User talk:SJK
|
|
=Vote fore removal of bias in Cults
Please see the cult talks page and vote if you would like to modify the article as I suggested. When enough votes are collected, I will rewrite the article and welcome criticisms.
You're back! awesome. --KQ
- Actually, I've been here, on and off, for quite a while... I just decided I might as well log in :)
There's also a move feature that moves page history. You should be able to see it on one of your panels (depending on your user settings). Welcome back to user land. --mav
FWIW, I'm extremely impressed with your work on the Anti-Semitism page - it seems to me that you've managed to neatly and fairly describe each side of the argument and maintain a neutral POV throughout. Jacob
Sorry for being a bit too quick on the trigger. --mav
Simon, if you happen to read this, a friend of mine has a question. He was reading the UN Security Council article, and came across this:
- Security Council resolutions are legally binding if they are made under Chapter ?? or ?? of the Charter. The International Court of Justice has found that resolutions not made under these two chapters can also be binding, and that the contents of the resolution must be examined in order to determine if they are so. Several members, including the United States and the United Kingdom, have expressed disapproval of the ICJ's view on this issue.
(This history of the article seems to be telling me that you wrote this).
Neither of us quite understands what the ?? mean; is this an error? Also, he's been unable to locate the finding referred to in the paragraph (the ICJ's search engine isn't particularly helpful). Do you have a link to it? -- Stephen Gilbert 13:17 Oct 21, 2002 (UTC)
- I think I was confused. Only one chapter claims is generally accepted as binding, chapter VII. As for the ICJ finding I refer to, I'm sure I read that in an international law book somewhere. Maybe I was thinking of the Nambibia case, which is described at Higgins, "Peace and Security Acheivements and Failures", European Journal of International Law, vol. 6 no. 3, as finding that Security Council decisions as potentially being operative even outside Chapter VII, and says that the binding nature of chapter VI decisions has been a matter of controversy. But that can't be the source I got that from, since it doesn't mention any other countries opposing the ICJ's views...
Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
- Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
- Multi-Licensing Guide
- Free the Rambot Articles Project
To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:
- Option 1
- I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
- {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
OR
- Option 2
- I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
- {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Ram-Man&action=edit§ion=new)| talk)
Main namespace cleanup
In an effort to clean up the main namespace, I've moved your old main namespace userpage to User:SJK/old, as there's some edit history you might want to keep. Otherwise just delete it. --fvw* 12:27, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)