User talk:Davidpdx/Archive02

This is an archive, Do not edit it in any way! If you want to leave me a message please use the current talk page

Archive January 1st to December 31st 2006

Vicki Walker
See if that is about what you were looking for on that page. Sorry it took so long for me to get to it :) -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 03:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Possible solutions
On your page you used to accomplish this. -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 10:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Morris R. Jeppson
Apparently someone deleted the picture on this article for having no source. As he was your grandfather, I wondered if it would be possible for you to upload another photo of him. Ral315 (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Strictly speaking, you should have been notified on your talk page, which I couldn't find in your archive. Where did you get the picture, exactly?  Ral315 (talk) 15:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, in that case the other person didn't respond. It really has to be from the U.S. Government, I'd wager...and I see you've re-uploaded it under correct copyright tags.  It should be fine now.  Ral315 (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom Double Voting
Hi, I'm just writing to inform you that you voted twice on my, Filocht's, and Golbez' ArbCom nominations. Don't know if you noticed that. &mdash; Ilyan e  p   (Talk)  16:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Davidpdx, it seems like your double votes on Filocht's and Ilyanep's pages have been removed; you voted twice on the same direction. However, in Golbez'z voting page, you voted support once and then oppose another time. I've indented your support vote, which came earlier, for now. Please take a look at this and make sure you've recorded your vote where you want it to be and then removed any excess votes that haven't been indented already. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 23:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 23:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay :) Thanks for replying. Ilyanep 23:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom Candidacy Voting
I want to thank everyone who took the time to vote on my ArbCom candidacy. I have placed some thoughts on this matter on my user page and would welcome your thoughts.--Edivorce 23:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello there! I wanted to thank you for taking the time to vote on my arbitration commitee nomination. Although it was not successful, I appreciate the time you spent to read my statement and questions and for then voting, either positively or negativly. Again, thank you!  Páll  (Die pienk olifant) 22:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Johnski is at it again
Take a look at Dominion of Melchizedek. --Centauri 09:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Johnski. I will semiprotect the page if it becomes necessary. Tom Harrison Talk 22:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Johnski arbitration
I assure you I'm not sitting idly by, I've been on the Arbitration Committeee for less than a week. I think you've misinterpeted my proposal, it's not a weakening at all, just a practical matter. I am (or I suppose was, since arbitration matters will fill my time now) one of the primary patrollers of WP:RFPP and protection concerns me. This semi-protction will block all new and anonymous users to the articles, even the well meaning and potentially constructive ones. It's against our very wiki collaborative nature to protect at all, and considered harmful. All my proposal suggests is that administrators be allowed to unprotect at their discretion, i.e., if they think Johnski's left or id not a problem anymore. This is common for pages we protect. I'd expect the admin(s) to watch the page and reprotect if they were mistaken about it being changed. But it's not a substantial change. I als don't think that "If necessary, Johnski, or any other editor believed by an administrator to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Johnski, may be blocked indefinitely by any administrator" is a very weak remedy. I have, by the way, asked the other arbitrators on our mailing list to get to this case, but you have to remember we have more than 20 others. Dmcdevit·t 19:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Good news re the Johnski ban. Hopefully this will result in a bit less daily Wikistress. --Gene_poole 22:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. -- Longhair 12:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Johnski
This request for arbitration is closed. Dominion of Melchizedek and associated articles, shall be semi-protected. If necessary, Johnski (talk • contribs • [ page moves] • block user • [ block log]), or any other editor believed by an administrator to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Johnski, may be blocked indefinitely by any administrator. The article may be unprotected (and reprotected) at the discretion of any admin who deems it safe to do so.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Ryan Delaney talk 04:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Kevin Mannix.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Kevin Mannix.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Longhair 10:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your support on my admin nomination. I didn't say anything because I don't want some of my more hysterical opponents to accuse me of campaigning for votes. That's a priviledge they reserve for themselves. --Gene_poole 01:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. BRossow 18:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

a page that might interest you
Check out Hiroshima (film) -- a problematical page that essentially advances, as fact, some of the arguments against dropping the atomic bomb. The authors don't seem to understand the difference between an article about the film and one that regurgitates its arguments. It seems to fall within your area of interest. --Cubdriver 16:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Evil twin
Greetings! Johnski is indeed still around. Did you notice the nonsense he posted at Karitane Shoal last week? Look at the talk page for a good laugh. --Gene_poole 09:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

