|
== Christobol ==
''Old discussions now at [[/Archive 1]] / [[/Archive 2]] / [[/Archive 3]] / [[/Archive 4]] / [[/Archive 5]] / [[/Archive 6]] / [[/Archive 7]] / [[/Archive 8]] / [[/Archive 9]]''
Chris is the name of a really fat fucker who reminds me of eating loads of junk food. It reminds me of a fat cunt who needs a girlfriend. Christobal is the spanish name of Chris the fat motherfucker. Mellissa, John, james etc FAT CUNTS
'''Please add new comments below.'''
----
==that contreversial cartoon==
in reference to the copyright information provided, has the cartoonist given his permission for wikipedia to use the image? can we see a translation of the copyright agreement and copys of the e-mails refered to? i ask because, and i'll use the example of the movie dogma here, which was also contraversial, yet woulg be a brach of copyright to reproduce without permission. Also, i nbelive wikipedia should be an obsurver of the conraversies of the world interact. your thoughts please, best regards haydn. --[[User:Happyhaydn|Happyhaydn]] 00:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
:Please take a look at [[:Image:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_drawings.jpg#Summary]] and [[:Image:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_drawings.jpg#Licensing]], which I believe answer your questions. If you have any further queries, please direct them to [[Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy]]. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 01:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
== We have an open request to unprotect the Macedonian redirects ==
[[User:Khoikhoi]] has a request up to unprotect the 5 Macedonian people redirects you protected in mid November. Unprotect? Let us know on RfP or on my talk page. Thanks. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 06:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
== Dianetics ==
Looks ''very'' good! I have only a few comments:
*The use of italics for quotations is, I believe, non-standard. I confess I find it visually distracting.
*In mentioning the APA's September 1950 resolution not to use Hubbard's techniques therapeutically, I'd also mention that the resolution left open the possibility of using Hubbard's techniques experimentally to test their validity -- something you don't hear very often from the Scientology camp, whose party line is that the APA at that time wanted to surpress Dianetics because they "knew" it worked.
*You mention that GUK was named "after" the rifle-cleaning fluid. I was under the impression that Hubbard had stated it actually ''was'' the rifle-cleaning fluid, with the addition of niacin. (This may have been me misunderstanding that ''this'' crazy thing Hubbard said was actually meant as a joke, as opposed to the other crazy things he said which he meant as sacraments. =) )
Overall, an excellent job. -- [[User:Antaeus Feldspar|Antaeus Feldspar]] 01:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello ChrisO. I wish to get into communication with you regarding your use of your administrative status and its intrusion into the Dianetics article. You revision of 8 Jan [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dianetics&oldid=34399296] removed a cited list of Dianetics Publications, in Harvard style, complete with ISBNs and other cited sources. You replaced that carefully prepared, cited, information with sketchy, ill-prepared information that does not have ISBN numbers, isn't cited, doesn't have verification and, in my opinion, is counter to Wiki Policy. WHY ? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 02:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
: I see you have refused to communiate with anyone about your gross violations of wikipedia policy in preference to your assumed right to rewrite whole articles (the dianetics article) without any other POV presented. The reason I have tried to talk with you is because A. you are an administrator, you earned that status, it didn't just fall into your lap. and B. You have a few people who think you are doing right. I submit this information to you. No one who understands Dianetics considers your inputs helpful, in fact, in the area, Dianetics, all consider your inputs to have destroyed what was worked hard to achieve. And you persist in destroying the meaning of Dianetics with your persistent edits. And you refuse to communicate with anyone but those who think you are doing right. You, and they, don't understand Dianetics. Would you ask a plumber to build an article about carpentry? You would be wise to listen to those people with a little expertise in this hard to understand area. Is there any possibility of getting into communication with you at all ? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 22:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
== Yellowcake ==
Hi Chris,
I posted a message in the discussion section of the "Yellowcake" entry. I believe the entry is incorrect. I will double check with some of my colleagues who work in the nuclear fuel fabrication industry, but I've looked into texts on this. I'd like your opinion also, as there has been some controversy about the term yellowcake in my professional circle. I work for the Dept of Energy in the nuclear field. I'll check back on the discussion section of yellowcake for your response.
Best regards!
Pete
Hi Chris - I added a more detailed response to the yellowcake entry. Thanks!
== from user:Makedonas ==
Hello!First of all thank you for your neutrality about the subject.As you understood, Greeks are very sensitive about it.
1. About the flag-I know that one day I was running to photo the flag in our prefecture for allowing us to put it in the article for Macedonia, and now I watsch Skopians to put it simply in the article FYROM although they haven't the right to use it.
