User:USchick/ArchiveN

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Happy Valentines day! — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 18:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The Femininity article

Hi, USchick. Mind weighing in on whether or not you support my alternative lead proposal? 209.226.31.161 (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I would love to, but they were saying for existing opinions not to participate in the "third opinion" discussion. USchick (talk) 22:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm the one who said I mostly wanted outside opinions for the RfC. But no more outside opinions are coming in at the moment. And, as you can see, existing opinions are taking place in the section below the RfC. Yours is welcomed as much as theirs, and all of us are trying to come to a consensus about the intro. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 00:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Traditional rituals

Hi - '(our traditional "groomsmen")' is in fact Freud's own formulation/interpolation, not mine: I think he wanted to stress the historical depth of the thing. What about re-instating? Jacobisq (talk) 09:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

PS I think I've tracked down the OTO link now - pretty sure it's Alastair Crowley's org. (in the disambiguation) that was originally meant: thanks. Jacobisq (talk) 09:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm ok with reinstating, since it's part of a quote. However, the quotes need an explanation, since they're taken out of context, especially when the quote ends with "usual jokes" (what usual jokes?) I encourage you to take it to the discussion page and see what others say. USchick (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm accusing Aronoel and Fistoffoucault of edit warring for refusing to accept consensus.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Aronoel_and_Fistoffoucault_refuse_to_accept_consensus.

Dave3457 (talk) 12:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It takes three reverts to count as an edit war. Thanks for your effort though, I know it's frustrating. USchick (talk) 00:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Kamal Abbas.jpg

I was wondering if you could give you opinion on the picture nomination to be a featured picture. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The cropping has been done because the image should be in the DYK section soon but the original file remains untouched, it just appears so on wiki english. That's why noone is screaming bloody murder :D I didnt think the B&W thingy would be an issue tho but I think I addressed it. Thanks too for the heads up -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

re: Qetesh

Hi,

The article is already included in the category Egyptian goddesses, which is a subcategory of Egyptian mythology. It's generally not a good idea to include something in both a category and its subcategory since the main category would be too crowded if all the pages from its subcategories would be included in it. – Alensha ^talk 02:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. USchick (talk) 02:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The masculine's attraction to the feminine.

On the femininity talk page you said...

Dave3457, I'd like kindly to point out that it's a common misperception that women do anything because "men find it attractive." This line of thinking is also fundamentally flawed.... Like you already pointed out, women starving themselves has nothing to do with men, and along the same lines, most of the things that women do is not to attract men. Men are attracted anyway, no matter what women do throughout centuries (less hair, more hair, longer necks, shorter necks, fatter, thinner, whatever – men continue to be attracted.)...USchick (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

USchick, Your view is contradicted by just about everything. For example, by the 0.7 Waist to hip ratio study, by the fact that playboy doesn't pick their models at random, by who I find attractive and who I don't. Everything contradicts your view. Maybe you could explain what you mean by "Men are attracted anyway..." because, as a red blooded male, that's not my personal experience :) Dave3457 (talk) 20:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Dave, you're describing what men do. We were talking about what women do and why they do it. Those are two very different conversations.:) USchick (talk) 03:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You said "...you're describing what men do"

No I'm not, I'm describing what they find attractive.

You said "We were talking about what women do and why they do it."

That's right, they behave and adore themselves in certain ways to appear attractive to men.

Do you disagree with the statement..."Masculine males are sexually attracted to feminine females."? Dave3457 (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak for men and what they may be attracted to. I can only say this – Women behave in certain ways and adorn themselves. The end. This has nothing to do with attracting anyone. You're drawing conclusions that aren't there, even if they can be supported by reliable sources. USchick (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I have to say that I am a bit surprised that you believe such a thing. It contradicts, for example, the fact that women dress more sexy when they go to bars.Dave3457 (talk) 17:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, maybe in bars. I'm sure it has a lot to do with what kind of women you're talking about. I know several clingy desperate women who are constantly seeking men's approval and for some reason can't maintain a relationship. Then there are successful independent women who simply go about their business and don't concern themselves with silliness like who may or may not like the outfit they're wearing, and those women can't beat men off with a stick, even if they're not always cute (because they're doing something) and even if their nails aren't always done (because they're doing something) and even when they're not wearing sexy clothes – because they're doing something with their lives, something other than sitting in a bar, waiting for a man to notice them. Dave, I have no idea how old you are, but I encourage you to upgrade to a different class of women. You might like it... a lot! :-) USchick (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Kuman/Kypchak

Hello, USchick. You have new messages at Hugo.arg's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

IRC!

