User talk:FayssalF/Archive V

Governorates of Egypt

Salut FayssalF! I have a problem with User:Rarelibra concerning the page Governorates of Egypt. I know you have excellent conflict resolution skills, so you may be able to help with that, if you have time of course. Alf shokr et mille merci en avance :) --Lanternix 16:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:LAME. I've left a note at the article talk page. Please stop edit warring. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the intervention. The crux of my edit is that Lanternix is not considering that many users have lower resolution screens, and the size he was attempting was way too big and would jumble the table/text on lower resolution screens. All comments aside, the current setting is a happy medium. Thanks again. Rarelibra 17:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to reiterate my gratitude for your intervention FayssalF. Thanks. --Lanternix 18:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys for your understandings. I should also tahnk you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Happy editing. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Salifkeita.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Salifkeita.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 22:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Mandc.gif

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Mandc.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 03:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Lequipelogo.gif

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Lequipelogo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 04:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Block

Can you block the vandal that made this page? [1] Prester John 04:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Page deleted. Vandal blocked indef. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:SHGb02-14a.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:SHGb02-14a.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 09:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It can't be fixed my dear friend's bot. It just should be removed. I can't give you any more barnstar as you already got one from me. Enjoy botting. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Deir Yassin massacre

Hi Fayssal!! Are you as an admin empowered to unprotect the above? It needs wikifying - and other work too. Important article. Cheers. Itsmejudith 10:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Judith. Yes i am but it is good practice to contact the admin who protected the article. He's is the one who can better decide if all disputes have been solved at the talk page. If not the second option would be WP:RFPP. Regards. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I did do that and am waiting for a reply from him. Itsmejudith 07:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

RfC

Yes, I noticed it. I guess that his clarifications regarding the issue was what was needed, and that this should solve the dispute and settle the matter. -- Karl Meier 17:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That's correct. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Requesting block for Kirbytime's sockpuppet

I was going to post it to ANI but then I thought it would be nice if you could make this block. Checkuser for Kirbytime (talk · contribs · block log) has confirmed that 0rrAvenger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a sock puppet of Kirbytime, who as you know was blocked indef on May 15 for trolling. thanks, --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I see another admin made the block already. Thanks, --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

re William WallaceStar

Thank you. I honestly do not understand what message, if any, that this figure might be attempting to convey, but I thank you for the thought... ;~) LessHeard vanU 19:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hehehehe. It was just a random pic of mine as i couldn't find an approp barnstar for your pacific stance. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your unbiased view

I knew when you put your neck out and made the controversal decision in the ANI, that by following the wiki process, your position will be vindicated. See here for the next stage in the process. Thank you very much. Taprobanus 15:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I see that enough people are being involved in the discussion now; which is a positive thing. Having only the concerned parties in a discussion rarely lead to a settlement. Non-involved parties just add what is needed. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

M.V.E.i.

Please note that I asked not to make a rushed decision, and to allow time for consensus to build. The twenty minutes you waited before announcing you were going to unblock in 15 minutes is not what I was thinking. Please allow a little more time, I want to see a consensus to reduce the length of the block, not you and Nick. As the user will remain blocked either way, waiting a few hours will make no difference. Neil ╦ 17:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure Neil. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply.

Thank you for notifying me that the administrators were confused about my multiple accounts, and a misunderstanding that I am impersonating User: Odst. I left a message of explanation on the page that you told me to post on. So, again, thank you very much. (But, why did you move my two wikiproject template on the top of my talk page? Even though you might have thought that they were all for articles, one of them, the French wp one, was for the user. I am not trying to be mean, but, please do not change things on my user/talk page. The reason why I changed some things on Odst's page was because I got a permission from him. If you do not believe me, then you may ask me for proof).

