Jump to content

User talk:119

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Larnue the dormouse (talk | contribs) at 20:19, 8 April 2006 (Shock and Awe). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikinews demo up and running

Hi!

I'm writing to let you know that the Wikimedia Board of Trustees has approved the first stage of the Wikinews project. There's now a fully operational English demo site at demo.wikinews.org. This will be used for experimenting with various review models and basic policies before the site is launched officially in about a week. demo.wikinews.org will become the English version later.

You voted for the Wikinews project, so I'm asking for your participation now. Everything is open, nothing is final. What Wikinews will and can be depends in large part on you. There already is a global Wikinews mailing list for discussing the project. If you are interested at all, please subscribe -- coordination is of key importance. There's also an IRC channel #wikinews on irc.freenode.net. Realtime discussion can help to polish up articles.

If you're looking for something to do, check out the articles in development and articles in review. Or start a new story in the Wikinews workspace, or ignore the proposed review system - it's up to you. I hope you'll join us soon in this exciting experiment.--Eloquence* 01:59, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

speedy deletion

Under what criterion for speedy deletion were you nominating Never Pass Entry? --fvw* 05:49, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)

Same as you gave on VFD, was just saving myself when we conflicted. --119 05:50, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hmm? You stuck a speedy deletion template on it. Vanity is not a criterion for speedy deletion. --fvw* 05:52, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)
Spam.. And if that's "not a criterion for speedy deletion", then oh well. --119 05:55, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

NPOV

You changed

Would you say that someone who jumped on a hot grenade didn't sacrifice himself? I don't think that sacrifice is POV. It just says that he let himself die. The new version makes it seem like he was just killed by the enemy. I'd like to know what you think of the matter. Article about himBrokenSegue 14:01, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I see the phrase "sacrificed his life" as having militaristic connotations. I think it is much more neutral to say that he was killed in an action for which he was awarded the Medal of Honor (though that was broad as I didn't research him further) than to say he sacrificed his life and earned the Medal of Honor. Are you alright with this:
Minutes after this photo was taken Lt. Baldomermo Lopez was killed when smothering a live grenade with his body, for which he was awarded the Medal of Honor.
That's fine. Thanks for being so considerate. BrokenSegue

The Humungous Image Tagging Project

Hi. You've helped with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiki Syntax, so I thought it worth alerting you to the latest and greatest of Wikipedia fixing project, User:Yann/Untagged Images, which is seeking to put copyright tags on all of the untagged images. There are probably, oh, thirty thousand or so to do (he said, reaching into the air for a large figure). But hey: they're images ... you'll get to see lots of random pretty pictures. That must be better than looking for at at and the the, non? You know you'll love it. best wishes --Tagishsimon (talk)

Dot-map Image tags

119: Can you point me to an example of a dot-map image that's missing a copyright tag, and I'll correct them right away. I've tried to be very conscientious about marking all of the dot-maps as GFDL, because they were adapted from other GFDL Wikipedia maps. I hope that clarifies things for you. -- Seth Ilys 00:28, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Image:AKMap-doton-Skagway.PNG, Image:AKMap-doton-ScammonBay.PNG, Image:AKMap-doton-RussianMission.PNG Image:AKMap-doton-PortProtection.PNG, Image:AKMap-doton-PortAlexander.PNG. All now marked as GFDL. 119 00:35, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Groovy. Thanks. :) -- Seth Ilys 00:46, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hm

Not to be mean, but are you kidding? That picture is of me. Graduating. Why does it need an image tag? Mike H 00:29, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

All images must have licensing information--the software obviously can't know that it's a picture of you and used on your user page etc. I came across it from its listing on Wikipedia:Untagged_images. Did you mean to release it under the GFDL? 119 00:33, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, whatever you have to do. Mike H 01:07, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
That doesn't help me. Perhaps you could just tag your own images how you like? 119 01:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Right now it's the holidays and I'm quite busy with other things besides Wikipedia. I only want to use that photo on this website. I don't even see why this is an issue right now. Can't this wait? Mike H 03:43, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Taxobox spaces

Hi 119 - having a blank line after the taxobox (and before where relevant) is WP:TOL standard - it greatly reduces the risk of anyone editing things into / out of taxoboxes by accident - MPF 17:03, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Alright 119 18:43, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Redirect project