Hi! I just wanted to let you know that we have created an IRC channel for women and Wikipedia: called Wikimedia-gendergap - I hope you'll join us. (And if you need any IRC help, just let me know!) See you there! SarahStierch (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Gbowee.jpg

Hi, this file fails WP:NFCC#1 and is nominated for deletion. Regards Hekerui (talk) 09:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

File:LiberianWomen.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:LiberianWomen.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

About the article "Timoshenko"

Hi, USchick.

Ещё раз благодарю Вас за преревод фрагментов к статье "Тимошенко" — они полностью вошли в статью; и устранили содержавшиеся в статье смешные выдумки о "армянском происхождении Тимошенко", и т. д.

Сейчас та же проблема. В статье "Тимошенко" слабо излагается тема "суда над Тимошенко" — например, написано, что "Тимошенко арестовали за неуважение к суду". Конечно, это не причина ареста; и так далее. В текущем виде статься о Тимошенко (в английской Википедии) более реакционна, чем статья в русской и украинской Википедии. Хотя в англоязычных СМИ — преобладают правильные статьи с точными оценками происходящего в Украине.

В общем, та же просьба : Сможете ли Вы перевести одну-две странички текста к статье "Тимошенко"? Если, да, то я размещу "рускоязычные вариант" на своей странице.

Тему "Западные СМИ о судах над Тимошенко" я знаю хорошо — мои статьи в Википедии-ру :

• "Уголовные дела в отношении Юлии Тимошенко с 2010 года",
• "Уголовные дела в отношении соратников Тимошенко с 2010 года".

Кстати об Украине, в последней серии сериала "Симпсоны" (сезон 23, серия 1) — уже появился "гангстер Виктор" в котором все узнают Януковича (в Google набрать "Янукович Симпсоны").--Vles1 (talk) 13:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Liberia edits

Hi, I wanted to let you know that I reverted your three edits to the Liberia page. The information you added about Sirleaf and Gbowee winning the Nobel Peace Prize, as well as the entire paragraph about the Women of Liberia Mass Action for Peace, is about specific Liberia-related topics with their own pages and is not broad enough to warrant mention on the country's page. As an example, neither Barack Obama's Peace Prize nor the Occupy Wall Street movement are mentioned in the United States page, since those topics are too specific and not about the United States in general.

I did add a mention of the peace movement in the history section within the context of the pressure exerted on the warring factions to end the war, and linked to the peace movement's page. The more detailed information you added would probably best improve that page, as well as Gbowee's and Sirleaf's pages. Thanks, and cheers! Idaltu (talk) 02:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, USchick. You have new messages at RA0808's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Occupy movement

Wikipedia:WikiProject Occupy movement

Hello User:USchick. Sometime ago you expressed interest in my proposal for an Occupy movement project on Wikipedia.[1] A formal proposal has been made at the project council proposal page. If you are still interested you may add your name at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Occupy movement.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Age of consent in various religious

Привіт. Це був недружній прийом на сторінці проекту. Ну що ж. As far as I know these topics aren't covered in articles such as age of consent for any religion, and you may have to add edits yourself, starting with the religion you asked about - but similar for others. Це наступні книги можуть допомогти:

• Charlotte Elisheva Fonrobert, Martin S. Jaffee The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud And Rabbinic Literature 2007 Page 184 has discussion of bethrothal of minors or underage arranged marriage (not sure which article that would come under) which includes "Then there is the institution of me'un (“refusal”), whereby an underage girl could be married off by her mother or brothers, but could, upon reaching her majority, ..." refuse. etc.
• Jacob Neusner is perhaps the most respected mainstream academic commentator on the Talmud. In The Talmud of Babylonia: an academic commentary Volume 13, Part 2; Volume 13, Part 2 1996

he notes "when she reaches puberty, she may reject the marriage and walk out on it."

• Heinrich Walter Guggenheimer The Jerusalem Talmud: Fourth Order: Neziqin Volume 11 2010 has the section "The repudiation of a marriage by an underage girl married off by her mother or brothers after her father's death and whose marriage during her minority is valid only rabbinically: cf. Yebamot Chapter I3. 224"
• Avraham Grossman Pious and rebellious: Jewish women in Medieval Europe 2004 Page 35 touches on the issue of underage relations (but I'm not sure if marriage is included) "The Talmud (Niddah 13b) states that: "Those who play with female children delay the Messiah." This is an expression of clear opposition to sexual relations with girls who are not yet able to bear child, which are understood as "playing" ..."

