User talk:Maziotis

 P ROFILE • T ALK  • U SEFUL LINKS  • A WARDS

fPcN-interCultural
Hi Maziotis,

We seem to have a major problem. Someone tries to hijack the content of the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_of_Peoples_Close_to_Nature

Please contact us via collective@fpcn-global.org urgently

fPcN-collective — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.81.107.113 (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Kaczynski photo
Maziotis -- Thanks for taking the time to work with me on Kaczynski's page. As far as his photo, the fair use balancing test takes into consideration both the portion and the quality (as far as image quality /resolution, which I also reduced) of the work used -- I wanted to use as little of it as possible, so that it is as likely to hold up as "fair use", as I can get it. I don't want them to be able to take down the picture and put up one of the demonization pictures again on some bullshit copyright grounds. I think it's better to play it safe here. I understand your choice, and I agree that the full picture looks much better, but even the one that I had up looks WAY better than the shit they normally have up for him -- and I don't want it to revert back. So I'm going to undo your edit for now, just until we've discussed this -- if we decide that the full copyrighted version can go up, then so be it. But I don't want to have any problems in the meantime. I'll put your talk page on my watchlist, so we can discuss it here. Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Someone told me (i think it's in this very talk page) that messing with the picture in such a way won't give you any copyright on the work result. If you have any information on contrary, then that's great. I will leave the picture as it is. I just wish we could find a photo that is good and fair use. Maziotis (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well the internet was a little baby monster baby back then, so there weren't nearly as many "citizen journalists" as there are now. So most of the people taking shots were corporate news media folks or FBI agents, who were looking for something crazy to put on their magazine covers ... because of this, there are very few decent pictures other than this one, and one (in which he is dressed and looking the same) on the fbi.gov site, which is not a frontal profile shot and does not show his face as clearly -- it's him walking in handcuffs with a bunch of cops around him, and is not "up close" ... so it wouldn't really do. If you can find one, I'd really like that -- but I looked pretty hard. Ahhh just saw the pic you put up as I was writing this -- that's the FBI one I'm talking about -- I personally feel that this one looks way better, and shows what his face actually looks like -- that picture doesn't look like he does...
 * according to fair use: Likewise, see Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation, where the Ninth Circuit held that copying an entire photo to use as a thumbnail in online search results did not weigh against fair use, "if the secondary user only copies as much as is necessary for his or her intended use. -- so I just tried to copy as much as I needed ... and it is a thumbnail, since it is not nearly the same size as the original -- I just need to do this so that I meet three criteria for the "balancing test" for fair use, instead of two ... do you mind if I change it back, until we can find a freely licensed, non-demonizing, frontal portrait shot? I'll continue to look for a free picture in the meantime. Let me know if you are OK with me throwing the other picture back up.
 * By the way, I found a great photo of him when he was a bit younger, standing next to a large tree in the woods of montana, which I want to put in the "Life in Montana" section I wrote up, but I can't find who the rights holder is....any ideas where that's from? Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I found great pictures here:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/chi-080302ted-photogallery,0,7753132.photogallery?index=chi-ted003t20080212130334

But I guess it's impossible to get a hand on any of them, unless chicago tribune would give them up. Maziotis (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Those are excellent pictures. Almost all of them are Kaczynski family photos though, so you'd actually have to contact them instead of the Tribune. Plus, none of them are really modern -- i.e. similar to how he looks now -- that's what I like about the one that was up before. The ones in the Tribune slideshow would mostly belong in the "Early Life" section. But the tree photo I was talking about is the last one there -- thanks for finding that, it was really kicking my ass trying to find the rights holder. Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was thinking about adding these pictures in other sections. I think just one of them in the early life section would improve the article a lot on this area. The article doesn't have that many pictures, and perhpas this could help us take the article to featured status in the near future. Maziotis (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah -- I was tossing the idea around about fair-using that image of him next to the tree. It's perfect for the Montana section ... I think I'll just go ahead and do that now -- you've got me convinced ... I would meet nature and purpose criteria for fair use just fine, completely fail in the portion part (since I'm going to use the whole image) and I think that since they claimed that they weren't going to do anything to make any money off of all of this, then I can pretty fairly state that they don't (legally) have any commercial purposes for his work/photos. 3 of 4, including commercial -- I win. So I'm gonna do that now ...
 * And by the way, as far as the image I previously had up -- would you be willing to compromise, where if I kept it as the whole image (not just the face like I had on my previous), and just scaled it down (would meet "thumbnail" decision I quoted above ...), then we could use that. I really don't like the one that's up now. I'd be willing to try fair use for the original -- is that cool with you? Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * To me, it's fine. I just prefer the one I put to the mugshot. I don't know if it is ok with the other editor, though. Maziotis (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't see that the other editor had put the mugshot back ... until I can find a better image, I definitely agree that the one you have is better than the mug ... and since he said no fair use for living folks, I guess that means the tree pic is out too ... Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

