User talk:Oren0/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Removing Bias

Funny enough, my edits to remove bias are promptly undone by people like you, yet you pretend to be high and mighty by removing vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.191.171 (talk) 03:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You call vandalism like this ("George W. Bush plumbing company"?) removing bias? Oren0 (talk) 03:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion on NPOV Sarah Palin? TAKE TWO

Please post at talk, thanks. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism warning

Well in all fairness I was only adding it because I saw it here- Wikipedia:Millionth topic pool. Also I was kinda curious if such nonsense would be deleted so fast if it was created by an established user like me.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No biggie. I was just trying out WP:NPW and I came across it. I wasn't quite sure what to make of Wikipedia:Public apology to users either. I did print off my morphine coupon before deleting though. oren0 (talk) 06:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hold on to that one.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Limit Down

Limit Down is a unique term that describes the halted state of the stock market. I figured more people will add to it as time goes. I also made several connected articles, and references.(Rodleen (talk) 07:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC))

Re: Rollback Permissions

I specifically requested them because I downloaded huggle and the tool doesn't work unless you have rollback. Is there something else like it that doesn't require rollback rights? AJ Kirwin (talk) 11:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

ROMaster2

Based on how he first presented the page, combined with the statements made on the page, it seems he's using it more for an archive than for sandboxing. He describes it as a more indepth version vs. a demo of what changes he'd like to make. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 19:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Semi protect on Political positions of John McCain

I think we can unprotect the page now. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It had already expired. I removed the notice from the page. Oren0 (talk) 23:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Notability

That may be true, but I think the entire way to judge notability is subjective. For example, I do not disagree that "Free Bird" may have been "notable" for a different reason, only because I remember having heard someone discuss it prior to the release of the Guitar Hero series. However, the fact is, if it wasn't notable before, being in GH would in and of itself make it notable. Simply being recorded by Lynard Skynard would not cause notability, and it is impossible to say for sure the indirect results of it. However, it is notable that it was in the GH series, so it should definitely be mentioned in its article and, in my opinion, the articles of other songs in the GH series. --Dromioofephesus (talk) 00:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

JtP -- LEW

I went and suggested the "plumber" idiocy on the LEW talk page -- think it will get chosen? Collect (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback

Thanks for your input at my successful Rfa. I'm already thinking about working on my content creation. Hopefully in a few months, I'll have passed the point where you would've !voted Support. If you have any more suggestions on how I can improve myself as an editor, I'd be happy to hear them. Happy editing!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 21:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You'd also expressed concern about my report of User:Fullyang to WP:UAA. I had actually created that account per an Account Creation request as part of my duties on the account creation team. I didn't notice until after I'd created it that the e-mail address was using the Fullyang.com domain name. Do you still think the UAA request was wrong? I'd like to hear your thoughts.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

You made it. Congrats and be happy. I wouldn't dwell on the individual opposes and I'm sure you'll do great. Oren0 (talk) 04:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't consider this "dwelling on individual opposes", though, since it was brought up in several oppose !votes, and I want to make sure I don't fall afoul of policy (especially as an admin). Cheers!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

At some point it's a matter of opinion. Registering a name that is the same as a corporate site is one of the common complaints at WP:UAA and the standard protocol seems to be to wait until the user edits. A user can own a business and register using that name without violating WP:COI. I don't believe that the name FullYang promotes anything by itself unless the user starts using that account to create a page for that site, for example. I guess to bring this rambling to a close I wouldn't have blocked that user at that time but it wasn't inexcusable. My more pressing concern with you was that you were acting like you were already an admin in deciding AfDs/speedies. But that's why this is a community decision and obviously the community at large trusts your judgment. My own RfA was also very heated and I know the temptation to take the opposes personally but it's really not a referendum on you as a person. I'm sure I speak for nearly all opposes when I wish you luck and success as an admin. Oren0 (talk) 04:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your perspective on that. I actually don't consider my Rfa to have been that heated; just a very close vote, that's all. I certainly don't take any of the criticism personally. If I was the type to take it personally, I wouldn't be fit for adminship, I think. Cheers!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 08:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Arabic wiki

Hi there, can u please, participate in the arabic wiki talk page? Regards --Riyadi.asmawi (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Severance Hospital

I tried to post an RfC about whether a citation was needed for the specific phrase "Yonsei Severance Hosptial."

