User talk:TopazSun

Discussion of quotation by John Howard of Australia on the "American disease" (the 2A right to bear arms)
You may find this discussion underway under Gun politics in Australia interesting. Also, see Australian Wikipedians' notice board, under #64 John Howard's "American disease" quote from a domestic radio broadcast in Australia for alternative points of view on whether this quotation intended for Australians should be allowed to stay without addressing its context. Yaf 13:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Spanish missions in California
Feel free to put this on your user page:

--Lordkinbote 23:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the FIrearms text in the [[United States
I knew there was more to write but I didn't have the time, energy or interest. I figured if I got it started, someone else would come along and improve it.

Richard 18:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Cuba
Just dropping a note to say I noticed the mediation and took a good look at the issue out of interest. I appreciate your position and I think you're correct on the subject matter, you are also correct to say that; Am willing to offer assistance in reaching consensus via dispute processes, for what it's worth --Zleitzen 04:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * editors are diminishing the status of the page with unencyclopedic POV edits
 * certain editors are bucking Wiki guidelines by not assuming good faith.

Hi TopazSun, glad you didn't take my comment to heart. Have you read the talk page archives for Cuba and Castro? You'll see what you are up against with your hopes for civilty, or consensus. I've considered various strategies over the last few months, but in the end I'd need to spend more of my week than I have spare to get anywhere with what I consider necessary - the development of a twin track entry. Too many people out there who feel it necessary to overwrite contrary perspectives. I do feel strongly that invoking Wiki standards/mediation/etc is a real waste of time. The regular warriors simply take a break and when the page is open again return to their edit warring, and meanwhile there are plenty of newcomers/passers by, ignorant of the page's history and debate, who plunge straight in with their asserted truths. My opinion is take it as it is and do your best to uphold some encyclopedic standards, which in this case do amount to describing the range of viewpoints on the subject. Don't expect more than small victories, and hope that they will accumulate. MichaelW 09:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi TopazSun. I appreciate your efforts to apply encyclopedia and wikipedia standards on the Cuba page. I believe that these immediate disputes will be ironed out, even if the dispute process is moved on somewhat. I will continue to support any efforts here.


 * What I'm also interested in is what occurs after this dispute is resolved. I'd like to liase with other parties to minimize the potential of such breaches of NPOV on this page in the future. It's an important aspect of Wikipedia, the internet and thus has wider implications.


 * It's striking to observe the difficulties some editors have in applying objective standards. Personally I have argued (and will continue to argue) at length with socialists and Marxist-Leninists etc outside wikipedia about the implementation of such ideologies. And I've been accused in some circles of being an anti-Castro reactionary (though I dispute that also!). But all of this should be left at the door when editing Wikipedia. My motivation is to challenge common misinterpretations and cultural bias, so we can present an accurate picture of Cuba free from dominant received wisdom. --Zleitzen 13:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi TopazSun, are you still interested in progressing the dispute process, and following the step towards formal mediation?--Zleitzen 21:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, sure. Doesn't mediation require that all parties be willing to mediate?  I don't see that we meet that condition right now.  TopazSun 21:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi TopazSun, I've sent you an email, in the mean time I think it is worth considering a Rfc on Adam Carr. Do you have any thoughts on this?--Zleitzen 22:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Boo - I take it not a thing has expanded since the last war of words and insult flinging at the mediators? I see Adam and his buddies have stopped torturing the talkpage. --Scott Grayban 05:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Got AIM or Yahoo?
Have you got a IM ? We should chat about what we are going to do about these trolls in Cuba --Scott Grayban 20:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no IM, but everybody is invited to email me, including you. My email is and I try to respond quickly. I trust that Wikipedia, ultimately, will be fair about this.  I regret that some at Cuba appear to feel that they 'own' the article and appear unwilling to 'play nice', collaborate and compromise towards a NPOV.  Still all POV's must be represented including POV's I don't like. I am willing to give the benifit of the doubt, and they may still come around sometime soon. TopazSun 21:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Cuba, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Personal attacks
Personal attacks have only taken place where another editor has criticised you as a person, not your edits or pronouncements. When Adam stated that he could not begin to express his views about you, he was not making a personal attack. He then went on to express his opinions of what you had written. There are therefore no personal attacks to admonish. David | Talk 17:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, David, these people disagree with you. TopazSun 03:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Michael W
Received this email from MichaelW saying that he's been blocked?

