User talk:Slp1/Archive 9

Hello! Happy New Year!

Two links in Eido Shimano page to Zen Studies Society site from August and September 2010 also need fixing. This website has changed. Can we recover old content so citations support the text of Retirement section? Otherwise links do not make sense. Thanks.Spt51 (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Happy New Year to you too. One way is to see if the wayback machine has archived the pages. You can insert the old link, or a link to the website her [1], and see if the old pages are there. If they are substitute the wayback archive links into the reference. Try that as a beginning. --Slp1 (talk) 00:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Jean webster.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Jean webster.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file 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 file 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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you please explain a bit further what is required? As stated in the current rationale, it is a (very old) photograph illustrating the subject of the article. This seems clearly to meet fairuse requirements. What needs adding? That she is dead? Thank you for your help. --Slp1 (talk) 19:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Formatting the rationale in this template (being sure to explain what the image is showing, why it needs to be shown, and why no free content serving the same purpose could exist) would be helpful. However, for people alive during this time, there is almost certainly free content. Remember that anything published before 1923 is considered public domain- if published first in the US, use {{PD-US-1923}}, if first published elsewhere, use {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. J Milburn (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The problem is that even though it is obviously a pre 1923 picture, it isn't known when it was published. But anyway, it turns out there was indeed a free picture available, on commons, so I replaced the imge in the article and deleted it. --Slp1 (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

you

should have added "Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty" here. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks but I just copied and pasted the section from one place to another, without changing a thing. I think you might be right that that needs to be added, but can you point me to where that particular wording was decided? --Slp1 (talk) 15:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It was PhilKnight who closed the discussion and created the template: [2] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

And I see that PhilKnight added that section to the page too without the IP thingy. [3] Perhaps it would be as well to go and talk to him about it and point out the discordance between the template and the information. Do you want to do it, or shall I? --Slp1 (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be better if you talk to him. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay.--Slp1 (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I've modified the notes, so they're consistent with the template. PhilKnight (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much!! Now if only somebody could tell me why there is no table of contents on my userpage. There used to be.... Slp1 (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Little help

So, I was editing a page when I noticed entire paragraphs were copy and pasted from a website, and asked at the help desk, and was advised to tag as a copyright problem, and the last editor(Monarca7 (talk)) is asking me for help in getting the tag removed, claiming he has the copyright from the owners, but I'm not sure what to tell him, I was wondering if you could help him out for me. Could we advise him to just delete and re-write the sections affected, and than I would remove the tag?

• Lambda Sigma Upsilon (history · last edit) copied from http://www.lsu79.org/main.php

Thanks, Passionless (talk) 03:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for getting in touch. I'll make a comment or two on the talkpage, but you've done the right thing so far. --Slp1 (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Request

As you protected the page, I thought it would make sense for you to make my requested edits on her article Gabrielle Giffords. Thank you. Hello32020 (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Her death has been confirmed now. It's probably best that you "semi-protect" so the relevant categories can be added. Tom Danson (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Gabrielle Giffords

Just wanted to affirm that you were right to be cautious in publishing details about the alleged death of Gabrielle Giffords. What seemed like verified facts weren't, and you handled the situation with expertise. It's easy to think that news organizations like NPR are always right, but sometimes they're not, and more sources were indeed needed. I learned a valuable lesson by watching how you handled the edits.Athene cunicularia (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for note. I appreciate it. There have been some horrible shootings in Montreal, and so I knew from experience how easily rumours fly and get reported by media in such a chaotic situation. And then there was also the recent case of Pat Burns, an ex-coach of the great Habs whose death was wrongly reported so-called reliable sources. He called in to radio stations to deny he was dead!

