User talk:Renamed user e8LqRIqjJf2zlGDYPSu1aXoc/Archive 17
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
File:USS.svg missing description details
is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 16:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Orphaned non-free media (File:Arch Coal Inc. logo.svg)
Thanks for uploading File:Arch Coal Inc. logo.svg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Looks like it got replaced by a more recent logo. Checked Arch's current form 10K filing, which reflects the newer logo (unfortunately it's a raster image in the PDF this time). Can't really object to the web version of the new logo replacing this one under the circumstances. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
File:USS.svg missing description details
is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 16:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)- Third time I'm hearing about this. Not my problem.
{{bots|deny=Theo's Little Bot}}fixes everything. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Juan Dominguez Lawyer page
Good Morning, The removal of the tellez v dole and dominguez after tellez content is based on a long discussion on the pages talk page. Please reference, you will see where the discussion was brought to a final with the agreement of moving the content to a different page. Therefore, the content is to be remove. I am going to remove the content again. Please use the talk page before you make any additions, thanks you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.185.18.207 (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Duluth mid air collision and WP:BLP
Before you suggested[1] I spend time on other articles do to Duluth's AFD probable closure as a delete, I had already decided to leave the article alone. In the meantime Martin451 reverted[2] every edit I made to the article. Clearly he is practicing WP:OWN.
Acting passively in this case is allowing WP:BLP to be violated. BLP reads in part- "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research)." The article says the Cessnas are owned Chuck Androsky and the basis for that is a 2010 news article. No news article since the crash says Chuck Androsky still owns the aircraft. The closest any comes is here when a Mark Androsky says his family owns the aircraft involved.
The article therefore violates both BLP and not to mention WP:OR by Martin451 drawing the conclusion Chuck Androsky still owns the aircraft based on sources which don't specifically say that. What harm can be produced to Mr. Androsky by just leaving it there? Nobody was killed in the accident. That doesn't mean no harm can't be caused to him by possibly false statements against him. BLP is a Wikipedia core policy that tries to avoids these situations.
I feel very strongly about this. A little over a year ago I came across PauknAir Flight 4101. A aviation accident that killed 38 people or everyone on board. The article[3] gave the cause of the accident as being 'A greater than allowable blood alcohol level of the pilot'. Which is totally untrue if one checks the accident report which in fact the article linked to. When I fixed[4] the article, I wrote this edit summary- 'Real nice. Slandering the dead pilot for almost 3 years aka since this article was created. Multiple News sources say the pilot wasn't drunk. The 13-year-old editor who wrote the article linked to the report with the right info' How would you have felt if you were a family member of the dead pilot? My user page makes mention of this and another aviation accident editor gave me a barnstar for cleaning up PauknAir Flight 4101.
Hurt can be potentially done if you don't adhere to WP:BLP or leave other badly sourced information in a article. Just letting you know how I feel. Maybe you may want to remove it after reading this. The AFD is borderline snowball close at the moment. If a couple of more editors come in saying delete, the article may be gone very soon....William 14:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- I had actually intended to address the possibility of BLP issues, and that it is helpful to keep an eye out for them no matter who you are. I do agree with you and think you're doing good work, by the way. My intent was merely to point out that there are times when taking a step back and letting things settle can be appropriate. But, as you point out, you were doing just that until you saw BLP issues, and that's fine. By the way, I checked the FAA aircraft registry. Both aircraft are indeed currently registered to Androsky. But that doesn't exactly excuse the old source. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Medical historian redirect
I'm surprised you're insistent that "Medical historian" more commonly refers to one who takes a medical history than to a historian of medicine. Can you provide sources that support your position? This search in Google books finds historians, not history takers: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22medical+historian%22+-Wikipedia. I found one legal case that says "Russell explained this is because young children generally are not reliable medical historians for themselves", but one swallow does not make a summer. Fences&Windows 15:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- It's the only way I've ever seen "medical historian" used. But the search engine test has proved me wrong before. Ho hum. Seems you may be correct. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you.
I just wanted to say thank you for your contributions on the Administrator Incidents page because I was worried there would be a lack of opinions on the matter. I hope we can work together some other time on future issues. --Olowe2011 (talk) 09:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Jean-Claude Usunier
Sorry but what did I advertise on Jean-Claude Usunier page !? Happydit (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Spamming links to Amazon and the book publisher in there is promotional. And this is just one instance of said behavior. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fine of lands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Covenant (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
December 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Louis Joseph Posner may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- 03_10/index.htm] [[Yale University]], Conference: Grassroots use of the Internet, March 10, 2001 ]</ref>
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rule in Shelley's Case, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Civil law (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edward III of England, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Edward Windsor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
What do you think?