A request
Ciao, Maziotis. The Anarchism portal needs a new selected article to showcase for April, and I was thinking of choosing Theodore Kaczynski, as it is a high-quality article relevant to anarchism. Usually I simply copy the lede of the selected article and use that as the "blurb" for the portal, but the lede of the Kaczynski article predictably focuses on his career as America's favourite terrorist. So, the portal needs someone to write a short profile of Kaczynski focusing on his relevance to anarchism, and I thought you would be just the editor for the job. It would have to be largely supported by the article, or if not, by unused reliable sources, and written by next Monday. Might you be interested? Regards, Skomorokh  13:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am very interested in contributing for that project. Thank you very much for the confidence. I do feel that it is a big responsibility, and I have little experience in writing articles. I will try to write something as soon as possible, but I would be more at ease if you were to find another editor to help, or have a final saying. Where would I write a first draft? Would this be written in a space where others would check its progress? Cheers. Maziotis (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent! The piece would be written here. Not many of the WP:ROGUES are active at the moment, but I will certainly check it and make whatever refinements are necessary. A structural outline might be a paragraph on basic biographical details/why Kaczynski is notable, followed by a paragraph or two detailing his relevance to anarchism - the main points of Industrial Society and Its Future and his reception by Zerzan and the primitivists. Length-wise, the Emma Goldman entry from January '08 is as short as we would want (though it doesn't showcase her contributins ot anarchism as much as I'd like). Glad you're on board! Cheers, Skomorokh  05:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Greetings Mazoitis. I've been observing your progress since Skomorokh placed a notice on the ATF talk page. It would seem to be complete now, as of March 31st, so I think assistance isn't really necessary; you've got it well in hand. Thanks for all of your effort. I'll take it live tomorrow, if someone doesn't beat me to it. --Cast (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. If you need anything, you know where to find me. Maziotis (talk) 15:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply to your interpretation
I have replied to your interpretation on Talk:Theodore Kaczynski Meph Yazata (talk) 00:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 23:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Theodore Kaczynski
Maziotis,

