 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Contents
3rd viscount monckton of brenchleyThis subject has suffered from Graves' Disease, which causes ocular proptosis. Various people who may be part of a paid network of wreckers who tamper with the biogs of people who disagree with global warming have repeatedly inserted an obviously offensive photo of the subject that exploits his physical disability by making a feature of the proptosis in a ludicrous way. Please refer these people - one of them is ChrisO, who has been warned before - to the arbitration committee. Population history of Egypt - the language issueHi there. I have a slight concern stemming from your comment on your edit, to the effect of work being needed on the language section. This section is only relevant to the extent that it sheds light on the population history of the people, it is not a detailed article about the languages themselves. Please discuss on the talk page. Thanks Wdford (talk) 12:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
OK - that makes sense. Thanks for the response. Wdford (talk) 12:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply Fayssal: Thanks for protecting the article. Please do the same with Youssef Chahine. Omar Sharif had been mediated till the cows went home on its Talk page by Admin Sancho. The problem can be summarized in Admin. Sancho's statement: "Even the leap from "Sharif's parents were Lebanese", to "Sharif is of Lebanese descent" is going too far in an article about a living person." Omar Sharif and Youssef Chahine are both Egyptian citizens whose parents may have had Lebanese origins of some sort or may have been immigrants to Egypt. Sancho had laboriously and very methodically mediated Omar Sharif's article and he found no support for any Lebanese reference to be made about Omar Sharif... He made the statement above, that his parents origins could NOT be extended to him. This is the version that Sancho had ended with. We do not want to go this whole process again. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 00:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply Arab cowboy you are a disrespectful person first saying that I was nonsense, then saying Im a tribal Middle Easterner and now calling me a cow? Do you know how to have a discussion in a civil manor. I am sure the administrator will judge fairly so please do not sit here and make problems. Youssef Chahine does have Lebanese origins, this is verifiable, his father was Lebanese, his real name is Gibran Sawaya. His father was an immigrant to Egypt. And Omar Sharif real name Michael Demitri is also Lebanese by origin. His parents were Lebanese immigrants to Egypt. The only thing Egyptian about Youssef and Omar is the fact they were born in another country that is not their country of origin. His parent's origins are his origins as well. So we do not need to say his father was Lebanese but instead Youssef Chahine is of Lebanese origin. Or instead of saying Omar Sharif's father is Lebanese that Omar Sharif is of Lebanese origin. This is the truth. No Lebanese reference to be made about Omar Sharif LOL...Michael Shalhoub is clearly a Lebanese name. And Sancho did say that you should make a reference to his origins as being Lebanese. I can also point that out. Lebanese bebe (talk) 14:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
direct I love Lebanese and I love Egyptians. In fact, I love everyone :) Incidentally, I've always thought that Omar Sharif's parents (not him, he's an Egyptian) were either Lebanese or Syrian but that has been my personal belief which has no basis since I had no sources (just hearsay). Now, what's the deal, guys? My advice (well, all admins would tell you the same story) is to look for reliable sources to back up your claims. I am directing this specifically to Lebanese bebe because the burden of proof lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You need to bring a solid reliable source. Otherwise, you better drop it. To help you both, guys. http://omarsharif.netfirms.com/articles.htm is not a reliable source at all. According to Wikipedia:RS we only publish the opinions of reliable authors. Now, Lebanese bebe, could you please start basing your edits on real reliable sources and avoid using websites hosted for free (netfirms.com!!!) as reliable sources? You could easily back up your edits with stuff like the ones I've just found... Come on guys, don't be lazy!