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lawline/Archive
Special:Contributions/What88
Special:Contributions/RobinHood99
Community of interest, same POV - I don't want to go off halfcocked, but this is beginning to look a bit suspicious - JohnInDC (talk) 17:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry I've been out, in part due to the holidays. I think What88 is certainly connected to Lawline in some way, if not as a sockpuppet, probably as some sort of meatpuppet. The naming of the latter two accounts is at least interesting, and taken with the intersection of editing interests, is certainly suspicious. I'm also interested insofar as I recall Lawline's reaction at one point to be demanding the article just be deleted, and we can compare current developments here as well. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 04:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- So, you have suspicions and that is why you are going through all of my articles and editing them to death?
I really find some of this insulting and belittling, and at this juncture in my life, not something that I need to put up with. Wikipedia users and editors are anonymous; and yes, some of us have friends, family members and colleagues that may share some of our points of view. In the meantime, I simply do not have the time to be constantly rewriting articles and defending myself against attacks from the Editors at Wikipedia. I was really hoping to get more involved with Wikipedia, but it does not seem like the best use of my limited and precious time. In light of the stringent standards that Wikipedia has for "notability", I have decided that at this juncture that the appropriate course of action is a request for "speedy deletion" for some of the articles that I have created or that I was planning on improving. User:What88 08:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- I have reviewed your extremely detailed analysis. In my view, the most significant statistic is that I have been involved with close to 1,000 edits of articles. Your investigation of User lawline indicates that this User was banned for making legal threats against Wikipedia. On the contrary, despite some disagreements in editing, this User has not made any legal threats against Wikipedia as First Amendment rights are very important and should not be stifled.User:What88 22:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- I am also concerned that JohnInDC is a sockpuppet of User:Mendaliv. As soon as User:Mendaliv stopped with aggressive edits of my articles, JohnInDC came in with the same aggressive edits and tone. The nature of the comments were very close in point of view. I believe that the use of sockpuppets by an Administrator or Editor is a serious abuse of power. Note further that JohnInDC has no User Page set up and masks behind his user comments. In fact, JohnInDC had deleted some relevant comments on his talk page. User:What88 01:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I have a couple of thoughts re the latest contribution to the Posner AfD and made them to User:January here. JohnInDC (talk) 13:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Is there a full moon?
I, too, sometimes enjoy it when, to quote Tom Lehrer (specifically from his narrative on the 1959 album An Evening Wasted With Tom Lehrer, reproduced here) the outpatients are out in force. Happy new year and best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC) PS: If you're not familiar with the decidedly, by today's standards, non-pc joys of Tom Lehrer, you might want to take a listen. He got better as he went along, with his 1965 (and last of only 3) album That Was the Year That Was being IMHO, his best (though Evening is almost as good). If you've got Spotify, they're available. — TM 15:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- I swear, there are days I wonder if I should've gone into forensic accounting or something similar. But instead I'm going to be spending 40 hours next week seeing how I take to trial advocacy. Thanks for the album suggestions: I'll try to take a listen when I'm doing prep work outside of class. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Posner AFD
As requested, a copy of your comment from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis J. Posner (2nd nomination):
- Keep if not Speedy keep. This is a nomination by a sockpuppet of a de facto banned editor, Lawline. As such it should be speedily kept. But since we talked about renominating at the last AfD a few days ago, let's look at the merits:
- Posner is notable per WP:BIO/WP:BASIC, which require the subject to have been "the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." "Multiple" has, in my experience, usually meant simply "greater than one", the more the better, but Posner meets this requirement. Dealing with his suit against Central Synagogue (not in the article at this time) Posner was subject to a 539 word article in the New York Law Journal, an industry periodical (Posner later brought suit over this article for libel, which was dismissed); as well as a short piece in United States Law Week (64 USLW 3446) summarizing Posner's petition for certiorari in that case. There is also coverage of Posner's role in Voter March, especially in 2001, though admittedly it's sparse and mostly refers to Voter March. Relating to Posner's arrest, conviction and disbarment, the New York Times ran an 827 word article on the arrest and accusations; Legal Intelligencier ran a 213 word article on the arrest and indictment, which was syndicated by New York Law Journal and National Law Journal; relating to the later seized funds issue, New York Law Journal ran an 1169 word article; and there are many, many more sources on this case.
- WP:PERP should not apply here. WP:PERP is explicitly limited to persons only known in connection with a criminal event or criminal trial. As discussed above, and in the previous AfD, Posner is known also for his involvement in the suit against Central Synagogue (which the industry press found significant enough to report on), and for his involvement in Voter March. Furthermore, the issue subsequent to the criminal trial, which involved payment of attorney's fees out of seized funds, did lead to some press, and I would argue is sufficiently outside the scope of the criminal event or trial (separate proceedings held much later, brought by the NYPD) to place that coverage outside of WP:PERP.
- AfD is not cleanup. We have here sources of the highest quality, though we also have some tabloid sources, and editors have reasonably been concerned about this. Such concerns belong at Talk:Louis J. Posner, and not here. The conviction and WP:BLP issues are red herrings, and all such concerns can be addressed by judicious editing. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)