You were involved in editing Theodore Kaczynski before it was fully protected. Your thoughts and comments would be welcome on the talk page, as nothing much seems to be happening but the page is still locked. Cheers, Bigger digger (talk) 21:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi: G. A.
I'm not very sure about your reversions. That is a very bad article (WP:VER and WP:POV especially). Schoolar definitions should be taken with a higher importante because aren't for partidists sources, or anyway aren't self-published material. Otherwise, I put os the currents mentioned but without say that one of those ir the "real" green anarchism (last version wasn't neutral and haven't general descriptions of what is "green anarchism" like a whole). I'm busy now, so, I excuse if my english in not so clear. Thanks. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not against you including information coming from Mr. X working at university, but a lot of the so-called partidist information is both relevant and verifiable. It's true that we need more sources, but there are proper processes for that. The way I see it, you are presenting a false dilemma. Maziotis (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * But the exposition of the issues isn't neutral, it´s more "primitivist" or "vegan" (wich have their own articles to more details) than green anarchist information or exposition like a whole (and without order of relevance in political sciences -remembering that this is an enciclopedy nor a collection on essays). Also, when you can't verify your affirmations with reliable sources is better to don't put them. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I also agree that we have a problem in this article in terms of content, namely for undueweight. I actually noticed that sometime ago regarding veganism. But the solution is not to remove the entire content, with the justification that you have "unbiased" definitions to put in the lead section. For example, my experience tells me that the section "Solutions" is quite reasonble, and we could put up a tag for lack of sources or add an individual tag for a specific dubious statement. That is what they are there for. There is nothing wrong in having the "primitivist" perspective explored in a "primitivist" article. Maziotis (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The schoolar references give an scale of importance, and green anarchism is not a "primitivist" article, is an article about the diferent types of environmental anarchism (that should be exposed from general definitions to particular items, in scale of relevance, with verifiable sources -especially neutral and schoolar ones-). I hope you agree with me in this. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I don't. The scale of importance of how much we should cover each current within green anarchism shouldn't be determined by Scholar X. I doubt that you can find an authoritive source that would determine how much we should cover primitivism in this article. The specific author you found may think that Social ecology is really smart and sophisticated, but that has got nothing to do with what most people are looking for in real world when it comes to green anarchism (a different author may cover something else). This is not about what is right, but about what is notable (wp:verifiability). And in fact, I believe most people are loooking for anarcho-primitivism in relation to green anarchism, and certainly when compared to social ecology. You can see the number of publications, sell records, and internet searches. For example, look how many people visit those two articles: http://stats.grok.se/ Maziotis (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * (!) That is the contrary of neutrality and verifiability (based in what you authorize like sources and you oppinions about one web visits) ... (!). Are you sure your "style" is a right follow of universal politics (?)... If you believe one schoolar publication isn't enough you could find more sources but don't base an article in self-publishing articles (last these could be complementary but not principal). --Nihilo 01 (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC) PD: Anyway, green anarchism isn't a "primitivist" article, should be a general article of environmentalist anarchisms, like a whole. Another point, in redaction present article, that you support, looks more than a essay. How you think it should be enhanced? --Nihilo 01 (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstood me. I am not arguing that the article should be written based on personal opinions, as you seem to suggest, but I did respond to your perception about what weight is due to each current. I point out to the available sources to tell you that I do believe that social ecology is not very representative of green anarchism. Also, I find trouble in accepting your interpretation on wp:rs. I don't think that the sources of a scholar should guide us in writting the article, while excluding other forms of notable content. Remember, wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. The "self-published sources" (I don't know exactly what is your criterion), is relavant and notable if very much present in mainstream society (Green Anarchy magazine has an article in wikipedia since it has a circulation of more than 5.000 - 8-9000 to be exact). Green anarchism is a "primitivism" article, among other things, and at the point where this element is defined we should use biased sources. Please, let's not make this into a battle of semantics. By "primitivist article" I am not suggesting that green anarchism belongs to primitivism. I hope I cleared that out.


 * I also think that there is an issue here about definning the scope of this article. Green anarchism is not what you make of anarchism and environmetalism. It is an actual current within anarchism, with it's own ideological point of view. I would oppose the inclusion of notes that are associated with the topic "environmentalism and anarchism" in general, for example. I think that perhaps you would feel more confortable with the topic if indeed you got more in touch with the "self-published" sources in green anarchism. (I remember one editor in anarchism talk page pointing out that anarchism by its very nature was historically defined by sources that are very much in contrast with the criterion that we find in wikipedia for other topics.) Maziotis (talk) 19:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The references I consulted dont say that, and I believe you have an original way to think the politics (I never heard what you say in all this time in two Wikipedias!). I don't want problems, I just propose a new beggining of the article, a reliable article for the readers, without the present original and partialized essay... but I wouldn't insist. Anyway, do you think my version is valid for new and little articles in another languages? --Nihilo 01 (talk) 20:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not against you including any content based on those supposedly "non-biased" sources that you found. I just don't see why you have to delete "solutions" section just because we need to update the article. Also, I don't see how those specific sources represent an authority on green anarchism, or how they justify additional weight on perspectives such as social ecology (the source itself, from what I read, doesn't seem to argue that).


 * Exactly what is your problem with my argument? I don't think I said anything at all about green anarchism, so I don't see what is there for you to find odd. All I spoke was about using wikipedia's policies, and I believe I was quite objective in that. Do your sources contradict me on the issue of "self-published" publications and anarchism in mainstream society? Maziotis (talk) 20:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * First: I try to put only general and referenced -and neutrally exposed- content about green anarchism (not about inner currents), and I supose you don't think my version is wrong in anyway. Is supossed that you first find refferences and then to make an article. Two: Well, you say that you going to fix the article, and I made you observations about reliable sources and verifiability... a I get surprised of your treatment of the scale of importance of refs (where schoolars ones should be prefered than militant ones, but it doesn't mean to be exclusive, only to have an order of importance for an enciclopedycal article). However, I hope you make a good job in the article. Have a good weekend!--Nihilo 01 (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not sure I understand your take on "inner currents". For example, from all the sources I have seen, namely on google books, it seems that green anarchism presents small-scale organization as a preferred answer to authority and modern social problems. I don't see how "environmentalism in anarchism" fits this article. I once again invite you to include content that you find on scholarly sources. But in terms of "due weight" it is in fact the opinion of Ian Adams that deserves a side note, as opposed to John Zerzan views. It is Ian Adams who potentially has a more fringe theory about green anarchism than John Zerzan. I think that him along with Murray have pretty much established what green anarchism stands for. Do you find the articles and books written by Zerzan self-published sources? (I am not sure I got that part). I hope you will keep working on the article and that you were not put off by my defense on some of the content that is presently included. It's just that I am afraid that some of it is in fact relevant and representative, and once it's deleted it's hard to keep a track on it. Cheers. Maziotis (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

