User talk:USchick/Archive1

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC) P.S. If you are interested you can become member of our Wikipedia Project Ukraine. we need as much articles about Ukraine as possible and thanks for your input about Ukraine and the new article! Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Thanks Mariah-Yulia for the warm welcome. I don't see where Dzyhivka was added to the list of cities in Ukraine. Does it take time to show up? I will look for photos to scan. Thanks for your help! USchick (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Your welcome :) I am curious :) are you just living in the USA or do you have an American pasport (you don't have to answer if you feel I'm getting to personal). I am Dutch myself :) with no family conections with Ukraine (yet :) ). PS becuase I'm not from Ukraine I don't know what is a city and what not, I will try to learn Ukrainian this summer in Kyiv! Mariah-Yulia (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Mariah-Yulia, I would love to talk to you about this offline. Email me at chillin10@yahoo.com

I question that person's definition of a city on the discussion page. I hope he answers, because I think he's wrong. USchick (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, USchick. The text as it is on Dzyhivka isn't appropriate for such a large encyclopedia like Wikipedia because it's such a small minor detail in an article about a village. The text would probably be more appropriate for a small local wiki of some kind or Wikitravel, which includes a lot of such information. If you have any more questions, I'll be glad to help out, —dima/talk/ 23:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thank you, I'll delete. USchick (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Victory!


Thanks! Please pardon my ignorance, but what exactly is victory day and why is it on a German stamp? USchick (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * victory day is to celibrate the end of WWII. It is on a stamp of East-Germany (=DDR). As I understand right, the East German communist blammed West Germany for the war, while the people living in the east of germany where inocent victims of the nazi's. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Victory that results in freedom is a beautiful thing! USchick (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Дрyг!
Would you mind if we place both this friends Userbox on our user pages? I placed one on mine already, we havn't met yet but we keep in contact so regular we must be friends :) and I feel we are friends! Just fill in my User name in after |name= . Mariah-Yulia (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope we can behave ourselves and stay out of trouble by association. If you decide to jump off a bridge, I'll miss you, but I'm not following! lol :-)     USchick (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Lol :), by the way you seem to spend a lot more time on wikipedia then you used too! Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Maybe it's because I have no life at the moment. Thanks for pointing that out, I'll have to work on that. :-) USchick (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"Дякую тобі"
Hello USchick, nice to meet you! There's nothing easier than to find the lyrics for this song, here is one of many pages: http://artvit.ru/songs/authors/okean-el_zi/dakuu-tob-chords.html (with pop-up windows, tho). It's my favorite one, actually, along with "Не питай". I'd be glad to help you with the village article, I'm just busy now retouching my FA candidate at the uk.wiki, gotta create many new "sister" articles to make red wiki links blue. See you!--Betty kerner (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

List of space exploration milestones, 1957-1969
Some of the additions you made to List of space exploration milestones, 1957-1969 in the miscellaneous section were already listed in the "manned" section. Bubba73 (talk), 16:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Yellow Van Handyman
I have nominated Yellow Van Handyman, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Yellow Van Handyman. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.  Them From  Space  01:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

apologies

 * My apologies if I over-reacted. Sometimes,  I try too hard to show how willing I am to delete articles.    DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Inanna -- Sheela-na-Gig
In your quest to link the two, you've been reverted completely separately and independently on both the articles, so please don't make such changes again without discussing things appropriately on article talk pages first. Furthermore, you should be aware that "sacred prostitution" is almost a meaningless term. Sorry I didn't add my comments at the end, but I have no real desire for my comments to be rendered in pink text. AnonMoos (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

US/UK English
Please don't change articles written in British English to US English. You will see from WP:ENGVAR that articles on medieval art/architecture across Europe should all use British English anyway, just as ones on US subjects should use US English. Johnbod (talk) 13:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Romanesque art
Hi USchick! I have just reverted your edits to Romanesque architecture and the sculpture section of Romanesque art. Because you are a new editor, I'm leaving you a message here to explain why. Re Sheela Na Gig. Yes it is an interesting subject and worth its own article. In terms of the large generic article on Romanesque architecture, the section dealing with sculpture has been honed down, and most of it removed to the Romanesque art page, because it is not the right place for a long dissertaion on the subject of sculpture. It is sufficient to indicate the main stylistic trends, the major locations of works and illustrate how (broadly) sculpture was used in the context of building. Sheela Na Gig is not essential to a broad understanding. It is better placed elsewhere.

Within the Sculpture section of the Romanesque art article, your editting makes it apparent that you did not read, or really look at the context of where you were placing the info. You inserted the info about a very small and minor object into the major explanation of the sources, style and subject matter that affects all Romanesque sculpture, not just the little bit of it that is of specific interest to you. One small subject (Sheela Na Gig) does not take precedence over the broad description and explanation. What is more, you put the pic in, in place of the typanum of Vezelay. Please go back and read that entire sectire. I will make it a bit easier for you by dividing the section into some subsections. If you reread it, you will find that there is actually an appropriate place to put the info on Sheela Na Gig, but keep it short, because there is a whole article on that subject so provided you link it, it doesn't need to be more than... "also the sexually explicit figures of Sheela na Gig" or something equally brief.

I want to add that although I might seem tough on you, this type of editting is actually extremely destructive to the articles. What happens is that each article is "watched" or protected by a number of people, particularly in the case of important generic articles. However, not everybody who "watches" knows the subject very well, or writes with "literary style". This means that if you shove real information into an article in the wrong place, it might be left there for weeks and months. The effect might be to make absolute nonsense of two paragraphs that ought to run one after the other, but have been divided by spurious info. But the watcher will not delete the disruptive elemet unless they carefully read the paragraphs and determined the problem that has been caused. It might be quite simple, but sometimes it is complex, so don't add a paragraph or even a sentence unless you really are sure that a) it is necessary to the topic, b) it hasn't been mentioned at another point in the article, c) it is the right place.

Here's a typical example: ''The organ was built in 1924 by Walker and Sons. It has 1500 pipes and two manuals. Power for the bellows is supplied by an electric motor. There are lunchtime recitals on the organ every Tuesday at 1 o'clock during term. It is located in a small purpose-built shed behind the church.'' It is the electric motor that is in the shed, but this now reads as if the organ is in the shed.

