Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, I noticed your voting guide (not sure what to call these). Feel free to ask me questions. Granted a successful pass at my candidacy appears unlikely but I am more than happy in answering questions. -- Catchi? 19:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello, first thank you for approaching me as you have, that itself impresses me. My guide is a little out of date at this moment and I have actually already voted against your candidacy. It is apparent it is not likely to pass but I am happy to re-consider my vote given that, compared to some of the other candidates, I do not know you so well. I could have asked some questions, but for all candidates I was not entirely sure what to ask to be honest, but I have thought of a few now so I might ask them shortly. Camaron | Chris(talk) 19:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Oh that's all right. Please do notify me on my talk page so I can give the most prompt response. I do not generally keep a watchlist as it gets overcrowded almost instantly. -- Catchi? 21:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I am not sure I understand... I also do not see where I ignored consensus. I haven't recreated the template in question or anything. I am not asking you to support me or anything, I just want the rationale to make sense. -- Catchi? 16:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
It's an example of where you became combative over a simple notification. --Farix (Talk) 21:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
I wasn't combative at all. I was not ignoring consensus. When you see the same thing get nominated for deletion a third time it gets to you. Thats all there is to it. -- Catchi? 21:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I know it has been a while. I thought you may want to take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request to review User:Jack Merridew's ban. I know RFARs are in general unpleasant to even look at but this one is a light reading than your typical rfar. I am pointing this out to you as you were involved back then. -- Catchi? 19:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I just read the whole thing and to be honest I don't think there's much I can do here. It looks like Casliber is going to be an arb from January which is a good thing. If Merridew really does stay away from you as promised and the conditions are enforced through the ArbCom and not depending on how Moreschi feels about it then I think you're fighting a lost battle to keep him away from EnWiki completely. Pixelface has already said pretty much what I would have said so I'd just be repeating him anyway. Casliber looks like he understands the issue with Moreschi so hopefully there won't be any problems. If it turns out that Moreschi is not being fair to you or not enforcing the injunction against Merridew seeking contact with you in any way then I'll be happy to back you up but unfortunately as it looks now I think I'd be hurting your chances of a working arrangement more that improving them by commenting. I think you have a better chance getting Moreschi removed as mentor/enforcer if he doesn't comply with the arbs decision than you do stopping this completely. Like I said, if it doesn't work out then I'll be happy to help you. EconomicsGuy (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Oh I was merely giving you a head's up of the situation. :) Last thing I want to do is get you stressed over something like this. Thanks for the offer though. -- Catchi? 21:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest. At this stage although archived the idea itself is still a developing one. It seems very few people pay any attention to WP:VPP, so I hope to resurrect the idea in the near future in some other median (not sure which median is the best). A number of the people voting seems to like at least some of my ideas even though they have voted oppose so my idea may have a chance unlike my candidacy. -- Catchi? 09:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
"What exactly is the openness value of making evidence public after the case is over and after someone has been sanctioned on the basis of evidence they have yet to see"
I am going to answer to this if you don't mind. You very rarely you run into situations in dealing with a real trouble maker who calculates each step and attempts to manipulate people and evidence. This kind of disruption goes on for years and is hard to prove as the disruptive user finds or fabricates excuses for each of the questionable actions. While this may be hard to believe but I had to deal with such a disruptive user. For that you can take a look at: User:White Cat/RFAR/graph.
There is also the matter that some evidence cannot be published due to the privacy policy.
You also seem to confuse my stance. I am for discretely collecting evidence in advance before an arbcom case starts NOT during the official course of the case. Everyone deserves the right to see what they are being accused with the supporting evidence.