List of writers from peoples indigenous to the Americas
Please see talk page. Vizjim (talk) 23:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Roman Polanski
I'm sure you made this edit in the good faith belief that you were helping the article. As I and several other editors have stated on the article's talk page, however, these details are of questionable value to the article, but present a significant departure from the presumption of privacy demanded by WP:BLP 4.2, in terms of revealing the sensationalized sexual details of an incident that occurred over thirty years ago, in which the victim has remained a relatively private person. The victim has also made comments that go directly to the harm done by decades of invasive publicity. While some sources have reported these details, the majority of reliable sources have refrained from repeating them. BLP policy states that the burden of evidence rests on the editor supporting the inclusion of disputed material, to demonstrate that the material is in compliance with BLP policy. Please demonstrate the added material's compliance, particularly with regard to section 4.2 Presumption in favor of privacy, on Talk:Roman Polanski. Thank you. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 12:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * My response was given on the talk page of the article.

Polanski
Re this edit. I completely agree we need consensus, but this wording was first suggested on Sep 28 and was immediately disputed on the talk page. That's only 3 days ago - it's not resolved. The talk has gone round and round since then, but it didn't entirely stop. It's flared up again, but the wording was added without reaching consensus. For that reason, I don't understand why a new consensus must be reached to remove it. Surely with it arousing such strong feeling, it should be returned to it's neutral state, to where it was before the discussion began, and then try to establish what the community thinks. It didn't become consensus or stable just because nobody commented on it for a while. I'm not one for edit-warring as it's never productive but this article is so mired in disagreement, I can't see how it's going to be fixed. Rossrs (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There was never consensus to describe it as "various sexual acts" either. Some previous versions included much more detail. This is the compromise between the two positions. Urban XII (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know when "various sexual acts" was added but the last version of the article prior to Polanski's recent arrest said "Geimer testified that Polanski performed various sexual acts on her,[21][22][23]" (with three sources cited).   That's the last version of the article before the contraversy erupted and "various sexual acts" was already in place.    I know there's been a lot of discussion and some compromises, but it's never been completely agreed.    You're right in saying that there was never a consensus for "various sexual acts".   It appeared in the article sometime between January 2009 and September 2009, and I'm not going to search through difs to find it.   The point is that there has never been a consensus for any version, so to tell other editors to establish consensus before making a change, ignores that all edits, including yours, have been made without consensus.   Anyway, I'll leave it be for now.   Rossrs (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

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

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 00:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