Amandajm (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Cookie and coffee


Mariah-Yulia has eaten your cookie! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

—  Mariah-Yulia  • Talk to me!  11:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Femininity
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Femininity, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Feb 21, 2011 Being interested in anthropology I have at times followed the development of this article. A year or so ago it seemed to be taking different POV into account. Now it has given way to an ideological approach, reducing "femininity" to simple physical "femaleness". This is blatantly one-sided, not worthy of an encyclopedia. Femininity, for most people, still suggests distinctive traits of character, ways of behaving, reaction towards others, etc. etc. that go deeper than what is merely physical. This idea is not an outdated cultural or religious prejudice that deserves little notice (here it gets none). It is an idea that has been present over the ages, permeating art and culture. In modern times it was defended by Sigmund Freud, Margaret Mead, Virginia Woolfe, etc. not in the name of the Bible, etc. but in that of an objective understanding of the richness of having two distinctive human modes of expressing humanity: the masculine and the feminine. To ignore that viewpoint is the make a totally one-sided and prejudiced presentation. I would suggest a presentation that gives both A) the more 'traditional' view of femininity; and B) the more recent views that react from this concept and tend to reduce the term to a simple difference in body parts. I can write some of the first; and even outline aspects of the second (where I think I could do a better job than what is represented in the current article), and leave the completion of that to others. [Since this is a feeler, so as to see what people think, let me single out just two concrete points in the present article which reveal a narrowness of approach, verging on the ridiculous. 1) large breast size and cleavage are presented as a main parameter of femininity. But this is to talk about femaleness, not femininity. Audrey Hepburn is a classical example of a woman considered very feminine - even though her breasts were small and she had little cleavage. 2) Female body shape and Corset... Here the emphasis on femaleness is again clear. To highlight 'corset', etc. in an article on femininity, is indeed to corset the scope of an encyclopedia article.]Unimpeder (talk) 06:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Feb 27, 2011 From the discussion page about ‘Femininity’, you seem to be one of those who have taken most part in developing this article. A week ago I posted the above on my talk-page, in the hope it might begin a discussion. I would be glad to have your reaction to my proposal, as I think the present article is one-sided and simply not worthy of Wikipedia. However, I see no point in working at a more comprehensive presentation of the theme - if someone is going to revert it each time. So I would like to talk first. A year ago, the article opened in a fairly balanced way: “Distinct from femaleness, which is a biological and physiological classification concerned with the reproductive system, femininity principally refers to secondary sex characteristics and other behaviors and features generally regarded as being more prevalent and better suited to women, whether inborn or socialized. In traditional Western culture, such features include gentleness, patience, sensitivity and kindness.[citation needed]. Nursing certainly calls for such traits, which may well explain the fact that women are generally considered to make better nurses.” The last sentence about nursing was added by me at that time. I see now that this was removed by Uschick in April 2010, after someone had observed “In my experience this [that women are generally considered to make better nurses] is not necessarily true, and nothing this specific should be stated without any supporting sources.” If you want commonsense support of my statement, go out and ask the first ten men and women you meet. I think that the whole paragraph should be restored in the rewriting of the article; one supporting reference might be the following: ‘According to the U.S. Dept. Of Labor. “Women comprised 92.1 percent of RNs in 2003" (http://www.dol.gov/wb/factsheets/qf-nursing.htm).’ The 92.1% says something to the point. [Might someone take this figure as indicating discrimination against women? Perhaps; but he would need good arguments and plenty of [non-biased] ‘supporting sources’] Looking forward to hearing what you think.Unimpeder (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello! May I comment here on your recent addition to Deepwater Horizon oil spill?
You added "Minerals Management Service is an office within the United States Department of the Interior and receives most of its revenue from leasing federal lands and waters to oil and natural gas companies with a profit margin of 98%. Minerals Management Service is one of the largest revenue sources to the federal government after the IRS. According to Darrell Issa, the top Republican on the United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, there may be a conflict of interest for the Minerals Management Service to collect revenue and also oversee safety." to the Atlantis Oil Field safety practices section. May I ask why? I am new here, so forgive me, as I only want to learn what goes through other editors' minds as they edit. Please reply, so I may give you my opinion on your edit in return. Thankyou! :D MichaelWestbrook (talk) 07:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Your "minor" edits are not
Please check your default preferences and edit summaries: it is a matter of trustworthiness and timesaving for both you and others to label as "minor" only such things as "typographical corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearrangement of text without modification of content, etc. A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. An edit of this kind is marked in its page's revision history with a lower case, bolded "m" character (m)." WP:MINOR  Please use the Discussion page for its intended purpose prior to making major structural and semantic changes. Thanks -- Paulscrawl (talk) 00:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand your concern and will pay more attention to the settings. Do you have an issue with the edits? USchick (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do. There is certainly room for improvement in the organization of the Reactions (I like that) section, but why not outline your ideal in Discussion first?  Cgingold has expressed thoughts, as have I, on what might be an organization for Public reaction that is collectively exhaustive & mutually exclusive, while avoiding bias.  Labattblue has also expressed concerns (when Consequences grew to 11 subsections) with avoiding excessive subsections.  We all have ideas.  Please discuss yours on that page.  Thank you, I hope I did not express myself too strongly, but we are all invested.  BP PR, Govt., Inter., Media, Public, all have their place in such an outline -- but where? Sketch out a proposal, please.  I like the idea of having things in their place: could help reduce redundancy.  Talk it out. Thanks again.  Paulscrawl (talk) 01:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No harm done; I again apologize if I seemed excessive. Started a Reactions section to discuss. US Gov. might be better, so split WH, Congress, & various agencies.  Still prefer separate Investigations, as likely to grow into article (working on it).  Talk there.  Dinner time.  ;) Later Paulscrawl (talk) 01:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Sheela na gig edits
Hi there You have made a number of edits to the sheela na gig article which have been reverted in short order due them being based on original or spurious research. Can I ask that you discuss any further changes on the sheela na gig discussion page before making any further edits, if nothing else it will explain why your edits are being reverted. Thanks Pryderi (talk) 07:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Там де нам нема
Вітаю, ласкава пані! Звідки ви взяли, що назва альбому походить саме від російського прислів'я?. В українській мові також є Добре там, де нас нема. --Tomahiv (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Leymah Gbowee
Thank you for your nice message on my talk page. I replied there. Just letting you know, in case you don't have my page on your watchlist. :-) &mdash; Sebastian 02:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Ukrainian woman
There are a lot of Ukrainian woman and articles about them on wikipedia aren't there. Good luck categorizing them. —  Mariah-Yulia  • Talk to me!  01:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Article rating.
No problem. If you do some more work on it, feel free to ask for a re-assessment. Claritas § 20:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Leymah Gbowee DYK issue
Hi, USchick. Leymah Gbowee needs a citation for the hook, " ... led to the election of Ellen Johnson Sirleaf in Liberia, the first African nation with a female president". Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I added the reference in the article. Is that right, or did you mean it should be in the hook on the DYK page? Thank you! USchick (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Anahit
Hi, I have seen that you participate in Religion project. So, I would ask you to participate in the discussion on the discussion page of Anahit article. I had written some questions to discuss there. I will be thankful for your opinion published there. Thank you in advance, --Zara-arush (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I asked the community, if it is correct to name Anahit - an Armenian goddess of prostitution, as it is written in Azerbaijani article Anais where she is never mentioned as a deity of fertility and maternity, but only she is named as goddess of prostitution (according to psychiatrist Chesare Lobroso) and it is also written nothing about sacred prostitution, but it is written that in the temples devoted to Anahit young girls led dissolute life (распутство) the citation of Strabon). There is a link to the article of Izmailova that writes about goddess of fertility and maternity but the only thing that the Azeri editor took from this article is the named citation of Strabon. I want to know the opinion of the community, if it is correct to describe Anahit only as a goddess as prostitution. To get familiar with other great ideas of the main author of this article one may with the help of Google translator. I consider that Wikipedia is not the proper place for such an article, and want to know about the opinion of the community, if I am right. Thank you for your kind reply, --Zara-arush (talk) 00:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. First of all I do not know Azeri. I used to Google translator just to see what they may write there about, and so the lniks in Russian. Then, I do not understand why they changed the name of Anahit to Anais. the name of Armenian goddess of fertility is Anahit. It may sound like Anaida in Russian transliteration. It is morefunny that as an argument an admin woman wrote about some American film and a prositute character named Anais that at her opinion is not by chance. Now they are in search of further sources about prostitution in modern Armenia and goddess of prostitution. Great research it will be! Something like "great Azeri poet of 12th century Nizami!", "Albanian Khach-dashes", "origin of Oghuz tribes in Armenia", etc. I'll try now to find info, who is Anais in reality. Thanks for your kind words, I really need kind words. In case I may be helpful to you, please contact me, --Zara-arush (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Utusan Borneo
I've left you a message here: User_talk:Mkativerata. Regards, T RANSPORTER M AN  (TALK ) 20:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