Point taken about pre-case evidence collection, I misunderstood you on that. However I still disagree with your position on secret evidence. In my view, any evidence that can't be disclosed to the person it is being used against (for whatever reason) can't be used at all. Thanks for clarifying though. Cynical (talk) 06:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
You seem to be changing your viewpoint on an edit by edit basis. You also seem to be quick into jumping into conclusions. Neither are good traits... -- Catchi? 01:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I was a commons admin for over a year. It is really unpleasant when people link to your own userspace as a rationale to oppose your candidacy you know... -- Catchi? 01:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I apologise that you found the link unpleasant. However, that in itself is indicative that you are an inappropriate candidate. ArbCom members experience intense scrutiny which means that people will point out things they have said and published on a public access website, so they need to have some emotional stability and confidence in what they have published. I find it rather questionable that you keep a public record of your RfA attempts. There's being honest, and there's ringing a bell to draw people's attention to your failures. However, while researching into you, I found you have a deep commitment to the wiki project and are a valuable contributor, so there's much about you to like and admire. Working in areas of nationality (as with working in BLP areas) does lead to conflict, so I am not surprised that you have gotten into scraps; however, people will judge you on how you deal with conflicts, and the community are uncomfortable with the way you have handled yourself in the past. This message you have sent me is an example of the sort of thing that doesn't inspire confidence in your maturity and ability to judge which issues are worth fighting over, and which should just be ignored. I wish you well with your future Wiki contributions, and I hope you take something of value from this ArbCom election process. Regards SilkTork *YES! 10:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
I wasn't complaining about your vote as an oppose. I wasn't demanding a support vote with my post to your talk page either. My post was more philosophical in nature actually. It is just that the page you linked to is something I feel should be good practice. Linking to your own history (failiures and successes alike) is what I would think is the honest thing to do.
I guess I am confused. Some people accuse me of trying to hide my past (which I make no attempt to do so I think) and there are some who complain about me not concealing my past... I am merely trying to figure out what the best honest practice is.
I respect honesty and openness (as may be seen by my own userpage in which I give information about myself, my real name, workplace and family, etc) so I lean toward you for being honest, and I warm to you for trying to figure out the best honest practice. Being honest is giving people information when they ask for it. Being honest is not trying to cover up mistakes, etc. But being honest doesn't involve pointing out all mistakes. It just means not attempting to evade scrutiny of these matters. People don't always need or want to know things. Situation: You are in your car and the parking meter is out of time. A traffic warden walks past. You call the warden back to point out you are in error. The warden now has to give you a ticket, when really all the warden wanted to do was finish his shift. Sometimes there is a social value in not drawing attention to something. People do not want to know how many RfAs you have failed. They want to know what you are like now. But if someone does ask, then you can tell them honestly. At the time they ask. And to the person who asked.
I understand your anxiety and uncertainty. When you do what you think is your best, and people do not support you at a RfA for reasons you do not fully grasp, then doubts about your own judgement come in. This happened to me when I failed my first RfA. It feels good to get the support and validation of the community, as that gives you confidence that you are doing the right thing. I would be quite happy to keep in touch with you and to talk things over now and again.
Have you given any thought to withdrawing your nomination from the ArbCom election? I'm not sure what benefit either you or the community are deriving from your continued presence there. A withdrawl on your own terms might be advisable. Regards SilkTork *YES! 12:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
I'd be more than happy to discuss various matters with you. Feel free to initiate a discussion on any topic you see fit. ;)
I do not intend to withdraw my nomination. Indeed it would take well over 400 support votes to change the tide in the % and I know that is not going to happen but I think my open nomination may generate a few useful discussions such as this one.
Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Hi White Cat ;-) The main Merridew motion now passes. I want to let you know that the users that volunteer to mentor are Casliber, Jayvdb, Lar, and Moreschi. If you have concerns about anything related to Merridew, you can also contact me or Newyorkbrad, or make a request at AE or by email to the ArbCom-l, or contact one of the mentors. Our primary need is to find users that can work well with Merridew. Additionally in this instance, we need to include some users that you feel comfortable contacting if you have a concern. I think we have achieved this balance with this group of users. Take care, FloNight♥♥♥ 18:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for keeping me posted. Jayvdb is a person I can comfortably talk to even though we had significant differences of opinions in the past. I had no interaction with Casliber before so I cannot comment on that. I'd rather not as the other two mentors (particularly Moreschi) for help. I feel the situation needs a 5th mentor so that any decision among mentors do not end up with a tie. I have no person in mind...
I have been trying to contact you on IRC over a completely separate matter for some time. I did even email the Arbcom-l mailing list over it. Do you think we can talk about it?
