User talk:ChrisO/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Thank You

I would like to thank you for bringing the revert guidlines to my attention. I didn't know. I apologise. [[User:Kjspahis|Kjspahis] 18:02, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Chris, it appears you've uploaded a bunch of excellent photos. I was hoping to browse through them all, but you don't have a "images I uploaded" thing on your user page. I don't suppose I could prevail upon you to add one sometime? THanks -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:35, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's on my list of things to do. :-) Was there anything in particular you were looking for? -- ChrisO 23:36, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
No, I just wanted to browse. I found the Image:City_hall_london.jpg one on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates and thought you'd captured a suitably cyberpunky look to it. I don't suppose you have a comparable one of the Erotic Gherkin lying around somewhere? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:46, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
To be honest, that one was a complete fluke - I was walking past it one evening and noticed that a movie was being shot in front of it - the floodlights happened to all be on one side of City Hall, hence the rather bizarre lighting effect. I'm glad it came out OK, as it's probably not a repeatable photo! -- ChrisO 23:49, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Excellent work on HAARP!

[edit] Levzur again

I refuse to participate in arbitration and mediation because it's broken and nobody wants to fix it. I will vote on Quickpolls, and will protect pages as needed. RickK | Talk 19:11, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I personally don't think arbitration and mediation broken, but frankly I don't feel involved enough to be involved in a dispute with Levzur. I got involved at that page purely out of a desire to help WP be better, but don't feel there are any issues between Levzur and me. Thanks for the offer, though. If I can be of any help, please let me know. Jwrosenzweig 04:00, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

For what it is worth ether he does not know about certain topics (e.g. Alarodian languages) as well as he should if his CV is true. Or it might be that there is some serious re-writing of history going on in Georgia which can only be for less than innocent nationalistic purposes. Or it might just be that his knowledge of English terminology is simply just too bad for him to be allowed to continue to make massive changes to any article in English wiki. I know enough about some of the areas Levzur writes on to tell whether his imput is slanted or not, so please don't hesitate to inform me of suspect edits.Zestauferov 11:43, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I suspect nationalistic purposes are indeed at work, given his conduct on Zviad Gamsakhurdia and now Nino Burjanadze, but I've worked amicably enough with nationalists before; the real issue is whether they are willing to abide by Wikipedia rules and community consensus. It seems not in this case, unfortunately. -- ChrisO 11:56, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Avignon

Great work on Avignon. :) It's on my "should get back to" list (since I lived there for a few months) but that list is alarmingly long. ;) fabiform | talk 00:08, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Having just been there last week, I thought I ought to say something about it. :-) -- ChrisO 00:12, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Hi Chris, there are no absolute answers really as mediation is still a fairly new process in Wikipedia. As you are the one who requested mediation, then I think it would fair enough for you to decide how long you want to wait for Levzur to react before trying another approach. There doesn't have to be any time limit in how long you wait. Also, there is no set timescale for mediation. I suppose it just lasts as long as it needs to, either until it is successful, or until all participants agree it was not successful, or all mediators give up trying. I'm sorry I can't clarify things any better than that, but each case will vary and there haven't been enough cases yet to have any real precedent to follow. Angela. 19:32, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

It might be worth leaving it a few more hours to see if any of the other mediators want to do anything. If not, then arbitration would seem the next logical step. Angela. 14:52, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

My feeling too. Thanks again! -- ChrisO 15:03, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Dartford Cable Tunnel

That thought ran through my head when appending it. It is, though, designed to be accessible by foot, albeit only by authorised users. Does that tip the balance? best wishes --Tagishsimon

[edit] Mediation

Hello Chris. Levzur has not yet responded to my message but has been on Wikipedia. I've left one more message, if Levzur continues editing rather than replying then I think we have to understand that as a rejection of mediation. Regards -- sannse (talk) 20:36, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC) (mediation committee)

I think you're right - thanks for your continuing efforts. I suspect that I may also have to bring the Nino Burjanadze article into the frame as well, as he has now started to repeatedly delete alternative Russian-influenced transliterations of the name for no better reason than apparent Russophobia (which is hardly a valid reason, of course). -- ChrisO 09:03, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Hi Chris. Levzur has continued to edit without responding to my two requests for clarification of his message. This is, in my opinion, a clear rejection of mediation. I'm sorry we couldn't be of more help with this. Regards -- sannse (talk) 09:15, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC) (mediation committee)
OK. Thanks for trying; I'll take it to arbitration now. -- ChrisO 09:17, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Flag of Iraq