Hi, the instructions for NickJ's project say "please delete from this page any suggestions that you added". I did several before my brain woke up enough to realize that the links were all blue - i.e. you'd already done them. Noel (talk) 11:59, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

PS: I don't usually check other User_talk: pages (so that I don't have to monitor a whole long list of User_Talk: pages - one for each person with whom I am having a "conversation"), so please leave any messages for me on my talk page (above); if you leave a message for me here I probably will not see it. I know not everyone uses this style (they would rather keep all the text of a thread in one place), but I simply can't monitor all the User_talk: pages I leave messages on. Thanks!

That's a bit rich

119, you suggest I didn't read the talk page. You seem to have failed to have noticed that I replied at

Talk:List_of_movies_that_have_been_considered_the_greatest_ever

As well as striking up new discussions at

Template_talk:Limitedgeographicscope
Wikipedia_talk:Template messages/Disputes

and also converting the few remaining instances where the geographic scope template was on the article page (the majority were already on the talk page before I had anything to do with it. Pcb21| Pete 11:07, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image tagging chart

Actually, I used MS-Excel. I then took screenshots of the graphs, and pasted them into MS-Paint. I wish I had something better to use, but Excel works well enough, I suppose. – Quadell (talk) (help) 01:19, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Total war#Your Country Needs You

Image:Ford Five Hundred Sedan.jpg

Why is Image:Ford Five Hundred Sedan.jpg a candidate for speedy deletion? —Ben Brockert (42) 07:56, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

I came across the image through the Untagged Images project, and saw that it had been edited by only one author, and on his last edit he had replaced caption text with "(del)". No judgement on my part beyond that the author intended it be deleted. 119 19:02, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bernard Williams

You deleted "terrifyingly" on the grounds that it's POV. "With this argument, Williams left moral philosophy with the notion that goodness must always be self-interested: that it springs only from the desire to be good, a desire that might, at any given moment, in any given person, be terrifyingly absent."

Is it POV? If a stranger put a gun to your head, or a knife to your heart, and in the moment before he killed you, you asked him why he was doing it, and he replied: "Because I want to," and he meant it, wouldn't that be terrifying? The philosophical point here is the removal of God from moral philosophy has left a (terrifying) hole, one that moral philosophers have tried valiantly to fill, but which can't be filled, because our notion of goodness now exists without protection, without anything to enforce it. If, as Williams argued, to be good is simply to want to be good, and there's ultimately no reason to want to be good, then we do live in a terrifying world. If this is true, it is true for everyone, regardless of POV. I would like to put that word back in, to convey that sense of a void. Would you mind? SlimVirgin 03:05, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

"Terrifyingly" is not attributed to Williams, and so was deleted because it represents the opinion of a contributor. How strongly this opinion is held by any Wikipedians is irrelevant under NPOV. 119 03:24, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The word "terrifyingly" almost certainly was used by Williams at some point, somewhere. The point is not whether the view is held by me (I hold none of Williams' views on moral philosophy) or by other Wikipedians. The philosophical argument - and this is a page about philosophy - is that such a state is terrifying to contemplate. It is an argument. That is what philosophy is. SlimVirgin 03:39, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
As it was worded, it's not clear whether "terrifying" is Wikipedia's description or Williams'. A search for "terr" shows nothing in the rest of the article... 119 04:00, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Collaboration of the week

Military history of the Soviet Union is this week's Collaboration of the Week. Please contribute to it to help make it a feature article

Blitzkrieg

Why do you insist on removing any mention of Blitzkrieg predecessors and successors? It is obvious blitzkrieg was developed in the 1920s/30s by Germans and used exclusively by them in the IIWW. However it is just as obvious that blitzkrieg is just a step in the development of military doctrines - it takes much from earlier miltary knowledge, it influenced contemporary Allies and Soviets tactics and it left its mark on the post-IIWW Nato and Soviet modern tactics. Why on earth are you so fanatical about removing this obvious fact?? It would be much better if we could cooperate on expanding the still-missing or small sections on blitz in North Africa Campaign and anti-blitz countertactics. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:34, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Killian Documents Request for Comments

