User talk:Skol fir/Archive 1

arts
Your rearrangement of material and inclusion of supposed fields as "major arts" is ridiculous. If not vandalism, it was a sign of gross misunderstanding. Just because you have time to spend on the project does not mean that your contributions are beyond reproach. Research the subject - I don't expect your edits to last long. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind words. I really appreciate the constructive criticism, and will continue my quest for knowledge and insight into the fascinating world of art, in all its various forms.  We humans have a need to express ourselves, through various media, and nothing, not even criticism, should stop us, but rather encourage us to do better. My kindest regards to the land of Athens, home of the Parthenon and Democracy.
 * Skol fir (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Athena sends her greetings. Hoot hoot. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey again; here's a little note thanking you for your work and apologising for my crabby attitude. I moved your addition to the visual art article, where I think it's more suitable. Cheers, Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment; apology accepted: it is not easy to judge at first glance if a person is editing for their own benefit or the benefit of the community. I left a note in the Talk:The arts section, agreeing to the transfer of the applied arts to the "Visual arts".  In the future, I need to go to the Oracle at Delphi for some more advice. :) Skol fir (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It couldn't hurt. Apollo's nice...really. :P Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 19:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I just read that "Apollo has been variously recognized as a god of light and the sun; truth and prophecy; archery; medicine and healing; music, poetry, and the arts; and more." I sure hope he is nice, because if he is not, we are all in trouble :) Skol fir (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:RiverView.jpg
A tag has been placed on File:RiverView.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * IngerAlHaosului, Thanks for that information at the talk page. I will definitely use it in the future. I still have a lot to learn from the various Manuals on Wikipedia. It can be a bit overwhelming, to say the least, but I am eager to learn, and that is what counts. Skol fir (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Reid Stowe article
Let's back the truck up a moment shall we?

Sponsorship dollars for the sport of sailing are becoming increasingly difficult to come by, even for mainstream long-distance sailors with vessels in tip-top condition and professional/experienced crews. The LAST thing needed for the sailing community at large is for someone to advertise themselves as something they clearly were not. See the Essjay controversy, which for most of us who have been around awhile is remembered all too clearly.

In 2002, (and even as late as 16 February 2006) Stowe was actively seeking sponsorship on the premise that he/they would be undertaking a voyage that would comprise FOUR circumnavigations, perform scientific experiments etc. THIS is what sponsors were led to believe they were buying into.

About the only scientific data Stowe collected was that sails MUST be covered at all times when not in use to protect them from the damaging UV rays of the sun. However, ANY experienced sailor already knew this. There is no question whatsoever that I was one of the sailors at sailinganarchy.com ( the LARGEST online sailing website on the planet) who thought this was an ill-prepared, dangerous and foolhardy endeavour. As it turned out, the lofty goal of four trips around the marble turned out not to be possible due to the poor condition of the sails, not to mention the standing rigging which, mainly due to poor rig tune, was weakened to about a third of its designed strength. To his credit, Stowe realized this and drifted, bare-poles, for some seven months off the coast of Africa to save the rig from stress. Perhaps a survey of the sponsors who supported Stowe back in the day would reveal whether or not they felt they got the desired exposure (bang for their buck so to speak). Aloha27 (talk) 12:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Diversion tactics won't work here, I'm sorry. I read sailinganarchy.com, and have done so for about 2 years. That is a forum where basically anything goes, and people who read it are easily distracted by photo-shopped pictures and random drivel.
 * At Wikipedia, it is all about fairness. If you can draw a direct line between Reid Stowe's past indiscretions (and I call them nothing more than that because we are all fallible, eh?) and deceptive advertising for his current project, then lay it on the line. Otherwise you are just "flapping in the wind," like a sail when in irons.
 * Actually, I find some of the reading at sailinganarchy.com quite entertaining, to say the least. However, an encyclopedia should be a source of reliable, unbiased information about people, places and things and provide a well-documented picture of the subject, without defaming or ridiculing a person for getting on with his life, and trying something that few of us would dare. Taking cheap pot shots at a person with no purpose other than to find fault, because your own sights stop at your navel, is not allowed at Wikipedia. I reiterate: all you have to do is read the rules for a Biography of a Living Person (BLP) at Wikipedia, and you will comprehend.
 * G'day mate! Skol fir (talk) 20:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree in part with Aloha27 here. I have given a stern warning on one end, but I also warn here. It seems there is a slow edit-war going on on the page, and I have hence protected it. Discuss, also you, and reach consensus. That goes for all edits, if you do not agree with what is happening, discuss, but do not revert and revert. Try to find other knowledgeable editors to come in, as the two of you are now almost single-purpose accounts (Regatta dog for sure is, but your last 100 edits also are focussed). If necessary, go to a WikiProject to find other editors who are knowledgeable, or use the page history to find others.

