User talk:ChrisO~enwiki

Old discussions now at /Archive 1 / /Archive 2 / /Archive 3 / /Archive 4 / /Archive 5 / /Archive 6 / /Archive 7 / /Archive 8 / /Archive 9 / /Archive 10 / /Archive 11 / /Archive 12 / /Archive 13

Please add new comments below.

---

Kosovo

Dear Chris, after my last effort to get a consensus over the map of the Kosovo article, a new revert war appears to have started, instigated by User:Vezaso. I my opinion this whole dispute has gone too far now and the repetive disruptive edits by editors with a serious POV on the matter keep disturbing this article. The only problem is that we are dealing with different editors each time, making it difficult to end the situtation. At this moment, I am seriously thinking of bringing this article as a whole (with all the main contributor over the last months) to the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, with the possible solution of Wikipedia:Article probation in mind. I know this is not a clearly cut case, but I assume most cases that to go to arbritation are not. Nevertheless, I would appreciate your opinion on this matter. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Dardan remarks

Dear ChrisO and Reinoutr, the version that I am insisting on has been the result of long debates. There are obviously four positions here:

1. Kosovo is a province of Serbia

2. Kosovo is a UN run territory

3. Kosovo is an unrececognized yet independent state

4. Kosovo is Albanian territory, captured by Serbia in 1912.

The Contact group point of view, as I have just said in the Kosovo Talk Page goes against the first and the last option. So, the medium two remain valid. I would use either of them. As for the map, too we could use the map of Serbia, the map of Albanian territories in the balkans, but I would suggest we use either Kosovo in the region (hinting towards the known future status, or Kosovo without regional reference, pointing to the limbo status. In good faith, Dardan 11:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Question regarding Terryeo and Scientology

Chris, Terry,

I wanted to explore whether there's some way to agree on a mechanism for Terry to raise his concerns about scientology sourcing. I understand that you guys have a past, but it seems like you're close to some common ground.

Chris, if I understand you correctly, you think Terry raises some good points and some bad ones, and you would like to see Terry (1) use dispute resolution that doesn't immediately escalate to the policy pages or mediation, and (2) in the cases where consensus is against Terry, that he work with the consensus opinion.

Terry, if I understand you correctly, you're frustrated that (1) many of the Scientology cites don't meet your understanding of WP:V and WP:DR, and (2) as long as the current scientology editors don't have an interest in fixing the problem, your complaints aren't likely to have any effect.

Chris, is it possible to agree on a mechanism for Terry to raise his concerns and solicit input in a way that you can buy into? Terry, are you interested? As a starting point, I would suggest:

1. Terry limits himself to one scientology page per week. (In order to allow discussion to focus on that page).
2. Terry makes a good faith effort to find reliable, verifiable sources to offer as substitutes for the cites that concern him/her. (Yes, there's no obligation to do this, but it will be a helpful contribution).
3. Once Terry has his concerns and any proposed new sources, if any, ready, the discussion escalates something like this.
   1. Terry describes his concerns on the talk page for the page in question and includes a link to that discussion on the scientology project page. Chris makes a good faith effort, time permitting, to respond to those concerns. Terry and Chris both make a good faith effort to explore possible areas of compromise. (I'm sure gadflies like Blueboar and myself will pipe in too).
   2. After discussion, if the groups are deadlocked, Terry seeks input from WP:3O (if appropriate), and/or areligion and philosophy request for comment.
   3. If the discussion is still deadlocked, Terry and Chris consider a [[WP:M|formal] or informal mediation.
   4. Terry doesn't escalate to the policy pages unless there is a serious proposal to change an existing policy, or a serious question about a policy that can't be resolved by the steps above.

