Jump to content

User talk:Atrix20: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
Line 131: Line 131:
---------------
---------------
Hi, You're right concerning the ranking of Israel, I'll change it. I'll leave in the ranking of the territories, since the analogy is primarily aimed at Israel's actions in the territories and the ranking enforces the analogy. --[[User:Dailycare|Dailycare]] ([[User talk:Dailycare|talk]]) 09:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, You're right concerning the ranking of Israel, I'll change it. I'll leave in the ranking of the territories, since the analogy is primarily aimed at Israel's actions in the territories and the ranking enforces the analogy. --[[User:Dailycare|Dailycare]] ([[User talk:Dailycare|talk]]) 09:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

== [[Wars of national liberation]] and [[ethnic cleansing]] ==

Please stop deleting sourced information there and replacing it with your unsourced editorializing. Take your concerns to the talk page. Also please read [[WP:3RR]]. [[User:Tiamut|<b><font color="#B93B8F">T</font><font color="#800000">i</font><font color="#B93B8F">a</font><font color="#800000">m</font><font color="#B93B8F">u</font><font color="#800000">t</font></b>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Tiamut|talk]]</sup> 11:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:41, 7 August 2009

US elections maps

I reverted your edits because your images, even the PNG's but especially your JPEG's, are of poor quality. SteveSims (talk) 07:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them were JPEG's, like this one. The PNG's retain the original coloring around the text and state borders. So, Republican (red) states have blue fragments around the electoral votes and the state names, as well as the state borders. I suggest using a graphics editor that can fill shades. A free one is GIMP, but Photoshop should to too. SteveSims (talk) 08:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I re-reverted all of the JPEG's, and left the PNG's. Still, clean up the PNG's around the text and state borders. Perhaps I'll help you when I have time. SteveSims (talk) 08:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Life. I was in Tahoe this weekend for work/fun, and work full-time and take a hefty commute on BART each day.
But don't worry, the maps will start coming again! :D SteveSims (talk) 03:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think all SVG ones would be good. My 1980 one has the wrong electoral votes, so we shouldn't use it yet. SteveSims (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just fixed the 1980 map, so I'm going to put it into the article. Haven't figured out what to do with maps with faithless electors that voted for other candidates, though (1976, 1988, 2004). SteveSims (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just dropping you a line to let you know that the description of the election map for United_States_presidential_election,_1860 does not match the image. I didn't want to change it just in case you were planning on uploading new images with the colour coding to match the description.
BergZ (talk) 08:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just made maps for the 1972, 1968, and 1964 elections. I finally had the time to install Linux and thus now have a properly-working version of Inkscape. I doubt I'll make more maps very quickly, so I encourage you to download Inkscape and make them. I may make a few more later today, though. SteveSims (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red states and blue states

Thank you for the excellent citations that you added to Red states and blue states. Excellent work. Unschool (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DLC

Last time I checked you didn’t own the page on the DLC. Come on.. You are a Freeper arn't you?--8bitJake (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice edit blanking [1] However nothing in the Wikipedia is ever wiped. --8bitJake (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and that has to do with the DLC article....Tallicfan20 (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well it shows a pattern of POV edit waring. --8bitJake (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
who cares, its not relevant. Tallicfan20 (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over the "POV" problem on the Talk:Democratic Leadership Council and after consideration have sided with you, you can safely change the page now. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I think you may be mistaken, I'm not an administrator. But you can go on the DLC article, and at the top there is a template box with instructions on how to request changes. You may also request that the page be unprotected if you want to make the changes yourself, just read the template, everything you need to know is there. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

could you please do me a favor?

Hello,

I am a master student at the Institute of Technology Management, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan. Currently I am wrapping up my master thesis titled “Can Wikipedia be used for knowledge service?” In order to validate the knowledge evolution maps of identified users in Wikipedia, I need your help. I have generated a knowledge evolution map to denote your knowledge activities in Wikipedia according to your inputs including the creation and modification of contents in Wikipedia, and I need you to validate whether the generated knowledge evolution map matches the knowledge that you perceive you own it. Could you please do me a favor?

  1. I will send you a URL link to a webpage on which your knowledge evolution map displays. Please assign the topic (concept) in the map to a certain cluster on the map according to the relationship between the topic and clusters in your cognition, or you can assign it to ‘none of above’ if there is no suitable cluster.
  2. I will also send a questionnaire to you. The questions are related to my research topic, and I need your viewpoints about these questions.

The deadline of my thesis defense is set by the end of June, 2008. There is no much time left for me to wrap up the thesis. If you can help me, please reply this message. I will send you the URL link of the first part once I receive your response. The completion of my thesis heavily relies much on your generous help.