I don't know whether you'll find the correct/relevant articles for these to be added in, but in adding in material you can generate discussion edits from other editors. I hope. Good luck (Бажаю вам удачі!) In ictu oculi (talk) 11:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

дуже дякую! What a hornet's nest, I'll have to think about whether or not it's worth the fight. USchick (talk) 03:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Angel Laylah

Hi, thanks for your edits, but I've had to move some of them out to Talk while we work out exactly what each source says about each source Jewish text, and then have the relevant source Jewish texts in chronological order. For example Davidson says "Genesis Rabbah 417" says something, but what? This is the problem with many sources on angelogy, 90% of them are for entertainment, we need to drill down to scholarly WP:RS. All Davidson can do it point. Ginzberg is different, he was a scholar, but his sources are unfortunately in Vol6.and.7, doesn't help. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello USchick. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Lilith

Hi. Could you please underline on Talk the sentences you mean? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Curse of nakedness

Sources

• The Story of V: A Natural History of Female Sexuality by Catherine Blackledge [2]
• In Nigeria: Protesting oil companies [3] [4] [5] [6]
• In the Bible [7]
• In Kenya 1922 [8]
• Around the world [9] sources are listed.

Talkback

Hello, USchick. You have new messages at Theopolisme's talk page.
Message added 20:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Theopolisme _TALK 20:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's Collaborative

WikiWomen Unite!

Hi USchick! Women around the world who edit and contribute to Wikipedia are coming together to celebrate each other's work, support one another, and engage new women to also join in on the empowering experience of shaping the sum of all the world's knowledge - through the WikiWomen's Collaborative. As a WikiWoman, we'd love to have you involved! You can do this by: Liking the WikiWomen's Collaborative on Facebook and share your tips, projects, and connect with other WikiWomen Join the conversation on our Twitter feed Reading and writing for our blog channel We can't wait to have you involved, and feel free to drop by our meta page (under construction) to see how else you can get involved! Can't wait to have you involved! SarahStierch (talk) 05:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Kadesh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Qadesh

Kadesh (Israel) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Qadesh

Qadas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Qadesh

Qades (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Qadesh

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks for your work on new Human Rights article I Am A Man! Khazar2 (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's Collaborative: Come join us (and check out our new website)!

WikiWomen - We need you!

Hi USchick! The WikiWomen's Collaborative is a group of women from around the world who edit Wikipedia, contribute to its sister projects, and support the mission of free knowledge. We recently updated our website, created new volunteer positions, and more! Get involved by: Visiting our website for resources, events, and more Meet other women and share your story in our profile space Participate at and "like" our Facebook group Join the conversation on our Twitter feed Reading and writing for our blog channel Volunteer to write for our blog, recruit blog writers, translate content, and co-run our Facebook and receive perks for volunteering Already participating? Take our survey and share your experience! Thanks for editing Wikipedia, and we look forward to you being a part of the Collaborative! -- EdwardsBot (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon oil spill

Hi, USchick. You have been an active editor on Deepwater Horizon oil spill and/or its related articles. During some last months there has been an active development of cleaning up that article by splitting off large sections into separate articles. A Deepwater Horizon series were created (all the articles accessible by Template:Deepwater Horizon oil spill series. You are invited to assist by cleaning-up and copy-editing these articles. There are also ongoing discussion concerning additional split-offs. You could see split-off templates at the article's page and find discussions at the talk page. Your input would be useful for building consensus on these issues. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletions

What in the world are you doing?? Every single one of those articles has established notability. What's your prerogative here Cosprings (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Where is it established? Not in the articles. USchick (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I am having to decline your speedy deletion nominations, because they don't meet the criteria of WP:CSD#A9, which you are using as a rationale. Articles about songs or albums cannot be speedily deleted if we have an article on the artist.

