talk, whisper, shout - sing if you can!

Well, here's the thing. I don't have a copy of the book. But, seeing as I should probably source that anyway, and the library a couple of towns over has a copy, I'll see what I can do. No promises, though. I'll let you know if I find it (I don't have the time to read the whole book again just for that, interesting though it was). Do you have at least access to a copy? It'd be easier for me to just give you a page number rather than having to type the whole godamn thing out. I'll e-mail you: if you don't want to publicise your e-mail just set it in your preferences and it'll be anonymous. (Note: When you have time, you really should read the book, it's very interesting.) Snoutwood (tóg) 00:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: I'm sorry, I'm finding that I just don't have the time. If you really need the info and can't read the book, an alternative would be to try your public librarian or a research forum such as Google Answers. Cheers, Snoutwood (talk) 20:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O.K., I will. Take care, Snoutwood (talk) 10:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. In general, I don't see any point in flagging biographies of individuals (dead or alive) by whatever race or ethnic group or Volk or what have you the editors believe they deserve to be included in. If somebody's view of the right bag in which to put Mr. X had a very significant effect on X's life, then that will generally already be mentioned in the article. It does seem to me, however, that the absurdity of some such categories is clearer than that of others. I suppose one may start at the weakest point in the chain and then see what comes out of the discussion.

For what it is worth, I have submitted the page to Categories_for_deletion. Your opinions will be appreciated. Hasdrubal 22:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your comments on my talk page on this subject, my main issues with such cats are 1) they are very subjective 2) they can be neologistic. I don't think it is possible to eliminate them from WP as American usage is dominant here (IMO) and few Americans see that describing someone as (for example) Italian-American may be problematic. As this whole area is very much one of opinion rather than of fact (you appear to be setting "nation" and "ethnicity" as wholly seperate whereas it is never quite that simple - again IMO), my guide to what is acceptable is whether usage can be demonstrated as commonplace (so with regard to my own country, I have not listed all British "ethnic" cats for deletion as some of them are in regular use in discourse within the UK). Similarly, on this basis I can't support the blanket deletion of all cats that refer to France. French people may be French on account of their citizenship, but they do not cease to have "ethnicity" as a result of this. Such cats would need to be decided on a case by case basis. Valiantis 13:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hey Lapaz, regarding the "reversed burden of proof" (i.e. employees fired under CNE have to carry the burden of proof) on the CNE, do you have any specific source or reference about it, even in French? I can't find any mention of that issue anywhere!Sarreau 19:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right on with the ego redirect. I decided to be bold—see Talk: Ego, super-ego, and id for details. —johndburger 01:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I have, for the time being, reverted your move of Haiti to Haïti. In general, we use English spellings for place names and other article titles and text. If you disagree with the application of this policy to the article on Haiti, you should go through Wikipedia:Requested moves, rather than move a highly important page like a country page by yourself.

Regards, Montréalais 17:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lapaz, I have a question at Talk:Refugee about your text removal. Regards, BanyanTree 19:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting Lapaz: re: Scramble for Africa

"My English may not be perfect, however, I do believe that it is fundamental speaking of the Fashoda Incident & others crisis in the intro. Brevity mustn't means simplification, and it is quite impossible to understand how in hell could the Scramble for Africa be related to World War I if you don't pass by these historical crisis"

well, sure, but isn't naming specific incidents a bit much for the introduction? do we prefer global context or high-resolution detail here? i thought it simpler to cut rather than modify for that reason.

also, that sentence, like many, was a run-on. and it weirdly talked about an 1898 event as if it had been caused by a 1902 event. it's not grammar, just logic.