2. About the term "Slavomacedonians"-I'm trying to be as polite as I can. That's why I don't use the term "Skopians" as all Greeks do. The issue about the name hasn't resolved yet. From the other side I am Macedonian-How should I refer to them?
3. Some people are trying to write the "slavian names" of Greek cities as "macedonian names".I use the term "South Slavic" because in Bulgaria, in Serbia, in Croatia etc. they refer to these cities with excacly the same name.What are they trying to say?That these are "slavomacednians" cities?We are refering in Greek cities! I think it is right to write how Slavians refer to these cities, but what they do, it is very offensive!(I won't say again that in FYROM speak a Bulgarian dialect).
I 'm trying to be as fair as I can, but after living 7 years in Bulgaria, having many Skopians friends and after working 2 years in greek-skopians borders, I know very well what Slavians trying to do.
Sorry about my English.--[[User:Makedonas|Makedonas]] 15:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
== Sort Order ==
See my comments on Macedonia. You have to provide an objective reason why FYROM should be first. Right now you are just being arbitrary and biased. [[User:Sysin|Sysin]] 11:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
==What is citeable, per [[WP:CITE]]==
Hello ChrisO. I am letting you know that [[WP:CITE]] states: "To ensure that the content of articles is credible and can be checked by any reader or editor." Some of your cites in some articles do not fulfill that requirement. Please feel free to read the style guideline for yourself. One cite in particular which you recently make which clearly is off Wiki guidelines involves confidential Scientology materials. Please don't get our beloved Wikipedia involved in legal struggles over a book cover picture. The reason I say this to you isn't because you shouldn't edit wikipedia, but because this website: [http://www.rtc.org/en_US/matters/ethics.html] states clearly: "Holding or reproducing in any manner, confidential materials of Dianetics and Scientology without the express permission of RTC" is a reportable matter of concern to RTC. The reproducing part of that statement says that RTC might take legal action. But with or without RTC's concern, the citation you make about confidential Scientology materials doesn't follow Wikipedia's [[WP:CITE]] because who but you can look at it? I hope you understand. The citation doesn't fulfill Wikipedia's guildlines and it presents a potential legal problem. Don't take this as a threat, take this as my carefully pointing out to you that no one can look up and read your cite but you. okay? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 14:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
This is my second contact to you ChrisO. I am letting you know it is inappropriate to cite a source which is not available to readers and to editors. In this particular case you are citing Confidential, trade secreted materials which are legally protected. Few persons but you have access to that material. It is not the intent of Wikipedia, I don't believe, to cite such materials. That is plain wrong. To rewrite [[WP:CITE]] as you did in an attempt to make access to citations acceptable is wrong. But it is also wrong, of its own accord, to cite trade secrets. Both are wrong. As, at this point, I am the only person who has pointed this out to you, you are not actionable in dispute resolution by normal, Request for Comment means. But whether you are actionable or not, it is the wrong thing to do. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 22:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
::ChrisO, I would like to add my two-cents worth on the "Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health" citations. To me your citation of a personal note on confidential Class VIII materials from a book by a man being paid to dis Scientlogy is too much of a reach. This should not be used on Wiki to add extraineous, controversial and inflamatory materials to a book written in 1950, when actual claims in the book are deleted and ignored. As it stands this volatile matterial takes up at least half of the discussion space and has too large of an importance in the article itself. I see this as the basic premise. Advertizing people try to push people's buttons to get them to buy things. So what is news about that? Why do you try to dazzle people with galactic genocide and billions of people and space opera and confidential high level materials and hearsay and uncitable "facts". This whole topic seems to be your personal fascination. A book cover has a volcano on it. I can recall quite a few that also have such a cover, like Churchward's Mu series from the 30s. Big friggen deal. Is this what you get paid to do? [[User:Spirit of Man|Spirit of Man]] 01:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
:Your statement is incorrect. Almost everything the CoS calls "confidential" is readily available. Check [[Xenu]] - the scan of Hubbard's original handwritten OT III. This is scholarly and educational use.
