User talk:Fennessy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Fullstop/Mithraic Mysteries

I think that was just a template, not a specifically patronizing message (the template itself is ridiculous and patronizing but that's another story). I don't know anything about this, so Wikipedia:Mediation is probably the best route. Adam Bishop 19:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Northern Ireland flag

Hi, you don't have to do anything; the Commons image shows up automatically at Wikipedia. In this case, however, you (presumably unintentionally) put an extra space (also rendered as an underscore) at the end of the file name before the extension: the image's name is Image:Ulster banner .png (or with underscores, Image:Ulster_banner_.png). You can upload it again under the name Commons:Image:Ulster banner.png if you like, but in general it's preferred to have flags as .svg files rather than .png files, as the current Image:Flag of Northern Ireland.svg is. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Response to your question on the mediation talk page

Hi Fennessy. Since we should refrain from further discussion on that mediation talk page, I'll try to address your question here. I believe my position is fully aligned with Wikipedia policies, and my proposal reflects that. To summarize in brief:

• The Union Flag is the only official flag of Northern Ireland. (easily meets WP:RS and WP:V)
• The Ulster Banner was the flag of the government of Northern Ireland from 1953–1972. (easily meets WP:RS and WP:V)
• Despite these points, several major sports organizations and media organizations currently use the Ulster Banner to represent Northern Ireland teams and/or athletes. (easily meets WP:RS and WP:V)
• Therefore, we have two seemingly contradictory positions that need to be reconciled on Wikipedia. My approach is as follows:
  • For articles that show thumbnail size images accompanied by explanatory text (captions or prose), illustration of the Ulster Banner is permitted as long as it represents both of these views. (meets WP:NPOV)
  • For articles that show icon size images, where no caption is possible and therefore a context is implied, the Ulster Banner icon can only be used in uncontroversial situations (e.g. for the selected set of sports where N.I. competes distinctly) (meets WP:NPOV)
  • For decorative images in navigational boxes, use a non-contentious image (such as the map icon) for almost all situations, except for uncontroversial situations as described previously (e.g. a navbox dealing with the 1953–1972 government) (meets WP:NPOV)

Honestly, I don't see anything at all here that is a violation of policy. The one area I was struggling with is how to measure "undue weight", and I admitted that. WP:UNDUE is clear about the amount of weight to be accorded multiple views, but it (unfortunately) does not have any guidance on how to actually measure the importance of competing views. I had attempted several times to start a discussion along those lines, as I thought it was the right track to follow, but those attempts were immediately met with non-sequiter replies, torpedoing any constructive engagement. That's my frustration. I'm not afraid to come to the conclusion that the sport/media unofficial usage deserves less due weight than my current opinion, but I want to go through some process to actually support a conclusion. Other involved parties seem hell-bent on avoiding any work that might lead to an unfavorable result for them, even if it might also lead to a conclusive positive result for them. That is so brazenly contrary to the spirit of mediation, that I am left feeling rather disspirited about all my work. Andrwsc 22:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Well all thats fine(as I'm sure you must realise by now, I consider giving the Ulster banner any weight in an info-box, etc. to be undue), the thing that concerned me more than anything was your accusation that User:Padraig was misinterpreting WP:LOP, which was unfounded. He may well have made reference to them in non-sequiter responses, but thats another matter. This was compounded by the fact that you didn't make any attempt to actually work out if the use of the UB was against content polices, and diverted editors to general guidelines(WP:GUIDELINES) as a counterargument.
Finally I was very disappointed when I saw that you suggested that this editor report my editing as an incident on the admin noticeboard & Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Probation for disruptive editors even though I had nothing to do with the troubles case, & my edits were entirely in good faith. Petty & pathetic is the only way I can sum that up. Fennessy 20:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion to report the incident to ANI was primarily due to the appearance of an apparent sockpuppet (Commons:User:FalseXflag), the invocation of CommonsDelinker to expedite the process before anybody knew about it, and most of all, the lack of any discussion about the name change, as I had originally suggested in this edit. I did not specifically suggest that your editing should be reported, but I can see how that could be implied, since my message was rather brief and didn't mention any of these reasons. Sorry for any consternation on your part. Andrwsc 17:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Although Andrwsc had advised that I report you to the Admins noticeboard, IE doing his job as an impartial Administrator, I declined to do so. However following your offensive comment on my Talk page, IE: the link placed in your post, which was uncalled for and in breach of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I have now referred your comment and your previous action to the Administrators' noticeboard.