However, sourcing should be good there. I agree with you that the forum is not the best of sources, even from the largest online sailing website. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for intervening in this slow edit war. I must say that allowing a person who is known outside of this encyclo. for inserting defamatory information about Reid Stowe wherever he can, giving only the same two sources for the last two years, is not acceptable. RD (who also sometimes appears to masquerade as an IP address) has a clear agenda to damage Reid Stowe's credibility, no matter how you look at it.
 * If you think I have a single purpose for my account, look at my other contributions since I joined Wikipedia in June 10, 2009, and you will see that I am anything but single-purpose. If you want to see how I resolve differences in editing, go to the discussion page at Nangpa La shooting incident and see how well two rational human beings without an agenda, can make a compromise.
 * I appreciate your input here, since I did not know how to compromise with an obsessed Reid Stowe detractor who felt that his opinion should have equal weight with all the positive press and coverage that Reid Stowe's adventures have received.
 * In case you wondered, I am Canadian, have no connection with Reid Stowe, and only seek justice for this world, which in my opinion needs more people with compassion and daring, and less with petty mud-slinging.
 * Skol fir (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi there Skol fir. Regatta Dog's actions have been unethical to say the least. He contacted a NY Daily News journalist, was interviewed, quoted and named by the journalist in a tabloid article, no doubt heavily influencing a subsequent similar article published 15 days later. He then inserted material from those NYDN articles into the related wikipedia Reid Stowe article to which he had been contributing. To cover his tracks, he did not properly cite or link to the on-line version of the first NYDN article. That kind of behavior compromises the credibility of wikipedia. When I get a bit more time I will take up this issue with admins.


 * Also, I understand and appreciate your concerns. Whenever I come across a wikipedia article containing tabloid rubbish and Original Research based on questionable sources, I find it annoying. That's especially so in the case of BLPs when detractors such as Regatta Dog go to extreme lengths to insert questionable or defamatory content into an article. Nevertheless, I believe he is right about one point: The Associated Press article by Verena Dobnik is a fair article published in a reliable secondary source. Presumption in favor of privacy - avoid victimization [] would almost certainly apply in this case if you regard mentioning a marijuana conviction as victimization, however, I'm not sure that it is. In this day and age, there are plenty of people who would applaud marijuana smuggling. Including that in the article in a balanced, context related way may even help to elevate Reid Stowe to folk hero status, and I suppose for that reason it should be avoided. However, if it is to be included, I think it should go in a new section entitled Media Responses. A precedent for that was set last year on another BLP I worked on. The new section could read something like, "The ongoing journey has attracted the attention of numerous journalists, one of whom wrote, "The point is, it's tempting to write off Reid's earnest penchant to embrace his karma and consciousness. But if you dismiss his hard-earned credentials as a talented and tenacious sailor and mariner (albeit a very unconventional one) who earned his chops building and sailing his very sound but unusual boats over a ton of demanding, difficult miles, you do so at the risk of sounding very foolish yourself."[49] Stowe has attracted critics, however, and in an interview with journalist, Verena Dobnik, he acknowledged serving nine months in prison for helping to smuggle marijuana in 1987. [52]"
 * What do you think?--Zanthorp (talk) 04:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Zanthorp, thanks for your thoughtful input. If someone's past transgressions were directly relevant to a person's current life, such as running for politics, or taking a public position on an issue that contradicts his past activities, then I would say these offences should be inserted in an article about that person. However, in the case of Reid Stowe, what he is doing now has NO connection to smuggling marijuana, nor for that matter to having difficulty paying his child support in the past. His current project, which is what Reid detractors are opposing, is not compromised in any way by those misdemeanors, which have been resolved, as far as the law is concerned.


