User talk:Localzuk/archive5

Paris Hilton

Ok dude, what is your porblem. This is not a violation. Here's the link to the CNN article.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/05/04/paris.hilton.ap/index.html

Read the 15th paragraph from the top. It clearly states what she said. Therefore, this is not an opiomion and definatelly not a violation of whatever.

Norum 21:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Malal

Greetings! Thank you for your comment about the Malal edits. However, I must respectfully disagree, at least at this time.

Specifically, the two links (the first to a fansite about Malal, the second a French gallery of Malal figurines and comic excerpts) both have, in my opinion, valid reasons to be linked.

The first, the fansite, quotes from extensive Games-Workshop source material. This material has been out of print for over two decades, and is impossible to find since Games-Workshop has disavowed any knowledge of Malal or the early days of the fluff. However, this information may be better served as simply added to the article itself. I shall look into disseminating the information and adding it to the article instead of a link.

The second, the French gallery, is indeed a non-English speaking website. However, the guidelines for such are as follows (quoting from the linked Wikipedia entry that you previously linked:

"English language links are strongly preferred in the English-language Wikipedia. It may be appropriate to have a link to a foreign-language site, such as when an official site is unavailable in English, when the link is to the subject's text in its original language or they contain visual aids such as maps, diagrams, or tables, per the guideline on foreign-language sites."

Further link-diving, the Foreign-Language Sites link specifically states the following:

"Since this is the English Wikipedia, webpages in English are highly preferred. Linking to non-English pages may still be useful for readers in some cases:

• when the website is the subject of the article
• when linking to pages with maps, diagrams, photos, tables; explain the key terms with the link, so that people who do not know the language can still interpret them
• when the webpage contains key information found on no English-language site and is used as a citation"

Because this website does indeed contain photos and other visual aids that do explain the key terms mentioned within (namely, the few scant references to Malal) I do believe that it is worth linking to.

However, as I appear to have gained a non-NPOV to this discussion, I will respectfully bow out at this time, for further review by a friend with much more experience with Wikipedia policy. Thanks for a non-bot response, however -- a majority of my edits were my increasingly frustrated realizations that ShadowBot was merely reverting me over and over again. KiTA 00:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Localzuk's Behavior

Localzuk's Behavior and Need to Try and Pretend to be an Admin (original title)