Actually, I don't think I actually handled things that well. I should have added various notices to the article to direct all editors to the talkpage to get consensus first. But I got distracted by trying to correct the attribution of various talkpage comments assigned to me because of some nowiki template snafu. And I should not have edited through full protection, though I'd argue in mitigation that I and others on the talkpage had concerns about the sourcing for a BLP article, concerns that turned out to be legitimate. I suppose the good thing is that one lives and learns, and another time I will do better. And in fact, I already did, on Richard Winters, where I made a lovely editnotice in bold red (a new trick for me!), and inserted some hidden messages too. --Slp1 (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

When editors are in a feeding frenzy, you can only do your best. I'm glad I was able to take something away from it and I'm glad you did too.Athene cunicularia (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Post from Fitness Freak

Note I moved this here as it had overwritten the previous "Hello! Happy New Year!" thread. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Ty --Slp1 (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi

I want to create an article for Body Rocka a fitness product. I followed the same guide as an existing article for shake weight yet mine was deleted. please give me some guidance as to how to put together the article.

Fitness Freak — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fitness Freak (talk • contribs) 14:05, January 11, 2011

I see that you've already received some good advice about this, but maybe I'll add some more on your talkpage. --Slp1 (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

William Wilberforce

Hi wikipartner. I'm a user from catalan Wikipedia and now I'm translating the article William Wilberforce to our language. I've seen you edited at 1 january of 2008 putting a sentence that I don't know if I'm understanding well, so I'm writting to you. The sentence is: "He moved twelve resolutions condemning the slave trade, but made no reference to the abolition of slavery itself, and instead dwelling on the potential for reproduction in the existing slave population should the trade be abolished.". My question is if you meant Wilberforce neither made no reference to the abolition of slavery itself neither made no reference to the argument that the potential for reproduction made possible to abolish the trade. Or maybe you meant instead of dwelling on the potential for reproduction Wilberforce didn't make reference to the abolition of slavery itself. Or maybe you meant instead of making reference to the abolition of slavery itself Wilberforce made reference to the argument that the potential for reproduction made possible to abolish the trade. I don't know if I'm explaining myself good enough... Sorry for my limited english!--Galazan (talk) 12:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Galazan. Thanks for being in touch! And good luck with translating the article. A Spanish editor translated another article I worked on Olivia Manning. It is strange seeing it all written in Spanish. Wilberforce in Catalan will be the same or even more interesting! Anyway, back to your question. The background is that Wilberforce didn't work against slavery itself for a very long time. This is a bit surprising to many people who consider him a hero. Your third guess is right. Wilberforce wrote the 12 resolutions against the slave trade, but didn't actually condemn slavery itself. Instead he said that one of the reasons the slave trade should/could be abolished was because the current slaves could have children and replace themselves as slaves without the need for the trade to continue. Hope that helps and good luck! Feel free to ask any other questions you have. --Slp1 (talk) 13:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

All right then! Now I understand. It's easy to translate but there were, until this, two sentences that I required help, and this was dificult for everybody. I advise you to change this one. Don't doubt I'll ask for more question if I need!--Galazan (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Slp1! I have a new question for you. The sentence is a quote: "as "They had always thought the slaves incapable of liberty at present...". I'm not sure if the meaning is Wilberforce and Co. tought the issue of slavery was difficult to be solved or they thought the slaves were not suited for being free in that moment. I'm finishing the article already!--Galazan (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Better tell me which werb would you put between incapable of and liberty.--Galazan (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello. The answer is the second; they thought the slaves would not be able to cope with life etc if they were free without more preparation and training. --Slp1 (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok! I'm finished! Thank you for your valuable help!--Galazan (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Slp1, I missed that one! Guess I must be rusty.... I'm going to be a little more active here, now that I'm taking partial retirement, so I will be able to give more attention to William – and others! Hope you are keeping well. Regards, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI

• User talk:Jimbo Wales#Attracting more female editors SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks interesting. I'll have a think, and maybe contribute something.--Slp1 (talk) 13:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Peter Donaldson