"You were blocked by PMA for the following reason (see our blocking policy): "Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "MichaelW". The reason given for MichaelW's block is: "POV edits, article degradation, POV pushing, abuse of other editors, lack of good faith"."--Zleitzen 03:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Wonder why they wont blocked Adam and 172 then. --Scott Grayban 11:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, if you read User talk:PMA you see that PMA appears to be quite cordial with User:172


 * I have requested PMA to explain the block, but he has not replied yet.


 * And my reading of PMA posts in Talk:Cuba reveals his strong POV, which happens to be the opposite POV of MichaelW. I guess I was naive to expect that administrators should recuse themselves from disputes in which they have an appearance of conflict of interest. TopazSun 14:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Please look at Requests for comment/Richardchilton for why i have such a poor view of Marxist POV contributors to the 'pedia - i have given them a chance as that page proves - also i have been here for many years and an admin for three - i am not some cluless newbie who petulantly blocks people. For what it's worth i did unblock him when told to by the Powers That Be. PMA 15:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

His open advocation of pushing a Marxist POV on the Cuba page - also see his own talk page for his use of phrases such as "capitalist fanboys" - as i said with my experience of people like Richardchilton and his sockpuppets and cohorts i am wary of lefist POV pushers - ditto for right wing POV pushers when it comes to the crimes and death squads of right wing governments of Africa, Asia and the Americas - i try to protect articles from both "The Communist Peoples Party" on one side and "The National Salvation Front" on the other as someone put it on here some years ago.

As for your second question - i do not know the answer i am afraid. PMA 16:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hope you have the same attitude here. I have seen a few POV articles running lose here. --Scott Grayban 19:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Would you be able to ask MichaelW to drop his action against me please? PMA 07:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Your kidding right? --Scott Grayban 08:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I would very much prefer to move forward towards building a great article. Fighting about the past would get in the way of building a great article.  I encourge everybody if they can, including Scott and MichaelW, to let any grievance drop and try again to find a way to collaborate.  One thing is perfectly clear, fighting is a distraction.  Therefore, I am not interested in fighting. Let's move on.  TopazSun 16:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for supporting the RfC on Adam. I know everyone wants avoid this issue at all costs but its the only way to get this article done and out of a dispute. I honestly did not want it to go this way and view Adam as a smart person. I just am tired of the constant attacks from him. --Scott Grayban 17:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Elections in Cuba
You reinstated the PV tag, but didn't put in the discussion page the arguments what in the first paragraph is not treu or neutral. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 21:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Rfc
Hi TopazSun, I think you need to inform Adam formally of the Rfc. Other than that I see no reason why it should close, whether Scott is banned or not. Regardless, I'll step up to be a co-signer if possible. I think the wider issues of Wikipedia conduct are too important to drop, they need to be seriously addressed. And eventually will be. --Zleitzen 14:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Email
I have just sent you an email confirming my address. I only give it out by request, just to cut down on the hatemail/spam etc. Thanks! Mystork 00:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Ban on Scott Grayban
You have just falsely accused me of initiating the ban on Scott Grayban. You must either produce some evidence for this allegation or retract it, or I will take the matter further. Adam 13:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I apologize for any misunderstanding. I have edited what I wrote trying to make myself more clear.  What I wrote, and what I intended to convey, was not to accuse you of initiating the ban of Scott Grayban, but to rather ask questions about the appearance of timing.  As I tried to make clear before, I do not have good information and my repeated requests for information have gone unfulfilled.  Regardless, the second hand information that I do have raises a question of appearances as to the timing, and raises a question of appearance of retaliation.  I hope you join me in wanting the facts to be disclosed.  TopazSun 14:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The timing was dictated by his decision to send me the email in question. Adam 00:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Before Adam Carr told you, I told you that I was the one requesting the block-- on multiple pages. Unfounded allegations are considered personal attacks. 172 | Talk 07:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Certainly you didn't speak with me so you couldn't have 'told' me, and if you wrote it to me I don't see it on my talk page, and I searched my inbox and don't see an email from you. If you wrote such to the general Wikipedia community,  I don't recall reading it until you wrote it much after the fact on 04:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC), sorry.  Regardless, I made no false allegation.  I simply pointed out an odd appearance and asked for the facts.  I still haven't been shown the facts about the evidence used for the ban, the source of the evidence and the timing.  TopazSun 13:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that asking for a block, (which you claim to have done), and providing the evidence, (which Adam claims to have done) are significantly different steps in the process that led to the banning of Sgrayban. I apologized to Adam Carr.  It appears he has accepted my apology.  So, it is not clear why you now are warning me, (or accusing me?) about 'false allegations' when I made no false allegation and 'personally attacks' when I made no personal attack.  This too appears odd, but can we just move on to something more constructive?  TopazSun 13:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Esperanza
Welcome,, to Esperanza, the Wikipedia member association! As you might know, all the Esperanzians share one important goal: the success of this encyclopedia. Within that, we then attempt to strengthen the community bonds, and be the "approachable" side of the project. All of our ideals are held in the Charter, the governing document of the association.

