User talk:Fordmadoxfraud/Archive 1

User:CltFn
I checked into the timeline copyvio issue, and I think the revised version is okay; I added a reference for it, since the Atlanta article is clearly the source.. but the owner of that copyright doesn't own the information, just the text, and the text has clearly changed significantly. As for CltFn's other behavior, I'm happy to check into it, but can you provide me with some diffs that show problematic edits recently (apart from the Timeline thing, which I think is pretty well resolved now)? Anyway, you've clearly gotten steamed up a bit over your interactions with this guy... even if that's his fault, and even if his edits really are problematic, it's still a good idea for you to take a breather and remember that in the big scheme of things, this doesn't matter that much. Editing is an eventual process, after all. Anyway, show me some diffs and I'll take a look. Mango juice talk 04:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

R&AW NPOV
Hello Ford, thanks for commenting on the R&AW discussion page. But i would like to point out that i was unable to find a single instance in the article which mentioned that the Indian Army unleashed a terror campaign, you have commented that the article is slanted towards pakistan, however the article has a very unflattering tone towards the western neighbour of India, the RAW success in Bangladesh pictures a very grim pic of pak army. In the end i would like to know what exactly you meant by 'Spiffy', looking forward to your contribution in the article Legaleagle86 14:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, I got my parties reversed, I admit, but the "reign of terror" is there, first sentence in the Research and Analysis Wing section, as are references to Kashmir being "Pakistan occupied",. Again, there's not a ruinous amount of POV language; it could easily be cleaned up.  Ford MF 18:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Ford, first i must congratulate you on the excellent cleanup. However i still feel little unsatisfied on the reasoning of fact over fiction on the media potryal v controversy debate. Morever dont you think that a brief mention of chanakya would have enhanced the image of ancient espionage in india. waiting for further cleanup, keep up the good work. Legaleagle86 12:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

All Eyez on Me
You mentioned on the talk page "digging up an Admin" - if you ever need one, I am one. Please do stay on the article, L2K can be opinionated but he is reasonable, you just have to be patient and persistant. He has almost single-handedly protected the 2pac articles from blog-reading rumor-mongers, and it is a hard, hard job, so give him some slack when he seems a little authoritarian or hostile, ok? He could use the help, actually. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Abu-Jamal
That first paragraph is very non-NPOV towards Abu-Jamal: it doesn't call him a convicted murderer but uses the passive voice to cast doubt on his conviction, and he certainly isn't most famous for being Islamic or a political activist, as the first sentence implies. If it wasn't for the murder trail no one would know who he is, and he was primarily a taxi driver when he was involved in the shooting. Also, the links I included were articles from the Los Angeles Times and Philadelphia Inquirer. They just happen to be linked on the pro-Faulkner site.

I believe the opening paragraph needs to be balanced; I welcome your further input. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Little Bird (talk • contribs) 05:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandals
If there is an active vandal, you can report the vandal at WP:AIV (Administrator intervention against Vandalism) for fast response. Be sure to warn the vandal first per WP:VAND. Full information is available through WP:VIP (Vandalism in progress.) If the vandal is a repeater, with a shifting IP or keeps making socks, you may wish to ask for temporary protection at WP:RFPP. Please feel free to ask me any questions on my talk page at any time, about any Wikipedia process or issues. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate the heads up. The Wiki procedural stuff can be a little confusing for a neophyte.  Ford MF 16:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked
I blocked you regarding Iranian sex tape scandal. Read what Jimbo wrote - I have emailed him and will let him decide how to handle it. Don't for an instant think that what you do on Wikipedia doesn't have a real impact on people's real lives in places far far away from Brooklyn. Why does putting information up that will lead to someone being stoned, as in killed, make sense?--Brad Patrick 18:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding what exactly? Wales took the link to the video out of the article, and it's still out, which, whatever.  I was iffy about it in the beginning anyway, so I'm not really tearing my hair out over that one.  But for what reason exactly have I been indefinitely blocked from editing articles?  Ford MF 21:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You are unblocked now. Go in peace my friend.  Basically, we want to be extremely clear that Wikipedia itself takes no stand on whether the person in the tape is her, and we very much need to make it clear that she has denied it.  Sorry for the dustup, but all should be fine now.  --Jimbo Wales 00:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Cool beans. Ford MF 16:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again
to the so called "Fordmadoxfraud", I wish to point out that harassing someone while hiding behind a screen name is now a criminal offense:

A new federal law was signed on January 5, 2006 by President Bush. Section 113 of the "Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act" states that when you harass someone on the Internet, you must disclose your identity. Here's the relevant language:

"Whoever ... utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet ... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person ... who receives the communications ... shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both." The law is correct to target abusive Internet behavior that hides behind anonymity. Wikipedia's procedures should be overhauled in light of this new law. Every screen-name signature should always show the originating IP address next to it on Wikipedia, and those who open accounts should provide a verified email address. These addresses should be available to anyone on request (but behind a captcha to keep spambots from harvesting them). This is a minimum requirement for Wikipedia if it ever hopes to restore its good name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.133.121.12 (talk) 16 December 2006


 * Since you're not new to Wikipedia, I assume you've already encountered its policies and guidelines, but in case not, it might be useful to review No legal threats.


 * Also, glancing through your edit history, I like how you post seemingly rational WP policy advisories while using completely bonkers-unacceptable language in the edit summary, like saying "Wikipedia editors are Nazi fuck monkeys" on someone else's userpage. Classy.  Ford MF 16:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

http://www.govtrack.us/data/us/bills.text/109/h/h3402.pdf        is the site for: SEC. 113. PREVENTING CYBERSTALKING. (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 223(h) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223(h)(1)) is amended— (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end; (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: ‘‘(C) in the case of subparagraph (C) of subsection (a)(1), includes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet (as such term is defined in section 1104 of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note)).’’. (b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—This section and the amendment made by this section may not be construed to affect the meaning given the term ‘‘telecommunications device’’ in section 223(h)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as in effect before the date of the enactment of this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.133.121.12 (talk) 16 December 2006

Greetings
Thanks for the last edit, it sounds much better now. Can you please correct the other articles you added that questionable amnesty report to? That report is unverified and unconfirmed, it would very well be an opposition hoax originating from MKO, which is why the amnesty report itself uses language like "may have taken place" or " allegedly". In other words, no independent news agency has reported or confirmed it. --Patrick987 10:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure others have taken care of that for me. I only rv'ed the Shahroudi article because I thought it was important to mention that he was the guy who placed the moratorium on stoning, which has really been his only source of media coverage in the west.  Ford MF 10:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, that questionable report is still on Human rights in Iran and Criminal code of Iran where you added it. I'd appreciate it if you corrected those articles yourself, since you're the original contributor. --Patrick987 10:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Er ... in both cases, my contributions have already been rv'ed. See Iranian criminal code and Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran.  Ford MF 10:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Er...I can still see it on Human rights in Iran, someone must have re-rv'ed somewhere. I don't wanna revert it myself, because in such cases, it's best that the contributing editor corrects the paragraph or the info, to avoid any misunderstanding or a potential edit-war. --Patrick987 10:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

BC/AD versus BCE/CE
There is no policy currently for dating conventions but Eras is kind of the stomping grounds for it. There is a poll regarding it, though. Thought you might be interested. --mordicai. 23:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Watchmen (film)
Thanks for reverting the edit on Watchmen. I have a feeling that the anonymous IP is someone who keeps campaigning for Doug Hutchinson as Rorschach. This seems like extremely false information. I'll review the article's history and see if there's a similarity in the edits. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If you're curious at all, these are the first and second edits petitioning for Doug Hutchison (different IP, though). Apparently, that particular editor thinks Hutchison is perfect for the job.  I've put Hutchison's article on my watchlist as well. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem, just doing my job. The guy's edit did vibe "secret wiki advertising", particularly since it was the only edit connected to that IP.  Ford MF 20:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Celebrity sex tape
Good work cleaning that up - what's your question on formatting the references? I typically use cite web (or cite news) to create proper footnotes, especially if the item is an article rather than a webpage. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, I don't know either of those templates, so I usually just type out the full citation by hand. Ford MF 01:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, when you're done, I'll go through and update them. If you're curious, this is the easiest way to do a cite-web: . There are other fields, but those are the critical ones for a good citation - author, title, publisher (what site, or for cite news, what newspaper/magazine), publication date, url, and the date you accessed it. Just an FYI - don't feel obligated to do this yourself, as I've already volunteered to take a stab at it. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

