User talk:Ezeu/Archive7

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

Kanga

Hujambo, bwana. Habara za nyumbani?

At Matt's talk, I saw you proposed to move Kanga (African garment) to some other place. I've just moved it to East African garments to get it out of the way (I'm planning to rewrite and expand the article on the kanga). I do not like that name too much, though, so if you have a better idea, feel free to move it.

BTW, do you know where we could find relevant pictures for Kanga (African garment)? — mark ✎ 07:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Nzuri ndugu, asante. Yes, the article was wrongly named. As you said at Talk:East African garments, kanga and ketenge should each have an article, but in the mean time East African garments is the better title. I see that you have found some books on the topic. Next time I'm in town I'll go to the library to find some more references. I have sent a couple of emails to ask for permission to use the images I have googled, awaiting replies.--Ezeu 08:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds great! See also some notes I jotted down while reading. There's a lot to write on this topic; I think I'm going to focus on the kanga as a vehicle of communication for now, and I thought it would be great if we could turn this into an East African collaboration. Hope you'll get permission to use some pictures. Kwa heri, — mark ✎ 16:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The return of reason at the Nelson Mandela site

Hi Ezeu, I am delighted to see that the discussion at the Nelson Mandela site has become more reasonable, especially since my point of view with regard to that ridiculous argument about pre-1994 SA being a democracy is being championed by a heavyweight like Ngwe. Good on you for sticking with the site - which I confess I gave up on for a while - and congrats on becoming an administrator.Swissjames 14:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and welcome back. Yes, lets keep watching that article to keep it optimally truthful. --Ezeu 23:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Bush family conspiracy theory

Can i ask you to restore the Bush family conspiracy theory page as it seems to me that a small group have taken it apon themselves to get together and delete it i would point out that it has already been debate and it was the consesious to keep please see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bush_family_conspiracy_theory_%282nd_nomination%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bush_family_conspiracy_theory

and

Gwernol thanks for your reply regarding Bush family conspiracy theory. Can I start out by informing you Sarcasm is neither useful or called for I have a legitimate question which I put it to you!

I have read the basic rules and I do not agree with the decision you made, and as per wikipedia guidelines I am putting it to you! I also believe that there was an earlier attempt to delete the same topic (Bush family conspiracy theory) in which it was overwhelmingly decided to keep the above mentioned page. I might also point out that the earlier discussion and later determination (to keep) had far more participation than the one that has now been made.

I might point out to that simply stating anti-bush, pointless or the like are far from an intelligent review of the content and is not consistent with the rules of wikipedia. Did you ask the author/contributor whether or not they understood how a document should be formatted ? Did you offer to help ? Or did it simply not fit you political beliefs ? When I read it last, Friday 19 May 2006, 5:56:08 AM it seemed fine and was very informative as to the views of a certain amount of people as to what is, as was clearly stated a theory! From memory some of the items did contain information from books and from NBC’s meet the press.

Pythagoras once had a bold theory that the world wasn’t flat but in fact spherical shaped. Lucky you didn’t have the delete power then or history may not have noted it. May I ask if you attempted to edit the work as per guidelines ?

There seems to be a growing problem with editors deleting items that they don’t agree with or imposing there own views with regard to things like abortion by stating that the an abortion is the death of a baby rather than the termination of an embryo people have different opinions I think and they could quite easily both be include rather then deleted and then there veiw imposed on everyone. I think the same can be said with you deleting the above mentioned document it had be discussed already and the consensus was to keep, your much smaller group later getting together to delete seems to me, to be and abuse of power. One which I hope you will reverse. Wikipedia does not support censorship. And i wont use it if it does!

Can you please take a second look and get back to me thanks _free Freedomspeechman 09:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwernol"

The last AfD reached a clear "delete" decision by consensus. Nothing I can do about that. --Ezeu 14:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

JayFox161

Hi, I replaced the {{test3}} you gave to JayFox161 (talk · contribs) with a {{comment3}}. Hope that's OK. Cheers, Vectro 02:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

No worries. --Ezeu 02:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

What's with you and Ethiopians?