RE: Peregrine
Hello! Thanks for talking to me before starting the DRV. Now, note that just because you reply to a user's vote doesn't make the first user's point meritless. So, just because you answered them doesn't mean the article gets kept. I felt that the concerns brought up were still valid (as I mention in my deletion rationale). If you're still up for DRV, that's fine by me! Or, if you'd want to discuss more, that works too. Cheers, m.o.p  06:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand that. No "head count vote" goes both ways. The decision depends on the merit of the arguments, and the merit may also be on the side of the majority. I understand that. But in this case, there was simply no answer to the several points raised by AnarchoPrimitivist, which I believe can at least be found reasonable enough to deserve a discussion. I mean, he did specifically pointed out to several necessary points of the criteria to justify notable status. The only user that countered those arguments just raised a question about a single point, which doesn't put to question the whole argument, since none of these points are necessary conditions in the criteria. I believe the discussion was really cut half way, where several points were simply not addressed. Since the criterion doesn't depend on a single item, I believe the rule of caution should stand by the side of "keep" until concerns are addressed. Maziotis (talk) 10:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The only points (s)he raised were about notable individuals affiliated with Peregrine and the reference issue. I believe that TheWeakWilled dealt with both, at least in part. However, an administrator should not overturn the will of multiple individuals just because another user perceives said individuals' opinions to be faulty; while I understand what you're saying, know that I (and, to my knowledge, any other sysop) would be hard-pressed to decide on any other outcome. Per my discretion, I decided the debate was hard-set enough, and I chose not to relist, but to close as delete. If you feel that the debate hasn't been explored thoroughly, you may either open a DRV, or, as another option, raise these concerns with the users in question. Be warned that they may not be open to discussing them, though.
 * Oh, and I'm sorry if I seem all cold and unfeeling. I do sympathize with you. If I believed in classification, I would file myself away as an inclusionist. However, I don't let that influence my judgement; if consensus is clear, I follow it. m.o.p  02:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Shell
Just a couple of thoughts on your Shell edits: (1) the section you have added duplicates to a degree the sentence at the beginning of the controversies section "Shell has been criticised for its businesses in Africa, notably in relation to protests of the Ogoni in 1995.[17]" which perhaps you should remove (I am not sure which source is better)(2) perhaps the additional content you plan belongs at Controversies_surrounding_Royal_Dutch_Shell, otherwise you may find you are duplicating that? --BozMo talk 12:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I can see your objections and I agree we need to fix that. But it is my understanding that the section is, and should be, divided by topic and not by cases. I think that there being accusations of human rights violations makes it relevant for us to cover that with a small entry in that section. Summing up parts of full article/section covers of subjects is useful and standard practice. Maziotis (talk) 12:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Stephen Corry
Hello! Your submission of Stephen Corry at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have given my response in the nomination page. Thank you. Maziotis (talk) 12:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

dyk hook too long
Hi, your dyk hook is too long. Please see here where it is discussed. Regards, — Mattisse (Talk) 01:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Templates
I noticed your edit which added   to Chiapas conflict. It's a minor issue, but you might like to know that "Template:" is the default when using the double braces, and wikitext like  is standard. Johnuniq (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I will use that in the future. Maziotis (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Human experimentation in the United States
Maziotis -- I've noticed that you are interested in indigenous rights, and I like a lot of the work you do on WP. I recently created the article Human experimentation in the United States, and I've got a few things in there about experiments done on indigenous people (in the Marshall Islands, and the Inupiat in Alaska), but I don't have much more. I know that there have been experiments done on many other tribal peoples by the U.S. (the Navajo, for example), and was wondering if you could help out with adding information regarding this at the article? I figured you might have a lot to offer here. Thanks! -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your confidence. Unfortunately, I don't see how I can be of any help. I am very much interested in indigenous rights issues, but my research is only at a beginning level. On the subject of “human experimentation on indigenous peoples”, the only information I have found comes from the work of Kevin Annett, which is about Canadian indigenous peoples. I don't know if you have watched the documentary: Unrepentant. I highly recommend it for anyone interested not only in indigenous peoples but in getting a larger picture of things in our society. The documentary gives some insights on the trauma of western civilization/colonization. A subject that is also very much explored by the work of the author Chellis Glendinning. I am sorry I cannot be of any help. I think it is a great topic to create an article on, and I will certainly keep an eye on. If you need help with anything, let me know. Maziotis (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent edit summary
Don't arbitrarily accuse other established editors of vandalism. That section had all kinds of problems and deletion is a perfectly reasonable way to solve problems. There was only one sentence in the entire section that constituted an actual "criticism" of the UN. So it wasn't "perfectly good information."  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 05:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe you are wrong. The entire section is about how the UN failed the situation. All the sources directly criticize the United Nations, so this is not a case of synthesisis or any kind of original reasearch. Some parts of the text are giving historical context to the event, which is perfectly standard and legitimate. If the sources are not being used in synthesis, than there is no basis for the accusation you made. Maziotis (talk) 11:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * PS: I can see that you have built a different section based on the sources. Like I said on the summary, I don't dispute that there could be issues with the previous paragraph. I do believe that I have not broken original research policy. Anyway, thank you for the help. Maziotis (talk) 11:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Here are the issues that were present in the paragraph: the first couple sentences were sourced to opinion pieces, failing the conditions set in WP:RS. The next few sentences were well sources, but did not establish that the UN was tolerant of violent regimes, merely that it had made a poor choice in this situation.  That would be breaking WP:OR.  The bit afterwards about how the UN addressed violent leaders was a trivial violation of WP:OR because it simply stated facts that we the readers are supposed to naturally understand are criticisms.  But they aren't.  Thus there was a problem with every sentence in the paragraph and the onus is on the authors attempting to include to demonstrate that material is compliant with policy.  In any case, I fixed the section because I am a good faith inclusionist and saw that there was something to salvage.  If I really wanted to be a WP:DICK I could've played the little edit war game and considering the number of problems in the section, you would've lost.  My point being, watch your tone when working with other editors or you might piss off someone less forgiving.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 21:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * According to what you have just explained, I would have won. I am not interested at all in pushing bias over this. Maziotis (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * PS: You have just conceeded that you would have been a "dick" if you were to remove the entire section. So, how was my suggestion that you were vandlizing perfectly good information when you removed it out of order. It turns out, I was right. I am really lost here. Maybe you have felt that I called you a vandal, which is not the case at all.