Hey, good edit! –Hajor 13:38, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) -- ChrisO 13:47, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Weighing in on Levzur

Hello Chris. I have some comments I'd like to make on the Levzur arbitration. Is it appropriate to put comments on the User:Levzur/Evidence page? If not there then somewhere else perhaps? Thanks for any info. Happy editing, Wile E. Heresiarch 03:40, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

(moved reply to WEH's talk page)

[edit] Fallujah

I know the protection is due to something people might call vandalism, and your addition was just a locator map that presumably would pass without objection, but isn't it sort of bad form to edit a protected page? --Michael Snow 23:28, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Apologies - I didn't even notice the protection! The downside of editing when you're tired... :-( -- ChrisO 23:31, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
No problem. If I end up being the one who unprotects, I'll try to let you know so you can add the map back in. --Michael Snow 23:43, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Just roll it back to my map-inclusive version and the editing can continue from there... -- ChrisO 23:45, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ChrisO and Levzur

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ChrisO and Levzur has been accepted (since there were 3 recusals acceptance by 3 arbitrators should be sufficient). Please make any additional statements and your request for relief on the page Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ChrisO and Levzur. Please put any evidence on the page Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ChrisO and Levzur/Evidence. Fred Bauder 15:53, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Chris. What is the status of the Levzur arbitration? It doesn't seem to be going anywhere, although since it appears Levzur is still editing anonymously, they should go ahead with arbitration, I think. Thanks for any info. Regards, Wile E. Heresiarch 14:37, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

It's exactly as you say, unfortunately. I've urged the arbitrators to take action in the light of his continued anonymous editing but so far nothing has been said or done. I propose to ban the anonymous proxies as they appear, as he seems to be getting into simple vandalism. I can only assume that having declared Wikipedia's policies invalid and resigned his username, he feels that he can do anything he likes now. -- ChrisO 17:46, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Hi Christ, I only just found your comments at the bottom of my User page, I guess I missed the results of that dispute. All I could really add would have been that he either does not accept anything but English transliterations of Russian terms or doesn't know about the correct English terminology E.G. Hurrians he calls Khurrits and seemed not to know about Hurrians at one point. However in the past he recognised Hurrians so it seems like he actually forgot about them. This made me think that maybe there was more than one person using his ID, which also happens with my own ID here at uni if I don't log-out of the computer. On the whole though I think his English is the problem, he could not understand the rules of wiki. We all make mistakes in the beginning but we have to make progress, but it seemed like he only had disdain for wiki, which is certainly a common view amongst certain proffessional academics I have met. If that is their opinion though then why make wiki one's hobby? I cannot undestand such people. I still had hope that Levzur might realise his limitations and contribute his knowledge of references in a much less POV manner and use the propper English terms. Anyway I hope that all turned out well. Zestauferov 08:24, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] I'll leave it be for now

As always I'll back down from a long drawn out conflict with Nikola, but I don't like that he's been able to hijack many articles. Dori | Talk 15:58, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

Seeing as there was a unanimous vote on the subject, which Nikola boycotted, I don't feel that he has any justification for making unilateral moves back to the original name. If he wants to re-run the vote in a more "regular" and "democratic" fashion (assuming that he substantiates his complaints on that score) then I'm happy to facilitate that, but I won't accept him acting outside the Wikipedia policy framework. We might as well give in to anarchy otherwise. -- ChrisO 16:10, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

You asked why the poll was invalid. Well, there are many reasons.

I'll take as an example similar poll about naming of Kiev article. Before the poll, the issue was discussed, as far as I can see, from 9th August to 23rd August by several people interested in the subject. There was nothing similar here. Kosovar came, Kosovar started discussion, noone except me was even interested in the discussion, and all of a suden Dori proclaims that there should be a vote. Dispute between two users over such an important issue is, AFAIK, not sufficient for starting a vote. But even if it would be, one of those users is not even a regular Wikipedia contributor - prior to the vote, the only things Kosovar edited were his user page, Dori's talk page, and Talk:Kosovo and Metohia. But even if he was a regular contributor, he started the discussion on 2nd May and Dori started the poll at 4th May - hardly enough time for a serious discussion. And, as I said, there were no participants in the discussion - simply nobody was interested in it (though there might have been more participants if it lasted, now we'll never know). Note also that even Kosovar doesn't think that article should be at "Kosovo" - he thinks that article should be at the official name of the province and that Kosovo is the official name. I think that I have firmly proven him wrong. Our dispute was not the same as what Dori stated as the reason for the vote. Our dispute was over what is the official name. We both think that the article should be named after the official name.