Despite our huge disagreements, I've always found you a reasonable editor. Because of this I don't understand your paranoid, dogmatic, and even hostile attitude towards anything that questions the Blackness of Ethiopians. The fact that a 2001 genetic study from one of the best universities in the world came out and stated that's it's innaccurate to call Ethiopians Black is a very noteable, well sourced, interesting, and relevant fact that belongs in wikipedia, and the fact that you removed it from the article seems like POV pushing. I thought you were better than that. I'm not trying to deny the Blackness of Ethiopians, however, I do think this scientific debate should be briefly mentioned somewhere in the article, because a good article includes all perspectives, especially scientific ones and it's needed to balance all the discussion about Ethiopians being considered Black in antiquity. --Whatdoyou 18:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I should also add that I do realize that MOST people in the world consider Ethiopians Black. I myself thought they were Black until very recently. However if scientists come out and say that most people are wrong, I think that's notable, even if the scientists themselves are wrong.--Whatdoyou 19:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Funny that you mention it. The question "what's with Whatdoyou and Ethiopians?" recently crossed my mind. Your claim that you are not trying to deny the blackness of Ethiopians is contrary to everything you have written about Ethiopians that I have read, including your creation of the now deleted controversy over the race of Ethiopians. Yes, I am hostile towards attempts to question the blackness of Ethiopians based on bizarre and aberrant theories. What I still have to figure out is what your motives are. I smell a fish. But perhaps I have been a bit quick to revert. Go ahead and mention that study, but do not insinuate that it is a generally held view. --Ezeu 19:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Help

Could you offer up a non-biased, neutral opinion to a few surveys for naming convention changes? The pages are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:South_Tyrol, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Trentino-South_Tyrol, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bozen-Bolzano. Thanks! Rarelibra 20:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The Decider

Your decision to merge "The Decider" with Bushism makes no sense. A Bushism is an error in diction or word useage. For Bush to say that he is "the decider" is not an error in language and so it is not a "Bushism". Something is wrong here. --Blue Tie 04:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The best place to discuss that is at Talk:Bushism. "The Decider" was redirected to the Bushism article after the AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Decider. That AfD was a close call between "delete" and "merge", so I closed it as "merge" because deletions require a clearer consensus. In reality it was not a merge, but a redirect, as "the decider" was mentioned in the Bushism article prior to the closing of the AfD. --Ezeu 06:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You an I need to team up

I know you agree with Zaph's views on who the term Black refers to, but I also know that your smart enough to understand that Black is just a word and you were the first to point out that there's no clear definition of the term other than people who are literally the color of charcoal. That's why I support the movement by you, Jossi, Carlos, and Timelist to have a disambiguation page that redirects to the Definitions of black people article. But Zaph keeps ranting about how certain people simply are Black period. I keep bringing up the Black irish example (which I know you don't like), not because I want to push this view, but simply to get him to understand how unproductive his constant ranting is. Although you and I may differ in who we consider black, we both agree that all sides should be represented in a referenced well cited NPOV way. Even those of you who agree with Zaph's opinion of Black identity would rather see it represented as part of a balanced credible article full of references that people can actually cite.__Whatdoyou 16:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with Zaph's views per se, but like you mentioned, I argue that "Black" cannot be defined in one sentence – it is an issue too complex to be easily defined. Re: black Irish, I still do not see how it is relevant to the issue of black people. --Ezeu 18:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well let's focus on what you and I agree on. We both agree that black is a term that means different things to different people and we both agree that the Definitions of black people article is well cited and NPOV. The thing I like about it is all the engergy that both sides wasted trying to find citations showing that one side or the other was wrong, have now been used productively in a well cited article that shows both sides. Because the article tells the full story by simply quoting different views, it makes it very difficult for people to turn it into a POV essay as the current Black people article has become. It also provides useful citations for people interested in researchin the topic. Since we've at last found an article that fairly represents both your views and my views, I think we need to unite behind the Definitions of black people article and get rid of the current Black people article since it's causing nothing but chaos. With you and I both in agreement for a change, I think we have the potential to create some stability.__Whatdoyou 15:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Idi Amin

Hello, the subject of Idi Amin's supposed cannibal apetite is acknowledged in the Amin mythos. Also several reputable sources have given reference to this claim as fact, therefore it is not POV as far as I am aware. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia but there is such a thing as responsible writing: Changing "There were also rumours that he was a cannibal, though this has never been proven" to "There were also reports that he had a cannibalistic appetite" do not contradict each other. The latter edit implicitly acknowledges that the contention is unproven (although I question this). There is no problem with POV here, it is an acknowledgement of the 'cannibalistic' mythos. Ekantik 01:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Dictator

How can there be no unbiased definition of a dicator? Doesn't the wikipedia have an article on dictators, and state that Stalin was a dictator? --Sugarcaddy 20:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Ministry of Public Works Niger.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Ministry of Public Works Niger.jpg. I notice 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 free image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

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 any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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.– Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Bush war

Great to see the detail you've added with the breakout of the Ugandan Bush War artice! TreveX^talk 18:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The article is still missing alot of details, like how the war affected Ugandans, both during and after. --Ezeu 13:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

About AFD Third_holiest_site_in_Islam

I do not understand why the article is still there when majority are against it creating. According to my count 19 keeps and 27 deletes. Why you have not extends the time and wait for some more votes? Can I nominate it once again now? --- ابراهيم 20:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