Sorry if I'm intruding, but it honestly looks like you guys are close to common ground. Would you be interested in something like the structure I've proposed? Thanks, TheronJ 13:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I've weighed in with my 2¢ about this on TheronJ's talk page. BTfromLA 16:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Scottish celebrities

Was Category:Scottish celebrities empty when you last saw it? It's tagged with an incorrect speedy delete tag and is currently empty - i'm minded to deleted it, but It'd be good to find out if someone has been clearing it out... Thanks/wangi 20:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

hey

hello Chris,

It seems that the photo of Albert Einstein that I used on the bottom of my user page has been deleted. Could you replace it with some other A.E. photo from Commons, or simply unprotect my page. It has been a few months, I'm pretty sure I learned my lesson. Come on, please? I didn't do anything bad in the last few months :) --serbiana - talk 23:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The least I deserve is a reply. --serbiana - talk 01:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for temporarily unprotecting my page, I added the photo you suggested, and I also added Cuba to the list of countries I visited. Oh, and I moved some link from the bottom up, to fill in the space at the beginning (I didn't add anything new in that case). I'm also just going to add a few more cities I visited in Canada in a sec. In 5 min, you can protect my page again. Thanks again, --Serb ^talk 18:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration request on Kosovo

Dear Editor, since you have been involved in editing the Kosovo article in the last months, and that article has been the subject of long ongoing edit wars, your name is listed in the Request for Arbitration on this matter. You can make a statement here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Kosovo. Due to the large number of editors involved, however, I would to ask you to keep your statement concise and to the point. If you feel you have not been substantially involved in the disputes surrounding the Kosovo article, please do not remove your name from the Arbitration request, but rather make a short statement there explaining why you feel you have not been involved enough to be part it. To understand my reasons for requesting Arbitration, please read my statement on the Requests for Arbitration page. Best regards, Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Chris, I was just on my way dropping you a note when I received your message. I also really don't like going for an RfA, but the limit had been reached for me with the last edit-war. Thanks for going into some more detail in your statement, but I deliberately kept my own statement (as initiator of the RfA) very neutral, to avoid any allegations of having POV in the RfA itself. I fully support your statement, with the exception that User:Tonycdp has been quite cooperative (towards me at least) compared to some of the other editors you noted of having an Albanian/Kosovar point of view. As I also just wrote to Asterion, this RfA is the limit for me in editing Kosovo. If the ArbCom rejects this request, I will have to leave the article, since I do not see how there then is anything else left but edit-warring. If the ArbCom somehow imposes restrictions on the article and/or editors, I am willing to continue working on the article and see how it develops. Thanks again for your summary, happy editing --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Chris, I have added the comments to the RfA page. Thanks and regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 20:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem whatsoever. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 20:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, go ahead with it. Evv 21:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

anon user block on Dianetics article?

In your capacity as admin: Dianetics continues to attract a fair number of anonymous vandals. Might make sense to impose the same anti-anon measures that are on the Scientology article. BTfromLA 03:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you mean... OK, I've semi-protected it. -- ChrisO 09:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I wish that weren't needed. BTfromLA 01:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Please take a look at L. Ron Hubbard. Same problem. BTfromLA 22:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Gregory Lauder-Frost

Hi! On the list of protected pages, you ask to be contacted before unprotecting Gregory Lauder-Frost. Could you get an update on the situation? It has been months, and Brad seems unresponsive. Thanks, William Pietri 06:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I will raise it on the OTRS list. -- ChrisO 09:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I look forward to hearing some news. William Pietri 00:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Any news on this? Thanks, William Pietri 01:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, Chris. Do you think it's likely this problem won't occur in the future? Thanks, William Pietri 06:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

MBE medal

Hi, just a question about the image Image:Mbe medal front and obverse.jpg which you uploaded to the wiki commons. I am just wondering where it is from, because if it is just taken from something like royal.gov.uk it is not usable in the commons (although use on the wikipedia Order of the British Empire page would be fair use). Please write me back on my talk page, or add this info to the commons. Dowew 02:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Advise on Tonycdp