When I use those terms, its after people accuse me of being wrong, and they accuse me of being wrong without proof and while misquoting rules. Those are the people trying to attack me. It is my right to ask for an apology from someone falsely accusing me of breaking rules, or from people who do not use proper verifiability. If you do not like how Wikipedia requires such, then there are plenty of other Wiki like places that don't care that you can go to. Its that simple. SanchiTachi 15:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not the only user thinking that you are pretending to be an admin. If you want to continue this and accusing me of things like you are doing, I would like to settle this with more admin. You, instead, think that every situation should be settled by you. I have gone out of my way to be curteous and to make sure that these pages are improved and updated with resources. You, Pak, and the others who attack me have not. The IAR is put forth on editing articles to ensure that people care more about adding and improving then bickering about certain rules. However, you are more focused on the bickering and failed to contribute anything meaningful. Yes, my answers are curt, but that is because you keep accusing me of things that are not true and you do not have the best interest of the Wikipages here. As many other users have said before, you accuse people unrightfully and unfairly. You are not a god, stop pretending to be one. SanchiTachi 15:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Its very hard to believe that your advice is in good faith, especially with your actions. Don't be a dick If Dick isn't a personal attack, then jerk isn't either, as jerk is dick but less vulgar. SanchiTachi 16:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Lets see, I have a page citing information supporting me. You have nothing. Once again, you claim to speak for everyone. You are not an admin. You do not have a consensus. You are assuming things you cannot. Not only is that not in the letter of Wiki, its not in the spirit. Cease and desist. I have contacted an admin a while ago to settle this, as per Wiki ettiquette. You have not. You did not try to take this to mediation. You have acted on personal reasons which goes against Ettiquette rules. I have not let my personal feelings get in the way with my dealing with anyone. You, however, are making it obvious that you are not able to do the same SanchiTachi 16:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you created it? You created what? Thats right, nothing. The group had nothing. There were over 30 pages in the group that were stubs or had nothing. You didn't do anything but create a dominant structure in which you were in charge. You contributed very little. Hell, in the couple months that I put in on it I have done far more to actually work out pages and put sources in. You haven't done any of that. All you have done is spammed the talk pages with your ranting. Furthermore, by quoting that, you have proven that you are stalking me. SanchiTachi 15:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You are not here to help Wikipedia. As you have just demonstrated, you are going through people's histories to follow them down in various pages to win against them. Yes, that is extremely creepy and stalkerish. Cease and decesist. I do not like it. You have not come here with goodfaith or no point of view. You are here to "win" whatever strange thing that you think this is. This is not a game. This is not a competition. You are not helping Wiki or the Warhammer pages. You are attacking people, following people, trying to break the rules and harass. I do not like it and you still wont leave me be. SanchiTachi 16:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that pretty much summarises this editors entire view. Everyone who disagrees with his POV is not here to help the site and is trying to attack him. It doesn't matter if an editor has thousands of edits under their belt, they are not here to help make this site even better - they are here to take part in some sort of game and this involves attacking him somehow... Oh well, to use his word: You win some, you lose some... Now I'll carry on how I always have done and edit pages like normal.-Localzuk^(talk) 17:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Why go and just revert changes on pages when if the problem is a lack of citation: you should highlight that rather than deleting content. I put a cultural reference to futurama on the PETA page that referenced another wikipedia page.. Anyhow, have put it back and put a reference (something you could have done also): please try and contribute a bit more rather than just chopping out stuff. All you're doing is deleting things rather than improving content.. NathanLee 09:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't really know where to start. I will, however, say that I am sorry for being snide, curt, and sniping above and during the previous discussion. Thats not really a "starting" place, but yeah. Btw, I shortened the title and included the original below, because the original title was rude and unnecessary/also way too long. SanchiTachi 15:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

PanoTools

I have added an external link which I think is valid under WP:EL, but would like your feedback. JohnSpikowski is doing blanket reverting so your attention and feedback is wanted and needed as soon as you have time. Thanks. Roguegeek (talk) 00:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm contacting the sysop's to have Thomas's Pano2QTVR software promotion page removed. When did the Wikipedia allow software promotion pages to be added? John Spikowski 18:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"I have put the article up for deletion due to it not being notable and a promotional page."

Thank you for being fair and enforcing the rules across the board ! John Spikowski 18:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should read [1] or [2] before you help your new friend too much just to get am idea what he did in the recent history. --Wuz 11:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thomas: Maybe you should look in the mirror and try and justify your own deeds first before pointing any fingers at others.

User:Localzuk - I will not add any more comments to the Pano2QTVR deletion request page. Thanks for the heads-up!

After 8 months of going nowhere with this page I decided to clean up the mess and bring the topic matter in a form the Wikipedia will accept. Please review my contribution before condeming my work. I'm a Wikipedia contributor (content and $$$) just like everyone else here. I see nothing wrong with the way I reorganized the content. John Spikowski 10:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the change you made. It puts everthing not directly related to Panorama Tools on the general panorama page. Thanks !
John Spikowski 10:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Localzuk, just wanted to let you know I reverted a good faith revert of yours on this article and asked for clarification. If it's a black and white issue where the WP:EL policy clearly states you're in the right, forgive me and feel free to undo my edit. If it's not that, I would like to hear feedback on the discussion page and come to a consensus on the issue. Thanks. Roguegeek (talk) 01:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism sections

I'm not trying to vote stack, but I know from PETA that you dislike criticism sections, too, so I thought you might want to comment on this: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 11#Template:criticism-section — Omegatron 19:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Spelling fixes to talk page archives

