Old version of this page and past archives (prior to February 13, 2004)
While I was away on my wikivacation (before February 27, 2004)
Posts from February 27, to March 27, 2004
Posts from March 27, 2004 to April 13, 2004

If you would like to get me to read your comments you can place those comments below. If your comment is highlighted, then most likely I have read it (or someone else has highlighted it). Check the page history summaries to see what I have highlighted). My responses are highlighted in grey. If you want to learn a bit about me then go into the archives above and you can see what interactions I have had in the past with Wikipedians. Also, there is a lot of information about me in the history of my user page. I have decided not to restore all that stuff after my wikipedia:wikivacation, it was just too much information...

So you and your fellow nominee know, members who join before Friday, April 16, 2004, at 11:00 EST can vote in the first ever AMA Coordinator election. -- user:zanimum

Thanks for the previous answers.

Are there any copyright issues for putting famous quotations into wikipedia? I am aware that some people make living off bumper stickers, but what about quotes from "normal" famous people? (I am thinking about List of quotations about dance.) Mikkalai 01:01, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Just fair use issues.

The AMA co-ordinator elections will start tommorrow at 11:00 EST, as long as this isn’t contested by any AMA member by noon today. -- user:zanimum

Noted.

You may now vote for user:Ed_Poor or user:Alex756 in the first ever AMA co-ordinator election. Follow the instructions on Wikipedia:AMA Coordinator Election Procedure for more details.

AMA members who wish to abstain from voting must also e-mail wikipedia_ama_voting@yahoo.co.uk with notice of that intent.

To clarify anything before voting, ask user_talk:Zanimum or user_talk:Jwrosenzweig on their talk pages.

AMA members have until April 30, at 11:00:00 EST to vote. -- user:zanimum

Thanks.

Your vote has been counted. Jwrosenzweig 15:45, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to work together with you on Mediation and User Advocacy. Please assign me some work! --Uncle Ed 14:12, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

See your talk page.

Thank you for your kind words, Alex. I'm sorry I haven't gotten back to you sooner, but between Wiki and real life, there's precious little time to actually talk to people. I have rethought my position; while my dispute with another user has been difficult, it has also been an opportunity to learn not just about myself, but also about how Wikipedia operates. I have had the guidance of several excellent Wikipedians in seeing my own way through mediation, and whatever the result, it will have been a very positive experience for me. I would therefore, particularly having seen no movement to make my original resignation a fait accompli on anyone's part, AMA like to retract my request.

Thanks.

Denni 04:55, 2004 Apr 24 (UTC)

No problem.

I have reverted some edits I made previously at User:User Advocate that were factually incorrect. I hop the present version of that page is acceptable and apologize for any offense I may have caused through my earlier edits. Best wishes. UninvitedCompany 21:45, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I really don't know what this is about.

You expressed interest in the name of the New York City article on its Talk page. Could you please vote in the poll there? Thank you. --Lowellian 00:01, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

Done.

I see that you are advocating on WIKIPEDIA.

I have a problem with two stubber users , not to use different words.

They keep deleting some info which thay don`t like in Milan Kucan and Janez Drnovsek articles.

Those users are Romanm and GeneralPatton.
They both seem to be extreme nationalists. They keep denying the fact of killing    
40 unarmed men in Slovenia in 1991. They said that I made up charges against
this two slovene leaders and after i provided newspaper article about that they 
said that charges are silly(shooting 40 innocent people) and started deleting 
that part of article. They say it is not important and that Kucan and Drnovsek 
are respected in Europe. That is of course today but what about 1991 while they 
were high official of Communist party of Slovenia and Yugoslavia.
They call Blic newspaper sensationalistic and tabloid. It is not true because
it was the only newspaper that was not controlled by Milosevic.
Romanm even reported me at Vandalism in progress after I reported him?!
Now he is saying that shooting in 1991 never happened. This remainds me of
neo-nazisitc denial of holocaust. He is trying everything to delete such info
and show that Slovenian masacre was not trigger of Yugoslav wars.
But even Slovenian media reported about this masacre.
Maybe he was too young to remember but it still doesn`t make it OK to delete 
that part of an article.
One of many parties that is pressing this charges is Green Party. GeneralPatton
called them nationalistic and propagandistic.

