User talk:C.lettinga

To leave a message for C.lettinga, please click here.

If you have left a message and I haven't responded, please leave a message here at my anti-vandalism username-- I could be patroling for vandals.

If you recieve a vandalism warning from me
If you recieve a vandalism warning from me (most likely it's from User:C.lettingaAV, my anti-vandalism username), you may be using an ISP with multiple users (e.g. a school, library, etc). If you've contributed constructively to Wikipedia you clearly would not be the intended recipient of the warning. One way to avoid this is to register your own username; this makes it much easier for people like me to track who is actually committing vandalism. Also, it's really helpful if you sign your name on this or any talk page by clicking the "signature" button above the "edit" section or the four tildes (~) below. That way I can respond directly to you. Thanks!C.lettinga 03:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 23:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 17:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

ALF
We should really try to avoid 'criticism' sections as they damage the overall flow of the article, lead to trolling and are inherently POV. If you take a look at the archives on People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals there is a lot of discussion on this issue (and on a few other articles related to animal rights). With regards to the 'branding' incident - it is obvious to anyone with a single IQ point that the entire thing is fake but we should still report on it as it was featured in the UK national media. If there are POV issues with the way it is worded we should fix them but we still should include it. I'm not sure of the fish incident, I will look at it closer tomorrow (as it is now almost 2am...). Thanks for your work! Localzuk(talk) 01:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Phantom Regiment image?
Saw that you uploaded Image:Phantom04.JPG, but what's the author information for the image? Where'd it come from? We need to know this to ensure it's properly liscensed. If you can add that, that'd be great. Userbox looks good too! Mr Bound 17:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Center on Animal Liberation Affairs
Hi C.lettinga. Regarding: "...the center is comprised of a board of academics, doctors, lawyers, researchers, and activists, aimed at the study and support of the Animal Liberation Front." I can't find any specific assertion of support for the ALF on the page you cite, only the animal-lib movement in general. Am I missing something? Rockpock e  t  02:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, you're right, that was a mistake; I've fixed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by C.lettinga (talk • contribs)


 * No problem. Also, regarding the sub-pages of the website, I'm not sure there is anyway around that. Therefore the way you have cited it is just fine. Rockpock  e  t  06:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

ALFSG
Well, I do not see how a list of animal rights prisoners is related to the organisation. It just seems like a way of overlinking to their site. People can access the list via the organisation's website and lists, in general, are a bad thing. I cannot think of another organisation (for example, Amnesty International) that has a list of prisoners (in amnesty's case it would be a list of prisoners of conscience). I am open to suggestions as to how this list directly relates to the organisation though. -Localzuk(talk) 10:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi. The technical question you asked. You link externally using the following format:


 * BBC Website will give you: BBC Website.
 * However, in general that sort is link is avoided in the body or articles. Generally numbered referencing is preferred (though it is often used to link externally in the references section itself). Rockpock  e  t  18:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

subst
When using certain template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use &#123;&#123;subst:test&#125;&#125; instead of &#123;{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. Rettetast 20:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Roddy While
Thanks mate. I'll leave you to it! Mallanox 02:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Block message
You added blocked to User talk:72.152.43.59. I have removed it because the user has not actually been blocked and I'd rather not have an admin skip over the person thinking they have already been blocked. BigDT 03:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC) Opps, sorry about that.--C.lettinga 03:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Still blocked
Hi Rockpocket. I think it was unblock vor a very brief time (maybe a minute), but I probably fouled that up by trying to access my other "anti-vandal" account and it was reblocked. I didn't realize that having "vandal" in a username was a violation. I'll set up another, more appropriate nmae. Sorry, and thanks for fixing this...I'm planning on staying up all night to work on Wikipedia.--C.lettinga 02:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I have unblocked you again (I think). Don't try and log in to the other account, as it will retrigger the autoblock. Let me know if you can log into and edit using yourC.lettinga account. Rockpock  e  t  02:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, the problem's now fixed. In the meantime I read up on usernames and sock puppetry, so I now have a much better understanding of all of that. Many thanks.C.lettinga 03:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Excellent. I was a bit startled when I saw you had been blocked, your previous edits were all so good that I wondered why things had gone so bad so quickly! Continue to be bold in your contributions and feel free to drop me a line if you ever need any help of advice. If you wish to stick around and learn the ropes, have a look at the Adopt-a-User programme. If you are interested (no pressure, though!) I would be happy to adopt you, or, if you would prefer, there are plenty of other experienced editors who would be willing. Happy editing! Rockpock  e  t  03:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Great, I'd be happy to have you as an adoptee. I'll add the appropriate templates to our pages. Looks like you are doing a fine job so far, if there is anything I can help you with, or if you would like to learn how to do anything, just ask here or at my talk page. For my part, I'll keep an eye on your contribs and if I see anything I think I can help with, I'll let you know. As much as possible, I'll try and drop you a line with how to fix things yourself, rather than just doing it for you.
 * Just so you know, this arrangement can be terminated by you at anytime you choose (just let me know and then remove the templates), but hopefully we'll get on just fine and part ways when we feel you have become an experienced editor youself! Rockpock  e  t

Hello
I am incredibly sorry for the vandalism.

