 2005.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Here's one to delete:

Gorilla mask...I mean...what the hell is crap like this doing in any encyclopedia...--MONGO 07:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that person needs to be arrested. Since it is all Anons, they should be tracked somehow as being dangerous. In reality, I think it is a big prank, someone got away with one. --Noitall 07:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Cast a vote:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gorilla mask--MONGO 08:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Draw up your comments and link it to me...RE:Rfc.--MONGO 20:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Just a thought

This may not satisfy all of your needs, but if you don't show some support, we're not likely to get even this much. — Xiong熊talk* 10:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for keeping me informed. I have not made up my mind whether I am in favor of it. On the Wiki Project for Decency and later Encyclopedic content, I fought for two things:

1. eliminating truly obscene content such as the autofalatio image
2. providing Users a forum and ability to discuss such issues without user Hipocrite and others disrupting you

--Noitall 14:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

RfA

Noitall, Please support my request for adminship:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/GordonWattsDotCom

Thx.--GordonWattsDotCom 14:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Lincoln/Speed paragraph

So I'm confused - first you revert away from my rewrite, then revert back to it. Are we in agreement on how that paragraph should read, or not? I'm happy to discuss with you why I did what I did, rather than keep reverting the article, but maybe there's no need for discussion if you're ok with what I did. -EDM 04:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't have time to monitor all the changes every second. When I see the Anon vandal did something, I revert to you or any user. The statement on sharing a bed and being gay cannot stand without balance. I think a 1 to 2 sentence sourced statement directly addressing the issue in one of the most notable magazines provides balance. I don't see any alternative except to completely remove such ridiculous assertions, but that seems unlikely.--Noitall 04:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it's balanced now and any longer of a paragraph would be disproportionate to the article it's in, particularly when the paragraph links directly to the article about the book which contains a full discussion of the "controversy" (such as it is). I don't see a need to cite in the article to Time magazine or their author; that's a popular newsstand periodical, not a scholarly source. The mention that the terms "homosexual" and "heterosexual" were unknown in Lincoln's time is a non sequitur, since neither term is used in the paragraph or indeed in the entire Lincoln article. I don't have any POV to push, I don't care what Lincoln did in his spare time, I just want the article to devote the right amount of space to points of varying significance, of which this is a lesser one. -EDM 04:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Let me first agree with you in part. It is not a bad edit and I don't think your effort exerts a POV. But the entire paragraph was created to assert that Lincoln had a sexual, a homosexual, relationship with Speed. Time is a scholarly source because it cites the most notable sources out there (that is why the author source is mentioned). Your edit only speaks to opportunity and need. There is more, and that is what people commonly thought in those days. To address that, here is the full quote, which my edit shortened, "A scholar of 19th century sexuality, Katz explains that the terms homosexual and heterosexual did not exist in Lincoln's time, and that fact is just one piece of evidence that the concepts of gender, sexuality and same-sex relationships were radically different in Lincoln's world." This is an extremely important concept to note in the article to balance the rest of the absurd and recent assertions. I don't mind suggested changes to incorporate it, but it needs to be incorporated. --Noitall 05:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Time is NOT a scholarly source. It's a pop magazine that is academic only in the most lightweight sense. Also, may I add, Joshua Wolf Shenk seems to me to be nothing more than the anti-gay version of the pro-gay C.A. Tripp. They are two sides of the same coin. The Shenk-Tripp tripe aside, I am quoting a legitimate author who has NOT taken sides. I am talking about the late Illinois Senator Paul Simon, who wrote the book Lincoln's preparation for greatness: the Illinois legislative years. It was published in 1965 by University of Oklahoma Press, at Norman, Okla. The book doesn't specifically mention Lincoln's sexuality as the author only talks of Lincoln's troubled courtship with Mary Todd. But, as the allegation of homosexuality concerns such matters, I am sure you can see a legitimate reason for posting this non-opinionated set of facts, and as a reference material, I suggest you go to your local library and request a copy immediately. I wholeheartedly agree with EDM that Time magazine is a "popular newsstand periodical, not a scholarly source," and thus I have decided to add a genuine scholar who merely talks about the era and Lincoln in decidedly non-teleologic language- as opposed to both Shenk and Tripp. As far as terminology is concerned, yes, Noitall, you are right. The words "homosexual" and heterosexual" did not exist then, but the concept did. Other names were used in the 1800s, such as catamite or sodomite, and conflicts over linguistics should be reserved for the Noam Chomsky page, not here. The issue was publicly known throughout that age, being written about in various ways by Lord Byron and others. In fact, even the Bible that Lincoln read so often discussed homosexuality, although it used other terminology also. Lastly, it is not absurd to address why Lincoln broke off his engagement with Mary and suffered clinical depression, especially in light of the fact that no other satisfactory answer has ever been obtained (even Abe wouldn't explain it to anyone). Please give a reasoned response, Signed, Anon in IL