I was just explaning things, so please, understand me. Thank you very much. Amphitere 20:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)f

Fayssal my friend ,

A group of IP addresses have taken a special interest at my user page. They all love to vandal my user page with nonsense. I have waited believing this non sense will come to end soon, but it seems it wont. Fayssal, could you please do something regarding this matter. These IP's could either belong to a University or to a group of proxies. And I have that noticed some of are even black listed.Your help is appreciated here. Thanks in advance.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 14:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Your comment on my talk page defending an editor who fraudulently used name of another person

Here is what you wrote on my talk page: Please once you are back, do not post any comments about the person qualifications like you did here. He doesn't have to prove that to anyone and therefore you don't have to question them as it is considered harassment. Thanks you. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I find it amazing that asking for degree verification is offensive. Please read this article by Jimbo Wales. I'm simply repeating Jimbo's concerns [2] . Particularly in this case where editor Jrod2 is known to fraudulently use another person's name it is only natural that one may doubt credibility of any statement made by this editor specially any advanced degree programs. Only after he was exposed, he admitted to using a sock puppet and a name of living person. Furthermore lack of technical knowledge exhibited by this editor and extreme bias in editing articles makes me question his credentials even more . But if admins prefer to have another editor with fake credentials editing wikipedia then I have nothing more to say except that this will most likely lead to another scandal for wikipedia. And if you defend an editor who is using fake degrees then you are only complicit with this situation. --VinylJoe 23:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

VinylJoe, your concern on my past situation with my other user name Evinatea is none of your business. I never committed "fraud" nor spam or used sock puppets. A sock puppet is an account that you use to create on your favor, a greater consensus than you actually have. I never did that, but you did. So STOP. I simply made the mistake of contributing to an article and using the name of the engineer for verification. Later, I found out that you don't sign articles with the name of the person and certainly one should not include the place or studio where he works. To aggravate the situation, I also left the user name I created which was intentionally like the engineer's name. That tells you 2 things" One, that I didn't know the rules or procedures, and second, that I wanted that engineer's name mentioned on that article as a verifiable source. Yes, I didn't have his permission to use that information, but he had given that information away years ago to his clients on newsletters and it's not like I used it and put my own name on it. I didn't need his permission (I thought) as long as I mentioned him. I know this engineer and he understands why I did this and he has already forgiven me. But you, a total nobody, is using this simply to harass me. Also, I stopped using that user name in order to start clean again and I was never "forced", as you said, to reveal my real name OK? It was voluntary. So, the intention was not to defraud this engineer, but to contribute to Wikipedia and give the credit that was due to the author of the text. In essence, not very different from what you are doing right now with "Bob Ludwig" and "Gateway Mastering" at WP. The difference is that you know that you can't say that, you either work with him, for him or worse, that you are HIM. But in my case, you conveniently prefer to see it as "I stole the engineer's identity". Others accused me of "spam", just like you did too. In theory, I must be trust worthy because I am still here and you wouldn't have known anything about my connection to the engineer have you not read my disclaimer on my user page, right?. So, why didn't you read the whole thing? That's because you are: 1) a bad faith editor who thinks of himself as having "technical knowledge" , then asks me to verify my degree because I deleted information that in your delusional view you consider "highly technical". There is nothing highly technical about it and in effect, it's more like an ad for "Gateway Mastering". 2) You are sock puppeteer, and thus the reason you were BLOCKED. BTW, leave user FayssalF alone, he is not the one who blocked you. My apologies to you FayssalF, because by defending me, you brought upon yourself someone who is now harassing you and should have been blocked indefinitely. Jrod2 20:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Tablighi_Jamaat#Allegations_of_Violence_and_Islamic_Extremism

Dear FayssalF,

The above section of the article has some exceptional claims which are not cited. Some editors insist that the section stays though non of the claims there have been proved with reliable sources. The contents of the section to me looks more like mere speculation. Could you please look into this matter. thanks in advance NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 11:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Its sorted out the editor has agreed and provided citations and has removed uncited claims. NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 16:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not sorted out, to my satisfaction. I told User:Netmonger that even their best friends would counsel them not to claim authority under WP:VER for the removal of the link to the article Tablighi Jamaat and allegations of terrorism, which is an extremely well-referenced article. And I urged them to curb their predilection to level poorly researched and inappropriate accusations. I found User:Netmonger gave the appearance of an alarmingly unwillingness to consider the possibility that they might have made a mistake.