My friend came over, and while I was getting us drinks, he did that.

Very sorry again. It wont happen again.

Don't worry about it; thanks so much for apologizing. By the way, it's helpful if you add your signature at the end of your message on talk pages. Simply use for tildes (~), or use the link at both the bottom and top of the page.C.lettinga 05:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I got a message saying I vandalized the Beer Pong page. I was simply "cleaning" the area that stated it needed to be cleaned. And since I created the "Game variations and related games" category although I originally had it "Unique variations of House rules" that some one change but any who, I felt as though it was my responsibility to maintain it, and keep it from looking messy. If this is some thing you longer wish that I do then I will gladly stop contributing my expertize of the subject. I was not deleting any thing on the page I was merely removing it then putting it the proper category. I was doing this due to the fact that it seemed that people were just using that section to dump information that was already posted elts were on the page.

Please accept my apologies; see your talk page.--C.lettinga 06:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok I forgive you

I don't know what you are talking about, I haven't committed any vandalism

Clearing backlogs
Hi. There are plenty of administrative tasks that don't require admin tools. You can find most of them at Category:Wikipedia backlog. Examples include:
 * wikifying
 * splitting articles
 * adding categories
 * merging articles
 * cleanups
 * making requested articles

There are a few other things you could get involved in, including:


 * commenting on articles for deletion
 * commenting on potential new admins

However, its worth taking time to make sure you have a firm grasp of policy before tackling these last two. Rockpock e  t  05:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:MOS
Hi. Nice work on tackling those backlogs. I have a quick word of advice for your wikifying efforts. Note the Manual of Style, specifically WP:HEAD, which dictates that only the first word of a subheading be capitalised unless it is a proper noun. Thus we have, for example, "External links", not "External Links". Its just something I noticed at Claims Conference and Calcutta Boys' School. Keep up the good work! Rockpock e  t  07:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out--C.lettinga 09:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Beit Hanoun incident case
If Striver allows us to mediate, I would love to work with someone; it seems like a tricky case. Wiki e Zach|  talk  00:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

LaRouche
Thank you for responding. My sense is that there are some editors with a strong anti-LaRouche POV who think that the article should be devoted almost entirely to criticism. Two of these editors are known critics of LaRouche who seem to want to promote their own websites in the article.

My view is that there is a place for criticism, but that the article should follow what I think is the standard biography format, which is a presentation of the undisputed facts about the man, what makes him notable, and then a section devoted to criticism. I also think there may be some libelous material in the article, and I have made my concerns known at the BLP incident page. But for the mediation cabal, I think that the main issues are the format of the article and particularly the intro, which puts the main emphasis on the opinions of critics. I have not attempted to dispute the intro further, because I was waiting for the mediation to begin. --Tsunami Butler 01:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply by Mgunn:
 * This isn't the Wiki article, so I'm just going lay the facts on the line. LaRouche is a fringe political figure at best (his toughest critics take even harsher lines).  Before taking further action, think you should read this article: .  LaRouche has invented conspiracy theories about 9/11, been kicked out of the Democratic party for racist, anti-semitic statements etc... (the list goes on)  What I think you're going to find is that any reasonable presentation of the facts on LaRouche is going to show strong negative POV and an exceedingly strange man and movement.  For example, conspiracy theorist category shows negative POV, but the facts show that to be true (LaRouche has theorized that Sept 11th was a coup attempt influenced by Israeli intelligence).  For example, review: [Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche#Category:Conspiracy_theorists]


 * Also, if you read the discussion page and the history of the article, you'll find that Dennis King, though holding a strong POV on LaRouche, makes carefull, accurate edits that I think are entirely fair. He's a published author on LaRouche and I think Wikipedia is lucky to have him working on the article.  While Tsunami Butler is better behaved than other LaRouche followers who have editted LaRouche's biography, Tsunami Butler has on a number of occasions inserted material that is simply wrong.  A number of his edits have been good, but his general modus operandi is to work within the rules of Wikipedia to puff LaRouche up and whitewash negative facts as much as possible.  He's posted on WP:Living noticeboard, opened an arbitration request, and put comments on the talk page of Jimbo Wales.


 * What do I think should be done? I'm not exactly sure.  I think the situation has been resolving itself, but if any action is warranted it probably is a warning to some of the LaRouche followers to only make edits that are accurate, not misleading, and properly sourced if neccesary.  I've wasted a large amount of time watching this article, and I'm not exactly sure why.  Completely inaccurate material is easy to remove, and completely accurate material is easy to keep.... but half accurate, misleading, edits take a lot of time to fix.  (If I were in charge of Wikipedia, I would have a more liberal approach to banning users who repeatedly make indefensible edits, but it seems this is not the Wikipedia way.)