Now that you are a member, you might be interested in some of our programs. A quite important program is the StressUnit, which seeks to support editors who have encountered any stress from their Wikipedia events, and are seeking to leave the project. So far, Esperanza can be credited with the support and retention of several users. We have a calendar of special events, member birthdays, and other holidays that you can add to and follow.

In addition to these projects, several more missions of Esperanza are in development, and are currently being created at Esperanza/Possibles.

I encourage you to take an active voice in the running of Esperanza. We have a small government system, headed by our Administrator general, Celestianpower, and guided by the Advisory Committee, JoanneB, Titoxd and FireFox. The April elections have begun.

If you have any other questions, concerns, comments, or general ideas, Esperanzian or otherwise, know that you can always contact me via email or talk page. Alternatively, you could communicate with fellow users via our IRC channel, #wikipedia-esperanza (which is also good for a fun chat or two :). If you're new to IRC, please see the IRC Tutorial, which was written by one of our members. I thank you for joining Esperanza, and look forward to working with you in making Wikipedia a better place to be!

Thanks!   _-M    o    P-_    18:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza
Hi. I saw your alert at Esperanza and wanted to stop by to see what's up. I've looked through your talk page and edit summaries some; it's a pretty big issue to grasp, having come in at this stage. I'd like to know more about it, so if you have time for a longer explanation, that'd be helpful. In the meantime, hope that you're keeping cool and not letting the edit wars get to you... perhaps taking a break on the side to edit a less controversial article would be a good way to refocus before heading back into the Bay of Pigs (sorry, awful joke). ''' Tijuana Brass ¡Épa! - E@''' 06:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to explain your side of the situation to me, I appreciate it. As you know, I'm not able to take a side on the content dispute, and it's be pretty foolish of me to do so anyway as my knowledge of Cuba is limited to Celia Cruz, vintage cars and plaintains. Nonetheless, I agree that personal attacks aren't acceptable in any context... they ruin good faith, stifle intelligent discussion and turn users away from Wikipedia. I guess it happens to everyone sooner or later, even from the best of us.
 * At any rate, I'm glad that you haven't become frustrated and decided to call it quits. To offer some unsolicited advice, when I start to get irritated with vandals, I'll take a break to do some behind the scene stuff... pick up on some article cleanups or wikifying. Helps keep me sharp. May work for you, may not, in any case, you'd know better than me what's relaxing. I hope that y'all find a middle ground soon; I'll be watching the article myself, as it's a subject I've long been meaning to read up on. Thanks for being here.  Tijuana Brass ¡Épa! - E@ 06:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Gentlemen's agreement?
See my request here. It's an unorthodox request, but I'm sure it'll work. Please accept. It'll make things much easier for the two of us, and everyone else. 172 | Talk 21:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

CarlKenner block
Sorry, hadn't had the chance to reply, as I haven't been near an internet connection since Friday.