Then, somehow Caspian blue intervened in ways I don't understand.

Now the RfC tage which later bot-modified is now removed by you.

I posted the summary of what happened as a way of trying to clarify an awkward sequence which doesn't quite make sense to me.

Bottom line: At the moment you removed the tag, I was in the process of tying to figure out how to resolve the problem by re-posting the original tag ... but maybe that would be exactly the wrong thing to do? This was my first RfC; and I would have thought it should have been less controversial? --Tenmei (talk) 07:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

RB Image

That is the correct conversation. There was a similiar situation a while back regarding if the image should be included. I believe that the original argument was that there wasn't enough difference to warrant it. Frankly I'm confused by the rule, but I saw what looked like consensus... -- TRTX ^{T / C} 18:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

My ANI thread on Mercenary2k

Yes, I forgot to notify the user (although I posted at User: Ragib's talk space, in reply). Thanks for the reminder. Considering that Mercenary2k deletes EVERY comment I make at his talk page, though ... Anyway, next time.CSHunt68 (talk) 12:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, nobody's doing much of anything right now. [1] Mercenary has not retracted his comments, despite the fact that he's been on several times since then and posted on my talk page. Nor has he shown any willingness to work towards consensus on the article talk page. Is there nothing anybody can do? Do I just have to put up with these racist personal attacks?! How about waiting until 3O has been resolved, then blocking him while we put up the consensus? This will prevent him from IMMEDIATELY reverting, as he has indicated he's going to do. Or, just block him from editing the article until that's been accomplished?CSHunt68 (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Palin bounty for wolf forelegs

Your edit summary indicates that you should read the page History more carefully before addressing individual editors in such summaries. I had recently added material, to that section, but much of what you deleted existed before my edits, and Jimmuldrow was responsible for none of it. I don't think it is too much detail. Neither did Collect, and he usually deletes everything I do. I hope to see assertions in Discussion before another revert entry in History. Anarchangel (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Updating Big East Standings

		The Running Man Barnstar
		Nice job updating the Big East basketball standings. Makes all of our pages look much better.GoCuse44 (talk) 04:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I've added this to my user page. Oren0 (talk) 04:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

RFC on College Football logos

As the NFCC talk page was becoming difficult to navigate, I have moved the RFC to a subpage at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/RFC on use of sports team logos. If you had the talkpage watchlisted, you may wish to add the subpage also. Best, Black Kite 11:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Beginning the process of free images

Hi Oren0, since some editors like Hammer, Black Kite and Seraphimblade seem hell bent to start riffing images based on a non-existent policy and a "longstanding practice" that is nowhere to be found in any guideline or Wikipedia rule, it seems prudent to start identifying which college logos can be considered free use and which cannot. Although it doesn't seem they can make up their minds if it is a proliferation issue or an free use issue, or both, I think it makes sense to identify as many possible images that can be re-licensed as free if they are not already. From what I have read it seems they care more about whether the images are free rather than heavy use of images. I know that the Notre Dame image is considered free because it does not meet the Threshold of originality, since the N and the D are simple geometric shapes. Under this license:

