User talk:HResearcher/Archive001

Requests for adminship/Winhunter
Would you mind elaborate a little bit about which part of my history haven't live up to your standard for admin? --WinHunter (talk) 05:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I saw some edits that struck me as POV, but I could be wrong and I didn't write down the differences. in my opinion an editor who has strong POV's might be unfair as an admin.  I hope you don't take it personally as everyone is entitled to POV, but in my own opinion only totally neutral individuals should be admins.  Just my opinion and my vote is mainly based on that, it doesn't mean I think you are a bad editor because I am under the impression that everyone here is on their own choice and no one should be treated wrongly unless they cause problems, but I didn't see any of your edits as someone causing problems.  Hope you understand and if not, I can try to ask your questions. --HResearcher 05:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Would you mind being little more specific about which of my edits have strong POV? I am trying very hard to follow WP:NPOV with edits like this: . So pointing them out and help me to archive WP:NPOV would be very helpful. --WinHunter (talk) 05:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Haha! You must be mind reader. It is those edits about Taiwan that made me think perhaps you had a strong POV.  Like I said I could be wrong about you.  I'll take a closer look at those edits to make sure I am not opposing you from my own biased view.  Please give me some time. --HResearcher 05:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Spot check
I'm basically just doing sort of an RfA spot check, after discovering some quite amazing admin requirements by some people (in some cases way past the requirements for mediator or bureaucrat). I'm not questioning each oppose, just those who are using edit count criteria. Kim Bruning 13:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yup! Win or loose, I think I'd like to suggest to Cowman109, Kylu or Keitei to consider inviting CheNuevara to the mediation cabal (it's their call in the end, of course). Would you like to do the honor? :-) Kim Bruning 13:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:CheNuevara
I responded to your comment on my talk page :) - CheNuevara 16:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Eluchil404's RfA
Thank you for taking the time to express an opinion in my recent request for adminship. I have withdrawn my self-nomination because there seemed little prospect for further productive discussion or the formation of a consensus to promote. Many commentators offered constructive critisism that I will use to improve myself as a user. Others suggested that the nomination was premature and that a re-nom in a few months would be more likely to gain consensus. I responded to your comments in the RfA itself. If you have further concerns or ever need to get ahold of me, don't hesitate to contact me at User talk:Eluchil404. Eluchil404 20:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you so much! RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 04:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

my RfA
Thanks for your support in my RfA! Unfortunately, the request did not pass, with a vote of (43/16/7). But your support was appreciated and I'll just keep right on doing what I do. Maybe I'll see ya around -- I'll be here! Cheers! - CheNuevara 17:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Hi HResearcher,

You recently placed a neutral statement on my Request for Adminship. You indicated you hadn't seen enough examples of mediation, and that you would be looking for examples where I'd been calm and fair. Fang Aili kindly provided some diffs on my RfA page, and I followed up with some additional links as well. That was a couple of days ago. I wondered if you'd had a chance to look thru any of the links we provided, or if you had done investigation on your own as you indicated on my RfA page. I certainly do not mean to pester or put pressure on you either way, but I figured I'd just send a friendly note your way, as my RfA is scheduled to close tomorrow. Anyway, happy editing! :) -- Firsfron of Ronchester 18:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

policy link
Hi! You wrote: ''Wikipedia is not a memorial. (I don't know the WP link for that policy). ''