I asked Adam to stop reverting, and he duly did so. I then asked CarlKenner to do the same, as he was being reverted by a bunch of parties and was very far over the three revert rule. He then accused me of being a vandal. I then made it clear that I would block him if he continued to do so, and he accused me of being a vandal again and made clear his intention to continue. He was thus completely fairly blocked. Ambi 04:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Second amendment / keep and bear arms
I'm happy to talk about the edit, but I'm not sure that I understand your bifurcation of the right to keep and bear arms, and the second amendment which protects that right? Simon Dodd 13:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand how the material I added is in tension with the idea that the amendment protects, rather than creates, a right to keep and bear arms. Indeed, no one could be further from that proposition than I: I don't believe the Constitution - or for that matter, that any constitution CAN - creates any rights. The Federal and state constitutions prevent certain rights from being taken away by government. Those rights already existed, which of course is the point of the material that I added: that the right to keep and bear arms existed for centuries before the authors of the second amendment were born, and so the second amendment is only a codification of that right, and a protection of it from government intrusion (the history also absolutely forecloses the proposition that the second amendment protects a collective, rather than individual, right to arms, which makes its inclusion even more important). The second amendment, by the way, did not purport to "protect[] the right from being abridged by the States"; until 1868, it protected the right from being abridged by the federal government. See Barron v. Baltimore. Simon Dodd 15:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Cuba
Hi TopazSun, I actually preferred Adam's paragraph to the present one, as it carried the more substantial piece by Jimmy Carter. There's something about that Sandy Berger nonsense that gets my goat. What are your thoughts, if any? Oh and I'm off to the pub for the first time in weeks (Hoorah!) so my responses may be out of focus for the next 24 hours!--Zleitzen 20:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant the Government and politics paragraph.--Zleitzen 04:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi TopazSun, keep this link stored away in case I lose it, it's a big file by the way. if users want sourced opinions from outside bodies appearing in the article, try this for size. Some of the organisations involved represent millions of people. --Zleitzen 04:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It's fascinating to me, though. Slightly off topic, but this Cuba democracy/elections business is reminiscent to me of the hugely defining and bitter UK miners' strike (1984-1985). The powerful UK trade unions traditionally based decisions on voting by public meeting, discussion and an open show of hands. The Thatcher government of the time enforced a law declaring the actions illegitimate, utilising police to break the union . They liased with the Rupert Murdoch owned media to portray union leader Arthur Scargill as a tyrant (featuring a front-page picture of Scargill mocked up as Hitler) and the Unions as a "threat to democracy" . The government won, the Union and mining industry was effectively disbanded, ushering in the era of private capital dominance to the benefit of Thatcher's international corporate sponsors. It's a highly effective tool of politics, and it usually works. Of course, the activities of the government during the affair were later declared illegal, newspapers were forced to pay damages to Scargill and Blair's government have had to pay over £8b of public money to compensate miners for "illness" (and counting). But by then the sting had been activated and the international private sector had managed to gain control of the UK economy. If anyone needs theories to explain US public policy towards Cuba one may look no further than the above story. Call me a cynic, if you must! --Zleitzen 18:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Cuban democracy
Actually, I really don't want to get into a discussion of the semantics and connotations surrounding the term 'democracy'. (Democracy is like pornography&mdash;I know it when I see it. :D ) I haven't any intention of wading into editing the article, since there appear to be a sufficient number of informed and enthusiastic volunteers for that duty. I'm only interested in tamping down what appears to be the start of an edit war, and encouraging the involved parties to discuss things civilly and productively. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Direct Access Democracy
I removed the link to Direct Access Democracy on the Democracy (disambiguation) page (which really needs more work). The article itself seems to be a semi-vanity page for this website - most of the uses of the phrase I've come across so far link back there somehow. Specifically, I don't think I've seen the term used generally for anything going on in Switzerland, whether it be referendums or experiments in internet voting. - David Oberst 17:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the edit history of the Direct Access Democracy Canada article, I actually just recently pruned it down to the current format (and added the "importance" tag). Personally, I suspect this is a private hobby-horse for one rather eccentric individual who enjoys creating large amounts of formal verbiage - I found absolutely no indication of even minimal notability or membership outside of Mr. Oprea. The article would probably get deleted as vanity, original research or non-notable if put up on WP:AFD, and definitely doesn't need to have an entry on a main-level disambiguation page such as Democracy (disambiguation), and in any case seems to be only marginally related to the equally idiosyncratic Direct Access Democracy article. Frankly, I could create a website for, say, "Kitten Drowning Democracy", complete with constitution, platform, and all the rest, and likely get more that 138 votes in certain Canadian ridings. Mr. Oprea is undoubtedly much more earnest, but no more notable. - David Oberst 18:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Cuban Five
Hi TopazSun

