User:Chris 73/Archive 005

Your Opinon again
Hi Chris, I have another series of photos for you to take a glance over if you could. Thanks for voting in the last series --Fir0002 01:16, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * And again. Thanks! --Fir0002 07:55, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your Opinion Please!
Hi, Chris 73

For quite some time I have been uploading multiple images of the same subject as a Featured Picture Candidate, and, unknown (until recently) to me, this was causing considerable problems in the promoting/not promoting stage of the Featured Picture Candidates.

Recently Solipsist informed me of the problem and came up with the suggestion of holding my own semi Featured Picture Candidates page.

I would like you and several others (User:Sj, User:Solitude, User:Boffy B, User:Solipsist) to be the people who vote in this.

I would greatly appreciate your opinions on the photos.

The link to the page is User:Fir0002/FPCandidates

Thanks --Fir0002 08:32, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

John Fletcher (Methodist)
There is a new version of John Fletcher (Methodist) under "Temp" which should not contain any copyright issues.
 * Thank you for your contributions. I moved the new version to John Fletcher (Methodist). Everything is fine now. -- Chris 73 Talk 23:02, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Cherrapunjee
Hi chris. The talk of cherrapunji is collected from all leading websites of shillong,Meghalaya.I know the contents of cherrapunji is not my own collection.I regret for the same.I will of course try to publish something original. Yours etc., User talk:subash1

Sacramento, California
I had no idea that a dot-map for Sacramento, CA already existed. I'm doing dot-maps for Northern California county cities/places right now and don't always have time to look at all major cities for preexisting maps. Perhaps you could write to Seth_Ilys and tell him what maps you've already done so redundant maps won't be made (Seth is the user who started the "Dot-Map Project"). Bumm13 14:30, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

blocked users
Please don't engage in discussions with blocked users, it only encourages them to (again) avoid their block. --fvw* 03:51, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Can edits made under an anon IP while being blocked be reverted? He is using and got blocked so far with User:172.180.199.158, User:172.182.76.177, User:172.182.76.127, and User:172.176.58.8. -- Chris 73 Talk 03:54, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * That would be very useful yes, but I haven't found anything in current policy which allows that apart from for hard-banned users. I'd definitely support changes to policy that allowed reverting of blocked users and a reset on block timers for block evasion. --fvw* 03:59, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
 * There is some discussion about this on Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. Some admins reset block timers if the user edits while being blocked, although it is not a standard policy yet. -- Chris 73 Talk 04:25, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * Please stop vandalising my talk page. Every time you erase someones' comment, I get the You have new messages. notice and I have to check my talk page to check if its something new or not. It is a waste of time and your behaviour is unacceptable. I know that the blocked user has his ways, but leaving me a comment on my talk page is not a violation of any policy - erasing it is. Halibutt 12:22, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Please stop rv my talk page
I can take care of it myself, the last thing I need is a rv war on my talk page and 'new msg' note every 5 minutes. I will look into the Emax matter but note that you are rv a good link into a bad link... :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:43, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I guess I got a bit over-eager. Sorry for the inconvenience. Also, congratulations on your adminship! Your recent edits related to the edit wars confirm my good impression of you when I voted for your adminship :) Happy editing -- Chris 73 Talk 14:28, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Reversions on WP:AN/3RR
Hi, I'm somewhat confused - what prompted you to revert the posts by Emax (or someone claiming to be them - it was 172.177.155.244, dunno if it was an imposter) from WP:AN/3RR? I didn't see anything about the message that looked that problematic. What as I missing? Noel (talk) 03:50, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi. Emax was blocked for 24 hours for a 3RR violation. He continued to use different IP adresses to evade this block, so I reverted his contributions and also blocked the IP adresses. His block has now expired, and all related IP adresses are also unblocked. -- Chris 73 Talk 03:53, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, got it, thanks for clueing me in. Noel (talk) 13:41, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What?
What do you mean? I am not spamming anybody. (User:4.16.48.15)
 * The link you added to three pages so far has nothing to do with the topics of the pages where it was added. Hence it is spam and will be removed. Please do not add the link again -- Chris 73 Talk 04:26, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Nice try to silent me
Why do you remove my comments from the Administrators' noticeboard yesterday? Do you have read the Controversial blocks article? 