Please see his talk page. He left some defamatory comments on my own talk page a few days ago. At the time I decided against using a {{npa2}} warning and just replied to him in Spanish, trying to make him realise that I do not tolerate personal attacks but assuming good faith and using a conciliatory tone. Today he proceeded to revert my comments, using the edit summary "Wanker thinks he's clever". I dropped an npa2 this time but given his last bout of disruption (i.e. editing HRE's statement of evidence), I foresee more troubles coming that way. I really would not want to report anyone for personal attacks or disruption given the current situation (with the arbitration process ongoing), but I am not prepared to give him a blank cheque just because the RFA. Your thoughts? E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 12:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. According to WP:PAIN, he need to be warned up to {{npa3}} before reporting. Should I lodge the report anyway? E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 12:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that... In that case I would keep an eye on it and give him an {{npa3}} if he does it again. -- ChrisO 12:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 12:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

See this. I had enough of this editor. Thanks, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 14:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

re: your expertise in the area

Do you happen to know what documents this press release is about? [1] I ask because you have previously expressed expertise in the area and because said documents are unspecified in the press release. Terryeo 14:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

There was a Swedish law that permitted the registration of documents with the Swedish Parliament, therefore guaranteeing they would acquire PD status. This was overturned a while ago after heavy lobbying by the CoSc in 1999 or 2000. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 14:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Possibly this[2][3]?. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 15:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Asterion seems to have nailed it - I can't really add anything to that, other than that the documents in question were a collection of NOTS materials. -- ChrisO 16:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I remember reading about it at the time and it rang a bell. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 18:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid

This case has closed and the final decision has been published at the link above.

To summarize: Discussion of global issues which concern use of "apartheid" and all polls shall be at Wikipedia:Central discussions/Apartheid with subsidiary dialog on the talk page of affected articles. Based on the difficult and controversial nature of this matter, with the exception of Zeq (talk · contribs), who remains banned from editing the article, the principal participants in this dispute shall be granted an amnesty for past actions, but are strongly encouraged to engage in negotiations. All involved administrators are admonished not use their administrative tools without prior discussion and consensus.

- Mgm|^(talk) 20:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Greater London Map

I was prompted to revisit the wiki page showing the map of the London Postal Districts by a post from someone on London Freecycle. I had previously downloaded the page and used it to work in Corel Draw to try to get a map of the postal districts that I could use as a tool to help me in developing a graphics business offering highly personalised calendars.

The map that the freecycler directed me to was the same one I had used previously, but I got deeper into the wiki pages and discovered your own map of Greater London which is posted as a png.

I am still interested in developing the graphics for postal districts. Previously I had difficulty relating the wiki map to other maps of Greater London to get correspondence between boundaries of postal districts, boroughs etc. I am in no way a cartographer and don't have the time to get my head into all the complex issues about different scales etc.

I am writing this to see if there is any way you could either give me any more information about your map of Greater London that I could use to link in the data I have about the postal districts. I would be happy to work with you and anyone else if that could be possible so that what I may come up with can be posted to the wiki for all if it becomes a better tool to locate such cross-matched features as postal districts/borough boundaries etc.

Is this feasible?

regards

bill gregory ([email protected])

ps: this is my first time of using this writing facility and I am not really sure whether it is for contacting you in this way. But the deed is done.

Image:Picador spears bull.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Picador spears bull.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. Nv8200p talk 00:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Bad Nenndorf interrogation centre

I had not the opportunity before to say thank you for taking the time to research more sources and writing an excellent article about this issue. I tried to send you an email, but I saw, you do not have one. With a delay of one month, congratulations for your good work. Regards --KarlV 06:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

University of Priština

Yes,University of Priština is a separate body.Founded by Serbian government

in 1970 for students of all nationalities and minorities,in early 90's it split into two universities-official conducted by Serbian Ministry of Education,and parallel Albanian,which was not recognised by any state institution.In 1999,after the Kosovo War,a few faculty and stuff were killed at campus by Albanians (I wrote about that and can cite mu sources),and University was forced to move from Priština.It was moved first to Kruševac (city in central Serbia),and later,in 2001,back to Kosovo,this time to Kosovska Mitrovica and neighboring towns (Zvečan,Zubin Potok,Lešak,Leposavić).It's official name is  University of Priština (Serbian: Univerzitet u Prištini).It is recogniseed by Serbian government (Kosovo and Metohija is autonomous province of Serbia-read Wikipedia's articles about Kosovo and UN's Resolution 1244),and, from 2001, also by UNMIK (As I can realize,both institutions -Serbian and Albanian - are recognized by UNMIK).I suggest you to visit websites of Infostud(http://www.infostud.com/obrazovanje/pris/) and Ministry of Education and Sport of Republic of Serbia(http://www.mps.sr.gov.yu/code/navigate.php?Id=156) or to ask for information 