That's funny

The pontoon equipped school buses that is! My sentiments are that the City of New Orleans had an evacuation plan and didn't follow it...which included using school buses. The Governor, well, she definitely lollygagged and the Feds are to blame (not necessarily Bush) because I know they could have gotten supplies into that city in great supply, right up to the Superdome and that Convention Center...I supported Mayor Nagin only because I think he was straight up when he kept complaining about needing help,,,he was not just picking a fight with the Feds. I agree that the evacuation plan wasn't followed, but it is important to remember that many people wouldn't have left anyway, I don't think anyone in a position of leadership really believed that the city was going to be swamped (regardless of the evidence) and in some way, almost everone is to blame...from those that decided to disobey the evacuation order prior to the storm, to the mayor for not getting those buses to high ground, the governor for failing to send the National Guard in sufficient numbers to keep the peace, to the Feds for failing to recognize what needed to be done....Bush relys on a few key people and I don't think that Brown was ever up to the job of FEMA head...that job should always be in the hands of somone that understands logistics...military trained in such matters...get there first with the most...an old cliche but true.--MONGO 09:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:Proper Implants edited.jpg

You've tagged this image as used "with permission" but you've not indicated 1. who the copyright holder is, or 2. that you've actually used it with permission. Please fill that information in. I don't think it should be used under our fair use policy, in part because there are "free" images which would replace it just fine. --Fastfission 14:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Please see the discussion above already on this page, this user has known about the problems for a while since he keeps changing the copyright notice around. I get the feeling he is unwilling to admit that he does not understand what the different tags mean. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 14:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Responding to Fastfission, your comments and actions are in bad faith. On the Proper Implants edit, I stated several times and counting that I have the permission of the copyright holder and that the picture on Wiki is fair use. I also stated that it is appropriate and the policy of Wiki to remain anonymous. Darkfred, you certainly understand the issues. In addition, I agree completely with your comments on the Tyra Banks gif (but hope it survives). --Noitall 22:46, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Noitall, uploading images for use "with permission" only is no longer permissible; Jimbo Wales made an announcement to that effect on May 19 of this year ([18]). It may still be possible to make use of the image under a "fair use" argument, however to do so requires information on the image source and copyright holder, as well as specific arguments supporting instance of use. (The fair use policy spells out the requirements in detail.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

You are entirely incorrect. ALL pictures on Wiki are "used with permission" unless they are fair use (and see the other editor who wants to get rid of fair use -- go figure). What you are doing is harming Wiki. I didn't see you making the "Jimbo" argument when the picture Autofalatio was put up for deletion and Jimbo stated it should be deleted, was inconsistent with Wiki policy and unencyclopedic. No, everyone stated that Jimbo's opinion does not matter. Bad for Wiki. Bad for Wiki. --Noitall 03:14, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Tbcatw.gif

Tbcatw.gifTwo questions:

1.) What do you think about the image in aesthetic terms? Do you think it's good?

2.) Do you think that the image is now sufficiently protected from deletion?

Cheers! It's good to see someone working to make sure that context matters in encyclopaedic articles.

(Previous unsigned statement by LorrieQ, likely a sockpuppet of some sort --Noitall 22:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC))