:Also, please reread [[Wikipedia:No legal threats]] - you are veering a little close there - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 22:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
::In the case of OT III, it's especially absurd, since Warren McShane, representing Scientology, specifically asserted in court that the Xenu story (or "Xemu", as he referred to it) was ''not'' a trade secret. -- [[User:Antaeus Feldspar|Antaeus Feldspar]] 23:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
:::"a man being paid to dis Scientlogy" -- hmm, that's an interesting allegation. Do you have any citation for that character assassination? -- [[User:Antaeus Feldspar|Antaeus Feldspar]] 14:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
::::There are 2 points being made to ChrisO. One is, the citing of material which is known to be confidential to the Church of Scientology, when the Church is known to raise legal questions, is not a practice even newspapers like to involve themselves in. To use Wikipedia in this manner is chancey at best and at least irresponsible. But even if there were good and sufficient reason to cite Trademarked material, that use of that citation doesn't contribute to understanding the article it is within. ChrisO uses the citation in an attempt to make a point. But careful reading of the citation does not state why, exactly, Publications Org, Inc. has chosen to put a volcano on the cover of DMSMH. In any event, because the reading public and editors can not view the full citation, but only the line or two which ChrisO "says" it says, it is a very poor citation and poorly used. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 18:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::''"the citing of material which is known to be confidential to the Church of Scientology, when the Church is known to raise legal questions, is not a practice even newspapers like to involve themselves in."'' - This is observably not the case, as in the press coverage of Tom Cruise's publicity work for ''War of the Worlds'' - every press article was Xenu, Xenu, Xenu. All of them. - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 08:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::''even if there were good and sufficient reason to cite Trademarked material'' -- why should a trademark be any barrier whatsoever? Are you, perhaps, confused about the difference between trademark law and copyright law, as so many people are? Trademark law protects a business entity's ''mark of trade'', nothing more; it means that if the Church of Scientology had "Xenu" registered as a trademark, I couldn't sell products or services similar to the products and services the Church of Scientology sells under a name which was similar enough to "Xenu" to cause confusion. It does not mean (and it's ridiculous to think it means) that no one except those granted permission by the trademark holder can discuss Xenu. I guarantee you that [[Proctor & Gamble]] has a trademark on [[Pampers]]; does this mean that no one can discuss Pampers unless P&G approves it? Now if these were [[trade secret]]s, that would be a different story, but again, that is exactly what [[Warren McShane]] testified on behalf of the Church of Scientology that the story of Xenu ''was not'', and had never been. -- [[User:Antaeus Feldspar|Antaeus Feldspar]] 15:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
::::::Since you both refuse to acknowledge the document is a stolen document, I'll say it again here. ChrisO views my saying the document is a stolen document as a personal attack. This is not a personal attack, though he invites a personal attack because he is in possession of a stolen document. That he advertises his possession of a stolen document, attempting to 'bait' me into reading it and proving he is not constrained by Church of Scientology procedures only underlines the ciminality of his possossesion of said document. I believe you both would have been wise to simply no insist your citation on the DMSMH page was a good citation. Stolen documents do not "unimpeachable" sources make, if you follow my drift. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 20:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Terryeo, you've been conflating copyright law and trademark law and trade secret as if they were all the same thing. They aren't. You've been claiming that the story of Xenu does not appear in any Scientology or Dianetics publication. It does. You've been claiming that the Church of Scientology never made any public statement acknowledging the existence of Xenu in their doctrine, which was incorrect; when notified that your claim was incorrect, you ''refused to acknowledge'' that there was any such court case. No, we ''do not'' "acknowledge" your personal belief that the document in question is "a stolen document", because so many of your personal beliefs are in fact documentedly false. -- [[User:Antaeus Feldspar|Antaeus Feldspar]] 20:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
== [[Ten-Day War]] ==
I think your contributions greatly improved the article. I only had minor edits. Thanks for your contributions. --[[Image:Flag of Washington, D.C..svg|30px]] [[User:D Monack|D.M.]] <sup>[[User talk:D Monack|(''talk'')]]</sup> 00:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
==DONT PUSH TO MUCH==
The flag of vergina is a national simbol trought the ages of the macedonians and you after so many cantries have decided that is not
please stay neutral according to macedonians and leave your geniality
keep using your brain.
== Ten-Day War ==
Alright, I see your point. I will be changing the term Slovene to Slovenian though.
If you check the history of the page, Slovenian and Slovene were being used interchangeably (as noun and adjective). It looked like a big mess.
Slovenian, the far more common term, was used by the original author and should be kept.