Hi, you probably shouldn't be editing talk page archives - even for spelling. Best to just leave them be.-Localzuk(talk) 22:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

In case you were wondering why I'm currently doing that, my user page has an explanation. Is there a particular reason I shouldn't be editing talk page archives? --Bachrach44 03:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Indeed. Most of it from one new editor. :-(

A new computer is good news though. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:HomerStranglesBart2.jpg

Hello Localzuk, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:HomerStranglesBart2.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Localzuk/Homer Simpson. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Please note that it is possible that the image on your page is included vie a template or usebox. In that case, please find a free image for the template or userbox. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 12:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

On the factory farm article

Hi Localzuk, In light of [3] can you tell me how SV's edit is "more consistent". It's certainly more consistent with her views on what this article should be, rather than those of factual evidence.. But that's about all. NathanLee 03:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Contributions wanted - Factory farm article

Hi, can you please comment on here. This is to resolve the revert issues to unlock the page. cheers, NathanLee 16:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Localzuk: I think the sticking point might be that you're perhaps assuming bad faith with the edits we're making or argument provided. Can I ask if you assume good faith on the arguments we've presented (that we're talking subsets): do they make sense with what we're saying? Would it then be fair to say the two articles not being a reason to put into the lead a "definition" that many would regard as "a bit out there" (e.g. the "it's used in a sentence together, so therefore it must be the same").

With nothing more than:

• first sentence in the CNN article and

* the notion that a report on intensive farming techniques and discussion in the same article about factory farming

Your view is a bit eccentric to say the least. I'd really like to see some reference beyond those two from an encyclopaedia or dictionary or anything that backs it up. We're also still without anything to support crops/aquaculture.. Which is needed to confirm your interpretation. Otherwise it's just going to continue pushing a minute/extreme niche interpretation to the point where we've arrived at a stalemate. NathanLee 18:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

FF again

Would you mind summarizing your thoughts here [4] about the title(s) and numbers of articles you'd prefer to see? In the hope of finding common ground between us all ... Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Link Farm

How do you see the PanoTools hatnotes page as a link farm? The term PanoTools can be either the group of a shortcut for Panorama Tools software. If you want to discuss this on the PanoTools discussion page that's fine but undoing others work without cause is not. The days of the 'wiki bullies' are over and if you have a problem, bring it up with an administrator if you can't get it worked out on the discussion page. (Wikipedia policy) I will have no tolerance for the personal attacks any longer and I will do whatever needed to have you ban if you keep up the practice. John Spikowski 23:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no conflict of interest and stating a fact with no promotion or bias. The Panorama Stitchers, Viewers and Utilities page has 9 references to the NG wiki and their mailing list. I have no links to the PanoTools group on that page. I would apprciate if you would edit as a person with your own agenda rather then bring the disputes between the two PanoTools groups to the Wikipedia. John Spikowski 07:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

"are behaving in a very disruptive manner whilst presenting very little to the site"

I did 95% of the Panorama Stitchers, Viewers and Utilities page. The NG bitter bunch just change the PanoTools group reference for 8 months on the Panorama Tools page. What are your contributions? (besides the talk and discussion pages) John Spikowski 08:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, besides the nearly 6000 edits across the site, none... I have no interest in the content of this subject. I am simply acting in a neutral manner to stop the stupid war that has been going on across the pages - as the group of editors who edit the pages regularly don't seem to want to do this. -Localzuk(talk) 08:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John_Spikowski"

If your not associated then why won't you discuss the merits of a hatnotes page over redirection? John Spikowski 08:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

SanchiTachi

You may be interested in participating in the WP:AN/I involving SanchiTachi. Finell (Talk) 05:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi there Localzuk. Its been quiet on the AR front recently, so I haven't seen much of your around. You'll probably have noticed that SanchiTachi approached me for assistance in trying to buid some bridges with you after a recent dispute. As I told him, my experience with you is as a reasonable and good faith editor. I think SanchiTachi too edits with good intentions, though may have perhaps got a little caught up in some issues and is in danger of missing the wood among the trees. I think we have all done that at some point or another, though.