"I just want to add that the intro must be as concise as possible but, more importantly, should provide the global context need for the understanding of the article. In other words, it shouldn't repeat what the article says itself, but link it to worldwide event. This means linking it to the First World War, and thus speaking of these important international crisis. I leave the issue of the Russo-Japanese War up to you, although it could be included as, although I may have awkardly put it, it is the first war won against Europeans, and thus lead to a radical shift in mentalities (the Yellow Peril, etc.): White Man could be beaten."

right, well, what you just said makes the case for exclusion of the Russo-Japanese War from this intro better than i could make it. do we have a source for the idea that the Japanese are non-white? check out Yellow Peril and tell me about its relation to the Russo-Japanese war, or the Japanese at all.

apart from questions of fact, isn't there a POV question here? the construction of a universal "White Man" is as non-neutral as the construction of a universal "Colored," or even a "Yellow," wouldn't you say?

and "the first war won against Europeans" is contestable -- imperial Japan versus imperial Russia does not sound like the kind of conflict one would include in a survey of "Righteous Colored Rebellion"...

which brings everybody back to the topic, What is this Article About? shifting allegiances and incipient crises _between European powers_, or something else?

and an addiction to brevity more generally wouldn't hurt in other sections -- see Causes of the Scramble -- do we need to know, in this article, that Hobson influenced Lenin and Arendt?

humbly submittedDavidstaniunas 19:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please comment on the remarks I parked at theHenri, Comte de Boulainvilliers discussion page ? Much obliged, (Lunarian 14:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Hello Lapaz, welcome to my talkpage. You were right about the point I wanted to make. Sorry to steal your time. I'll let you know about a short counternote. Meanwhile thanks for a very civil and interesting reply. Poigné de main. (Lunarian 18:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I gave my final (?) counterargument on User:Lunarian before the editory onslaught. There will be nothing nobel in that, we can asure you (-: pun intended :-) (Lunarian 11:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

When the Boulainviller article improves, your efforts will most certainly have counted for much. Think of the added satisfaction this little debate gives to a summernight in a garden among friends. It's already an asset to know you. Keep well.

P.S. May I believe the way I concluded on my talk page does you credit?

Sincerely, (Lunarian 08:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I don't have a particular problem with this text, except that it clearly does not belong under a section about anthropology in the United States. Seeing as the article is over the recommended length I think it would be better in History of anthropology.

The other text I removed is mostly present in History of anthropology. It is also unverified, but I can live with the insertion of some citation needed tags.--Birdmessenger 16:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I edited with a heavy hand. I think it's important to discuss colonialism and race in an article about anthropology. I am, however, a little leery of making statements like Thus studying the language, culture, physiology, and artifacts of European colonies was more or less equivalent to studying the flora and fauna of those places. It was for this reason, for instance, that Lewis Henry Morgan could write monographs on both The League of the Iroquois and The American Beaver and His Works. That seems to be a jump to conclusions that ignores the fact that Morgan was an autodidact who likely had an interest in a number of fields of study (not uncommon in pre-20th century societies). Unless a historian or scholar has made this claim and can demonstrate a link, I think it should be deleted. What do you think?

The passage about how artifacts and culture were displayed is stronger, but I'd still feel more comfortable if we could cite someone who has discussed this. I probably have a text that does so, so I'll try to address this.

As for Firmin, maybe one of us can place the passage about him in History of anthropology.--Birdmessenger 16:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll probably try to make some changes this week to these passages that we can both live with.--Birdmessenger 18:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I see that you have added to the category German philosophers in the recent past. I have called for a renaming of the category, and want to invite you to join discussion. The more rational voices, the better. (My suggestion is to rename to "German-language philosophers," so that the category becomes one of language rather than ethnicity.) Thanks in advance for any thoughts you might have. Universitytruth 13:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings: it seems someone has called for a deletion of the category. If you support the change, you might want to cast your vote at this page: [1]. Thanks! Universitytruth 13:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great work! - Jmabel | Talk 20:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any interest in being an administrator? If so, I'll nominate you. If not, I certainly understand. - Jmabel | Talk 20:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the proposal. Actually, I'm not sure, what does it implies exactly? I guess it's a time-consuming responsibility, so I'd like to know what exactly an admin is supposed to deal with... Lapaz 20:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind, may I deal with Ed Poor's concerns first, then work on restoring your edits? Ed Poor is a particularly difficult editor to deal with on this subject, and it becomes way too confusing if both of you are making massive changes at the same time. Once Ed Poor's concerns are out of the way and the article is stabilized, then I'll look into your edits. Thanks for your patience, 172 | Talk 03:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

172, I'm actually quite easy to deal with, when it comes to making neutral article which incorporate multiple points of view. I don't like unexplained mass reverts.