I also had some earlier problems with Romanm about Coats of Arms. According ti him COA can be copyrighted even if it is the same as original. He didn`t complain about Slovenian CoA which somebody took from copyrighted website.

You can see some more in :

• Milan Kucan and Talk:Milan_Kucan
• Janez Drnovsek and Talk:Janez_Drnovsek
• Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress3 articles(one on top and two in the bottom)
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection
• User_talk:GeneralPatton-On Serbo-Croatian
• User_talk:Romanm

I will be really happy if you could help me here somehow. Please contact me over my talk page Again hope to hear from you soon! Avala 11:36, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Response on user Avala's talk page.

Thank you for answering. There is so many users which advocate. Which one am I supposed to choose? Is it first one in a row. I would like some user which can help me as soon as possible. Regards Avala 14:59, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Response again on user Avala's talk page.

Do you believe that the Wikipedia is a joint work in the copyright sense? That is, do you believe that any contributor could today license it under any non-GFDL license they choose to use, with only a requirement to account to the other authors for a share in any profits? It's an interesting question and I'm not sure what I want the answer to be.:) Jamesday 11:59, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

This raises a lot of interesting questions that I have considered to some extent in the past, one of the reasons that I think a dual license waiver of copyright compliance agent is not necessary. Regarding the ability of a contributor on Wikipedia using their work elsewhere, that is certainly o.k., and if they are making profit on it and there is a joint ownership, well then, yes, they share the copyright with someone else. Of course this would not include just trivial contributions or copyedit contributions in which the work is not sufficiently original to grant the contributor any copyright protection for their contribution.

Hi, Alex. May I ask your opinions about how the board members of the Foundation should be? In the past, you were active about matters related to the Foundation, and I tend to find your opinions thoughtful, even when I don't agree with them. You can reply here or send me email if that is perferred. Tomos 19:53, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I was thinking about the upcoming board election, wondering what kind of candidates are good for the board. Tomos

Response sent via email to Tomos, to be posted here soon.

We Wikipedians know how to choose 'em. Congratulations on your election as AMA coordinator! Denni 03:20, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have decided join you in this endeavour. God knows why I would want to put myself into more conflict in WP, but the job does need to be done. That being said, I would appreciate any advice you might be able to give. Burgundavia 23:37, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

Alex... I need you to help me on m:Official position. Your participation would be precious to define better your governing committe, which are now starting with the local chapters, to see what should be a committee and what should rather have a coordinator, and which roles are more likely to be important from the pov of an external. Whether openly or not, I hope you help us. SweetLittleFluffyThing 06:50, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Whatever you want me to do, I'll do. Feel free to contact me. Neutrality 03:16, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Does this request really belong at the AMA? What's being asked for isn't advocacy, but simply that a specific page be double-checked with scholarly sources. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think the AMA is needed here. After all, there's not really two sides to this issue yet. --Αλεξ Σ 04:06, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Alex -

You placed a request on my talk page to mediate this user's concern regarding what seems to be page reversion. I have looked at the page in question and admit utter ignorance of the subject matter, but I have also looked at the user's concern that unverifiable material is being added to the article he is working on despite his effort to keep it out. This seems to be the case: a thorough check with Google and Dogpile related to the disputed material returns only hits to Wiki. This does not seem to be a difficult situation, coming down as it does to what seems to be original research on the part of the interloper.

I have not mediated a case before, but would be willing to give this a try if I can feel confident of some sort of emergency backup should I find myself in a situation of not knowing what to do. Denni☯ 04:02, 2004 Jun 18 (UTC)

Alex,

I would have a really hard time helping this person, as my knowledge of religion is extremely small. I will do some research to back up the advocate who does takes this though. Burgundavia 04:15, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

I am willing to help in any way possible, but I have never been an advocate before and I know littel of the subject. I also have a hard time seeing what other party is involved. Aren't there suppose to be two sides, with two seperate advocates? Nevertheless I will make myself available if the anon user so desires.

-JCarriker 04:36, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

I second that, and am willing to assist. I'm new as well, but argumentative. :)

Part of me can't help wondering, though, isn't this just a factual dispute? Seems to me that they just need a referee on this article to sort out the truth from lies, rather than any adjudication. Looking at the talk page, there seems not to be any argument or verbal/written malice, simply confusion as to what's correct. Is that really within our purview? Maybe a mediation thing? Wally 06:08, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)