[[User:BT2|BT2]] 01:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
== German images ==
You might like to look at the copyright status of [[:Image:Surreydocks1941.jpg]] - my view is that someone else should have told you they were changing the tag. --[[User:Henrygb|Henrygb]] 00:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
:Thanks for letting me know! -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 00:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
== GermanGov tag ==
Hi there, you recently uploaded an image under the {{tl|GermanGov}} licence. This tag is invalid, and all images so tagged are now at [[Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images#All_images_in_Category:German_government_images]]. Please re-tag as appropiate. [[User:Pilatus|Pilatus]] 03:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
==[[List of Macedonians (ethnic group)]]==
Hi Chris. Don't you think it's time to remove the "move protected" notice from this article? You put it November 13 and it's still there; and if we can't take it away now, we'll probably never be able to do it, don't you think so? ''Ciao''! :-) [[User:Aldux|Aldux]] 13:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
==[[:Image:Judea.jpg]]==
Hi, please post the permission for this photo on the image talk page. [[User:Thuresson|Thuresson]] 20:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
:I will if I can find it... -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 19:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
== user name ==
Hello I was just wondering where you saw this Name Jewbacca
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jewbacca
cause its my user name for neverwinter nights and first person shooters
whatsinbounds@hotmail.com
:No idea where it came from - it's not my username! -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 19:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
== 3RR ==
Don't worry. I know. I have no intention of going beyond the three. I was trying to put an explanation on the talk page but I kept being caught in edit conflicts. [[User:Jtdirl|<span style="color:#006666; background-color:orange">'''Fear''ÉIREANN'''''</span>]][[Image:Ireland-Capitals.PNG|15px]]\<sup><font color="blue">[[User talk:Jtdirl|(caint)]]</font></sup> 19:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
:Fair enough. I guess I was lucky enough to avoid that fate! -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 19:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Wasn't a 3rr because it was a different version and one on which I made different edits. 3rr applies to a single version which is reverted to. I didn't revert to that version that time. So not a 3rr. See the diffs. Also you were involved on the page which makes it a policy violation. --[[user:Anonymous editor|<font color="green">'''a.n.o.n.y.m'''</font>]] <sup>[[user talk:Anonymous editor| ''t'']]</sup> 19:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
:No, I reverted Zocky's edit, not yours. [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy]] says: "Likewise, users should not block those with whom they are currently engaged in an article-editing conflict."
:Also, [[WP:3RR]] doesn't support your contention about different versions:
:''The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia article within 24 hours of their first reversion...
:''Reverting in this context means undoing the work of another editor. It does not necessarily mean going back into the page history to revert to a previous version. The passage you keep adding or deleting may be as little as a few words, or in some cases, just one word.''
:''Reverting doesn't only mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. It means undoing the actions of another editor, and may include edits that undo a previous edit, in whole or in part, or that add something new. Use common sense.''
:The wording of the policy clearly suggests that what you were doing wasn't legitimate. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 20:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
:But thanks for unblocking. --[[user:Anonymous editor|<font color="green">'''a.n.o.n.y.m'''</font>]] <sup>[[user talk:Anonymous editor| ''t'']]</sup> 19:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
::Unblocking yourself is an abuse of administrator privileges, frankly... -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 20:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
:::I know but doesn't work anyways because IP was still blocked. Thanks for unblocking it though. Also I don't understand why you blocked me when you were involved in the dispute including the debate on the talk page. You could have also answered my emails that I sent you. That's all part of being an administrator and although I did revert the last time, I did not undo the work of another editor, I kept the story but moved it. --[[user:Anonymous editor|<font color="green">'''a.n.o.n.y.m'''</font>]] <sup>[[user talk:Anonymous editor| ''t'']]</sup> 20:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
::::I just checked my mailbox - nothing there from you. It's not instantaneous, you know. :-) -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 20:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
::::No hard feelings here. I also found out that you didn't unblock me. You might want to check why my emails aren't getting to you. I sent another one for just saying hello. --[[user:Anonymous editor|<font color="green">'''a.n.o.n.y.m'''</font>]] <sup>[[user talk:Anonymous editor| ''t'']]</sup> 21:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
== [[Talk:Macedonia]] ==
Please take a look at my comment which I placed inside your text. I will not take part in the discussion, however, since I have seen your serious attempts for NPOV wherever possible, I thought I had to remind you of facts.--[[User:FocalPoint|FocalPoint]] 12:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
:I think it's a fair characterisation of the facts. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 11:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
== Revert wars ==
Hi, do you have any idea about what can be done about that revert war at [[Vergina Sun]]? Perhaps pronounce a policy which requires one footnote link in every article or a link on half the mentions of the disputed name. That revert war was quite funny at first, but now it's reached the point of pure silliness! --[[User:Latinus|Latinus]] ([[:el:User talk:Latinus|talk (el:)]]) 23:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
:Sysin is, unfortunately, a hardline POV-pusher. I've added a comment to the talk page and reverted him. If he persists we may need to take it a stage further. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 23:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
::Let me have a word with him; I may be able to convince him. --[[User:Latinus|Latinus]] ([[:el:User talk:Latinus|talk (el:)]]) 23:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
:::Good luck! -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 23:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
::By the way, who's this [[User:Vergina]], who I've seen blundering over the Macedonia related articles with comments like "FYROM is Republic of Bulgaristan". Does (s)he do anything useful? --[[User:Latinus|Latinus]] ([[:el:User talk:Latinus|talk (el:)]]) 23:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
== Image:Explosion.jpg listed for deletion ==
<div style="padding:5px; background-color:#E1F1DE"> An image or media file that you uploaded, [[:Image:Explosion.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. <!-- {{idw}} --></div> [[User:Dbenbenn|dbenbenn]] | [[User talk:Dbenbenn|talk]] 23:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
: Also [[:Image:Pora stickers lvov.jpg]]. [[User:Dbenbenn|dbenbenn]] | [[User talk:Dbenbenn|talk]] 01:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
::Thanks, I've resolved the latter one. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 11:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
== Image talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad drawings.jpg ==
Hi ChrisO. Just wanted to ask you about the Muhammad drawings talk page.