AFD is not a vote. There were many good arguments to keep, and to delete. Merely counting votes is not the way AFDs are decided. As there was no clear consensus either way, I closed the AfD as "no consensus" which is default to keep. You can nominate the article for deletion as many times as you wish, but tediously renominating articles will probably work against your objective.--Ezeu 20:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a mistake again and it only proves the general view taken in the Academic circles which warn from how unprofessional non academic and unreliable WikiPedia's articles are. Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 08:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Ezeu I wish to know that what "good arguments" you found in favour of keeping the POV filled article? It is obvious from the voting that in the beginning most of the votes were KEEP but then DELETE start coming very regularly. It was an obvious choice to wait a bit longer so that we could reach any consensus. This approach is done mostly in such situations. Why you decided not to wait any longer (by extended the deadline and re-listing it)? --- ابراهيم 10:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Yankees Suck

Hello. I noticed that the merge tag you placed on the Yankees Suck article and the AFD result tag on the talk page for this article claim that the result of the AFD was to merge to another article. There was no consensus to merge or delete as the closing admin pointed out. Could you fix this please. Thanks. -- No Guru 01:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was looking at the debate for the first deletion nomination. -- No Guru 01:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Robert Charles Griggs

Since Calton didn't notify you, I will: he brought your closure up to DRV. Thought you should know. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

deleting Thom Brooks

Hi. You closed the AfD for the above (and some linked articles) on the 3rd, but they don't actually seem to have been deleted. Not a criticism, I'm just wondering... Cheers, Sam Clark 12:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Done now. --Ezeu 14:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Active couple

The consensus appeared to be that the article was a dictionary definition, and therefore belonged in Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. However, nobody has created an entry at Wiktionary. Is it possible to get access to the deleted content so that I can create an account at Wikt and create the appropriate article? Argyriou (talk) 23:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I have created a temp page of the article at User:Ezeu/temp/Active couple. --Ezeu 23:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I will create the Wikt article soon; I'll let you know when it's up. Argyriou (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that took a while. But wikt:active couple now exists. Thanks for saving the text for me! Argyriou (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Good work, well done. I will now delete the temp page. --Ezeu 19:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding deletion of Cold War (Battlefield 2142) article

Please, don't just delete my article. Is there no way to salvage the text I wrote up? This was not just a five minute copy paste job. Again, please, if there's any way to save the article - perhaps be reformatted, or merged. Please don't just hit the big delete button on my article! Windows2142 02:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• I did not just haphazardly delete the artilce, it went through the normal deletion procedure. I have posted the content of the deleted article at User:Windows2142/Cold War (Battlefield 2142). --Ezeu 14:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Protest deletion

You cannot just delete an article that took me a long time to write and that was based on sources. I counted four people (including myself that were against the delete) not to mention one individual who stated that he felt it was a "weak delete." I vigorously protest this decision and I want the article back up. It is not "non-notable fancruft." Considering that 4 people were opposing three people (one of them being a "weak delete") I do not understand why the article was speedily deleted.

The following is the section that deals with "fancruft"

As with most of the issues of importance and notability in Wikipedia, there is no firm policy on the inclusion of obscure branches of popular culture subjects. It is true that things labeled fancruft are often deleted from Wikipedia. This is primarily due to the fact that things labeled as fancruft are often poorly written, unreferenced, unwikified, and non-neutral - all things that lead to deletion. Such articles may fall into some of the classes of entries judged to be "indiscriminate collections of information". Well-referenced and well-written articles on obscure topics are from time to time deleted as well, but such deletions are controversial. It is also worth noting that many articles on relatively obscure topics are featured articles.

Generally speaking, the perception that an article is fancruft can be a contributing factor in its nomination and deletion, but it is not the actual reason for deletion. Rather, the term fancruft is a shorthand for content which one or more editors consider unencyclopedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality or original research.

The article was not "poorly written" and drew upon primary sources (in this case blogs). I cite the three other people who agreed with me.

Don't Delete Might not be world-famous, but the games have developed a cult following.--CyberGhostface 20:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Do not delete. The rules of citation in Wikipedia exist to ensure the quality and encyclopedia-worthiness of the articles. A well written article about a flash game that has been played by millions of people is clearly encyclopedia-worthy. Documentation of the type desired is not possible, because official references on this game do not exist, but because the game is significant, the spirit rather than the letter of the rules on citation should be followed in this case, and the article should be allowed to remain. User:Kier07

Do Not Delete. Blogs may not always be the most reliable sources, but Ben Leffler's blog is a primary source. Since Ben Leffler is the creator of the games, any information he gives out will probably be most accurate. This article is well-written, and documents a landmark in internet gaming.--Tusserte 18:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

This game was played by 5 million people and the second game was played by 1.3 million. It developed a "cult following" and I used as many reliable sources as possible, and wrote a well-written article. I protest this deletion and desire for the article ot be reposted. --User:Ladb2000