DoM
I don't think Harvardy is Johnski, though I reserve the right to change my mind. I'm thinking about unprotecting the article. If it comes under attack, I (or someone else) can always reprotect. What do you think? Tom Harrison Talk 18:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

They're still here, just quiet. Tom Harrison Talk 15:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

arrests of protesters - Danish Embassy
Mate, please don't let the dispute between Tom & I stop you from correcting errors or contributing in any way. Please! That's been going on forever & it's fairly mindless anyway. This is an ongoing story that I don't get too much time to contribute to. The changes made so far have been intelligent & progressive. I really welcome them. Go for it! Veej 02:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * templates substituted by a bot as per Template substitution Pegasusbot 08:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Shyam ( T / C ) 11:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry for being bothered you, but I have searched for the license and found it is actually a copyright violation]. If you do not think so then please add appropriate information which does not violate any copyright status. If you have any other question regarding this please let me know. Thank you, Shyam  ( T / C ) 12:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:PeteSorenson.jpg
An image that you uploaded, Image:PeteSorenson.jpg, has been listed at Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Shyam ( T / C ) 12:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

David, please stop violating NPOV guidelines
Your edits on the Oregon 2006 Gubernatorial race have obviously violated NPOV. While I understand that you may be a fan of Pete Sorenson, that bias should not leak into Wikipedia. You placed into Ted Kulgoski's page a poll that shows his favorability is low (which is fine), but then have deleted, and attempted to "qualify" with meaningless data, other polls that do not lead to quite the same conclusion as your favored viewpoint.

I'm going to let you consider my words and revert some of your deletions, to put things back so that both sides are represented, because you're obviously a good contributor and it's easy to violate NPOV subconsciously when writing about strongly felt political beliefs. But if you don't, and your edits continue to have the strong "presenting only one side of the case" tone, I am prepared to consider all your material just political PR, and start reverting them.

Anonymous Wikipedian 21:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

- - -

David, if you can adaquately explain why you deleted the information about the open poll done by Riley Research, I am prepared to retract my statements. As it stands, however, I do not think you can quite so easily distance yourself from the edit history. You have to have a better reason for deleting information from wiki than adding it, and you have been making a number of questionable deletions.

The fact clearly shown by neutral polling data is as follows: 1] At the present time, Governor Kulongoski is not particularly popular with Oregonians. 2] At the present time, he is, never the less, still MORE popular than all his rivals. Perhaps I erred in making a speculative statement as to WHY this second fact is true. (It might not be the economy. Maybe Oregonians just hate all politicians.  Who knows?)   But it is clear from your later logged edits, that you are not merely interested in clarifying the summary of Kulongoski's relative popularity, but instead have repeatedly tried to remove reference to it and/or discount it, so that the clear implication of the edits you've made are as follows: "Kulongoski is unpopular.  Here are links to his Democratic and Independent (but not Libertarian) rivals (that perhaps progressives might support)". It seems a pretty clear NPOV violation.

Finally David, I did not accuse you of bad faith. I specifically said that it looked like this was a case of subconscious bias, and asked you to reconsider your edits. Nor did I say you were the only one who made bad edits. I was merely pointing out that on a page that is already biased against its subject, deleting information that does not support that bias is particularly egregious.

Anonymous Wikipedian 19:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

First things first. I have no ties to the Kulongoski campaign. As you can see by my edits, I have added information that might be considered anti-Kulongoski, including the SEIU Local 503 endorsement of his rival, Jim Hill, for example. I will continue to add neutral information as it becomes published (and when I have time).

Second, I initially focused on this page because I do have particular knowledge of Oregon politics. Given my limited time however, I simply can't dedicate literally days filling in details, especially given the necessity of finding external references to things I already know.

I am going to assume from now on that you are trying to do your best, and will delete this accusation on your user talk page, if you desire.