On the page you say that we should discuss it on the main article, but don't you think that the main article's talk page is already clogged up enough? And, as you can see from archive 2, we were getting a pretty good discussion about the actuall picture going, not, like on the main article talk page, just people venting their anger. I think that the talk page on the image gives wikipedians who don't want to get drawn into a big debate about if they are good or bad morally a chance to discuss what wikipedia should do. So, please reconsider and unprotect the page.
[[User: The Halo|The Halo]]
:The problem with that is that the image talk page ''does'' offer people the opportunity to vent and it's simply not appropriate to use image talk pages for that. I accept that it might be less convenient to put the discussion on the article talk page, but in the circumstances I think we need to corral the discussion in one place. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 11:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
== Why your heart has a black blood ==
I am astonished how such pages of Wiki are protected and,
I would like to ask you an only one question - only one -
why a jews such you hate islam, and when will be the time to be humans and not '''animals'''
== Talk: Dianetics ==
Arguing with the Dianetics loonies is bad for my health. Thanks for the compliment, it definitely helps to counter the effects of being attacked and selectively ignored, but I think it will be better for me to keep out of this mess. These people are interested in advocacy, and be damned what anyone else thinks.
To satisfy the NOR policy, most of the Scientology pages should be deleted. Scientology and Dianetics deserve a mention only as social phenomena, any discussion of their scientific merits properly belongs somewhere other than Wikipedia, as it constitutes original research. I'd throw them a bone by letting them mention their beliefs, but only in the context of "While credible scientific sources believe this, Dianetics holds that something else is true." This is ''pseudoscience.'' Nothing of their beliefs should be mentioned without clearly labeling it as a minority view.
Most of SoM and Terryeo's objection to the article is that it does not describe in detail the "philosophy, science, [and] therapy" of Dianetics. This is fairly true, but it is also not relevant: Wikipedia is under no obligation to describe them at all, and certainly not in a positive light. We're not here to present both sides and let the reader choose which. We don't have to, thank the deity of your choice, decide what research is valid and what is not. We rely on the scientific community to do that. What we are here to do is present the scholarly side, the opinion of the scientific community. Verifiable information from neutral, reliable sources.
I suggest this as structure:
*Introduction of Dianetics
*Why Dianetics is pseudoscience
*What distinguishes Dianetics from other pseudosciences
*History of Dianetics
But I don't think it would go over very well. The article is pretty close to that as is, but I think the closer we can get, the better.