I believe many others would qualify, such as the IU logo, Oklahoma logo, Tennessee Logo, Syracuse logo (which is already so licensed), etc. Since you have been active in this discussion and are an editor I wanted to know your thoughts. It seems Wikiproject College Football and Basketball should coordinate on this to get it done quickly. Regards. Tedmoseby (talk) 21:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable enough. I'm not a copyright expert so I'll take the idea that some logos are not copyrightable at face value. But where is the line drawn? Some like File:Rutgers athletics logo.png are easy but some aren't. Does File:Interlocking University of Southern California logo.png count, or do the interlocking letters mean it doesn't? What about File:University of California, Berkeley athletic logo.svg? Except for the most simple cases, I don't know how to make that determination. Someone made an observation that while a school likely wouldn't go after Wikipedia for using their copyrighted logo, they might pursue legal action if Wikipedia claimed that their logo was not copyrightable. I don't want to speculate on the legality of all of this but that makes sense to me. I'd look for guidance on that from someone who's more versed with copyright law/policy before starting to declare wholesale that logos are not copyrightable. Oren0 (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is a trademark issue and unless a trademark can be demonstrated as "abandoned", they will still be "alive". This is a separate issue from copyright law. Trademarks can names (without any special font, wordmark or logo) and include even the most basic of shapes. I would strongly caution against assuming that any college logo is "free" because trademark law would almost certainly permit them --and if you ever see a ™, or especially a ®, it is a bad idea to move forward. I do not think you will find anything other than archaic, out-of-date logos. I'm saying this as a real life attorney who has lectured my company on trademarks and trademark usage. --Bobak (talk) 23:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense to me and I have no intention of marking anything as non-copyrightable. People had been conjecturing about this regarding the Georgia logo and it seemed fishy to me. Oren0 (talk) 23:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Beatles Cover Category

hey you should change the category on Beatles Video Game Cover to Category:Video Game Covers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Estemshorn (talk • contribs) 22:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. No need to ask me though, you could just be WP:BOLD and make changes like this yourself. Cheers, Oren0 (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The Uber Awesome Award

		The December '08 Uber Awesome Award
		Oren0, You're uber awesome!!! Estemshorn (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I gave you my newly started monthly Uber Awesome Award..

Here you go.

Thanks!. I'll wear with pride on my user page. Oren0 (talk) 22:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Please help! a deletion.

hi there, i bet you admins are awfully busy, but I'd really appreciate it if you'll find the time to answer. i tried writing an autobiographical article, but i couldn't convince them that i am important enough to be mentioned at all. i am a songwriter from Tel Aviv and I've been touring for a while, playing music. i can't really think of what is considered important enough in Wiki terms - popular? in underground terms, looks like we're doing quite well, we have several dozens of thousands of hits on myspace. and of course we're independent, so what? i can't stand it when people shut other people's mouths, why can't i exist in the cyber space? what's the criteria? i know folks who are virtually anonymous, yet they're there, on their wiki pages.

)

Happy Hannukah,

  Mariya (OddDot).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odddot (talk • contribs) 00:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC) 

hi there,

me again,

thanks for the quick reply.

first off, i thought admins had the power to resurrect deleted articles from the www recycle bin, is it true? it took a while to put all of the right signs in place.

secondly, i can get a fair amount of links to articles in Hebrew and mainly German web sites with dates of performances and information, but i just don't understand who should i show them to, it seems silly and trivial and it doesn't seem to relate at all to the subject of matter. so "extra links" at the bottom? or anything of that kind?

the article itself was fairy neutral, it was just general information with dates and places and names. so I'm pretty sure that it's not that.

)

cheers,

  Mariya.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odddot (talk • contribs) 01:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC) 

Rose Bowls

Just a side issue - because I don't think this is the major issue - but don't Rose Bowls have different logos for each year, depending on who's playing? (i.e. 2006 Rose Bowl)? Black Kite 01:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the BCS championship game always has a logo incorporating the teams (the 2006 Rose Bowl was the national championship game, but that's not how the BCS works anymore). All of the non-national championship years don't have their own logos (or if they do, they're not on Wikipedia). Oren0 (talk) 01:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Re