Your edit of my request for comments eliminates any hint of what the problem is. Why did you do this? Anonip 06:57, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your RfC advocated a position, starting with "The Killian documents are forgeries." As the RfC page says above, "don't submit arguments or assign blame." 119 07:30, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I believe my revised RfC simply stated facts. I felt it was necessary to describe the dispute in this way because my previous description ("dispute concerning whether experts have determined the documents to be forgeries") failed to elicit much interest from commentators. Moreover, that really isn't the issue here. The obstructive editors aren't interested in discussing the factual question on a rational basis, they simply want to protect their willful ignorance. That is why progress is impossible. And I'm afraid that the minimal description you substituted is unlikely to get many other commentators involved. Anonip 08:45, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

News

Hi! Why have you removed the wikinews link from the article news? The text written in edit line does not suffice. Please note that you should tell us where to look for more information about wiki style (next time add e.g. See: "specific article"). Thanks. --Eleassar777 15:52, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Having an ad about Wikinews at the top of a page is not encyclopediac. If it was a link to BBC News, would you agree? See quote, book, source, species, dictionary, commons for comparison. 119 20:12, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ok I removed it from the top, however there is the add for wikiquote, wikispecies and wikidictionary on the pages you listed (a large add), and a link on wikicommons. So I added See also: wikinews to the news article. This is also what the article Wikipedia:How to link to Wikimedia projects says. --Eleassar777 13:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Infobox Template

Expect to get bitched out about that, i removed it yesterday, and some user got up in arms about it. I have no problem with supporting the remove though.--User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 08:06, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I didn't realize it was controversial: it was a string of non-sensical text on one page and is not used or attempted on the others so far as I see. 119 08:14, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Neither did i, but you should see the responce i recived on my talkpage when i logged on today. --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 08:17, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

DLM

I see you've changed the translation of Division Légère Mécanique back again to Light Mechanized Division. This way it doesn't make sense: but you would still be fully justified to do so if it were the literal translation. However it isn't! A Division Légère would be a "Light Division": the adjective behind the noun goes to the front. If we then add Mécanique, "Mechanized" must again (the same rule applies) be put in front of "Light", resulting in the translation "Mechanized Light Division". A "Light Mechanized Division" would translate as a "Division Mécanique Légère". I hasten to add that most French, when translating from their mother tongue into English make the same (or opposite) mistake - and so both parties are confirmed in their error...

And thanks for noticing I had forgotten to change another "Keitel" into "von Kleist". That was a very stupid mistake I made. When writing it down I got the nagging feeling something was terribly wrong but I couldn't put my finger on it. Ah, I am getting old. ;o)

MWAK--84.27.81.59 10:56, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My mistake, the author of this French OOB site translated it as such. 119 21:38, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It's indeed a very common confusion! :o)

MWAK--84.27.81.59 18:40, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Criticisms of War on Terrorism

You've done a lot of work. The article is much better. Maurreen 07:51, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

AID Problems

You deleted all the votes older than one week when the AID nominations came up? Why!? -Litefantastic 12:29, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I understood each week as being on its own. The language was that an article could be nominated twice in a row, which I took to mean separation. If everyone else intended votes to stay, I'll fix it. I see some problems with it, though: holding over votes may effectively mean it takes two weeks to vote on all but the most popular articles, with everything added in the current week would be pushed back to a second run as a matter of course. 119 18:44, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Schools on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion

As of March 4, 2005, the following (7) articles are currently listed for deletion under the POV suggestion that schools are not notable (even though this is invalid reasoning as per the Wikipedia deletion policy. Whether you agree or disagree, please be aware that the following schools are actively being voted on:

Thank you for your time. --GRider\talk

Strategic bombing during World War II

Where is the article history to show that you added the NPOV tag at the top of the article to match your comment on the talk page? Please see Talk:Strategic bombing during World War II#History -- Philip Baird Shearer 10:42, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Map of Paris' Commune

Hi,

I didn't make the map of the Paris' Commune. I took from http://www.marxists.org where it is said: All material within these Archives, unless noted otherwise, is protected by the Free Documentation License. Yann 21:47, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Normal distribution {{peerreview}}

Thanks for fixing it so quickly! I didn't even have time to reread the instructions and slap myself. --MarkSweep 06:01, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Convair B-36 FAC

I have addressed (hopefully!) your objections to the Convair B-36 FAC. Please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Convair B-36. Thanks, →Iñgōlemo← talk 19:33, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

I have addressed your last round of objections. (Hopefully! :) ) →Iñgōlemo← talk 06:12, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your support. It was certainly hard-earned, but hopefully well deserved. Cheers, →Iñgōlemo← talk 00:22, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

More schools on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion

As of March 25, 2005, there are an additional (6) articles listed for deletion under the POV notion that schools are non-notable (even though this is invalid reasoning as per the Wikipedia deletion policy). Please be aware that the following schools are actively being discussed and voted upon:

In response to this cyclical ordeal, a Schoolwatch programme has been initiated in order to indentify school-related articles which may need improvement and to help foster and encourage continued organic growth. Your comments are welcome and I thank you again for your time. --GRider\talk

Contributions count

Your goal is quite hard if you want to do it across all languages, but quite easy to get a good approximation for just one language. Erik's stats (en is here) show how many edits have been made in a month. Then you can use Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits to find the number of edits made in the last 30 days by the top 100 editors. Because 30 days ~ 1 month this gives you a good estimate. Both those pages are permanent enough for you to be able to footnote them as sources for your calculation. Hoep that is some help. Pcb21| Pete 07:55, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad

I've updated the lead section per your suggestions. Please take a moment to review the changes. AdThanksVance. slambo 22:32, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eldfell

Hi, you objected to this nomination on the grounds of a couple of untagged images of dubious provenance. I've now swapped those images for two legit ones. Care to have another look at the article? Thanks very much - Worldtraveller 15:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Noely Noel Noel Gallagher

Hello. Cheers for showing interest in the article nomination for Noel Gallagher. However, I feel (and having browsed your talk page, I'm not alone) that you may be taking your veiws on what is POV too far. To say that the events surrounding Be Here Now (recording sessions, songwrinting, the lifestyle of the bans, critical reaction) were chaotic is not my point of view. It is a widely held opinion, a fact even. However, I changed it. Surley it is fair to say Noel Gallagher has an arrogant front. I know it is not common practice to use the subjects first name, but I feel it is justified in this case given the fact that the article constantly reffers to his brother who shares the surname. Using first names avoids confusion.

Thanks anyway. Some of your suggestions certainly proved helpful.--Crestville 21:45, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Geology of the Death Valley area FAC

Could you explain what else is needed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Geology of the Death Valley area before you withdraw your objection? IMO, the references now have all the info you want, expect for the author info which was not provided by the source. --mav 02:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Blitzkrieg returns

Let's try working togehter this time and bring this up to FA, shall we? I have submitted it to Wikipedia:Peer review/Blitzkrieg and hopefully in a week or two we can safely submit it to FA. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:00, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you reply to Peer Review comments? You claim to know more then me about blitz, so I'd like to hear your opinion before I do any major changes or submit this to FAC. If you don't reply, I will assume Mozzerati is right and carry out all changes he suggested. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:58, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well done!

Congrats on getting Wikipedia to FA status. :-) Ta bu shi da yu 23:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the people sporadically adding it to peer review, Ditto! It could still use some improvement; after all, it should be the best of our articles, and the one we are in a unique position to write :) +sj + 04:15, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IBM History Flow study

Yes, late 2003. I believe it was November? when they took their data. Then the study was finally published in early spring 2004, perhaps in March. The dates are all in the paperr itself; I don't remember them perfectly. +sj + 04:15, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging

Can do, but isn't there a big thing on the page for uploading saying it's gfdl? Moomintrollmania 07:51, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I left an important copyright question for you at Image talk:1936NurembergRally.jpg. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 19:22, May 13, 2005 (UTC)


Share the wealth


Since User:Fenice just awarded me this for upkeep on the AID, I figure you deserve the same - after all, you did the job for quite a while before I took over. -Litefantastic 22:44, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:expansion

Could you please take a look at the above template, it is currently the subject of a revert war where both sides are at the 3RR limit. ~~~~ 13:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 119, I added the link to the Wired magazine article about Wikipedia (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.03/wiki.html) on 2005-07-17T06:52Z (http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia&oldid=18972855) and this link was deleted by you on 2005-07-22T05:02Z , citing the link I added, amongst others, as unimportant (http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=19314790&oldid=18509874). Today I found another good article about Wikipedia at Slate (http://slate.msn.com/id/2117942/). I for one find these and other previously linked articles about Wikipedia from external sources to be very informative in gaining a better understanding as Wikipedia as a social and cultural phenomenon. Perhaps Further reading, rather than External links, is the more appropriate section for these links. I would appreciate your feedback on this issue before I added any more external links. Slark 23:45, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I have read the Wired article and previously attempted to somehow incorporate it into the article, but decided that it was too narrow in being first focused solely on the English edition, and then focused on only a handful of the English Wikipedia's users. Is it really worth space on an article covering hundreds of languages and thousands of users? Even within the English Wikipedia community, the users profiled are not representative.
If something would best not be covered in the article, I think it would take a lot to add it as further reading or an external link. Perhaps better suited to English Wikipedia? On the Slate article, I really do not think that article merits being singled out as a link--there are currently 54 references, i.e. articles we actually found useful enough to incorporate in the text, and only a few of those are Further reading. If his criticisms are unique or significant then I would think we should just cover it in the article first. 119 04:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Seems to be...

Regarding your edits on West Highland Way, it's not terribly helpful to delete information just because you don't like the language. Possibly have a stab at rewording it yourself next time? It may be slightly more difficult and time consuming to edit in a positive, constructive manner rather than just zapping things, but I believe it will result in better content (and less iterations of editing, i.e., me putting back in modified versions of things you took out until one doesn't offend you) in the long run. Only around 48,100 left articles to fix. Cheers. — pmcm 21:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Review MOND

I've addressed all objections to the proposal of making Modified_Newtonian_dynamics a featured article. Please review and (hopefully) change your vote to support. Thank you. Loom91 08:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed! Loom91 17:59, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a courtesy to me

As a courtesy to me, I request that you discuss my article on the talk page before you do that again. Do not revert me.--Jimbo Wales 17:09, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Turks in Chicago

I recently found your post on Talk:Chicago, Illinois, asking for information on Turks in Chicago. Here is the article on Turks in the Encyclopedia of Chicago. Sincerely, Dralwik 23:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Turks constitute a small proportion of Chicago's population, with an estimated total of 5,000 individuals in the 1990s. As a whole, they form a highly educated segment of society, many working in the medical and engineering professions.

Though the largest portion of the current Turkish community descends from post–World War II immigration activity, the first Turkish speakers, mostly young men, arrived around the turn of the century, seeking employment in heavy industry. However, calculating the number of Turks who arrived in the United States in general and Chicago in particular prior to World War I is difficult. Since they came from the Ottoman Empire, an extensive, multiethnic state, they were often grouped by immigration officials with other Ottoman subjects, including Greeks, Bosnians, Armenians, Kurds, and Jews, many of whom also spoke Turkish. This ambiguity was compounded further when the officials, confronting a language unlike any they normally dealt with, often changed the names of the Turkish men to something more comprehensible to the English-speaking world. Thus records are difficult to trace on this early group. Of the total of 291,435 Ottoman immigrants recorded by U.S. immigration between 1900 and 1920, best estimates place the Turkish contingent at between 45,000 and 65,000. Most of these were young men from villages in the Anatolian plateau, leaving the Ottoman Empire illegally and planning on staying in the United States for a limited period. A small group of 100 such men sailed into Detroit on the cargo ship Gulcemal in 1914, many of these men moving on to Chicago. The majority of these early immigrants actually returned to their homes in Anatolia during or shortly after the end of World War I, but several, including a number of men in Chicago, married American women and stayed.

Shortly after the founding of the Turkish Republic in 1923, Turkish immigration was severely curtailed, with an official quota of 100 Turks allowed into the United States per year, although there were exceptions for spouses of U.S. citizens and certain specialists, such as medical professionals. Beginning in the 1950s, a number of highly educated Turks, this time including women, arrived to enroll in American universities, such as the University of Chicago and Northwestern, or to serve in skilled professions, particularly medicine and engineering. Like the first wave of immigrants, many of these students and professionals married into the community and remained in Chicago.

Unlike some immigrant communities, the Turks in Chicago have not tended to reside in certain areas of the city, but in general are scattered through the northwest, including significant groups in Naperville and Highland Park. To serve the needs of the Turkish community, the Turkish American Cultural Alliance was founded in 1964 and by 1968 had opened a cultural center on Harlem Avenue, including a mosque and a weekend Turkish-language school. In addition, Chicago has also been the site of a Turkish consulate since 1948.

Warning sign
This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:1940GermanParis.jpg. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law. We need you to specify two things on the image description page:

  • The copyright holder, and
  • The copyright status

The copyright holder is usually the creator. If the creator was paid to make this image, then their employer may be the copyright holder. If several people collaborated, then there may be more than one copyright holder. If you created this image, then you are the copyright holder.

Because of the large number of images on Wikipedia, we've sorted them using image copyright tags. Just find the right tag corresponding to the copyright status of this image, and paste it onto the image description page like this: {{TAGHERE}}.

There are 3 basic ways to licence an image on Wikipedia:

  • The copyright holder can also release their work into the public domain. See here for examples.
  • Images from certain sources are automatically released into the public domain. This is true for the United States, where the Wikimedia servers are located. (See here for images from the government of the USA and here for other governments.) However, not all governments release their work into the public domain. One exception is the UK (see here for images from the UK government). Non-free licence governments are listed here.
  • Also, in some cases, an image is copyrighted but allowed on Wikipedia because of fair use. To see a) if this image qualifies, and b) if so, how to tag it, see Wikipedia:Fair use.

For more information, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Please remember that untagged images are likely to be deleted.

If you have uploaded other images without including copyright tags, please go back and tag them. Also, please tag all images that you upload in the future.

If you have any questions, just leave a message on my talk page. Thanks again. --WonYong 10:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I just wanted to drop by and thank you for helping with the AID, which is one year old today. Also the system you laid down for us to use has been overhauled heavily with each change of administration, it has never been scrapped or replaced. We all owe a lot to you, and as the AID's highest-milage editor, I'd like to thank you with your very own personal barnstar. Wear it with pride.

Image:NaziSalute.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:NaziSalute.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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.

Thuresson 16:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shock and Awe

Hello 119, I don't want to cause any trouble because I'm new here (at least as an editor), so I'd like to talk off the record to a few good contributors about a problem I see on an article that you've edited. Your contributions seem solid, so maybe you can help me. I've been using the Wikipedia definition of "Shock and Awe" for several months because I like how it described the type of warfare that "Shock and Awe" is and also how it gave a link to a definition of "rapid dominance" (of which it claims to be a subset).

In the last couple of days, however, a user called JW1805 edited the article and I think he made the definition much worse.[1] It now says that "Shock and Awe is a military doctrine," whereas is used to say exactly what type of military doctrine it falls into: "Shock and Awe is a method of unconventional warfare." Isn't the old definition more informative? According to the definition of Conventional warfare, I don't think anyone could call it that. So, I think it's safe and informative to say that "Shock and Awe" fits into the definition of unconventional warfare, don't you?

Also JW1805 removed the link to "Rapid dominance," deleted the "Rapid dominance" article and redirected it to "Shock and Awe." Yet the "Shock and Awe" article still says, "Its authors label [shock and awe] a subset of Rapid Dominance." Does that make any sense to you? According to RUSI Journal 141:8-12 Oct '96, "Rapid dominance" is an "intellectual construct" whereas "Shock and awe" is one "method" of implementing that construct. Obviously they are not the same thing. So, why would JW1805 redirect "Rapid dominance" to "Shock and Awe?" Why would he delete the "Rapid dominance" article and the link it?

I went to JW1805's talk page to speak directly to him, but I read what others have said to him, and it seems to be the same story: if you are only one person complaining, JW1805 considers you a troublemaker and has his friends ban you, but if more than one person gets together and says the same thing, he listens. If you feel the same way as I about his edits to "Shock and Awe" and "Rapid dominance," I'm sure we can work together to get the best definition back in place. Are you up for something like that? --Larnue the dormouse 20:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:119&oldid=47595292"