The reason I am not satisfied is that I thought it was likely that User:Netmonger was going to ignore my well-intentioned advice. And their comment here strengthens that impression.

Cheers! Geo Swan 19:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all my apologize to Fayssal for dragging you into this, I've made my final comment on the matter here, and don't want waste everyones time with this anymore. It's sorted to the satisfaction of wikipedia policies and guidelines thats all that matters. NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 13:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Film lists

Hi Fayssal how are you these days?. Hey I'm getting there slowly on the lists - I can't solely concentrate on them but I work better if I do them gradually. See List of British films, List of Italian films List of Argentine films, List of Bollywood films for development and also I have just begun List of American films - the biggest task of them all. The naviagation box looks global now most of the lists created by me. The next task will be to add bulk them all out with all the missing films and then add the entirety of articles on films and actors!!!:

Débordé

Fayssal me parait débordé par bien des sujets sensibles en ce moment il à du prendre un peu de distance et de reposTostempscurios 17:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah non! Pas du tout Jean-Claude! Je suis en congé en... Floride?! Ouais, c'est bien ça. Et toi, ça va? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

C'est bien ce que je disais du repos sous les palmiers ou sur Miami beach avenue !! mois ca va je suis a la retraite et en vacances tous les jours.. Bonnes vacances

Tostempscurios 20:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Lisez a l'occasion cette page, parmi bien d'autres : Cornered

http://www.kuna.net.kw/NewsAgenciesPublicSite/ArticlePrintPage.aspx?id=1757558&language=en

et demandons un don pour Wikipedia !Tostempscurios 21:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Fatimah Zahra

Salam. Please pay attention to this article. It may be POV. Unfortunately I'm almost sure that a wikipedian thinks he is the owner of the article.[3]. I put comments in his talk page but I don't have enough time to discuss with him. God bless you.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Invitation

Would like to join us on Arabic wikipedia . We have a lack of very important articles and of serious contributors and I think that your experience on wp:en can help us a lot to make wp:ar better . Sorry for my English and if you can pass this message to any interested contributors i would be very grateful .ar:user:Omar86

Invitation

Would like to know whether you care to comment on here as to whether the source Tamilnet violates WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Thanks Taprobanus 17:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Omar Hayssam

Greetings. I've asked Anas Salloum for his opinion on this article; he said you could also provide one. May I ask, then: how do you see the issue? Thanks for your help. Biruitorul 22:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Khaldun.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Khaldun.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, then 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, then 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: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 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 15:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. OsamaK 15:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note about admin coaching

Hi FayssalF,
Thanks for the good advice about the division of article space from wikispace and about familiarizing myself with the former--I'm writing to check in with you because I've learned a bunch about both spaces in the past few weeks and I'd like to know how you think I should proceed. Like I say, my goal is not necessarily to become an administrator, but to become the most productive member of the community that I can. What do you think? I sure appreciate your time and consideration.
warm regards,
Cyrusc 02:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Cyrusc. I've had a look this time to your contribs details and noticed the progress made. I've also had a look particularly at your contributions to the environment project. Good job.

Ok. Now, and since you get yourself a bit familiarized w/ the wikispace i think it is time to move on to the next stage.

The first thing to do before anything else now is to read and understand Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. If you find anything confusing, please ask me. I say this because the way admins intreprete some policies and guidelines differ from an admin to another. Some admins are rouge (like myself? ;)), others are more patient. You can also check Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list.