Fair use

I saw your coments on the Image:Tbcatw.gif IFD and I wanted to ask you a question. Based on your position, when would it not be fair use for Wikipedia to use a copyrighted or a large part of a copyrighted work to illustrate an article? --Gmaxwell 22:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate such discussions. There are many factors, but when you say "large part of a copyrighted work", that is a matter for concern and debate. An animated gif can be done by the percent basis as I did there, particularly when the rest of the 1 hour show was identical or similar to the clip. When does an animated work become a copyright violation? In this case, you would have a worry if you had a couple minutes of clips. --Noitall 22:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Well I wanted to discuss the more general concept since it appeared by your words that you support an exceptionally broad interperation of nature of use. ... In any case, we are not using this media on wikipedia to discuss the show in question, so that the animation is but a small part of the show itself is immaterial just as saying one painting of a flower out of a collection of hundreds is but a small part of an artists porfolio and justifying using it to illustrate Flower on that basis. Each frame of that video could alone easily qualify for copyright protection under US law and we've previously removed such framegrabs when they were used outside of the context of the work in question, so it would not be unreasonable to presume the aggregate is any less protected. Now, if the animation were being used to illustrate "victoria secret show" (or whatever that came from), I would probably agree that it qualified for fair use with little doubt. But at the same time I suspect that that particular video might not be a very good segment to use to discuss the show, although thats a matted I'd leave for the editors of that article to decide. ... The use of the video clip in places like brassiere and your user page are clearly not fair use and are a copyright violation we can not permit, even if we keep the video for use elseware. ... And I do think a video of breasts being held in place by a brassiere would be good material for that article, so I'll see if I can talk a sorority girl at the local college into modeling for a piece of free content that we can legally use there. --Gmaxwell 23:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you really wanted my thoughts. I was assuming good faith. Your very stange "nature of use" argument and assertion that animation is not really animation and should be under a different standard are quite incorrect, to be charitable. I have no idea where you get your strange ideas about copyrights, but it does not really matter. --Noitall 23:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I hope you can pardon me for being a little taken aback by your reply here, but I'm just not quite sure what to make of it. I do want to know what you think about fair use, which is why I asked. From reading your words it seems like you have taken the nature of use consideration in fair use to mean that our use (which is always educational in the main space) is excepted from copyright law. I think this sounded really curious, and I wondered if I understood your correctly; so I asked when would it not be legal to use copyrighted material in Wikipedia under fair use. Rather than answer that question, in your first reply you went on to discuss the Image:Tbcatw.gif issue. I'm perfectly willing to discuss the matter with you, though I thought a discussion would be more productive than a debate. After reading your reply you've left me wondering if you really read what I said after you realized I don't agree with your position, because I didn't even discuss nature of use with you since you side stepped my original question. On your last point that my position doesn't matter, ... well I could decide to be further offended by your dismissive attitude, but instead I'll just point out that there is no version of 'fair use' which is legal world wide, and fair use material is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia even where it can be done legally. Wikipedia is a free (as in freedom) encyclopedia intended to be free for all use world wide, and any fair use material at all detracts from our freedom, and should be avoided where possible. ... so considering that, I agree, my discussion above doesn't matter since the material will just be removed at least once someone has provided a free alternative, if not sooner. --Gmaxwell 00:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I said what I did above because I originally thought you were asking my opinion because you did not know and wanted to know or were interested in my opinion because you were forming your own. I don't sidestep anything, but I am also not going to give a tutorial on copyrights or get in an argument with someone over nothing. Most countries don't enforce copyrights period (it is the enforcement that counts). There is no such thing as nature of use, whatever that may be. And you are entirely wrong about Fair Use, it is legal and valid and that is what counts. Copyrights mean you need a license from the owner to use whereas fair use means you don't. In particular, no enforceable action can happen without a registered copyright, although this can be obtained rather quickly. --Noitall 02:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:Washington Statue, Druid Hill Park, May 30, 1894 a.jpg

I noticed you uploaded Image:Washington Statue, Druid Hill Park, May 30, 1894 a.jpg, and tagged it {{PD}}. Could you explain why you believe it is in the public domain? Incidentally, I couldn't find the specific page on the Maryland Historical Society's site that has the photograph—would you mind giving me the URL of its page? Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

1894, 1894, 1894. --Noitall 03:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

When Fairuse isn't Fairuse

Notice how when Autofellatio was up for deletion "Use with attribution" was fine, now that it is your images up for deltetion that is unfree and not good enough. Wikipedia is such bullshit these days. Jimbo needs to clean out the admin ranks so trolls such as Rama and others can't influence the process. If your photos had penises in them, everyone would be defending them so Wikipornia could survive. Because these people have an agenda against you, however, the images will die a horrible and painful death. Sorry dude, Vandals run this place, the asylum is run by the whack jobs. Agriculture 13:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:Thurgod Marshall Murray v Maryland 1.jpg, Image:Balt. Civil War - Saratoga Street barracade 1.jpg, Image:Balt. Civil War riots, Pratt Street – 1861 woodcut 1a.jpg, Image:Balt. Civil War - Fort Federal Hill, Union troops 1a.jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file you uploaded, Image:Thurgod Marshall Murray v Maryland 1.jpg, Image:Balt. Civil War - Saratoga Street barracade 1.jpg, Image:Balt. Civil War riots, Pratt Street – 1861 woodcut 1a.jpg, Image:Balt. Civil War - Fort Federal Hill, Union troops 1a.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

I moved these images to ifd for today to allow more time. Please link these images to an article in the next week so we can keep the images, otherwise, I suggested they should be deleted as orphans and they could be re-added when your articles are ready. --Nv8200p (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'll put them in articles.--Noitall 03:01, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

RFC against Hipocrite

I already compiled an RFAr against him. It's several weeks out of date, so you'd have to update the evidence, but it does document an extensive pattern of trolling and disruption. I'll publish it under my userspace tomorrow. Erwin