Note that I entered this issue as a totally impartial editor and I feel made a fair comment on the mediation page. Thinking more about the issue; there is no actual need to rename the image, or replace it with an identical one with a different name. Wiki Commons is simply a repository of images. Over time flags all over the world come and go. Either they are redesigned entirely or just amended. If all the various flags that have been changed since they were uploaded to Wikimedia Commons were to re-uploaded with new names, followed by the subsequent changing of links and the various mediations then Wiki Commons would grind to a halt under the mediation requests alone. The multitude of changes to those flags in various African countries comes to mind here. As the images are held on Wikimedia Commons, which has a different set of rules and requirements to this Wikipedia, no images will be deleted until their editors and Admins have made their own decision and every single link to the image in each countries version of Wikipedia around the world has been changed. That job by the way is not done by the Wikimedia Commons Admins; but is the job of the person requesting the change. So with over 9.1 million articles, in 251 non English languages; such as:- Български, Чăвашла, ગુજરાતી, 古文 / 文言文, 한국어, Հայերեն, हिन्दी, ইমার ঠার/বিষ্ণুপ্রিয়া মণিপুরী, and ಕನ್ನಡ, to name but a few, I doubt it will happen. to soon. As I have edited on the Indian, Thai, Indonesian, Vietnamese and Chinese wiki's I do not envisage you will manage it. Their page layouts and login requirements are different to the English method and it only takes one link on one Wiki to retain an image on Commons. But then thats not my problem. Richard Harvey 01:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

To claim that Andrwsc is an "impartial Administrator" in regards to this particular issue is laughable. The only thing that was uncalled for were various false accusations of breachs of WP:LOP, left both on my user talk page & on the mediation page. Slander itself is a personal attack, & adding to a mediation page after the case has been closed by the moderator is an actual case of vandalism. Going out of your way to misrepresent people won't get you very far either(no I didn't check the history on the page, that edit was part of a long list of edits).

Clearly by the long, rambling & uninformed post you left on the adim notice board nothing will come of this. Fennessy 16:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:Eco-terrorism

The only reason I removed it was because, by the end of the game, Avalanche isn't particularly eco-terrorist anymore. Thus, it could be described in more detail at Gaia (Final Fantasy VII) or Characters of Final Fantasy VII where such detail is appropriate. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Religious texts

Of course you can change the importance of an article, especially if the editor has rated an article's importance incorrectly--Java7837 (talk) 05:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Falun Gong articles

It would be better if you do not revert the article at the moment. It would only leave to more reverts and I am trying to reason with the contributors in concern at this moment. Thanks! Herunar (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I do not intend to do that, and I strongly suggest you not to do so as well. Yes, by most standards, his behavior deserved a ban a long time ago. But I haven't lost all hopes. I'm going to reason with him until it simply is unacceptable; then I'll proceed for greater admin intervention. 3RR bans don't solve problems, they only create more tension that is unnecessary. Herunar (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Too late to not report him. The guy needs some time to cool off anyway, hes way out of line. ʄ!•¿talk? 14:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I've left a comment at the admin you reported to. The fact is, banning him simply for a 3RR does not help at all. The edit war is not the problem. It's his attitude. And a short ban would only worsen that. I'm going to skip and seek for ArbCom case if I find all hopes lost on this contributor. Until then, I'm not going to take any action. Herunar (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Israel's third paragraph

Please take a look at Talk:Israel#Third paragraph. -- tariqabjotu 17:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Thanks for uploading Image:Petrocaribe.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 (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. BetacommandBot (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Tamara.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tamara.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We requires this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

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

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

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Bus transport in the United Kingdom

Please direct me to a policy or consensus that supports your reversions in more detail, as I have been unable to find any as indicated, and see no reason to remove the flag in this instance of its use. MickMacNee (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Falun Gong article

Myself and I am sure some others would appreciate it if you left a note on the talk page and explained the reason you moved that paragraph from the introduction. I am aware that you hold a negative view of Falun Gong, but I would be looking for something more substantial to explain this edit. Citing WP:Lead doesn't really help us to understand that, in particular, when there is currently an edit war on the page. Please be quite transparent. Thanks.--Asdfg12345 06:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Greco-Bactrian Kingdom

Please see Talk:Greco-Bactrian Kingdom. 82.20.19.200 (talk) 12:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Republic of the Rio Grande page

Hey, you mention the page has some POV statements. I'm sure you're right. Could you tell me which ones you're thinking about? Kennethmyers (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Christianity in China

Hello,

I undid your revision to the Christianity in China Portal. Since the portal mirrors the article Christianity in China, please address your concerns there.