Sorry, I will not do that again. Some of the made up names these people come up with are out there. Again sorry but thank you for protecting the article. Sincerely and truly yours, C6541 (T↔C) at 02:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Samardo Samuels

Thanks for re creating the Samardo Samuels page. Ice (talk) 03:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

New straw poll

You are a user who responded to RFC: Use of logos on sports team pages. As someone interested in the discussion a new straw poll has been laid out to see where we currently stand with regards to building a consensus. For the sake of clarity, please indicate your support or opposition (or neutrality) to each section, but leave discussion to the end of each section. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

As a user who responded to the straw poll regarding non-free images in sports, your further input is requested with regards to the Straw poll summary and proposed guidelines on image use — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

"I'm curious how one cane to the conclusion that Alabama's logo wasn't "original enough" to be copyrightable. I'm sure the school would disagree if someone started selling gear with that logo on it without paying them royalties. Letting Wikipedians who aren't lawyers decide that logos are not copyrightable seems dangerous to me." To the contrary. No one can do any such thing. Trademarks are different from copyrights. PLEASE read this link, and I think you'll find your concerns are addressed. Please note that Coca Cola, IBM, and Microsoft's logos resides on Commons, which as everyone knows is a non-Non-Free zone. They wouldn't host it otherwise. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Archived sections on Raul654

I hope you don't mind. Thatcher is right. Besides, it would require a much larger inquiry and it was muddying the GoRight discussion, which needs a clear answer. Cool Hand Luke 08:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I do mind, actually. Was I expecting Raul to change as a result of a subsection of an AN report? Probably not. I do believe (and clearly I'm not alone here) that Raul has misused the tools in a way that would cause trouble for a less "powerful" admin. No Wikipedian is above the rules and if people believe that one has misused the tools the discussion that decides that should be allowed to continue. I think "he won't listen to the community" is a terrible reason to quash discussion. Oren0 (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I also capped it because this is a far broader problem than the GoRight block, as Thatcher alludes to. I think all of the relevant evidence should be presented in one place at one time. Perhaps in an RFC. In the meantime, would like a decisive answer to whether GoRight should be community banned—even a definitive no consensus. This way, we don't have to revisit it again in a week when someone claims the community ban discussion was derailed—I want to keep it on track. Cool Hand Luke 22:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

That's fair. Oren0 (talk) 03:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I would like to see an RfC on Raul but obviously I am not the one to start such a thing. I prefer to let the current discussion run its course. If the community decides I should be banned then so be it.

But if not, given the number of runs he has made at this I would certainly hope that something could be done to stop the harassment in general, and the use of the admin tools against me specifically. If in the future, he thinks that I am a problem then he should be required to get a truly uninvolved (i.e. someone that has not editted GW pages) admin to agree and have them use the tools. This will save everyone a lot of wikidrama. The example of User:R. Baley's particpation in my actions on the WMC BLP is a good example of the system working and coming to a fair resolution when an uninvolved admin takes the lead.

I plan to try and take Abd's advice to just shut up. I'll be watching the discussion, obviously, but unless I am directly asked for a response I won't be commenting further. I trust that either of you will let me know if you think I should comment on something explicitly.

I truly do appreciate the assistance you both have provided in the past and are currently providing in terms of simply moving this thing along. --GoRight (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Input is requested at List of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series

There is currently a number of questions regarding the "Unofficial Songs" section included in the article, with a number of editors questioning the reliability of the various sources. Since you've been a frequent editor for these articles, I'd like to request your input in the matter, if you are able. Thanks! -- TRTX ^{T / C} 15:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

My (failed) RfA

Many thanks for taking part in this. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Gadget/proposals#Add_the_.22Localize_Comments.22_script

It's going to be hard to get any consensus on the page with so little activity on there. I have responded to your comment. Gary King (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts? Gary King (talk) 16:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

		Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better. Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith (talk), 22:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Denbot (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Standing Offer/Request

Given our past interactions on various topics I thought I would make the following offer.