International Cricketers
I see your speedy nomination of Test cricketer Mary Spry was turned down as all international cricketers, male or female, are deemed notable on Wikipedia. Before making pointless work for yourself and other people, it might be an idea to check the criteria on matters you clearly know little - or nothing - about. Nick mallory (talk) 09:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The article was on a clean up list of dead end articles with no links or references. The entire article consisted of one sentence. It has been expanded since then. USchick (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Being a stub is no reason for deletion either. It might be informative to see this list. Rich Farmbrough, 19:14, 23rd day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).


 * Sorry, "might be informative" is not a criteria on Wikipedia. References and notability please. Besides, someone has improved it to the point where it can actually be useful now. USchick (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Which is why you shouldn't be speedying these articles. Speedy is often just that - the article is gone in minutes or seconds. Admins don't always check as thoroughly as they should. And I was referring to the list you  mentioned. I guess it's the "dead end" list.  Which does not qualify articles for speedy, by a long way. First the list is very old, and secondly it is about articles which have no outgoing links. Sure some might be speedy candidates, but they have already survived over 3 months,  so there won't be many. Rich Farmbrough, 00:12, 24th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).


 * Speedy deletion has a specific criteria that has to be met. If it's not met, it will not be deleted. USchick (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy
These articles have all been de-prodded, and should not be nom'ed for speedy. Explanation is on the talk pages of the articles. I have requested the deleting editor to restore the article speedied while I was unable to edit. Rich Farmbrough, 19:10, 23rd day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).


 * The reason you are unable to edit is because you have been blocked by administrators. USchick (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Vijayanarayanam
Hello USchick. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Vijayanarayanam, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to places. Thank you. nancy 21:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Re-prodding
That is not how it works. There is alwayss an opportunity to "fix the article" - a contested prod is either dropped or taken to AfD. Simply because I created the article and maintain that it is a suitable subject for an article, does not make me it's keeper. If you have attempted to find sources on Wortman that indicate his notability and failed, then by all means list it for AfD. I am a little concerned that you seem to be on a deletion spree, and as the above example show, are not perhaps as familiar with the process as would be ideal. Rich Farmbrough, 00:07, 24th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

Speedy deletion contested: Mix n Blend
Hello USchick, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Mix n Blend, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Logan Talk Contributions 01:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Denys Wortman
Hello USchick, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Denys Wortman, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Logan Talk Contributions 01:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding? The article consists of one sentence: "Denys Wortman (2 May 1887-20 September 1958) was a painter, cartoonist and comic strip creator." A7 criteria states: An article about a real person that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. Please kindly review the criteria before issuing warnings to me. Thank you! USchick (talk) 02:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletions
Rich already warned you about your speedy deletion spree, so I am going to have to be more serious about it. If you continue to nominate pages for speedy deletion when they clearly do not fit the criteria, you may be blocked. I would suggest holding off on these nominations for now and reading the criteria more carefully so that you do not make these mistakes in the future. Logan Talk Contributions 01:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would kindly suggest for both of you to review the criteria before issuing warnings.

A7. : An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works. This criterion does not apply to species of animals, only to individual animal(s). The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion. USchick (talk) 02:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the crucial element there is "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". You've been tagging articles which clearly do. Ironholds (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Philip Thorpe Priestley
I initially deleted this article per your tagging, but I've since restored it, as the site of which it was an apparent copyright violation appears to be a mirror of Wikipedia, see here. I just thought I'd let you know. -- Lear's Fool 07:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Declined speedy
Hey there. Just letting you know I declined your G11 speedy nomination of Alexon Group as there is a spam-free version to revert to. Remember, if an article can be fixed by editing it's not a hopeless case. And always check the page history.

I see you've received prior notices of declined speedy nominations. Please try to take greater care in your patrols. -- &oelig; &trade; 07:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Melih Özakat
Hello USchick. I am just letting you know that I deleted Melih Özakat, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. -- Lear's Fool 12:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Logan Talk Contributions 15:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Deletion tagging and cleanup is generally a thankless job that inevitably leads to complaints. Thanks for doing it (and, as it seems, doing it well). Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your support! :) USchick (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

international
Your explanation sounds correct but it can turn into a joke when Fort Wayne, Indiana calls its airport Fort Wayne International Airport.

Some airports have classy and understated names, like Changi Airport in Singapore or Gatwick Airport near London. Either that or they think they are so famous that they don't need to brag. Nesteoil (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

All right...
If you want help, here I am. Just to see where you're at, I'll have you go through User:Access Denied/Adoption/CSD Examples. The user (Access Denied) is indeffed, and won't be coming back anytime soon, but his subpages are still quite useful (at some point I may swipe his CSD page and use it to build my own, I've just been too lazy to do it). It looks like you have the easy CSDs down (G3, G10, G12, etc.), but the more nuanced ones are tripping you up a bit. What I want you to do is find the A7s, A9s, and G11s in there, list them here by number, and say 1. which criteria they fit (if A7, then db-person, db-band, etc.) and 2. why they fit that criteria. And just to throw in a little humor, I'm the one who came across Number 20 on NPP and got it put on that page; you should have a laugh at that. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 03:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Blade, you have a great sense of humor!