Now, you can just copy and paste the above reliable sources and put the issue to rest. Can I unprotect the article now that you can see clearly what reliable sources say? Ok guys, matter resolved? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Mythdon proposal at ANIThis message is being sent to inform the Arbitration Committee of a sanction proposal forbidding me from editing Arbitration Committee pages and talk pages. Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Mythdon and Arbitration Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply Reply on my talk pageI have responded to your "explicit final warning". Upon reading this notification, please revert this notification. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply AfD nomination of Rachid SbihiAn editor has nominated the article Rachid Sbihi, which you created, for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachid Sbihi. Regards, Qwfp (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)Reply Second Lebanon WarYou reverted my edits to the Second Lebanon War. Apparently, you thought that they weren't "neutral." I should have you know that my edits were thoroughly researched, cross-referenced, sourced and on some occasions, double sourced. I'm puzzled as to what you find biased in my edits. I added 6 paragraphs (2 in the "Background" section and four in the "Post War events" section), each dealing with a factual event that ocurred. Please review each paragraph and tell me what you find objectionable and why you found the sources to be unreliable. In addition, since everything I edited was sourced, the reader can take the information at face value and disregard or accept the information based upon the reader's assessment of the source. However, by deleting my edits, you have substituted the reader's judgnment with your own and have acted as an abusive censor and I believe that you have abused your position as site administrator. I fully intend on re-posting the reverted edits and adding more edits to this and other articles dealing with the Arab/Israeli conflict to restore some balance and unbiased reporting. --Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)jiujitsuguy--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)Reply Hi there Faysself. I see that you were quick to revert my edits but not so quick to explain why you thought the sourced material violated neutrality. I would like an explanation please. --Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)jiujitsuguy--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Hello Faissalf. Thank you for responding and thanks for the constructive criticisms. Perhaps we can come to agreement and consensus on my recent edits. I think you were a bit trigger happy on the revert button. That said, I am willing to play ball and make some changes in the spirit of conciliation and journalistic integrity. Re paragraph 1: You claim that the edit reads like an army press release. I served four years in the JAG so that’s just my writing style but I am willing to remove the offending words that gave rise to the reversion. Re paragraph 2: You claim that the edit sounds “too heroic” and suggested that the source itself was biased. The source was Haaretz, a well respected, left of center Israeli daily, equivalent in style and substance to the New York Times. As far as the incident itself is concerned, it truly was a remarkable feat considering that a lone, relatively inexperienced soldier killed four heavily armed operatives and foiled their plans. By your logic, the Wiki article dealing with the Entebbe rescue mission, where IDF soldiers flew into the heart of Africa to rescue hostages should be reverted because the episode “sounds too heroic.” Nevertheless, in the interest of consensus, I will make changes so that it will sound “less heroic.” Re Paragraph 3: You cite two objections. First you claim “undue weight” and you expressed similar objections to the remaining three paragraphs. Second, you claimed that blogs are not reliable. I will first address the former objection as it pertains to the remaining three paragraphs. There is a specific section in the Wiki article that deals with “Post Ceasefire Events.” The last entry prior to mine relates to an event that occurred June 30, 2007 nearly a full year after the cessation of hostilities. Moreover, the following paragraph relates to an event that occurred on July 16, 2008 two year after the war. Yet you did not delete these entries, presumably because they were issues that were very germane to the war. It is therefore entirely appropriate for me to include paragraphs 3 trough 6 as edits in the “post ceasefire events” section. As I pointed out, Israel connected Mugniyah to the abduction which sparked the war. Deletion of my edit as “undue weight” without doing the same in connection with the aforementioned edits is hypocritical. You also objected to citing the blog as a source. The article that I cited from was written by Prof Eyal Zisser, head of the Department of Middle Eastern and African History and a senior research fellow at the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies at Tel Aviv University. He is the author of several books including Syria: Domestic Political Stress and Globalization (2002), Assad's Legacy: Syria in Transition (2000), and Lebanon: The Challenge of Independence (2000). In short, he’s no light weight and I suggest that you let the Wiki readers determine for themselves the reliability of the source. Moreover, that was 1 of 3 sources that I cited for that particular edit and deletion of the entire edit was harsh. Re Paragraph 4: You objected to the usage of the words “embarrassed” and “apparent.” I will substitute the offending words. Re paragraph 5: You argued “undue weight.” Please refer to my counter argument above. In addition, the issue is germane as it relates to a violation of UN Security Counsel Resolution 1701, the Resolution that brought an end to the war. Re paragraph 6: You objected to YouTube as a source. First, that was not the only source that I relied upon. You were so quick to delete the edit that you failed to take note that Ynet was also cited as a source. Second, the incident was videotaped and uploaded to YouTube. I just wanted to give Wiki readers the opportunity to view the video and judge for themselves. Thank you for your time and consideration and I eagerly await your response. --Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)jiujitsuguy--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Reply Hello Faysself. I made revisions to my edits that incorporated some of your helpful suggestions. As a matter of professional courtesy, please do not revert these edits prior to consulting me. If they are not to your liking we can revise them further until we reach consensus. Thanks, jiujitsuguy--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply Conduct probationary periodDid you do this to clarify my question here?Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September! A message to the Arbitration CommitteeThis message is being sent to all non-recused arbitrators. I have sent a message to the Arbitration Committee at the amendment page, that mentions what I feel that I need to say to ArbCom before the ban takes effect. The message is here. Thank you. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)
The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Academia Mexicana de Derechos Humanosyou created the article and i want to help with the article but cant find any info on it have any clues on where i can find info on this thanksOo7565 (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
hey thanks for the helpOo7565 (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Reply Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!
Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
That was over two years ago. I'd like to review this to see if semiprotection is still considered necessary. Please see talk:Morocco. --TS 20:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
You commented in the last Article for deletion discussion. This article is up for deletion again. You are welcome to comment about the discussion for deletion. Ikip (talk) 09:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
MILHIST adminsHi. Since you're an admin and a member of the Military History WikiProject, feel free to list yourself here. Cheers, –Juliancolton | Talk 17:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
No longer in useSorry for posting in pieces. [2] Jehochman Talk 16:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply Suggested text of motion on administrator professionalismThe following standards of professionalism are what ArbCom expects of administrators: {enumerate list of ideas}. The parties to this case are asked to confirm that they will abide by these standards. Any administrator who acts, or intends to act, against these principals may have sysop access removed by the Arbitration Committee. List what is expected and ask all of us, myself included, to confirm agreement. Make sure to include an anti-nepotism provision. Jehochman Talk 03:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Regarding the current RfARb Case on Sockpuppets..Was this [3] the kind of thing you were looking for, with regards to a motion and/or updating the ADMIN policy? SirFozzie (talk) 05:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply Proposed deletion of Blood and Religion The article Blood and Religion has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
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
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)
The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. ConfusedHi, I was pleased that you asked for motions to be entertained in the present RFAR. However, while there seems to be excellent discussion, as a result, it appears that discussion is not being used to inform the process. I note that you have not yet placed a vote on the most contentious items, so I believe you are proceeding in a way that respects our efforts. I know you can't speak to your colleagues' actions, but do you know whether they have read the motions, or the concerns expressed relating to them? It appears that they are proceeding with their votes in ignorance of our discussion, and that concerns me. Very interested in your thoughts. Or if you see fit to encourage your colleagues to read up on the community motions and their discussions, I'd very much appreciate that too. -Pete (talk) 02:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
LawHi, just a small note of correction concerning your recent comment about Law on the Motions page, where you said Law (talk · contribs) had been blocked for nine months, but socked after six months.[4] According to what I can see, he socked after about 2.5 months, not six. He was blocked on June 16,[5] but then began editing on a new account on September 4.[6] so that was 2.5 months into his 9 month block. Or did I make an error of my own? --Elonka 02:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
To elaborateThere is a portion of the community that is so put off by ArbCom's attempts to "shove" that official motions which profess to advise upon guidelines and policy provoke the opposite reaction. Silent boycott results where encouragement is intended. Most of the people who have contacted me on that point today have simultaneously cheered the point raised and expressed fears of retaliation if they posted openly. This probably won't boost your morale as an arbitrator, but recall the "editors encouraged" finding of the Scientology arbitration. Review the relevant article histories and ask yourself whether any portion of the community was actually encouraged by that finding. Long after resignation from formal mentorship I still get petitions from multiple people because no other uninvolved edtitor has remotely come close to filling the gap. "Encouragement" findings do not actually encourage the community. At best those motions are ineffectual; experienced editors interpret them as the Committee's collective plea for backup in situations so hairy that no arbitrator is willing to assume actual risk. Experience has shown that the Committee does not support the community members who respond to such pleas; if they make the slightest error (real or perceived) they get hung out to dry. Durova321 03:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
In fairnessAs discussed here, do you think it would be helpful to include a general admonishment of any unnamed parties who knowingly supported a sock puppet at RfA? There have been some questions of fairness like why are we picking on these administrators when there are others? It is possible to place a remedy against unnamed parties. Should they be disclosed later, then the remedy is there to help them. Jehochman Talk 13:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Reply an opinion, please.There is a dispute happening at Battle of Cieneguilla about the use of the lead image. Do you mind going there, taking a look and offering an opinion? Start at the article, you can't miss the image, then head for the discussion page. Thanks, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 21:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Reply Motion votesI note that your support of Jennavecia's desysop references my voting rationale. Please note that while I have not changed my vote, I have altered my voting statement. Please review the changes I have made, in case it alters your opinion about the matter. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 03:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)Reply Walking the walkPer this and [7] this, do you intend to register in the WikiCup? If so, I will do another Moroccan featured picture drive as soon as your next good article gets promoted. Durova322 21:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)Reply Asmahan arbitrationDont know if you saw it, but Arab Cowboy posted his evidence, so no need for further delay.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Reply Articles for deletion nomination of BOINC Account Manager AissawaHello, I had just noticed that you worked on some earlier versions of Aissawa. I had made note of some article issues at Talk:Aissawa and in the process I may or may not have spotted a copyvio. I asked at WP:ISLAM's talk page, as well. Just wondering if you'd care to throw in your $0.02. Thanks, and take care, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply for your knowledge[8] Regards Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 01:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)Reply Vanguard rocketHi, I notice you tagged the Vanguard (rocket) article for Military History, back in 2007. I wonder if you knew that the Vanguard was explicitly developed as a non-military, civilian satellite launcher? There actually was an oblique connection, in that in 1955 (when the project started), the US was developing a spy satellite system based on the ballistic missile, and was concerned that overflying Russian territory with a military rocket might create problems. So it was thought best to develop a separate scientific satellite launcher to establish the overflight precedent, rather than use a military launch vehicle. This may have been the deciding factor in the choice of the NRL Vanguard over the Army Jupiter as the IGY satellite launch vehicle. Of course this was all made moot when the USSR launched Sputnik 1 on an R-7 rocket, their ICBM, which was about 30 times larger than Vanguard. Anyhow, I thought you might want to reconsider the tag. I will not remove it myself. Cheers, Wwheaton (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)Reply Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest! As a member of the Military history WikiProjectorWorld War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.
If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)
The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Happy Thanksgiving!Happy Thanksgiving! I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 07:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
SeanmercyHe has requested unblock, states that he has edited from a school IP and that may be the reason for it. Who is he supposed to be a sock of, and what's the evidence? Daniel Case (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)
The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Clarification requestGreetings, Fayssal, from a recent convict. I'd like to ask for a bit of clarification (at least informal) on the "articles about Eastern Europe" wording. The way it's phrased seems pretty ironclad, but in this discussion you seem to leave open room for a little leeway, speaking of the "spirit of the restriction". The reason I'm asking for more of an explanation is that I both wish to abide by the decision, and wish to avoid being taken before WP:AE by individuals who may be watching my edits.
I'm not looking to game the system. I realise my actions have displeased the Committee, and not without reason. But I would like a better sense of where things stand. - Biruitorul Talk 04:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Season's greetings
Happy New Year The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)
The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. ThanksI never thanked for your condolence note last year, but I appreciate it more than I can possibly express. All the best, in friendship. Guettarda (talk) 16:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)Reply Unreferenced BLPs
Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply Ja/JouI draw your attention to serial editing of pages still, as far as I know under your mediation. Several violations NPOV and violations of BLP issues presenting see edits by anon Ip 64.128.245.110 from Florida, USA see [[9]]Links to several mainstream secondary sources also removed on BJ presents page Catapla (talk) 03:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply Discussion on Admin NoticebaoardHi You are mentioned in the discussion see [10] report re possible topic ban violation etc Catapla (talk) 12:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply Oh. My. Gosh.I just want to say that if ever I have had cause to want to emulate another admin, that would now after viewing User:FayssalF/JK! You are one amazing contributor, FayssalF. If we could all be like you! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 06:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)
The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Copyright issues with pictures you uploadedHi FayssalF. I have noticed there are copyright issues with many pictures you uploaded here and on Commons.