I'm going to go try and deal with some stubs, feel free to quote me or call me back in there. I'm just a bit worried about arguing with True Believers, feel like I'd be more productive trying to bore a tunnel through a mountain with a needle, y'know? (three cheers if you get the reference) Anyway, that's my two cents, uncut and undiluted. Let me know what you think. [[User:Tenebrous|Tenebrous]] 12:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
== Proposal ==
Hi, could you check and comment at my proposal at [[Talk:Macedonia]]. As you can see, it's obviously pro-FYROM and if accepted, will probably result in me being banished from [[:el:|el:]] but I tired of the edit warring and trolling (from both sides). --[[User:Latinus|Latinus]] ([[:el:User talk:Latinus|talk (el:)]]) 19:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
:BTW I've had a word with Sysin - hopefully, he'll stop. --[[User:Latinus|Latinus]] ([[:el:User talk:Latinus|talk (el:)]]) 19:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
== Use the discussion pages. <expletive> ==
Use the discussion page. You have POVed the Dianetics article for weeks. First you remove the whole article to place your POV of what the article should be, removing a great deal of work by a great many people. Then you state your POV, (conjecture, pseudoscience) when the rest of the editors are working toward a concensus of opinion. Then you modify the article to make your POV the only POV in the article again. That's just plain wrong ChrisO. Just plain wrong. You were wrong about the inclusion of unpublished, confidential Scientology cites and you are wrong about this too. Use the discussion page. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 19:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
: If you feel ChrisO has made such gross and POV edits to this article, feel free to take it up with Wikipedia. Start a [[Wikipedia:Request for Comment]] and see how far it goes. Though strangely, Terryeo, you seem to be the only one who has a problem with ChrisO's edits. Why is that? --[[User:Modemac|Modemac]]
::Yes, I have to agree. It's funny that Terryeo claims that ChrisO is acting contrary to the "rest of the editors", who "are working toward a concensus of opinion." I'd be interested to know who Terryeo is counting as the "rest of the editors"? He certainly doesn't mean me; he certainly doesn't mean Wikipediatrix; he doesn't mean you, Modemac; he doesn't mean BTfromLA -- is he counting himself and Spirit of Man as the "consensus of opinion"? -- [[User:Antaeus Feldspar|Antaeus Feldspar]] 00:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
== need the original large version of Jyllands-Posten muhammed ansigt ==
Dear sir,
my name is Budianto, I came from Indonesia, I need to look the original large version of Jyllands-Posten Muhammed Ansigt, I try to enlarge on Wikipedia pages, but the pages was protected.
so I wonder if you could send me the large original version from Jyllands-Posten's newspaper (JPG files) to my email account : lord212004@yahoo.com
I had been open the other webs who provided the 12 cartoons, but it seems the 12 cartoons was edited (language) by someone.
I hope, you could give me the original large version.
Thanks
regards,
Budianto
East of Java
Indonesia
-----
Another source for those pictures:
[http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/698 Brussels Journal]
== regarding discussion. If you want discussion you will have to offer discussion ==
ChrisO, you said: "ChrisO (Talk) (==Dianetics and pseudoscience== - restored; if you have a problem with an addition, you discuss it - you don't delete it)"
My reply to you about that is this. When you begin discussing your edits with others, then you can expect others to discuss their edits with you. You removed the entire article and substituted your own POV which you admit, is meant only to Debunk Dianetics and present it as a conjecture at best. You did that without a jot of discussion at all. Now you expect poeple to discuss their edits with you? Get a clue ! [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 04:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
== your comment to me on my talk page ==
First you posted: "Antaeus Feldspar, BTfromLA, Modemac and Wikipediatrix" on my talk page and then you modified that to to a lesser number of individuals.
:My mistake - I'd thought that BTfromLA had assented to co-sponsoring the request but on checking my (and his) talk page I found that he hadn't replied. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 01:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
::ChrisO, you can add me to the group that considers Dianetics as a pseudoscience, and I am a supporter of your well referenced version of the article about Dianetics. If anything, this article needs at most fine tuning. There are many other Scientology articles I consider difficult to read and understand unless the reader is a "believer" and is familiar with the specific Scientology jargon (example: [[Clear_(Scientology)]]. Actually it gets very confusing at time, as I understood that Terryeo was agreeing that Dianetics has nothing to do with science [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADianetics&diff=38496177&oldid=38495736]. [[User:Povmec|Raymond Hill]] 03:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Apparently at no time have you understood what I have attempted many times to communicate to you. What link points toward that action?[[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 00:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
:I understand very well that you don't seem to have any understanding of Wikipedia policies, standards or conventions, and that you're trying very hard to turn the article into an expression of your own POV (as you tried to do with [[Philosophy of Life]], which is deservedly going to be re-deleted). A lot of newbie editors make mistakes but they do learn from them and fit in well after a while. I don't think you've made any progress on that score since you started editing, which is why I feel you could benefit from some independent advice.
:I think somebody else suggested this a while back, but you really would benefit from editing non-Scientology articles for a while. Your POV appears to be getting in the way of your ability to adapt to Wikipedia's approach, which does take some getting used to. Try editing articles about your home town, or your hobbies or something else that interests you, other than Scientology. Take a break from editing Scientology topics and learn how Wikipedia works before getting stuck into something as controversial as this. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 01:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
== Permission request - Battering Ram jpeg ==
Dear Chris,
I am writing from the National Strategies head office in Reading,(England). We publish training and educational material for teachers in UK schools on behalf of the UK government’s Department for Education and Skills (DfES). These materials are provided free of charge and aim to raise pupil attainment by focusing on improving teaching and learning in schools throughout the UK.