chancellor of the University of Priština.You can write to the following adress: Filipa Višnjića bb, 38220 Kosovska Mitrovica,or call 028 422-340,or send fax to 028 422-320.As I know, the website currently doesn't function. Andrija

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 16:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Chris, I have added all I wanted to our evidence page. When you are finished with it, you can post it at the Arbitration evidence page as far as I am concerned. Regards, Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy too. I thought about finding the diff for a threatening comment that was left at the Talk:Serbia page, basically saying that unless Serbian editors stop editing the Kosovo page at the time, they would tag-team to vandalise the Serbia article, but considering we are talking about April, I'm not sure whether it is relevant as it's so far back. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 22:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It's fine by me too. I thought about adding Ferick's interpretation of an interview [4], to show consistency in original research, but it's a minor detail and would only make the text longer than it already is. - Regards. Evv 00:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:South lebanon map jubayl.png

Dear Chris

I was just looking at

Image:South lebanon map jubayl.png

The link

y ChrisO, adapted from http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/unifil.pdf

does not work now.

Is it possible to re-establish it, please?

Thanks

JOHN BIBBY (York, England) [email protected]

Month-long protection?!

It cannot possibly be good form to keep talk pages protected for a month or more. I unprotected Talk:Economy of Gibraltar before seeing your note on WP:PP but that page clearly says that \\\"Wikipedia works perfectly fine on a protection cycle of less than one week\\\". This and others in your same block are now the oldest non-template/non-WP pages listed in that section. Surely this can remain unprotected, can\\\'t it? —Wknight94 (talk) 03:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I responded on my talk page since now it's 2-against-1...  ;) —Wknight94 (talk) 11:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a open proxy

Now I´m on a proxy to get this message to you, this is not a proxy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:84.114.131.27

It´s my account. Unblock it. 84.114.131.27

Barbara Schwarz / sockpuppets

Thank you for quickly taking action on the proxy abuser. Also, I have reported JohnPower (talk · contribs · count) as a suspected sockpuppet. Is it appropriate to also remove the personal attacks etc from this suspected sockpuppet? Orsini 08:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Your 'Neutrality'

ChrisO. Once more, as you declined to reply to my post on the Kosovo article, I wish to question your neutrality. For the record, I am assuming you are unaware of the manner in which your posts on this particular article appear to the informed. So simply from your statement on the arbitration, I wish to point out the following.

1. "The uninitiated may wish to have a look at the BBC's profile of Kosovo."

- The link clearly displays a map that you have consitently argued against as being counter-intuitive and inferior to a map which depicts all of Serbia with Kosovo as a small portion in the bottom. Have you now changed your opinion on this matter? Have you forgotten your previous stance or are you deliberately misleading the arbitration committee?

2. "...myself, User:Asterion, User:Litany, User:Osli73 and User:Reinoutr... For the record, we have no ethnic or political affiliations with the region; we are respectively English, Spanish, Swedish, and Dutch.

- Five users, four nationalities. Where are you yourself from? Again, it raises questions about your credibility and truthfulness. As a moderator you need to be more careful.

3. "...the most active parties in this dispute are Albanian nationalists and neutral internationals."

- Simply untrue. Perhaps you perceive it as such because they are arguing against your position, which to them, and this (almost) neutral International, (from Ireland, by the way,) is definitely Pro-Serbian. As a side note here, I would regard User:Reinoutr as truly neutral, and extremely courteous based on my interactions with him. Again, you should be aware, whether by intention or not, you are not coming across in the same manner.

4. "These violations are not confined solely to the Albanian nationalist editors."