If you ever have something you want me to offer an opinion on or that you feel I might personally be interested in anywhere on wikipedia, its talk pages, or within any of the official forums such as noticeboards, RfCs, RfAs, and the like, please contact me directly on my talk page and feel free to reference this standing request. I trust your judgment in deciding which topics might be of interest to me, and please keep me informed of any topics in general as well as items specifically involving you personally. --GoRight (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Administrator needed

Oren, your help and advice is needed here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict#Privacy.2Frespect_of_the_dead Thanks John Hyams (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Gaza

Hi Oren. I'm glad to see you're comment at the Gaza Conflict article. Actually it reminded me a little of what Jimbo said when Tariq asked him for a comment on the issue. I'm always happy to have more people involved in any article. But it seems you're aware that we had someone leave today, User:John Hyams. I noticed that he asked for your comment only because he made a statement that he'd asked for admin. help but I didn't see anything on ANI (on my watchlist). So you have probably seen that he's currently blocked for a week also.

Anyway, I'm not sure what relationship you have with him but he seems to respect your opinion. So I was hoping you might be willing to have a word with him. Just about the ins and outs of using the talk page. I appreciate that he has a lot of passion he just hasn't quite figured out how to channel that in a Wikipedia-friendly way just yet. And it is especially touchy at the article because of the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles arbitration which you might be aware of. I'd like to tell him myself but I doubt he wants to hear my advice at this point. Thanks. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware of ANI, ARBPIA, and John Hyams' block. I'm not sure how John knows who I am, my only significant contributions to Israel related pages recently was the semi-protection of the Gaza conflict page. But it is an issue I'm interested in and I don't mind trying to solve complex and controversial issues. Oren0 (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Just for the Record

I was not trying to start a wikidrama, but given the constraints people insist that I live under my only recourse is to take things to the talk page. I had started writing that section before you reverted so it was not until after I submitted my comment that I saw your reversion. I have no problem with you removing the section and for the reasons that you stated. But you do understand that was my only available option at that point, correct? --GoRight (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you were wrong to add that section. It was certainly better than edit warring would have been. But given that I had already removed the section I just didn't see the point in hashing anything else out on talk. This is why I removed the section rather than reverting your addition of it. Oren0 (talk) 21:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, just so we are clear. Thanks for your assistance in this matter. I agree that there is no need for the section as long as the comment stays. --GoRight (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The picture of the dead Palestinian girl

I restored this picture because a consensus was reached on the talk page to keep it (in part as an alternative to another picture of a dead Palestinian baby). Since you appear new to the discussion, I'll just let you know that there has been since almost the very beginning of the conflict there have been discussions regarding the inclusion of images of casualties of the conflict. If you want to discuss this further on the talk page I would be happy to do so. However, please don't remove the picture thanks before you have a real consensus that the picture in unencyclopedic. Thanks. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I would happily accept a consensus if someone would point me to where this consensus is. Maybe in an archive somewhere? Oren0 (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. The discussion can be found at Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Archive_24#Request_for_comment:_Baby_picture. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

gaza conlict discussion

Hi Oren0,
I appreciate what you are trying to do with the lead paragraph, but if you want to see why this lead stands as it currently does you just need to take a look at Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Archive_23#My_long_subsection._Sorry to see how an attempt to get it to a version acceptable by both sides as NPOV, in a calm rational manner, and then how that discussion denigrated into an all out POV-war with the proposal of what I think could not have been written better by professional PR firms at Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Archive_17#Lead_proposals. And the shame was that a lot of the editors on both sides who were able to put their own biases to the side and calmly look at what NPOV really meant were drowned out by a few who sadly could not. Not really a point to me sharing this with you, but if you look at what happened I think you can see that type of arguments being used by some of the editors pushed so many people deeper into the trench mentality. But I do appreciate what you are attempting to do now, I just think that too many times people start shouting ridiculous things attached to what would otherwise be a reasonable argument that all rationality gets drown out. On the whole baby picture rfc, some users made what I thought were completely valid points that in fact changed my position to think that picture should not be included, but they were drowned out by those wanting to push the issue into a battle that it eventually ended up that way. Anyways, I sincerely wish you good luck in trying to help make an article like that resemble what an encyclopedia should present. I have tried, even seeking out the opinions of users who freely admit to thinking and editing with a pro-Israeli perspective, but alas I failed, at least that time. Peace and happiness (and I hope you don't agree with John about me), Nableezy (talk) 05:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