Please note that administrators main task is to resolve conflicts between editors. So in order to achieve that, i suppose all admins have the WP:ANI watchlisted. The ANI page is the cnsidered the most active page in the whole project. So it is essential for you now to start watching it as well and understand how admins deal w/ the different reports. You may also think about starting participating in the ANI page by suggesting remedies or advising/counseling. Many non-admins do that in fact.

There are of course other tasks which admins take care of (closing AfDs, protecting/unprotecting articles, deleting innapropriate pages according to WP:SPEEDY, etc)

These are the important Wikispace pages that you MUST participate at to get more experienced about the admin tasks.

• WP:RFPP (observe how admins decide to accept a request or reject it)
• WP:AIV (observe how admins decide about the durations of blocks)
• WP:AFD (observe how admins close a debate)

I think this will be enough for this stage. Please do not hesitate to contact me anytime. Good luck. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleting a page

Hi Faysal, u have crated a page "Shrug people" and got information from some people who said to "Know" something but according to sonme members and myself i would say Hoax, so i am asking you to delete it. thanbksBalu2000 11:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You mean you have created it instead :) Well, i'll nominate it for AfD instead. That way it will be more formal. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Faysal Mate

Can you help out on the Maghrebine pages and this bizarre edit war set off by Mariam83? As I noted in comments, I don't even necessarily disagree with some (even a good many) of her edits, but the wholesale vandalistic editing with refusal to discuss at all is bloody stunning. Also rather disturbing is the editing on the African connexion angle, mate, as well as her comments on pages re 3bid, quite racialistic. Best collounsbury 14:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC).

I'll do my best asap. No worries. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Military

Hi Fayssal. Okay, I'll have a little think ...  ← Roger →  ^TALK 15:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Roger. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten and I have started working on it. Too many distractions at the moment. I'll deal with it before the weekend is over. Thank you for not nagging. ROGER ^TALK 15:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes I have Created it im so sorry, is it any possible for you to delete it? thanksBalu2000 19:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:SHGb02-14a.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:SHGb02-14a.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

advice about task force

Hi FayssalF,

Thank you for the excellent advice about admin culture. I have duly watchlisted WP:ANI, WP:RFPP, WP:AFD, and WP:AIV; I look forward to learning enough about these processes to participate in them actively.

I am writing you today because you are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics. I have an idea for a task force which I began working on yesterday. Here is the page where I have been organizing my thoughts: Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics/money and politics task force.

To my chagrin, I have just learned that I probably should have gathered consensus from WP:PJ Politics members before starting a page. My question for you is, how should I proceed with my idea for the task force? I am confident that members of the Politics project would support it, provided that I sought that support tactfully.

Thank you again for your help,

Cyrusc 02:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Cyrusc. It happens and you don't have to worry about it. You are learning and as long as you agree that you have done it in a rush w/o consulting anybody then there's nothing to worry about.

Well, instead of explaining to you the process, i suggest you have a look at how we proceeded when we first wanted to create:

• Proposals for new task forces
• Proposal for creating the Ottoman task force
• African military history task force -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks FayssalF,

I posted my proposal on what I hope is the right talk page. Cyrusc 23:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Assistance / Advice on the Mariam83 person

Mate, I really don't know what the best approach here is. As Admin perhaps you can direct me to the proper channels. Aside from inundating my formerly peaceful talk pages, she/he/it is going back to the same hectoring editing her/his/its peculiar views are the facts etc. as before. I can either give up, or .... what? Don't particularly want my entire talk page being filled with this. collounsbury 18:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Arabic numerals

Hello Fayssalf In this page Wikimediaand elsewhere, User try to impose that the Arab numerals are Indian figures without any clear obviousness or only one manuscript, each stating only. All that I request is that all the voices are heard.--Manssour 09:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Maghreb