- Oh why thank you for throwing a bone to those pesky Albanians. Your wording betrays a clear bias. Think, for example, of a recent advert for "x" brand painkiller. - Some may find that (X brand) can get to work up to twice as fast as regular (painkiller). Do you see the amount of qualifications in that sentence? While you may think you are being most gracious in your statement that 'these violations are not confined solely to the Albanian nationalist editors,' a truly non biased way to say it would have been, for example, 'editors from all camps have been involved in the aforementioned violations,' or some other such phrasing. Once again, while it may be unintentional, you are projecting an attitude which smells suspiciously similar to Serbian nationalism. Or perhaps it's simply anti-Albanianism, brought on by the fact that they (Albanians,) consistently disagree with you.

So you see, while I am happy to give you the benefit of the doubt, I think you really should be aware of the image you are projecting, and I feel I really have to call into question your suitability to administrate this particular article. 'According to Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, "A few things are absolute and non-negotiable, though. NPOV for example.' I will copy this post to the Kosovo page. Thanks for taking the time to read it. Davu.leon 15:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hola Chris! I've come to annoy you again ;). The idea that independence for Kosovo will set some sort of a precedent for other disputed territories is a regurgitation of Serbian Government propaganda, pure and simple. You're simply not helping your case by repeating this kind of thing. By and large you're pretty good at not making unsubstantiated statements, (far better than I,) but every now and then you slip up and come out with something that ends up looking really bad. Don't worry, I'll do my best to notify you whenever that happens.  :) As evv would say, Happy Wednesday! Davu.leon 16:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

By the by, there's an interesting aticle here: http://www.birn.eu.com/insight_25_8_eng.php Not as a source, just interesting. Davu.leon 16:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey Chris. This was kind of my point, actually. Russia don't really see independence for Kosovo as setting a precedent for, for example, Chechnya. What they will do is use their veto as a bagaining tool, whether it is to reassimilate old territories, or strike some sort of deal on oil pipelines, or some other, unforseen trade. Serbia is running around telling all and sundry that if Kosovo becomes independent, we'll be creating some sort of rogue Muslim terrorist state in the heart of Europe. No one in the international community, including the Russians, takes them seriously. Kosovo will be independent, anyone with any grasp on the political realities of the situation knows that it's gone too far for anything else. Now it's just a matter of what the other interested parties can leverage at the bargaining table. Davu.leon 12:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

{{UN map}}

Hallo, this template, which has been created by you, obviously contradicts the copyright notice on the UNCS website, which has raised some questions on its validity at Commons. It seems that you have gotten a special permission/clarification from a member of the Cartography Section. If this is true, could you please forward that email to [email protected]. Thank you. -- 3247 14:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, no problem. -- ChrisO 23:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Crushing by Elephant

Re User_talk:Ke4roh#Crushing_by_elephant, very nice job. -- ke4roh 14:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo's Ban

I recently posted this message on Terryeo's talk page:

Problems regarding your ban

From your Arbitration: "Terryeo banned from Scientology related articles 2) Terryeo is banned indefinitely from articles which relate to Dianetics or Scientology. He may make appropriate comments on talk pages.". However, since this ban, IP address 208.106.20.67 has edited several articles pertaining to Scientology: [[5]]. This editor then signed a message as you: [[6]].

Any comments? Yandman 14:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

He removed this text almost immediately afterwards, and redid so after I reverted. This suggests guilt on his part. Where can I make a formal complaint about Terryeo evading his ban in this way? Thanks, Yandman 14:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yandman, I think the way to file a complaint is to post something at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. (Also, I formatted your post - I hope you don't mind). TheronJ 14:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Yandman 14:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and made a report, here. (Good catch, by the way). TheronJ 14:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record, also note that Terryeo has used 65.146.30.209 in the past, and possibly similar Qwest IPs as well. wikipediatrix 15:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL ! Terryeo 16:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO, do you think that it is appropriate to call for extending Terryeo's ban to talk pages and policy/guideline pages? If so, what would that mean? Another "request for comments"? It is hard to escape the conclusion that he is committed to being a bad actor at Wikipedia for as long as he is permitted to participate. BTfromLA 17:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I support a ban on Terryeo from talk pages as well. Clearly, he cannot get his ethics in here.--Fahrenheit451 22:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur. wikipediatrix 00:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Gosh. Wasn't it BTfromLA, who, even at that earlier time hammered away in posting after posting that he felt then as he has stated above? Wasn't it the big F whom stated on many talk pages, everywhere he saw me post, something about the arb committee's action? And isn't it ChrisO who has interpreted many of my statements on guideline discussion pages for the enlightenment of other editors, so that other editors could not possibly understand that I stated what I meant to say, but instead state what ChrisO says I meant ? And yet, consistantly, original research shows up in the articles. Uncited statements such as "both inside and outside the Church", etc. Terryeo 22:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