On the Kiev poll, several votes were declared invalid by Chris 73 because, to quote him, "User has two contributions - which is his user page and the above line". I agree with that. But if that was not enough to vote, why would a vote be started because of Kosovar, who has quite similar edit history? If his contributions are not sufficient for even a single vote, why would his opinion be sufficient to start a voting? If Dori, or you, had a dispute about name of the article, why haven't you started a vote in months prior to this? The fact that you haven't shows that you had no dispute - which means that the vote was started solely because of him - and, as I said, if he can't vote he shouldn't be able to start a vote.

But even if the poll was started in a regular way, it would still be undemocratic, because voters were not able to make an informed choice. There was no information for them about the names. There was no information about whether a name could be insultive, ambiguous, incorrect, inconsistent, or whatever, only a lengthy discussion about which name is official one. Add to that the fact that this case is different then all others which were between two variants of a name, not two different names. That makes it even more complicated, and even more material is needed for a quality decision.

Note that starting new poll would do no good because none of the above issues is resolved.

Lastly, I'd also wanted to say that I acted within the Wikipedia framework - it was Dori who started irregular and undemocratic vote, tricking other users into believing that there is a dispute where there isn't. I was trying to counter that with everything I could do.

Nikola 22:17, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Hi. As I said, it insults me to have to edit Talk:Kosovo so I won't edit it. But I want to tell you that I find your Talk:Kosovo#Suggested guidelines on usage quite acceptable, I was thinking about something similar myself. I'd even add that, if Kosovo is an accepted use in f.e. UN, the article about UN institutions (UNMIK, KFor), even if the article about the province is at Kosovo and Metohia, should link to "Serbian province of Kosovo" (which I think was the case anyway). Nikola 07:03, 17 May 2004 (UTC)


Hi ChrisO. Thanks again for your attempt of a compromise. I was wondering if you consider the vote about Kosovo to be valid or not after reading Nikola's arguments. If not, I would be willing to support another vote. (and we should include which name to use on other pages, too, as Nikola is starting to split hairs about that). Otherwise, I would continue to support Kosovo, but hate to waste my time in an edit war with a hard headed user. -- Chris 73 | Talk 07:51, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotection

Hi Chris -- AFAIK, pages can also be protected to stop vandalism -- not only to force disputes to be resolved on the talk page. I think it would be best to leave these pages protected for a few days until Levzur has found something else to do with his time. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 22:00, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

Levzur has been at this in one form or another since December. He is simply trying to make us give up and go away. Zviad Gamsakhurdia , for instance, has already been protected at least six times over the past few months and Levzur has resumed attacking it within hours or days at the most after protection is lifted. Protection will achieve nothing except blocking anyone from editing the articles, which is apparently his aim. I'd suggest blocking his IP addresses instead. -- ChrisO 22:03, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
Part of the reason I though that protection was better was your comment on Vandalism in progress that blocking individual IP addresses will be ineffective, as he is using multiple proxies across his ISP's three /24s. And I assume that with a country as small as Georgia, it would be a problem to block these ranges. So I'm not sure what else that leaves us with.... Sigh, BCorr|Брайен 19:18, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Kosovo, again ...