I think it is time you unlocked the Maghreb page, as it contains some false information that needs to be removed/edited. You are also in dire need of a history lesson. I urge you to learn more about the region from which you come. As far as I know, Morocco is not part of the United Nations of the African Jungle, and Maghreb explicitly means, nations bordering the Mediterranean or Red Sea. If as an admin the content does not interest you, then perhaps you should not lock pages at the request of contributors whose intent it is to distort content! Thank you Mariam83 16:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Again and again, you seem you haven't learned anything about how wikipedia works. Your rants are still being the rule instead of an exception. Admins lock pages when a "cool down" period to stop an edit war is needed. Read well Wikipedia:Protection policy. On the other hand, protection expires automatically as noted in the edit summary here.

As for you urging me to read about the history of the Maghreb, i find it weird since neither a researcher nor any concerned party contacted me before you. So i'd assume you are kidding. You stop your harassment, ranting, insulting, racist remarks toward African users, legal threats, accusing admins or else you'd be out of this place as per our multiple policies and guidelines. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Well Well look what the trace brought up, the same issues we are having with Mariam83, i suggest some sort of action is required.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 19:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

ad

This WP:MILHIST ad created by User:Miranda. :⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Next Step

In the ANI, you suggested a way forward. I want to know exactly about what ? Is it about content dispute or source dispute that we should take to the next step? I have been following the wiki process about the RS status of Tamilnet. We talked about in ANI, took it to WP:RS talk page received neutral opinion then took it to number of talk pages, especially Sarathambal and Ilayathambi Tharsini pages as our test cases. One is protected for a month with way forward that noone has contested and another is just undergone major editing with invitation out for the "warriors" to participate. Looks like one has responded. In my opinion, only if these efforts fail should we take it to the next level ? Just my opinion. Thanks Taprobanus 19:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Request your advice about Angelo Victor Mercure

Hi FayssalF,

I was just granted adminship this morning. Thank you for serving as my admin coach and providing advice when I needed it.

I hope I can still come to you from time to time when I need advice. I may need it more often in these first days as an admin as I learn how to make admin decisions.

For instance, I am looking at a CSD for Angelo Victor Mercure which asserts that it is a copyvio. And it is... However, User:Angelomercure has asserted that the material is his and that he is the one uploading it. If we don't consider Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, we could just ask Angelo to slap the appropriate copyleft free license on the material and be done with it.

However, on reviewing the material in the article, I'm not sure that Mr. Mercure is notable and thus I think the article qualifies under A7 instead of G12.

Should I just go ahead and delete it, explaining my reasoning and leaving a note for Mr. Mercure on his Talk Page?

Or, do you have a different suggestion?

Thanx.

--Richard 06:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I just got my answer. User:Seraphimblade deleted the article citing the additional CSD criteria that I mentioned above. I'm just being a little cautious as I start carrying out admin duties. Better safe than sorry, eh?

--Richard 07:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar...

Thank you very much for the barnstar Fayssal. Lysandros 13:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You have mail. Best, — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 15:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Nick. i'll read it asap. Hope you are doing fine mate. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Reverting

You didn't make an "argument" either. If you have no idea whether or not the categories should be included, then you should investigate, not revert. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't used an argument because it was up to you to use it. That was my point. Now:

• You are confusing "Western Sahara" (a region) with the gov't in exile "Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic".
• Western Sahara has Spanish speaking towns - wrong. Do you have any source? You mean that Tetouan (the former capital of Spanish Morocco) is a spanish speaking town as well?
• Under occupation - That i am not sure about. It is up to you and the other co-editors. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

1. See this map: [[4]]
2. Spanish_language#Africa
3. Then you shouldn't revert. 16:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Again. You were editing Western Sahara article and not the the SADR article. It is just like confusing Palestine and the PNA.

