User talk:Lord Chao

Copyright status of Peter D. Hart
Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we will delete copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or from printed material.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:
 * If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Peter D. Hart with a link to where we can find that note;
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on the article Talk page. Alternatively, you may create a note on your web page releasing the work under the GFDL and then leave a note at Talk:Peter D. Hart with a link to the details.

Otherwise, you are encouraged to rewrite this article in your own original words to avoid any copyright infringement. Thank you. The Evil Spartan 16:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

David Rockefeller
I reverted the "Conspiracy" category because that category is for conspiracy theories, not targets of conspiracy theorists. --Mantanmoreland 16:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nagra Kudelski Group.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Nagra Kudelski Group.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 09:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

John Howard edits
It's the third story on the BBC World Service news bulletin, and there's an article here. I think this makes notability. Gareth E Kegg 09:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree, looks like I witness my first edit war. Thanks for the additional link, I used material from The Age, but the BBC casts of bigger spotlike on the incident. Lord Chao 11:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Your point is the important one though. The edits aren't important in themselves, but the fact that they were done by Howard staffers, on, as you say, tax payers time. Gareth E Kegg 11:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

John Howard article cleansing
Hi Lord Chao! I appreciate your efforts to prevent information being deleted from the John Howard article. I personally like to see all sides represented on Wikipedia. Both the positive and the negative facts should be included. It's sad when editors slant an article to cleanse it of controversial content. I recently lost a Wikiquette Alert case on the issue of deletion. Deleting editors win. I hope to see your continued presence on the discussion page.Lester2 23:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please WP:AGF. If you have problems with your fellow editors, then there are avenues to report such activity.  Labeling your fellow editors who are following Wikipedia policy can be construed as a personal attack.   Shot info  23:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info, shot info. However, deleting a sourced section because of personally perceived irrelevance is considered vandalism. I can see no good faith in deleting information that criticises the subject in question. The actual edits may be harmless (although I think it's simply falsication to turn human rights abuses into "alleged human right abuses", and certainly intentionally so), but the echo in the media globally gives it relevance.


 * To put things in perspective: Faheem Lodhi has to spend 22 years in prison for a thought crime. Less evidence links Lodhi to criminal activity than Howard to rewriting Wikipedia. The same Howard Government withdrew Dr. Haneef's visa without any substantial evidence. The main argument is the deleter is lack of space. Sorry for blowing a 60k entry with three additoional lines out of proportion. --Lord Chao 05:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Ed Kronenburg
I have removed some unreliably sourced material from his biography under the provisions of our policy on biographies of living people. Please do not restore it unless you find a reliable source for it. If necessary I will protect the page. Tom Harrison Talk 20:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I take it that you have a POV what source are "reliable" and which are not. In this specific case, a digital copy of the list of invitees seems to be me extremly reliable, plus, I fail to see why someone would object being named as a member of a conference which is utterly legal (no matter what agendas might be discussed).


 * If you call a source "unreliable", even though the author was on site during the event, it makes it hard to determine what you would call "reliable".


 * Your concerns about WP:BLP are therefore not comprehendable. Kronenburg's participation has never been denied, has no reason to be denied (as there it is not in any way illegal to participate), so I would appreciate further elucidation why the quoted source is according to your POV "unreliable". --Lord Chao 12:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want, you can ask on Reliable sources/Noticeboard if others think infowars.com is a reliable source for material about living people. I have posted about Ed Kronenburg at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. If a consensus thinks our policy doesn't apply to the material, I won't prevent you from restoring it. Tom Harrison Talk 22:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply, I will have a look at your suggested proceeding before I restore the Kronenburg page. --Lord Chao 10:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Nagra Kudelski Group.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Nagra Kudelski Group.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

1985 deputy
Hello Lord Chao. I'm glad to see you liked those facts. I'm also interested in politicians' histories, from all sides of politics. I found it interesting that the Deputy Opposition Leader of 1985 opposed sanctions against the apartheid regime in South Africa. Cheers,  Lester  20:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation: Howard family copra interests
A new Request for Mediation has been initiated for the John Howard article regarding the Howard family interests in Copra plantations in New Guinea. Initially, a small number of editors were listed as 'interested parties'. However, the Committee Chair has indicated that a wider group may now be invited to participate. An invitation will now be sent to everyone who has previously commented on the John Howard talk page regarding this subject. If you would like to participate, please place your name at: Requests for mediation/John Howard. There is also a discussion page regarding this RfM. Regards,  Lester  22:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

userbox relocation
Hi, just a heads-up that a userbox you have on your pages (interest in conspiracy theories) has changed location to User:Sappho%27d/Userboxes/Conspiracybutnoreptoids

Cheers. Drywontonmee (talk) 07:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of 2003 Bilderberg Meeting
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is 2003 Bilderberg Meeting. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/2003 Bilderberg Meeting. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Nomination of Kudelski Group for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kudelski Group is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Kudelski Group until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Gtwfan52 (talk) 11:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

2005 (May 5-8) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2005 (May 5-8). Since you had some involvement with the 2005 (May 5-8) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)