Hi ChrisO. Whats your view on the Kosovo vs. Kosovo and Metohija situation? Was the vote valid? I still think it was valid, but I am willing to vote again if you feel the need for it. Also, Nicola is using the - in my opinion - narrowest possible interpretation that only the page location of Kosovo was decided, and everything else is still K&M. Even in historic references he calls it the territory of modern Kosovo and Metohija. I won't revert Nikola for now, but would like to hear your opinion. (I also asked Dori for his view) Thanks -- Chris 73 | Talk 07:18, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Data from Geonet, map from Aquarius, and a self-made PHP script... I'm glad that you like it, maybe there'll be more of them ;) Nikola 16:12, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

I hope so - it's an excellent idea! Nice one. :-) -- ChrisO 16:18, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ahmad Shah Qajar

Thanks for additional info! It looks great. Quadell (talk) 14:24, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)

Glad you liked it! I've also added an article on Agha Muhammad Khan. -- ChrisO 14:39, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Levzur and unprotection

I am in the process of unprotecting all of them. I agree that somebody should keep an eye on these pages in case he returns to them, but I'll be on vacation for a little while, so I can't do that myself. Hopefully, you can handle reverting any edits he makes, and if it gets too intense, they can be reprotected again. I will look at the situation again when I get back, though. --Michael Snow 17:40, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Asteroid 4179 Toutatis

Are you sure Toutatis isn't an Alinda asteroid?

I think the categories of Apollo asteroid and Alinda asteroid can overlap, so it would be both.

See for instance http://www.phys.utb.edu/~johnston/astro/rpt4179-u.html for what seems to be a list of Alinda asteroids.

-- Curps 19:26, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] South Azerbaijan

Hi. You might want to look at this article. A pan-Turkist appears to be rewriting the page in a pan-Turkist manner. I reverted a few times, but I don't think the version I reverted to is very neutral either, although its less rantlike. Morwen - Talk 07:52, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

Your photo from the British museum is gorgeous - but it brings up a question I've been wondering which is whether we count as personal photography or not. The British Museum says "Photography with flash and video recording is permitted in most galleries for private purposes only, using hand-held equipment.". Museums I've been thinking about going to including the Horniman have similar restrictions - presumably because they charge corporate users. What do you think - we are a grey area - not really personal, but not professional either. Secretlondon 14:12, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree, it's a bit of a grey area. However, I think we can get around it by saying that the photos are taken in a personal capacity; we're not taking them for Wikipedia, we're donating them to Wikipedia. BTW, I try to avoid flash photography like the plague - it really mucks up the lighting! -- ChrisO 14:19, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Iran

Yes - will upload it this evening. I need to do some work on it anyway, to show the division of Khorasan into 3. Morwen - Talk 10:55, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW, thanks for letting me know about the row over "South Azerbaijan" - I'm doing some work on it in the background. I'm planning to rename the article to Iranian Azerbaijan as an umbrella article on the Azerbaijani-inhabited provinces of Iran, so I need the unnumbered map to combine with an existing ethnic distribution map that I have to hand. -- ChrisO 11:00, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
No problem. I saw that arguement and despaired, then thought 'ah, I know someone who might be interested in that' ;) Do you want a huge unantialised version - I can provide that. Morwen - Talk 11:08, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
My reputation for masochism is getting around, I see. ;) Yes, that version would be fine. -- ChrisO 11:18, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Here you go - Image:IranBlank.png Morwen - Talk 20:47, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Hi Chris, that deletion was unintentional. In an effort to restore what that guy had ripped apart and partially deleted, I found it more convenient to revert to an older version; so I reverted to your own last original version before anonymous IP's changes, as recunstruction base, and in the process forgot to include your bottom line request. In fact, I myself would most welcome his presenting authentic support for his claims. Sorry about that. --K1 19:38, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No problem. :-) -- ChrisO 09:22, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

I see that you've been busy working on categories (a very useful task), specifically Category:British churches; perhaps this should be made a child of a new category, say Category:British places of worship, and split into sub-categories such as Category:London churches, Category:Welsh churches, and so on?
James F. (talk) 06:21, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me! -- ChrisO 09:50, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Roman imperial figures

Just to tell you that your wonderful pictures of roman imperial figures are being put to good use in wikipedia.pt. They are not only clear and informative, but very beautiful. Cheers, Muriel G 15:47, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks - glad to see they're proving useful! -- ChrisO 17:01, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Azerbaijan articles

I found some reference for the historical facts. Please see Talk:History of Azerbaijan#From my Persian Encyclopedia. Roozbeh 04:15, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Unrecognized Countries

Hi, ChrisO. I noticed you had made contributions to Abkhazia. If you're interested in Abkhazia and similar places, why don't you drop by the WikiProject Unrecognized countries and help add some more depth to Wikipedia's coverage of these?