A7/A9

 * Example 1 A7 (db-person) The most amazing girl in the world
 * Example 2 A7 (db-person) or (db-club) Zubinpalooza event. This would get contested because it's about an event.
 * Example 3 A7 (db-person) Ranjith V.G. is a person
 * Example 4 A7 (db-web) Furry-paws.com website
 * Example 5 A7 (db-web) **** home page
 * Example 6 A7 (db-person) is a person
 * Example 7 A9 (db-album) debut solo album
 * Example 8 A3 (db-nocontent) no content
 * Example 9 A1 (db-nocontext) short article
 * Example 11 A7 (db-person) active user page
 * Example 12 A7 (db-person) Aarij Zubair is a kid
 * Example 13 A1 (db-nocontext) short article
 * Example 14 A7 (db-web) Copy this link into your browser: 
 * Example 15 A7 (db-person) Professor Plum
 * Example 16 A7 (db-animal) goat
 * Example 17 A1 (db-nocontext) short article
 * Example 18 A3 (db-nocontent) no content
 * Example 19 A3 (db-nocontent) no content
 * Example 20 A3 (db-nocontent) no content
 * Example 21 A9 (db-album) album with record label
 * Example 22 A7 (db-animal) stink bug
 * 1 is fine; I might dual tag that G3, but A7 works. 2 would be G3 as an obvious hoax; events usually have to be PRODded (it took me a few tries to figure that out), but that one is more vandalism than anything else.  3 is good, 4 and 5 could be either A7 or G11 (doesn't really matter).  6 is a G10, as it's meant to disparage the (now redacted) subject.  7 is right; 8 was speedied as G10, but I was the one who tagged that and I think I tagged it A3.  9 is more of a G3, but A1 works too.  11 is good, either A7 or A3 would work.  12 is right, as there's no plausible claim to notability.  13 is fine, either G1 or A1 would work.  14 is either A7 or G11, so you're good there.  15 is an obvious hoax; the names (if you didn't pick up on it) are characters from a board game, Clue.  16 would depend on the redacted content; if it was an animal name, you're right, a person's name would be G10.  17 and 18 are both good, 19 is more G10 because that's an actual user here.  20 could be either A3 or G1 (G1 will probably get a faster response, though); I tagged it as G1 when I saw it.  21 is absolutely right, 22 is a G3.  Species are usually notable, but that one's an obvious hoax.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 18:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

G11

 * Example 10 (db-promo)
 * Yep, good. You'll find that a lot of times G11 will also fall under A7 and/or G12; when I come across something like that, I like to check the username of the creator, because if it's a company name (eg User:NYChildren creating an article NYChildren, which happened last night) G11 fits better and you should report the username to UAA as promotional.  Overall, not bad at all.  I'll check back in later in the day, I want to see you in the field now.  You should also read this essay, as it gives some very good advice (and as a speedy tagger, I love the title).  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 18:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring on CSD tags
Just to verify, I assume it's quite clear now that when a CSD tag is removed by someone other than the article creator, it's not to be replaced. Correct? :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely! :) USchick (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Re
Normally, you would put the tag back on and give the creator progressive uw-speedy warnings (they're on Twinkle). Yaser Kasim was very unusual in that I tagged it for A3 (which was correct), but by the time I realized the creator had removed the tag there had been content added, so A3 no longer applied and I ignored it; normally, I'd have done what I said above. I'll have a look at the other article in a few hours, when I have the time. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 00:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I declined the CSD of Walter G. O'Connell Copiague High School
I declined the CSD of Walter G. O'Connell Copiague High School. High schools are inherently notable. I realize your tag was not lack of notability, but I didn't see anything in it that made it sound overly promotional. It needs a LOT of work, but I don't see it qualifying as a CSD.-- SPhilbrick  T  23:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ok USchick (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That one was fairly close; that's the kind of page you can use the advert tag on as as well. I've been doing that more of late; with school articles, it's usually good to use the advert tag unless it's written in first person and/or is a copyvio, in which case G11 or G12 can apply.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 02:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

 * A quick thank you for the Valentine's Day message. It's more than I got in real life (that is, nothing; I've never had a girlfriend), and a rather nice surprise.  I've been watching your contributions; keep it up!!!!  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 03:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Re
I did a couple of minor fixes, but you were pretty much fine. The one thing is that if you bundle articles together, you have to link them to the same AfD- I fixed the links for the two articles you bundled in. The bots would have eventually taken care of that, but it's just one less bit of confusion. I'll have to look through WP:LIST again before opining, but at the moment I agree with your nomination. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 00:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Femininity
Feb 27, 2011 From the discussion page about ‘Femininity’, you seem to be one of those who have taken most part in developing this article. A week ago I posted the above on my talk-page, in the hope it might begin a discussion. I would be glad to have your reaction to my proposal, as I think the present article is one-sided and simply not worthy of Wikipedia. However, I see no point in working at a more comprehensive presentation of the theme - if someone is going to revert it each time. So I would like to talk first. A year ago, the article opened in a fairly balanced way: “Distinct from femaleness, which is a biological and physiological classification concerned with the reproductive system, femininity principally refers to secondary sex characteristics and other behaviors and features generally regarded as being more prevalent and better suited to women, whether inborn or socialized. In traditional Western culture, such features include gentleness, patience, sensitivity and kindness.[citation needed]. Nursing certainly calls for such traits, which may well explain the fact that women are generally considered to make better nurses.” The last sentence about nursing was added by me at that time. I see now that this was removed by Uschick in April 2010, after someone had observed “In my experience this [that women are generally considered to make better nurses] is not necessarily true, and nothing this specific should be stated without any supporting sources.” If you want commonsense support of my statement, go out and ask the first ten men and women you meet. I think that the whole paragraph should be restored in the rewriting of the article; one supporting reference might be the following: ‘According to the U.S. Dept. Of Labor. “Women comprised 92.1 percent of RNs in 2003" (http://www.dol.gov/wb/factsheets/qf-nursing.htm).’ The 92.1% says something to the point. [Might someone take this figure as indicating discrimination against women? Perhaps; but he would need good arguments and plenty of [non-biased] ‘supporting sources’] Looking forward to hearing what you think.Unimpeder (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC) Thanks, those are very useful comment and suggestions. I take note. Yes, as you say, this is a tough topic. I will take my time (not too much to spare) in trying to make some sort of broader and balanced presentation. This article really takes from the tone of objectivity normally found in Wikipedia. All the best.Unimpeder (talk) 15:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Women's History
WikiProject Women's History needs members' input on implementing auto-assessment. You'll find the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's History. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 11:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the invitation, I left my comments. USchick (talk) 01:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)



Waterfalls and others
Hi Nice work on the waterfalls article! Any chance you might know anything about Patriarchs? Patriarch Moses (Koulik)


 * I had to turn this one down for a copyedit during a GOCE drive early this year as I do not know enough about it to say what should stay and what should go.


 * Any help there would be greatly appreciated !
 * Thanks :¬) talk) 00:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank youvery much for the compliment. I guess if it's awful, that's when you hear anything, lol.