Please cease this activity; you are creating needless work for admins. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, sorry USchick (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Armaghetto

Hello USchick. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Armaghetto, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: speedy on the band's article has been declined. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Does it qualify for a non speedy? I'm asking before I tag it. USchick (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

For articles that don't qualify for speedy deletion, you can use {{subst:prod|your rationale for deletion here}} or go through a formal WP:AFD nomination. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

What if the band has no references and no notability, like Channel Live? Does that qualify for a speedy? Once the bands are gone, the songs will qualify as well? Thanks in advance for the explanation. USchick (talk) 18:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Channel Live doesn't qualify for speedy because it asserts notability (top 100 billboard chart). The assertion of notability, even without references, is sufficient to prevent speedy deletion. You have to use PROD or AFD.

PLEASE go through the song and album articles you have tagged and revert yourself. You've tagged so many, it wastes an admins time to have to manually decline each one when it's simpler for the nominator to simply revert. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I did :) sorry! USchick (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and to answer your question: yes, if the band's article gets deleted, any articles about the band's songs or albums would then qualify for deletion as well. But as long as the band has an article, songs or albums must go through a different process (prod or AFD) to be deleted.

Sometimes the simplest solution is simply to redirect the song or album article back to the band article. That works well for extremely short song or album articles. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!USchick (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, USchick. You have new messages at JohnCD's talk page.
Message added 19:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Earth religion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pantheon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Congressional criticism of the FBI

This is the source you want. Viriditas (talk) 07:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

And another one. Viriditas (talk) 08:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! :) USchick (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Please read Wikipedia:Copyrights. You must never copy-paste material from sources in the way you did here [10], implying that you are using your own words. Wikipedia of necessity takes copyright violations very seriously. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I see that there is a similar problem with your previous edit. [11] Note that changing a word or two is insufficient to avoid violating copyright. Material you submit (other than direct quotations, which must be clearly indicated) must be in your own words. And please note that copying non-copyright material is still against policy, per Wikipedia policy regarding plagiarism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Andy, thank you for taking an interest in my edits. I feel honored to have you as a loyal follower. USchick (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I see that you are at least partly responsible for similar problems on the 2013 Mother's Day Parade shooting article - I've had to delete a section for using copy-pasted material there too [12]. Can you please give me an assurance that you understand Wikipedia policy regarding copyright, and agree to abide by it in future. Abiding by policy is not optional. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

According to policy - "If you suspect a copyright violation, you should at least bring up the issue on that page's discussion page. Others can then examine the situation and take action if needed." Can you please give me an assurance that you understand Wikipedia policy regarding copyright, and agree to abide by it in future. Please review the policy on Wikipedia:Edit warring USchick (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violations are exempt from edit-warring policy. I have informed you that you are violating policy regarding copyright. If you do so again, I shall raise the matter at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I encourage you to bring it up with whomever you want in order for them to determine whether or not my edit is indeed a copyright violation or a stalking harassment on your part. USchick (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I came here as a result of the WP:ANI thread. Let me remind you that you've violated Title 17 § 106 of the United States Code and are thus liable to be sued for copyright infringement by the copyright holders, and that unless someone removes what you're adding, Wikipedia could also be sued for copyright infringement. Accordingly, you will be blocked for a substantial period of time if you add any more copyright infringements. Nyttend (talk) 18:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I invite you to go back and review all my edits since I joined Wikipedia. USchick (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Are they all copyright violations or only some of them? It would make it easier for those of us who have to check if you could help us. --John (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

It has not been determined that any of them are copyright violations. USchick (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes it has. Are you saying you don't know what is and isn't a copyvio? --John (talk) 18:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, USchick. We are on the same "side" as to whether 2013 Mother's Day Parade shooting should be kept; maybe that will help you accept what I am saying. On Wikipedia we absolutely cannot use a long string of words from a source without both quote marks and some sort of reference, we can't use a "close paraphrase" (not that I am saying you ever did) at all, and non-close paraphrases are very questionable unless they are so non-close that they aren't really paraphrases.

Granted, some users violate these rules for a long time before attention focuses on them but, once it does, defiance doesn't work. A few years back, a sitting arbitrator was found to be plagiarizing and violating copyright; he wound up resigning.

If you want to keep on editing Wikipedia, the only choice is to not do those things any more. It might also be a good idea to make a statement saying that you will stop, so as to defend against the motion on wp:ani to block you.