It says: nr. 3 "If possible, contact other administrators informally to be sure there are others who agree with your reasoning. The administrators' noticeboard, IRC and email are effective tools for this."--Emax 14:10, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * Controversial blocks applies to the blocking admin, not to the blocked user. Also, next time you put me up as a request for arbitration, could you kindly let me know about it? -- Chris 73 Talk 16:23, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * "could you kindly let me know about it?" nope :)--Emax 17:50, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

chris do you controlling and write down every step of me? - pls. stop that or i will become paranoid! :)--Emax 03:50, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thats very smart - but on the other hand... Not very nice. Its remembered me a little bit at STASI and other such institutions methods in former communist countries. However, i have nothing to hide :)--Emax 04:23, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

"If you want to discuss items with me, please let me know on my talk page, and I am happy to respond."

OK - a question: do you not think, that you should have some consequences for the "Helga&Moron&Polish culture", matter? A 24th ban? a official reprimand? one month ban from Poland-related articles or something? My own view of justice, say yes - what about yours? :)--Emax 04:04, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * About your three points: (1) I don't know any helga. The anonymous editor seemed to make reasonable edits as far as i checked. (2) I have apologized to SpaceCadet, an apology which he seemed to have accepted. (3) For the culture thing, I have apologized on Halibutt's talk page, which he seemed to have accepted. Hence I believe this issue to be resolved. Judging from the response on the Requests for arbitration, Vandalism in progress listing, Requests for mediation, and various comments on Administrators' noticeboard/3RR and my talk page so far the general consensus seems to agree with me. You may of course have different views, although I cannot make everybody happy. As for the suggestion of a 24th (24 hour?) block or a 1 month abstain from polish articles: Using the same rules this would also apply to you, and I believe you have more questionable comments in your edit history than me. -- Chris 73 Talk 04:19, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) You dont know Helga?. 99% of her edits are rubbish. You have acting in teamwork with her like Ghirlandajo and Gene s.
 * Ghirlandajo is that one who biasing articles and if someone reverted his bias, Gene s is coming to help him and reverting back to Ghirlandajo version.
 * You did the same. Helga have biased articles, and you reverted to her versions. You also supporting Sca, he do nothing constructive except calling Poles Polish nationalists etc.
 * I tell you one secret.. ;) that perhaps will help you in work as an administrator, to identify Anti-Polish vandals like Helga. If.. such user is a German and if... he ONLY edits Poland-related articles (espescially Gdansk, Erica Steinbach, etc.) you can be pretty sure, that he produce only bias and revisionism. ;).


 * 2)Yes you did, but as i already said, after i showed your comments to Hallibutt. I was not sure that i have understand what you have written there, because i could not belive that an administrator acting so rude. Thats why i showed it Hallibutt.


 * In my eyes an apology is not enought. If you would apologized just after your comments, and not just only because Hallibut critized you for that, then it would be enought. The second thing is, that after that, you still acting like Helga (Lucas David, Arthur Schopenhauer etc.). You also claimed that i have broked the 3RR - Helga has broked the rule several times, but you never reported that, why? Im pretty sure that you would not claimed that i broke the rule (and you know that i dont broke the rule..), if i would not reverted befor Helgas and yours bias from several articles.


 * "the general consensus seems to agree with me" - thats like in real life, bigger lobby = more power and rights ;)


 * "As for the suggestion of a 24th (24 hour?) block or a 1 month abstain from polish articles: Using the same rules this would also apply to you, and I believe you have more questionable comments in your edit history than me  - so show me my questionable comments, i was only rude to people who were first rude to me :) And the second thing is.. you are an admin, so you should keep more attention what you say. :)