The refs mentioned in Spanish_language#Africa are a spam article and the CIA factbook which says nothing. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not a spam article. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Also see this map; click on number 38, or run your cursor over the territory. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not a spam article. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

And this as well http://www.wsahara.net/people.html. Let me tell you that most Saharawis speak Spanish the same way i do in the northern part of Morocco. Meaning that we lived under Spanish protectorate/occupation for some time. That's all the story. As for the map Jay, i lready explained to you the point. Western Sahara is a territory. It is SADR which is a member of the AU. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources say that they are Spanish speaking; that's really all there is to say on the matter. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jay. By now it is obvious that there was a confusion between Western Sahara as a disputed territory, and the SADR (Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic), the self-declared government-in-exile of the Polisario front, which is a member of the AU. As to the language, the population is Arabic speaking the Hassanya dialect. Spanish might be more or less understood by over 40 years aged. Nowadays French is the first foreign language, as in the rest of Morocco. When we come to the third point, occupied or disputed, you said that all occupied territories are disputed. That is true, but the opposite is not true; a disputed territory is claimed by two or more parties where in the end it will either belong to one party or a sort of compromise is reached between the parties on how the solution would be. If you say that Morocco is occupying Western Sahara, then why was the UN calling for a referendum where one of the options is integration with Morocco? would not that be approving occupation?. As of June 2007, the UN is holding direct talks between Morocco and the Polisario to look for a solution to the disputed territory. As a last word, I find no better proof that WS is not occupied than your own statement:" By definition a territory can only be militarily occupied if it has not been annexed. Once it is annexed, it is no longer militarily occupied.". Morocco has annexed WS in the seventies and the "Southern provinces" are part of Morocco's geographical, political, economical, cultural,... reality. I hope this point is now also clarified.--A Jalil 21:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Classification system

OK. I'll organize my thoughts and post them to explain myself. It will take a day or two, as it seems to be a rather complex situaion. Richiar 18:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hi FayssalF. Thank you for your support and kind words in my RfA, which passed with 95 support, 1 oppose, and 1 neutral !votes. It means a lot to me to have your individual support and the collective support of so many others. I truly will strive to carry myself at a level representing the trust bestowed in me as I use the mop to address the never-ending drips of discontent in need of caretaker assistance. Jreferee (Talk) 08:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Aisha

Hi Fayssal,

If you could help in this dispute of mine with Arrow and Proab [5], I would be thankful (of course if you have time :) ).

As usual, we have a source and it says something, but Arrow and Proab oppose adding the material to wikipedia. --Aminz 08:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please.

Aminz, please stop adding your sig to mainspace.[6]Proabivouac 08:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

That was a mistake and thanks for removing it. But this doesn't have anything to do with the dispute and I don't know why you brought it up in relation to this dispute. --Aminz 08:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Even Watt says she was 9. Every serious scholar says that. You find a feminist author making vague statements about "some Muslims" and think it belongs in an encyclopedia? It doesn't. Arrow740 08:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Fayssal, please follow the discussion at Tom harrison's page. I've responded there. --Aminz 08:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Forget serious scholars, every primary source is in total agreement. Even were it untrue, upon what basis would scholars disagree? Even Aminz' source doesn't say she wasn't, only that some unspecified Muslims think she wasn't based on some arcane calculation. The primarly arena of dispute has been Wikipedia itself, and its time to put it to rest. We must also keep irrelevant "pedophile" charges out of mainspace. All this merits a grand total of one declarative sentence.Proabivouac 09:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

We are not supposed to judge what those Muslims think is true or not. We have to report the range of views. The arguments of those who believe otherwise is mentioned in the quote and it is not up to you to decide whether they think right or wrong. To refute the quote because those Muslims are unspecified (i.e. Asma hasn't listed their names) is amazing. --Aminz 09:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

We do have some standards here. Arrow740 09:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW, if you can find reliable sources for "pedophile" charges (which you can not find), you can add it. --Aminz 09:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Greetings