Lapaz, not every point of view needs to go into a Wikipedia article on a controversial topic. For one thing, only published views qualify. Wikipedia is not a blog. You and me and 172 are not permitted to add our own POV; we must summarize and quote sources; we are not sources. --Uncle Ed 16:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Lapaz, if you are so inclined, please assist in maintaining the article in line with consensus and dealing with 172's arbitrary reversions. Obey 14:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Hums to tune of the Internationale). Good edits, appreciated. Itsmejudith 08:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the load of my back. It would be great to find a source for his (mis)interpretation of Spinoza's conatus in the way you describe.

Anyway, this does not marr the joy with which I always receive notice of your persistent industry. Keep well (and let's hum together for a while) Salud y ... (Lunarian 09:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Please make yourself familiar with our Wikipedia:NPOV policy. You are introducing massively POV content to the article on the Herero Uprising. POV content is not accepted at Wikipedia, and will be removed on sight. Maria Stella 13:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse-me, but I have no tolerance whatsoever for negationism. Your unilateral move of Herero and Namaka Genocide to "Herero & Namaka Uprising" is not at all appreciated, as the massive deletion which accompanied it. ([2]) I would also advise you not to delete vandalism template on your talk page. And once your negationist POV has been challenged, I would ask you to respect proper NPOV dispute and not [(move the page again). Lapaz 16:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has no tolerance for your POV pushing and historical revisionism. The next time you vandalize my talk page you will be blocked from editing. Maria Stella 16:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to this edit of yours:

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Maria Stella 17:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is called restauring text that was vandalized... by you. Nice to meet you, by the way. Lapaz 22:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Franco y Hitler.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. User:Angr 08:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: TAZ etc. You either have an opinion or you have not. A humble opinion is best kept to one's self. Do not use my talkpage for bullsh%£*t. Lunarian 10:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Chill! I was just underscoring someone fairly famous for using the expression, you do whatever you want with it. If you don't like this nonsense, delete it. Lapaz 15:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lapaz, I've added a straw poll to the talk page at Herero and Namaqua Uprising regarding the title of the article. Perhaps you could comment. Thanks!--Birdmessenger 15:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cdib 17:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)I work at a US museum that's mounting an exhibition of 19th century French paintings, and am trying to get a high-res image of the Courbet caricature that I think you put up on the Courbet page. (Impossible to find the Père Duchêne illustré here.) Could you contact me via email? Thanks much in advance. Hello! The Père Duchesnes caricature is from Commons. It was first uploaded on the French wiki, by ArnoLagrange it seems. I'm sure he could help you. Cheers! Lapaz 16:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, dear. I'm afraid I know little about the subject in general, but was aware of that one fact and mentioned it only because it was said that non-Japanese could not become Japanese citizens. I might have one or two sources I can dig up at home, but RL has been troublesome lately and I've had little time for contributions requiring much research. Still, I'll put the article on my watchlist, and will add something when I can. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia appears to have an article on the subject: Foreign-born Japanese. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lapaz. Thanks for your help in keeping the Herero War/Genocide/Uprising article intact. You may also want to watch the article on Lothar von Trotha as Maria is also actively rewriting history there. Greenman 11:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't cut the contents from an article and paste it at one with another title if you can't move it automatically (see Help:Moving a page#Page histories). Instead, place a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves and wait for an administrator that's willing to make the proper move for you. If it's a potentially contestable request, it's likely the admin would like to see that there is a consensus for doing so. -- Dissident (Talk) 03:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! That seems really old (February or so), I don't remember exactly the context. I guess there just wasn't much in the "positivism" page, and really different stuff, so I created a disambiguation page. I probably decided not to move the page in order to keep a positivism page (moving to a "disambiguation" page sounds a bit strange, as it would delete the original page, wouldn't it?) Cheers! Lapaz 14:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Okay, then. Good job! The Ogre 17:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You do NOT own this article. You reverted a large number of my edits (note they were EDITS not REVERTS) back to your version - this constitutes vandalism. You can't take a one month break from an article and then revert it back to how YOU like it. Things move on. Gsd2000 14:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've unprotected and moved the page as per the talk page discussion. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there are any articles or documents in particular that you'd be interested in, please feel free to let me know. I have access to many of them and have a large overstuffed filing cabinet about the history of forced sterilization (I have not been working on it lately, but I spent a number of years researching it), as well as many articles, photocopies from books, etc. that it would be almost trivial for me to digitize and send to you as a PDF. Unfortunately, as I mentioned on the talk page, most of the literature on the topic does not answer what I consider to be very basic questions (why and when did it stop? being the most basic of them); one of my long-term goals is to actually answer those sorts of questions in my own work (I have some answers in limited cases, such as California, but as it is not yet published it would be OR to put it on Wikipedia of course), but I won't be turning back to those things for some time now (I am currently engaged in very different research and will be for a number of years). But again, if you are interested in anything in particular or can't get access to something please let me know and I might be able to get a copy of it to you without too much hassle (they have high-speed scanners at my university which I use very frequently in my work; it is not hard to add another document or book to the stack). --Fastfission 16:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lapaz, and thank you for the information on the status of the above. Thank you also for your advice on the Aftermath of World War I talk page, which I have now followed. I am a relative newcomer to this, but I have quickly become aware that some people have what I can only describe as perverse political agendas, with little bearing on encyclopedic truth. I will do my best to provide additional citations for the Herero and Namaqua Genocide.