State terrorism by Israel

I have added my opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of state terrorism by Israel. I admit that the article is too thin and hence I had agreed with your proposal. Nevertheless Israel is a country that is frequently accused of State terrorism and ideally the article should have been expanded instead of deleting(articles of similar nature do exist for Pakistan and Russia). Could you please explain to me under what circumstances, you would have marked such an article as a stub for expansion rather than an article to be deleted? Thanks Zencv ^{Lets discuss} 10:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I generally take issue with all of these articles. The problem is that an article about allegations of state terror by any country is very difficult to write in a way that matches up with WP:NPOV and doesn't violate WP:POVFORK because the article is designed to present only one side of the story. In order to be at all viable, these articles need to present both the allegations and the responses of the given nation and/or its supporters. This article made no effort whatsoever to do so, and therefore it seems it was written only to disparage Israel. For the record, I'm not a big fan of the treatment of this subject over at State terrorism either because that suffers from the same problem. Honestly, I'm not sure how this information should be presented but I think the best way may be to get rid of all "allegations of state terror by X" articles and merge these to "foreign relations of X" or similar. Oren0 (talk) 18:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

re: User talk:145.103.246.233

was that the correct board to post that kind of info to? thanks and cheers ;) Ched (talk) 08:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

saw note on the AN board .. thank you ... have a good one. Ched (talk) 09:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Israeli Palestinian Conflict 2009

How long is site locked, when will i be established user? Casualties need change 15 to israelis! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gohomego (talk • contribs) 01:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The page is scheduled to be unprotected soon but I expect that it will be vandalized enough that it will be semi-protected again. To edit it, you'll need to be autoconfirmed, meaning that you have made at least 10 edits and your account has existed for at least 4 days. In the meantime, suggest the change on the talk page. Oren0 (talk) 05:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Final version

As a contributor to the discussion regarding sports team logos, I am soliciting feedback as to the latest version of that guideline. Your support/opposition/feedback would be appreciated. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of John Theon

I have nominated John Theon, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Theon. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Atmoz (talk) 07:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

CBB Standings

The Template:CBB Standings Start–and possibly the related templates–is broken. Whenever it is used in a standings template that is transcluded it doesn't function properly. On the 2008–09 Pittsburgh Panthers men's basketball team page the title in the Big East standings box is changed to the title of the page, 2008–09 Pittsburgh Panthers men's basketball team. Consequently, the links on the infobox–View, Discuss, and Edit–no longer function properly either because it links to a nonexistant Template:2008–09 Pittsburgh Panthers men's basketball team. I check the other teams in the Big East and it does the same thing to their pages as well. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 13:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This has been fixed. The template was using the page name. I was only looking at it from Template:2008–09 Big East men's basketball standings, so it looked fine there. Oren0 (talk) 17:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks for fixing it. The template looks great, and the automatic Win% is very nice. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Big Ten standings

Oren0 - I like you standings template except for the fact that it was incorrectly not showing up as big ten standings at the top of it any longer. Also when I went to edit the standings the "e" no longer worked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msuplaya8 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. See above. Oren0 (talk) 17:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

webspell article

hi Oren0, could you userfy me the deleted webspell article? i would like to rework it. Kind regards Wasumlapum (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I have userfied the article at User:Oren0/Webspell (I have removed the categories that were on it since it's not currently an article). Just to make sure you understand, it is not OK for you to just recreate this article as it was when it was deleted, but if you can find sources that assert notability you can recreate it. I will delete the userfied page after a week or two. Oren0 (talk) 03:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm aware of the notability problem and I will work on it. Can I ask you for approval as soon I have collected reliable sources? Wasumlapum (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I can't act as a final authority or anything but I can give my opinion as to whether the page is speedy deletable. Oren0 (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:CBB Standings Start