Anonymous Wikipedian 19:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

DOM edit
Hi again. I disagree with your reversion of me edit. Now that Johnski has been banned we can and should remove all weasel-wording from the DOM article. The article itself contains citations from reputable sources that show unequivocally that DOM has been directly linked to fraudulent banking activities - not merely "accused" of it - so I don't see how stating this at the outset is a problem. --Centauri 06:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem in general with removing it. My issue is that it will give Johnski an excuse to start an edit war. I realize he's banned, but that doesn't mean he's gone completely. In fact if you look at the DOM page, he's around and posting the same old stuff. That's my only issue with it. If you feel strongly, then go ahead and change it back. But I think we need to keep a really close eye on it. Thanks for letting me know. Davidpdx 08:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. I think it sets a bad precedent if we let inaccurate information remain in the DOM article simply to keep Johnski "quiet". He's been banned - end of story. If he tries to create any further problems I'm confident we can deal with it easily enough.--Centauri 08:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think a merge/redirect is a good idea. The DOM article is still quite a dog's breakfast, so if you add the Pedley material that could provide a good start on re-working the DOM article itself. --Centauri 08:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You might be interested to know that Johnski is on the edit-war path again concerning the opening sentence in the DOM article. I've just reverted it to Centari's version. --Gene_poole 22:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It is funny to see Centarui aka Gene Poole trying to make you think there is more than one person that agreed to change wording that was acceptable to everyone for a long time. I don't see how being "accused" of something is weasal wording, and it was added by what appeared to be a nuetral party between the edit waring.  I only reverted to the version your reverted to because it appeared that was what you believed was best to keep the peace, otherwise I don't care, so do what you think is best. Harvardy 22:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem - we'll just have him banned again. As I said yesterday I think it's a very bad precedent to keep bad content in an article just to keep 1 banned editor "happy". If he doesn't like NPOV facts that's just too bad for him. --Centauri 02:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hiya. Looks like we don't have too much to worry about after all. - although I do note he's been posting a bit of his usual verbose nonsense on the micronation talk page. --Gene_poole 03:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Enola Gay / pop culture
I guess the force behind why I bother caring about it is that it seems like nuking of these kinds of sections would open a slippery slope where quality bits of culture would be banned from any wikis concerned with controversial events. It just seems wrong to me that, say, Shindler's List may be removed from a wiki on the Second World War (to use a hypothetical example). Another thing is that we live in very ahistorical times, so any helpful little "reminders" of historical events through their echoes in pop culture may help to stave off mass amnesia. Lucidish 02:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Enola Gay in pop culture
I've just read that you removed the informatio I wrote on Andrés Calamaro's song Enola Gay. I wrote this because I think it's an unknown information who can be useful for some people if they want to know something on this point of view about Enola Gay. I don't know if Pop Culture section eclipse the rest of the article, but I saw the section and I decided to collaborate. Just add that the song is not just related to Enola Gay in the title, but is a critical view of US and their governement linking it with Enola Gay bombing. Here you can read the lyrics of the song, http://www.camisetasparatodos.com/paginas/letras/letrasdedo1.htm ; if you don't understand the spanish lirics and you want to I can try to translante. Thank you (unsigned by User:Ferryslliria)


 * I unforunately never took Spanish, except to learn a bit for a vocal performance in college, so I wouldn't understand the lyrics.


 * I think there needs to be a direct reference to the plane to include it in the article. If you look at the talk page for the article, there is an on-going discussion about putting guidelines to prevent that section from becoming too overwhelming. Things that are as trivial as game codes(solutions to video games)have been put in, which really have no connection.


 * Thus, what we are trying to do is make sure the pop culture items that are put in are indeed closely connected to the topic of the plane itself. We also are asking people to reference the material they put in (much like anything else in Wikipedia) so that the reader can understand what the connection is.


 * If you have concerns about the guidlines, I urge you to visit the talk page and look at what we are working on. Nothing has been decided yet, but we are trying to implement something soon so that there is a soultion to the issue. Davidpdx 23:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

your suspicion
I could care less what you think about me. I don't care if you protect the DOM mess, because I have no intention of continuing wasting my time on your mysterious pecking order. Why are you so stubborn about every little edit? Please don't bother to answer my question, it is just for you to think about. Have a nice life. Whatsupdoc 02:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You would be very kind to explain to me how my little iddy biddy edit had anything to do with propoganda, since it was only quoting three additional words from an official web site of the Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States of American. That's a little carrot dangling on a stick for you to bite. I really don't expect anything from you but more retoric, so fire away. Whatsupdoc 03:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, dear teacher, for correcting my spelling of Rhetoric. Whatsupdoc 00:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Johnski
Maybe he's just testing the waters. Tom Harrison Talk 22:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