One very simple technique for avoiding copyright and plagiarism problems is to settle for writing less than what a source says about something; that is, to summarize what it says. If you want more information about Wikipedia's policies on copyright and plagiarism, in addition to reading wp:Copyrights and wp:Plagiarism, I suggest seeking advice from a real expert, such as Moonriddengirl. Bye, and here's wishing you happy editing. Cardamon (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I received a warning about copyright violation and I accept my warning. USchick (talk) 00:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't want you to feel like I am piling on, and I fear it will come across that way, so I want to tell you how I came to be editing your talk page. We have a copyright expert (whom I now see you've met). I saw a note on her page about an ANI post regarding copyright. Because she is very busy, and I have done some work in copyright, I thought I would try looking into it. I fully understand that you may view the primary issue as involving bullying by Andy with copyright as a tangential issue, but I came to the issue with sole focus on copyright. If I am dismissive of other issues, I'm sorry, but copyright is very important, and that's my main focus. I see you have responded to MRG, and in a positive way. That's a great step. I also see a point above which may partially explain some of the tension between you and Andy. Maybe I've got it wrong, but I'll take a stab at it.

The phrase that jumped out at me is "According to policy - 'If you suspect a copyright violation, you should at least bring up the issue on that page's discussion page.' "

I read our copyright policy page as giving advice to editors in two situations.Editors may come across some phrasing and reach one of two conclusions:

1. I have strong reason to believe it is a copyright violation
2. I suspect it might be a copyright violation

The policy gives guidance in both situations. In situation two, you are not expected to remove the material, but you should start a discussion on the talk page. If situation 1, you should remove it, then take the other steps identified.

When Andy mentioned copyright problems, you cited policy, but you cited the advice for situation 2. Andy did not follow the prescribed actions, so perhaps you felt Andy was in the wrong for not following policy. However, while I cannot speak for Andy, I'll bet that Andy didn't suspect a violation, he felt it was certain. So he followed the prescribed steps for situation 1, not situation 2.

In other words, this may simply be a case of a disagreement about which section of the policy applies, or a failure to note that there are multiple situations, each with a different recommended response. It is understandable that editors will lock horns if they both feel that their actions are supported by policy.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I can go along with what you're saying, except that he already reverted my previous edits, and when he ran out of excuses to continue his edit war, he threatened me with ANI. He likes to make big threats and then to hide behind being "exempt" and hiding behind ANI where he can stand behind other people. Not once was he willing to stand by himself on the talk page. What a whimp! :-) USchick (talk) 01:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

ANI notification

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I wish I knew what to tell you. User:AndyTheGrump is a valuable contributor [4000 mainspace edits] who can be excessive in his defense of Wikipedia policies. The unfortunate fact is there's just not going to be very much interest at ANI in sorting out whether he's "crossed the line" as far as the civility pillar is. See no justice. A two day old ANI thread which is mostly back and forth between two editors is a sign that, in the context of Wikipedia, neither of you are being either heros or saints. I know feeling like you're being stalked is unpleasant and I hope it doesn't sour you on editing here; I urge you to just post the statement I suggested or equivalent and get away from ANI as soon as you can. NE Ent 18:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. A valuable editor should not be allowed to bully and harass other people unchecked. He brought me to ANI, I received a warning. Why is my submission to his will necessary? USchick (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

No one is asking you to submit to his will. You're being asked to follow the Wikipedia copyright policy. I'm not saying agressive behavior isn't a problem; I'm saying it's one that we haven't come up with a good solution to. Last year the arbitration committee spent months looking at the issue and all they could come up with was:

Throughout the project, breaches of the expected level of decorum are common. These violations of the community's standards of conduct are unevenly, and often ineffectively, enforced. (1,2)
— English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee

Not terribly helpful, huh? NE Ent 18:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection to policy. He is creating the problem and then on a technicality claims to be exempt from any wrongdoing. And then he brings me to ANI and claims that he's doing the right thing? This behavior has nothing to do with copyright violation. USchick (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Copyright review.

I reviewed the edit made by Andy the Grump here and the reversion by you here.

The reversion by you is not a close call - Andy was removing a copyright violation and you restored it.

I haven't looked beyond this one incident, but if you feel that there is "no evidence of a copyright violation", I am concerned about your understanding of copyright policy.