 * Also, I would really be grateful if you were to point to the policy that establishes opinion pieces of reliable authors as violating wp:RS, specially if the information in question is objective. I didn't understand that part really well. Maziotis (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I said I would have been a dick if I had simply reverted your reversion, thus beginning an edit war, rather than trying to form a compromise by editting the section and extracting what little there was of worth. This is not my responsibility.  I don't have to fix broken sections.  It is well within my rights to delete.  Please don't waste both of our time with wordplay.  Accusing someone of vandalizing is accusing someone of being a vandal.  Regading WP:RS, I don't know what the consensus is on objective information from opinion pieces, but it is definitely not "vandalism" to remove it at this time.  There are probably many other objective sources out there for that information.  You don't need to source it to opinion pieces.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 23:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If it is in fact perfectly good information, than I would feel free to say that you are "vandalizing" a good faith edit of inclusion. That is what I said. I stand by it. I didn't really make an argument on it. If you feel ofended, I am genuinely sorry. I really didn't mean to call you a vandal at any time. We all do hurt accuracy all the time, without realizing it. To me, it didn't feel like anything more than that. Since I don't see eye to eye with your point on opinion pieces, maybe you can understand why I don't feel I am wordplaying. If a reliable author writting for the Times magazine says that there was a gathring of 100 voters at one time, there really isn't any reason to doubt that any more than any other source, whether he makes subjective comments in the same piece or not. That seems to be accordingly with our policy on objectivity. I don't see anything wrong with what I wrote, so I don't think you had the right to either remove it or fix it. Maziotis (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * From WP:RS: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers." They were not reliable sources.  My comment about wordplay was referring to your accusing me of "vandalizing" while at the same time not calling me a "vandal."  This is a pointless distinction.  This is from WP:VANDAL: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism."  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 05:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Doesn't that part of WP:RS refer to subjective statements? I find it odd that a journalist doing his job for a major newspaper cannot be cited for a concrete, falsifiable fact. That would be very limiting for a lot of the work done on wikipedia. Anyway, in this case, the rounding up of 1000 papuans is pretty much an established historical fact. Just do a quick search on google books. Finding sources should be really easy. It is a shame if we don't give some kind of context for what the cristicisms on UN are. The main article that is linked to the section is a back up to exactly the story that is being described there.


 * As for the vandalism issue, I want to appologise one more time. I really do not want to sound as if I am giving you a false apology, but I really would be ok if someone had said that I had vandalized a section of a text unintentionally. I understand it is a strong word. But I wouldn't necessarily think that that person considers me a vandal per se. Maziotis (talk) 11:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Little Eichmanns
FYI. Okip  05:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Fpcn-fdn logo.PNG
 Thanks for uploading File:Fpcn-fdn logo.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.


 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.


 * If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.


 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:FPCN-logo.PNG
 Thanks for uploading File:FPCN-logo.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.


 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.


 * If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.