I can look at the patriarch article later today. USchick (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I left my comments on the talk page Talk:Patriarch Moses (Koulik). USchick (talk) 02:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look, I agree on notability and the procedure you have outlined. Chaosdruid (talk) 02:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Asian American#Asian American Femininity
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian American. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC) (Using )
 * Thank you very much for the invitation.USchick (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It is the 20th and no objection has been heard. Feel free to remove the disputed content at your leisure. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Disregard, I've taken the liberty of deleting the content myself. Thank you for your patience. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Dzyhivka article
Hello USchick! Well, you're very welcome. I believe "Si el mundo os odia" is completely normal Spanish. :) Maybe the phrase would be more common in Spain, though, than in Latin America, where they might tend to say "Si el mundo les odia", because they tend to avoid "vosotros" constructions and the corresponding personal pronoun "os". Cata-girl (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Template discussion
I responded on your request on my talkpage; but since I changed my username (I am Mariah-Yulia no more) I think it's best to put a reminder of that here... —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  01:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Now with improved signature! —  Yulia Romero (formerly Mariah-Yulia)  • Talk to me!  02:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Arranging cultures (in a template) per area seems to be the most NPOV way to do it and most common on wikipedia. See Chinese example below: —  Yulia Romero (formerly Mariah-Yulia)  •  Talk to me!  01:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, this is a good example. Now what do we call it? The area that these cultures covered include parts of Europe, parts of Asia, parts of North Africa, parts of the Arab states. Do you see the dilemma? :-) USchick (talk) 03:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I found this existing template Template:Indo-European topics that already contains a lot of information and can be expanded from here Lists of ethnic groups. They seem to be grouping ancient cultures by common language families. In this case, there were nomadic tribes that shared the same geographic area who spoke different languages. USchick (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I really don't know enough about these cultures to know how to list them by language.... Grouping by area looks simpler... About name: List of cultures of Ukraine might be controversial... if at all untrue. List of ancient cultures on the territory of modern Ukraine might be a good idea. —  Yulia Romero (formerly Mariah-Yulia)  • Talk to me!  00:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The groupings they already have are pretty good and just need to be expanded. I don't think a new template will be necessary, or maybe it can be spun off of this one. Thanks for your help and have a great trip! USchick (talk) 05:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; it feels good to go back ! —  Yulia Romero (formerly Mariah-Yulia)  • Talk to me!  22:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for your recent work on the entry List of women who sparked a revolution. I'm glad you're participating in WikiProject Women's History. If you have any questions, concerns, or bright ideas about the project, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. ---Shane Landrum (cliotropic &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 23:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Saeed photo
I'd hesitate to call you a feminist just because you're adding info about important women throughout history and your name has 'chick' in it--or to characterize any other issue through that lense--but I'm confused about your stance on the Saeed photo. I can't think of a generally progressive viewpoint in which facing the reality of that photo and publicizing it would not be imperative. Why do you think it is inappropriate rather than an important historical testament to police brutality and the individual suffering which contributed to the revolution? (note: I also replaced the image, after leaving an explanation on the talk page, but we should discuss that there, so others can see; I'm asking more of a personal question, if you care to answer)Ocaasi -- (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I can't imagine any rational person thinking that this is a good idea. Legally, it is against copyright use, unless you can upload a photo that you personally took. Maybe this is a cultural difference that we'll have to work around. I'm asking for assistance on this matter in order not to start an edit war.USchick (talk) 19:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy to end the edit war while we discuss this, whether the image is in or not during that period. I don't know if a mediation is the best forum, though; if you're making an explicit copyright claim, then post it at Copyright_problems or Media_copyright_questions.  Also, I'm also from the US and not sure what cultural difference you're referring to.  Different people have different opinions about Fair Use exemptions.  From what I've seen of the area, I don't think most people will find your copyright objection to fair use a valid one, on the merits that the image itself has been very much a subject of commentary.  If I showed you multiple articles which discussed the image itself, would that settle the issue for you?  (I linked to three on the article talk page, but I'm sure there are many more). Ocaasi (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to the cultural difference that makes you think the use of this photo is not only appropriate, but imperative. USchick (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm of the opinion that ideas, images, and events of great significance to history trump copyright. I believe that is part of the reason Fair Use exemptions are part of our law.


 * I responded at the Copyright page. I have a hunch that of the two links I gave you, the Media copyright page was the better one.  We'll see if anyone responds, if not, maybe shift it over to the other page. Ocaasi (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am a big fan of anarchy when it's appropriate, and that's why I'm thrilled with the Egyptian Revolution taking place. I'm all for bending the rules when necessary. However, the rules are often in place for a reason. In this case, the appropriate course of action is to create an article about the photo and use it there. Feel free to link the article wherever you want, without the photo. This is how similar situations were handled in the past. Thank you for removing the photo while in dispute. USchick (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In case you haven't noticed, I've moved the conversation from Copyright problems/2011 March 14 (which is used for evaluating text concerns) to Non-free content review which is appropriate for the actual concerns here. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm just taking a shot here, but... do you think the image is disrespectful, since it immortalizes Saeed in that brutalized state? It won't matter for the copyright claim if that's your motivation or not. I could see how that would be compelling though, although I think it would be outside of our encyclopedic mission to consider that kind of thing, especially when the image has been so widely reproduced elsewhere. You may have a variety of moral or general legal notions prohibiting the use of images of dead people, but I know of know such law nor policy, so long as those images are of a historical nature, widely reproduced, relevant to the article, and they don't violate our WP:BLP policy (Not ironically--it's our biography of living people policy--but it applies to the recently dead as well as their family. We would never add to the victimization of a person by highlighting an embarrassing or degrading image related to a crime against them.  And I don't think this image does that either)  For what it's worth, I think Saeed's family, as well as the entire nation of Egypt are beyond dedicated to honoring Saeed's death through not forgetting it, not hiding it, and not letting its message be wasted. Not sure if any of that has bearing on your opinion, but if it might... No need to respond, I just had a thought this might be part of your concern.

A quick note about law and policy, if you are going to claim something under either, you should cite the exact text which prohibits it. For example, in Wikipedia:Copyright, the exact text is "unless the image is the subject of commentary". If I read that literally, there is no way to interpret it except saying that if the image is discussed and meet's other fair use criteria then it's ok to use. But the law literally does not say that the image must be "the subject" as in "the title". I think that is a misreading of the word subject, which has both a general usage as anything written about and a specific usage as a title. I've never even seen the suggestion that subject = title with regards to copyright, from any editor on Wikipedia, any other legal text, or anywhere else. You're grouping 'subject of commentary' to mean the article title, but the commentary is not the article itself but whatever pieces of the article address the image. It might be a bit of an optical illusion depending on whether you emphasize 'subject of' or 'of commentary', but I assure you that the subject=title reading just doesn't make sense. It's way too restrictive, legalistic in a way which doesn't improve upon any considerations--even for Fair Use opponents--and generally just overly literal. Basically, if you are going to claim that as a definitive reading, you'll have to find some other experienced people or sources to back it up. Ocaasi (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Quick question: Everything else aside, why are you using the Signpost coverage of the policies? Ocaasi (talk) 22:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand the question. Can you please point to something specific? USchick (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, you mean this? Wikipedia Signpost/2008-09-22/Dispatches? Since no one seemed to be reading the actual policy, I was hoping maybe an example would be more helpful. USchick (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey Ocaasi, I read your advice to new editors about how to pitch a fit until you get your way, no matter what. :-) I have to admit, I admire your strategy. Do you do that in real life, too? Lol! :-) USchick (talk) 23:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to have reacted to my question with an insult. It wasn't intended to bother you.  The bottom of the post says: This is not a real guide, although it may be useful to identify the tactics of editors you struggle with. Instead of repeating them, try better ways to improve articles. If you find yourself doing one of these things, Wikibreak?' Ocaasi (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not at all, no insult, I commend you on your ability to stand your ground. :-) I can't believe we spent almost a week of our lives on something that seems so simply obvious to each of us. I seriously, for the life of me can't imagine how what I think could possibly be wrong. I'm sure you feel exactly the same. I guess we'll have to wait and see. USchick (talk) 02:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

To the project "Ukraine"
Вы свободно говорите по-русски! Это блестяще. Если с чего-то начинать, то со статьи (в русской Википедии) "Коалициада на Украине (2006)". В общем — это очень важный период-2006. --Vles1 (talk) 01:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Здравствуйте, очень приятно познакомиться. Дело в том что Google поиск на Coalition in Ukraine (2006) ничего не находит. Википедия опирается на опубликованные авторитетные источники, также ru:Википедия:Удаление страниц. USchick (talk) 04:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Мне тоже приятно познакомиться.
 * Может быть Вы сможете перевести главу о "Генеалогии Тимошенко" — я разобрался в этом вопросе; и поместил такую главу в Википедии-рус (кстати, я цитирую там книгу "злого противника Тимошенко" некоего Чобита, и всё-равно он пишет намного более объективно-научно, чем в Википедии-английской). А в Википедии-английской — написан сплошной бред, "из бульварных журналов, полных любых домыслов и путаницы". Т. е. в статье "Tymoshenko" заменить главу "Genealogy", на текст из главы "Происхождение, ранние годы" в Википедии-рус.