 * Just to give my background... Until recently, I knew absolutely nothing about LaRouche.  My first interaction with the movement was when I attended an event where various LaRouche activists were passing out publications that made wild accusation.  These publications and their statements could only be described by any rational observor as crazy.  Next time I was online, I read up a little bit on LaRouche, found the Washington Post article i mentioned earlier, did a bit more reading, and came across a Wikipedia article with blatantly false material in the lead.  I took several lines out because they were totally bogus, and I was almost immediately reverted.  I took them out again, discussed on talk page etc... and was reverted by LaRouche people once again.  Eventually, my argument won out, and the material stayed out.  Tsunami Butler protested and started the arbitration request.Mgunn 11:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In summary, I would probably warn Tsunami Butler and dismiss the case. If this were a real encyclopedia, Tsunami Butler would be fired, so maybe a ban is in order, but I don't really know what Wikipedia's policy on that kind of stuff is.  (My impression is that you need to do bad things that are fairly egregious, not just bad.)Mgunn 11:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The conflict over this article seems to be intensifying, so an intervention by your team would probably be very helpful at this point. --Tsunami Butler 22:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems to me as of January 5 that most of the conflict is taking place on the Discussion Page and that (with the exception of the paragraph on coded discourse) the actual number of phrases or sentences being disputed in the article are quite small. In my opinion Tsunami Butler has a skewed point of view that causes her to see evidence in a way different from non-LaRouchians. But she has also made some constructive changes to my and others' edits that I have agreed with. And she has taken the trouble to research factual material about legal cases and LaRouche's early years. If she really wants mediation, fine, but I think the disputes regarding the LaRouche bio are far more manageable, with or without mediation, than they were during the edit war of 2004-2005--Dking 01:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

At this point, things seem to have degenerated into a revert war. Please intervene. --Tsunami Butler 01:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

 * Thanks for the offer. Nothing's really happened since I filed the case; I've refrained from reverting the pagemove for the sake of civility. Danny Lilithborne 02:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Beit Hanoun case
I have been working the past few days, are there any changes with the mediation case? Wiki e Zach|  talk  20:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy New Year
Hello. I just thought I would drop by and wish you all the best for 2007. You seem to be doing sterling work on Wikipedia, so well done! Rockpock e  t  08:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediation
In the Beit hanoun case, I have got them talking on the talk page of the main dispute location. Wiki e Zach|  talk  23:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Animal rights
If you have any advice for a newby regarding how to proceed on an edit of the section I'm concerned with in the Animal rights article I'd appreciate it. I presume you've read the concerns but quickly they boil down to a perception that the article uses very limited requoted material taken out of context to advance a POV to create an early history which simply has not been demonstrated to exist. The subject is a modern shibboleth, however true NPOV is much closer to the viewpoint of classical conservationists (such as myself) or animal welfarists than it is to that of animal rightists. I perceived a good bit of hostility when I started this discussion in Talk: Animal rights; I want to fix the article but not precipitate an editing war nor cause other's distress in the process. I was particularly shocked that someone would perceive dissenting comments as a threat. Trilobitealive 01:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm also confused about the concept that one editor can make a dispute go away by deleting another's dispute flags. Perhaps I'm missing something basic here.Trilobitealive 01:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Beit Hanoun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-12-08_Beit_Hanoun_November_2006_incident#Dispute

I have just commented. You are lucky I was back in time to comment at all. RunedChozo 16:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back
Hi. Thanks for letting me know you are back. I hope you are better for your short Wikibreak! Rockpock e  t  05:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Shark eye
You said that i put nonsense on the website. I wrote about how a student swallowed a shark eye during his senior year- that is not false. Posting of the cheerleaders drinking is on here so why cant that be????? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.65.170.144 (talk • contribs)

WikiProject Marching band
--Littledrummrboy 23:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Onechectomy
I saw you are in the Animal Rights WP and was wondering if you are against Declawing animals or Onychectomy? The userbox is located at

So just copy the title as you are viewing and put it with the and w/o the   to your userpage. -PatPeter 18:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm back...after my extended Wikibreak
After a very long hiatus,I am returning to Wikiwork...though on a much less frequent basis than before, and doing mostly anti-vandalism work.

Image:Marchingeuph.jpg and Image:Marchingbaritone.jpg
Image:Marchingeuph.jpg is not that an image of baritone due to it's cylindrical-bore.

Image:Marchingbaritone.jpg is actually an euphonium.

I think you got the names swithced. Antonio Lopez (talk) 01:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AforA.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:AforA.gif. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 16:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:SHAC7.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:SHAC7.gif. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 01:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Please confirm your membership
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 19:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC).

Orphaned non-free image File:CALA.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:CALA.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Contrabugle.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Contrabugle.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC)