Jump to content

User talk:Ezeu/Archive5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

Archive: 10 June 2006 - 22 July 2006

P. T. Deutermann Article

The external link you removed as Spam was the place from which the bibliography at wikipedia was copied! If you think that to be spam, you may as well get the bibliography from elsewhere. Heavenhelllord 02:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

A bibliography of both Deutermann and Sujata Massey is available from their official websites. --Ezeu 06:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did copy paste them from ibookdb directly though. Also, this should make you go around deleting links to ibdof and iblist from author pages as well! Heavenhelllord 00:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I will keep that in mind. --Ezeu 00:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


Edit

Don't change my edit, this information is factual. http://www.raleighnc.gov/publications/Planning/Demographics/Population_Estimate_January_2006.pdf So don't change it. - Squadoosh

Baseball players of note

FYI, not all of the baseball players of note articles you nominated were actually deleted. New York Mets/Players of note is still around for one. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. That one has now been deleted as well. --Ezeu 23:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Treehouse (Drake and Josh episode)

For the messages I put on the talk page of Treehouse (Drake and Josh episode):

All other comments should go on Treehouse (Drake and Josh episode)'s talk page.

Hmmm...I don't see how it's inappropriate. But I think because of this very unneeded and maybe even stupid discussion I've had enough of this encylopedia ForestH2

Furthermore I think this encylopedia is going no where at all, and I hope maybe sometime I'll think different. I am quite fed up with why we need this page deleted and I'm about to think about leaving Wikipedia. ForestH2

No one wants you to leave, just to respect consensus and procedure. --Ezeu 06:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Shantaram

How is the material in the 'Plot introduution' a "spoiler". Can we agree on how to change it in such a way as to have a description left that does not include a spoiler so that the summary can be free to cover such spoilers as are thought necessary. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If there must be a Plot introduction, then I guess thats the way it should be written. If it were up to me the spoiler tag would be before the plot introduction. But its not up to me. Anyway, its not a major issue, the book's back cover blurb reveals even more. --Ezeu 16:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Swedish-Ugandese

Hi Ezeu, Thanks a lot for your reaction to my efforts on Wikipedia. By the way: I wrote an article on a man called Yaasiin Ciismaan Keenadiid and on Google I came across this article: [1] In the article a photograph is mentioned of mr. Keenadiid and other members of the Somali language committee, the committee that decided on modern spelling for the Somali language (a landmark in the history of Somalia). I tried to e-mail them, but the adress doesn't exist. If it's not too much work could you try to find out if that photograph is available for/on internet ? The Swedes are really doing a great job publishing Somali literature (Hadrawi for instance). Give them my compliments (yes to all of them). S710 18:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I will compliment the Somali-Swedes from you. I'll try to find the image. Compliments to you for the good work you are doing on Somalia related articles. --Ezeu 18:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

a request

Hi Ezeu, Could you unprotect my talk page archives? I had forgotten to do so and have a request from another user to change an image link. Many thanks, BT 01:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Ezeu 01:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Wow, that was quick. Thanks! - BT 01:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment from Bud Whiteye

Ezeu: Thanks for your in-put. I notice several "editors" have taken an editors approach to "Aamjiwnaang: A Canadian comm....." None have said whether or not they enjoyed it. I added it to Wiki so people could among other possibilities, possibly widen their range of appreciation for other parts of the world. I am fully aware that the Wikipedia is a self-editing site; and that's a good thing. But, I find many seem filled with a kind of self-agrandizement for editing. I can't find where anybody says they were able to grasp the subject matter. Is this site only for editing, or those who aspire to be editors? Is not this and other 'pedias for learning as well? Anyway, thanks for your editing regarding sources. I visited Aamjiwnaang for number of days and with the interviews and visits I created an article titled "Aamjiwnaang: A Can...." Much like National Geographic would have done. That is my sole source. "Aamjiwnaang: A Canadian Comm..." is an original article protected only by good ethics and the parameters of plagiarism. I don't know what else to say. If you find more wrong with it please publish your results. The factories and refineries have long ago admitted their casual disregard for the environment. Their contriteness can be found in any number of newspapers and other publications including Wikipedia.

I have a Q or two. How do we (all of us) best maintain contact when in the editing process? Should, what I wrote here be in my "User talk" or right here? Or do I visit other sites looking to see who wants to apply their editing skills? If other editors want to see this reply, how do they benefit from it - do they look for it somehow? It's in your "talk" page. I don't mean to dump on you, but there doesn't seem to be any rationale regarding editing organizing - that is, I don't have someone to talk to about any of this. In two days I have been scattering myself all over the place , trying to answer their editing concerns. Thank You Kindly, Bud Whiteye 19:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Yes, this is the place to contact me, and every user has a "talk page" where you can contact them, likewise they will contact you on yours. Most users prefer the discussion to take place at the same place so as not to fragment the discussion, but since my reply is long, I'll reply at your talk page. --Ezeu 20:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Let me try this again: Hi Ezeu: I can see why you are an administrator; I found some sense in your reply. I hope you can find what I wrote you, I thought it was important. In reply to something you just wrote about regarding no original research. I'm not to clear on that. I don't know whether you mean not previously published or that I shouldn't have researched it myself. Aamjiwnaang: A Canadian Community Under Siege is found in Anishinabek News as a special feature, AND, under another name. But it is the March or April issue of the Ojibwe paper. If this is not enough to qualify my article as "no original research" for Wikipedia then I guess we can't do business. But I do hope you read what I wrote to Notinasnaid. ThanksBud Whiteye 20:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Bud Whiteye
      • If this has been reported in the news, then it is not original research, but I think it would be better to expand the article Aamjiwnaang First Nation, and mention their plight there, using the article you mention above as a reference. Just my opinion. --Ezeu 21:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you said "stay at the bottom of the page" anyway, here I am. Aamjiwnaang and Sarnia are in Ontario Canada. But, environmentalists from Michigan and Chicago, and stakeholders from all over the world have written about this. I wrote about it because of the new health issues mentioned and that Aamjiwnaang and Canadian and US governments are trying new things to try to "clean" things up. Impossible. I guess I'm a little surprised no one out of the thousands reading and visiting Wikipedia daily have not heard of the plight of the First nations at Aamjiwnaang. The name and the situation makes me feel like I'm back in Viet Nam. Thanks Bud Whiteye 21:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Bud Whiteye

Ezeu, I just got the message that my article (Aamjiwnaang) is up for deletion, as it were. Whoever put in the suggestion didn't say why. I don't mind being deleted, but it would be fair to say, 'We're deleting you because the article is rediculous, or: We think it is a good story, we learned something from it but we have enough good stories we learn from.' We have just begun discussion on the article yesterday (June 18, 2006), how does anyone (and, I am an editor by profession) draw that conclusion so fast. I read a few articles that I found interesting - some could have used some help with editing (adjectives, sentence structure and others) but I didn't feel like deleting any of them based on that. They held my interest despite how critical I may have felt about it, so they must have endured others as well. I suppose I could revisit some of those I read and decide to try to help or suggest it be deleted. But if I did that, I would say why. Thanks Bud Whiteye 23:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Bud Whiteye

Ezeu: I just read the, or a, page by Kicking222. He's one of the two wanting to delete my story. That part is okay. What is not okay is in his short bio he says he's here for two reasons he loves, one is to delete. He admits he does not write. How is that fair to people who do write, or put in a good effort (futile or not) to make sure people are properly informed. The reason I'm writing you is the Admin title I saw. I only want an answer to the Q, or perhaps create a discussion. I'm going to write Kicking222 now. Bud Whiteye, Author of Aamjiwnaang Bud Whiteye 00:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

No one is required to write articles. No one can be forced to write articles. --Ezeu 10:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
No one is required to write articles. No one can be forced to write articles. --Ezeu 10:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Ezeu: I just read the, or a, page by Kicking222. He's one of the two wanting to delete my story. That part is okay. What is not okay is in his short bio he says he's here for two reasons he loves, one is to delete. He admits he does not write. How is that fair to people who do write, or put in a good effort (futile or not) to make sure people are properly informed. The reason I'm writing you is the Admin title I saw. I only want an answer to the Q, or perhaps create a discussion. I'm going to write Kicking222 now. Bud Whiteye, Author of Aamjiwnaang Bud Whiteye 00:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


for your information

i've been a member of Wikipedia for almost 2 years. i don't need you to tell me how to do edits. Drmagic 12:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If you have been here for two years then you shouldn't need to be reminded to use edit summeries. --Ezeu 14:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


you're right. i don't need to be reminded. that being said the issue is closed. i will edit any way i choose. Drmagic 15:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

John Okello

Hi, you requested an English-Dutch translation of the John Okello article. Well, it's done. Kusonaga 11:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No prob. Kusonaga 12:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Robert Mugabe

Hey, Ezeu, have you managed not to hear that half of those white farmers he UNLAWFULLY evicted from THEIR land disappeared without a trace? Also, have you not heard that he fixes elections so that there is never any outcome other than a victory on his part? I refer you to this reference, which shows that he was sued 1999 in a United States court for alleged human rights abuses against political opponents in Zimbabwe. The suit was filed by four Zimbabweans whose relatives were allegedly murdered by government supporters in the run-up to parliamentary elections in June. More than 30 people died in the election campaign, nearly all of them supporters of the main opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC). I rest my fucking case.--RichardHarrold 18:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Chadian-Libyan War

Hi Ezeu. I was searching for some advice, and maybe you can give me some suggestion. Wikipedia does not have an article on the Chadian-Libyan War, so I'm projecting to right it, with annexed articles on biographies and battles. My problem is that I'm not certain exactly when to start, as I could begin 1) 1969, when Libya starts giving logistic support to the Chadian insurgents 2) 1977, when Libya starts supporting heavily the rebels and providing military advisors 3) 1980, when Libyan tanks are called in by the Chadian government to crush the Chadian insurgents 4) 1982, and especially 1983, when the war becomes a clear war between the Chadian and Libyan armies, with the Chadian insurgents playing a very marginal role, a situation that will endure till the war's end in 1987. Opinions?--Aldux 12:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Many sources refer to the hostilities of the 70s and 80s collectively as the Chadian-Libyan conflict, and "Libya-Chad war", "Libyan Intervention in Chad", "Libyan Invasion of Chad" etc. to refer to the conflict that started in 1980 when Libyan tanks rolled into N'Djamena. Occasionally the 1979 involvement of Libya in the Chadian Civil war, when they helped install Goukouni Oueddei as president (the first Libyan invasion of Chad) is also included, but as far as I can see from google searches, the span of time between 1980 and 1987 seems to be the most commonly used when referring to the Chadian-Libyan War. --Ezeu 14:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I had almost forgotten; excuse my manners. I've appreciated a lot your input; so maybe the best thing would be to call the article Chadian-Libyan conflict, from 1980 to 1987, with an introduction on previous Libyan involvement, and a conclusion up to the 1993, with the final settlement of the last issues that separated the two countries. I would add a template on the conflict, for connected articles. Do you think this could be a good idea? And thanks for offering to be co-nom for me!--Aldux 12:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, "Chadian-Libyan conflict" is probably better, at least to start with. If/when the article gets too large, one can then break out parts of it into individual articles. --Ezeu 13:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for closing and deleting ...

... Zero and First Order Holds. i think the replacement articles are better and this reduces confusion. r b-j 20:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Sankore Scholars

Hi Ezeu :) thanks for your editing of my sources. im still learning on how to appropriately site references and all that. I was wondering why you removed the small list of of Sankore Scholars. I was planning on making a page for each with some of the other resources. I just thought it would be important to note some of the more known scholars of the institution. holla back when u can.

--Scott Free 17:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I did a quick search on some of them and couldn't find much, so I reckoned they may not pass Wikipedia's notability criteria. But I've put them back as I probably helped maintain systemic bias by removing them. --Ezeu 18:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Sankore Reply

I understand. thanks for putting them back (and bulleting them). There's some good info on at least two of the scholars at one of my source's pages. I'll make sure to add it ASAP. Keep up the good work. --Scott Free 19:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

re: kunta kinte

It is not nonsense. Kunta kinte is related to a 90s pop band Catch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roy stalin (talk • contribs) 29 June 2006, 16:10 (UTC)

Fine, but do not add them to the page about Kunta Kinte. There is absolutely no relationship between the two. --Ezeu 16:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

clean up dates

Hey Ezeu. I just wanted to let you know that you've been putting 2005 instead of 2006 in the clean up date tag on articles. --Howrealisreal 18:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

D'oh!. Thanks for letting me know. Thats what happens when one cuts-n-pastes tags. Now I'll have to go and fix my errors. --Ezeu 18:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I fixed the one on Myrtle Avenue (New York City) already. Take care! --Howrealisreal 18:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You should also know that a bot does this automatically. There is no need for you to waste your time changing cleanup tags to cleanup-date. --Pascal666 08:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Aldux

I finally managed to sit down, do some edit history spot checks and get Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aldux written. Please go ahead with your co-nom and I'll drop Aldux a line that I've passed it over to you. Cheers, BT 04:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I have added my co-nom. --Ezeu 06:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Cliche

The results were 5 for delete and 3 for keep. That is a non-consensus I would of thought. I strongly contest your decision. - Mike Beckham 07:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

AfD is not a vote. One argument to keep was "Keep, Sure, why not?", and the other by an annonymous user (suspect sock puppet - first and only contribution to wikipedia) was merely "Keep" – without an argument. Taking into account the arguments for deleting the article, consensus was clearly to delete. --Ezeu 07:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Sock puppet of whom? If you make unsubstantiated accusations of me I have avenues of reporting your conduct. - Mike Beckham 08:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Did I say you are a sockpuppet? I said an anonymous user, whose first ever and only contribution to Wikipedia was to participate in an AfD, hence the suspicion that that user is a sockpuppet. Do pursue your avenues. --Ezeu 08:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Clearly you accused me of creating sock puppets. Review my history on WP, you can see my conduct has always been in Good faith and I have been strongly against Spam on Wikipedia. - Mike Beckham 08:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I am sure your conduct is exemplary. I said an anonymous user is a suspected sockpuppet. Thats all. Why you persistently insist that I have accused you, I don't understand. --Ezeu 08:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Sharon Janis