 * Im still the opinion that you should have some consequences for that, 1 month abstain from Polish articles or an official reprimand, were in my opinion a fair solution.--Emax 14:51, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay in answering. (1) No I don't know helga, and the edits i saw by the anon were in general good. I also did not know Ghirlandajo and Gene s before. (2) In my eyes an apology suffices, especially since the apology was sincere. You seem to have exhausted most of the dispute resolution methods (Arbitration was rejected, Vandalism was not appropriate, and theMeditation is somewhat hanging in the air since the link you gave refers to the now-removed arbitration request). If you really want to continue a request for more strict actions, I think the only thing left you could do as part of the Dispute resolution would be a Requests for comment. However, I would advise you to listen to the numerous other users commenting on your talk page to see this matter as settled (3) About your block: You broke the 3RR, as confirmed by other admins (and, believe me, admins looked at the facts on the 3RR noticeboard). This rule applies to everyone, and if you see another user reverting a page more than three times in 24 hours, please feel free to request a block. I will be happy to block the user (including myself). (Note: This applies to recent cases, not something that happened in December or so). Also, in case it happens to you again, please use email and IRC to contact admins, and do NOT edit using an anonymous IP adress for block evasion. -- Chris 73 Talk 11:16, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * "No I don't know helga, and the edits i saw by the anon were in general good" - so you have the same radical view of history like Helga.
 * "You seem to have exhausted most of the dispute resolution methods (Arbitration was rejected, Vandalism was not appropriate, and theMeditation is somewhat hanging in the air since the link you gave refers to the now-removed arbitration request)" - if nothing help, i will add its again to the Arbitration committee. At the moment i try to solve the problem in other ways.
 * "About your block: You broke the 3RR, as confirmed by other admins (and, believe me, admins looked at the facts on the 3RR noticeboard). - see, "IIRC there's still no official policy regarding reverting certain information over specific portions of text, so this block wasn't backed by official policy" ...
 * "Also, in case it happens to you again, please use email and IRC to contact admins, and do NOT edit using an anonymous IP adress for block evasion". - FVW did not answered my emails, so i started to do my comments on administrators noticeboard. And i dont broke the rule, my block wasn't backed by official policy, so i was only "technical blocked" but not official.--Emax 13:11, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Once again, I did answer your email, and have logs to prove it was delivered to your mailserver. I am not responsible for bugs in your mail filters or server. --fvw* 13:24, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
 * I dont claiming that it was your fault - but i dont received any mails from You. (in the same time i receive emails from other people, so im not sure that my email server has an error)--Emax 13:51, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Chris, thanks for the diffs of your apologies -- looks to me like you goofed up, knew it, and did the right thing. All anyone could ask of you. My conversation with Emax is mostly me trying to stop this bizarre meme that Wikipedia admins get to do anything they want, and if any user insults them or inconveniences them in the slightest way, the user gets booted for life. I know that's not how life goes for me as an admin (ah, the grief I wouldn't have to live through if I could ban all the people who bother me!), and based on your conduct, looks to me as though the exact same thing is true of you. :-) Best wishes, and keep up the good work, Jwrosenzweig 23:35, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Chris, thanks for the info. All of us say things we later regret. But you apologized afterwards, and I certainly don't see it as part of a larger trend, so I agree with you; I don't see anything else to be accomplished by pursuing this matter. I just hope Emax will be able to see that we're basically good guys here but we're human too; tolerance and civility are the only way we'll be able to help Wikipedia grow. And thanks for all your hard work. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; (talk) 08:17, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Template:Protected
Chris 73, could you please add to the Anarchism page you protected? Thanks, Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 15:44, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Hello Chris 73. I think your proposed Schopenhauer entry re Danzig/Gdansk is just fine. Thanks for your work. I don't understand the attitude of some Poles, such as Emax, about this. He practically called me a Nazi!

Sca 14:32, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

3RR?
Hi Chris 73. On the admin notice board, you say that I broke the 3RR on Jan 3. I've looked at the history, and I can only find three that apply: 19:40, 3 Feb 2005, 19:54, 3 Feb 2005 and 00:16, 4 Feb 2005. I just wondered what the other one was. I'd be grateful if you would tell me, as I am concerned about this - I'm usually very careful. Thanks. - Jakew 16:57, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your reply. As I recall, and after checking the history, 16:01 3 Feb 2005 appears to have been an edit that was the first to introduce "One author's interpretation" and "Circumcision has potential benefits and risks" (compare with earlier version). If I'm wrong about that, please accept my apologies. - Jakew 17:20, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You are a good man, Sir. - Jakew 17:38, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

WP:AN
Hi, sorry about all the confusion with the sub-pages. Hopefully everyone will soon get used to it, and things will go smoothly. The original single page was really just getting too much traffic, though; we really did need to do the re-organization. Noel (talk) 17:40, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Chris, re your note on my talk page, just to set the record straight: I did not live in Poland for a "long time," only for about six months -- in Warsaw, where I worked for the Warsaw Business Journal. That happens to have been the longest time I lived anywhere outside the U.S. It's true that my primary interest is in German history, but I am certainly no hater of Poles, Russians, Jews or anyone else; I'm a humanist. And, er, a human being. Mazel tov. Sca 21:55, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I made the following entry in Szczecin-Talk:

Please, whoever is fiddling with this entry, get real and refrain from saying that the then-wholly and totally German city of Stettin was "liberated" by the Red Army. The Germans DREADED the approach of the Red Army, with good reason -- both in terms of what the German Army and SS, etc., had done in the Soviet Union, and the revenge the Red Army already was exacting for those atrocities in eastern Germany.