Anyway, therefore there is no reason he shouldn't be able to work with you, and you with him. I see you have approached SanchiTachi again yourself. Therefore I'm happy to let you guys talk things through yourself without me butting in. However, if you feel there is something I can help you with, or if I can mediate in some way, do let me know (my email is activated should you wish to speak privately). Best wishes, Rockpocket 18:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Animal rights

It appears to me that you and SlimVirgin have been working together on a number of animal rights-related articles including Animal testing and Factory farming, among others. In these two cases you became embroiled in protracted and vitriolic discussions, and appeared not to value the contributions of all users. This concerns me not only because I happen to disagree with many of your positions, but because I fear that good contributors might be driven away from the project, and the result will be biased articles of poor quality. Do you think that there is any way you could change your behavior to cause less conflict?

I have sent this message to SlimVirgin as well and if you would like to respond together or separately feel free to do so on her talk page, here, or my talk page - whichever you prefer. Haber 00:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

RfM

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 Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Factory farming, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

external links

External links used as citations/references are not covered by Wikipedia:External links. The links at Panorama Stitchers, Viewers and Utilities are footnotes and embedded citations. So they are both citation/reference links. Citation/reference links are covered by Wikipedia:Citing sources. See also: Wikipedia:Embedded citations.--Timeshifter 00:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I forget how I originally came to your talk page. But I noticed your discussion with John Spikowski about this page:

• Panorama Stitchers, Viewers and Utilities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

So I that is why I commented about citation/reference links not being covered by Wikipedia:External links. Fortunately, you did not delete citation/reference links. But you either did not read the talk page, or did not understand it, or did not agree with what I wrote there about non-notable entries being allowed on lists and charts. The topic must be notable. Not every entry. You wrote on the talk page: "Remove any non-notable programs from this list." That is not what the wikipedia guidelines say.

It looks like John Spikowski has abandoned the page, and redirected it to a completely different page without merging the material. I was trying to avoid more highly-skilled editors like John from giving up on some major wikipedia work after being harassed by certain wikipedia editors who are misinterpreting and abusing wikipedia guidelines. Oh well... many hours and days of work down the drain.

Your unjustified deletion of the external links section was probably the last straw:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Panorama_Stitchers%2C_Viewers_and_Utilities&diff=133977112&oldid=133948768

Your reasoning for doing so was incorrect. --Timeshifter 08:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope, my reasoning was 100% correct. Here is one part of WP:EL which covers the forums:

# Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET. from WP:EL

Here is one which covers the personal site that was at mac.com:

# Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority from WP:EL

The last bunch, the tutorials, come under these 2:

Links should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links. from WP:EL

Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. from WP:NOT.

As wikipedia isn't a howto site, we don't include tutorials on subjects. Regarding that page, the problem as it stood was that you had a giant list of links - which is a bad thing, as wikipedia isn't a collection of links. Asking for it to be reduced falls well inline with out policies. I hope you understand, Localzuk^(talk) 10:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I moved your above reply to your talk page here to avoid confusion and duplication. I have your talk page on my watchlist. That way I will be able to see when you reply here.

"written by a recognized authority". That is one link you should not have deleted. Also, linking to tutorials is not prohibited by Wikipedia:External links. It was not a giant list of non-citation external links. I count 10 in John Spikowski's last version:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Panorama_Stitchers%2C_Viewers_and_Utilities&oldid=134008143

10 is not too many non-citation external links to have in an external links section. Non-citation external links are the only links covered by Wikipedia:External links.--Timeshifter 10:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but how is that person an authority? There is no such evidence of that. There is nothing in the resume page, the site is called 'Ponyboy'! It is a personal site, plain and simple.