Regarding the Taiping Rebellion leader, I agree that he was influenced by his own "understanding" of Christianity. However, the Boxer rebellion was also directed at native Chinese Christians as well as all things foreign - so that is why it read "a reaction in part against Christianity". Please go to Talk:Christianity in China if you would like to comment further. Thanks!Brian0324 (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Medieval Roman Catholic Missions in China

Hello, I noticed that you placed tags on Christianity in China & Medieval Roman Catholic Missions in China. Do you have specific issues that could be raised at Talk:Medieval Roman Catholic Missions in China or Talk:Christianity in China? As it is I have little idea what the tags are for. Thanks.Brian0324 (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Soteriology

Why do you apparently hate me? Did I ever do anything to you? I am not who I appear to be (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am a Christian but this has nothing to do with that. I'm not familiar with the term. I just know that the dictionary definitions [1] say it's a Christian term primarily, or totally. I'd like to see some more sources that say it can be any religion, other than a search on Google books. There has to be something out there somewhere. And also, it just sounds like you hate me from your comment. Please don't hate me. I am not who I appear to be (talk) 02:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

How you went from me disagreeing with you over a theological term to me hating you I'll never be able to work out. And you clearly don't know the dictionary definitions or there would be no discussion. ʄ!•¿talk? 03:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

City status in the UK

Hi. From that very article, "The only historic city with a charter in present-day Northern Ireland is Derry, which was renamed Londonderry by its city charter.". Seems correct to use Londonderry as the name of the city then. DWaterson (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The name of the city's article is Derry. And all available evidence points to the fact that most people call it derry so to quote WP:title:

The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.

I know this issue is pretty divisive so I had hoped to prevent any future problems. But I should add a wiki link to the naming dispute surrounding it. ʄ!•¿talk? 23:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wild Geese

What are "Wild Geese"? See my query at Category talk:Wild Geese. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Redlinks

Please don't remove red links on pages without good reason. You should only take such links out when we clearly don't ever need an article on the topic. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

First time I've ever heard that one. But fair enough. I mostly just remove them because they looked unsightly, and I figure if there was enough material/intrest to make an article out of it... then there would already be an article. ʄ!•¿talk? 19:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:79thInfMarker.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:79thInfMarker.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.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. 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:Non-free content, 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 06:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. OsamaK 06:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Your comment

Hello, I am Jaakobou's mentor. He asked me to review an exchange at Talk:Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Surely it is possible to assert that editors have a non-neutral POV without also saying they are bigots. Bigotry is a very serious accusation that's best put forth with specific evidence if at all. May I suggest that, in light of your second statement, you might modify your first? Durova^Charge! 18:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Storm in a Teacup. Sure maybe throwing in the word bigot was a little much, regardless of how accurate it may or may not have been. ʄ!•¿talk? 02:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Then I hope you will avoid creating such storms in the future. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, since I see you haven't yet been notified of this, I found my way here via a thread on the admin noticeboard: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Abusive language. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Good on you for not getting carried away with the rampant hyperbole. Wow, that's all I can say. ʄ!•¿talk? 12:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow indeed. MickMacNee (talk) 22:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