Stettin, Germany (today: Szczecin, Poland) was no more "liberated" by the Red Army than Warsaw was "liberated" by the German Army. Both were conquered, with dire results for their inhabitants. Such were the savage and retributive dynamics of WWII in the east.

You can say Warsaw was "liberated" by the Red Army, though some might challenge that; but no German city, particularly those east of the postwar Oder-Neisse border, was "liberated." Need we mention that ALL of old Stettin's inhabitants were either killed or expelled? Is that "liberating"? Give me a break!

Sca 01:10, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lucas David
I did find one German University (http://uni-muenster.de) that had his volumes in their special collections, but unfortunately not in their digital collections. Places like that are often not well indexed by Google, etc., so it might be worthwhile to check their website. I also seem to remember that the different "local" Googles sometimes yield different results, so you might try http://google.de. BlankVerse 10:06, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Revert
Its nice that you reverting me in so many articles - but you can be sure that i will mention this in the "case" againts you, because your reverts have probably (im very sure) personal reasons and provoked edit wars. (its not good when admins provoking edit-wars, and you have provoked a lot..)--Emax 23:41, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Gdansk
I fear that what I do may not help, terribly. Even more than NPOV, what the article needs is to be converted into proper English (I took a stab at parts of it), but one is not eager to do it for fear of being reverted, since I also changed various references to "Gdansk" to "Danzig" - to be honest, I had not even realized that they had ceased to be Danzig, because I hadn't looked at the article in a while. The article seems to be one which continually gets gradually worse. For instance, I'm fairly certain that the history section was, at one point, far better written. At any rate, we'll see what happens. The article before was in pretty strong violation of the working compromise as to use of Gdansk and Danzig that had been agreed upon. I have changed it so that it is probably a bit of a violation going the other way (in that I call it Danzig between 1454 and 1793, when no agreement was ever reached for what it should be called at that time). Anyway, we'll see what happens. The whole thing is a mess. john k 01:27, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Moving images from Wikipedia to Wikimedia Commons
Hi Chris. I'm a little confused about how to correctly move images from here to the Commons, without losing information or violating the GFDL. I've started a discussion at Talk:Wikimedia Commons, and your input would be appreciated. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 19:59, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Copyright
Hi. I've noticed you put Numan Celebicihan under Copyright problems. Did you notice that site's copyright statement ? Thanks 151.203.117.87 04:58, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. However, wikipedia texts are released under the GFDL, which permits commercial use. Only 100% public domain or GFDL compatible license texts can be used -- Chris 73 Talk 05:02, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * This page has been written by the copyright holder of the article at www.iccrimea.org/literature/celebicihan.html and posted to Wikipedia with his permission. Commercial use is allowed. 12.65.30.183 03:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Gates
Nice photos! Looking forward for an update after February 12. Also, since you said on Image:Gates base.jpg 'All rights are granted under the same license terms as the rest of Wikipedia'', could you add a image copyright tag to the images? This gives them the same copyrights as the other wikipedia texts. Thanks -- Chris 73 Talk 23:57, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that you like the pictures. Is the  as you would suggest now?  I'll probably just put up one or two pictures when the project is in its final form.  Best regards. Morris 03:09, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Great. Thank you! Now the license is clear. -- Chris 73 Talk 04:10, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Khotyn uprising (1919)
I think you should be interested to take a look at the Khotyn article, which is repeatedly flooded by Romanian nationalism. If you have any facts on the Khotyn uprising, please help to make the article neutral. Ghirlandajo 06:55, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Naming convention
In preparation of your vote: the period 1308-1790 IMHO should be divided into following sub-perdios: Szopen 09:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 1308-1454 Teutonic overlordship (after 1454 formal) (Danzig?)
 * 1454-1466 (or included in period above) 13-years war
 * 1466-1576 Large autonomy of Royal Prussia
 * 1576-1794 After UoL and unification of Polish state (Gdansk?)