Hmmmm. I don't think that they will be voting on issues so a tie vote is not so much a problem. They will not be final decision makers as much as monitors. We mostly want enough people to watch him adequately and give advice. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
I recall seeing an email. I'm bring it to the attention of the Committee. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
FloNight, when this is ready to go, just let us know and we'll fire it through. Daniel (talk) 04:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Lar has bowed out as a formal mentor. So we will go with the other three. Ready to go. FloNight♥♥♥ 07:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Lar bowed out. Jayvdb, Casliber, and Moreschi are the 3 mentors. Odd number now, okay? I instructed them to inform the Committee if they are going to be absent for an extended period of time so we can find a replacement.
I sent your other email through again. FloNight♥♥♥ 07:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I hope the whole signature issue is resolved soon. People are still accusing me of things due to it. -- Catchi? 20:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
For the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 10:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Orphaned non-free media (Image:US retaliates russian nuclear strike.PNG)edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:US retaliates russian nuclear strike.PNG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Please can you have a look at the edits you did here. I think it just made a nonsense of the discussion about changing the warships template! Viv Hamilton (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hi, sorry that one must have slipped. Someone else has already fixed it. Thank you for notifying me. -- Catchi? 19:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
No need or consensus for mass changing of {{warship}} to {{ship}}edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
There was absolutely no need for the bot run to change {{warship}} to {{ship}}. Because {{warship}} is a redirect to {{ship}}, its invocation is the same as an an invocation of {{ship}}. Regardless of the template chosen, the presentation to the reader is the same, which puts these edits in the realm of the trivial and, thus, makes them unnecessary. Further, when the option of mass replacement of {{warship}} with {{ship}} was brought up here on the discussion page of WikiProject Ships there was no consensus for this sort of change. The case could actually be made that there was, in fact, more of a consensus that this should not be done than the other way. All that your bot run has accomplished, in my view, is a clogging of my watchlist with trivial edits that have no net benefit for the readers, the ones for whom we are building this encyclopedia. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
The total amount of change was several articles. Someone else made the change before me. I merely finished the job. Would you like me to convert {{ship}} back to {{warship}}? I can do that. If not, what is the issue? -- Catchi? 19:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Firs of all I'd like to thank you for your help in improving this article. It seems like you also update List of ships attacked by Somali pirates that are still captive which has in turn prompted me to award you a barnstar which I will in the next section.
I was wondering if you'd like to help me move information from the IMO pdfs to the article. They have a database of ships attacked by pirates.
WC, thank you very much for the barnstar. Also, dittos for your work in table-izing the list of attacks from Piracy in Somalia to a separate page. Where is the International Maritime Organization's database? I've browsed the site several times but I'm unfamiliar with it. I would definitely be willing to help. Switzpaw (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
This was posted on the article talk page by someone else ;) You may want to start with September as it is almost finished.
I have added a coordinate box on the template. It seems with IMO we have a very large database for coordinates making this a standard info. Existing use of coord template needs updating on both the articles.
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi, I seem to have edit conflicted you and may have reverted things without wanting to do so. Take a look: [1]. I was merely trying to remove {{coord}} uses and adding lname parameters. Feel free to revert as you see fit. -- Catchi? 19:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Re edit conflict: Just noticed that. I don't have time to go through and fix it now -- I will later tonight when I re-do the seconds portion of the coordinates. While I'm at it, I'll check the existing ones because I think the template may be transposing minutes and seconds with the lat_m and lat_s parameters. Switzpaw (talk) 19:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Yea. BTW you forgot to add the lname parameter last time. Don't forget it. :P -- Catchi? 19:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm surprised that the lname parameter is not being derived from the name parameter... Switzpaw (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
That can be done but there are complex exceptions (such as when multiple ships get involved). -- Catchi? 20:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hey, while you're at it with your timeline, you may want to include User:Terryeo and User:JustaHulk as well. Terryeo was part of one of the earlier arbitration cases. ←Spidern→ 21:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Oh boy! :o It will get very complicated it seems... -- Catchi? 21:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
That is a good idea. Please also consider adding the usernames from here as well:
Some of these may be relevant, some not, will leave that up to you. These are also good pages to look for some other historical and relevant information/findings. Cirt (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
I'll review this after toolserver decides to work again. It seems broken. -- Catchi? 00:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Ah okay thank you, no worries. Cirt (talk) 01:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Just to follow up a bit more: The current "Scientology" Arbitration case which is currently open is the fourth such case (relating to Scientology). For previous cases, see this prudent info provided by Durova:
Several of the named parties in this arbitration were also named parties in the COFS arbitration. I initiated this case and the COFS case but had nothing to do with the Terryeo or AI arbitrations.