 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion discussion at United States and state terrorism
There is a deletion discussion and a talk page discussion regarding the article United States and state terrorism, which I think you might be interested in. I'd appreciate if you could come and provide your opinion on the article being deleted, and the content being removed, if you have time and feel so inclined. Thanks, Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Indigenous rights organizations.PNG
 Thanks for uploading File:Indigenous rights organizations.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


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

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Regnskogfondet.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Regnskogfondet.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Image Screening Bot (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a relief
Just read this article and had to come check if you were still editing here. Phew! Skomorokh  13:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

EL at Gilgel Gibe III Dam
Hello, in regards to the EL at Gilgel Gibe III Dam, I have started a discussion at WP:ELN for guidance on EL policy.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Category
Please note that I removed the category "Anarchist musicians" from Vitorino as there was no sourced content in the article to support its inclusion. Per WP:BLPCAT "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources". In addition, the instructions on the category page itself state "This is a category for self-identified anarchist musicians". --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * He is a self-identified anarchist. And very popular at that. Maziotis (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Perfect; please ensure that text (including a reliable source) confirming such is included in the article prior to adding the category in order to meet the requirements of WP:BLPCAT. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand the need for a source. I just added the category because it is widely known in Portugal. I don't know if there is any source. Since I don't have one, I am not going to add the category again. I can definitly understand how it's important to have a good reliable source first. Maziotis (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The only source I found after a quick search was this, but I don't think it's a good one. He is described as an anarchist. But I guess ideally we should find an interview where he explicitly says that he is an anarchist. Maziotis (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you Maxiotis. I'll dig around and see if I can find anything as well. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Maria Lucimar Pereira
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Maria Lucimar Pereira, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://www.survivalinternational.org/news/7635 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2009089/Maria-Lucimar-Pereira-120-year-old-woman-discovered-Brazil-Amazon-state-Acre.html http://blogs.aljazeera.net/americas/2011/06/25/woman-aged-120-years-old-discovered-brazil, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

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 license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Maria Lucimar Pereira and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Maria Lucimar Pereira, in your email. See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Maria Lucimar Pereira 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 Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Maria Lucimar Pereira. See Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at [ this temporary page]. Leave a note at Talk:Maria Lucimar Pereira saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Maziotis,

I seek your counsel on an edit war being carried out against me on the Occidental Petroleum article. ASAP. Please check it out and give me your thoughts.Cowboy128 (talk) 03:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Amazon Conservation Team Logo
I was hoping that you could update the logo used in the article for the Amazon Conservation Team. If you visit www.amazonteam.org you will see the new iteration of the logo.

File:Indigenous rights organizations.PNG listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Indigenous rights organizations.PNG, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Hi DrNick ! 16:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Amazon Conservation Team (logo).jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Amazon Conservation Team (logo).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 not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Article upgrade assistance request (Pre-translation stage)
Seasons Greetings,

Hi, i obsrved you have supported article National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (Philippines) well enough. I am looking for support for a relatively new umbrella article on en-wikipedia named Ceremonial pole. Ceremonial pole is a human tradition since ancient times; either existed in past at some point of time, or still exists in some cultures across global continents from north to south & from east to west. Ceremonial poles are used to symbolize a variety of concepts in several different world cultures.

Through article Ceremonial pole we intend to take encyclopedic note of cultural aspects and festive celebrations and dances around Ceremonial pole as an umbrella article and want to have historical, mythological, anthropological aspects, reverence or worships wherever concerned as a small part.

While Ceremonial poles have a long past and strong presence but usually less discussed subject. Even before we seek translation of this article in global languages, we need to have more encyclopedic information/input about Ceremonial poles from all global cultures and languages. And we seek your assistance in the same.

Since other contributors to the article are insisting for reliable sources and Standard native english; If your contributions get deleted (for some reason like linguistics or may be your information is reliable but unfortunately dosent match expectations of other editors) , please do list the same on Talk:Ceremonial pole page so that other wikipedians may help improve by interlanguage collaborations, and/or some other language wikipedias may be interested in giving more importance to reliablity of information over other factors on their respective wikipedia.

This request is made to you since culture related topics may be of intrest to you.

Thanking you with warm regards

Mahitgar (talk) 11:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Trancinhas.JPG listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Trancinhas.JPG, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jon Kolbert (talk) 06:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Invitation from Wikimedia Portugal
(English below)

Olá. A Wikimedia Portugal é uma associação portuguesa sem fins lucrativos, fundada em 2009, reconhecida pela Wikimedia Foundation como "chapter" de Portugal. A nossa missão é, em geral, contribuir para a disseminação generalizada do saber e da cultura, através do incentivo à recolha e criação de conteúdos isentos de restrições de utilização, modificação e distribuição, e da difusão dos mesmos; e em particular, promover e apoiar os projetos da Wikimedia Foundation, entre os quais a Wikipédia, com ênfase para os projetos nas línguas faladas em Portugal, o português e o mirandês.