Be sure to visit the Project talk page, and if you are interested, you can become a member. Ambivalenthysteria 12:10, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Kosovo municipalities

Have you got any answer from a webmaster of those Kosovo municipalities websites (see Talk:Prizren if you don't recall what this is about)? Nikola 07:33, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately I haven't... -- ChrisO 07:38, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Warsaw Uprising

Be aware of the major rewriting ongoing at User:Halibutt/Warsaw Uprising Mozzerati 19:30, 2004 Jul 30 (UTC)

I wasn't, but thanks! -- ChrisO 19:34, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of links

I have indeed given an explanation of the removal of the links inserted by User:Lir, and this has been discussed on talk. 172 19:06, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You mean your comment "I am reverting yet another attempt by Sam Spade to reactivate disputes that have already been resolved"? That's a justification, not an explanation. You're a party in an arbitration dispute; it looks very bad if you delete contributions by an opposing party. I don't think you have any standing to delete evidence - I think you should leave that to the Arbitration Committee. -- ChrisO 19:17, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Michael Snow's comments also shed light on this issue. As to "how I look," Lir's request for arbitration is no more serious than his repeated nominations of himself at request for adminship. I have been dealing with this user before you even first started contributing to this site, and I have a better idea of his pattern of behavior than practically any other user; thus I am confident in my ability to respond to him appropriately. His goal is to provoke flame wars, provoking disagreements like the one between the two of us right now. He hopes that users will click on links pertaining to disputes that have already been resolved, comment on them while not being aware that these disputes have already been resolved, and start rehashing old fights and personal scores. This is how he has been entertaining himself since mid-2002. I don't want to deal with this, so I will continue to remove those links and defamatory comments. 172 19:37, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
172, by acting as you are, you are only falling into Lir's trap, and generating sympathy for him as the injured party. -- orthogonal 19:45, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Both approaches (removing the irrelevant links or ignoring them) come with advantages and disadvantages). After observing this user for over 19 months, I am more skeptical of the passive approach. Just to give you an idea about where I'm coming from, I was the only sysop to be consistently polite to Lir on Talk:Saddam Hussein during his weeks of edit warring on that page. (Take a look if you're skeptical.) Given his choice to target me in particular after his declaration of "victory" on the Saddam page, it's now clear enough that he interpreted my assumptions of good faith on his part as a sign of gullibility. It is now clear to me that the best way to deal with him is to treat him like the malicious vandal that he is. 172 20:03, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Here are comments by a fair-mined user (not a vigilante) on this issue taken from Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration:

I agree that it looks bad for 172 to be removing "evidence" from this page, but it's worth noting that he's not deleting evidence (the distinction is important, given that 172 is an administrator). Really, he's not just disputing the evidence, but disputing that it's appropriate to put on this page. I would suggest that people requesting arbitration may certainly start collecting any evidence they wish on subpages of their own user pages. It can then be presented formally should the Arbitration Committee actually choose to hear this case.
As the primary proponent of the earlier request involving 172 and VeryVerily, I believe that matter should not be considered by the Arbitration Committee at this time. The parties seem to have reached a workable solution and I see no indication that the dispute has resumed. In examining the situation at New Imperialism, I do not find enough similarities to warrant dredging up those issues again.
Incidentally, I believe it would be very helpful if the arbitrators voting below could indicate which of the requests above, or what aspects thereof, they are accepting or rejecting. This would make more clear what evidence is actually relevant. --Michael Snow 20:24, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

172 19:46, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I hope you're not implying that I'm a "vigilante". I'm entirely neutral in this matter and personally couldn't care less what the outcome is. I think Michael has missed the most important point here - while you might be disputing whether it is appropriate to post the evidence to RFA, you do not have any standing to decide that issue. If the ArbCom doesn't want evidence then surely it's for the ArbCom to say so, not for you to decide unilaterally on their behalf. -- ChrisO 19:55, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Your comments seem to imply that I have something to hide. (And I don't -- look through that "evidence.") My position is that the removal of these irrelevant links is necessary to avoid disruption, not that I find the posting of these links embarrassing. (BTW, how would you feel if you had a run in with Lir and he started inappropriately posting links to all those pages pertaining to your disputes with that Georgian nationalist on the request for arbitration page? I bet you wouldn't take that lying down.) 172 20:17, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)