 * However, the unsavory part of Stowe's past has obviously caught the public attention, through comments and postings peppered throughout the internet, in various reports about Reid Stowe. Therefore, I would be willing to consider some mention of this, in a neutral way, that would allow any curious readers to pursue this aspect of his life more extensively, and then decide for themselves whether this is relevant to his 1000-Days at Sea (and Beyond). Nevertheless, I strongly believe that Reid Stowe or any other person should not be condemned by press reports fed by the very people who are trying to undermine his efforts to accomplish a valuable service and a commendable mission.


 * I will think about it some more and let you know what I think about your proposal.
 * Skol fir (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with you if you applied the same rules to Reid's proponents -- "Reid Stowe or any other person should not be praised by press fed by the very people who are trying to promote his efforts". That his efforts are to "accomplish a valuable service and a commendable mission". If Mr. Stowe had been able to accomplish only a handful of his scientific and educational goals, I don't think any reasonable person would disagree with you here, but that is not the case. Could you please identify what is commendable about this so called "mission" and why it is of value? For you to make the above statement confirms your own bias toward the subject of the article.

Why do you assert that something must be "relevant to his 1000 days at sea"? Is this a biography of a person or is this an article about this particular voyage. Using your own logic, wouldn't we have to eliminate anything that does not concern the current mission including his childhood and earlier trips?

His drug smuggling and back child support were of sufficient import for the press to devote space to cover them, yet you deem them not worthy of inclusion in the article. That smells of bias.

So again, is this a bio or an article promoting a journey? Regatta dog (talk) 15:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Skipper Stowe.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Skipper Stowe.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- — fetch ·  comms   00:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Ashland, Oregon.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Ashland, Oregon.jpg. 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 created in [ your upload log]. 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.  — fetch ·  comms   01:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:KDAQ facilities.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:KDAQ facilities.jpg. 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 created in [ your upload log]. 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.  — fetch ·  comms   01:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Google results for Stowe.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Google results for Stowe.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- — fetch ·  comms   01:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Search on kadouri.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Search on kadouri.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- — fetch ·  comms   01:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Schooner Anne.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Schooner Anne.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- — fetch ·  comms   01:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Kenneth leishman.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Kenneth leishman.jpg. 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 created in [ your upload log]. 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.  — fetch ·  comms   01:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Sso trudeau.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Sso trudeau.jpg. 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 created in [ your upload log]. 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.  — fetch ·  comms   01:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

COI report
Hi Skol, I think you have been involved with this users contributons and the off wiki involvement in the reporting of the issues at other blogs and such like. Would you please email me the links and off wiki contributions related to conflict of interest issues or present them at the case opened at the COI noticeboard. I have some knowledge of the history but would welcome your contributions to the discussion and the history of the conflict of interest. Feel free to comment here or on the report page Off2riorob (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * When I have time in the next couple of days, I should be able to compile the relevant information about the off-wiki contributions of the editor in question. Skol fir (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Skol fir (talk) 04:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Skipperdriving1 300.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Skipperdriving1 300.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Skol fir (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Ken Leishman.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ken Leishman.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --ARTEST4ECHO talk 12:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)