 * И если будет желание-силы — посмотрите статьи в Википедии-рус (в которых я сделал немало правок) : "Оранжевая революция", "Тимошенко", "Ющенко" — есть что взять в Википедию-английскую.


 * В "Википедии русской" — статья "Коалициада на Украине (2006)". В "Википедии украинской" эта же статья "Коаліціада в Україні 2006". В "Википедии английской" эти события рассмотрены в статье "2006 Ukrainian political crisis" — эту статью можно дополнить фактами из указанных статей в Википедии-рус, и Википедии-укр; а в Google поиск на "2006 Ukrainian political crisis" даёт много информации.--Vles1 (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * А по запросу в Google "Coalition in Ukraine (2006)" — выдала много статей, которые относятся к данной теме "создание коалиции после выборов 2006" :
 * "Oleksandr Moroz announced a new coalition for Ukraine";
 * "Attempts to create Ukraine coalition collapse",
 * "Ukraine: “Orange Revolution” leader Yushchenko accepts coalition with pro-Russian rival" (большая статья, подробно),
 * "http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1068667.html" (Radio Liberty, 25.5.2006), и так далее.--Vles1 (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Я не знаю на сколько я буду Вам полезна, поскольку я совершенно не интересуюсь Украинской политикой. Что касается информации из статей – бред как Вы называете, я согласна, но это к сожалению результат редакторов которые берут информацию где попало. В Америке это называется свобода выбора. :-) Я со временем пересмотрю всё, но не скоро, у меня происходят большие события на Английской статье. USchick (talk) 03:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Vles1, Такие масштабные перемены как вы предлагаете о "Генеалогии Тимошенко," сначала обязательно надо обсудить на странице обсуждения. Я согласна перевести для вас информацию, но вам придётся дальше это дело продвигать. Я надеюсь у Вас хватит Английского для обсуждения? USchick (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Пожалуйста, переведите — на мою страничку. Буду благодарен. Жаль, что Вам не интересна "политика Украины" — ведь ничего более интересного в Украине нет. **Английского будет не хватать; но "научных аргументов" хватит. В Википедии-ру был точно такой же бред. Я его успешно почистил — потому что иные версии не имеют "Авторитетных Источников". **Удачи в Вашей "Английской статье"! --Vles1 (talk) 01:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

fair use
Excuse me for complicating the issue there, its better to focus on the fair use claim, and to deal with other issues if and when the fair use is accepted or rejected. I think you know my position as regards usage in any wikipedia article, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding the deletion discussions you've initiated, although they reflect your view that this file doesn't belong anywhere on Wikipedia, I think proposing the deletion now will serve to break up the discussion in multiple places. Since the image is currently not on any article, and being discussed by multiple editors at Non-Free Content Review, wouldn't it be better to just discuss all of it there? Ocaasi (talk) 08:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, the non-free discussion should take place there. You have been reluctant to discuss it though, by inviting people to comment and not liking what they say. You have also been repeatedly selective about what you're willing to discuss there. If you need several places to discuss different issues I'm ok with that. In light of new evidence about the owner of the photo, fair use is disputed and the tag belongs on the photo. USchick (talk) 13:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I wanted to keep the discussion about copyright in one place, and thought that a deletion discussion on copyright grounds would be redundant. I did, however, suggest we discuss the article-related content issues at the talk page of Death of Khaled Saeed, because that is where prior consensus was that the image was appropriate for the article.  However the NFCC criteria complicate the matter since they call on certain issues relating to the article specifically, such as whether it is the subject of commentary, whether it is shocking or exploitative, and whether it could be replaced by text.  So let's discuss any of those issues at the current main page.
 * Again, I didn't have a problem with Rob's comments per se, just that he seemed to not realize which page the discussion was at (he didn't mention copyright at all). As for claims that the image is inappropriate, irrelevant, or or easily replaced with text, I strongly believe the sources I collected show otherwise.  If Rob sees those sources and disagrees, so be it, but I have a hunch he was underinformed.  I didn't screen his knowledge before I invited him and I was only surprised that he seemed to not know the full situation before he commented (which happens at a busy place like this).  That appeared selective to you, but I will happily invite him back to engage with the full realm of issues, if he is up for it.  Ocaasi (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ocaasi, I'll be happy to participate in whatever discussion you want to have, wherever you're comfortable having it.USchick (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to have it in a platonic hot tub in a world where the spirit of the law is as important as the letter, and the letter is fully understood by all participants in the discussion, and everyone has read all of the reliable sources, and one issue is addressed at a time in order of their importance. Ocaasi (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. USchick, as it seems a bit premature, would you like me to close this for you Files_for_deletion/2011_March_15? - Off2riorob (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not yet please, and here's why. Please advise if this is not the proper procedure.
 * The discussion on the Non-Free Content Review was being limited in what they were willing to discuss there. Based on new information from that discussion, I disputed the media-use on the photo itself, by tagging it. That starts a 7 day deletion process. Does this process depend on the outcome of the Non-Free Content Review? Or is it a stand alone process? These are two separate discussions, copyright infringement and media use. I appreciate any advice you can offer, I'm not interested in making this project my life's work. :) USchick (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * They are two separate issues but imo its confusing to have them both occurring at the same time and as such you are unlikely to get a true response to the deletion issue, as you can see, someone has already commented to procedurally close it. I would let the fair use discussion finish - the pic may get refused as fair use or may get accepted, it seems unclear how that will outcome, anyways, if the discussion is to use it under fair use then you could nominate it then in a clear single discussion but if you let this run and peter into nothing now and the picture is kept you won't then be able to open another deletion discussion so soon. If the outcome of the fair use discussion is not to use it then you won't need a deletion discussion...it is up to you though, there is noting really to force you to close it or nothing rally in guidelines that the two can't run alongside each other ... regards. Off2riorob (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, let's close for now, and can you please link the archived comments on the discussion page of the image? Thank you. USchick (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Rob, I'm a bit confused about how they are separate. Doesn't the media-use rationale depend on its NFCC status? Ocaasi (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * USchick, I want to clarify something which may be helpful. The family may own the rights to images of the deceased, but if they have already released those rights by distributing the image, then their explicit permission is no longer required to use it.  Media-use rationales have to be given each time we use a non-free photo; that does not mean we have to get permission from the rights-holder each time [if there is a fair use claim].  Especially in this case, if the family released the image, then it would be in the public domain, or just the regular copyright of the newspaper which prints it.  Also, if the image is not in the public domain, then the fair use claim means we actually go against any copyright claim of the family (or of a republisher).  By definition, Fair Use is a legal exception to copyright; literally, it says we can violate their copyright, legally .  None of that means you can't object to the image on NFCC#6 or NFCC#8 grounds, including whether the image was illegally or immorally acquired, but I think some of the points you are currently making factually don't make sense in terms of the law.  I'd really encourage you to read Fair Use if you haven't already.  It's a very interesting read, and I hadn't gone through it closely until this discussion. Ocaasi (talk) 16:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I encourage you to post this rationale on the main discussion page. USchick (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I added one phrase which may be important. Can you point out any policy aspect that is incorrect?  Although editors often disagree about which policies should take precedence, or even which policies apply, they must agree about what policies say and directly imply.  So, what part do you think is not correct about:   The family may own the rights to images of the deceased, but if they have already released those rights by distributing the image, then their explicit permission is no longer required to use it.  Media-use rationales have to be given each time we use a non-free photo; that does not mean we have to get permission from the rights-holder each time [if there is a fair use claim].  Especially in this case, if the family did release the image, then it would be in the public domain, or just the regular copyright of the newspaper which prints it.  Also, if the image is not in the public domain, then the fair use claim means we actually go against any copyright claim of the family (or of a republisher).  By definition, Fair Use is a legal exception to copyright; literally, it says we can violate their copyright, legally.