Thank you for your constructive edits to Cuban Five I've had enough of Wikipedia for today, I need a break. A few suggestions: add info outlining arguments for why the trial was so flawed. I think the conclusions of the UN commission of why the trial was arbitrary, or general conclusions from the overturning would be even more convincing than the Amnesty claims, which are not very strong. Also, the Cuban Five website seems a good resource of legal documents. Surely there's plenty reliable material there we can refer to. I think we can make agood article out of it if we include good bits of court material, and a solid sections on criticism of the trial, and to balance that to include prosecution arguments too. Jens Nielsen 15:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Tags
There were already tags there to begin with. I just replaced them so there wasn't an ugly white space at the top. CJK 00:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, sorry. But the ugly white space had to go. And the tags say the same thing, except for "factual accuracy". CJK 18:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

TopazSun, and CJK. I've roughly translated (via copy and paste / Bable-Fish) three translations of the Cuba page from the Spanish, French and German wikipedia versions, to get an idea of the differences between those and ours. And a bit more of a world view. If you can get through the pigeon English it's worth a look, amusingly - those pages have the same "neutrality" and protected tags all over the place as well. So we're not alone. --Zleitzen 02:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll at Democracy (disambiguation)
I created an informal straw poll in the Talk:Democracy (disambiguation) page, which hopefully is prefererable to immediate reverting back and forth. In all sincerity I can't quite figure out your reasoning on this. I could understand (although would still oppose) some sort of "democracy=American system of government" link to some single page. But to (implicitly) seven or eight different "types" of democracy specific to American political history makes no sense at all. Please don't see the poll as a vote - I set it up to try and uncover any disagreement to what I (and presumably User:JW1805) seem to see as fairly obvious (even in Wikipedia style and precedent terms). Out of curiosity, would you agree with any variation of point (1) in the poll, even if you feel each of the articles does belong? - David Oberst 16:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

A short Esperanzial update
As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, &mdash;Cel es tianpower háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

How do you find out the size of an article?
Re: your response on Talk:Fidel Castro just now. KarenAnn 17:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Your are right. Never noticed that before. KarenAnn 17:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Cuban cinema
Hi TopazSun, you wouldn't mind taking a look at this article for deletion Articles for deletion/Clase Z "Tropical". It's a Cuban short film which has some notability, yet users apparently deem this not appropriate for wikipedia - citing spurious google searches as evidence. Personally I think this is wrong, as the subject has much more interest to me (I studied Cuban cinema for a year) than the acres of articles on fictional characters from Star Wars. What's more, the editor who has been creating a number of articles on Cuban cinema is treated with the following comment - "Very likely a vanity article, as article author has only made edits promoting this filmmaker". This is nonsense.--Zleitzen 15:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment
A request for comment relating to Teemu's activities on this talk has been made here Requests for comment/Teemu Ruskeepää. --Zleitzen 10:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Teemu has received a final warning today
For what it is worth,  Ian ¹³  /t  08:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC) left a message on Teemu's page earlier today warning him of a possible editorial ban if he continues. KarenAnn 14:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Sandbox
Given the horrendous problems of working on the Fidel Castro page and Teemu's continued activity, would you be interested on working on a sandbox version with Mensch KarenAnn and myself. Away from the main page. We could hone down individual sections, then replace each of them in a careful appropriate manner. --Zleitzen 13:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