Moved to here from your userpage. — mark ✎ 12:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• I stand by my decision. If you disagree you can take it up at Wikipedia:Deletion review. --Ezeu 13:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• I want an answer as to why it was speedily deleted? 4 people (including myself) were opposed to two deletes and one weak delete. Majority rules, does it not? I see that you stand by your decision, but I want answers, concrete ones, as to why you deleted an article dealing with a real game that had a "cult following"? In my opinion, you have gone against the "spirit of wikipedia" and I am not entirely convinced that my article counted as fancruft. The article was not "poorly written" and drew upon primary sources (in this case blogs). There were sources provided by the author of the game (on the author's blog), pictures from the game, other blogs with reviews, and that was it. How is this "non-notable fancruft"? I desire answers for your decision. You cannot just simply delete something that took a lot of time and effort, without warning. That page had 4 opposed to 3, and you casted the deciding vote (with one "weak delete"). That is not fair. User:Ladb2000

• • The article was not speedily deleted, it spent 11 days on AfD, during which time no reliable independent sources were given to assert the notability of the game (see Wikipedia:Notability (web)). Blogs are not reliable sources, and AfD is not decided by vote counting. --Ezeu 10:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Protection of Robert Gates

Since you protected the article, you might as well fix the fucked up formatting —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.184.184.76 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC).

Done so. --Ezeu 18:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

on the contrary

On the contrary... I had many reasons to remove spam placing of tags. Amoruso 11:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you did. I should have stayed out of your querrel, I beg your perdon.--Ezeu 11:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, no problem. Amoruso 11:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Diff to deleted arguments removed by Ezeu (12:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Those arguments where there because you are an admin . Should not I consider you as a mediator and admin anymore ? --- ابراهيم 13:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Because I am an admin does not mean I have to get involved in every argument, especially when the argument is as trivial as this is. It is not even clear what you are arguing about. There is an AfD going on, that is where the arguments should be made. Do you have a problem with another editor? Do you require mediation? If yes, state your case properly. If not, spare me the petty bickering. --Ezeu 13:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I am really sorry about that. I will never ever try to approach you again. --- ابراهيم 13:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You did not approach me, you happened to argue with Amoruso on my talk page. Now you are making a chicken of a feather. --Ezeu 13:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It was written in alian langauges language that you cannot understand? Should I write in only BOLD for your reading. Who I was approaching here: "can he Amoruso could also write KEEP 10 times in bold while discussion. Is the way he replies is the right behaviour? I am talking about following discussion." User Amoruso or you? --- ابراهيم 14:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I really wish that I can somehow re-vote on your admin post. You do not deserve to be one. --- ابراهيم 14:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably. --Ezeu 14:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I cut pasted the discussion for you to read from AFD page and even ONCE has not replied to Amoruso. But yes because it was in some unknown langauge hence you are right I was talking to him (in invisible characters). --- ابراهيم 14:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Third holiest site in Islam

"in hindsight maybe I should have relisted the AfD to attain a better consensus." The AfD had been listed for 11 days (if my maths is right), which is, err, somewhat longer than usually and still failed to reach consensus. No basis to question your judgment on this matter. Beit Or 15:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --Ezeu 21:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Third holiest site in Islam on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Third holiest site in Islam. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. Amerique ^dialectics 07:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC).

To clarify the disupute is over the closing of the second nomination, while you closed the first. However your opinion on if the second nomination was out of line or not would be appreciated there. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I have given my opinion there. --Ezeu 00:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet attack on Alireza Jafarzadeh

Another sockpuppet of User:John Baxter appears to be vandalising the Alireza Jafarzadeh article again. Can you please have a look and take the appropriate action? The last round of attacks was conducted by Baxter and his sockpuppet, User:Iraneditor User:Iraneditor is currently replacing the article with much the same material. --Dave 00:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Update: Please note that User:Iraneditor is incrementally editing the Alireza Jafarzadeh article to resemble the version preferred by the User:John Baxter sockpuppets. This is a change of tactic from the previous full article reverts, but the effect is the same: information unflattering to the subject is removed and replaced with material straight from his own website. Can you please assist? The previous edit war with these sockpuppets lasted months, I really don't want to get into a war of attrition again. --Dave 02:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of the sockpuppetry, and that they (the socks) do not want any mention of Alireza Jafarzadeh's connections with National Council of Resistance of Iran, and the ties to Mujahedin-e Khalq. Following my message to User:Iraneditor on his talk page, he seems to see the point, and has at least refrained from rewriting the article wholesale. I am willing to give him the benefit of doubt for the time being. --Ezeu 02:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Aaron Logan Images

Hi , I noticed you uploaded a lot of images to Commons:Category:Aaron_Loganwith the {{cc-by}} and {{cc-by-2.0}} licenses. From the website these images are licensed {{cc-by-2.5}} . I changed the Image:Lightmatter chimp.jpg one. GameKeeper 08:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I re-uploaded one image by Aaron Logan, for the sake of renaming it. The other images I merely categorized. --Ezeu 20:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Languages of Uganda

Hujambo, Ezeu! Habari gani?