Can I ask for your advice to a different, but not completely unrelated matter? The user Maria Stella you mentioned has created an odd page entitled Anti-Germanism. I am not quite sure what the purpose is, but I think it relates to debates she has had with you, and others, on matters touching on German subjects. This whole page, in my view anyway, is not a genuine encyclopedia entry, but a form of political sourness. (Do the 'Germans' in question also include the Swiss?). It would be possible to put 'Anti' in front of any nation, race, people or community in the world and produce a similar 'article'. I would like to put it up for deletion, but I am not sure how to go about this. I would be grateful for your help. White Guard 02:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! White Guard 02:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the third time you simply reverted my edits. Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Gsd2000 22:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting very fed up with your misrepresentations on the various talk pages. You claim I am "deleting" information when I am in fact making it more concise, and you are reverting to "your" last edit and thereby throwing away a lot of edits I have made - this is frankly vandalistic, not to mention inconsiderate. Gsd2000 02:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't mix a disagreement with vandalism. This will not help any further discussion, although I'll do my best to understand that you might just not understand that we have a disagreement. Report yourself to the Wiki page about vandalism (i'll not link to it, you find) and please remain civil. Thank you very much. Lapaz 23:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand that we have a disagreement. The right thing for you to do in the case of disagreement is not to simply revert to "your" version of the article, when another editor has made constructive edits in the meantime. Thankyou. Gsd2000 23:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You refer to a prior post on my talk page, and say "I also see on your talk page that you are quite quick in calling others vandals when you disagree." Well, if you actually take a look at the person I called a vandal, User:IIIV, you will see they are a sockpuppet account - see WP:SOCK - that I spent a great deal of time investigating and now they are all permanently banned from Wikipedia. Gsd2000 14:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And in a bout of more delicious irony, I see that you yourself are not afraid of being quick to call others vandals [3]. Note that I was labelling your actions vandalistic (simply reverting and throwing away others' legitimate edits in the process) yet here you are labelling the contributions vandalistic, which they blatantly are not. Oh, and, this is yet another example of you getting into an edit war. Gsd2000 14:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down. User:Maria Stella had been doing negationist edits. I'm not sure you want to take her side. But, just, simply: calm down. Lapaz 00:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it difficult to calm down, especially when you are eliciting help from your buddies with comments like this [4]. I am not censoring anything, I am editing. There is a difference. Gsd2000 00:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:1931 Paris Colonial Exhibition Arabs.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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 its not being deleted. Thank you.

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:1931 Colonial Exhibition.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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 its not being deleted. Thank you.