 * I am still piecing together our copyright approach, but I think the above is consistent with our policy. If you haven't read Fair Use, you might not understand why that is so.  Anyway, if you don't want to discuss this here, that's fine too. Ocaasi (talk) 17:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I read fair use. Heave you read Public domain? The photo is not in the public domain. USchick (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry if my summary was confusing. I addressed both scenarios but they are separate--first if the family holds the copyright, and second, if it was released into the public domain.  I wanted to show that in either scenario, their permission is not needed.  Current consensus is that the family does hold the copyright, but still, their permission is not required to use the photo under Fair Use guidelines, which are explicitly about valid, legal exceptions to copyright.  As others have pointed out, NFCC and our Copyright policy is actually stricter than Fair Use and US law, which is why we're still debating the points related to NFCC. Ocaasi (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

To your claim that the image was not published due to copyright reasons, this is from the editor-in-chief of the Daily News Egypt: "The iconic image of the disfigured face of Khaled Saeid will haunt you for a long time. So if you haven't seen it already, think a hundred times before you do. I this newspaper, we unanimously agreed not to run the morgue photographs of the alleged victim of a police beating that has triggered the wrath, horror and indignation of Egyptians and human rights advocates the world over." http://www.thedailynewsegypt.com/editorial/death-in-alexandria-dp3.html

The newspaper did run this image of a protester holding side-by-side photos of Said before and after his death. You'll notice that the left image is the same one from Masrawy, and the same image from everywhere else. http://www.thedailynewsegypt.com/human-a-civil-rights/eu-concerned-over-khaled-saeids-death-dp2.html Ocaasi (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC) p.s. I responded on my talk page as well. Ocaasi (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

nfcreview discussion edits
Normally I don't refactor other comments, and while I appreciate you are trying to guide discussion, remember that at the end of the day, an uninvolved admin will review the discussion and make the determination of consensus - we're only supplying arguments for that. Thus, I have removed those added headers since they are unhelpful to this discussion which is far weighing down the page. --M ASEM (t) 14:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you, I was not aware of the process. USchick (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Death of Khaled Mohamed Saeed
Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-03-14/Death of Khaled Mohamed Saeed

Please keep me informed of that case - I see you have agreed to mediate it recently.

I'm not sure where any discussion will take place.

My own involvement is just that, I have an opinion about it. No policy reason to remove it.

I don't understand why the image has been removed - although I'm perfectly happy to accept temporary removal whilst we sort out what is happening (per WP:WRONGVERSION), but this has already been through, DRV, , ANI, etc. etc.

I think all arguments have been made, and consensus is keep, and this - medcab - seems to be a case of OTHERPARENT.

So please, let me know what happens with this attempt to finalise things. Cheers,  Chzz  ► 16:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would be willing to participate in the process, I was not offering to be a mediator. USchick (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see my comments on the MedCab case page. —  Ancient Apparition •  Champagne?  • 6:36pm • 07:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Non-free content review
If you wish to ask me civil and clear questions about the closure, I will entertain them on my talk page. If you wish to rehash the debate which you have started in multiple venues or continue to make veiled allegations about standards of conduct or glancing at policy, I'm afraid I will decline to respond. I will not be watching this space for a reply. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The right place to have/continue the discussion as you have already been advised is on-wiki at WP:ANI or via email with the WMF counsel (Moonriddengirl provided you with their contact information, I believe). VernoWhitney (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry if it feels I am stalking your contributions. The discussion at NFCR was extensive and I want to make sure that editors know that the issues you are raising have been addressed there.  Talk pages are public, and anyone is encouraged to comment wherever they think their contributions are important.  If you'd rather me not post to your own talk page, I can, but your suggestion I avoid other editors' talk pages when you repeatedly bring it up is irrelevant and a bit uncivil.  If it will be easier for you to drop the issue if I don't address the points you've made, I can consider that.  But if you expect this image to be evaluated for NFCC compliance again, I will defend it, and even more vigorously than before, since now I am that much better informed of both policy and the full spate of RS.  You can use that compilation of links, policy, and sources for your own research if you would like.  It's located at User_talk:Ocaasi/Saeed.  Since it's in my userspace, I do request you not edit it, although you can leave me a comment at the talk page if you would like.  Cheers,  Ocaasic 20:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of List of women who sparked a revolution for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of women who sparked a revolution 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/List of women who sparked a revolution 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 good 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. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Ivory Coast
Hi. There has been a lot of comparison between Ivory Coast and Libya because because they are both civil wars, but the West decided to intervene in Libya, but not in Ivory Coast, so a lot of commentators have used this to highlight what they perceive as western hypocrisy.

But the root causes of the tho events are different. The crisis in Ivory Coast started after the 2010 Ivorian presidential elections when the incumbent president refused to step down after losing the elections by a narrow margin. The whole bussines in the Arab world is an entirely different matter. it's about people rising up against autocratic rulers. But you have to remember, that the Ivory coast is not in the Arab World or the MENA region, but in West Africa, and the Civil War there was not influenced by the revolutionary wave in the Arab world. They just happened to coincide, and some people drew paralels between the Libyan war and the ivorian one

I hope my answer was helpfull, and I didn't come off as aggressive in the comments the other day :) - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 07:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I never said it was about oil. Libya was selling its oil to the West before the war, so „oil” is a pretty bad explanation. The truth is that every situation is different, and Libya is not Ivory Coast. In Libya, the other Arab states asked the West to intervene. That's why we had Resolution 1973 and the subsequent bombing campaign. In Ivory Coast, there is no need to intervene. The recognized president (Ouattara) is winning the war (not protests).