another micronation zeralot
Howdy again. It seems we have another zealot who is determined to add inappropriate content to Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands. If you could keep an eye on it I'd appreciate it. Apart from the inappropriate and badly-written conversational tone of his insertions, none of the material is verifiable. --Gene_poole 13:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I noticed the latest Johnski sockpuppet's unsubtle intrusion. I'll certainly keep an eye out. Sorry to hear about your situation - hope things turn the corner soon. --Gene_poole 13:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Abraham Lincoln
Actually, most of what I entered the RFC for focussed on the Talk: page. Take a look at Talk:Abraham Lincoln/archive3 and you'll see what I was talking about. And by the way, the instructions for article RFCs say explicitly not to sign them, for some reason or another. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 12:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Guess who
I looked at the change you pointed out and it doesn't look like it was a Johnski sock. --Gene_poole 03:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh!
Yeah, I spend much more time here (especially on the Ido Wikipedia and Wiktionary) than on Dave's. One of the reasons why I like it here is that if something is missing in one language I can usually find it in another. You'll note though that a lot of the languages are related to each other - basic Swedish and Danish knowledge pretty much comes along with Norwegian, and I get a 2 rating in Esperanto even though I've never studied it because Ido is a reformed version of it and you can make out 80% of one from knowing the other. What's your username on Dave's? Mithridates 14:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Oregon election, 2005
Hi David,

Thanks for your update.

I think it's important to keep the wiki page an accurate record of what happened, so I will revert or modify some of your changes.

The page is dated 2006, and thus encompasses both May and November elections. In several years, I'd like it to be a resource for people to look back at, and see the progression of events. I am not sure I know the best way to do that, but I'll take a shot. I'm hoping you have more thoughts to contribute! Now is when it gets fun.

-Pete 10:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:WPOR - Politicians
Thanks for being a part of WikiProject Oregon - it's so awesome to have so many people on board (especially a fellow politics aficionado).

One thing I think you might be able to do is to help us transition our pictures from fair use images to pictures with free licenses, such as the GFDL or an appropriate Creative Commons license. I've noticed that most all of the pictures of Oregon politicians are fair use promotional photos, and this will ding us when we attempt to improve those articles to Featured Article status.

Can you work on obtaining good free pictures? You can either take these photos yourself or you can find pictures and ask the copyright holder if they'll agree to license them under the GFDL or a Creative Commons license. It's important to keep in mind Wikipedia doesn't accept non-commercial or educational use only pictures. You can see a full list of options at WP:ICT. the iBook of the Revolution 20:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Dominion of Melchizedek
Hello again. The article has just been unprotected. Let's see how long it takes Johnski to find out :-) --Centauri 22:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message. I think what you're doing is good - after all, they keep going on about people not quoting things properly, so the more detail we can include about the frauds they've conducted the better. --Gene_poole 12:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I see what you mean. I'll keep an eye out. --Centauri 22:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks like he's at it again. --Centauri 23:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Danger Will Robinson! He's definitely back - Today he used his Whatsupdoc sock to vandalise List of micronations. Notice his sneaky DOM comment on the talk page as well. --Centauri 03:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Concerning User:217.180.78.33
Thanks for the warning, but I take personal attacks and the like in stride (comes with being on RC-patrol and implementing blocks), and there is always someone on the lookout for vandalism. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar 13:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
Re:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

Thanks for the intervention on the page. I recently posted about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict#Clarification_on_NPOV

The page needs admin attention, needs cool down and needs intervention. Is ridiculous indeed!