Yes, the howto's are covered by WP:EL but they are also covered by the overriding function of this site: It is an encyclopedia, not a howto site or an indiscriminate collection of links. This is part of WP:NOT which is one of the 5 pillars of the site, which can't be overriden by any policies...

Also, ten links on a page such as that is a lot of links.-Localzuk^(talk) 10:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

One can look at many of the links you deleted and see that they are written by experts in the field. The names don't matter. They don't even have to be notable names for an external link. They just have to be obvious experts. I see that you are correct about discussion forum links not being allowed. Though I don't see the logic for blocking access to forums with experts replying. I will try to change that part of the guideline if I can get consensus on the guideline talk page. The links to tutorials are not blocked by any wikipedia guideline. Show me a quote specifically blocking such links. You may think that because wikipedia is not supposed to have tutorial pages as wikipedia articles, that wikipedia can not link to tutorials. That is incorrect. Take out the 3 links to lists and forums, and there remain 7 non-citation external links. There is no number named at WP:EL concerning how many external links are allowed. A dozen non-citation external links is pretty common, and in my opinion most editors don't think that is too many. --Timeshifter 11:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That's the thing - policies don't have to outline every single type of link. They are covered by common sense and the knowledge of what this site is. The opening paragraph to WP:EL adequately covers howto sites with Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks); or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to their reliability (such as reviews and interviews). - They are not includable for any reason so shouldn't be linked to either.

Also, mailing lists are a form of forum so are not acceptable either. You will not be able to get the guideline changed on that one as it is a very important aspect of our linking policies - forums are full of unsourced opinion with no fact checking and in most cases don't have any way of ascertaining whether someone is who they say they are.

Also, 'expert' means a recongised expert and not just someone who seems to know what they are doing/saying - else I could put up a site about Windows 2003 server and claim it is acceptable as I know what I am doing with that software.

Of the links on the diff you showed me I just can't see any of them being acceptable as links, and another user has agreed with me on it too.-Localzuk^(talk) 11:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Even your vague misinterpretation of WP:EL does not disallow links to tutorials. The other user who agrees with you also uses these type of vague misinterpretations. But mostly to delete citation/reference links. He is also the only person still disagreeing with the idea of making the introduction clearer as to exactly what WP:EL covers. WP:EL covers non-citation external links only.

John Spikowski is an expert in his field. He would recognize other experts in the field. So you should not have deleted the non-citation links without asking him first about the expertness of the people writing those pages. --Timeshifter 11:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Would that "other user" happen to be me? Sorry User:Timeshifter but you're the one with the incorrect interpretation of Wikipedia rules. I think it might be time for the WP:TROUT. (Requestion 16:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

Thanks

for the support here. Not a dog 15:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Our policies?!

Normally I'd just ignore such a message, given that I already replied to it on the talk page, but come on, "our policies"? Do you really think you speak for "the wiki", or even have a grasp of what those policies are, in total? I know I don't.

It's precisely the sort of lawyeristic slavish following of the rules that is ruining the wiki. It seems that once any collection of people grows beyond some limit defined by the efficiency of the information flow, it invariably gets taken over by bureaucrats that add no value and simply make everyone upset. RESIST!

The only real measure of value is value, the rating that the readers give it. And the readers were clearly not amused.

So like I said on the talk page, if you have some specifics, by all means, post them up there. But V and OR are not suicide pacts, nor dull weapons to bludgeon other editors, as it was used in this case.

