User talk:Mikebar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Talk page

User:Mikebar/Sandbox

[edit] User Category for Discussion

A category created by you or to which you have significantly contributed is being considered for deletion, rename, move or merge in accordance with Wikipedia's Categories for Discussion policies. This does not mean that any of the userpages in the category will be deleted. They may, however, be recategorized.
Please share your thoughts on the matter at this category's entry on the User categories for discussion page.
VegaDark (talk) 09:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Responded - see discussion page Mikebar 10:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You

Thanks for your constructive comments on the Wikipedians who have survived cancer userbox debate. I would not have thought of starting such unless I had seen other conditions with their own boxes. Your well reasoned words allowed me to think the issue through logically. Mikebar 10:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

If my words helped even for a moment to inspire well-reasoned thought expressed through logic and civility, then I am happy to have been such a help : ) - jc37 10:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your DRV

For the record, I find it to be poor form on your part that you did not notify me that you put my decision to deletion review. The purpose clearly states that you should discuss the matter with me before you attempt DRV, which I can forgive based on benefit of the doubt that you say on my talk page that someone else had already done that. However, it is very clear that you are to notify me using {{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~ per #3 of the instructions. --After Midnight 0001 22:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Noted - I'm rather new to all of this contestation and I did notify the person who started the deletion procedure. Others have noted you closed the discussion and ruled against the majority which was rather out of character so there is more than enough to go around. Mikebar 11:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
    • OK, I'll accept that you erred on inexperience and withdraw my anger and apologize for my tone. As an aside, however, people aren't saying that I ruled against the majority, but rather that there was no consensus either way. No one (other than you) is asserting that there are more keeps than deletes. --After Midnight 0001 22:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interlink

sorry - for some reason all I saw was the "See Also".Tedickey 16:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Wikipedians by alma mater and subcats

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Wikipedians by alma mater and subcats. Since you participated in the deletion discussion for these categories, you might want to participate in the deletion review. - auburnpilot talk 17:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

Your recent peer review request (Wikipedia:Peer review/Pel-Ebstein fever/archive1) is incomplete. If you wish to get feedback you should complete the nomination procedure (see WP:PR) or maybe post at WikiProject Medicine. DrKiernan 11:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, posted at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment_or_re-assessment now. Mikebar 14:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] International Relations

Thanks for your edits on diplomats relating to India. I invite you to join Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations if you are interested in additional work in this area. there are alot of diplomatic articles that need sprucing up like the edits you did (and I have been doing). Thanks and regards Mikebar 16:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the invitation! I will certainly check it out and see if I can contribute meaningfully to the effort. Alansohn 17:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United Nations Parliamentary Assembly

Hello, I have created an article about the UN Parliamentary Assembly, a world body that would be similar to Europarl. Please review and vote on the WP:FAC nomination. Thanks, Sarsaparilla (talk) 01:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of wikis

Please note that the list of wikis criteria for inclusion is that the pages themselves are notable, meaning 'having their own page on wikipedia'. Being mentioned on a page is generally seen as insufficient, the actual wiki must have its own separate page. Thanks, WLU (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, seems to be an arbitraary rule but ok, it now has a cogent article of its own so I added it back. Mikebar (talk) 11:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure. The rule is meant to prevent the page from filling with redlinks, external links and spam. The Diplopedia article looks notable, so I have no objections to it being replaced. WLU (talk) 20:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas R. Pickering Comments

I noticed your October, 2007 comments at Talk:Thomas R. Pickering, and I agree with your proposal to create succession boxes for each of Pickering's diplomatic posts. --TommyBoy (talk) 14:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Politicians bios

Only 2000 or so articles were tagged at all, so I'm fairly sure not "all" have been tagged. I'm guessing that the ones you're talking about were tagged for the Interfaith work group because they're included in one or more of the subcats of Category:Interfaith topics. I am in the process of going through all those articles to assess them and determine if they really fall within the scope of the Interfaith group, that'll probably take a week or so. We have a bot about to go on the server which will automatically tag all newly created articles on the basis of their being included in a category relevant to that group. We will probably have to do a lot of recategorization in the future on the basis of that, as even Kirill Lokshin has recently indicated that about half of the articles in the various subcats of Military history honestly didn't belong there, so this problem seems to exist across the board. So, if there are any articles out there which could be placed in more specific categories that you know of, please do so. Otherwise, with the 1000 or so WikiProject and work groups out there, we'll very possibly be seeing a lot of dubious tagging in the near future. John Carter (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About non-free images

I obviously understand that fair use on Wikipedia is a balance between commercial interests and educational purpose, and thus we have to keep it to a minimum; fair use should only be used for important, non-replaceable images. But I think it's going too far to suggest that we can never use an image if it will affect the copyright holder commercially. We are not completely "replac[ing] the original market role"; people are still going to the original sites, and seeing this images in context, with ads, etc. That means it should be a weighing process. So that explains my thoughts on the matter. Superm401 - Talk 20:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Burning of the US embassy in Belgrade 2008.jpg