--Cerejota 13:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit Warring 2006 Arab-Isreal Conflict
Please note that I have put a comment on the talk page. I'm not taking anyone side, but am sick of seeing the edit war. The page has already been semi-protected. If this edit war continues I will ask an admin for full protection of the page. You guys need to discuss stuff on the talk page and start following the rules of Wikipedia. Davidpdx 12:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not part of any edit war, and have only made a couple of minor grammatical corrections to the page. Please check who you send warnings to before blanket-issuing them to anyone who edits a page. — Nicholas (reply) @ 14:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If that is the case,why were you readding information that was getting deleted. Yes, you did not have very many edits,but you were and are part of a content war going on in the article I mentioned. Therefore it does have relevency. Davidpdx 14:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I assert that I am unaware of any edit war going on, nor do I know what information I added that "was getting deleted". I just added some tags to the casualty list on the right, and corrected a few errors in the page's English. I didn't add any new content, because have no new content to add! — Nicholas (reply) @ 14:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Iran POV
Because I haven't read the entire article yet or looked at the history, I can't really tell you whether the edit is POV or not. What I can tell you is that all claims should be based on verifiable sources and properly cited. The claim that the IP address removed was not cited. In addition, this might also be of interest. Thanks for the note! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 14:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh What?
Excuse me, but who are you to tell me to stop? I have seen continuous violations of Wikipedia regulations on this article, as I have been following it since the beginning of the conflict. My ongoing attempts to make this an informational, NPOV and encyclopedic article have been met by constant vandalism. I have remained neutral despite my nationality (Israeli), and have edited parts of the article which were clearly pro-Israeli as well. It is a well known fact that there is constant vandalism on this article (unfortunately, mostly by anti-Israeli/anti-Jewish writers). Please go attack the vandals, instead of those who actually try to contribute. Thank you. Tweekerd 14:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I can attest that while the page is in a sorry state, this user is misrepresenting his/her actions and edits, and is indeed a major contributor to the loss of quality and POV status of the page. Furthermore, I cannot possibly belive this user is making a claim as to the origin of vandalic activity "being mostly by anti-Israeli/anti-Jewish writers". You cannot verify either way, althought I can say that there have been egrerious and batant vandalisms by both sides of the POV.--Cerejota 14:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Galbijim Wiki
Hello there...umm what's "Dave's ESL"? I searched for it on Google and it turned up something totally unrelated so perhaps that's not it (or maybe that site is related but I still don't know what it is) -- KittySaturn 06:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know him, I just saw his message on the notice board ^_^ -- KittySaturn 09:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

david wu
new discussion on david wu Talk:David Wu--Bonafide.hustla 07:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Just posted a comment on David Wu's talkpage in the middle of my vacation Also can you please take a look at User:Jiang userpage and talkpage. The images show he is deeply anti-Taiwanese and pro-Chinese invasion against Taiwan. (Note one of them says Taiwan=shame) It kinda explains his motives. (not making assumptions here) but his edits speak for themselves. Thanks--Bonafide.hustla 02:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Some are in Chinese but the Taiwan=shame image on his "talkpage" is very conspicuous and it is in English. The image on his userpage says Dalai Lama owns slave, which is also in English, it's in smaller letters tho. Also I think this comment by Jiang [] is very unhelpful.(he will haunt wiki forever?? what's his motives?? I know it's prolly a joke but wow, we're trying to get serious work done)--Bonafide.hustla 02:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

sure sounds good.--Bonafide.hustla 03:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

NOticed your comment on Alec's page. I'm willing to support the edit with no nationality mentioned since my only motive is to maintain NPOV. I don't know about Jiang though. And he's an admin, but you can try.--Bonafide.hustla 06:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

As of now, I think we should delete all ethnicity categories and contents altogether. It doesn't matter anyway. Yup, Jiang definitely is an admin. If you want to file a complaint, that's great. He's been doing a lot of pov stuff for a very long time.--Bonafide.hustla 07:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for editing. And you can file a commplaint against Jiang, I got your back.--Bonafide.hustla 07:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I for one don't much care what's on a page while a NPOV dispute is ongoing, so long as the NPOV tag there to alert readers to the fact that the page is under construction. Both, neither, either one-- it doesn't much matter.  I just put the new "both" version up there because it was the most convenient way to show it to everyone.  But go visit the talk page-- I've got questions for you --Alecmconroy 07:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