I would like to request permission to use the photo of the battering ram taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Battering_ram.jpg for which, I believe you own the rights.
Full details of our materials are as follows:
DfES Publication (Working) Title: CPD Subject Leaders.
Context of Materials: The is used as part of a PowerPoint interactive story entitled 'Castle Attack'.
Format of Reproduction: Print, web, CD Rom.
We would like to extend this permission to include potential future Braille versions for the visually impaired.
Intended Audience: Teachers, Heads, and Consultants.
I would be most grateful if you could confirm that you hold the necessary rights, or are aware of any other parties we should approach in order to secure permission. If you do hold the relevant rights, may I request that you indicate your agreement to the use of this material, under the terms expressed above, by replying to this email?
The publication in which we would like to include your materials may be reprinted or repurposed for use in other National Strategies publications, with no alteration to the content or context of your work, as requested here. Please could you confirm if you are happy for us to use your material in this manner?
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further enquiries. I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards,
Matthew Bishop
Third Party Intellectual Properties Co-ordinator
Tel: +44 (0)118 918 2590
Fax: +44 (0)118 918 2766
The National Strategies
Capita Business Services
1 New Century Place
Queens Road
Reading
RG1 4QH
England - UK
matthew.bishop@capita.co.uk
==DYK==
{| class="messagebox standard-talk"
|-
|[[Image:Updated DYK query.png|Updated DYK query]]
|'''[[:Template:Did you know|Did you know?]]''' has been updated. A fact from the article '''[[UFO religion]]''', which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the [[Main Page]]. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on [[:Template talk:Did you know|the "Did you know?" talk page]].
|} --[[User:Gurubrahma|Gurubrahma]] 12:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
== Scientology Study Corner Austria ==
[http://www.sgmt.at/scioe.htm Scientology Study Corner Austria]: I've sent them an email a while ago asking if they have the "Assists" lecture from Hubbard. No answer though. But it would seem to me a good place to resolve the often used "cite unpublished" argument, as from the description of the site, anybody can drop by and read through their extensive library of Scientology materials. We would have to confirm that they effectively have the material in their library, which would mean that the cited work is verifiable. [[User:Povmec|Raymond Hill]] 16:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
==Request for Mediation==
You recently filed a Request for Mediation; the decision to accept or reject your case has been extended pending further information. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Dianetics]].
:''For the Mediation Committee,'' <font color=#696969>[[User:Essjay|Essjay]] <sup>[[User talk:Essjay|''Talk'']] • [[User:Essjay/Contact|''Contact'']]</sup></font>, ''Chairman'', 12:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
:<small>(This message delivered by [[User:Celestianpower|Celestianpower]] ([[User talk:Celestianpower|talk]]) on behalf of [[User:Essjay|Essjay]].)</small>
Chris, please look at my recent discussion on the mediation page and on the Dianetics talk page. --[[User:JimmyT|JimmyT]] 22:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
== Laments and other stuff ==
Hi Chris! I've been continuously reverted by [[User:FunkyFly|FunkyFly]] at the [[Jane Sandanski]] article - it's about an early 20th century revolutionary claimed by both Macedonians and Bulgarians. I proposed a neutral wording, but the Macedonian POV gets either marginalised or erased. The frustrating thing is that the other side does not provide sources. I'm really not into starting edit wars, so would you help in creating a [[NPOV]] atmosphere there? --[[User:FlavrSavr|FlavrSavr]] 03:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
:I'll check in and see what's happening...
Also, depending on my spare time, I think I would need your assistance in two other articles:
*[[Albanians in the Republic of Macedonia]] - Could you evaluate the neutrality of the article? It was extremely Albanian POV-ed (even fantastic) at some point, but then, some Macedonian editors did some efforts to neutralize it. I was not involved in these developments, but it might be a bit Macedonian POV-ed at this moment. --[[User:FlavrSavr|FlavrSavr]] 03:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
:OK, I'll have a look at that too.