If you feel that Andy is not acting as nicely as he should, feel free to make a list of diffs for review, but at the moment, I am looking at the copyright claim, and this one is not a close call.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I accepted my warning, since I don't spend a lot of time in ANI, I'm not sure what else I'm supposed to do. USchick (talk) 00:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Andy asked several times if you agreed that your edits were violations. I'm not supporting that confrontational approach, but I understand that the goal was to find out if you were honestly thinking your edits were fine, and simply unfamiliar with the rules, or something else. I'm curious myself, but I won't ask. However, I will note that when you say you "accept the warning" I don't quite know what that means. You also said " I'm not sure what else I'm supposed to do". One possibility is to show that you understand that copyright violations are an order of magnitude more important than Andy being less than your best buddy. So, for example, if you said, "I think I got caught up in Andy's attitude, and that blinded me to the content of his message, but I now realize that some of my edits were problematic. My plan is to review the copyright policy, look at many of my edits, review them in light of the copyright policy, and correct them if they are violations, or ask some experts if I think they are close calls." Had you said something like that, I know I'd feel better.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for getting involved SPhilbrick, if you care to read through what I said on that page, I believe i made myself very clear there. I take full responsibility for any copyright issues and will correct them, but that's not why he brought me to ANI. He was on a power trip. USchick (talk) 01:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Another item

I reviewed this edit, which Andy reverted.

The edit added this sentence to the article:

Department of Homeland Security ordered a new procedure for U.S. Customs and Border Protection to immediately begin verifying that every international student who arrives in the U.S. has a valid student visa.

The source contains this phrase:

...Department of Homeland Security ordered border agents to immediately begin verifying that every international student who arrives in the U.S. has a valid student visa...

Exact matches in bold.

While this might be too short to be a violation of law, it is longer than is customarily permitted in Wikipedia, and should have either been rewritten, or if there were strong reasons to use the exact words (those reason not being apparent to me), and exact quote with quotation marks should have been used.

I only looked at four edits - one looked fine, one was a close call I skipped and two are problematic. too small a sample to draw definitive conclusions about your entire body of work, but enough to confirm that Andy's reversions, at least the ones I've looked at, are valid, ad you ought to take a closer look at Wikipedia Copyright policy. Feel free to ask questions, as Wikipedia deliberately chooses to be more careful that to simply permit anything that might be permitted by law.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Copying repair

Hi, USchick. :) My apologies for not getting this to you yesterday - between work and family demands, I didn't get as much time as I anticipated.

I've listed at your major contributions at User:USchick/Contribution surveyor. It's been filtered to exclude diffs below 300 kb. I don't know if you will be able to remember which articles you created or expanded with content copied from others, but it is sometimes easy to tell. For instance, in this diff, I did a text string search that came back to two Wikipedia articles: Hieros gamos and Inanna. The diff is dated to May 2010, so I look at those two articles to see which, if either, contained that text before then. Voila. It was taken from Inanna (old version). You migrated it to Hieros gamos yourself in September.

There may, of course, be content copied into articles from multiple sources, even in one edit. For example, in this edit to Striptease, you seem to have copied content from at least Pliny the Elder and Sheela na gig.

I would recommend annotating the list as you go, so that you and others will know which ones have been checked and repaired. At WP:CCI, we usually do this by using Y ({{y}}) when we find issues (and we explain how we repaired it) and N ({{n}}) when we do not.

If you have any questions at all about Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, please let me know. I'm happy to clarify as I can. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for compiling the list. USchick (talk) 00:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Mother's Day Parade shooting

The article was deleted, but I asked for it to be userfied, and a copy of it is in my userspace here. You are welcome to edit/update it. Cardamon (talk) 01:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

That's unbelievable! USchick (talk) 03:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC on title of Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)

Hi, this is to let everyone who commented in the last RM know that there's another RM/RfC here, in case you'd like to comment again. Best, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Wishing you a happy summer!
— Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

my talkpage

Where am I edit warring? Please don't confuse reverting vandalism with edit wars. Sopher99 (talk) 00:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Binghampton, Memphis may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ].<ref>[http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/sites/default/files/dotsonjessieopn.pdf TN Court of Appeals]]</ref><ref>[http://www.wmctv.com/story/22685844/jessie-dotson-conviction-upheld-by-appeals-court

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gangs in Memphis, Tennessee may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• <ref>[http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/sites/default/files/dotsonjessieopn.pdf TN Court of Appeals]]</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2013 Ghouta attacks. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. VQuakr (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:USchick reported by User:VQuakr (Result: ). Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Talk:2013 Ghouta attacks. Thank you. This is a violation of WP:BLP, which applies to all Wiki spaces (not just articles). Please consider self-reverting. VQuakr (talk) 03:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I am replying here to this since it has no direct relevance to improvements to the article. There never was a consensus to remove that content, and both (yes, a total of two; how dare I?) my edits to the article were thoroughly justified, both in edit summaries and on the talk page. VQuakr (talk) 03:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you can review the edit history and see what I'm talking about. I can't stick your nose in it every time to prove how wrong you are every time! Cheers. USchick (talk) 03:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Why would you think I had not reviewed the history? Again, there never was a consensus to remove that content. You appear to be laboring under the unfortunate misconception that anyone is going to accept your statements as fact without any support whatsoever. VQuakr (talk) 03:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