OTRS

I recently sent you an OTRS-related email and received no response. If you have switched email addresses, please notify me of the new one you wish to use for OTRS-related matters. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Block user with IP 85.158.35.62

Dear ChrisO, I wonder if there is any way to block the anonymous user with the IP 85.158.35.62 for personal attacks (see comment here)? Are you the person to turn to? Regards Osli73 19:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Ben's "big three issues" with NAS article

Going forward, I suggest a focus on dealing with these three issues with the NAS article. If we can effectively tackle these at least my concerns over the article will be addressed. My "big three issues" with the NAS articles are as follows:

• Neutering critics
• Confusing evidence with NAS's interpretation
• Article is about modern NAS theory, not term

What do you think? --Ben Houston 21:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Corrective action against User:Emir Arven for breaking 3RR

Hi again, Emir Arven has broken the 3RR (see below) and become quite aggressive in tone (see Personal attack below) and I think some type of corrective action is necessary. I realize blocks and other actions are not meant to be punitive, but in this case I feel that some kind of corrective action is necessary to get this editor to adjust his behavior.

3RR (Naser Oric article):

• [7]
• [8]
• [[9]]

Personal attack (Srebrenica massacre article Talk):

• "Serb nationalists: (let's call them the right names, because they are trying to deny genocide proven by international tribunal) KOCOBO, Osli73, Srbijanković, Svetislav Jovanović, and Bormalagurski, are doing what they know the best. Continuing the genocide." [10]

Regards Osli73 21:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong my friend. As anyone can see the first and the second as well as the third edit were not the same. I put new information, because you are the one who keeps deleting sourced parts. So I ask admin to block you, for nationalistic actions, removing international sources (ICTY judgement) in order to minimize genocide commited by Serbs in Srebrenica. Obviously you are afraid to talk about the truth so you are going around to report me for 3RR, which I btw did not break. Regards. --Emir Arven 22:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand the 3RR to pertain to reverts in whole or in part. I'm not removing any 'international sources', I'm simply trying to have them presented correctly while also removing some POV language (labelling politicians "nationalist" or using terms like "guerilla raid" or "counteroffensive" to describe military attacks, etc.). Cheers Osli73 22:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

False. I returned the part that you removed. That part was sourced. So you removed it. Let me show you again: [11]. Yes, you said that you didn't do it, but anyone can check. You also didnt put the right terms which were used in the judgement so I corrected it, based on the source that you presented. Regards. --Emir Arven 22:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

pont du gard image

Where did you get this picture from...i am looking for a high resolution version of this picture. Do you have one?

Kim [email protected]

I took it myself... however, since it was taken on only a 3.1 megapixel camera, the higher resolution version isn't that high-res! -- ChrisO 22:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Statment

Hello ChrisO! I have now added my statment in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo. I hope it is not to late. I have moved to Croatia for a year to study so I have not been able to keep up my Wikipedia work for a lonf time. Now when I started again maybe you could tell me what the situation is conseving the Kosovo article and the whole arbitration, altough I read most of it. Would appreciate it really much. Thanks - Litany 21:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC).