Just wanted to thank you for beginning the article on Stratford actor Peter Donaldson. Assumed you were in the theatre, now am really amazed at the breadth of your editing and research. Again, thanks. MD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.46.137.41 (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your thanks. It was a pleasure. I was rather shocked that one didn't already exist. I intend to expand the article a bit today, and then nominate if for Did you know, so it might appear on the front page. Did you know Mr. Donaldson? I just wondered from your initials and your interest. If so, my sincere condolences. It would also be wonderful to get a photo of him for the article. If you have one that can be released into the public domain, let me know and we can try to figure out the easiest way of getting it into the article. --Slp1 (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

thx

for spotting this Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I wish everyone was a "hardass" like you; we wouldn't have to deal with so much junk around here. Thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

-) --Slp1 (talk) 21

36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Ruth Deech

I was just wondering why you deemed my revision to the page of Ruth Deech as having an unreliable source? The source in question is not a blog as you suggested, but a news site. The article in question also has both a transcript of what Ruth Deech said, and a recording from the BBC programme in question that the comments were made on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.55.236 (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for asking me about this. Newsnetscotland is not considered a reliable source with the kind of editorial oversight required here. Most particularly, that is, for a negative statement abouta living person such as the one that you sought to include. Please check the article talkpage and you will see much discussion, and please don't readd the content until you get consensus there for your edit. --Slp1 (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Gaijin

Someone has categorized gaijin as an "ethnic and religious slur". I'm left scratching my head on this issue. Can (and should) a word that has multiple definitions with no clear reading according to the reliable sources automatically be categorized as "pejorative," or a "slur," or something else? I'd be interested to read your thoughts on this issue. J Readings (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey. Nice to hear from you and I hope things are going well. Not so glad to hear about that article, which I am royally sick of. Or is it, of which I am royally sick. Anyways, maybe I'll cast another glance. Categories are so categorically, as it were. I hate the way they pigeon-hole things and all subtlety is lost. --Slp1 (talk) 14:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not keen to offend anyone, but it seems to me that something with such diversity of opinion and rich etymological research shouldn't be so easily categorized as necessarily a "slur" when the reliable sources don't agree. J Readings (talk) 03:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Peter Donaldson (actor)

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Lambda Sigma Upsilon

Hello, I saw you made several edits to the Lambda Sigma Upsilon page while some of it I understand. I do not understand how the people who started the organization are not worth mentioning in the article about the organization.Monarca7 (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your question. You have to think from the perspective of an encyclopedia reader. As far as I know, none of these people are notable for any other reason except founding a fraternity. Why is it interesting to the general reader to see a such list of otherwise unknown people? Obviously, it's important for fraternity members, but that's what your website is for. If the founders go on to be well-known, including having Wikipedia articles, for example, then it would certainly be appropriate to say "XXXX was one of the founding members." Hope that helps. --Slp1 (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

However, it is generally accepted that in an article about the organization that the creators be mentioned. Check every Wikipedia article about a fraternity, sorority, or college organization if disallowed for one fraternity we would have to do it for all organizations. Furthermore, characters such as William Booth and John Pemberton who did nothing but create an organization and invent a soft drink which both became very popular, they alone are not very notable, but not mention them in the article about that organization or product would be highly unusual. The article does not mention much about them other than states there name Thank you. (To be clear in case it sound like I am upset, I'm not. I mention it cause it hard to gauge emotion in text I actually thank that you answer me rather quickly)Monarca7 (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure where it is "generally accepted" in WP, but maybe it is for fraternities and sororities; though as you have pointed out, in various ways many of these articles have other problems vis a vis WP's policies. You can always add the list back if you disagree, but I continue to think it is not encyclopedic. BTW, you actually make my point for me. The difference between William Booth and John Pemberton and your founders is that Booth and Pemberton meet our WP:notability criteria. There have been multiple books, articles, etc etc written about them, and thus they have WP articles written about them too. The fraternity founders, not so much, at least to date. I'm glad you are not upset, and thanks for clarifying that, but I can imagine that the whole episode has been frustrating. --Slp1 (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I was stretching with the comparison of Booth and Pemberton but it was simply to make a point. (Which I might have been lost in the process.) I did not want to add them back without speaking to you first as I do not want to get an all caps message. I will be adding the founder back that is all, as I do feel they are useful to the article. On another note you did not delete this but you did express some concern. The reference I put in was not to show the fraternity but in the paragraph I made spoke of the climate of the university. I did not want to make that claim without sourcing it. Also, about the source that appears to be a blog. Unfortunately that is the official site of the competition. They just have a very active comment section. It is the only place to check the winners. Thank You.Monarca7 (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the references you added is that they do not mention the fraternity. What you did would be excellent in a paper at college, but not permitted here, because we are not allowed to put sources together to make a point. It is what we call original research. You may well be right that these external events led to the founding of fraternity, but we need a source that says so directly, not editors building up a series of point to prove a new one. You would be much better to use books by others etc about the fraternity. This book (which has lots of references) and this one, are much better sources. --Slp1 (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the information!Monarca7 (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Hate to creep in, but I also really disliked the list of unnotable founders-I just don't know of any wikipedia rule on such a thing. Passionless -Talk 00:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassadors

I saw the quality of your contributions at DYK and clicked on over to your user page and was pretty impressed. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassador, Sadads (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Video Profiling

Hi you have recently deleted a article due to copyright infringement however the article that you have quoted what written by me a number of years ago. I do understand that the article does advertise our services however over the past 2 years other non-healthcare related Video Profiling services have been developed by others. Kind regards, Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.3.14.59 (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for being in touch. Unfortunately, while you may have written the material, we can't really know that without more formal notification, since we really can have no idea who editors are. See WP:DCM for details of what you can do to donate materials. However, I'm not sure it is appropriate, since to have an article there need to be independent secondary sources showing that the topic is notable, per WP:NOTABILITY. There may be a notable topic there, based on a googlebooks search, but it seems to be mainly about personnel issues, not speech and language. WP also really isn't the place to advertise your services, but I think you realize that now. --Slp1 (talk) 02:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Michael Cox (clergyman)

Hi Slp, thoughts on the twenty percent thats left - there is a couple of reported notable connections? Michael Cox (clergyman) - I am 50 50 on it or perhaps in truth a bit less.Off2riorob (talk) 23:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Regarding (Zoran) Liran the COI is worse than you thought - he is Vaknin, rather blatently so: http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3959&page=21

Would prefer to inform more privately and stay out of it but your email is disabled and everybody else is disposed to play their own versions of silly beggars, a game I want no part of. There may be a second sock/meatpuppet but I see no real way to prove that. Over and out —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.186.98 (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Validuz

With regard to your WP:AE block on this user, I think you may have jumped the gun. I suspect he didn't appreciate that there was an ArbCom remedy in place and he reverted in good faith. Granted his reverts were contrary to consensus and to the ArbCom remedy but I think the benefit of the doubt should (have) been applied. If you read his talkpage you can see he lacks a bit of clue. Perhaps some leniency can be afforded him? Lovetinkle (talk) 01:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern. I would agree that some leniency is required, which is why only a 24 hour block was made. However, the editor was given multiple warnings, in multiple ways by multiple people. They persisted. If this gives them a bit of a pause to read our policies and guidelines particularly about how to edit when you are reverted, so much the better. --Slp1 (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's a bit unfortunate that the warnings were not applied to his talkpage but then I am as much at fault in that regard as anyone else. You are right, he has been persistent in his reverts on that article. I think he doesn't appreciate the role the ArbCom plays in these matters. Hopefully the block will have given him the necessary pause for thought. Thanks for your consideration, Lovetinkle (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Clarify wording?