Part of the reason that Template:CBB Standings Start keeps getting undone at Template:2008–09 Big Ten men's basketball standings is that you did not make it possible to pipe the conference name like [[2008–09 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season|2008–09 Big Ten men's basketball]]. Can you fix that and change the documentation?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Rjecina

Dear Oren0,
I'm sorry to have misinformed you but Rjecina is not an admin, he just acted as one... This user has violated Wikipedia NPOV policy multiple times and is continuing to do so intentionally. I understand that only admins are able to ban users for unspecified time (but correct me if this is not the case). so that the balance in the relevant articles can be restored. Please, Take a look at the discussion here again: User_Talk:Bizso#Reporting_User:Rjecina
Thank you--Bizso (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand your frustration but you're really going about this all wrong. If you want this matter to be resolved in a fair way, here is what you do. Go to WP:ANI and write a brief and neutral summary of the issue. Wikipedia:ANI#JzG_edit_warring_on_Martin_Fleischmann is a good example of a report. Include relevant diffs and calmly explain (without namecalling or big text or exclamation points) why you think the user has done something wrong. You should also link to (but not copy/paste) relevant previous discussions. If you do this, uninvolved admins will review your claims. Not having read through the entire discussion, I must warn you though that sometimes the person who reports to ANI is found to be wrong and may end up blocked or banned. As a sidenote, it's never a good idea to copy/paste large discussions from place to place. Just link to them. Oren0 (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your advise and warning. I am looking forward to be banned.--Bizso (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 61 support, 3 oppose, and 1 neutral Cheers! Nja247 19:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Your views

...are welcome at WT:RFA#Badgers and bullies and pricks, oh my! (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Er, Hi . I'm a newbie and need your help.

I've got this thing that I'd like to put up for all the world to know but I seem to be kicked off any time I put it up as a result of my "Blatant Advertising". Can you give me an inkling of knowledge of what I did wrong, especially after I re-editted the Page?!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akinis (talk • contribs) 20:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

NIPCC Page

Thanks for creating the page. I had noted that they are scheduled to hold another one this year but I didn't know how to address it. It will be interesting to see if the page sticks this time around. I really don't like the entry on Singer's page. The usual suspects seem to want to tag him as being the sole person involved when that obviously isn't the case.

--GoRight (talk) 00:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty likely that someone will try to AfD this on notability grounds but I'm confident that the subject is notable enough to have an article based on the currently available sources. I also expect more coverage of the Conference as it takes place this week. After the conference is over, I'll take a look at Singer's page and see how this material is addressed. Oren0 (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I was planning to wait until after the conference to do "something" with this. I figured that trying to write about a future event would just get the usual suspects in an uproar for no good reason. Anyway I expect that you are correct that there will be sufficient news coverage to establish notability.

What are the rules for external links? Would a link to the Heartland site on the topic be out of line, as in too promotional or something? How about later when they host the proceedings? --GoRight (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I already used that link as a reference. In general, external links for the official website of the subject of any article is considered OK (look at the page of any large company, for example). I think adding that link would be fine. Oren0 (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Overtime game

sounds good,but it might take a while lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forrestdfuller (talk • contribs) 04:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

NCAA Tournament link revisions

Stop Putting The Links Back on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.164.53.42 (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Evenmoremotor