Thanks for uploading Image:CRIIRADmap.gif. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:1931_Counter_Exhibition.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further to your comments at my talk page, I did not delete the noted images, I simply nominated them for deletion. The images are posted for 5 days minimum (been stretching to 7+ recently). The deletion of the images can be reviewed at WP:DRV. If you know of a use for them you that will greatly assist in their undeletion. Also, if they are public domain, they could be uploaded to Commons. If there are any questions, please feel free to leave a note on my talk page.--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 21:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Lapaz 22:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Radioactive fallout caesium137 after Chernobyl.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 20:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back in May of 2006 you suggested on merging Gathering place into Public space. We would like to have your comments on the associated talk page if you get a chance. Talk:Public space Thanks! Strawberry Island 17:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:1931 Counter Exhibition.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 21:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lapaz,

Happy New Year.

I came here to tell you about an article that I stumbled over (Colonial mentality) but I noted that you had not edited the Colonialism since last September. Looking higher up on this page, I notice that you had a dispute with User:Gsd2000 around that time. Presumably, you gave up in frustration and moved on to other articles.

I have not looked at the Colonialism article in a long time and I haven't had time to look at Colonial mentality yet. However, I thought I would drop you a quick note to tell you about it and suggest that you take a look at it.

In any event, I hope you are doing well.

Richard

I am also having problems with the person behind User:Gsd2000, and hoped he would stop his reverting habits if someone else talked to him about it. I have made an entry at User Conduct about this; I do not wish to spend too much time dealing with him, can you visit the User Conduct page and help?58.107.15.245 07:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice expansion of Cameroun. What sources did you use? We should probably create a "References" section. — Brian (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recently noticed that you removed both the White African infobox, and the "French people in Africa" section. What gives? You also said that it "verges on White supremacism"??? I am sorry, but I am confused. Many of the individual populations were listed later in the article anyway. I merely put them into an infobox, and checked the accuracy of the figures against the individual country articles and the CIA Factbook. Please explain. DBQer 03:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Radioactive fallout caesium137 after Chernobyl.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 20:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you add these, please remember to specify which talk page is being used to discuss the merge. If you don't, each article directs people to its own talk page, and discussion becomes fragmented. Richard001 (talk) 03:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:1931 Counter Exhibition.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sdrtirs (talk) 18:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why you created Category:Deep ecology. There are only really two articles that seem to be suitable, unless you want to include Naess etc. Do you have any arguments why I should not WP:CFD it? For the mean time I will move it to a different category; it's certainly not part of ecology as ecology is a science, not a philosophy (and the use of 'ecology' (the study of the distribution and abundance of life) is fairly arbitrary, it could just have easily been called 'deep biology'). Richard001 (talk) 09:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Image:Völkerschau (Human Zoo) Stuttgart1928.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Völkerschau (Human Zoo) Stuttgart1928.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. BJ^Talk 13:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am involved in a little content dispute and would appreciate a well-informed and independent opinion. If you have time can you look at the recent edit history of the first paragraph of this article, and this this discussion? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 21:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following a recent RfC, there is currently a proposal regarding the issue of whether or not it is appropriate to characterise fascism as "right-wing".

Even if you don't have much to say, it would be useful if you could let your view be known in order to help guide the discussion towards some sort of conclusion.

Please take a look: here.

Thank you. --FormerIP (talk) 23:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lapaz! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 3 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 3 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Christiane Taubira - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Françoise Héritier - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
3. Jean-Claude Gayssot - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Cultural impact of the Chernobyl disaster, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural impact of the Chernobyl disaster. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Rodhullandemu 22:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Enfants de don quichotte.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 22:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:OSPAAAL.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free 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 the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Body without organs has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability. All citations appear to either have close ties to the authors of the theory, mention it only in passing, or do not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Guy Macon (talk) 08:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. XOttawahitech (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect State racism. Since you had some involvement with the State racism redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 00:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Women's emancipation. Since you had some involvement with the Women's emancipation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. feminist (talk) 14:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Annam Tower. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 4#Annam Tower until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Greenknight dv (talk) 01:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Annam Tower. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 5#Annam Tower until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Greenknight dv (talk) 04:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Anticolonialist and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 18#Anticolonialist until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:04, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Historical subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical subject until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Chidgk1 (talk) 14:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Primitive cultures has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 27 § Primitive cultures until a consensus is reached. GnocchiFan (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Multiplicities has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 14 § Multiplicities until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]