In recent AE, you wrote "...possible misrepresentations of the text ... as far as I can see, there was no "unsourced original research" ... but in my view, it is problematic for as on several occasions unverifiable material is inserted, apparently to promote..". Could you clarify the wording a bit: I cannot tell if you are discussing the text that JJguy changed; or the content of JJguy's change. I think you are talking about the latter, but it could be read either way. Just a suggestion. --Noleander (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Your comment on AE

Hi, Slp1. I cannot agree with the assessment you made in this comment. Maybe the added line was not in the source, but may I please ask you to understand that an editor who has been reading lots of books about the conflict could simply by an accident insert information that he/she read somewhere else. For example, may I please ask you to take a look page 884. It clearly states: "PLO was set up under Egyptian sponsorship". It is a well know fact:Palestinian terrorists under Egyptian sponsorship used to attack Israelis. If an editor made a mistake like this, he/she should not be taken to AE. He/She should be asked either provide the source or remove the info. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

And I cannot agree with your assessment, unfortunately, but thanks for bringing it up! Verifiability is a key policy here, and requires that material "challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question. The information Jiujitsuguy added may well be sourceable - and in fact I don't doubt it is (though I notice the reference you provided talks about Egyptian sponsorship of the foundation of the PLO in 1964, so it does not actually support the edit in question which deals with an earlier time period.) But that's not the point.

While editors can and certainly do all make occasional mistakes of this sort, a pattern of "I happen to know this as a fact from other stuff I've read, so I'll add it" without checking whether it is in the citation or by adding a citation that does contain the information, is detrimental both to the quality of the encyclopedia and the trust that one has in that editor's editing. In an area fraught with POV editing, and suspicious battleground behaviour, it is even more problematic.

I did not bring this case to AE; somebody else did for much broader reasons than problems with sourcing. I have no idea whether there is substance to the other allegations, and frankly I don't have time or the interest to examine them all. However, there is clearly a problem with accurate sourcing which needs to be improved one way or the other. As does, apparently, the sourcing of Supreme Deliciousness.[4]. --Slp1 (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I am posting my response to your recent queries here as well as AE because I did not want my comments to be lost in wall-to-wall text. As a general rule, I avoid making edits to articles in the topic area while an AE that involves me is pending. It is a self-imposed sanction that I undertake upon myself. When this is over, my first action will be to undue the edit in its entirety. One more thing. SD compiled these diffs while he was topic banned, stalking my every move for a month. Once that ban was lifted, he struck as though he were a coiled spring waiting to pounce. Of all the diffs that he noted, only one has some merit and I had already acknowledged wrong doing in connection with that affair long before he brought the action. The filing of this AE, just two hours after the lifting of his topic ban represents BATTLEGROUND mentality in the extreme. Moreover, this in combination with the troubling diffs SupremeD authored, (noted below in a separate AE filed against him) make it clear that if anyone should be sanctioned in the messy affair, it’s Supreme Deliciousness for turning Wikipedia into a battleground and bringing an unnecessary level of drama to a topic area that experienced an unusual level of calm in his absence.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Will Beback and Sam Vaknin

User:Will Beback seems to be on a crusade annihilating hard work by various people on Sam Vaknin. --Penbat (talk) 09:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Ayoung-Chee edit

This is absolutely a joke. Ayoung-Chee, a minor celebrity notable only for her appearance in a Miss Universe pageant, had this story reported by TMZ. This was later picked up by the New York Daily News, ABC News, and others. Despite this, overzealous editors such as yourself continue to take it upon themselves to remove any trace of this incident from the article despite the fact that it is much more notable than her (unsourced) work with UNATT. Seeing as how there is nothing libelous about stories that are true, what criteria is needed (despite overwhelming support from other editors) to stop this authoritarian censorship? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.171.100 (talk) 00:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

If it was picked up by NY daily news, ABC and others, then find those sources and use them. As long as they don't cite TMZ as their source, it should be fine. TMZ is not a reliable source, and can't be used for negative allegations of that sort. Before you do, you might want to read WP:BLP and WP:RS. BTW blanking the article is not exactly productive. Slp1 (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Who are you to judge that news of a stolen sex tape is a "negative allegation?" I did not blank the page; after reading WP:BLP, I removed all information that was uncited or not supported by the links referenced in the article's footer (which, by the way, included her Facebook page and numerous dead links). 75.72.171.100 (talk) 01:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am an administrator here, and yes, I do judge that information about a sex tape is inappropriate in the article unless there is a reliable source about it. So did the last editor who deleted it, and so, I promise you, will pretty much every other established editor and administrator here. --Slp1 (talk) 01:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Photo of Mark MacPhail