 * The second point you raised is why are we excluding mentioning Ivory Coast. Well because there is no causal relationship between the two events. They just happened to coincide, and some people have drawn some parallels. But parallels can be drawn between a lot of things. Not everything is worth mentioning. Some people try to argue that there is hypocrisy on the part of the West, but that is about the moral justification of the war. Just imagine if we included every instance the USA was called hypocritical by somebody into Wikipedia. :) - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

2010–2011 Ivorian crisis
I'm afraid there has been some confusion over exactly what has been proposed with regard to a possible merger of the 2010–2011 Ivorian crisis article with Second Ivorian Civil War, on which you commented recently. To clarify this, I've relisted the merge request at Talk:2010–2011 Ivorian crisis. Grateful if you could state what your preference is. Prioryman (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi
About the pictures - I might have some of them saved and I never recorded where they really came from, all i know it was from a couple of forums - but they are really really good pictures and it would be a big shame if they could not be put on. So must I just load them on wikimedia and then you can check them out and say if they are fine in terms of copyright etc? See - I have never posted pictures before, so I dont know how it actually works, but I really want to improve the article. For some though i do know where theyc ame from, will give you the adress soon, but for the really good ones I am not really sure where they came from. Yes, I should get an account - I have ben editing now for almost a year on a couple of random IP's - will probably get one soon. Thanks for you help Regards 146.232.75.208 (talk) 08:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, can i get into serious trouble if I upload an image - and it has copyright issues, but I didnt know - can I still get into serious trouble? Some links to images i would like to put on: typical cuman warrior mask: http://www.google.co.za/imgres?q=Cuman+warriors&um=1&hl=en&tbm=isch&tbnid=zJE4bpdA6Z2LIM:&imgrefurl=http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php%253Ft%253D187774%2526page%253D15&ei=pending&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=426&vpy=329&dur=2180&hovh=275&hovw=183&tx=119&ty=181&oei=OSScTdOPOMfn4ga7z5D2Bg&page=3&tbnh=142&tbnw=79&start=51&ndsp=27&ved=1t:429,r:9,s:51&biw=1259&bih=795

Here is another one: I only want to post one picture from here: the picture with the blond man and woman (as it accurately portrays how the Cumans looked - blond-according to many reports and countries from the middle ages) - its a big one and I am not sure how to minimise it. The picture is supposed to be set in the Bulgarian empire - where the Cumans settled, with a Bulgarian soldier in the background. Another nice picture that I might want to post is the fourth one on top of the one with the 2 blond Cumans - the one where a Cuman, Albanian and Italian mercenary is shown. - http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=193607

Here are two more pictures - the top two, one shows the Cumans fighting against the mongols: http://wargamesfactory.lefora.com/2009/04/08/15mm-kipchaks-cuman-and-chernye-klobukioh-my/

There was 2 more pictures which I want to put up, but at the moment cant find them. When I do, I will post the adress... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk) 09:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You will not get in trouble by using copyrighted images here, but you will be wasting a lot of your time because they will be deleted. Pictures that you don't know where they came from, will be deleted immediately. For information about how to use pictures on Wikipedia, a good place to start is hereWelcome.

By searching for "Cuman" on Commons, this is what I found File:Kunlaszlo.jpg, File:Radzivill Chronicle Cumans.jpg, File:Arm-100r.jpg, File:Kunkereszt Belez.JPG, File:AlzbetaKumanska kralovna.jpg USchick (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * These look like illustrations from a book. If you can find out what book, we can look up the publication date and determine what the copyright is and also determine if it is a credible source. For example, if this is a history book about what the people look like, it's credible, but if this is a children's story book, then it's not a credible source for how the people would look. USchick (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In forums, sometimes words Cuman and Komi are used to describe the same picture. Do you know if this is accurate or where we can look it up? See Komi peoples they are also blond and from the same region. USchick (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

>>Which forums describe this? - I want to check it out, give me an adress, sounds interesting. This is the first time I have heard of the Komi people, but yes, from the name Komi - Kuman there is similarity and they are both blond, so they very well could be a branch of the Kumans, but then again the name could be a coincedence and there were lots of other people with blond hair, not just the Kumans - but there is still a godd chance there could be a link. I will try to research about this. I dont think the pictures come from a childrens book - if you are saying there is a chance they could come from there - the drawings look professional - it sure does look like a proper history book. Thank you a lot for your help, appreciated :-)

Regards 146.232.75.208 (talk) 07:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC) By the way, I finally created an account - Smart Nomad  Smart Nomad (talk) 07:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on becoming an official editor! That's a great name. :) On this forum [ http://www.stormfront.org /forum/t443128-4/] they say: Komi/ Cuman Boris Yeltsin had Komi ancestors, and Komi/ Cuman clearly shows Asian roots. And here are some reference books  where you can download text in other languages. Do you know any of these languages? I read the one about Kipchak Law, it's very interesting (and funny)! USchick (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I found one book here, it shows detailed illustrations of Cuman warriors. I found the book by Googling the illustrator's name M. Gorelik from one of the drawings in your forum. Another illustrator is Игорь Дзысь, but I can't find any of his books except this . USchick (talk) 17:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi USchick, sorry for not getting back to you about the pitcures and the other stuff you posted. Will definitely get back to you soon (havent had a lot of time latley, I do apologize). Kind Regards, Smart Nomad (talk) 05:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Birth Certificates
Thank you for your message. Unfortunately what you are adding to the talk page is not about "the development of an article". They are about you analysing two birth certificates, and wishing to discuss with others what they make of them. That is not the purpose of the talk page and none of the discussion you propose having would determine anything on the article itself. No-one cares what conclusions Wikipedia editors have personally reached about the images. The only way this comparison would be a valid discussion would be if a good source had performed the comparison, and the discussion was about whether, and how, it should be in the article. Do you know of a source that has done this?

If we let discussion on the talk page drift away from the focus of improving the article, especially on topical and disputed subjects like this, it quickly gets out of hand, and meaningful discussion on the article itself gets lost. That's why I've been trying to keep off-topic discussion off the page. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Members' input needed at WikiProject Women's History
Hello. I'm writing to you as your name is listed on the members page for WikiProject Women's History. In recent discussions at the project, most notably here, several members have indicated that the scope of the project may need to be more clearly defined and communicated. I have set up a workshop page for this, but it obviously needs as wide a participation as possible to achieve genuine consensus and to allow the project to move forward. You'll find the workshop here.

If you no longer consider yourself an active member of the project, it would help if you could indicate this on the members' page. This will allow us to better gauge how much people-power we actually have. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 04:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
Regretfully, I've opened a sockpuppet investigation regarding your edits at. Please respond at Sockpuppet investigations/USchick. Chester Markel (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Women's History Project – Final call for comments on the Scope draft
Our workshop on revising and clarifying the scope of our project has produced a draft outlining our project's scope and criteria for article inclusion. Please join us at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's History/Scope workshop to discuss this document. There's a separate section beneath it for final comments, which will remain open through Tuesday, June 14th. As Cynwolfe says "with good participation, we should be able to revise our project page soon, clearing up the issues we've been dealing with and preparing us to go on to the fun stuff." Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 12:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The lion of Egyptian revolution (Qasr al-Nil Bridge).jpg
I was wondering if you could give you opinion on the picture nomination to be a featured picture. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 10:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, It's not my photo but thanks for your support. I just love that photo -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)