I see you visited my talk page. Something about my patience. I'm not sure which article you're referring to, but thanks. Peace. :) deeceevoice 17:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Hi Crum. Hope you are doing great. Could you please guide me to a report about blocking indef the above user? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi FayssalF, User:Wassermann keeps editing despite his indefinite block, creating serious disruption by the combined set of his socks. For general history, see here. For more recent complaints (mostly using anon IPs in violation of his block), see here. After originally being blocked for incivility and personal attacks, he keeps evading his blocks with multiple IPs, totally refusing to accept responsibility. Crum375 13:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for replying Crum. I've seen and noted most of the controversial aspects of this issue. I just consider an indef block to be too harsh for such an established user. He's got many good edits. Blocking someone indef after his first block is not recommended, unless it is vandalism or repeated bad offenses. I've seen worse cases (Gone even thru ArbCom and User:Mike18xx cases) where both users are still editing. Please reconsider shortening your block. I hope you'd not mind if we discuss a block review at the AN/I to see what other admins think about. Thanks again Crum. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

We've already had several ANI reports on him - if you'd like to start a new one, that's fine by me. Crum375 14:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I saw two reports on him. But this is about an indef block review. Thanks for your understanding. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

He is still in indef block. He was offered numerous chances to show he understands and accepts our rules (see here and here). Instead, he keeps editing from anon IPs, ignoring the block, claiming we "can't stop him from improving the encyclopedia". He was told that each block evasion resets the block duration, but he just ignores us. Crum375 14:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes but the point is that block evasion doesn't warrant an automaticat indef block. In cases of block evasion, i usually block the IP for a long time or indef the sockpuppet account while extending the block for the main account (like doubling the period of block). It is just that the policy doesn't warrant an indef. 2 weeks or 1 month would have been fine. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of the policies. See also here. The point is that he was (last) blocked for a week, with the hope that he would agree to follow the rules. instead, he keeps evading the block with socks, editing the same topics with the same general pattern, claiming we can't stop him. So his block was extended indefinitely pending his acceptance of the rules, de facto and de jure. He is still ignoring the rules by evading his block on a daily basis. Crum375 14:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

:) Yes but going from 1 week to indef is a bit harsh Crum. I am not questioning your block (which is legitimate) but the duration is inadequate and too harsh. We won't lose anything if we'd try to get other admins' view anyway. Cheers. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I think you are missing the point, Fayssal. He is blocked indefinitely pending clarification. This means that his block can be reviewed and reduced at any time, if he demonstrates understanding, acceptance and compliance with the rules. As of now, he has never abided by any block - he keeps editing and ignoring the blocks. If we gave him a 2 week extension or a 2 year extension it wouldn't matter - he keeps editing the same general topics immediately with anon IPs, claiming we can't stop him. So the point is not block duration - it is the fact that he ignores and refuses to accept any block of any length. Crum375 14:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I wish i could have been a real Rouge admin ;) I am on that list but not sure if i am rouge enough. I totally agree that the user needs some type of rehabilitation as he is not a vandal or a high profile POV pusher. There are hundreds of users who act like him but we rehabilitate them instead. It takes time and patience but what to do! The transition from 1 week to indef seems punitive and not corrective. Sockpuppeting would not stop w/ indef blocks but may stop w/ a corrective block. I still think getting other admins' feedback would be helpful. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no 'punitive' aspect at all to the 'indefinite pending clarification' block - it is simply a holding action pending his understanding, acceptance of and compliance with the rules. Once he gets to that point, his block can be reduced, he can show he can actually comply with a block for a change, and he can be given a chance to demonstrate his new behavior. Unfortunately, up to now he has totally ignored the rules, editing by anon IPs almost immediately. Other admins are of course more than welcome to review this case. Crum375 15:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't punitive at all as i know very well your good faith intentions Crum. It just has the punitive characteristics due to the lenght of the block. I am not questioning your block action at all as your admin actions are always respected (at least from my part as a co-admin). We are not sure that if we reduce his block he would stop the block evasion attitude but why not give it a try Crum? I've just started a thread at the ANI as most of the indef blocks are reported and reviewed there. Cheers. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind remarks, Fayssal. I would support an immediate unblocking if I were convinced he was totally rehabilitated and would not regress to his old abusive editing pattern. So as I mentioned above, the current block duration is immaterial - I'd like to see him respect any block - up to now he just ignores them all and keeps on editing the same general topics. I tried to explain that to him, e.g. here, to no avail. He feels he has a god-given right to edit here, come hell or high water, and 'improve the encyclopedia'. Any editor or admin who stands in his way is just obstructing his important mission. Anyway, if there is a way to rehabilitate this person, I am all for it. I must say that my own optimism on ever being able to achieve that is waning. Crum375 16:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for you as well. Well, i have just left a note at his talkpage. Let's what would be his reaction before taking any action for now. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA. It was successful, and I am now, may God have mercy on us all, an administrator. Look at all the new buttons! I had heard about 'protect,' 'block user,' and 'delete,' but no one told me about 'kill,' 'eject,' and 'purée.' I appreciate the trust the community has in me, and I'll try hard not to delete the main page or block Jimbo. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