Chris, with some juggling, I moved the vote to Talk:Gdansk/Vote. It shouldn't be in the main namespace. The old talk page is at Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion. You should announce it on Current surveys and perhaps the Village pump. I'd also suggest leaving a note on the talk page of anyone who's been involved with the Gdansk page in the past and is still active. john k 03:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Blanking Pages
Can I then formally request deletion of those listed below from you without provoking you and your other administrators? I certainly wouldn't want to create ill feelings? By the way, I am curious to know why your fellow admin. "punished" me for things I do not believe I am guilty of. I was singled out today for allegedly making threats, personal attacks, being overly aggressive, and lacking Wikipedia etiquette, and the real doosey - the possible libel action? Was that his way of making me look bad? I certainly would not want to be associated with those who feel that it is important to "criticize" where the subject matter doesn't deserve such criticisms. Therefore, these are the Pages I am submitting for removal:


 * Central Criminal Court of Iraq
 * Certified Financial Planning
 * Lake of Fire
 * Summary of Accomplishments under Coalition Provisional Authority
 * The portion I blanked out today under Paul Bremer seeing how it upsets two of your users...something about being "dogged" at my defense of Bremer and not incorporating more "criticisms". So, I took out the nice warm & fuzzies and left the rest which I didn't contribute to for the others to expand on.
 * Railroad Retirement Board
 * Long Term Care Insurance

There might have been others. Those listed above are the main ones. And if you feel that it is of everyone's best interest to remove my account, then you do have the authority to do as you please. I and others would certainly appreciate it. - Paradigmbuff 01:49, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Gdansk pre-1308
My tendency for that would be towards Gdansk, both because it seems plausible and it will cause fewer problems. john k 03:27, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gda&#324;sk/Danzig
thanks for information; i'll check it within the next days ... i only wonder why Gdansk and not Gda&#324;sk?! ...Sicherlich talk 09:59, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me about the vote. Right now, i did not understand what the 1793 date is about, the city was german-speaking, no matter who it was governed by, until its inhabitants were expelled in 1945. So, that's the date we discuss about. --Magadan 01:46, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Closeup of a housefly
Hi, I saw that you added a link to a closeup of a housefly picture to house-fly. The link is now removed since the picture didn't show up. Did you maybe make a typo in the picture's name? Thanks, AxelBoldt 19:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
I noticed there was a vote going on, and yes, I did figure it needed to be covered in the Signpost. So I very much appreciate your getting started on the article. I'll have a closer look later to do some actual editing. --Michael Snow 06:23, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Misc
I'm not upset with you personally, you interpreted the 3RR the way that you saw it and you even got confirmation from another admin that they interpreted it the same way. So I don't think anyone reviewing your actions would find you at fault. Obviously this interpretation was surprising to me, otherwise I never would have made the last revert, which I thought I could make. I don't oppose the 3RR rule, I just find its interpretation more ambiguous and confusing (to me) than it could be.

I moved some of the inline discussion at Talk:Gdansk/Vote to a separate section. -- Curps 12:49, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Coordination
Shall we coordinate our efforts on Willy cleaning? I'll do the moving back, you keep an eye on my contributions and cleanup his redirects. If you'd like to join forces, please let me know and I'll tell you at which article I'll stop deleting redirects. Mgm|(talk) 14:48, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll continue as I am. Mgm|(talk) 15:05, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

requests for comment/138.130.194.229
Hello, thank you for your recent pro-science vote in RNA world. Could I perhaps persuade you to weigh in at an RfC page created for this irritating anon user? requests for comment/138.130.194.229 Thanks again.--Deglr6328 20:24, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

translation
''Przydala by sie pomoc na ang. wersji artykulu o Szczecinie [7] - dwie osoby zaczely germanizowac artykul. Chodzi o wycofanie wersji tego [8] lub tego [9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:John_Kenney) uzytkownika means: Help is needed in the english version of article about Szczecin - two people started germanizing the article. Problem is the removal of version [8] or [9]. ''

Say, do you know anybody who knows German and could help me translate some materials into English? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:37, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)