Hi there. I saw your message this morning at User talk:Evenmoremotor about his insistence on adding the attack speedy to criminal articles. I pointed out this to him earlier yesterday, but the message was removed from his talk page so I wasn't sure if you'd seen it. Anyway, I've declined two more speedies that he had tagged. Thought I ought to let you know. Cheers --GedUK  08:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I had not seen that actually. This user is really a curious case, not sure what the user's angle is. I think we may have actually declined the same CSDs, and I'm assuming it was accidental that you reverted my other changes to the pages as well? [2] [3]. Otherwise, I'm not sure why you'd remove a reference I added and reinstate an unsourced section about a person's penis. Oren0 (talk) 17:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Errr, I can't work those out either. Sorry, i must have gone odd for a few minutes there. Anyway, he seems to be taking BLP very much to heart, and it's hard to criticise him for that. Hopefully our combined messages will get through. --GedUK  17:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Kyle XY: Noting concerted fan campaigns = "soapbox"?

Hey there,

Thank you for your concern for protecting the integrity of the Kyle XY article.

I noticed that you deleted my section on the fan campaigns for Kyle XY. You say that I reference merely an "apparently non-notable petition" and use the Kyle XY entry to "soapbox". Here are some points of contention I have with your deletion and your argument:

1. There is not one petition, as you write, but multiple petitions with dozens of thousands of signatures as of today. Please see here, here, and here.
2. The efforts to save the show encompass not merely petitions, but comprehensive campaigns. See http://www.savekylexy.com for one example.
3. The article on the series Jericho includes in-depth descriptions of the fan campaigns for that show. How is the reference to fan campaigns in the Kyle XY article soapboxing if descriptions of such campaigns have been deemed appropriate in the Jericho entry?
4. Additionally, if you would argue that the Kyle XY campaigns are not notable because they have not had a result yet, please note that the Jericho page references a still in-progress fan campaign to renew the TV series (see here). These efforts continue to seek renewal of the TV show, regardless of the film or comic book series that were announced earlier this year.
5. Finally, as I put in my references, secondary television news sources have noted these campaigns (here and at the end of the article here): Does external coverage not make the campaigns notable and worthy elements in the history of and the entry on Kyle XY? Not every cancelled show garners such concerted efforts. I would argue that large-scale, internet-driven fan campaigns (and their outcomes) are notable elements not only in a television show's history, but also in the history of post-internet era television in general. Do you not agree?

I would appreciate your clarification on the above points.

Cheers.

Mobiustripped (talk) 08:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I will gladly answer these points. First off, I didn't remove anything you had added, I only semi-protected the page so that only established users can edit it. Reading the comments here where users threaten to continue to re-add the material, you can see that I had no choice but to do this. The material does not meet Wikipedia policy (I'll explain why momentarily) and if people keep adding it this way that becomes an edit war, which is very very bad. Any material that is to be included on Wikipedia must be verifiable using reliable sources. About.com is not generally considered a reliable source. While I have no doubt that your petition exists, the question is whether the petition has been considered important by sources such as news outlets, etc. If so, then I suggest you provide proof on the article's talk page and the material will be included. The reason I called it soapboxing is because it's clear that you're adding the material to promote an agenda of getting this show back on the air. Wikipedia does not promote agendas; it only allows information to be presented neutrally. There is no conspiracy against this show here, if you provide proper sourcing the material will be included; I'd even add it for you myself if it came down to it. But currently, I have not yet seen adequate sourcing. Oren0 (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. It helps to know that this is above all an issue of sourcing, and I now understand where you are coming from. I will keep on the lookout for sources that note the fan campaign(s) and, most importantly, are suitable as per Wikipedia's guidelines. At that point, I hope you don't mind if I take you up on your offer to some degree and at least pass on what I find to you for your opinion. Thanks again, and all the best. Mobiustripped (talk) 08:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Date autoformatting poll

Hi there, Oreno! I noticed that like me, you are opposed to any form of dates autoformatting. I have created some userboxes which you might like to add to your userspace to indicate your position. You will find the boxes here. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)