I know this work can be tedious but as an admin, I guess you know that abiding with copyrights is a primary issue. Thank you for fixing this quickly, else I will have to ask for the deletion of those pictures. — Xavier, 19:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page. The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)
The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. CfD nomination of Category:JoujoukaI have nominated Category:Joujouka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for merging into Category:Jajouka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply Block of User:MythdonMythdon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Mythdon is not banned. He was banned for six months on 00:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC), as linked in your edit summary. It has been six months time since that. He is unbanned.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
On the subject of appealing, how do I do so?— Dædαlus Contribs 06:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Explanation of Mythdon block requestedHello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding To explain your block of Mythdon in more detail. The thread is Block explanation requested. Thank you. DES (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Powergate92Talk 04:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Coordinator elections have opened!
Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010. you have mail. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)Reply Nomination for deletion of Template:Communications in Morocco table
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)
The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. AsmahanHello Faysal, do you remember this post that you left, [11] that we should discuss sources, arguments and let other experienced contributors help. Well I presented the corrections at the talkpage and got a neutral editor to take a look, look at nr 4 in corrections: [12] I presented my suggestion and linked to the source in the book and Nishidani came with a suggestion following the source and added it to the article, now the Newer Tweety account has changed that sentence to "stopped in" against what we talked about, and against what the source say, [13] Nefer Tweety has done this without participating at the talkpage, he just changed what me and Nishhdiani talked about typing "corrections" in the edit summary. This is the same old behavior that Arab Cowboy and NT did repeatedly which led to arbitration, anything that was talked about at the talkpage they just changed against what had been said on the talkpage. And NT is still continuing with this now. Peter Cohen has also made a post at the talkpage asking Nefer Tweety if Peter can be accepted as an honest broker without being called a meatpuppet and NT did not reply [14] the article is on probation, can you please take a look at this? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply Photos from MoroccoHey Fayssal, I understand you are still located in Morocco? I am requiring a couple of photos from Morocco as outlined at User:Russavia/Required_photos#.C2.A0Morocco. Would you be in any position to be able to help with these, or perhaps you can point me towards someone who may be able to assist with getting these? Any help appreciated. Cheers, --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 12:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Gibraltar Case CommentsI just wanted to bring to your attention a few things on the Gibraltar case. 1. When I was having problems I said some regrettable things, which I have apologised for, if you still feel a topic ban is appropriate then I'm not going to argue about it. I just make the point that bans and blocks are supposedly preventative not punitive. I made those remarks whilst in a bad place, they haven't been repeated and they're out of character. Now that I am a lot better is it still appropriate? 2. The assertion that the self-governing status of Gibraltar is an "opinion" not a fact. Sorry but I cannot accept that remaining in the case. Gibraltar is self-governing, it is a fact that the Spanish editors could not dispute. Instead they have tried to use a combination of synthesis and original research to try and minimise the status in the article. Their motivation in doing so is based on Spanish nationalism toward Gibraltar, where it is portrayed as a British colony on stolen Spanish soil. Those comments are only serving to buttress Spanish nationalism to skew the POV of the article not to achieve NPOV. I think you're being incredibly naive if you feel those remarks are helpful in steering the dispute, I can see those remarks coming back to haunt you in various nationalist disputes. 3. When this case was started, I couldn't participate fully as my father was ill and another editor was hospitalised. The evidence produced by a number of editors who've effectively held the article hostage was directed toward removing editors they disagreed with by topic bans; you'll note that I didn't propose of suggest any blocks/bans/sanctions against individuals. Effectively what you're proposing is to remove one side but leave the other intact. You're rewarding editors for baiting others into uncivil remarks. 4. In reading your comments I can only conclude you have apparently disregarded the workshop. In the workshop there was case of RHoPF hounding editors, walls of text being put up to derail discussion by Ecemaml, non-apologies such as "I'm sorry you were offended by my joke" not to mention examples of bad faith and uncivil remarks:
[15] activity, obstinacy, discourtesy, incompetence at communication, and nationalism form a demonic combination
[18] I get a sense of "if I'm going down I'm taking you with me" here. 5. In the workshop, the editors were lobbying to have my conduct examined more fully. I would still welcome that. 6. This was never an arbcom case, there had been no previous attempt at long term solutions. I can only note my bitter disappointment that arbcom would punish one group of violators while allowing another group of violators to go free without even a token slap or even have their conduct examined at all. Particularly an editor who apparently delights in teasing and tormenting those with temporary mental problems. I've seen this editor hounding people for years and I can't believe he is going to get away with it again. The solution you're proposing might reduce conflict, well if you ban only one side then what's left can violently agree on skewing the POV of the article. What it isn't is a long term solution, I did propose something like this some time ago [20], it would be more workable. Justin talk 09:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)Reply The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)