You can find it at WP:NOT, under the sub-header Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Cheers, Punkmorten 10:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Barbara Schwarz
According to Wikipedia policy I took out poorly source information, but you just restored it. Can you give references? --HResearcher 17:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know anything about Barbara Schwartz, I just saw you had deleted the whole intro. If you want some parts taken out, do it, but you need to rephrase the intro so it still explains who the individual is and why she is notable.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. I removed uncited or poorly cited information according to BPL, but someone named Tilman is insisting that I am in the wrong. Can you take a look at the talk page.  I'm moving on to other articles, but I'll come back to it later after i read the article Tilman is talking about.  Also he says I can't remove information from usenet sources.  Isn't that against policy?? --HResearcher 18:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look at it.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Chuchullain, someone blocked me for following the advice of the BLP template. Can you please get someone to unblock me. --HResearcher 19:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I dropped the blocking admin a line, but engaging in edit warring is not appropriate, even if you think you were right. In the mean time, you should review the page in question and see if there's still any problems; someone seems to have added better citations.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Cuchallain, I really do appreciate your fair attention. --HResearcher 06:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi HR! Thanks for your help on the Barbara Schwarz article. Sorry it didn't turn out better. I'm a bit disappointed that Wikipedia seems to be willing to tolerate a page that is nothing but an attack on a individual. I should have used the db-attack tag. Anyway I'm going to stick around. This is where the action is. Hope you get this message.Steve Dufour 05:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Steve Dufour. Acutally it was not a problem. I didn't realize there would be such a controversy over removing un/poorly cited material especially since I based my action on what policy stated and what Jimbo Wales stated.  I will keep an eye on the Barbara Schwarz article, but I'm going to bring up this issue about the block with a few people before I apply it again.  This block reflects badly on the admin who blocked me and the troll who came an concurred with the abusive admin. Drop me a line if you ever need help with anything. --HResearcher 06:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Keep up the good work.Steve Dufour 06:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC) p.s. my mention of the db-attack tag was a hint.  :-)

I know Tilman, on the Internet that is, he is German and one of his major interests is being against Scientology. I'm not sure exactly why since he is not an ex-member as are most of its critics. I certainly don't think he is a neo-Nazi or prone to violence or anything like that. I can tell that he is very intelligent and also honest in what he says, that is he is giving us his honest opinions. BTW I am a member of the Unification Church which is one of his secondary dislikes. BTW2 I also know Barbara in the same way and I don't question any of the information on her in the article; I just don't think the article should be there at all.Steve Dufour 14:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for mediation
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Falun Gong, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. --Fire Star 火星 14:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you


Last call for Requests for mediation/Falun Gong
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Falun Gong, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. --Fire Star 火星 17:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Blp
Hi. Please note that the above template is intended for talk pages not articles. Also, if you're fixing Blp to the talk page of a living person biography please use instead, as it adds some extra info and categories to the talk page. Thanks very much. --kingboyk 13:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Violations of Falun Gong's human rights in China
copied from Talk:Falun Gong

"According to the U.S. State Department's annual human rights report, Falun Gong prisoners are required to work long hours daily in "extrajudicial reeducation-through-labor camps." Others are placed in psychiatric facilities or special deprogramming centers. In addition, human rights groups allege that detainees are often deprived of food and water, are denied bathroom facilities, and are sometimes forbidden to sleep. The State Department report adds that several hundred Falun Gong adherents reportedly have died in detention due to torture, abuse and neglect." Brother's Plight Spurs Effort to Improve Human Rights in China by Kristie Lee, November 7, 2003, Duke University --HResearcher 00:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is invalid. It claims to be written by two different people in two different places & references a third for a contact. Next time you post something like that, you should at least get all of them on the same page in the same place.

Almost forgot, I will find out about reporting you to the Duke U. press.

Cj cawley 01:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey Cj, please read No legal threats. --Fire Star 火星 02:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * User:Cj cawley, I don't understand your threat to report me to the Duke University and am not bothered by it anyway. Yes, it's from Duke University, there's no legal problem in citing it. The article is valid, and the claims cited are supported by the U.S. State Department report.  --HResearcher 03:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP
I see you were blocked while doing what WP:BLP suggests. Have you said anything at the administrator's notice board? You can be bold, especially if no one else seems to be interested in editing an article. But to avoid dispute, I would just discuss removals first and leave any problems up to user's with more authority. -- Electric Eye  ( talk ) 22:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Two admins reviewed the block and agreed that HResearcher was properly blocked. HResearcher removes information that explains why he was blocked from his talk page. Vivaldi (talk) 06:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Invite to Libel-Protection Unit
Biographies of Living Persons WP:BLP requires a higher wikipedia standard since the Siegenthaler Controversy in December 2005. Articles like these involve WP:LIBEL and WP:NPOV It has been 6 months, and wikipedia still has hundreds of potentially libelious articles.