I've been cleaning up stuff and moving around things in Languages of Uganda. I've finally removed that anecdote following more discontentment on talk, but I have left another paragraph based on that same source intact, the one that goes "Uganda is a country with a history of rivalry and political disagreement. Language differences may have increased ethnic tensions and caused difficulty in forming a national identity." Thing is, I don't really like the tone of that line. How does it feel to you, and what do you think about it? — mark ✎ 09:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

UCLA and Creative Commons

I saw you added a link to the UCLA languages project in Public domain image resources. I have thought about doing that before, but I was held back by their particular license, which is Creative Commons Non-Commercial. For Wikipedia that seems fine, but how does it work when someone decides to use Wikipedia content in a commercial distribution? That is fine under the GFDL (Wikipedia's own license), but CC-NC stipulates that "if you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a license identical to this one" -- which would seem to preclude commercial use. The result is a licensing incompatibility. Has this been discussed somewhere? — mark ✎ 09:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Mark, I've replied at your talk page. --Ezeu 19:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Fortitude Valley

Hi Ezeu. With regard to your move of Fortitude Valley, Queensland to Fortitude Valley, Brisbane in August, please be aware that naming conventions for Australian places require that all suburbs be claused by state. Just for future reference :), --cj | talk 07:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair dinkum! I don't see the logic (Fortitude Valley is after all a suburb of Brisbane), but I'm a sucker for order (trully, no sarcasm intended), so thanks for pointing it out :) --Ezeu 20:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

When the new is old

Hi,

I smell the odor of Brevibacterium linens in the person of the editor who made a recent change of article title and word change pertaining to black people. I think the order of the day is, "Don't feed the trolls."

Let's try to work together to preserve good process in that article. P0M 07:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The thought has crossed my mind as well, but the urge to not only feed the troll, but to also slap it around the head a couple times, is overwhelming. --Ezeu 08:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't remember whether it was Stokley Carmichael or LBJ who said it first: "Any man can stomp a skunk, but you sure as hell hate to have to do it."  :-) P0M 16:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL :) --Ezeu 17:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Black people

I apologize for reverting your edit but I have a very good reason. Wobble's "tidying up" is favoring one definition over another by making statements like "this is an exclusive concept and would exclude many Black people of non recent African ancestry." The very fact that he's calling people with non-recent African ancestry black is favoring the broader definition. Hence in order for the article to be NPOV, we can't call ANYONE black or not black, all we can do is report how they are classified by various definitions Timelist 08:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

His edit removed POV and made the article more neutral. The POV in the previous version was implicit - written between the lines. --Ezeu 17:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, just wanted to say that I agree with everything you have contributed to the Black people article. I think we have a similar perspective on this. I have always been interested in neutrality, verifiability and no original research as the fundamental concepts for wikipedia. But then there are always people with an agenda to push, on every article I have ever edited. Keep up the good work. Cheers, Alun 08:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, lets keep trying. I believe it is too important a subject to leave to contentious and stubborn editors with an agenda. --Ezeu 19:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Question/assistance

Hi Ezeu, This is Iraneditor. I have been editing Alireza Jafarzadeh's page but DMOSS keeps removing and/or changing the wording of what I add. His citations are mainly from www.iraninterlink.org which is a site belonging to Iranian Regime's Information Ministry (check this site: http://www.iranterror.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=97&Itemid=47). I don't know what his problem is. I have seen his other editings which are mainly contributing against the Iranian opposition figures and groups. Please advise me on what I could do?

Thanks, Iraneditor```Dec 5, 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iraneditor (talk • contribs) 01:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

I have tried more than once to remove unsourced and potentially POV material from that article. Jafarzadeh is a controversial person, but nevertheless, unsourced claims shouldnt be put into the article. Furthermore, even if the claims are sourced, they should be written as neutral as possible. NPOV means the article should neither slander him, nor to whitewash him – that is the balance that is difficult to achieve. --Ezeu 17:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Joke

I do not blame you for removing Balino-Antimod's posting which was way over the top. But the more I see of these falangists, the more I am convinced they are not serious and just there on the page to make fun of us. These statements they make are so outrageous I refuse to believe that these people are real.--Filll 04:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

They are real, they have an agenda, and they are entitled to edit Wikipedia. However, disruptive behaviour by flamebaiting on talkpages is not acceptable. By the way, thank you for your attempts to bring reason to the Black people article. --Ezeu 17:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Mandela: The Authorised Biography

I am trying to expand this article, mainly focusing on the differences between this book and other accounts (books and otherwise) of Mandela's life and South Africa throughout this period. As someone who has contributed a lot to the Mandela article, I wondered if you had anything to contribute: please seethe peer review page: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Mandela:_The_Authorised_Biography"