See:User:Zleitzen/Fidel Castro Sandbox--Zleitzen 15:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Red carpet image
Hey TopazSun. I saw what you did with the red carpet image and I think it's maybe better to convert the whole image to greyscale. A manipulated picture is certainly going to attract attention of people who don't get offended by red carpets, but by manipulated red carpets... mensch • t 19:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a good solution. But manipulating parts of the image might conflict with the licensing policy. We'll see how it turns out. If something goes wrong I'll be happy to convert the image to greyscale, so you don't have to bother with the GIMP. ;) mensch • t 20:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for being respectful
Hi TopazSun, I know we don't quite agree with all the democracy disambiguation issues, but I wanted to thank you for being calm and respectful throughout the entire discussion - I'm really impressed, I know many an editor who would become rather aggrivated in your situation. Keep it up. :) -- Nataly a 02:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Something positive
It's clear that you have a lot of passion for the subject of democracy and seeing that it is fully and appropriately covered in the Wikipedia. I see that aspect as very beneficial. That's why I would positively recommend that you consider pouring that passion into helping out with the "varieties/types merger" (or whatever it is to become), or take on a bigger task: Start "WikiProject Democracy" as a child project of "WikiProject Politics". I think we can work together (and with others) on a project to enhance coverage of democracy-related subjects in the Wikipedia. I sincerely hope that you can accept the clear consensus on the dab page and convert that time/energy into building up democracy-related content throughout the Wikipedia. Thanks for your time. &mdash; Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 17:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Fidel Falling Pic
Looks like the pic was included after all there big guy! Thanks for playing. Please come back again!

Where's the red carpet pic BIG GUY?
Guess it was removed afterall huh? Thanks for playing, Please come back again. Demfourlife 03:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Mythology of the Ohlone
Hi TopazSun, I appreciated your mythology or world view discussion on the Ohlone talk page. I am working to get a better handle of the native myths of the Bay Area region. The Wiki Mythology project is currently understaffed and contacted me to say they need members. Would you like to join and signup on the page ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mythology Goldenrowley 17:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Political correctness
Hi TopazSun. You may find the discussion on political correctness interesting. Later... Yaf

Ohlone sandbox
I moved your sandbox to Talk:Ohlone/sandbox as sandboxes usually aren't put in mainspace, but they're fine as a subpage from the article's talk page.--Kchase T 17:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Ohlone status
Sorry TopazSun, I was just finishing up the note when your message came in. Here is a link for convienance (sp?) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ohlone#Evolutionary_state_of_Costanoan --meatclerk 17:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

History of Cuba
Hi TopazSun. Would you mind taking a look at the first two sections of the History of Cuba page that I've been tinkering with, that deal with the early settlers. I'm still not satisfied with the overall tone - how it reads and so on - it's a bit of a struggle trying to incorporate information into unsourced text that was already there and rather poorly constructed. I need another pair of eyes. Thanks.--Zleitzen 01:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:EmeryvilleShellmound.png
Thanks for uploading Image:EmeryvilleShellmound.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 18:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Ohlone Intro
TopazSun, Goldenrowley and I have been working on a new intro. You might have missed the thread, so here it is. I've asked him (yesterday) to let it sit for 72 hours before placing it on the article page. Take a look, make changes or comments as you see fit. --meatclerk 05:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * TopazSun in case you miss it I like your writing very much. I left you some comments about the data only at the talk page on the Intro. I would like the data fixed, nothing more on your idea. See -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ohlone/New_Intro Goldenrowley 18:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Response
I have replied to you on my talk page. I do watch the article talk page however; perhaps if you want to extend this dicussion it could take place there. - O^O 17:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Spanish missions
Hi TopazSun,

I appreciate your taking the time to comment re: "mission" on the Spanish missions talk page. If you have the time, I would appreciate your input at Talk:Mission Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles and Talk:Mission San Antonio de Pala regarding proposed moves. Thanks!--Lord Kinbote 23:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Take a look at my last comments here []. --evrik (talk) 16:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Dying
I'm all about continuous improvement. What wording would you recommend? Thoughts:
 * Terminally ill
 * Terminal diagnosis
 * Death watch
 * Death bed
 * Dying

I think the important point to express with whatever wording you like is that the reader understands that this person is currently living but has been diagnosed as terminally ill. And, of course, the diagnosis should be verifiable and not just an editor's opinion. For example, Patricia C. Dunn has stage IV ovarian cancer - a stage that's nearly always fatal. However, I haven't found any sources that describe her condition as terminal, so... no such category for her (yet). Rklawton 17:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Tlingit totem pole.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Tlingit totem pole.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 22:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Fall out
Hi TopazSun. The fall out continues to be uncovered. See User talk:Chicocvenancio and .--Zleitzen 21:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Christmas greetings
Merry Christmas! Best wishes to my fellow wikipedian ! From Zleitzen 

Image:Claims Of Demoracy.png
You might want to double check your comment on the above! Fasach Nua 22:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Invitation
Hello – Based on your significant contribution to one or more San Francisco Bay Area-related articles and/or stated interests on your homepage, I thought you might be interested in this project:

Peter G Werner 04:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Right to bear arms revert
I should have explained myself on the article's talk page, sorry. I have now done so. Basically, I thought the list of gun uses was OR and it was previously objected to on the talk page. The reference to knives and swords was redundant with a similar sentence a couple of paragraphs down. And the rest was redundant with the discussion of the Uviller & Merkel reference, which I had added because it seemed more reputable than the Potowmack Institute and made the same point. PubliusFL 16:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I should add that my reversion of the very first part of your edit ("and/or" in the opening sentence) was unintentional. I have put that back in, as well as editing a later sentence in the article ("The right to bear arms in United States is best understood as a collective and an individual right") that seemed clearly POV ("best understood"?). PubliusFL 16:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Annie Hill (Cruising edits)
Hi TopazSun. I wonder if Annie Hill is really that notable? We dont need to list everyone in the History section who wrote a book durring that period, the list would be terribly long. I personally dont see the need to include Annie Hill, in fact I have never even heard of her until your addition and I am pretty well versed in sailing authors and books. Russeasby 15:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your position, especially in that her books has been put back in print. But if you look at the post war era cruisers listed, many of their books are considered classics and are published by large publishers.  In the more modern people listed, such as Lin & Larry and the Dashews, they have published several books that have remained in print the entire time.  I would suggest those listed before your additions are far more notable.  You would be hard pressed to find a cruising sailor who has not heard of them, yet Annie Hall, while she may be notable in her 'cult' following as you suggest, does not mean she is notable to the general cruising community. I can think of people I consider more notable that myself still wouldnt consider notable enough to ad the article, Don Street comes to mind, as does Jimmy Cornell and I could probably list many others. I am not going to remove the additions you made, its not important enough to warrent worrying much about it, but I wished to offer you my point of view in hopes you chose to remove them yourself.  Russeasby 16:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

2nd amendment miller revert
You reverted my 3/23 add that the military term for shotguns with a shortened barrel (often with a modified or missing stock) is combat shotgun, asking for attribution. The attribution is in the Wikipedia article that was linked. This is just what they are called. TMLutas 22:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There is, in fact, such a thing as a combat shotgun and it pretty much is a fancied up sawed off shotgun with shortened barrels and stocks from the factory instead as a subsequent modification. By leaving out mention of the existence of combat shotguns you lose NPOV via omission. The facts of the case would have favored Miller but nobody argued the case. Those facts deserve mention in the article TMLutas 01:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The difference between a sawed off shotgun and a combat shotgun is that one is modified post-manufacture (the barrel is "sawed off") and the other is manufactured to the same modifications (shorter stock, short barrel). The difference between the conclusion of the Court and the physical history and real military use of those weapons means that there's grounds for reversal there. That the Court got the facts so wrong in *the* seminal 2nd amendment case for modern jurisprudence is noteworthy and I believe that people should have a link to what exactly a combat shotgun is in order to draw the appropriate inferences as regards to the facts v. what the Court said the facts were. TMLutas 15:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It is just not true that the Supreme Court will reverse simply because they got the facts wrong. There's no automatic "oopsie" mechanism in the US constitution. You have to find another case and appeal it all the way to the supreme court. Roe (of Roe v Wade) and Doe (of Doe v Bolton) both tried to get their cases reversed because of factual errors (and being plaintiffs, they should know about lies on the part of their own attorneys). They were both denied. Somebody else has to come up with a case and the Cooley rule mandates that at least 4 justices agree to take up the issue. This is an incredibly hard standard to meet. We finally have one with Parker and we'll see. The factual error has the greatest possibility to mislead in the political realm where lots of people are going to misrepresent Miller as if it were actually factually correct. The record should be made clear because people will be misled otherwise.


 * Military use, historical and current, seems, by Miller's logic, to be one of the reasons why a particular weapon cannot be banned. The military and civilian versions of short barrel/short stock shotguns have different names. Discussion of Miller should include references to both terms so people understand the connection. Otherwise we're just buying into the prosecution's trick of pretending that they didn't exist. That's certainly not NPOV.


