Old discussions now at /Archive 1 / /Archive 2 / /Archive 3 / /Archive 4 / /Archive 5 / /Archive 6 / /Archive 7 / /Archive 8 / /Archive 9 / /Archive 10 / /Archive 11 / /Archive 12 / /Archive 13 / /Archive 14 / /Archive 15 / /Archive 16 / /Archive 17 / /Archive 18 / /Archive 19 / /Archive 20 / /Archive 21 / /Archive 22

Please add new comments below.

Dera Chris, the Rusian user bestalex has taken your map and modified it into POV version [1], first of all its not Tskhinval but Tskhinvali, Znaur but Znauri, and Akhalgori. These are official names and according to most english language based sources. Can you please correct the POV version and try to convince that Russian user to cease his POV pushing by chopping off "i" from the city names? Thanks a lot. Iberieli (talk) 03:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, the map has been reverted. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have posted a request for arbitration of User:Elonka on the WP:RFAR page. Bishonen | talk 20:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Way back in 2004 you uploaded Image:Vesuvius wright.jpg. There is an exact copy now on the commons, so I've put it up for Speedy. Just thought I'd give you a heads up. --Falcorian ^(talk) 02:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised to see you edit-warring at Nahum Shahaf, to re-insert material that called a BLP subject by a pejorative term.[2][3] Your edit summary said it was "reliably-sourced criticism",[4] but no, an opinion column with a passing mention, is not a reliable source, especially when the text in the Wikipedia article does not even match what was in the column.[5] I have removed the information from the article, and given my reasoning at the talkpage. Please do not re-insert the information unless you have better sources. Thanks, --Elonka 20:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky there's no silly 0RR on this article, lest information like this be kept in, regardless of consensus, blp and other real Wikipedia policy, now is it...hmmm? Shot info (talk) 21:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO and Elonka -- I've commented on this question and added some info on reliable sources, at article Talk. Thanks. Best wishes to both of you. HG | Talk 21:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC) fyi ChrisO -- please see the discussion on "conspiracy theorist" -- I've added a supporting source, on the one hand, but on the other hand I think your specific wording would need to be further qualified or contextualized. (e.g. "mainstream" is not fitting). HG | Talk 13:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been mentioned on User talk:Jimbo Wales by an anonymous editor who wants Jimbo to de-sysop you. Just letting you know. Cheers, Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(cross-posted here and at Jimbo's page) It appears to be true that ChrisO misused admin tools, by protecting (and unprotecting) the page in February 2008[6] and April 2008,[7][8][9] but I have seen no recent abuse of tools on Template:Countries of Europe, and ChrisO hasn't even edited the template since April (though he is still active on the talkpage). Asking Jimbo to de-sysop, based on something that happened a few months ago, seems a bit extreme, not to mention that Jimbo prefers that the community handles these kinds of situations (except in very very rare cases such as with the de-sysopping of User:Bedford). I do agree that ChrisO should not have been using tools at that template though, since he was not an uninvolved admin. Other than that, this issue is fairly stale. If there are other cases of ChrisO abusing tools, the best way to handle it is to bring them up (with diffs) at his talkpage. If the problems continue, a thread at WP:ANI or a Request for Comment would be the proper way to proceed. If there was community consensus that ChrisO had abused tools, he could choose to resign, or, as a last resort, the community could request de-sysopping via the Arbitration Committee. --Elonka 00:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed a request for arbitration where you are a named party. I am very concerned by Elonka's attempts to initiate a discussion of your desysopping. Disputes should not be allowed to fester. Hopefully formal dispute resolution will bring this controversy to an end. Jehochman ^Talk 07:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The August 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please continue this discussion on WP:RSN, not my Talk page. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Cris,

I find out that this article is badly supported and that many quotation is just fiction without any backing. Furthermore, I found out that article is locked for correction. Also in section "Discussion" I find out several important info on dr Darko Trifunovic well supported by appropriate sources, but this info is not included as integral part of article. Having whole situation as such, my free conclusion is that whole article is purposely constructed as it is. What we can do to improve quality of the article? Many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.166.125 (talk) 09:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'd suggest that you stop filling up the talk page with nonsense such as "Look like Wikipadia serve Jihadist and Terrorist purposes". Talk pages are not supposed to be used for off-topic purposes or to make attacks on people - see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Second, don't add your personal commentary to the article like you did in your last edits. Third, please take the time to read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; this is our single most important policy. We're not allowed to either praise or denigrate our subjects, but only to reflect what reliable, verifiable third-party sources say about them. Please see also Wikipedia:Biographies of living people for our policy on that topic. Finally, if you have any specific changes that you want to make, based on reliable, verifiable sources, please post them at Talk:Darko Trifunović and we can discuss them. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To claim that the Iranian national identity was somehow formed in 1970's is fringe nonsense. The "political propaganda" stuff doesn't belong in the lead either, I already discussed this in depth with Dab. I did not revert your edits, so show some courtesy in return, let me finish my edits, before making reverts. --CreazySuit (talk) 16:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to delete sourced, relevant material from expert sources because you have a POV disagreement with it you will be blocked. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you threading me with a block in the middle of a content dispute? --CreazySuit (talk) 16:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're violating a swathe of Wikipedia's policies, particularly the most important one - WP:NPOV. Let's be clear about this. We are meant to "represent fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." You are not supposed to delete sources because you have a personal disagreement with what they say. The sources you've been deleting are citations of leading experts - Sir Max Mallowan and Neil MacGregor, who, let's not forget, is the director of the museum in which the Cyrus Cylinder is located. Deleting sourced material because you don't agree with it is a severe violation of NPOV and will get you blocked by another admin if you don't cease. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not. Just because something is sourced, it doesn't mean that it merits an inclusion in the lead of an article. Others can also cheery-pick a source saying "Cyrus was awesome blah blah bah" and put it in the lead. The lead is suppose to be a summery of the article in a NPOV fashion, not a place to quote cherry-picked sources. --CreazySuit (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is your excuse for this edit? I repeat: you do not delete expert sources because you have a personal disagreement with what they say. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a violation of WP:FRINGE. Show me a serious academic that claims that Iranian identity was "newly constructed" in 1970's. If you're gonna quote this revisionist nonsense, you should put in a quotation mark. --CreazySuit (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this right - the Director of the British Museum is a fringe source? -- ChrisO (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His assertion is a fringe theory, not supported any serious academic. Do you seriously believe that the Iranian national identity constructed in 1970's? --CreazySuit (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my business to "believe" anything here. The director of the institution in which the cylinder is housed - who is himself a leading scholar and curator - has commented on the "human rights charter" viewpoint in a mainstream academic publication. His position and expertise make his viewpoint notable and significant. You're effectively elevating your own personal opinion, as a non-expert, above the professional opinion of someone who's better placed than almost anyone else to comment on the cylinder. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leading scholar of what? He's just an art historian, not an Iranolgist or a serious scholar of Iran or Achaemenids to be able to propose theories on "newly constructed Iranian national identity". My position is based on what other serious academics say about Iranian national identity. The notion that the Iranian national identity was somehow invented in 19070's is laughable. I am confident that you're familiar enough with the history of the region to know this as well. But you're being academically dishonest, and overlooking this very important detail. --CreazySuit (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you're promoting your own personal opinion. I repeat: NPOV requires us to report significant published viewpoints in reliable sources, whether or not you personally agree with them. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't apply to fringe theories. However, I proposed that we restore his comment, and put his assertions in quotation marks, to clearly attribute it to him. Do you agree with this compromise? --CreazySuit (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll find the exact words and restore them to the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great, please put them in quotation marks. If you check the history of that page, you'll see that I have done the same thing with the Iranian POV stuff, and I have had problems with Iranian editors as well. If you hadn't vilified me, threatened me with a block, and assumed a bit of good faith, we would not have wasted two hours arguing over nothing. Cheers. --CreazySuit (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't threaten anybody. But you need to be aware that deleting material because you don't personally agree with it simply is not done. If it's a reliably sourced significant viewpoint then there's no good reason to delete it. You might wish to have a look at Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A note on Iranian national identity: the belief that the last Shah tried to redefine national identity following his coronation in 1967 to de-emphasise indigenous Shi'ite traditions and to promote a pre-Islamic Persian/monarchist past is completely mainstream in academia, and belongs in the lead of the Cyrus cylinder article, as that artefact was a part of the process. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris,

I had left for a time international reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo, trusting you would dig through the evidence and help infuse NPOV content to this hijacked article. But it didn't happen.

During my collaborative work with Ian and others, our lone pro-Serbia (as opposed to pro-accurate Wikipedia) nemesis caused the article to be locked.

Could you at least come help making meritorious points in the discussion? At present we have editprotect requests, all consensual, except for the lone ranger opposing. The consensus-building needs more merit to be infused in the discussions. Hence this note. I hope this does not constitute canvassing. :) --Mareklug ^talk 17:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anything to save me from Iranian POV-pushers. ;-) I'll take a look - thanks for the note. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, your additions to the Cyrus Cylinder all contain negative connotations about Cyrus. If this page was related to a living person, some would call this a character assassination. In particular, the interpretation section is nothing but cherry-picked assertions about "how evil" Cyrus really was. In all fairness, so you honestly think that your edits are in line with WP:NPOV? --CreazySuit (talk) 18:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly think it's "cherry-picked assertions about "how evil Cyrus really was"". I'm simply reflecting mainstream scholarly views. I can assure you that I'm not trying to portray Cyrus in any particular light - I honestly don't have a personal view about his qualities. As a matter of fact, I don't believe that the material I added does have negative connotations. One of the greatest mistakes you can make in writing about history is to judge the past by the standards of the present. No doubt Cyrus himself would have seen his actions in a positive light - he was simply acting in a way that fitted his political needs at the time. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It tells everywhere in your edits, that precision of close control of sources by a ranging and erudite mind, is something rare these days, and can't but remind certain readers of the sadly dwindling classrooms where these techniques are the staple of a humanistic forma mentis. I don't doubt that you caught the allusion in my use of 'nebulous'. You can wear its source (Juvenal10:1-4.)as a description of your own palmary contribution to this encyclopedia (I have long considered throwing a barnstar your way, but I don't know how to do it properly)

Omnibus in terris, quae sunt a Gadibus usque
Auroram et Gangen, pauci dinoscere possunt
vera bona atque illis multum diversa, remota
erroris nebula.

If you can find a barnstar format to fit that, give it to me and I'll gladly post it on your page.

Best wishes, Chris Nishidani (talk) 09:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer "citation needed", but then that's been done - xkcd. ;) Verbal chat 08:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV Warrior! - or Uninvolved Admin  :-) Shot info (talk) 08:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For your assistance in addressing the real-world stalking that arose from a year-old wiki dispute, thank you. And good-bye. Pfagerburg (talk) 02:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Frontier elite2 screenshot.gif. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re your comment -- well, yes, but we need to make perfectly clear that the "all POVs are equal" or "all sources are of equal value" approach is in direct violation of WP:NPOV (via WP:DUE), and could anyone embracing it please step forward, hand over their admin buttons and leave the project. Everyone is free to privately entertain any views or ideologies they choose, but when it comes to editing behavior, Wikipedia administrators acting in direct violation of Wikipedia core principles is something we should not tolerate. If the reason is cognitive limitations (Hanlon's razor), we are called upon to be patient and understanding -- these are unpaid volunteers after all. If the reason is downright disagreement with what Wikipedia is trying to do, the only answer can be, you can't be an admin and oppose project goals (you can't even be an editor and oppose project goal, although in practice you get to prance around for months or years before this is acted upon). dab (𒁳) 15:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Xenu nip-tuck.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 that will be useful. However, please note that images 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to maintain the trust you have placed in me. I am honored by your trust and your support. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 02:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I kindly ask you to participate in the discussion about Zadar article recent history section in order to achieve a more NPOV version. I feel that current version is one sided and has issues that need to be resolved. Thank you. 78.30.150.253 (talk) 13:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Image:Iraq map najaf.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Iraq map najaf.png|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. - AWeenieMan (talk) 18:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ChrisO, LarnoMan told me of your mishaps, and this is his view, as I don't have a view of your mishaps yet. But I think the Ancient Mesopotamia.. book you referenced was wrong, I read p. 113 and it did not say what you wrote on Wikipedia, and you added unnessary OR to your own writings, I JUST improved it. So here are the points;

• First, you say Grayson is supported by more historians than Lambert, BUT you forget that the more historians still believe in the OUTDATED TRANSLATION.

• Second, Lambert is the superior or teacher or mentor I think of Grayson, so if he discovered Grayson, his students translation is wrong, then its OUTDATED, Wikipedia was made to look for the truth with some reference, not look for the OUTDATED truth with a lot of reference, your arguement is missing the point.

• Thirdly, for some reason, you use the word PROPAGANDA too much, its intresting that this propaganda is supported by the Torah, and other Babylonian texts, WITH the Jews migration back to Israel, which histogeographers now do not doubt. You must really read the Cyrus Cylinder yourself to realize he is refering to the CITY of Babylon being liberated, which he liberates the Jews that is why the call him the Messiah, but he's not Jewish so they still believe the Messiah has not come yet. And that he is NOT refering to ALL of the citizens of the Babylonian EMPIRE being liberated.

• Finally, it is fact that Cyrus did defeat the soldiers, so why believe in the OUTDATED translation that say's he slaughtered the people? And, Akkad is by Opis, so the soldiers were composed of the people of Akkad, and if you look in the casualties section, I before had believed in the wrong translation and put tens to hundreds of thousands dead on the Babylonian side, which I will change soon.

So, I am sorry if I'm sounding harsh and taking sides, it is time to take side or be on the side, I think your not taking any sides to be fair and balanced, but WHY be fair and balanced to the wrong translation? Finally, anyways I greatly appreciate the time you took to read this, and don't forget I CAN make this longer, I am putting the main points here, and sorry if I had offended you earlier, if you could just give me a worthy response I would be honored, thank you.--Ariobarza (talk) 08:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

I WAS going to support my vandalism with sourcers very soon but you reverted them.

Frustrating, isn't it. He seems a nice guy, editing in good faith but still confused over policy and guidelines. I've given up on his articles for a while, I've had more rewarding things to do on Wikipedia. But he really needs to learn how to write articles. Doug Weller (talk) 09:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that you blocked user:Sinbad Barron. I don't want to go on a fishing expedition, but user:Billy Bollox has an awfully similar user page and area of interest. I feel the duck test is in order... // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 21:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed the same too after I blocked BB. I'll put in a checkuser request. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And another - User:Billy_Bollinja. At least he makes it easy. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 11:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Persistent, isn't he? -- ChrisO (talk) 11:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really appreciate it if you'd go back and strike out a comment you made about a username, that's a pet peeve of mine, someone messing around with someone else's name. It's also uncivil too, isn't it? Doug Weller (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, yes, you're right - done. I think you can understand my frustration though! Where do we find these people? -- ChrisO (talk) 13:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do, and I was about to revert my edit when you added this. But we need to restrain ourselves, especially when dealing with people who don't show restraint. Doug Weller (talk) 13:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

inFIghting above, But You know its this streched truth and riduculus accusations that make a situation more worse than it already is, like saying that I dont know what peer view is, which I was talking about how good the peer view Lamberts thing was, not what is peer view itself, and this calling of names like nationa... you know I'm tired of saying that word, this escalating of disputes furthermore hinders wikipedias goal, and progress. I came up with a solution if you read the last thing I wrote in the Opis talk page, if you read then you would not say suchs thing, so if you could see it, that would be great huh? Thank you BUDDY'L POW! YOU must read it, its actually really well written really, really!--Ariobarza (talk) 08:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

WHEN I SAID, Leave it to the audience to decide what is the best translation, I ment people reading wikipedia, not us. I am totally against the idea that WE choose the best translation, as were not the academics. Im in the centerist, I would include all translations in a free of bias matter and write pros and cons of different historians, and let the people wonder about it. This is almost the repeat of what I said on the Opis talk page, WHICH I'M not SURE IF YOU UNDERSTOOD WHAT I MEANT, I HOPE YOU DO NOW, thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 08:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza[reply]