Maury 22:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Your attempt at sarcasm was poor, IMHO. Keep practicing... who knows, a Beeb job may await... Maury 22:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Factory farming. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 08:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

RE:Just so you know

I'm not sure why the people who originally numbered the episodes used Production order rather than Broadcast order but I have heard a couple good reasons why and I'm yet to hear a good reason to change it. One aspect is that Futurama was broadcast completely out of order and even split into five broadcast seasons where as there are only four production seasons, this obviously has potential to confuse viewers. The production order maintains what little continuity there is in the show and seems to be preferred by most fans. As I said in my edit summary this is also the order used on the DVDs thus making it the easiest way for new fans to navigate and (as I know from personal experience) it is the order the episodes are broadcast when shown on Cartoon Network. I don't know how shows like The Simpsons and South Park decided to order their episodes as I am not actively involved in those areas of wiki. I do believe that Firefly which also aired in a disrupted order, also lists episodes by production order rather than broadcast order. Hope that answers your question. Stardust8212 16:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Animal rights activists

Actually, the category was deleted once via CFD and was recreated outside of process. The majority does not support this category, especially those who know anything about the subject matter. This is why there is a banner at the top of the talk page pointing to a deletion review. Unilaterally re-introducing it, regardless of the long history and discussion is not a good thing. Please stop and discuss.-Localzuk^(talk) 22:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It is hardly surprising that the category was recreated, when it is an obviously useful category in the same form as many others. Cfd discussions just represent the views of a tiny number of people in one particular week, so they are not permanently binding. The issue about activism/support is no different here from any other kind of activism; the only thing that is different is that a handful of people have got it totally out of proportion. The last discussion showed a large majority in favour of using the category. Point me to the discussion that created a consensus to block use of the category, and comment on whether it occurred before or after the discussion in which there was a large majority in favour of using it. The unique ban on this category, which is not applied to any other type of activism, sticks out like a sore thumb as an application of POV. Honbicot 23:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Vegan

Thanks for your edits on Vegan.

I put the cite check and OR templates there last night, because I ended up 2RR ,when working with a revert-editor, and could not keep correcting the statements to match the sources. It seems you corrected most of what was wrong. Thanks.

Pretty much the only thing I still see as a citecheck is the last line of the lead, which doesn't match the source. I've not seen any recommendations which actually and specifically called out the type of supplement. All the sources i've read stop at the words 'recommend a supplement'. But that is probably a petty detail.

Thanks again. Peace. Lsi john 18:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Supermajority

Hahaha. Relax, I just posted that because there are those who cannot (or do not want to) respond to serious posts. Basically giving those people something like this to respond to keeps them out of the way of the "real discussion". Consider those who responded to the "superdupermajority" post, but did not bother responding to my other post on the same page providing some level of proof of both notability and the availability of additional attributable, reliable, verifiable sources. So AFAIC "superdupermajority" did it's job well. Oh, and if you missed the point of that post, 83% is larger than 66%. SqlPac 19:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You need to grab a cup of tea and go relax somewhere. I'm not too interested in what does or does not offend you. Not my problem. Good bye.

And while you are at it, you should follow your own advice and post to both talk pages. "Practice what you preach". SqlPac 22:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You consider the following quote offensive: "Yes, that's the same ALF currently under discussion."? Or is it this quote that so offends you: "Pound for pound it seems you find less academic content and more stuff about state flags and celebs du jour around here." According to you it is inherently offensive to state the nature of the content currently located on Wikipedia is primarily concerned with state flags and celebs du jour? Is that correct? Are you serious? Think about that for about 30 seconds and see what conclusion you come up with.

Personally I find the following offensive: "Please keep the personal opinions about what should be generally here to yourselves, they are inappropriate." You really, really need to leave me alone with this "stuff". I am certainly not interested in what offends you, your double-standards, nor your WikiLawyering. You have a nice day now, and please don't contact me again. SqlPac 22:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Onechectomy

I saw you are in the Animal Rights WP and was wondering if you are against Declawing animals or Onychectomy? The userbox is located at {{User:PatPeter/User nocatdeclaw}}

So just copy the title as you are viewing and put it with the {{ }} and w/o the [[ ]] to your userpage. -PatPeter 18:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

regarding: why bother?

Moving and Labeling is the key: the reader is served by finding what they are looking for.

If they are looking for complete, error-free, highly technical data on some technology; then they shouldn't have to wade through 'critisms', 'contoversies', and etcetera. That's not what the reader is interested in. But an other reader is interested in these things. Both would be served by clear and faithful navigation.

Worse case scenarios:

• drama, opinion, &c: recognize it as such (tactfully), and label it as such.

There are middle-of-the-road readers who are dispassionately interested - they just want to know what's going on. Consider them to be a cardinal audience in these cases: at which point you can, legitimately, both disagree with the more passionate authors, yet respect them as a source. What they have to say does have value, just as historical battles do.

• original work and unsupported data: wikipedia has as yet not fully realized it's full potential for original work.

If some guy that served in WWII wanted to contribute, I would hope that he would: he's not a professor, or any one with a book deal; yet, his contributions as first witness are of value. Likewise, when an author figures out a more clean way of expressing a set of ideas, their contribution has merit. And were Lorentz or Einstein around today, I would hope that they would contribute their insights on the electrodynamics of motion - all subject to the wikipedia community.

The key is correctly categorizing such things and in aiding the wikipedia community in vetting materials. I'm sure their are other WWII veterans that can recognize the truth or inaccuracy of an other's contribution (appropriate peers, right here within the community). I'm sure that many general readers can appreciate and recognize an improvement or degradation in the clarity, relevance, and utility of a paragraph. And their are many with the technical background to dispute or reinforce the insights of Lorentz (Poincaré in fact published his own article with a correction to Lorentz's equations; today, the two could have done it more quickly on wikipedia, and the reader would have been better served by seeing the finished cooperative product instead of two partial, one incorrect, articles). Einstein, Lorentz, Poincaré, and many others faithfully categorized and labeled their contributions. The wikipedia community can help do the same in the modern era.

ff

Considering that the intent right now is to get the "Factory farming" article into a usable shape, streamlining it and making actually accurate seems quite necessary. Jav43 16:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You apparently don't understand "the concept of waiting until discussions are finished", but whatever. Please give me about 30 minutes before you revert again; I'd like to make an extensive review of the current article. Jav43 16:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, on a side note: "Otherwise it simply shows that you don't care about consensus building and just want to carry on with your own methods regardless." That is an excellent point. That is exactly what SlimVirgin has been doing. Interesting, huh? Jav43 16:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Factory farming RfM

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 Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/factory_farming, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. Jav43 17:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Assume Good Faith

Edgarde, your comment to Quadell completely fails to assume good faith. The editor above has provided what he thinks is justification and you have completely ignored that statement (he asks you a question which you haven't answered). Please enter into civil discourse over this issue as I am sure you can come to some form of agreement over it. Thanks, Localzuk^(talk) 16:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe my answer to Quadell's question was ... in the instance of the Supermodel article where an existing image was adequate or better. Are you encouraging me to be drawn into a debate on the merits of one supermodel over another? It is a side-issue and not relevant to my objections to Quadell's campaign, so I don't understand why I should be so obliged. / edg ☺ ★ 17:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You have speculated about the editors intent. You didn't answer his question, you side-stepped it and revert warred over the image in question (which means you have entered into the debate). So my comment is based on your speculation. You failed to ask Quadell what his intent was before engaging in negative comments - this is not assuming good faith.-Localzuk^(talk) 17:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I lack perspective on this. As far as I can see, Quadell is a *&^% spammer. On your advice, I've done my best to answer Quadell's question — tho I may not understand it — apologized to Quadell, unreverted Model (person) and struck my vote from Wikipedia:Featured Picture Candidates. Not really sure any of this is right, but I'll figure it out later, and didn't want to wait to undo any of the damage I may have done. / edg ☺ ★ 18:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Minefield 3.0a7pre image