The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. 139.181.0.34You made a comment to 139.181.0.34 regarding inappropriate links. Sorry, but it wasn't me. I never post anon. I always use my user ID. Mediasponge (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Reply Bachir AttarHello, FYI I have reverted a series of edits to Bachir Attar that were made by a new user, [[::User:Bachir Attar|Bachir Attar]] (talk · contribs). Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply "Jewish Internet Defense Force"Hi Fayssal - just thought you might want to see this - 1. You've got some Jewish internet organisation after you Mar4d (talk) 12:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)
The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Fair use rationale for File:Cantonporcelain.jpg Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Cantonporcelain.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 uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)Reply The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)Reply Tenmei's violation of ArbCom conditionsBy ArbCom's ruling, I believe User:Tenmei is instructed not to interact with me, but he has done so here 1 and 2. I hope this issue can be remedied soon. In case you forgot what case this is about, link is here: 3.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)Reply Moroccan Spoken ArabicHey Fayssal. It's been a while since we met in Buenos Aires. I still have many happy thoughts about us meeting. I would like to ask you to contribute your thoughts to a discussion at translatewiki.net. Much appreciated. Siebrand (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)Reply Renaming Allaroundamazingbarnstar3.png to Allaroundamazingbarnstar.pngMy apologizes for the disruption of editing your user space. The Allaroundamazingbarnstar3.png is being deleted in favor for its Commons equivalent. I had to edit your user pages to ensure that you weren't affected. --AllyUnion (talk) 22:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)Reply The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)Reply The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIV (August 2010)
The Milhist election has started!The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010. With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team, Roger Davies talk 21:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Reply NotificationPlease see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Koavf. This request was initiated by Koavf, but as far as his contributions show, he didn't notify any user...so I'm notifying you because you participated in the discussion that led to the community sanction. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)
Rogue administratorsI am writing because one or more admins are blocking accounts from users who happen not to agree with them. My crime was to post these comments. I will leave it to you to decide whether or not the charges are valid. My attempts to complain have also been blocked. Attempts to contact you by email and phone also failed. I had to change my IP address in order to be able to contact you. I suspect a very large number of users have similarly been falsely accused and have been unable to contact you because they did not know how to alter their IP address. Alternate user name (talk) 00:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)Reply Hello. A group of us are trying to clear the backlog at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_lacking_sources_from_October_2006. The page of the above name is one of the several thousand articles lacking Sources that were tagged in October 2006. Can you help in finding good Sources for the facts in the article? Unless there is a good source offered, the article will be proposed for deletion. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)Reply Hello. A group of us are trying to clear the backlog at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_lacking_sources_from_October_2006. The page of the above name is one of the several thousand articles lacking Sources that were tagged in October 2006. Can you help in finding good Sources for the facts in the article? Unless there is a good source offered, the article will be proposed for deletion. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Reply WP:CHECK requestUser:Kaverijha16 seems to be the same person as the blocked editor User:6feetheight, along with anons User:61.2.209.68 and User:61.2.209.94. Similar edit pattern and edit summary, as well as overlapping interests, are somewhat suspicious. Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)Reply The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010
Because you commented at AN/IYou wrote here So please see here. I would really like to get this resolved. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Reply The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010
Bokpasa is back :DHello, I'll let you know that Bokpasa is back on En.WP and that he started (again) to make major edits on some articles related to Morocco,,, however, this time, he has an ally :D (see: [21][22]).
Regards, Dear Faysal, i was wondering if you could help me regarding the page: smart village, its a notable area in egypt and i wanted to create a page regarding it from an informative perspective, an encyclopedic article that is —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.196.29.214 (talk) 12:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply MfD nomination of Template:User WikiProject Algeria1Template:User WikiProject Algeria1, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User WikiProject Algeria1 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Template:User WikiProject Algeria1 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Mhiji (talk) 00:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)Reply The article La Mañana (Morocco) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
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
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing Happy new yearHappy new year bro !! Best wishes for 2011 --Morisco (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Reply |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