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello Jossi, thanks for your quick response.
I noticed your username is actually mentioned on the past arbcom case. User:Anynobodyaccused you of past involvement on a now ancient discussion. Was that related to Scientology? DO you recall what that was about?
I am merely trying to have a general idea on how everyone fits in the picture.
White Cat: if you want to do this unsolicited job of gathering evidence for that case, go do it. But please spare me in getting me involved in your investigation. And please do not cross-post. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈(talk) 03:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
I am merely conducting a Q and A before going through the contribs of all involved. I'll of course get to the "truth" anyways as the evidence will support it. But I'd rather not go through all your contribution if you can establish the above encounter to be a mere coincidence.
Your replies to my questions may help point me in the right direction. For example it may point me at the underlying breaking point of the dispute even if you weren't involved with it. I am more curious of the interaction between involved parties from the first case and everyone else.
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi, I am going to collect evidence for the Scientology RFAR as an independent third party. I want to point out that I am not the wiki-police nor do I have any kind of official role.
On your statement you said you'll "openly admit that Scientology may have originally drawn me to Wikipedia as a motivation to edit". Care to elaborate on that?
You mention a dispute on Wikinews. While that has no official bearing on wikipedia, I'd like to hear more about that. It seems the blocks were temporary or at least are no longer in effect.
Bravehartbear suggests "Scientology slanted editors came out because drastic changes were done" in the Scientology article by you. How would you like to respond to that? Do you think you should be added as an involved party?
To what extent are you involved with the Scientology dispute? Have you made any significant contribution to Scientology related topics?
Hello, White Cat. I will gladly answer all of your questions, but am not sure of the best place to respond. Seeing as you are an independent investigator here, would you mind if I respond directly on your own user talk? ←Spidern→ 11:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
That would be fine. -- Catchi? 13:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I think you've done a great job on your "CSI" subpage, until you made each of the commentaries collapsible. In my opinion, doing so made the entire thing less readable, and a bit tedious to click "show" on every single section. ←Spidern→ 21:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
That does bother me too but the threads are getting too long. -- Catchi? 22:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I inadvertantly removed your comment regarding the Moreschi case on the RfArb page - I would like to state here it was unintentional. There's no beef on my behalf. Kind regards, Caulde 17:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
No hard feelings :P.
Seriously though, I wouldn't have noticed had you not inform me. :)
Latest comment: 15 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion
Hi, I am going to collect evidence for the Scientology RFAR as an independent third party. I want to point out that I am not the wiki-police nor do I have any kind of official role.
On your statement you talk about your use of public internet hubs and not proxies. To what extend do you move around?
I am not asking for any private info but I want to have a general idea on the distances you travel giving me an idea of how many different IPs you would be using. This may help resolve weather or not the ips are public ones or not.
Another thing you state is that you use "computers in the Church of Scientology" yet on the next paragraph you state that you have never been to the "church of scientology san francisco". TO my untrained eye it seems the two statements are contradicting each other. Care to elaborate?
To what extent are you involved with the Scientology dispute? Have you made any significant contribution to Scientology related topics?
Hi Cat, sorry, I wasn't around to see your question. Here is an answer:
I am working from two locations, one on the East Coast, one on the West Coast. In between I am logging in from airports or internet cafes. When using wireless I am going through a VPN/SSL connection (or something like that, hub, proxy, maybe there are different names for this). The idea is that the wireless line can be hijacked and using a SSL connection helps preventing that.
During a normal week I am using 4-5 different internet lines. I guess that makes 4-5 IPs.