Gostaríamos de contar com o apoio de (e reciprocamente apoiar) todos os voluntários naturais, residentes ou simplesmente interessados em Portugal. Embora fundada em 2009, a associação teve um largo período de inatividade, que estamos agora a ultrapassar. Vimos por isso convidá-lo, caso nisso tenha interesse, a inscrever-se como associado da associação, demonstrar apoio à existência de um "chapter" em Portugal, e a envolver-se em atividades futuras inscrevendo-se na lista de distribuição de email. Recentemente, a Comissão de Afiliações da Wikimedia suspendeu o apoio à Wikimedia Portugal, pendente, entre outras coisas, do apoio da comunidade de editores portugueses. 

Agradecemos desde já!

Hi! Wikimedia Portugal is the Portuguese chapter of Wikimedia, founded in 2009 and recognized by the Wikimedia Foundation. Our mission is to contribute to the general dissemination of knowledge and culture through the incentive to the collection and creation of content without restrictions on use, modification and distribution, and promote their difusion; we promote and support the Wikimedia Foundation projects, among which Wikipedia, with emphasis on projects in Portuguese and Mirandese.

We would like however to count on the support of (and in turn ourselves support) all volunteers that are citizens, resident, or simply interested in Portugal. Despite being founded in 2009, the chapter has gone through a long period of inactivity that we are trying to overcome. We have sent you this message to invite you, if you are interested, to enroll as associate to the chapter, demonstrate your support to the existence of a chapter in Portugal, and get involved in the discussion of future activities by registering in the mailing list. Recentely, the Wikimedia Affiliations Committee suspended support to Wikimedia Portugal pending, among other things, the support from the community of portuguese editors. GoEThe (talk) 14:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

May 2020
This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Frank J. Tipler, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ''https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_J._Tipler&type=revision&diff=954794057&oldid=950743092 In this diff you asserted that a living scientist was not an authority in what constitutes science. This is a borderline BLP violation. '' jps (talk) 13:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I've been an editor for almost 20 years and this is by far the most bizarre experience that I've ever witnessed. I already posted this issue on Wikipedia Help page.


 * It's obvious that George Ellis, or anyone else for that matter, is not an authority on what is pseudoscientific or not. Maziotis (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Greenanarchylogo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Greenanarchylogo.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 not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Googlearchy


The article Googlearchy has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Not notable. Just searched Google News. 3 hits. Latest in 2008."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sean Brunnock (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

"Knoxville Massacre" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Knoxville Massacre and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 6 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:AIDESEP-logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:AIDESEP-logo.png. 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 not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Terrorizerlogo.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:Terrorizerlogo.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 not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject Anarchism checking in
Hey there! I noticed you're on the WikiProject Anarchism members list, but you don't appear to have edited in this subject area for some time. Just in case you're still interested, here's a little update:
 * In the past couple years, we have brought four articles to Featured status, including the ones on Nestor Makhno, La Salute è in voi, The May Pamphlet and "The Day Before the Revolution". We're likely to get even more to this status in the near future, so stay tuned to the front page for some of our best articles on the platform.
 * A number of our most vital articles have been reviewed and achieved Good Article status, including ones on Gaetano Bresci, Camilo Cienfuegos, Joseph Déjacque, Luigi Galleani, Paul Goodman, and the Kronstadt rebellion. As these "vital articles" are generally considered among the most important on the platform, we aim to get as many as possible to GA and FA status over the coming years.
 * We recently hit the first milestone for our stub-expansion project, getting the number of stubs down to under 1/5th of our total articles. This means that the vast majority of our articles are now relatively substantial, as we expand and add greater detail to the articles that lack sufficient information. We hope to narrow this number down even further, so more articles have the information they deserve.
 * We just started a cleanup drive, in which we are aiming to resolve the problematic parts of our articles, from finding citations for unsourced sections to fixing up formatting errors. In doing this, we intend to make sure our articles provide the best possible reading experience, without unsourced claims or ugly tags littering the page.

If you want to get more involved in the project, please feel free! We always need an extra pair of hands to help out with our ever-growing project. If you want to help out with one of the above efforts, go right ahead. If you want to keep more up to date with the project's activities, consider adding our noticeboard to your watchlist or adding your name to our mailing list. On the other hand, if you think you're time with the project is over, then consider removing your name from the members list, but we do hope you're still interested in our wee project.

All the best to you, whatever your future plans are. Regards, -- Grnrchst (talk) 11:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)