User talk:N1h1l

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, N1h1l, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few more good links for to help you get started:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair 23:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism

Thank you for your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. I have closed the debate as no consensus. Per the recommendation from you and others that the article was US-centric, the {{Globalize}} tag was added to the article. Please do help to improve the article or contribute further to discussion on what ought to be done with it. Again, thanks! -- Jonel | Speak 03:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About Anna Mae Aquash

Yesterday I greeted a new user and made a remark not to put in a direct commercial link in the document and she was trying to create a nice addition, but it's clear that is very much a newbie, because she asked me how to make a link etc. It's clear that you are a lot more advanced already and just reverted all of her changes. The point is that she is not going to understand of course. So could please try to inform her on her talk page ( User_talk:Antoinettenora ) because she is potentially a good editor and I think that she will be of benefit for the page, but she is not going to notice the edit summary or the talk page of the document and stuff like that. Dr Debug (Talk) 22:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sarvodaya

I meant to add it as a topic related to anarchism, but in light of a better place to put it, added it there. I didn't think it was out of line considering Swadeshi's inclusion in the list, but maybe neither belong. The sarvodaya system is closely related to anarchism though, and its article is pretty miserable. However, I think that the topic is of interest to anarchists because sarvodaya is a village democracy system built around "swadeshi, bread labour, non-possession, trusteeship, non-exploitation, and equality". Its five main principles are "cooperation, serving those in need, satisfying work, participation, and nonviolence". The only thing that really keeps it from being anarchism is that it doesn't necessarily reject the state, but nor does it necessary accept it. If you have any ideas for a better placement, I'd be happy to entertain them. Sarge Baldy 16:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's the best thing to do. Sarge Baldy 16:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Swadeshi, syndicalism, pacifism (?), anarchism and the arts, anarchist symbolism, neo-luddism, veganism/freeganism. I'm sure once we have a section we can fill it up. It might also make sense to put anarchist economics and anarchist law there, because those aren't really anarchist concepts, they're more articles about various anarchist concepts. Sarge Baldy 20:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Savin's exclusion from the PGA

This is a source on Savin's exclusion.Harrypotter 19:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ward Churchill misconduct allegations summary

I would prefer in the summary blurb that points to the child article, Ward Churchill misconduct allegations, to avoid the direct quote from Churchill. I believe the same quote would be useful in that child article, but there's a problem with leaving it in the summary pointer, to my mind.

I do not know if you've looked at the edit history and talk page of the article(s); but in fact, over the last six months or so, I've been the chief editor trying to maintain the sanity of the coverage against frequent new and single-purpose editors who wish to put in long and vindictive editorial statements about just how very much they dislike Churchill. Not always material that is factually inaccurate, but always a problem of tone and "undue weight".

My belief is that if you try to leave in the Counterpunch direct quote from Churchill in the section summary, that will just invite other editors to find some long and hate-filled comment about Churchill from another source, and insert it next to the Churchill quote. That editor will make a spurious argument that the quote is verifiable, and therefore must be included. The middle ground to walk is to leave the summary strictly in the neutral third-person, rather than let this "war of quotes" grow there. Churchill's statement is fairly emotional in tone, and I believe we're better with a more plainly factual tone in that section (I recognize, of course, that reporting a quote isn't the same as endorsing it's tone; but I still feel that material better belongs in the child article).

If you'd like to do something really, really helpful, you can keep an eye on the Ward Churchill misconduct allegations article, where an anonymous editor has been repeatedly blanking multiple paragraphs, essentially trying to remove any seciton or topic that might seem vaguely favorable to Churchill. It would be really nice to have at least one other editor watching for that, rather than have to do all the reverts of the blanking myself. LotLE×talk 17:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Could I ask you a favor: go over and revert the blanking that User:70.114.205.215 just did again, over at Ward Churchill misconduct allegations. I think a good argument exists that the change qualifies as vandalism, but I don't want to violate 3RR by restoring the deletions a fourth time. The help would be really.... well, helpful. LotLE×talk 21:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
No, you are wrong. The change was valid and appropriate. Also, your comments about my edits are way off the mark. I'm only focusing on the slanderous/libelous comments of Churchill toward other professors who happen to disagree with him. I believe from your comments that you want to work with Lulu to simply find a way to stop my editing. Churchill has been found by a committee at the University of Colorado to have engaged in serious research misconduct and the quotes that I am attempting to remove are focused on his personal attacks on these good professors. You have not attempted to discuss the topic with me directly, but rather you have recruiter Lulu to work with you to shut me down. I have commented on the talk page and neither you or Lulu have attempted to have a discussion with me even though I have asked both of you (anyone) to discuss the topic and I have not had any response. You have already decided that my good faith efforts to edit the document are "vandalism" as you state right here. You are not editing in good faith. Why have you decided that only you and Lulu are allowed to make edits to the article? And why have you decided to leave in Churchill's personal attacks on other professors? That is not the way that Wikipedia is suppose to work. It is supposed to be a colaborative effort but from the actions of you and Lulu it is clear that together you both have decided to just ignore my comments on the Talk Page and just reverse anything that I do and then, instead of debating and discussing the topice with me, you just state that if I don't agree with you then my work in just "vandalism." Please edit in good faith, based upon your discussion with Lulu above it is clear to me that you aren't. --- --70.114.205.215 22:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC) ---

