User talk:Phase4

This is Phase4's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4

Archives

Archives

Archives

Archives

Muammar al-Gaddafi

I've removed the {{GA}} tag you added. These are only supposed to be added by people uninvolved with the page. Furthermore, the article has multiple unsourced statements. Picaroon (t) 22:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough: I didn't notice the four "fact" tags. However, I'm not a primary editor of the article!Phase4 22:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but I think the goal of the GA process is to get somebody completely uninvolved. Picaroon (t) 22:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the ideal. But in practice nobody is completely uninvolved.Phase4 22:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. It's call conflict of interest. We have rules for granting articles with GA status. I contributed some articles that I think should be promoted to GA, yet I stay my hands off the promotion process because of the rules. And please provide comments on the review if you wish to give an article GA status. See Talk:Rachel Carson#Good article nomination on hold as example. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good articles

Hi Phase4. Thanks for showing some interest in the GA project. Please review the project page if you wish to participate, and also the nomination page. Also check out the criteria. GA reviews must be done by editors who have not significantly contributed to the article, which must first be nominated. The article must also meet all of the criteria. Complete reviews with notes must be included with each review. Additionally, there is more to listing an article than tagging it's talk page. All articles you have tagged are being delisted. Please refrain from doing this in the future. Thank you. Lara❤Love 03:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for this advice.Phase4 11:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Pienaar

On 15 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Louis Pienaar, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 18:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that a fact about Louis Pienaar would be featured today. But, I do now!Phase4 20:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know

On 17 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article United Nations Commissioner for Namibia, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 15:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know.Phase4 20:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:ShirleyMcKie.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:ShirleyMcKie.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 19:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've said on the image page that there can be no other image to replace this one: Shirley McKie against a background of a fingerprint!Phase4 20:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lothar Neethling

On 28 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lothar Neethling, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 09:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know.Phase4 10:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black's blog

Here's the scoop. Article talk pages are for discussion of articles. That's where we write - this is what should be in the article, this is what shouldn't, this is how to phrase it, this is what style to use, and so forth.

Article talk pages are not to discuss the truth or falsity of what the subject has to say, only what our article has to say about it. Imagine if it were otherwise: would we want the talk page on, say, Pol Pot or Joseph Stalin, to be covered with the very justified wailings of the relatives of their millions of victims? Hopefully not. We're an encyclopedia, not a chat forum.

Now, unless you want to discuss how a specific Wikipedia editor has edited the specific article on X, that talk page of article X is not the place to discuss it. Repeating the article subject's attacks on a specific Wikipedia editor is participating in the attack. Just because the article subject is on a crusade, and feels entitled to steamroller the editor's feelings, that attack is not justified here.

I can assure you that the issue that the subject refers to about the editor has been investigated by large numbers of Wikipedia:Administrators, and multiple members of the Wikipedia:Arbitration committee, and I even doubt it has escaped the attention of Jimbo Wales. They've done what they're going to do. If you want to keep bringing it to their attention, I don't think it will be appreciated, but at least I won't block you for it. They may get annoyed, and may well tell you that they've heard it before, or they may appreciate it. I can't speak for them. :-) It will, at least, be closer to the right forum.

However restoring it on article talk pages after it has been deleted is verging on a Wikipedia:personal attack. Please don't. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 23:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your assurances about the investigations made, and do not propose to bring the matter to their attention again. Thanks for your explanation.Phase4 09:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish iDAG newspaper articles

Assuming a likely copyvio, you (CBM) have today blanked the three Swedish iDAG newspaper articles from Talk:Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103/Archive 2. These articles were written by Swedish journalist Jan-Olof Bengtsson who has given permission to former British diplomat Patrick Haseldine to use them in any way he chooses (see Patrick Haseldine#Incriminating South Africa):

Haseldine got in touch with Swedish journalist Jan-Olof Bengtsson about three articles Bengtsson had written in the iDAG newspaper in March 1990 about UN Commissioner for Namibia, Bernt Carlsson. The main thrust of these Swedish articles appeared to be that South African pressure had been applied to Carlsson so that he would take Pan Am Flight 103. Bengtsson mailed the articles to him from Malmö following a fax dated November 23 1995:

"Dear Mr Haseldine, Have just received your fax and you'll have copies of my three articles published in iDAG in the mail at once. As you understand they are in Swedish so you have to translate them.

"The articles were published as follows – 1990-03-12, 1990-03-13 and 1990-03-14.

"I would very much like to have the articles/letters you've published in The Guardian before and after the explosion.

"I don't know the British regulations of how to use articles and press materials in your court system as evidence. But if you find my articles and 'digging' helpful supporting your theories, you have my permission to use them in any way you want.

"Yours sincerely,

"Jan-Olof Bengtsson"

I think you will agree that this is not therefore a copyvio. I should be grateful if you would reinsert the iDAG articles at /Archive 2, and undo your edit to the Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 article. Thanks.Phase4 (talk) 13:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright for the articles almost certainly belongs to the newspaper, not the original author of the story. We would need permission from the newspaper to republish their content in translation. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Malloch Brown

Hello. You deleted an entry I made to this article noting a well-publicized recent controversy about MMB's use of a grace and favour residence. The entry was factual, and (I would suggest) surely relevant to the reputation and career of one now serving in the public eye in political life. It had also been rather carefully drafted to be neutral in tone. Please explain your deletion, which might be interpreted as verging on censorship... Nandt1 (talk) 04:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the edit because it fails the WP:V test, and does not provide an inline citation.Phase4 (talk) 11:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how you would have reacted if all your unreferenced controversial material in Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 had been deleted? You should add the "fact" tag before making a deletion to allow the editor a chance to correct the issue. Socrates2008 (talk) 12:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a higher threshold for controversial material added to biographies: that is why I removed it rather than tagging the MMB article.Phase4 (talk) 12:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The entry is now sourced. I have referenced The Times, as I encountered some difficulty over online access to The Spectator's original article. Incidentally, while the interpretation one places on the story might I suppose be described as "controversial", the material facts as I have stated them (which have been widely published) do not appear to be in dispute.Nandt1 (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this revised edit: I've expanded it a bit.Phase4 (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Safia Aoude

You wrote:

In order to defeat the "deletionists" would you be prepared to keep Safia Aoude's article?Phase4 11:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess its a moot point now, but thanks for the opportunity. I've been on extended wikibreak. Mattopaedia (talk) 01:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another keep vote would have been symbolic and couldn't have changed the outcome!Phase4 (talk) 12:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pan Am Flight 103

You said: "(cur) (last) 23:05, 25 November 2007 Phase4 (Talk | contribs | block) (69,017 bytes) (rv: edits by WhisperToMe need prior discussion and agreement on talk page) (rollback | undo) "

I say: Careful, that prior discussion and agreement may become invalidated by the fact that "This media has no author information, and may be lacking other information. Media should have a summary to inform others of the content, author, source, and date if possible. If you know or have access to such information, please add it to the image page."

Look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PA103cockpit4.jpg

I can put the image on IFD and have it deleted if there is no more information about where that image came from.

Now, I shall look at the discussion and see how valid it is. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By discussion, Phase, is THIS what you are talking about: Talk:Pan_Am_Flight_103/Archive_6#Swapping_images ?

I do not see much of a discussion there. Anyway, I nominated the image for deletion on Commons. It is likely that the image may be deleted from Commons BUT re-uploaded to EN IF you can find where the image is from (it likely is not a "GNU" image) WhisperToMe (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is all conspiratorial stuff. I have disputed your nomination for deletion.Phase4 (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"An editor is of course entitled to challenge the copyright status of a Wikimedia Commons image. It is strange, however, that WhisperToMe tried surreptitiously to remove this image from the Pan Am Flight 103 article in the past few days. I am somewhat concerned about the editor's motives in regard to this image."

Let's see, what I actually did was replace one image with another... ONLY in the infobox. If you examined this edit [1], you would find that I only replaced one (not two) instance of Image:PA103cockpit4.jpg - After all, why repeat the same image twice ? It would make more sense to have one image in the infobox and one image outside.

However, we have one image that has a clear copyright status (Image:PA103cockpit4.png) and one that has no copyright status (Image:PA103cockpit4.jpg) - Why keep the latter on Commons) if we do not know the copyright status? Commons is only intended for GNU and public domain images. See, many Wikipedias ban Fair Use altogether, so Commons does not accept fair use. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You made three other edits to the Pan Am Flight 103 article on 25 November 2007. Can you explain why?Phase4 (talk) 22:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explained - See the talk page :) WhisperToMe (talk) 23:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:PAAhmedJibril.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:PAAhmedJibril.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Avi (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The challenge "Just because Hebrew wiki may be in error, we should not be" is vitiated by Avi's use of the word "propogate", which as we all know does not exist. The challenge should therefore be withdrawn (with or without apologies).Phase4 (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, spelling error fixed

-- Avi 16:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the typo.Phase4 19:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On December 16, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gaddafi International Foundation for Charity Associations, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Royalbroil 04:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PJHaseldine for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.Template:Do not delete Deon Steyn (talk) 12:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

State-sponsored terrorism

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on State-sponsored terrorism. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. I have no opinion, at the present time, as to which of you is correct or supported by Wikipedia policies. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings mistakenly placed on User page

You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your band, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest.

Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. If you create such an article, it might be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability. All edits to articles must conform to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

If you are not "notable" under Wikipedia guidelines, creating an article about yourself may violate the policy that Wikipedia is not a personal webspace provider and would thus qualify for speedy deletion. If your achievements, etc., are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later. (See Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles.) Thank you.

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: Talk:Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103#Salami tactics by Socrates2008. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Please stop assuming ownership of articles such as Patrick Haseldine. Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as edit wars and is a violation of policy, which may lead to a block from editing. Since this is your own autobiography, editing it as extensively as you have breaks the rules regarding WP:NPOV
Please stop assuming ownership of articles such as Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as edit wars and is a violation of policy, which may lead to a block from editing. Since this is your own conspiracy theory, editing this article is highly WP:POV
Please stop assuming ownership of articles such as Bernt Carlsson. Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as edit wars and is a violation of policy, which may lead to a block from editing. Since this is the subject of your own conspiracy theory, editing this article is highly WP:POV
Please do not assume ownership of articles such as State-sponsored terrorism. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Socrates2008 (talk • contribs)

Concerted attack by Deon Steyn and Socrates2008

I should be grateful for administrator User:Arthur Rubin's views on the past week's aggressive concerted attack by Deon Steyn and Socrates2008 on the Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 article and its linked articles (including State-sponsored terrorism#South Africa) which has somehow resulted in MY indefinite block from editing by Rlevse. If blocking is appropriate, surely it should be Deon Steyn and Socrates2008 who should be prevented from editing.Phase4 (talk) 11:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]