I am disappointed that you opted to delete my article on Sharon Janis and must at least state my view that this was unjustified. She deserves inclusion for her contribution to television alone. I have no direct connection to Sharon Janis or her company, but I have read her books which are widely available on both sides of the Atlantic, and I am aware of her television work. I would remind you that she successfully contributed to the very well known FOR DUMMIES series of books. Please reconsider your decision. I believe the article met the conditions for being included and attention to her work deserves to be available to future generations.

I would also add the the orginal proposer of the deletion, who titles himself "TheRingness" has an interest in Siddha Yoga and clearly sees Sharon Janis as some sort of heretic. To be fair he was persuaded to change his vote to keep (as seen on the deletion discussion) but bizarrely you deleted the article anyway. I did not keep a record of my article but feel strongly enough to re-research it and re-enter it if necessary. I would rather the original article were restored, and I could then add further verifiable sources if requested.

I have no problem with my articles being deleted, as some others have, if it can be justified. I do strongly object to readers being denied access to knowledge of an individual because other people don't agree with their views or have not heard of that person themselves, and regardless of their unconvincing arguments, that is what I believe has happened in this case. I have entered other articles on people much more obscure than Sharon Janis and far from being deleted, others have greatly improved them. This convinces me that an injustice has occurred and I am going to fight hard to reverse it. User:Headshaker 07:03 12 July 2006

  • Consensus was clearly to delete the article. Take the issue to Wikipedia:Deletion review if you disagree.--Ezeu 08:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I most certainly will, and I will pursue every other available avenue for that matter. "Clear consensus" (which means "the majority of people who entered an opinion") should not be the reason anyone was denied access to knowledge about someone who is a published transatlantic author, or who has edited TV shows seen across the world. To me, this is a proliferation of knowledge issue, far more important than any individual's interpretation of procedures.

Thanks

A thousand thanks to my co-nominator! :-) Exactly the year of my first wiki-birthday, also! --Aldux 15:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Afd top

Hello, Ezeu. I was wondering if you could elaborate on your reasoning for reverting my change to Template:Afd top. The reasons why I changed the template are given on the talk page. You said that, "The decision is based on the discussion, not the nomination" in the edit summary. However, as I said on the talk page, the result of the discussion is not always followed. For example, sometimes the result of the consensus violates policy (verifiability, original research, attack page etc.), or the nomination is closed before a consensus has been reached and sometimes before any discussion has taken place at all, like a speedy keep or delete. It seems illogical and confusing to refer to a discussion that never took place, did not reach consensus, or came to the opposite conclusion, as the reason that an article was kept, deleted, redirected or merged. As I said on the talk page, one person has asked me where the discussion took place after a speedy keep and, if I recall correctly, it has come up on the AfD talk page before.

I suggested two alternative wordings, "the result was" and "the result of the nomination was". The second wording was not intended to imply that the decision is based upon the nomination (also, by nomination, I mean everything, the nominator's statement and the discussion). It was intended to give the result of the nomination. When an article has been to AfD before, the nominator and participants say that the "result of the first nomination was..." rather than "the result of the first discussion was". If you still object, would the wording "the result was" be acceptable? I think that the previous wording may have been to reinforce that AfD nominations are not votes, but it should not do so at the expense of clarity. Also, the examples I gave above prove that AfD nominations are not always discussions, either. This is not an exceptional occurrence, speedy deletions happen frequently on AfD and speedy keeps/speedy closes are not rare. Thanks, Kjkolb 23:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

inflammatory edit summaries

Have you invited me to give up insulting other contributors? Instead I'll continue to do them! I cannot stand ignorant people. Egr, 14/7/2006

Regarding ==Merge with Aboriginal peoples in Canada?==

Luigizanasi is wrong, & I assumed that probably he removed my tag. The distiction he refered to is POLITICAL, these's articles must be merged.

68.148.165.213 14:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Alireza Jafarzadeh

Mr. Ezeu, I wonder if you could assist with keeping the Alireza Jafarzadeh article from being vandalised every few days. Initially someone called User:Middle East Editor would revert the article from a well referenced factual version to one which was not. More recently someone called User:John Baxter has been performing exactly the same revert. It is fairly obvious these two editors are probably the same person, and quite possibly the subject of the article. I am getting tired of reverting the article every few days. Can you please do something along the lines of blocking the user and/or the IP adress used? --Dave 10:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Will look into it.--Ezeu 16:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Okiror.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Okiror.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ezeu/Archive5&oldid=390554358"