[edit] More on POV-changes to lead

I'm not sure how much you're around WP, or if Ward Churchill misconduct allegations is on your watchlist. But User:Verklempt has lately been trying repeatedly to insert some POV nonsense into the lead. I guess you can see what it is yourself from the edit history, but basically it's: (a) insert misleading phrase "compared victims to Nazis"; (b) invent brand new claim that Churchill "plagiarized" "little Eichmann" phrase from Zerzan; (c) remove the actual characterization of what Churchill's essay is about to substitute a short caricature. Anyway, if you feel like watching... way cool. LotLE×talk 04:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Cabal case

Hello there, N1h1l. I have volunteered to mediate the case regarding Peoples' Global Action. Please voice any opinions and evidence you have supporting your stance at the relevant page. Only with your cooperation can the case be resolved peacefully. Thanks. --physicq210 17:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Anti-authoritarian
Workers Solidarity Alliance
Social Revolutionary Anarchist Federation
The Angry Brigade
Rhizome Collective
Solidarity Federation
Alternative Media Project
Autonomedia
Agitator
Green Anarchy
Institute for Anarchist Studies
Practical Anarchy
White Panther Party
Curious George Brigade
Victor Yarros
Melbourne Anarchist Communist Group
Anarchist Prisoners' Legal Aid Network
Wendy McElroy
Black anarchism
Cleanup
Red & Anarchist Action Network
Steve Booth
Abe Bluestein
Merge
Nationalist anarchism
Property is theft!
Red and Anarchist Action Network
Add Sources
Anarchism and society
List of the most popular names in the 1910s in the United States
Love and Rage Network
Wikify
Praxeology
Giambattista Vico
Jolly Rogers Cookbook
Expand
Anarchism and Marxism
Political compass
List of United States presidential electors, 2000

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 17:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:ElishaShapiro.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ElishaShapiro.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin A. Carson

The removed content is redundant on earlier text within the same article. Please do not revert again.--Jsorens 16:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just Things

[edit] Just Things

A tag has been placed on Just Things, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because it is an article about a certain web site, blog, forum, or other community of web users that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles, as well as notability guidelines for websites. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on Talk:Just Things. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Calton | Talk 00:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] avtomatz reply

search eco-radicals on google or somethin u'll c stuff bout them there

[edit] I predict the following. RE: the terroist portal

A known sockpuppet supporting Verklempt's position may show up in a day or 2. It happened to me on the Ward Churchill misconduct issues page just a few days ago. I think we can gain enough support to have that portal deleted and stay deleted without an edit war. Albion moonlight 03:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:AAW.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:AAW.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 04:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DivaNTrainin

Hey, have you reported this user for the constant refactoring of the Copwatch talk page? Do you think it's necessary? Murderbike 20:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me know if you nominate DivaNTraining for another ban and I will gladly support it. This woman is super annoying. I left a comment on her talk page asking nicely to follow Wiki rules... she logged on 6 hours later, blanked the comment, and then resubmitted the same unsourced edit to Copwatch for about the 30th time.Factchecker atyourservice 15:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Mycota 04:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Lucifer849.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lucifer849.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Up Against the Wall Motherfuckers fact tag

The source is provided as "January 1969 Get Back Sessions at Twickenham Studios in London." Now, I have no idea whether the quote is accurate, but in any case it's a citation, so that the fact tag is the wrong one. There's another tag, for citations whose accuracy is doubted, but I forget what it is. Personally, I don't care whether this tag is there or not, but it doesn't make sense for it to be. —Jemmytc 22:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I looked it up and the correct tag is {{verify source}}. - N1h1l (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:WIR-bank.png

Thanks for uploading Image:WIR-bank.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 09:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Zencart.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Zencart.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Btmural067indybay2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Btmural067indybay2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:ElishaShapiro.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ElishaShapiro.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:MP 2 tapa grande.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:MP 2 tapa grande.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 00:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:ElishaShapiro.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:ElishaShapiro.jpg. 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. скоморохъ 18:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Snog-adventuresincapitalism.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Snog-adventuresincapitalism.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 03:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Individual reclamation

Yo, nice work on the article; I'm just wondering where you got the title from? I had never come across it in English before, and none of the first (10 of 733) Google hits except the Wikipedia article seem to use the term in this sense. I'm wondering if we should move the article to reprise individuelle? скоморохъ 02:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Responded at Talk:Individual reclamation.

[edit] Speedy deletion of Image:Lucifer849.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Lucifer849.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

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. BJTalk 12:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)