As the image is on Commons, it does not have any copyright issues. On the description page, it is appropriately tagged as a free software screenshot, as Firefox is, well, free software. The Minefield logo and the GUI is licensed under the MPL, as Mozilla made those. GPL is also for Firefox, but it includes MediaWiki, which is licensed as such. The GNU FDL is there because all text on Wikipedia has to be licensed as such, and finally, CopyrightByWikimedia is for the various Wikimedia favicons that are on the tabs. In the meantime, I've scratched out all copyrighted and possibly copyrighted material from the image. (→vishwin60 - is User:O in 3 days (possibly)) 18:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Then how do you compare it to this, this, and all these? What operating system it is does not matter if you are showing a free software program; it only matters if it shows the operating system itself (i.e. Windows 2000). (→vishwin60 - is User:O in 2 days (possibly)) 19:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, they are not fair use, unless it depicts Windows itself. The focus of the shot is not Windows, unlike this. What matters is the direct result of the program source code, which is exactly the Minefield shot depicts. (→vishwin60 - is User:O in 2 days (possibly)) 19:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Can I have a source or a detailed rationale for the Microsoft part? Firefox (or any variants of it) is never any intellectual property of Microsoft, but it is more Mozilla. Quoted from the template {{Free screenshot}}:

“ if the screenshot shows any work that is not a direct result of the program code itself, such as a text or graphics that are not part of the program, ”

The titlebar of the program in question cannot be copyrighted by Microsoft, because a titlebar is there for any "normal" program. Furthermore, according to your logic, any screenshots coming from Red Hat Enterprise Linux, even though it's Linux, are not free either. (→vishwin60 - is User:O in 2 days (possibly)) 19:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You've missed my point entirely. It does not matter if Microsoft owns the copyright to the GUI of Windows; what does matter is that the Firefox developers programmed a titlebar in the first place. Software programs can have no titlebars if the programmer(s) don't feel like coding it on. In this case, the titlebar is part of the direct result of the source code and cannot be copyrighted unless the software program in question was not free. (→vishwin60 - is User:O in 2 days (possibly)) 19:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The titlebar cannot be attributed to Microsoft, because it is used by practically every program that even runs on Windows, plus the fact that the titlebar is part of the program source code. The fact that it was even in the source code means that it is not copyrighted. (→vishwin60 - is User:O in 2 days (possibly)) 20:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) Well, the design may be copyrighted, but the API is not. Even though the design is shown on the shot, it is part of the API, which in turn is part of the program's source code. What only matters is what comes out of compiling the source. I advise you to look at the shots of Paint.NET and see that they are also free shots (Paint.NET is released under MIT license). (→vishwin60 - is User:O in 1 day (possibly)) 13:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The design is, but the API isn't. Even though it's shown on the shot, it is still not copyrighted given that it is part of the API, which in turn is part of the program source code. No matter what design is used, the only copyright there is on the image is the license the program is licensed under. (→vishwin60 - is User:O in 1 day (possibly)) 16:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Please carefully read {{Free screenshot}}, as all of my logic is stored there. (→vishwin60 - is User:O in 1 day (possibly)) 18:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but you've been mistaken. The titlebar is part of the program code itself regardless of the theme used to properly display it. (→vishwin60 - is User:O in 1 day (possibly)) 19:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's the source file, additionally this and this. (→vishwin60 - is User:O in 1 day (possibly)) 21:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith and wp:own

On the PETA page. At least look at the talk page. All edits were good edits made in good faith towards the betterment of the article. You removed all my fact tags for Christ's sake! You are doing crazy things. Turtlescrubber 21:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

civility

I am not intending to offend. It does seem, however, that you do not have much true knowledge of the subject area. From your statements that farmers are generally wealthy to your admitted lack of knowledge of basic industry terms... perhaps you're an expert in animal rights (not being one myself, I'm not qualified to judge), but it does appear that you lack a basic understanding of modern agricultural practices. Jav43 22:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Factory farming. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 12:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC).

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Factory farming. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 12:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC).

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Factory farming. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 20:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC).