User talk:ChrisO~enwiki

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

Please add new comments below.

---

Ohrid

Why are you putting the Albanian name in the Ohrid infobox if Albanians don't even make up 20% of the population? According to the Ohrid Agreement, the Albanian language is not official in Ohrid. Please, Wikipedia is no place for Albanian nationalism. Uuttyyrreess 04:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Help

Hi. I want to ask you to help with dispute in these two articles: Sermon (ruler) and Ahtum. Of course, if you do not have time for this, I will ask some other admin, but if you have time, you can see this talk page: Talk:Sermon (ruler). Basically, the dispute is about the fact that two Bulgarian users refuse to accept usage of term "Macedonian Empire" for "First Bulgarian Empire" in these articles. The fact is that in all countries of former Yugoslavia (including Macedonia, Serbia, Croatia, etc) term "Macedonian Empire" is used for this country, and by my opinion, since these articles speak about territories located in present-day Serbia, it is important to mention the view of Serbian historiography about the subject. Also the second problem is whether we should use name "Samui" or "Samuil of Bulgaria" in these articles - I believe, because it is disputed whether he was tsar of Bulgaria or of Macedonia that we should use only name "Samuil" because that name is neutral and NPOV and do not support any of the two points of view - it is also a name used for him in literature, while "of Bulgaria" suifix is just an invention invented by some Wikipedia user and therefore I do not understand why these two Bulgarian users insist so much on that sufix. PANONIAN 09:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Considers this, Samuil of Bulgaria is named of Bulgaria not because of some wikipedia user, but because it is a documented fact by chronographers at the time, that he was crowned as "King of Bulgaria". 13:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Gibraltar (again)

The matter of the currency seems to be subject to another edit war.

1. I have added a section on the currency in exactly the same format as is used on the page about the UK with it being a subheading of the economy.

2. Although it has been claimed that looking in my wallet is 'strange original research' there are enough images posted on the internet to show the current 5,10,20,50 notes which I've added as references and not all of which are found in the other place.

3. The information presented is concise.

BUT I anticipate it will be removed on the grounds of POV. If you feel it has value, assistance in keeping it 'as is' or making it better would be appreciated.

--Gibnews 00:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I seem to have found a more up-to-date Government source which describes the situation better. The previous wording was taken from the 1976 telephone directory and has propagated unchanged. Speaking of telephones, the modern Gibtelecom coin boxes take Euros and have the exchange rate downloaded every morning. I helped program them when they originally took pesetas and we were amused that visitors might think they were able to slip in foreign coins and the mechanism would think they were pounds. However, there are a number of renter coinboxes in bars which are more basic and only take Gib/UK coins.

--Gibnews 15:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments on talk:House demolition

Hello. My opinion is that it's not useful to turn this issue into a personal argument about conduct and such. If you feel it's necessary you can talk over the matter with Jayjg separately or through RfC or some such. My concern is that the talk page will eventually devolve into the partisan bickering that characterizes so many Arab-Israeli articles. nadav (talk) 09:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I quite agree. But unfortunately the reason why we're in this position in the first place is the conduct of SlimVirgin and Jayjg, so it's natural that they're both being called out for it. -- ChrisO 11:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

block?

ChrisO,

Can you please explain why you blocked User:Nikola Smolenski? It seems you were involved with some sort of dispute with the user, but you also have previously involved with formal mediation/arbitration with the user as well. // laughing man 17:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Nikola Smolenski#Blocked. The block was for repeated copyright violations on 1999 South Dakota Learjet crash and Bruce Borland. -- ChrisO 17:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

POV edits

hi Chris. Nikola Smolenski is destroying Kosovo-related articles with his ultra nationalist propaganda views. He is really disturbing and very arrogant. What can be done? Users like him should be blocked immediately. He almost all the time adds revisionist facts to different Kosovo-articles. --Noah30 17:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked him for unrelated edits (see above), and I'm looking at whether he's breached article probation on a couple of Kosovo-related articles. If you have any specific instances that you think should be taken into account, please let me know. -- ChrisO 17:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Nikola keeps vandalizing Gazimestan Speech. I note that also other are considering his behavior vandalism. Something should be done otherwise many editors will quit to edit Wikipedia because of him. Wish you a happy and sunny summer! --Noah30 05:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

cross-note from Commons

Could you kindly take note of that message [1] on your user page at Commons. -- Túrelio 20:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for notifying me. I've not been over to Commons for a few days. -- ChrisO 21:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry etc

Thank you for your involvement. I have filed a report [2] Mr. Neutron 21:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The Creation of Jimbo

In the course of the (absurd) deletion nomination for your Creation of Jimbo image, it came up that you have improperly licensed it. Since one of the two images used to make it, commons:Image:5. urodziny polskiej Wikipedii - Jimbo Wales 02.JPG, is CC-BY-SA, it needs to also be under that or a compatible license.[3] Could you please fix that? --tjstrf talk 22:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed - thanks for letting me know. -- ChrisO 22:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Quneitra, GA

Hi, Chris. Good news: Quneitra passed GAC and is now a good article. Congratulations, man! Cheers, Anas ^talk? 17:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD Closes

I note that you recently closed two AfDs in which i had commented. (I am speaking of John Hertz (fan) and Daniel G. Birmingham.) I would have closed them in the same way, even though in one case I disagreed with the result (that is, I opted for delete, but there was no consensus to delete). However, i noted that in neither case did you add {{oldafdfull}} to the talk page of the article. Wikipedia:Deletion process strongly recommends doing this any time that an AfD close does not result in deletion. I have added the template in these two cases. This is just a hit for your possible assistance. DES ^(talk) 23:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, I overlooked that - thanks for your assistance. -- ChrisO 23:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem, plenty of others have given me a helping had at times. And btw, i rectly drafted {{closing}} to help avoid edit conflicts at closes, after sufferimg several. it is compeltely optional, but you might find it helpful. DES ^(talk) 23:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That's very useful, I'll add that to my bookmarks. :-) -- ChrisO 23:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Grdelica train bombing

Kudos for the rewrite Chris. Excellent work. --John 23:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! It'll be interesting to see what Nikola makes of it... -- ChrisO 23:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully he'll see it for the NPOV and well-sourced article it has now become, thanks to your efforts. --John 01:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Well it's excellent, except that I think that claims that the video has been sped up five times which Frankfurter Rundschau later made should also be there. Nikola 22:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

According to the 6 January 2000 story the speeding-up factor was three times, not five. Did they revisit the story later? -- ChrisO 23:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be very hard to judge exactly how much something was speeded up by in practice. I suspect these are all guesstimates, hence the great variation. THis is why I have resisted adding a number into the article. --John 23:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, NATO and the Pentagon both said 2.7x, so an estimate of a 3x speeding-up isn't bad at all (only 10% off). -- ChrisO 23:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it would be very easy, as the movie shows a moving train: if you know real speed of the train, and distance between girders on the bridge, you can calculate true speed of the movie. Try January 19 or January 12 2000 edition for revisited story. Nikola 18:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Continued, off wiki coordination for attacks

Please look. Alexander veliki is posting this search for anonymising IP attacks. Mr. Neutron 18:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

They seem to be targeting a Greek forum. It's nothing to do with us, at least not unless they try the same thing here. -- ChrisO 19:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi ChrisO. We haven't talked in a while, but I remember your good job on Minefields in Croatia. I stumbled on your page by accident now, because it was the last edit of Mr. Neutron. I was thinking whether I should warn someone, and this coincidence made me decide. Today, Mr. Neutron made an edit to an article I wrote, Franjo Rački, where he erased the name of Macedonia. It seemed strange to me, so I checked his list of contributions. The guy is incredible. Between 15:30 and 18:30 today, he "edited" more than one hundred articles. I checked out only a dozen, but I'm pretty sure most of them are anti-Macedonian edits. Is it vandalism? I don't know and don't care much, really. I have my hands full with Croatian articles. You decide if anything should be done. Ciao. --Zmaj 20:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I've had a look at a sample of his recent edits and they appear to be legitimate - he seems to have been changing generic references that pointed to Macedonia (a disambiguation page) to re-point them at specific articles, such as Republic of Macedonia. But thanks for asking - it's always good to see that edits are being checked! -- ChrisO 20:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Good, thanks for verifying. The Croatian controversies have made me a bit paranoid. See you around. --Zmaj 21:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, so I removed Macedonia from that article because Bogomilism originated in the First Bulgarian Empire, and Macedonia was by at large incorporated in the FBE in the 9th century. Mr. Neutron 23:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Concerning Image:Juba_II.jpg

Hi Chris. I'm trying to check who the author of this picture is. The Commons descriptions just points to en:, and a sysop told me you were the one uploading it here. I know you've taken many pictures in the Louvre so I guess you're the author of this particular pic as well? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 20:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yup, it's one of my Louvre pics. -- ChrisO 20:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt answer. I'll complete the description. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 20:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

UFC 76 AfD

Hi, I saw you were the closing admin for this AfD and I have a question. I'm really not trying to be a pain about this, but something has bugged me about the article's deletion. The article was deleted for crystal balling, yet there was verified information from the LA Times of a date and location for this event. As I said in the AfD, I'm a deletionist by nature, and yes WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, however I find it odd that this article is crystal balling, and yet future WWE pay=per-view events, which only have a date, or no date, and venue, are not considered crystal balling. Can you explain why? I am considering sending this article to deletion review, but I'd appreciate your input first. Wildthing61476 20:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

TENC

I realize that this is probably getting highly on your nerves, but could you please just clarify this to me:

• We agree that Elsevier's PDF is a copyright violation.
• Do you consider TENC's mirror of abcnews.com to be a copyright violation as well, and this is why it shouldn't be linked to?
• Or do you think that no page on TENC (reliability issues aside) should be linked to because the site contains copyright-violating Elsevier's PDF? Nikola 22:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes to your first question - the copied abcnews.com page is plainly a copyvio. On the second question, I wouldn't exclude the entire site on those grounds. If there's material on there which meets the criteria in WP:RS and WP:V, and isn't a copyvio, then I wouldn't object to it being linked (providing it's relevant of course!). Note that this would necessarily exclude material produced by TENC's owner. -- ChrisO 23:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Scientology Logo

You cannot use your admin privileges to protect a version of a template that you feel is right. Please unprotect and discuss, otherwise I will bring this forward so that it can be properly/impartialy taken care of. Sfacets 22:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not an issue of "protect[ing] a version of a template that you feel is right", it's a fundamental copyright issue which needs to be heeded - perhaps you'd missed the fact that Scientology is notoriously protective of its copyrights? If I see users putting Wikipedia at risk by adding copyright violations to pages, I will take action. Or maybe you would have preferred me blocking you and Bravehartbear for violating copyrights? If so, please let me know - I can unprotect the template and block the two of you. On the other hand, you could take the time to read WP:COPY and the discussion at Template talk:ScientologySeries/Archive 2#Logo removal. -- ChrisO 22:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The issue here is not only about copyright - it is about freedom of expression, and by censoring Bravehartbear's argument you are not allowing him to argue his point. Your reason for doing this? That it had been previously discussed. Sfacets 23:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It has been previously discussed and decided. The only fact that could change the decision would be a change in copyright law to allow him to do what he wants to do. Since the law hasn't changed, the outcome of the previous discussion hasn't changed either. -- ChrisO 23:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I can see where you are coming from - legal advice was given, and followed. However I feel that Bravehartbear is raising another separate issue, namely whether or not the copyright status of an image is in any way changed by specific circumstances. which should at least be addressed on the template discussion page before nominating the image for deletion/protecting the template. It is through continuous discussion that issues progress. I do not care if the image goes or stays, but the user's argument should be discussed before any action is taken. Sfacets 23:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, this was specifically discussed in the earlier discussion. The use of a Scientology symbol on a building was considered but dropped because of the copyright problem. The fundamental problem is that the symbol itself is copyrighted; it can't be incorporated into any template, because fair use images aren't permitted in templates. There's no way around that. Any image of the symbol will run into this problem. -- ChrisO 23:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)

The June 2007 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 13:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:HMS Upholder S40.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:HMS Upholder S40.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ahtisaari

Controversy about Ahtisaari is certainly important fact about his life. The claims/requests for investigation are made by the Serbian media, Serbian parlament speaker etc, and are reported as such, and there is no way this can be ignored - controversy is a legitimate subject of someones biografy. It is not violating policy about biografy of living person in any way - regardless of the factual status of the claims, which is yet to be determined, the fact that THERE IS controversy, indeed quite a few, in a very significant population (10 million people or so) is certainly worth reporting. The article is incomplete without this information, and wikipedia does not censor out such significant things.

Please see the discussion at Talk:Martti Ahtisaari#Poorly-sourced controversial material. -- ChrisO 08:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I have seen this and still think there should absolutely be information about these controversies. What is subject here is controversy itself, the article version that I took the quotes from (easily accessed from history) reports that accurately, and facts are easily checked (facts that there is a significant controversy, that is, not judging the claims themself). Public image is an important issue, and cannot be witewhashed as those who excuse Ahtisaari try to do. If someone is sued for instance for something, this is to be reported in his biografy, weather he is guilty or not. If a parlament speaker makes a request for investigation, that is significant enough to be reported. If there is some intrigue that HAS SIGNIFICANCE than that is to be reported. This is different from spreading unsourced material - it is a report about public image. In fact, some of the claims are not disputable - for instance, it is a fact that Ahtisaari made a coment about "collective guilt" and that is seen in Serbia and indeed in Russia as damaging his credibility in the job he does. All these facts are not some trivial issues, but important things which have to do with public image. According to UK libel law, which is one of the strictest in the world, it is perfectly OK to report about such issues as long as long as it is a second hand report - BBC does such things all the time, cautiously and strictly abiding by the law. Ahtisaari has a poor public image in Serbia and this is a significant fact, and given Ahtisaari recent job, it is something very important to his present persona.

I'd also note that you like to use your sysop privileges to gain an edge in a content dispute. I believe this is against wikipedia policies, and ideed repeated behaviour of this form can be a serious issue. I will go and look up the wikipedia policies about involvement of sysop privileges in this way, and see what needs to be done. This is not an issue of a sysop coldly following the rules - indeed, the BLP policy does not prohibit reports of this sort and there is little ground for your revert there. The fact that you are keenly interested in Balkan issues, as easily checked from your edit history, makes it plain that you are not a disinterested party here, and your decision to protect the page in this light is something that goes against the best practices of this site, to say the least. Pera-panic 08:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Please comment

This is a message for all regulars at the “apartheid” AfD series. I believe there may have been a breakthrough. Please share your thoughts here. Thanks. --Targeman 03:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mitrailleuse sideplan.png

You posted this image of the side plan of a Mitrailleuse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mitrailleuse_sideplan.png) that came from The French Mitrailleuse - Full and Complete Description of its Construction, Service etc, United States Government Printing Office, 1873.

I'm researching the weapon and in particular the ammunition used. Would you happen to know how I could obtain a copy of the book?

Thanks - Cyberwombat 21:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a photocopy of the whole thing - it's only 11 pages long, so if you send me your e-mail address, I'll scan it for you. -- ChrisO 00:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Done, muchas gracias! Cyberwombat 07:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Edit warring reminder

Chris, my third revert was of a Tor proxy IP trying to get around 3RR. I don't know how detailed your review of the history was, but I'm reverting your warning, as I don't think it is helpful. Tewfik^Talk 01:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Edit warring reminder

Chris, I've left you a fairly lengthy response to your comment on my user page regarding edit warring. I would appreciate it if you would read it and respond there when you get the chance. Thanks, Jgui 08:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Hi, on the Macedonians (ethnic group) discussion page, I posted some interesting information and links on the Macedonian ethnic group, specifically on the Macedonian ethnic group in Greece. However, user: Mr. Neutron is constantly deleting my comments and input in the discussion page [4]. Is that allowed? Please let me know. Thanks, Uuttyyrreess 15:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Note this is some news links, which are unrelated whatsoever to the content of the article, with the sole purpose to spark a flame war on a controversial topic. Mr. Neutron 16:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The only one creating a flame war is you by deleting people's comments on the discussion page. Uuttyyrreess 18:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Mr Neutron is right on this score. I've reviewed the comments and they do seem to be off-topic point-scoring, rather than useful contributions to the development of the article. I'd like to remind you of WP:TALK#How to use talk pages: "Keep on topic: Talk pages are not for general conversation. Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." -- ChrisO 18:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The links that I have provided are news reports concerning the existence of ethnic Macedonians in Greece, relevant to the article since many extremists here on Wikipedia do not recognize Macedonians as a distinct ethnic group in Greece. Uuttyyrreess 18:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Page Deletion

Hello ChrisO,

I'm following up to see if you can help me with specific information regarding why you deleted my page, "Golden Gate Men's Chorus".

I used the existing "San Francisco Gay Men's Chorus" page on Wikipedia as a template, so I am at a loss as to why our chorus' page was deleted yet the SFGMC page is still active.

'Look forward to your reply,

Larry Novida Webmaster, Golden Gate Men's Chorus