Lauder-Frost

User:EdChilvers has over-ridden Wikipedia's legal department and your protection and flagged up Lauder-Frost's article again. Is this an example of anarchy? 213.122.89.216 19:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with Ed's actions and I've asked for advice on what to do about it, but I also think that this anonymous intervention is deplorable and unnecessary. Would you care to comment on it? -- ChrisO 23:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Chris, a little detective work has revealed that the anonymous editor you refer to is none other than Lauder Frost himself. Lauder Frost is a prolific contributor to various right wing discussion forums and the IP he uses to post on them is an exact match to the one which appeared on my user page.--Edchilvers 15:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you provide some links to corroborate this claim? If it can be substantiated, I think it's worth bringing to Brad's attention. -- ChrisO 15:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Please check the suggested Lauder-Frost IP with the ip belonging to Lauder-Frost on at this source:

[12] 82.1.234.67 16:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC).

I have checked with three different people and the only forum Lauder-Frost contributes to spasmodically is the Conservative Democratic Alliance forum. He comes up nowhere else. So Mr.Chilvers is a sensationalist and a liar, pure and simple.

The thing is, you people run around trying to prove this and that when the only thing at issue here is breaking at least two pieces of legislated law by an illegal publication designed to harm a living person who is protected, like it or approve of it, or not. There is no other way to look at it and banging on about anonymous users etc., is pointless. You need tunnel vision on this issue because there is only one issue here. 213.122.28.7 07:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Ed, I don't think that's conclusive. 213.122.* is the address of a number of BT Openworld proxy servers. If GLF was using a single fixed IP address that would be conclusive, but it's a very large ISP with a lot of users; we can't simply point to a BTOW proxy server and say "aha, that's GLF's IP address". -- ChrisO 08:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Please advise re: Terryeo's standing

Chris, I am confused by the adminstrators' responses (or lack of them) to Terryeo's behavior since the time of his ban. Three separate complaints recently filed by different editors on the "arbitration enforcement" page have yielded a total of one 24 hour block. You are very familiar with Terryeo's behavior--I don't need to recap it here. It seems to me that he has clearly, consistently, and with little sign of mending his ways, behaved in a grossly disruptive and otherwise unacceptible manner. So my question is: does the administrative concensus hold that, since he isn't an outright vandal, his behavior is ultimately within the range of acceptiblity for Wikipedia editors? From my perspective, he is long past earning a ban from the Scientology talk pages, it would be reasonable to ban him from policy/guideline pages, and even a total ban from Wikipedia seems worth considering, though I'm not sure I'd endorse that myself. But, clearly, my view does not seem to be reflected by the actions of administrators. Am I off base here? As an admin very familiar with the situation, I'm asking you for a "reality check." If you are aware of any disinterested admins who are familiar with Terryeo's history, please feel free to forward my questions to them as well. Thanks. BTfromLA 20:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Re your comment on AE, the Arbcom case allows a ban of "up to" one year. Maybe I have an excess of good faith but I would tend to start low and work up to it (2 weeks; 1 month; 3 months). Of course good faith is not a blindfold, and I would not argue if a more experienced editor looked at the situation and called it hopeless right off the bat. Thatcher131 02:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point - thanks for the correction! :-) -- ChrisO 02:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Am I mistaken, or did Glen block Terryeo for something completely different to that which we were discussing? I would hate to think we were wasting our time... Yandman 07:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Voice of All blocked Terryeo for the issue we were discussing, Glen blocked him for a different violation. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo#Log of blocks and bans records the sequence of blocks and reasons. -- ChrisO 08:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Well...

Coincidence? Or you had a fan :) - Glen 12:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

208.3.69.196

You may find interesting that the anonymous editor that was leaving racist remarks on Noah30's and some other pages a while back has just made another appearance. You suggested it could be someone trying to impersonate a Serbian person, also trying to smear you as a Muslim-hater. Well, you will find peculiar that he/she just made a sarcastic comment on Talk:Kosovo from an Albanian perspective. So I think you were right on your thought at the time.--Asterion^talk 16:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Temporary injunction in the Kosovo arbitration

For the duration of this case, any of the named parties may be banned by an uninvolved administrator from Kosovo or related pages for disruptive edits.

You are receiving this message because you are one of those covered by this injunction.