LOl, I can barely think right now 'cause I'm so tired and I'm suppose to be on break. But anyway, I guess I just gotta check out the edit Alec made tomorrow or later. If it's specific enough (ie describing the complicating situation of Wu's ethnicity) then I'll have to live with it 'cause I mean wiki is an encyclopedia so presenting info. in a way that is unbiased is the most important element, if Alec achieved that, I'm thrilled. As for Jiang, I really don't think he's gonna promise not to mess with the article. Even if he does, this article is only one out of like 100 articles he is active on. Miraculously, on the same subject, so the issue is still there. I doubt if you'll have time to look into ALL that tho. But anyway, even if he does agree, I still think you should file a complaint that details his abuse of admin power.--Bonafide.hustla 08:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Elizabeth Furse
I noticed that the article I created on former U.S. Congresswoman Elizabeth Furse is listed in the "Articles to Expand" section of your User Page. I was wondering if you would be willing to provide suggestions on what needs to be expanded in the article. --TommyBoy 03:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for following up with me. I just happened to notice her inclusion in your list by way of the "what links here" tab in the article. --TommyBoy 05:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Email address
You should go to "My Preferences" and add your email address, so that people can contact you through email, as in cases like this where they want to ask you things unrelated to Wikipedia. Things like: I noticed you edited the Dave Frohmeyer pages--  would I be correct in assuming you were a Duck? --Alecmconroy 08:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll do that. I'm just really protective of my email address. And heck no I'm a Viking. I just like editing Oregon political stuff. Davidpdx 08:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk:David Wu
''If you can't contribute something to this conversation please don't post on this talk page. What you are doing could be considered trolling and is disruptive. I've asked you once to stop, if you persist I will be reporting you to an admin. Davidpdx 00:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)''


 * Davidpdx, how is my comment on Talk:David Wu considered "trolling" and "disruptive"? What is claiming is clearly original research on his part and it is not allowed. And for the record,  has been mass POV pushing on many Taiwan/China articles. See all his contributions for evidence.  I am clearly trying to contribute positively on Talk:David Wu. Please don't label opinions you don't agree with as "trolling" and "disruptive". Please reply here, I would like to hear your reasoning on this. Thanks. --RevolverOcelotX 01:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You are only out to accuse him of things that he is clearly not doing including using origional research when he clearly isn't. Your commments have been disruptive and have not contributed anything to what has transpired on the talk page. If you want to contribute something then fine. In addition, looking at your talk page, you have also been accused of POV pushing and banned for your behavior so you have little room to talk. As I said, if you continue I'll have a discussion with an admin. Discussion closed. Davidpdx 01:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi David, I really don't think we're making so much compromise by going with the current version since Jiang shows no indication/make no promise of leaving the article alone even though all others did on the ground that Jiang makes a promise. My guess is he'll revert it back again once you leave wikipedia (unless you never leave). Btw are you gonna file an abuse of admin power against Jiang? Since his attitude on that talkpage was clearly biased.--Bonafide.hustla 04:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

user page
Do you want me to do to your user page what you have done to mine? Whatsupdoc 02:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds like an empty threat to me. Davidpdx 08:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Whatsupdoc vandal
You're on my watchlist. Surely the above threat is enough to get him hard-banned? --Centauri 08:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Blue Oregon etc.
Hi David, thanks for saying hello. Looks like you've been doing some good Wiki work - I'm especially intrigued by your project to document important ballot measures, and will try to assist with that. I bet BlueOregon and Wikipedia are a good way to stay in touch while away from Oregon? Pete 18:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Wu
I remember that campaign well, and generally agree with your summation. I'll try to keep an eye on it. -Pete 05:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Good job revert those edits-- yeah, that's pretty straightfoward POV pushing. I'll try to keep a watch on the page in case there are further problem, but don't hesistate to tap me on the shoulder if a sustained dispute arises.  In the mean time, keep up the good work. :)  --Alecmconroy 07:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Assistance
Hi there. I'm wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look at Bell Witch. I'm having some difficulties with an editor who is trying to remove and/or aggressively devalue the only known skeptical analysis of this supposed "paranormal" phenomenon; basically it's a not-very-subtle attempt at insidious vandalism. A reasoned external opinion would be valued at this point. --Centauri 12:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I wish I could, but at this point I can't. I've scaled back the amount of time I spend on Wikipedia lately. The other thing is I know pretty much nil about that kind of a subject. For now, I hang around to watch the DoM article and a bunch of other political articles having to do with Oregon. Davidpdx 14:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem. The fight against POV-pushers is a long and exhausting one :-) --Centauri 20:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ron Saxton
I think you were confused about my edit summary. I actually didn't remove the link, I added it back after someone else removed it. I wrote "rv, removing link" but I should have written "rv removed link". Sorry about that. --Liface 15:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Response
Dear Sir:

First of all, thank you for all you have done for Wikipedia; however, please do not give me a dissertation on how I can use this resource. I respect your work on the site, but having a link to a bias website about Saxton is not appropriate! Especially, when Kulongoski’s page has no such link. I believe you are fair 90% of the time, but I also believe that you lean left. I am going to be the counter of that. I wish that I had the time to put into Wikipedia that you do, but unfortunately I do not. I will stop taking the Saxton Watch off, but only out of respect to you. I am not some right-wing nut job, in fact I am registered (I), but you should take it off for your own good. It is unfair to him.

G

User:Galmiche
See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User blanking userpage and political talk pages. --Liface 23:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jkelly 23:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * But we don't know who the copyright holder and licensing is for Image:Saxtonprimary2006.jpg either. There's no reason to think it is the  work of the U.S. federal government.  Jkelly 16:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * We need to know who owns the copyright on the images we republish. If it was the work of the federal government, it would be in the public domain, but there is no reason to believe that this photograph is a federal government work.  Copyright might belong to the state government, it might belong to the subject of the photograph, or it might belong to the photographer who has licensed its use on the original website only.  This is the kind of thing we need to know.  Jkelly 17:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Expanding
Hey David!

I am relatively new to the Wikipedia World and I am interested in expanding some of the articles you have worked on. What are the priorities?

Election
Hello David,

I see you've given several vote recommendations, but I'm not among them. ;-) Out of curiosity, is there any specific reason? If not, would you mind taking a look at my election platform and telling me what you think? Thanks,--Eloquence* 07:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:. If you have not already done so, please also include the source of the image. In many cases this will be the website where you found it.

Please specify the copyright information and source on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 24.20.69.240 06:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey
Yo how's it going? You might remember me from the David Wu content dispute. Anyway, I was wondering if you can help me take appropriate action against admin User:Jiang (remember the guy whose talkpage has an image that says Taiwan=shame) who had again made a series of edits violating the NPOV policy on wikipedia. Thanks a lot.--Bonafide.hustla 05:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * BH, no I didn't unfortunately. Things here have gotten really hairy. My father-in-law is in the hospital and there is concern about North Korea's nuclear test. I essentially decided to just let it go since the article ended up citing him as both Taiwanese and Chinese. If he makes any push to change it, then I'd change my mind really fast though. Davidpdx 08:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I just realized you live in Korea. Well anyway I guess you already know this but Jiang is pushing the "Chinese annexation of Taiwan" PoV again. It is really unfortunate to see him as an admin. The reason why David Wu is stated as both Taiwanese and Chinese was because apparently he was born in China but has Taiwanese citizenship,but this concept only applies to a few Taiwanese. And now, some pro-Chinese people had threatened to nominate for userpage for deletion (then someone else protected it) after I retaliate Jiang's offensive remarks on his userpage/talkpage. Well anyway just to keep you posted. Aight peace!--Bonafide.hustla 03:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

DoM
I've sprotected the page per the arbcom ruling. Mikkalai is an established editor and a good guy. I don't really pay much attention to categories, but I expect he has a rational basis for his change. If there are concerns, I'm sure you guys can work them out pretty easily. Tom Harrison Talk 02:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You call it "whitewashing" which is a joke to me, what I did, but I call what you are doing, "brainwashing". Hope you have a good day. 207.47.122.10 05:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

David Wu
I think there is a big misunderstanding and I think I know why. I did not remove "Taiwanese American" from the David Wu article. My revision is here. Perhaps you thought so because someone formatted the citations to occupy eight lines, pushing the remainder of the sentence after the phrase "Chinese American" down by nine lines in the diff and this might have fallen out range in your screen. You will find it if you scroll down to the third to last line in this diff and in the revision linked above.