Thanks. :) BillMasen 17:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I will do what I can. --Ezeu 17:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Black people

I really think we can make this work if we try. I am not sure what compromise to attempt. I do not care if the article is split in two or three. I want everyone's voice to be heard, and I want all views represented. I also want to find a place for all the fascinating information that people are digging up and that exists out there. I do not care if we have to bend over backwards to do it, but it should be possible to move this project forward. It should not be impossible to get everyone to compromise on something so writing can progress. As I continue to learn more about this subject and the amount of material that exists, our energy would be far better spent writing rather than arguing. This is an immense and fascinating area. I fear we have burned out far too many editors already who have given up in disgust and left, with their ideas and energy. This topic should be welcoming to those of good will who want to help. It is not like there is any shortage of material to work on. --Filll 21:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. With a little give-and-take from both sides, this could be an educational and fine article. Unfortunately there is a lot of prestige vested into winning the arguments. But most annoyingly, as you mentioned, is that editors are discouraged from contibuting with the wealth of knowledge that this topic could potentially establish. --Ezeu 21:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I want different viewpoints. What I don't want is one viewpoint being portrayed as normal or usual. I do not support this at all. This just gives the impression that the article supports the contention that this is the correct meaning of Black everywhere in the world. This is not neutral. Alun 21:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Please make sure that you are familiar with the 3 revert rule. If you make more than 3 reversions in an article within 24 hrs you may be blocked from editing entirely. --Strothra 21:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Read up. I made one major edit, a couple of minor edits, and corrected a typo. I have reverted once, which is less than you have done. Furthermore, 3RR breaches do not in themselves lead to permanent blocks, so as it were, read up. --Ezeu 22:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet resurgence on Alireza Jafarzadeh

The sockpuppets have returned to the Alireza Jafarzadeh article with the same agenda as previously. Can you please have a look and take action as appropriate? This time they have changed tack slightly and begun interacting on the talk page. Despite this the incremental changes made eventually revert the article look like the version favoured by User:Middle East Editor. --Dave 02:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Further information, the person currently attempting to delete material unflattering to Mr Jafarzadeh is User:Sima-azad. Not only is Alireza Jafarzadeh the only article ever edited by Sima-azad, but the username is suspiciously similar to Simaye Azadi(Vision of Freedom), the Mujahideen al-Khalq magazine and satellite TV station. I'd appreciate a bit of help as Sima-azad is now reverting the article a couple of times a day. --Dave 18:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoever he is, I cannot sanction him merely for having the username he has. He is not vandalising per se, perhaps pushing a certain POV. He too is claiming that others are pushing POV. I cannot, as an admin, choose sides, but I am protecting the article as the edit warring is escalating. It is perhaps time to take the article to RFC so more editors can get involved. --Ezeu 22:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ezeu, you appear to have protected the page while it was in its vandalised state. This is unfortunate because User:Sima-azad violated WP:3RR in order to accomplish this and the sockpuppets have won the day. The material they are promoting is essentially the same as that used by User:Middle East Editor before he and his sockpuppets were permanently banned. (I think you may even have been the Admin who banned them.) I was not suggesting you ban User:Sima-azad because of the username, I was simply pointing out the significance of the username. User:Sima-azad is clearly an MEK activist with a conflict of interest in this matter. I have no interest in the subject matter other than keeping the article factual and complete. An easy test for this is to check the edit history of everyone involved in this dispute. The only edits the socks have made in Wikipedia is in the Alireza Jafarzadeh article, I have contributed to over 600 unique articles]. For me this is just another article and just another battle in the war against vandalism. If I lose I will simply shrug, remove the article from my watchlist and edit elsewhere. I hope you will revert the article to the original version and make that the starting point for negotiation. Despite the edit comments, the replacement text favoured by the sockpuppets is essentially unreferenced and mostly copied straight from Jafarzadeh's own websites. We really don't want to encourage this sort of thing. --Dave 23:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The best thing is to get more editors involved in editing the article so a broad consensus can be reached. It will also be easier to manage the article if more editors are watching it, so I am going to list the article at RFC. --Ezeu 00:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

David, You are right that I am not using my real name. I have explained that in a prior talk (see below). You are also right that my main focus right now is to prevent cavalier slander against Jafarzadeh, an important opposition figure to the Iranian regime, who, specially after his revealing the Iran’s secret attempts, has been the target of all sorts of attack from the Iranian regime – if you are not part of this orchestrated effort, then it is a freak coincidence. Nevertheless, I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt. So here is what I suggest:

1- If there is any piece of information in the current version that you think is not accurate, let us know (be very specific) so we can discuss it. 2- There is no attempt to hide the relation that Jafarzadeh has had with NCRI. The current version clearly states that he has been NCRI’s spokesperson for about 12 year. Do you think this is inaccurate? 3- As far as I have seen in the reliable sources, Jafarzadeh’s association with MEK has been through NCRI’s relation with MEK. Do you have other reliable sources that indicate otherwise (again do not bring up Iran-interlink.org enough said about them). 4- What does Jafarzadeh’s private life has to do with this? And again do you have any reliable sources on this? If not- for god’s sake leave this behind. 5- Your language and choice of words in this article is obviously partisan. Do not insult our intelligence by pretending you are this fair unbiased researcher who just happens to be interested in promoting accuracy please. 6- WI: 3RR clearly excludes removing unsourced/poorly sourced defamatory material from an article.

Sima-azad 00:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC) sima

Mediation case

Now that I have skimmed the Mediation case (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-08 Black people) I see that we have a much bigger problem than I realized. Editingoprah and his or her sock puppets have been causing problems for a long long time. I think that if Editingoprah/Kobrakid/Timelist etc does not want to adopt their own article to edit and leave this one alone, we should get them barred from this article. It is clear that they have had some sort of crazy irrational agenda for many months that no one else agrees with. I am sorry to sound so harsh but that is what it looks like to me. I should have realized this sooner.--Filll 14:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this has been going on for ages. I intend to open a request for arbitration as soon as I find the time to do so. --Ezeu 16:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Extent of Problem

Suspected Sockpuppets of Editingoprah:

• User:64.230.72.185
• User:Aquadaqua
• User:Cardriver
• User:Kittykash
• User:Kobrakid
• User:Timelist
• User:Vexel
• User:Liketoread
• User:Whatdoyou

Take a look at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Editingoprah.M This is one person who has been harassing other users here for months and months and ignoring mediation attempts. We have a problem.--Filll 16:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Editingoprah and Timelist are on the same IPs (see checkuser), but they claim to be classmates. --Ezeu 16:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I have my doubts since they seem to have identical viewpoints.--Filll 16:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

They could be classmates as they claim, pushing exactly the same POV that their professor teaches them, and since they can work in cohorts, they manage to gain some leverage. I have had some teachers with strange opinions that are contrary to what is generally held – and that is fine, but wikipedia does not allow for fringe opinions from school teachers. --Ezeu 16:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Stereotypes of Africans/Blacks

I just wanted to thank you for nominating this piece of crap article for deletion. The most offensive piece of crap I have ever seen in wikipedia, and I've seen quite a bit. Timelist 23:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it is one of the most offencive articles I have come across. At least now some of the blatant racism has been removed. --Ezeu 15:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Not just offensive, but DANGEROUS. It scares me to think of all the people who read wikipedia. I can't do a goodle search on any topic without wikipedia coming up in the top several search results and I have several classmates that actually cite wikipedia in school papers. The stereotypes in that article may not be strong now, but they sure will be after being on wikipedia for a few years. It scares me to speculate on what motivates people to create such articles in the first place. Wikipedia needs to have higher standards when it comes to potentially libelous information, not just about living living persons, but also about groups of people Timelist 16:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Rob walton.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rob walton.jpg. I notice 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 {{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 any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. Chowbok ☠ 15:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

need your urgent attention to alireza jafarzadeh's article

David Moss continues to add false / unsourced or poorly sourced material that is defamatory and falls under character assassination. I have recently registered and I am not very familiar with the customary processes in WI. My sole reason was to prevent false slanderous information that is potentially very harmful to the reputation of a very respected opposition member to the Iranian regime. Out of fear of reprisal from Iranian regime I have not given my real name but if it is needed, I will do so. My only request from Davis Moss is to use ONLY material that is reliably sourced. Sources that are very partisan, involved in several law suits against them for fabricating, falsifying and forging information against Iranian opposition members and have conspicuous relations with the Iranian ministry of intelligence must not be used. Sima-azad 21:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)sima

As the edit warring is not subsiding, I have protected the page so the involved editors can discuss the issues in the article's talk page. Note that protection is temporary, and is not an endorsement of the current page version. --Ezeu 21:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ezeu, I'm starting to get worn down by this. Can you please do something about the sockpuppetry in this article? I'm getting to the point I'm ready end my association with Wikipedia I'm so annoyed. It should not be possible for a sockpuppet/meatpuppet cabal to destroy an article in this way, especially as people have previously been banned permanently for essentially the same thing in this article recently. I leave it up to you to deal with this. I'll be back in a couple of days, after I've cooled down, to see if its worth continuing. --Dave 15:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

David, I've replied at your talk page. --Ezeu 16:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

New generation of African leaders

In case you hadn't noticed, New generation of African leaders has been proposed for deletion. NickelShoe (Talk) 05:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. --Ezeu 11:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Al Amoudi

There's more fighting going on over at Mohammed Al Amoudi. So far those claiming he is Arab have provided no evidence, but I can't just keep reverting. Care to help out? — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 21:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