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 17:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Palmucha

You blanked the CU request. If you have been informed of a positive result elsewhere, please revert the page and add a diff showing the result, so we can archive the result. If it was negative, you can speedy delete the page under G6 maintenance, and state withdrawn in the delete log. Thatcher131 22:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been told that Fred Bauder has performed it; there's no diff that I'm aware of (this was via IRC). I've speedily deleted the page under the G6 maintenance rubric. -- ChrisO 22:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Thatcher131 22:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal of AI/Schwarz's "outings"

As you are aware, Barbara Schwarz and AI are both banned users of Wikipedia. Both of them have attempted to reveal what they believe to be the private real life identities of pseudo-anonymous editors on Wikipedia.

Now, during an ArbCom proceeding at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Vivaldi/Evidence, an editor, Arbustoo (talk · contribs), that has been in a disagreement with me for a while over other issues, is now putting out diffs to history where Schwarz and/or AI guessed at my real name and posted links to a defamation website, supposedly about me.

I would ask that you remove the history where people have guessed at my real name. I find it highly objectionable that an editor would bring out the specific accusations of my real name during a process in which he is trying to stifle my editing on Wikipedia. I believe his only motivation for doing so was to intimidate and harass me even further.

In any case, the specific histories that should be removed are available at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=KJKruse

Can you please just remove all of that users contributions, talk page, user page, and protect them? It's pretty clear that the only reason they exist in the first place is to harass. Vivaldi (talk) 08:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have that level of administrative privileges. Could you bring it up at WP:AN/I? -- ChrisO 10:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Independence of Kosovo

Thak you for keeping the articles clear of vandals. But I wanted to tell you one thing, regarding your comment at [13]: it is not possible to make a part of a sovereign country independent, by proclamation, declaration, international recognition or in any other way. So, don't hope that in the article on Kosovo, the university or any other you will be able to simply say that Kosovo is independent of Serbia and leave it at that. Nikola 13:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm no expert in international law, but as far as I know under the Westphalian system that currently operates, sovereignty can't be overridden unless a state's sovereignty is extinguished entirely (as happened in the case of Germany in 1945, for instance). Usually a state has to formally recognise a breakaway element as sovereign before the rest of the world will accept it as such - think of Ethiopia and Eritrea or Indonesia and East Timor. I can't think of any cases in modern times where a breakaway region has been recognised as independent while its parent state still claims sovereignty over it. That's not to say it won't happen, just that it would be a huge break with precedent if it did. -- ChrisO 15:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, all the UN can do is either recognize the state (Russia may veto this), or declare the state legally void, as they did in the case of the TRNC. --Telex 15:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is interesting discussion, so here is my opinion - there are two possible solutions: 1. If Russia veto independence of Kosovo, then Kosovo indeed will become same as Northern Cyprus, de facto independent and de jure part of Serbia. Of course, this solution will last only for 30-50 years and until then the number of Albanians in Kosovo will be larger than a number of Serbs in Serbia, thus I do not believe that any sane Serb from that time would want to see Kosovo as part of Serbia (It is shame how small number of Serbs today understand this demographic process). 2. And of course, the second solution is that Russia do not veto Kosovo independence and that in return Russian-supported states of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transnistria are later also recognized as independent as well as several other unrecognized states (if not all of them). PANONIAN (talk) 03:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Was TRNC ever declared "legally void?" It was never recognised by the outside world (except Turkey), which is something rather different. I don't think the West is likely to accept a quid pro quo that would in effect swap Kosovo's independence for that of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transnistria. There's no way that Georgia and Moldova would accept that. I agree that the Russians are probably angling for some sort of concessions to their own interests as "payment" for Kosovo attaining independence, but it'll be interesting to see how hard they're going to push it. -- ChrisO 08:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

But is it Russian interest exactly in Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transnistria? Most of the inhabitants of these states possess Russian citizenship, and interest of Russia is to protect its citizens. I remember that Putin few months ago spoke about this and said that if independence is given to Kosovo, then it should be also given to these states. PANONIAN (talk) 12:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)