English Language
Regarding this edit: Those citations are not book reviews. They are links to Amazon.com's book search--a service whereby users view sections of digitized books. Because you removed valid citations from the article, another editor mistakenly altered one of my comments to be less precise. I just fixed the article again.--Fgrwe33 20:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to York and Sawyer
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Fordmadoxfraud! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but please note that the link you added in is on my spam blacklist and should not be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If your link was genuine spam, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 23:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and will be removed. Thanks. Shadowbot 23:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, okay, I get it! I didn't read your first message before adding the second link.  Ford MF 23:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Wernher von Braun
I noticed that you removed Category:People from Huntsville, Alabama from Wernher von Braun earlier, and that it has been re-added by the same IP that originally added it. I thought I should note that I looked at this addition the first time it was made, and actually believe it was acceptable. If you visit that category's page, you will note that it is described as:


 * The following people were either born in, residents of, or otherwise closely associated with the city of Huntsville, Alabama and its surrounding metropolitan area, including Madison County, Alabama.

I added the bold in there to highlight the portion that makes this category relevant for Wernher von Braun - as described in the article, von Braun's team worked in Hunsville, and he resided there, for 20 years. The category does seem appropriate to me. I just thought I should mention this to you, in case you notice the category being re-added. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions or comments. —Krellis 23:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Striker z.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Striker z.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 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. This is an automated message from BJBot 22:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Josiah power.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Josiah power.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 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. This is an automated message from BJBot 00:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Bork.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Bork.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 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. This is an automated message from BJBot 10:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Sapphire one shot.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Sapphire one shot.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 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. This is an automated message from BJBot 10:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Witchfire.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Witchfire.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 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. This is an automated message from BJBot 10:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Characters created by Grant Morrison
A tag has been placed on Category:Characters created by Grant Morrison, putting it up as a Category for Discussion. This has been done because the category is effectively the same as a category that has previously been deleted. If you believe that the category is different and shouldn't be deleted then you can vote at the CfD log entry. H. Carver 11:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Robert Seldon Lady EU Warrant for arrest
This is a new; a CIA agent becoming a fugitive of justice in the 28 EU nations. He might live out the rest of his life without any legal censure occurring to him personally, but it does say a lot about our government's kidnapping of people from other countries. This is reallly striking. This isn't just an Italian arrest warrant, it is a EU arrest warrant. And there will be a trial held in Milan in June of this year —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thething88 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC).
 * I'm not sure I even understand what this comment means, but okay! Ford MF 15:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello, I just wanted to ask you, since you removed my invisible comment, if you could explain me what was an Italian "political asylum passport". Again, I know that you can be granted political asylum, and that gives you a special VISA, but a passport is another thing. Do you mean that the Imam Rapito had something like, not a diplomatic passport, but an "asylum passport"? Can you source that? Furthermore, I point out to you that the head of CIA in Rome was in charge of the CIA for Italy until 2003, and has been indicted. You've confused him with Lady, who was head of CIA in Milan. Finally, you removed the "unsourced speculation" concerning diplomatic problems between Italy & the States. Fair enough, there is no immediate source. But it's funny you put this in question, it's a general kind of comment which has been all over the press... Tazmaniacs 22:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Right! no worry, I perfectly understand you, it happens also to me, this is effects of spending too much time in front of this screen and key-board! No problem, cheers! (ps: over all, I totally agree with you concerning the importance of WP:VERIFIABILITY, wikipedia is absolutely useless if it can't proves what it asserts... Ciao ragazzo! Tazmaniacs

Josh Middleton gallery
I removed the cover gallery you added to Joshua Middleton, because Wikipedia's fair use criteria does not allow purely decorative use of copyrighted images. --Fritz S. (Talk) 18:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * They are decorative because there is no discussion of his art style in the article (see Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of [...] images #4). Also, per WP:FUC #3 "[t]he amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible." --Fritz S. (Talk) 18:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:American_Virgin_5_Joshua_Middleton.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:American_Virgin_5_Joshua_Middleton.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 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. Fritz S. (Talk) 18:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)