No worries, its on my watchlist. --Ezeu 21:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Marley

Thanks for your help on Bob Marley this year and have a nice Christmas, SqueakBox 01:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Have a nice Christmas and a great new year. --Ezeu 01:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Baaba Maal question

Greetings Ezeu,

Perhaps you would know the answer to this question [1] since you seem to be such a fan of African music. Aksanti! --DBlomgren 03:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Untagged image

An image you uploaded, Image:Udsm.jpg, was tagged with the {{coatofarms}} copyright tag. This tag was deleted because it does not actually specify the copyright status of the image. The image may need a more accurate copyright tag, or it may need to be deleted. If the image portrays a seal or emblem, it should be tagged as {{seal}}. If you have any questions, ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 13:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Bantu/Muntu

Good call on the cite tag. A quick review makes it seem that Bantu is the plural of Muntu, so we get people/person. It needs more work to get authoritative, but maybe we should yank it unless some positive evidence turns up (which I am guessing is unlikely) ? Jd2718 19:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as i know, and the way I and others use it, muntu means person, not specifically black person. However, since at least two people who are bantu speakers claim muntu is black person, I am requesting a reference rather than remove it. The reply by Hala at the talk page seems to be original research. --Ezeu 19:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pinkus

Other than suggesting that it could be made into a dab page, your close of the AfD offers no explanation for why you chose to delete the article in the face of majority consensus. Before being forced to put this through WP:DRV, can you offer any explanation for why you interpreted consensus as Delete, when it seems that the majority of all respondents specified Keep? Alansohn 07:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I was convinced by the arguments to delete. As for head counting, AfD is not a vote. --Ezeu 23:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It's nice to hear a that you were "convinced by the arguments", but what you actually stated was "The result was delete. Can be made into a dab page." By saying the phrase "the result" you clearly imply that there was head-counting, and little else, taking place. I'd be happy to consider any relevant reason that you have to offer, above and beyond the cryptic sentences you included on the AfD, that would demonstrate that anything other than miscounting heads was involved. Particularly where explicit claims were made for retention of the article, and where equal and opposite arguments were provide, we deserve something far more detailed than what you provided. Alansohn 22:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I could have phrased it differently. I do not particularly like the phrase "the result was", but that is the standard phrase in the header template for closed AfDs (see Template:Afd top), and it is customary to add the result (ie. delete, keep etc) in bold after that phrase. But I agree that the consensus, if there was any, was not clear. So I'm relisting it. --Ezeu 09:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Makerere_crest.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Makerere_crest.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright 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. 11:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The Game (game) on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Game (game). Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Mineralè 09:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. --Ezeu 05:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Exmortis on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Exmortis. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ladb2000 05:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. --Ezeu 05:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Black people

Please check the page history, and stop making me responsible for that external link. I didn't add it to the page; I only reinstated it after you deleted it. The link was added several times from User talk:65.81.145.219, then again by User talk:74.227.247.223. I told the person to stop adding it to Black people and instead to make his case for it on the talk page...which he's trying to do. When you added the {{unsigned}} to his post, you also removed the link, so I added it back. I didn't sign it because I was reverting a deletion...not adding content that I'm prepared to take any responsibility for. I'm going to (once more) revert your addition of my signature to that link...please don't add it back. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 01:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I beg your pardon. I merely added the sign to this edit.--Ezeu 03:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, now look at my edit summary on the left side of that page, where I said "Removed incorrect signature. The link was added by 65.81.140.185. Check the history, Ezeu...you inadvertantly removed it, I only reinstated it." Then step back through the edit history until you get to this edit, where you inadvertantly deleted the link in the process of signing the anon user's post. And look at the talk pages I linked above -- I've sent that person several {{spam}} warnings about that link...and he finally took my advice and posted it to the talk page for comment. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 03:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I beg your pardon. --Ezeu 03:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawn?

Hi Ezeu, I'm confused as to why you withdrew your vote to delete the page and merge the encyclopaedic content. As most of the current content is WP:OR (as Quack 688 has confirmed), removing it would leave a short page that only targets one side, instead of including a section with both claims on the main article, which leaves a very unbalanced situation. All the best either way, Tewfik^Talk 19:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I withdrew because I wasn't convinced by own argument, in hindsight it didnt seem entirely well-grounded. I opted not to change my "vote" to keep though. --Ezeu 20:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Comoros

Hi again, Ezeu. Could you take a look at this thread. Basically, I'm wondering if you, as a more experienced African-topics editor than me, might have some more luck in finding sources and expanding the article, especially the culture section and images, as well as the rest, since I seem to have run out of sources in English. Also, I'm hoping you're a French speaker, since being only able to read the English sources is a major barrier to my finding more citable information. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 10:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

will try. --Ezeu 01:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)