There are thousands of scientology groups in existence (7,500, per the latest publications). I assume most of them have internet. Some of them have wifi and I used it there. Others have computers for use, e.g. to watch the scientology video channel or to log in on other scientology sites. I used those too. Or I plugged in my notebook in a network outlet and used this line for internet, like in a hotel. This whole discussion is ridiculous, trying to tie editors to IP addresses will never work. And I haven't even tried (yet) editing on Wikipedia through my phone. As for the above statement: I have never been to the "Church of Scientology San Franscisco". That's what I meant. I know most Churches in Southern California, New Jersey, Florida and New York as well as Canada. But somehow I missed SF in my trips.
I think I am the cause for the Scientology dispute or at least created enough contrast so the "two sides" (pro/con) could be seen better. I am active as a Wikipedia editor since 2007 and before I showed up the motto was "happy adding of trash material" to the scientology-related articles and "happy ignoring of anything neutral or anything perceived positive". I registered for the purpose of improving the Wikipedia articles on Scientology. My point of critic was and is that primary sources are used instead of reliable sources and that "reliable sources" of the lowest possible quality are used and promoted (I dare say BECAUSE they contain negative material about scientology or related subjects), instead of looking for better material (which would be neutral and defensible). The mass removal of primary sources that happens in the articles right now is what I wanted in 2007. But then, as in Scientology, it again is done in a one-sided way. Dozens of primary sources (to scientology websites) were removed and the trash links to private hate sites kept, including to porn mags (example "Penthouse", which seems to be "ok" as long as the "content" is "anti-scientology").
You could say I am guilty of polarizing. My contributions were not worthless or a violation of Wikipedia policy. They were just unpopular because the majority of those who are hanging out in the article (or "watching over it", such as Cirt and AndroidCat) are anti-scientology editors. Their POV/COI problem has never been addressed and I cannot detect any willingness to look at at. Which - if not addressed - would make this Arbcom another farce and a guarantee for the next edit war. Shutterbug (talk) 05:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Shutterbug, I urge you to expend a like effort to this response (at least) on the arbitration page presenting evidence, i.e. show the one-sidedness. We are blindingly aware of it but others are not because they have only been schooled in anti-Scientology material and have no idea that another side exists. As least no idea in any "real" way - most will acknowledge that people are free to believe any (kooky) religion they care to so I guess this is validity of a sorts. For even the so-called neutral here, it is not criticism of Scientology vs. the real perceived worth of Scientology. It is criticism of Scientology vs a set of kooky beliefs that I guess we should tolerate. Only we can show how glaringly one-sided editors like Cirts are. So please put up some diffs. Also you really should put up diffs showing the legitimacy of you edits. Show how 20 of your edits were legitimate. --Justallofthem (talk) 06:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
I am lacking the time to go that deep into research but it seems to be necessary. White Cat, Diffs are coming, hopefully by the weekend. Shutterbug (talk) 02:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
That is part of an ongoing scuffle between Jayen and Ross over his bio. --Justallofthem (talk) 03:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
I didn't see this before. A whole series of red flags should have gone up already, like WP:COI, WP:V, WP:RS. Admin Cirt's too busy, I guess.[3]Shutterbug (talk) 03:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Ross is entitled to make his case on talk pages. If he has edited his own pages then he should stop and I think he has. Ross is a distraction - nothing really to do with this arb. Ignore him and make your own case as I mention above. --Justallofthem (talk) 04:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Anything Pre-2006 is uninteresting for the purpose of my investigation. So I'll leave out anything before 2006. Even 2006 isn't very interesting. -- Catchi? 02:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing pre-2006 in what I said. Shutterbug (talk) 07:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Okay so User:Smeelgova has 1 edit only which was on 21 Feb 2007. The account itself was created on 11 September 2008. All that of course is confusing, I know. -- Catchi? 05:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I think you'll find that's because when Smeelgova became Smee the edits were transferred over to the new account but sometimes some of the edits don't go and get "stuck" on the old account. I had the same problem when I renamed Sarah Ewart (talk·contribs) to Sarah (talk·contribs). Those 2006 edits shouldn't be there because my account was renamed in 2007. Also, when you get renamed you used to have to recreate the old account name to prevent impersonators registering it because the old name became available for registration again once the rename had been done (not sure if that's still the case or not). The Smeelgova account was probably re-registered in 2008 when Cirt or someone else realised it hadn't been recreated. I recently recreated Veritas (talk·contribs) and Strothra (talk·contribs) for people who were renamed when they left the project so those accounts can't be used to impersonate them. Look at the user creation log for Sarah Ewart [5]. It says the account was created on 25 September 2008, but the contributions log says the account made those 2006 edits some two years prior. It looks like the Smee/Smeelgova accounts are in a similar situation. HTH Sarah 11:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Yeah. I think I'll pass altering the table over this since the rename isn't that crutal as it is ancient history. -- Catchi? 15:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Fahrenheit451, "Curt Wilhelm VonSavage" was a pseudonym of Werner Erhard. He apparently used the name on a marriage license. In fact, Wikipedia had a (now deleted) redirect at Curt Wilhelm VonSavage and variations that were pointed at the Werner Erhard article. Interestingly enough they were created by Smee on 19 June 2006, so he was no doubt aware of the connection. Theres an RFD here: VonSavage RFDSarah 12:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
White Cat, I thought that you would find this relevant:
"Jayen466, I read the above statement. You state some points that I find helpful, but you make some very colored remarks than lead me to question your interest in the scientology articles: You state that Stephen Kent is the most hostile scholar. Please show me that he is hostile and then show me that he is the most hostile. Factually, he publishes articles that the Office of Special Affairs does not like. You also divide editors into two camps, the scientologists and anti-scientologists. I think that is an over-simplification that obfuscates the variety of perspective editors of scientology articles have on the English language Wikipedia. Since you are relatively new to editing scientology articles, you may not be aware that there have been sincere attempts in the past of various editors to work with editors with differing perspectives on various scientology articles. This has had limited success after the last Arbcom when special rules were instituted on the scientology articles, but did not bring harmony to the editing process. I have my own views of why this did not occur and cannot occur. Over to you. --Fahrenheit451 (talk) 06:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)"--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 06:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Some questions you had a few days ago are probably answered here. DurovaCharge! 18:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Regarding this, one clarification: there have been ten prior formal dispute resolution attempts between Cirt and Jossi. They're listed in the second section of my userspace evidence presentation. Regards, DurovaCharge! 05:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
That is probably true but this was sort of like a cross-examination... I have been asking people a lot of questions - of which some I knew the answers. This is to get a sense of their perspective. I am supposed to explain their edit pattern after all. -- Catchi? 05:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:SP2-Military.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Fair use rationale for Image:Russia Nuking US, Start of WWIII.PNGedit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
とある白い猫/Archive/2008, here's hoping you're having a wonderful Christmas, and here's also hoping that all your family and friends are well. Lets all hope that the year coming will be a good one! If we've had disputes in the past, I hold no grudges, especially at such a time as this. If you don't know I am, I apologise, feel free to remove this from your page. Come and say hi, I won't bite, I swear! It could even be good for me, you know - I'm feeling a little down at the moment with all of these snowmen giving me the cold shoulder :( — neur ho ho ho(talk) 00:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 00:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, I was wondering if we could have a discussion (perhaps an IRC) one concerning a few issues... particularly the edit trend TTN is trying to enforce. While his behavior is disruptive, he is not the only person making such edits. I'll go to greater detail once we have a level of privacy.
If you want to discuss something in private with me, sending an email is your best option. I rarely visit IRC and the chance of me visiting IRC during the holidays is even smaller. - Mgm|(talk) 20:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hi, I haven't gotten a reply from you yet. -- Catchi? 03:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a million, although it is a bit of a letdown to have bothered you only to discover that all images are in fact correctly tagged/attributed. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
I created a {{Alumimg}} and will apply it to the list now. My check cannot determine the copyright status with 100% accuracy. All I can do is review the existing licensing and assume the person uploading it isn't lying (unless such a lie is obvious). -- Catchi? 22:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
A tag has been placed on Kiss (magazine), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.Dandy Sephy (talk) 00:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
I must say that I'm surprised upon reading your user page, the article suggests it was started by someone "new". If you object to the prod, please try and develop the article to provide more information. Dandy Sephy (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
I am not going to develop it myself. Someone who knows Japanese will be translating it from the ja version if you kindly allow it please. This takes time and does not happen overnight. -- Catchi? 01:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