Hi Mike, sorry I have to be a spoilsport again, but I'm still not happy with your re-upload of that image. The way I see it, the presence of that image on the government website does not imply that the copyright lies with the government, much less that it's been released to the public domain like images that were originally created by the government. The copyright notice at the blogs.state.gov website [1] says that "If a copyright is indicated on a video, photo, graphic, or other material, permission to copy these materials must be obtained from the original source. For photos without captions or with only partial captions, hold your cursor over the photo to view the “alt tag” for any copyright information. Please note that many photos used on this website are copyrighted." Now, the "alt" tag of the image in question, at [2] says "The U.S. embassy in Belgrade, Serbia burns after attackers set fire to an office Feb. 21, 2008. [AP]" That doesn't explicitly mention the word "copyright", but it does mention that it's an AP image. (Obviously, as it's still the exact same AP image we were talking about earlier.) So, the condition that the image was "created by a US employee, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties" is plainly not fulfilled. Do we have any indication that the full rights to this image were purchased by the US government and then released into the public domain, rather than that the government simply licensed it from AP just like all other media do? I've compared a few other images on the same site, and this notice "[AP]" does seem to be what they mean by copyright information. Images that are truly government-made, like the first one here, do not have such a tag. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've written them to ask. Mikebar (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] School template merger

I am being bold and merging them all into one template. I have done this several times before, this is just the largest group I have ever merged. I can give you the links to all of the TfDs that I have gotten approved when I merged several templates into one. Prior to this merge, I did the time zone template and got all of the single use ones deleted. This is no different. Think of it this way, you now have a template that you can make semi-custom messages in. Place the alumni problem here, and I will get to it. - LA @ 20:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I merge userboxes. I am going to get every single individual school userbox deleted in favor of one singular userbox that can handle all schools, once I get that alumni issue fixed. Though I don't know why just saying one attended a school isn't enough. Is being an alumni that important? I really don't know, since my collegic(sp) experience was extremely horrid. It has been suggested that I start the TfD process now, instead of next week. - LA @ 20:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Here are your boxes to put directly on your page...please don't copy them to the templates that will be put up for deletion...I couldn't tell if you were graduated from CalTech or not...
{{User school|bdcolor=#110099|bgcolor=#ffd700|fcolor=#000|scolor=#110099|image=|abbr=W|grad=alumni|team=|school=Whitman College|rahrah=|cat=Whitman College}}
{{User school|bdcolor=#000|bgcolor=#ff8c00|fcolor=|scolor=#fff|image=|abbr=Caltech|grad=yes|team=|school=The California Institute of Technology|rahrah=|cat=The California Institute of Technology}}
I hope they are close enough to suit. - LA @ 21:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pel-Ebstein, Jane Austen

Mikebar, I might have missed the point about the tuberculosis mention in Pel-Ebstein fever. If that was originally your edit, please go ahead and do with it what you will - I am not claiming any expertise. My interest was sparked because several editors are trying to pull together sources for the last illness of Jane Austen. A couples of sources say that the intermittent fevers she described are Pel-Ebstein, tending to support the hypothesis that she had Hodgkin's lymphoma rather than Addison's disease which is the majority view (personally I'm neutral). Anyway, you might be interested in the discussion at Talk:Jane_Austen and the drafting which is taking place at Talk:Jane_Austen/Notes_on_final_illness. Pointillist (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Terrorism Newsletter

The Terrorism WikiProject
April 2008 Newsletter

News
Archives • Discussion

Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 05:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spaniel userbox

Thanks for (trying to) migrate your userbox, but you moved it to another location within the Template: space, so I moved it to User:Mikebar/UBX/User English Springer Spaniel and updated all the usages. Cheers! xenocidic (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dept of State - Sockpuppet and Checkuser cases

You might be interested in the in the results of a checkuser on several recent edits

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Fsbrat

it was found likely.

Also, there is an open sockpuppet case

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Fsbrat

Bevinbell (talk) 00:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

looks like the anon edits from state's IP are at it again, first the civil service reverting, and then I beleive a troll (probably the same guy). what is the fascination with the FS vs. CS when its so clearly defined on even state's webpages to the public? nutty. Bevinbell (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I am FSBrat and simply wanted to make the part about personnel categories more neutral. We are all one big family at the State Department and there is no reason for emphasizing the role of one group of employees at the expense of another.

I responded politely to the accusation of socket puppetting but my responses were deleted, I am not engaging in "vandalism", or a "revert war" and do not have an "axe to grind". I simply wanted to make a constructive contribution and am puzzled at the strong emotional reactions to my edits. I know there are many other employees posting on this site so please do not lump us all together. Discussion and debate is healthy and not something that needs to be supressed. I welcome discussion and will respect a consensus view. But why were my comments on the discussion page erased?? (User FSBrat) 12:02, 02 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, FSBrat, or whoever, is doing a revert war between you and me and him. I think we should make the case for a block, I think that the checkuser blocked the other two sockpuppet accounts confirmed, but this account slipped through the cracks. at the least maybe drag in a third party to warn him up about destructive editing. Clearly a CS with an axe to grind. Bevinbell (talk) 04:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)