Hi,

User:Sinbad Barron, User:Billy Bollox: please see their editing patterns and time when one was blocked-the other appeared. Is this a case for checkuser? Cheers, --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked them both indefinitely - they're clearly socks. Please do let me know if you see any fresh socks being created. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding the eXile and user:Dsol]]

24.127.162.147 (talk) 22:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the image on Wiki Commons of the above. I've used it in the article about Sir Edward Louis Spears. Unfortunately, there are no pix on Commons of 3-4 Carlton House Gardens, the HQ of the Free French. There is, I believe, a statue outside the house and also a blue plaque. It would be useful to have it uploaded to Wikipedia Commons. Are you often out and about in London? If so, might you be able to help? Mikeo1938 (talk) 11:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sure I could manage that. I should be able to do it at the weekend, if you can hang on that long. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. There is no immediate rush. A request for such a pic has been on the Discussion page of the de Gaulle article for months but no one has responded! If you could get 3 shots that would be VG. Perhaps the plaque, the statue of CDG and also a shot of the building. Mikeo1938 (talk) 13:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't want to push my luck ... but if ever you are near 28 Queen Anne's Gate, could you take a shot of the house, pse? This was the home of Ronald Tree and was often used for meetings of 'The Eden Group'. Apparently there was a division bell at the house and so Members could hurry back when it rang. Louis Spears was a member of the Eden Group; it would be nice to include a picture of the house in the section which mentions same. Thank you. Mikeo1938 (talk) 17:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to calculate the total KB size of the all various images in an article? Presumably the size indicated with the file in Commons is far greater than the size of the image when it's on a page. I ask because I see that images do not count as 'readable text' when assessing the size (length) of an article. Your comments would be appreciated.Mikeo1938 (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've found out what to do from one of the Help pages. It seems that the images do not count towards the size. Thanks anyway.Mikeo1938 (talk) 22:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ChrisO~enwiki. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 04:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - please see my comments about him on the RfC. He's different. Doug Weller (talk) 10:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can, but can you? First of all, you should know that this is not a one-way street. From the moment I have met you, you have been rude and hostile toward me, calling me, an ethnic Kurd whose father had been in prison for 7 years during both the Shah and Khomeini's regimes, an "Iranian nationalist" and "Shah lover", and lumping me together with anyone and everyone you could, including a teenage girl who I had never heard of until last week, all because we disagreed on a subjective matter. Now you're even labeling KhoiKhoi, an American Jew, an "Iranian nationalist" too. Has it ever occurred to you that you could be wrong sometimes? The impression I have got from is that you have a preconceived opinion on certain subjects, and then transfer that opinion into an essay with a thesis statement. Can you moderate your behavior? Can you keep an open mind toward the opposing editors and respect WP:AGF? Can you respect the neutral point of view and WP:UNDO, and stop cherry-picking sources to prove a thesis? I am willing to work toward a compromise, are you? --CreazySuit (talk) 19:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ChrisO I really need your help. There is this one administrator jayjig that keeps on abusing his powers, basically his edits are all POV and pro-Zionist, he has a strong network of Zionist administrators that are working with him and they are all ganging up on me!!!!no joke..the problem is that for this article Syrian military presence in Lebanon jayjig keeps on reverting the NPOV title to the POV title Syrian occupation of Lebanon..Now ChrisO if you read the discussion page you will notice that almost half of the editors disagree with the title Syrian occupation of Lebanon..therefore there is NO consesus that agrees with the latter title...but jayjig keeps erroneuslly saying that there is consensus..where there isn't....and another thing ..he keeps on deleting my sourced refernces because they are not compatible with his political views....I'm telling you ChrisO I have never seen such a POV administrator like Jayjig...and so I went and spoke to another administartor called Shell and expalined to her the situation...and it turns out she's working with jayjig..she went ahead and protected the page with the POV title......anyways can you please speak to the higher-ups...this is very frustrating.George Al-Shami (talk) 04:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, bringing a serious matter to your attention. The situation of the article Religious violence in Orissa is deteriorating day by day with accusations and counter-accusations against the editors actively involved in the page. You can read the discussion in the talk page. A proposal was made to bring a consensus by a totally uninvolved user who will be able to give a neutral opinion. The page is currently protected and there is a fear that it may be the wrong version. The editors in this page are desperately seeking a third opinion. Can you help. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if you interpreted my comments as suggestive in any way of anti-semitism. They were certainly not meant that way at all. I was rather implying a pro-Palestinian nationalist perspective, much like your comment regarding "Iranian nationalists" eg here [10]. It is true that when you believe that someone is editing from a certain perspective, it can be virtually impossible to hear where they are actually coming from, or to give proper credence to their view. I agree that it is best to keep an open mind about others' motivations, and try to understand where they are coming from, rather than attach labels to them and their editing. I will certainly try to keep that in mind. Civility is always the best course. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best to avoid these types of discussions and focus on the content itself. Content might be promoting a pro-X agenda/narrative in an undue fashion; the editor himself, however, is free to hold his opinions without being attacked over them (as long as he's not trying to be purposefully offensive). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For edit-warring at Battle of Opis,[11][12][13][14] I am blocking your account access for 3 hours. Please take a break, thanks. --Elonka 23:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I think it was inadvisable for Elonka to take action, given our previous history, I agree that I did inadvertantly violate 3RR and the block was justified on that basis. I won't be posting an unblock request and I don't want to see this turn into yet more drama. Please leave it at this - no more needs to be said here.

(I'd be grateful if someone could copy this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Battle of Opis‎, where it's already being discussed. I don't want people wasting even more time on this.) -- ChrisO (talk) 01:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, if you want, I'll just undo the block, if you're willing to stay off editing the Opis article for a couple hours? --Elonka 01:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can guarantee at least six hours away from the article, as I'm off to bed now. So yes, feel free to unblock. I doubt I'm going to be doing anything more with the article for a while anyway, since the remaining parts of it need some research (and books) I haven't yet completed. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Righto, the block's undone (though there may be a lingering autoblock, so let me know if there's a problem). Welcome back!  :) --Elonka 01:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop struggling at Battle of Opis. Instead, I recommend you request mediation of content disputes, or seek administrative help for behavioral problems. Your continued reverting only serves to muddy the waters and prolong the problem. Jehochman ^Talk 13:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chris. I wish to bring something to your attention if I may. I'm not 100% sure but I am led to believe that you are an administrator here and so you may be interested to know of the following activities: a comment posted on the Saddam Hussein talk page was aimed directly at me, from a relatively new user by the name of User:X Ray Tex; the message was the following: [15]. In addition, it appears to me that each and every edit by this user has been unconstructive, provocative and largely POV orientated; and on a very similar tone to that for which others have been blocked. I recently announced that I would refrain from editing political articles, however I still read them, and occasionally revert vandalism or disruptive editing, but only until someone reverts me when which I then retire. Naturally, you may wish to deal with this user; but if I was mistaken in thinking that you are an administrator, I apologise; though could you direct me someone who will deal with this. Many thanks. Evlekis (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Sinbad aka Billy bollox aka Billy bolinja has appeared again.[16] Best regards, Alæxis_¿question? 17:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, User:Evlekis has already raised this issue. I'm sorry, I've noticed it only after hitting save page. Alæxis_¿question? 17:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nuked - thanks for the notification. Keep watching the skies, I'm sure he'll be back. In the meantime I'll ask the checkusers to do their stuff to see if we can knock out his IP address. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this user User:WPK seems to be a sockpuppet of User:PKo. He keeps editing the Greece article and has violated the 3RR a number of times. Any chance you can have a look? Walnutjk (talk) 19:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you possibly explain what makes you think the user is a sockpuppet? (Diffs would help.) -- ChrisO (talk) 19:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty obvious, both have a bee in their bonnet about stressing that Greece is partly in Asia, same edits to Greece and List of countries spanning more than one continent to that effect [17], [18]; same style, same poor English, same stereotyped arguments on talk pages without ever actually engaging in discussion. Didn't really deny the identity when I told him today on his talk. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I recommend a checkuser. If there's one sock there's a good chance there'll be more. Did you see the sockfarm I found the other day? (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sinbad barron‎) -- ChrisO (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't really see it as malicious socking so much as the typical newbie ways of randomly switching accounts. I'd say CU is a bit overkill. In any case, he's easy enough to spot when he hits again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Those are well-watched articles, anyway, so I'm sure any further silliness will be spotted. I've given him a 3RR warning about his edits to Greece - if he reverts again feel free to block him. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help guys. Walnutjk (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I imagine you have reverted the edit about the SAS because it was removed by 'the usual suspect', its doubtful if that sort of rabid nonsense adds anything to the article and it was clearly written some time later than when the terrorists were shot and refers to Ireland not Gibraltar. Here the SAS are seen in a positive light. Can I suggest you review its inclusion sometime in the future? --Gibnews (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll certainly have a look at it. You're right about it being "the usual suspect". Persistent, isn't he? -- ChrisO (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Chris. An anonymous Serbian edit warrior 70.80.93.11 (talk · contribs) is spinning about Kosovo. In particular, two mountain ranges, Šar Mountain and Kopaonik, have captured his attention. His edits consist almost solely of sterile reverts of "Kosovo" to "Serbia" or insisting on the formulation "Kosovo, Serbia", or some such. Can he be cited in accord with the Arbcom Kosovo case? Can you help? Aramgar (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sent you a note. Happy new year. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there...

I am going through a number of images that have some minor licensing issues. I came across Image:Cuckmere haven.jpg which you uploaded. The licensing on this image is not complete as it was uploaded many years ago. I wonder if you could follow the link to the image page and correct the licensing with a GFDL license (or other free license). If you have any questions or issues, please drop me a note on my talk page. Thanks. --Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, done. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi Chris, I was just wandering what you think of my new message in the discussion page of Battle of Thermopylae, its called, For the sake of arguement. Please check it out, it is short and easy to understand, thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

Hi! It's rather funny but apparently he's returned - [19]. Regards, Alæxis_¿question? 11:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, he's persistent! Blocked. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this [20] the nonense I think it may be. I've reverted this guy before, he wasn't pleased, so I want to check this time. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 20:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at it. I can't say it's a claim I've come across before...

You might also have a view about Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Savepasargad.com as a source?. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you are pushing a particular pov regarding anything to do with Cyrus the Great. You have been editing the Cyrus Cylinder to such an extent and with such a view (read: bias) that it has been tagged/criticized for being unbalanced and undue. When Kaveh Farrokh is quoted as a source for the other view, you run an AfD on his wiki article. When it became clear that the Kaveh Farrokh article would not be deleted, you turn to the award he received, and attempted to delete the awarding organisation. Finally, when someone cites a website containing an article by Kaveh Farrokh, you challenge the website on the RSN, where others who are also involved in (many of) these articles, join with you to pan Farrokh as well as the website. I also noticed that used your administrative tools to unprotect (reduce the protection) on the Cyrus the Great article, and then (3 minutes later) re-wrote it to reflect your pov, totally changing the tone of the article,[21] without a by-your-leave on the talk page. You appear to be instigating edit-wars on anything related to Cyrus: Cyrus the Great, The Cyrus Cylinder, The Battle of Opis, Kaveh Farrokh and possibly more that I am not aware of. This does not seem right to me. Is there something I'm missing? Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You really do interpret everything as a conspiracy, don't you? Your stalkerish behaviour - following me around to articles that you've never edited before and injecting yourself into any editing disputes in which I'm involved - is the kind of thing that could get you into a a lot of trouble; please desist. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, whatever happened to the sentiments you expressed above at #Re:Civility Warning? -- ChrisO (talk) 11:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: wikistalking, I will just add that I was invited to contribute at Cyrus Cylinder by another editor, and that it falls within my area of (editing) interests. re: "injecting myself into any editing disputes in which you are involved" -- I don't think so. As I pointed out , all the articles above are intimately related to each other, and thus to be involved in one is to be involved in them all. Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who invited you, and why? What particular experience or expertise do you have in this area that would make you particularly suitable to "review" ChrisO's contribitions? If memory serves, you have frequently been on the opposite sides of disputes with ChrisO. It would probably be a good idea for you to leave any "reviews" to neutral editors who have experience in the subject area. What you are doing here, Tundrabuggy, strikes me as uncivil behavior, designed to upset ChrisO, with little apparent benefit to the project. Jehochman ^Talk 20:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The remarks are unacceptable. They give a strong impression that you, Tundrabuggy, have assumed administrative functions of oversight and monitoring 'problematical' editors. To put it mildly, this was immensely crass.Nishidani (talk) 20:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani, please do not use an argument that you are not involved in to assault another editor with offensive suggestions. I would propose you give a look at WP:OMGcom and make note that you are not registered as a member.

p.s. to put it mildly, this comment was crass like a herculean mammoth making origami with used toilet paper. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tundrabuggy, I'm not sure as to the issues but I've already suggested to you to take a step back and note me with concerns so that we can find a way to resolve the current tensions between you and ChrisO. I'm a bit unhappy to see that you two cannot break down this tension built from the Muhammad al-Durrah article and that it's being transferred to other articles as well. May I suggest that the two of you take an agreed upon break from the 1-2 articles that the two of you are working on and that you will return to editing them after reviewing WP:NAM and without bad faith? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the root of the problem here is that Tundrabuggy is seeing everything through the filter of his views on the Arab-Israeli conflict. See his comments at #Re:Civility Warning above, where he accuses me of presenting a "pro-Palestinian nationalist perspective" on ancient Persian history. I have no idea what such a perspective would look like, where you would find it or even if it exists. My own involvement in these articles came about simply because Dbachmann posted a request for input on the fringe theories noticeboard a month ago (see Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 8#Cyrus cylinder). Tundrabuggy seems to have decided that it's his mission to combat anything he sees as "pro-Palestinian nationalism" being added by myself, even if it's nothing of the sort. As for taking a break, might I point out that Tundrabuggy has now followed me to three separate articles and two noticeboards where I've posted queries, and is now posting accusing messages to my talk page without provocation? It's that behaviour that needs to stop. Taking a break from articles won't address that issue. It's stalking, pure and simple. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the stalking concerns but I was hoping that a pause on (A) the raising of these concerns, and (B) a pause on these articles - could give a bit of time to Tundra and everyone else involved to reflect. If he chooses to follow you to yet more articles after an agreed upon pause, then it's a sign that he is not listening - if he will listen, then we might be doing better. I know it's a bit of a difficult suggestion to accept when you start editing an article with the other guy uninvolved on it, but I've been pushed into this type of retraction activity myself in the past few months, oddly enough, by several of the people mentioned on the new JIDF page (saw that thing last night - pointless and inappropriate IMHO). Think about my suggestion a bit more - Tundra, it might be helpful if you stretch out an olive branch and make note that you agree to my suggestion. I can assure you that no special damage would occur if both of you stop editing an article or two for a little while and if major concerns arise during this time, I'd be happy to hear the concerns and try and find a common (and less hostile) ground for discourse. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just add that this accusation of Tundrabuggy's is wrong: "you turn to the award he received, and attempted to delete the awarding organisation" if it is supposed to mean he started the AfD. And as for his claim about the RNS challenge of a website, if the website is Savepasargad.com, as I assume it is, the only editor besides ChrisO and Tundrabuggy in that section is an uninvolved editor who (rightly, in my opinin) agreed with ChrisO. Not 'others', and the panning was just pointing out correctly that Farrokh has no academic qualifications as a historian. Doug Weller (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The most common measure of edit warring is the confrontation to affect content disputes, and by that measure it would be strange to call my single edit in the whole history of that page an "Edit war" . Anyway , first I saw that a sourced material was deleted: If a dispute on reliabilty of source is on-going , I would have no objection in omission of that source. --Alborz Fallah (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since multiple editors are involved in repeatedly adding and reverting that source, there's clearly an edit war. My purpose in asking you not to revert again was simply to direct you to the discussion on that source - you're welcome to contribute to it, if you wish. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]