User talk:Equilibrial/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Welcome

Welcome! (We can't say that loud/big enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

• Be Bold!
• Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
• Meet other new users
• Learn from others
• Play nice with others
• Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
• Tell us about you

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page.

We're so glad you're here! -- Essjay · Talk 15:50, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Holdsworth.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Holdsworth.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because ofcopyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post onWikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 18:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

ExxonMobil

Please do not take the ExxonMobil article back in time. Yes, in 2005, they were #2. However, in 2006, they are #1[1], which is what the summary is documenting.

Image tagging for Image:1039936_mondays300.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:1039936_mondays300.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Noren portrait.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Noren portrait.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the{{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may 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. Fred-Chess 10:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Soderberg.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Soderberg.gif. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the{{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may 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. Fred-Chess 16:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Bwailer.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bwailer.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the{{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 05:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 05:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney

For Governorship of Mitt Romney article I invite you to describe the specific ways--in detail--that the section you marked{{POV}} fails in neutrality, and could be improved. That article is edited by perhaps 100 plus people in any two or three month period, and since it is an article about a potential candidate for U.S. President, the numerous editors (in favor or not in favor of the policies of Mitt Romney) do not agree on what neutrality is. Your outside perspective and description of the specific potential improvements that could be made to the section could aid conversation and effort to editorial attention on the contentious topic that improves the article. Here's the page. Talk:Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney. Best regards. --Yellowdesk 00:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:ShaunRyderOnECover.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:ShaunRyderOnECover.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}},without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject,requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 02:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:PacoDeLucia.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:PacoDeLucia.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour 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) 12:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:OneLoveHandshake.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:OneLoveHandshake.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under anon-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted48 hours after 20:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sherool(talk) 20:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Source

Hi! I ran into this edit where you used another Wikipedia article as a source. Just thought I'd drop you a note to let you know that standard practice is not to do that as per WP:CIRCULAR. Hopefully there's no hard feelings ... just some constructive criticism. :) See you around!-shirulashem (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Your comment on the talk page of the PTSD article...

...is seriously misinformed. I have taken the time to respond in detail, in case you're interested. Here's thelink.TomCloyd (talk) 13:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has beenreverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Tommy (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The Israeli West Bank Wall

I saw that we agree on the naming of the structure, and we need to work together to get it changed. Do you have good sources from the UN and ICJ? If you read the discussion, for many of my arguments they didnt even have answers. Like that fanatic who keeps telling us both to look up wiki articles on how to edit. I followed the instructions of one of the links he gave me, and when the results came out against him, he refused to acknowledge it. By wiki's own rules the most common name should be used to name an article, and according to a google search Wall is 5 times more common than Barrier. Message me back, so we can decide what to do before acting. ValenShephard 08:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsignedcomment added by ValenShephard (talk •contribs)

Hi again, can those sources be used? Do they come under the requirements for reliable sources? Best wishes, ValenShephard 15:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added byValenShephard (talk • contribs)

Hey, I proposed on the israel west bank wall discussion page that we should start a new section which outlines the controvesy over naming the wall. It should include sources from all sides, those calling it wall and those calling it barrier. We can use your evidence from the UN, where 150 nations or something are in favour of calling it a wall. This should speak for itself, But we need a few good sources, a few from the UN itself and some reliable publications discussing it. What do you think? Best wishes ValenShephard 11:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)

Six Day War

Thanks Shoplifter - I really appreciate your comments! Phersu (talk) 07:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Curious

What I find interesting is that out of the seven examples of preemption cited in the article, you chose to challange the Six Day War (which is universally the most cited example of preemption). A mystery indeed.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Your title

Hi Shoplifter. I'm a regular editor, just like yourself or anyone else. It doesn't take any special privileges to try to help resolve disputes. ← George ^talk 17:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess I've been through enough of these contentious debates to have some idea on how to solve them, and to recognize when editors are (unintentionally) talking past each other, instead of working together to build some common ground. ← George ^talk 17:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your point.

I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you arguing for reinsertion of the UNEF bit, or arguing that Finkelstein isn't POV?• Ling.Nut 07:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I never said the "Just say no to UNEF" position of Israel shouldn't be discussed. It certainly should be discussed in appropriate section.. but not in the WP:LEAD. There's simply... no... room... for supporting points (and they shouldn't be there even if there were room.. but there isn't). Everyone wants everything in. • Ling.Nut 12:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

other articles

• I might work on Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, off and on. • Ling.Nut 15:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I very much appreciate that. I changed the wording in Preemptive war. The prior one used was exceptionally slanted, as is the case with most all articles that deal with the issue. In all honesty, I think the way the Arab-Israeli conflict is portrayed at WP is systematically biased in Israel's favor. I'm hardly a radical either; I agree with the UN General Assembly and the ICJ. I've spoken to harlan before on the necessity of, at least, streamlining the content here at WP so the most pressing questions (the illegality of the occupation, in particular) doesn't come out of sight.

I don't know your views, and I'm not trying to push my opinion. If we can get all articles to read objectively on the Six-Day War, in accordance with the consenus lede, that's a very good first step. So, again, thank you for your effort.Shoplifter (talk) 15:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

since you asked...

• Since you asked for English corrections. "Equanimous" (on your user page) is not, to the best of my knowledge, an English word. Try looking for the adjectives that are synonyms of "composed" here. Also, if you edit using Mozilla Firefox, it has a spell-checker. Just because you asked. :-) Later • Ling.Nut 00:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Preemptive

Eh, building on this spate of goodwill, do you mind if I propose compromise language that both of us can live with on that little side battle that we're having? I think it's better than back and forth reverting.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

POV editing

Shoplifter: You claim that you are not a POV warrior. Please put your actions where your talk is. Make any edits anywhere which argue against the "Israel is illegitimate /evil; Arabs are innocent victims" narrative. If you are unable to do that, then you are editing from a POV. It's an acid test, really. 23:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

If you signed your comment I'd be delighted to engage in a civil discussion of your, in my view, groundless accusation.Shoplifter (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh! Sorry. You can look in the hist and see it was me. I am logged in. I just didn't type in enough tildes.• Ling.Nut 23:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I've replied in the talk page to Six-Day War. I'm very surprised that you would make this accusation following that particular edit, which reflects international law. There is not a droplet of anti-Israeli reasoning behind it, as far as I can tell.Shoplifter (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Peppering the lead – which is foregrounded – with all this extra talk of illegal this, consensus that, etc. immediately predisposes the reader into an anti-Israel bias. If you want to put all this talk of how the territorial seizure is illegal in the article, put it in the body text, in an appropriate section – not the lead.• Ling.Nut 00:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I've replied in the Six-Day War page. If you have any further personal comments, you can post them here, otherwise I suggest we stick to the discussion over there. Shoplifter (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• You seem to have deleted my reply...? • Ling.Nut 02:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• No? If I did, it was unintentional while fixing my own text. Shoplifter (talk) 02:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Look again. If you are truly NPOV, then I apologize. Your edits, however, are precisely in line with edits of persons whose avowed position is POV. • Ling.Nut 02:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• Look where? I have not intentionally deleted any text by anyone anywhere. I don't want to get into any mudslinging about who's POV. Let's discuss the issue and try to remain calm and reasonable. Shoplifter (talk) 02:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• I am not mudslinging; the page is overpopulated with POV warriors. Look at your last edit. You erased my reply.• Ling.Nut 02:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)~

• Okay, now I saw it. I apologize, it was completely unintentional. I will restate it and read it. Shoplifter(talk) 02:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• The discussion is too nonstop. I need to take care of real life. Think I'll take a cool-off wikibreak for perhaps three days. Hope the lead doesn't change too much in the interim. • Ling.Nut 03:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• I probably won't be making any changes. In fact, I think that was my first signficant edit to the lead.Shoplifter (talk) 03:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Be specific, give examples . . . do not take the law in hand . . . gosh, such authority!

Dear Shoplifter:

Might you be specific, and give examples of how and why my work is incorrect? Please.

I read all of the correspondence in the talk page, and abided its recommendations about focusing on the man, rather than his outraged detractors. This biography has little biographic substance and a surfeit of opinion, the gospel of hoi polloi. Yes, he says unpleasant things, yet the Germans acknowledge that. Stylistically, it was written as a magazine article, again, opinion rather than factual reportage.

Of what do you disapprove? I have added facts, times, places, full identification (names rather than weasel words, i.e. "some critics", condemned, argued, etc.)? Let me know, what is incorrect, of what do you disapprove? I know a curious mind who wants to know how initiative (boldness) is uncool . . . quote the rules again, by reading them, so that you and I might correspond towards concurrence. Meanwhile, please lower that rolled magazine.

On the level (and by the square), Let me know, I shall continue, with or without your permission, after all . . . you do not own the page . . . do you?

Best regards,

Mhazard9 (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Daniel Goldhagen. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.HupHollandHup (talk) 01:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The way I read it, there is no entitlement to 3 reverts - and you could easily be blocked for what you have already done. I would have given the other editor the same warning, but when I stopped by their page I saw you had already done so. Now, stop reverting and discuss your issues on the talk page. HupHollandHup (talk) 01:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not a "view" , it is a policy on wikipedia. Feel free to ignore the warning, at your own risk.HupHollandHup (talk) 01:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

That you keep harping on the fact that you stopped at exactly 3 reverts tells me you do not really understand the policy, and your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, you do think there's an entitlement to edit war, so long as it stops with 3 reverts per day. You are wrong, and will probably find out how wrong you are the hard way. HupHollandHup (talk) 01:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

there you go again - "I'm full aware that more than three reverts is grounds for a block. " - please do yourself a favor, and actually read WP:3RR, which says, among other things "an administrator may still act whenever they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring, even if the three-revert rule has not been breached." I thought I was being a "good cop", by warning you, rather than reporting you, since I don't actually wish to see you blocked. But the writing is on the wall. HupHollandHup (talk) 02:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

no worries :) HupHollandHup (talk) 02:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)