And what does that add? Seeing as you are in no way involved in this you might want to, you know, refrain from stalking me & leaving ambiguous messages or something. ʄ!•¿talk? 22:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Being Jaakobu's other mentor, I would like to add that comments such as yours are violations of wikipedia's policies that cover inter-editor communication including the requirement of civility and the prohibition against ad hominem attacks. Please review the policies and guidelines that cover how wikipedians are supposed to handle content disputes. Further disregard of our core policies and guidelines may result in actions being taken to protect the project. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 10:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah Avi, I didn't once use an ad hominem attack. That is a complete nonsense. Commenting on a established pattern of activity, such as a disproportionate number of users who share a similar outlook voting on an issue is perfectly acceptable. Just because you may disagree with something I have said, which you are entitled to do, it does not entitle you to make vague threats & misrepresent me. While we are on the subject, user Jaakobu made a concerted effort to grossly misrepresent both what I said & my intentions on the admin noticeboard. He is claiming that I called him a "crying Jew". First of all, disregarding the fact that that is something I would never say because I am not a racist, is the fact that I was actually unaware that he was Jewish. It's not on really. You may pursue this issue as far as you want for all I care, but the fact of the matter is any objective user will see that I have done absolutely nothing wrong. ʄ!•¿talk? 11:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

NOTHING WRONG!!! - Calling practically everyone who disagrees with him a bigot, with a link to BIGOT for emphasis; is "absolutely" nothing wrong??? Itzse (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think it's that big a deal considering the subject matter. But seeing as it is bothering people that much might I suggest you go use a thesaurus and pick out a similar word that communicates what I meant but doesn't offend you. I'm thinking something along the lines of zealot. ʄ!•¿talk? 19:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

NO BIG DEAL!!! - calling all the editors you disagree with BIGOTS??? You linked it, didn't you? You could have linked it to bias or to zealot, but you chose to link it to BIGOT. Can't you say the three magic words "I am sorry"? Itzse (talk) 20:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well seeing as I'm not sorry then I don't see what a hollow apology would accomplish. If anything it was just a fairly poor choice of words in an off the cuff remark—I said exactly what I was thinking when I probably should have wrapped it up in cotton wool so as not to potentially agitate editors with opposing views. ʄ!•¿talk? 11:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Closing note

Dear Fennessy,
In the future it would help if you avoid similar derogatory commentary. i.e. instead of suggesting editors with opposing views are bigots/zealots/etc. who point fingers and cry out "antisemitism" whenever someone has an opposing perspective, you could follow WP:CIV and WP:NPA and just discuss the merits of your position. i.e. 'stick to content, not other editors'.
Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Same to you, only I would also add conducting yourself in an honest manner in discussions, i.e. trying to be as clear as possible avoiding misrepresentation and hyperbole, not alluding to prejudice when there is no basis for it(there was never any "abusive tone directed at a country of origin[Israel]"), and not extensively editing posts in the middle of an ongoing discussion to aid transparency. ʄ!•¿talk? 00:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Calling fellow editors "Israeli or pro-Israeli bigots"[2] doesn't really come as an ambiguous statement. The second comment about "crying (Jews or pro-Israeli bigots/or zealots) antisemitism"[3] should not be repeated either. In short, avoid derogatory offensive commentary and stick to content, not other editors.

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I find it staggering that you seem to have failed to understand anything I have said & are repeating the same lines that you were a few days ago. If I ever come across you again and you are making unfounded allusions to antisemitism, I will not hesitate to call you on it. Don't dare try and tell people what they can & can't say. ʄ!•¿talk? 12:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I'm big enough to admit when I make a mistake. Please explain to me what you were saying. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

In my previous post I was making a point about what I didn't say. I made it as clear as possible on your talk page that I was not referring to jews in my remark about antisemitism. Yet you are still insisting on it. Antisemitism is a damaging allegation and by constantly blurring the lines and muddy the waters as to what I said, when, as I have just mentioned, I have made it explicitly clear what I meant(not that it couldn't have been deduced from my original post the other day). ʄ!•¿talk? 18:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Repeating on what you haven't meant does not explain what you did mean or how editors came to have bad faith assumptions. Since you were the one who brought up "bigots", "crying antisemitism", and "zealots" while noting here that it's not that big a deal considering the subject matter, it would be good practice to explain exactly what you were thinking rather than have the community maintain it's mistaken bad faith assumptions to your current and future statements.

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Nobody has any bad faith assumptions apart from you, so again, take personal responsibility for you own actions & opinions. By repeatedly asking obvious & vague questions, and continually repeating unfounded criticism, you are acting like a troll. So I will be closing this section of the talk page; I do not want to hear from you on this issue again. ʄ!•¿talk? 10:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)