 * The militia, at this time, is established by statute and if you were to actually look at your state military code, you will find that the militia is not defined exclusively as the National and State guards organizations. That you mistakenly think that such is the actual statutory definition leads me to believe that you're either not well informed or not neutral. Pick a state code and let's take a look if you want to dispute this point. You can find the state codes at Findlaw (http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/#statelaw).


 * I'm not the one bringing up 1789. I think a much more reasonable vision of modern militia outside the National Guard structure is the korean shopowners mutual aid militia in the Rodney King riots, armed neighborhood watches in post Katrina New Orleans and along the rest of the Gulf Coast, etc. in other words, modern examples of a reasonable use of force to assure public order during temporary breakdowns of normality. But you can't have that kind of ad-hoc coming together if arms are not widely distributed. But we've swung off and started to debate policy, haven't we? Is that what this whole thing is about? I just want to make sure that those who read the article understand that sawed off shotgun = combat shotgun that's been modified post manufacture. This is a reasonable point to make, something that is relevant to the case, and something that would have come out had anybody bothered to show up to argue the other side in Miller. TMLutas 17:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If attribution is the sole problem, instead of reverting, you should have simply added a 'need's attribution' tag. In any case, googling "US v Miller combat shotgun" provides plenty of references and analyses outlining the problem. Here are a few.


 * 1)  - pdf
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)


 * There, no doubt, are plenty more. I just went through a few pages of hits and took less than 5 minutes to find the above links, No doubt I'd get a better list (the last one is probably inappropriate for encyclopedia use). In other words, attributing this to other people's research is not much of a problem. So if I put up the information again and include a link to Puckett's research into Miller are you going to let it stay in or revert again? TMLutas 00:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Jack Miller's gun, as described by the Court, fits the category of improvised combat shotgun. The very existence of combat shotguns was not taken into account in the case, a mistake of fact in a seminal 2nd amendment case. Dancing around the different names, trying to hide what is plain is not NPOV. Combat shotguns, sometimes called trench guns, are short barrel, short stock guns. The combat shotgun article has a short double barrel specimen (the confederate soldier picture) whose only difference with Miller's gun is that Miller's gun probably wasn't a muzzle loader. TMLutas 20:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a further note, the main article on the Miller case has had some form of my point here since at least November 2006. Why you want to keep it out of the summary in the 2nd amendment article seems odd. TMLutas 20:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to think this is a policy discussion. It is not. Independent of our little tete a tete, others have modified the article in a way that I find more to my liking. I added a simple link where appropriate and find it good. I blog at http://www.snappingturtle.net/jmc/tmblog/. You can find my email there. If you care to debate policy, email would probably be best. Since there's no longer any wiki issue, I'll terminate the discussion on the issue letting you have the last word but maintaining you're wrong. TMLutas 17:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Democracy
I just saw your 3/18 comment on the Democracy talk page, expressing preference of my version of the definition to the one used at that time. This preamble has since been improved by moving the references to "libral democracy" out of it. However, currently the preamble does very little to actually define the term democracy. I would like to insert a phrase to the effect that in a democracy the citizens are politically equal. Would you support this version against reversions? --Drono 17:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:OhlonePopulation5.png
Do you have the data that was used to make Image:OhlonePopulation5.png? I'm interested in redoing it in svg. Thanks! --Falcorian (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ohlone GA Sweeps Review: On Hold
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I have reviewed Ohlone and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are multiple issues that need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article (based on using this article history tool). Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix with the assistance of multiple editors. I have also left messages on the talk pages for other editors and a few related WikiProjects to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Cuba
— Navy  Blue  formerly iDosh 20:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello TopazSun! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) R. Donahue Peebles -

Nomination of Nordic skiing at the 1948 Winter Olympics for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nordic skiing at the 1948 Winter Olympics 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/Nordic skiing at the 1948 Winter Olympics 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. Intoronto1125 Talk Contributions  23:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Claims Of Demoracy.png


The file File:Claims Of Demoracy.png has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Superseded by File:Democracy claims.svg"

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 file's talk page.

Please consider addressing 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 files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 04:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Join the Months of African Cinema Global Contest!
Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

The Months of African Cinema Contest Continues in November!
You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Welcome to the Months of African Cinema Global Contest!
Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

The Months of African Cinema Contest Continues in November!
You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list