It looks like the very form you proposed is the very form I implemented in my recent change. We are in agreement after all. --Jiang 06:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
Hiya. Long time no see. Do you really think Harvardy = Johnski? Given how frequently he's been vandalising Empire of Atlantium, I've been working on the assumption it's actually Wik. 2 of this account's other socks (Enenkian and Crooked_allele) have already been blocked on that basis. I guess it doesn't really matter one way or other, as both have been banned by the Arbcom. --Gene_poole 10:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Morris R Jeppson
He's on my list. :-) --Gene_poole 01:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I will, and I dropped a note on the blp noticeboard, as well. -- Vary | Talk 08:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, conversion is basically just lawyer-speak for theft, so I guess the editor thought that would be easier to slip by than the actual word 'theft.' -- Vary | Talk 08:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * He hasn't reverted since last night, and I talked to him further after I blocked him about discussing the changes he wants instead of reverting over and over. Hopefully, he won't go back to edit warring. -- Vary | Talk 14:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Johnski
You're right. Harvardy is Johnski, not Wik. He also has another sockpuppet called FairHair. They're both being used to co-ordinate vandalism of Empire of Atlantium. I'd appreciate it if you could put that one on your watchlist and help me automaticaly rollback any edits he makes there, until such time as all the accounts are blocked. Then we can clean up the mess, as usual. --Gene_poole 02:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Barbararoberts.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Barbararoberts.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.

Unfortunately, it was also incorrectly tagged as a U.S. Government work, although obtained from an Oregon state agency website Jgilhousen 04:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, again. In response to your comment on my photo talk subpage, as you can see from the messages above yours on that page, I uploaded some images that were problematic, too.  The issue isn't just a matter of tags, it's the copyright status of the images themselves.  Unless explicitly stated otherwise on the page where you grab them, images of politicians are copyrighted, and cannot be used without not only permission from the copyright holder (usually the politician him or herself), but also explicit release under a free use or public domain license recognized by Wikipedia.  Let's use the specific Barbara Roberts photograph you posted as an example. You got it from the Secretary of State's Office website.  If it was taken by a government photographer, then the State of Oregon owns the copyright.  If Governor Roberts hired a photographer to take the photo for campaign purposes, then she probably contracted for the copyright as well (although this is not always the case... many professional photographers include language in their contracts which explicitly retain the copyright to the creator or the company... Olan Mills Studios is a prime example of this.)  So, none of the tags available would fit.  It's not a work of the federal government, so tagging it that way is inaccurate.  It hasn't been released, so none of the free-license tags work.  You could make a case for it being a "fair use" exception, but Wikipedia is now enforcing deletion of fair use images of living people, too.  In other words, the photo itself is not publishable on Wikipedia, no matter how you tag it.  Eventually, it wil get noticed and deleted... quicker if it's tagged accurately.


 * So, what's the answer to the problem? You have to get permission to publish a copyrighted work from its copyright holder, and that permission has to include specific release under a free use license.  That's why I've been requesting that permission for all of the Oregon elected officeholders, and so far have managed to get permission and free use release from several.  That's how I was able to replace your Barbara Roberts photo.  I found a picture of her I liked through Google image search, saw a photo credit under it, and wrote to the photographer, who consented to release under GFDL.  It is now delete-proof.  I usedExample requests for permission as a guide, but wrote my own letters, making sure that I was clear that I was requesting free use release under GFDL.


 * The only other answer is to grab a camera, and go out and shoot a photo yourself (I've done some of that, too). Just remember to release it under the GFDL or another acceptable free license.  "What's good for the goose is good for the gander" applies.


 * By the way, I don't happen to agree with the current draconian enforcement of this policy, or even the extreme position of the policy itself which goes way beyond what I consider any reasonable definition of "free." But until and unless the policy or its current interpretation can be changed (and that looks like a long shot at this point), I'm following it.  The alternative is to have our pages constantly screwed up by links to images that have disappeared.


 * I hope that answers your questions and confusion, but feel free to contact me, either through my image talk page, or the "e-mail this user" link on my user page. I'm not trying to be a jerk about this, I'm just trying to protect the biographical articles within the scope of WikiProject Oregon from a recurrence of the robo-mass-deletions that wreaked havoc on our infoboxes recently.  -- "J-M" Jgilhousen 07:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Further reply to yours at User talk:Jgilhousen/photo issues "J-M" (Jgilhousen) 06:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Dokdo
Yes, I have been monitering what has been happening over there at the Dokdo article. I'll notify you if there is a move request. Good friend100 22:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)