How can a photo of Mark MacPhail be added to the Troy Davis article? Will the super-snoopers delete it ASAP as a copyrighted photo? Would you please take a look at the photo of Officer Faulkner in the Mumia-al-Jamal article. What precedent can be cited to allow then to coexist. Bellczar (talk) 10:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the issue is copyright; I asked about it here. The use of claiming was fair use was raised, and the Officer Faulkner picture has what looks to me like a good fair use rationale, so maybe it could be reused for Macphail. Obviously it would be great to have a photo of Davis too. It's also too bad that there are no public domain photos of the demos by Georgians for Justice, but I couldn't find any when I looked. --Slp1 (talk)

I have added a photo and used the rationale suggested above. Please watchlist the photo MacPhail_Mark_Officer.jpg for when the editors that user Bellzar refers to as "super-snoopers" come around.Bundlesofsticks (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

User bbb23 is trying to revert the addition of material about MacPhail from the article. I have started a section on the talk page for Troy Davis case. I have also put essentially the same information into an article about Mark MacPhail.Bundlesofsticks (talk) 00:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The photo is facing deletion. Can you visit the deletion page for it and put in support for keeping the photo? Thanks. Bundlesofsticks (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

More on Troy Davis ruling

I have added a section containing excerpts from Judge Moore's ruling. Since the Supreme Court was silent, it is probable that this ruling will be the last judicial pronouncement in the case. Since you seem to have "ownership" of the Troy Davis article, I give you notice that this has been done. However, I would like to emphasize that nearly all of what I added is Judge Moore's own words. Finally there is a place in the article where one can see cogently what all of these supposed "7 of 9 recanting witnesses" actually said to begin with; what they changed in their 2010 testimony, if anything; and how the judge evaluated them. This is an important add to the article that needs to remain in place.75.147.60.142 (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the section per the bold, revert, discuss cycle. It is clear that the section fails multiple of WP's policies, including our policies about undue weight, living persons, and neutral point of view. Please see talkpage of the article for details, and discuss there if you wish. I'll just add for future reference that saying that somebody has "ownership" of an article is considered a fairly serious accusation, one that shouldn't be made lightly. --Slp1 (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

User Bbb is making unnecessary reversions to this article. 75.147 pared the 12K addition down to 1 para which causes no OR/Undue/BLP problems. I would have fought for more, but I am OK with where the 1 para stands. You are conspicuous by your absence from the talk page. Please come back and state why this small para is unreasonable. PS I bet Judge Moore is happy he's in charge of the case and WP editors in charge of the article and not vice versa.Bundlesofsticks (talk) 00:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

concerning editing

I have been reading through the editing of this ‘shakehandsman’ and he seems to focus on Labour politicians and especially women and minorities – his editing appears to lack balance and be one sided according to comments written by many. It’s terribly sad that Wikipedia is being manipulated in this way! Can anything be done? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.194.45.128 (talk) 01:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Troy Davis case - again

Hello, Slp1. You have new messages at Talk:Troy Davis case.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Bbb23 (talk) 10:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Re:Another time..

I had checked what was going on, and had followed along enough to see the AN discussion. I wouldn't have replaced the image had it still been a penis, so luck doesn't have much to do with it. Oh well. --Onorem♠Dil 01:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Great. In retrospect, I think misunderstood your edit summary as saying you were reverting 'because' you couldn't see what the "per vandalism" was about, rather than simply commenting that my edit summary might have been more informative. Did I get that it? If so, given how much I wanted to get rid of the picture it was actually a miracle there was any edit summary at all! --Slp1 (talk) 02:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)