*An article about the Macedonian war conflict in 2001 - Isn't it amazing that there are like tons of info about the ROM/FYROM dumb naming conflict, and we have no article about the 2001 war/conflict? Are you acquainted with this war? Could you please suggest me a proper name for this armed conflict? I mean, it is debatable, whether it was a classic war, and then again, [[Armed conflict in the Republic of Macedonia]] sounds a bit blunt. I intend to make at least a stub about it. --[[User:FlavrSavr|FlavrSavr]] 03:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
:As it happens, I did actually write most of an article on this last year but lost it in a disk crash before I could post it. :-( However, I've still got my notes and source material around somewhere, so I'm sure I could reconstitute it. As for the name, the Macedonians never actually declared a state of war (I believe), so "Macedonian War" would be out. How about simply "Macedonian Conflict"? -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 23:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
::Yup, that's a [[Murphy's law|Murphy's]] one. I think it's better to name it "Macedonian Conflict (2001)", to avoid any possible misunderstandings for the [[Macedonian Wars]], as well as any other conflicts which had struck the region in the history (and there were loads of them). This would be a useful argument against (very) possible Greek objections - there was only one Macedonian Conflict in the year of [[2001]]. It would be also useful to do some little research about how this conflict was called by major media outlets, it would be useful for making redirects. BBC for example, calls it [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/europe/2001/macedonia_crisis/default.stm Macedonia Crisis]. --[[User:FlavrSavr|FlavrSavr]] 16:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
How about something like "Albanian demonstrations in Republic of Macedonia (2001)"? Probably demonstration is not the proper word but I can't think of the right word in English right now. <small>[[User talk:Matia.gr|talk to]]</small> [[User:Matia.gr|+MATIA]] 19:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:No, "demonstrations" sounds too [[benign]], especially because demonstrations usually don't require [[Mi-24]]'s as a counter-measure :). "Ethnic conflict in the Republic of Macedonia (2001)", maybe? Anyways, somebody of us, should be bold, and propose the final title. --[[User:FlavrSavr|FlavrSavr]] 20:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
== Image:Adams bridge map.png listed for deletion ==
<div style="padding:5px; background-color:#E1F1DE"> An image or media file that you uploaded, [[:Image:Adams bridge map.png]], 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. <!-- {{idw}} --></div> [[Image:Weather rain.png]]'''[[User:SoothingR|<span style="color:#AAAAAA;">Soothing</span>]][[User talk:SoothingR|<span style="color:#9AB9EB;">''R''</span>]]''' 08:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:[[Image:WikiThanks.png]] Oh, my apoligies...I nominated the wrong article. Thanks for fixing that entry, though.[[Image:Weather rain.png]]'''[[User:SoothingR|<span style="color:#AAAAAA;">Soothing</span>]][[User talk:SoothingR|<span style="color:#9AB9EB;">''R''</span>]]''' 08:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
== Regarding the mediation ==
Unless I'm missing it in all the chaos of the page, you haven't yet posted agreement to the mediation. Is there something I'm missing about why not? -- [[User:Antaeus Feldspar|Antaeus Feldspar]] 22:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:No. :-) I've been considering how best to tackle this mediation. I want to avoid Terryeo abusing it, which I think is very likely, and I don't want it to drag on indefinitely. Tomorrow (with any luck) I'll post some terms of reference and specific questions for us to agree on. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 23:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
== scientology-pic ==
hi!
you uploaded [[:Image:Scientology psychiatry kills.jpg]] and put it under license <nowiki>{{GFDL}}</nowiki>. the original photo comes from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/60983543@N00/20546008/in/set-1752901/ flickr.com] and it is not under a free license there: "© All rights reserved".
did you have any contact with the photographer there or has the picture then to be deleted? --[[User:JD de|JD de]] [[User talk:JD de|{æ}]] 23:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:The picture was originally uploaded without any copyright attributions, but the photographer agreed to license it as GFDL. Annoyingly, Flickr subsequently (and unilaterally) stamped "© All rights reserved" on all the copyright-free images, even if the photographers hadn't claimed copyright! I'll update the attribution. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 23:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
::thanks for information and updating. --[[User:JD de|JD de]] [[User talk:JD de|{æ}]] 12:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
== Block evasion ==
Hi, do you think it's conceivable that {{vandal|209.135.109.5}} is [[User:Macedonia]]? I mean User:Macedonia has stated that he lives in Canada, was blocked a few minutes ago for violating the 3RR on [[Macedonians (ethnic group)]] (see [[WP:AN3]]) and lo and behold, a Canadian IP has edited [[Macedonians (ethnic group)]] incidentally pushing a pro Slav POV. I may be [[WP:ABF|assuming bad faith]], but the facts seem to point in that direction. --[[User:Latinus|Latinus]] ([[:el:Συζήτηση χρήστη:Λατίνος|talk (el:)]]) 22:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
:It seems possible. However, the anonymous vandal seems to have given up for now... -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 23:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
| 