(cur | prev) 00:25, 29 August 2013‎ Sopher99 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (79,541 bytes) (-640)‎ . . (→‎Intelligence reports: deleting rest per same reason) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 00:24, 29 August 2013‎ USchick (talk | contribs)‎ . . (80,181 bytes) (-1,174)‎ . . (→‎Intelligence reports: See talk page. Movement does not prove an attack. Unreliable sources and speculation.) (undo)

(cur | prev) 00:20, 29 August 2013‎ PLNR (talk | contribs)‎ . . (80,650 bytes) (+302)‎ . . (→‎Intelligence reports: added time frame, added context, and added additional source.) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 00:08, 29 August 2013‎ PLNR (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (79,605 bytes) (-6)‎ . . (→‎Intelligence reports) (undo | thank)

Consensus was reached to delete section. USchick (talk) 03:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Yup, saw those. All you are showing is that you do not understand what consensus is. The fact that you are including diffs that you subsequently deleted as evidence that that editor supported the removal is quite telling. VQuakr (talk) 04:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

1RR

Be careful, the 2013 Ghouta attacks and all other Syrian civil war articles are now under 1RR restrictions. Anymore than 1 revert per 24 hours will result in a block.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware, thanks. USchick (talk) 00:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Question

Does List of Islamic scholars described as father or founder of a field violate policies? I am thinking it is redundant because of List of people considered father or mother of a scientific field and List of inventions in the medieval Islamic world.--Loomspicker (talk) 13:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Seems simple, right? In a perfect world they could all be combined into one really good list that would showcase the accomplishments of all those great people. However, I think it's important to determine what the ultimate goal is, because there are several potential problems. For example, List of people considered father or mother of a scientific field includes people from all over the world and is limited to Science. List of Islamic scholars described as father or founder of a field includes only Islamic people and their accomplishments are not limited to science. List of inventions in the medieval Islamic world is a list of inventions in the "medieval Islamic world" where the person is not always named because the focus is on the invention. However, the year listed often falls outside the medieval time period. The next potential problem is the definition if Islamic world. There have always been all kinds of people living in the Islamic world including Christians and Jews, even during ancient times. Do you include their accomplishments as well? What's important, the invention or the inventor? Or is it important to show that there have always been Muslim inventors? All 3 lists are acceptable now as they are. Any effort to do something different needs to be clearly defined before WWIII breaks out. :) USchick (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:2013 Ghouta attacks are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -TFD (talk) 04:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Ghouta attack article, re: Mint Press News as "shia advocacy site"

Thanks for your feedback on Talk:Ghouta chemical attacks#Mint Press News smeared as "Shia advocacy site". Wondering if you could make the edits that you suggested? I must admit that my account is brand new, so I will have to wait days before I can edit the entry. I hope this doesn't sap my credibility; I stand by my argument in that thread as rock solid. Philip Stained Glass (talk) 21:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

There is still discussion going on and no consensus has been reached yet. USchick (talk) 22:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

A chocolate cupcake for you!

I applaud your stance on the Jewish Bolshevism debate. I am minded to join in, but my anxiety levels are too high at this moment :/ Cheers! Irondome (talk) 00:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Lol, thanks! USchick (talk) 05:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Nominating for deletion

Usual practice is to set up a page called Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jewish Bolshevism (2d nomination) or similar, and make sure that that page links to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jewish Bolshevism, so that people know about the previous discussion. An article is not validly nominated for deletion until the page for discussing it is set up... AnonMoos (talk) 06:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok thanks! USchick (talk) 07:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Image deletion

I reverted your removal of an image at Ghouta chemical attack because the reason you gave for removal was not justified by the policy to which you referred. If you still disagree, the appropriate action is to bring it to WP:NFR rather than removing it from the article. VQuakr (talk) 06:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Volodymyr Konstatinov may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• '''Volodymyr Konstatinov''' ({{lang-uk|Константинов Володимир Андрійович}}, ({{lang-ru|Влади́мир Андре́евич Константи́нов}};

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)