Sincerely

JnWtalk 05:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion

I've started an ANI discussion about your conduct here. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 06:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion about further sanctions against 8bitJake (talk · contribs) going on here on ANI. Based on the comments you left on his/her talk page, I suspect you might have something to contribute to the conversation, so I am bringing it to your attention. Toddst1 (talk) 23:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Atrix20. You have new messages at Toddst1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

License tagging for Image:Second avenue subway.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Second avenue subway.gif. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Second_avenue_subway.gif

Replaceable fair use
Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Second_avenue_subway.gif. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

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

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

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?Dream out loud (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Eric Violette

A tag has been placed on Eric Violette requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. NuclearWarfare (talk) 03:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 2008

When adding links to material on an external site, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the .svg election maps

I am sorry I didn't get back to you after you contacted me a few months ago about the EC maps. I had taken a break from editing Wikipedia, and had felt a little burned by that particular interaction, what with my initial svg map being rejected and then no one wanting to help make it better. I'm glad SteveSims stepped up and helped ready new maps for some of the older elections, though, and I'm definitely glad you guys were able to make use of my initial map. — ʞɔıu 02:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SigEp

Are you a SigEP? Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 13:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British Empire

Hi. The British Empire article is currently undergoing a featured article review. This means references must be cited properly (using the cite tag), they must be of good quality, and the article must not be subject to any edit wars. The actions that you are taking are not helpful to the process, so may I ask that you raise the matter on the British Empire talk page and the community decides the best approach, rather than repeatedly make the same edit? (Like I have done with the "thirteen colonies" question, even though I feel that the "other side" is completely wrong) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pedophilia

Trolling is discouraged on Wiki projects. Regardless of whether your question about Muhammad's alleged pedophilea was posted on Talk:Muhammad in good faith, it has been reverted. I'll answer your question because you look like a serious editor based on your history.

The talk page archives (such as most of Talk:Muhammad/Archive 22) deal with Muhammad's wife Aisha's age. The consensus is that applying modern standards of pedophilia to a marriage that occurred in a different culture hundreds of years ago is inappropriate and a violation of WP:NPOV. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content, as you did to Apartheid Wall. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. --Allen3 talk 03:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please see WP:REDIRECT#Neutrality of redirects "Perceived lack of neutrality in redirects is therefore not a valid reason for deletion. Non-neutral redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term". Sean.hoyland - talk 05:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response

  • I've said that I'm not opposed to including a quote by Strawson (in fact, I've provisionally restored the long quote in an attempt to avoid an edit war). I have serious doubts about using Engage as a source, and I think we would benefit from using something he's written in a more credible venue.
  • I've explained my concerns about using z-word.com on the talk page. I've also said I'm willing to include a reference to "Franchising apartheid" under certain conditions, if others agree. Perhaps we should wait to see what other contributors have to say.
  • I'm prepared to restore the affirmative action section for now, given that it was part of the article before our recent exchange. I still have serious concerns about WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.

CJCurrie (talk) 05:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apartheid analogy

I should let you know that you're currently in violation of the three-revert rule. I've never believed in ambushing people over this policy, but I would request that you please self-revert for the time being. CJCurrie (talk) 01:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The three-revert rule is a very specific policy, one that can result in temporary blocks when violations occur. I've never supported hardline enforcement of this rule (ie. automatic blocks), and I've always believed in giving people a chance to self-revert if they've accidentally violated it. This is what I'm asking you to do now. At the moment, I am not at liberty to edit the page. Neither are you. The system only works if both of us respect the rules.
For what it's worth, I think we're fairly close to a (short-term) compromise. CJCurrie (talk) 02:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should clarify that the 3RR isn't a permanent injunction -- it just prevents users from making more than three reverts to any given page over a 24-hour period (except in cases of vandalism, etc). CJCurrie (talk) 02:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The 3RR applies to all edits, not just edit conflicts with specific users. For what it's worth, I haven't asked anyone to intervene on my behalf (as some have done in the past), but I can't stop other people from changing or reverting the text if they so choose. CJCurrie (talk) 02:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of z-word.com's connection to the AJCommittee, and I acknowledge that this counts for something. I still haven't seen much evidence that the site is independently notable, though. CJCurrie (talk) 02:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that z-word.com has received almost no attention in the traditional media. I'm always a bit leary about giving new media projects too much exposure on Wikipedia, given that we've had situations where people have tried to promote their own dubious projects here.
Still, unless others raise objections to the "Franchising apartheid" article, I don't plan on deleting the reference again. (This is not to say that I won't edit the text.) CJCurrie (talk) 02:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You're right concerning the ranking of Israel, I'll change it. I'll leave in the ranking of the territories, since the analogy is primarily aimed at Israel's actions in the territories and the ranking enforces the analogy. --Dailycare (talk) 09:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]