Many editors and even administrators are generally unaware of potential defamation either direct or via WP:NPOV. To help protect wikipedia, I feel a large working group of historians, lawyers, journalists, administrators and everyday editors is needed to rapidly enforce policies.

I would like to invite you to join and particpate in a new working group, tenatively named Libel-Protection Unit, a group devoted to WP:BLP, WP:LIBEL and WP:NPOV and active enforcement. From your experience and/or writings on talk pages, I look forward to seeing you there. Electrawn 16:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom
Informal mediator Wiki  e Zach| talk  is preparing to move the Falun Gong mediation case to the Arbcom. I have been asked to alert concerned (to the best of my knowledge) editors about this matter. Thank you. --Fire Star 火星 23:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Gershon Iskowitz
Gershon Iskowitz. How do you know the article is a copyright violation? --HResearcher 13:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * A quick Google search showed the text in the article was copied directly from http://www.newzones.com/dynamic/artist.asp?ArtistID=118, word-for-word. At the bottom of the page is the copyright statement "© 2006 Newzones Gallery of Contemporary Art and their artists. All rights reserved.", and in the site's terms of use is the statement "Permission is explicitly denied for any republication of text or images in this site without the prior express written consent of the Newzones gallery and their artists. This includes publishing in print and on the internet for commercial or non-commercial purposes.". Can't get much clearer-cut than that! ~Matticus TC 13:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Haha! Thanks for letting me know. --HResearcher 13:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Orsini's claim: "WARNING: NO PERSONAL ATTACKS"
HResearcher, your third edit here [] is viewed by me as serious personal attack and uncivil behavior, after you you have previously engaged in a pattern of baiting and taunting. Wikipedia has policies against this, and I should have spoken up before now about your previous uncivil behavior. I would encourage you to read up on the policies at WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. You have a mistaken belief or assumption that I want the Barbara Schwarz page to exist in order to defame or cause harm to her. You have also stated I have libeled her, and made statements about her "current mental state". Your assumptions and statements are incorrect. You have also made statements with the aim to provoke other people, as well as myself, whose only interest is in improving the article. I want the article to contain only verifiable information about things that are notable about her in NPOV. Your accusations that I am engaging in personal research, bias, and your violation of WP:AGF in your second edit here [] are uncalled for. Your statement in the third cited edit here [] (claiming I commented on her "current mental condition") is incorrect, and I insist you retract it. I'm giving you this warning now in the hope that you will change your behaviour on Wikipedia and immediately cease from engaging in personal attacks, and your uncivil behavior in making statements only to provoke people. Orsini 20:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe my comments are appropriate considering your constant use of extrapolation (original research) to forward negative comments about a living person Barbara Schwarz and I stand behind my comments 100%. --HResearcher 23:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have documented instances of Orsini's original research here: User:HResearcher/OR --HResearcher 01:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Far away
On September 13, I will be gone from Wikipedia for possibly a month or more. I want to catch a flight to Europe, then China, to take care of some business and spend a little time as a tourist. On my way back I'll finally learn about the origination of "WIKI" when I visit Hawaii (Waikiki). I doubt I will be contributing to Wikipedia during my travels. --HResearcher 13:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Ted Willis
I changed the link from Ted Willis to Ted C. Willis. Also, I will be getting info from the Fresno Historical society to add to the Fresno Mayor's collection. Mr. Smart

Re: Roger Green

 * What part of the Roger Green article violates NPOV? Ruthfulbarbarity 00:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)