My recent RfB

Thank you so much for your participation in my recent RfB. Though it closed with 72% support (below the required 90%), I'm still quite pleased at the outpouring of support shown by a fair percentage of the community.

I'm currently tabulating and calculating all opposing and neutral arguments to help me better address the community's concerns about my abilities as a bureaucrat. If you'd like, you can follow my progress (and/or provide additional suggestions) at User:EVula/admin/RfB notes. Thanks again!

However, I'll have to pass on the Senator bit; I'm quite content with just being an admin and 'crat. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Rktect

Hi Fayssal,

There is a fuller discussion here, though it got somewhat buried under God. Tewfik^Talk 18:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tewfik. Thanks for your message. Yes, i indeed participated at that thread ;) Still, my comments at the new thread still makes a lot of sense. Reverting edits as OR is just a poor way (especially when the edits are backed by references) when the talk page is open to everybody. I won't discuss the weight of sources but i mainly point out to the reverting w/o discussion behaviour. The thing i appreciate in you is that you are one of the editors who are keen to explain their actions to others. This is the thing Beit_Or should have done. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey

Hi Fayssal,

There's currently a rv war going on here about the inclusion of content suggesting a genocide of Kurds in Turkey. I've been arguing it's undue weight and does not deserve a place in the article, i'd appreciate some fresh input. Thanks, --A.Garnet 11:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fayssal, Nikosilver keep making exact same edits over and over again.. He changed your version again to his POV pushing one..Can you check the article again please..--laertes d 21:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello again,

Firstly, I appreciate your prompt involvement, but I have a problem with dedicating a section to Fernandes and that is this: What makes this scholars view so notable, or make him such an authority that his view deserves more coverage than say Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch? This is why I have justified the removal of the genocide section on the basis of undue weight - this is one scholars view with little academic coverage or other support. As I have said, I do not oppose reference to Fernandes and his view of culutral genocide, but it must be made in the correct context, and that for me is "cultural assimilation" which is a far more prominent subject when discussing Kurds in Turkey.

I know these disputes are tiring for admins, two have already ignored my requests to intervene, but I really would appreciate your continued involvement here. Cheers, --A.Garnet 09:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Need help.

Salam friend , i've been discussing some facts on Battle of Khafji , and it seems to me that someone trying to Americanize the event by removing sourced information , and according his other addition to un-related materials , he have reached the 3RR also i think , and you as an adminstrator and friend i request you to take a look to the recent changes. thanks . Ammar (^Talk - ^{Don't Talk}) 16:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Wassermann

may i know the reason why did you blocked this user? thanks, Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) 10:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Watchlists

Salam. There are some watchlists in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam#Task forces. Can you please pay attention to them to prevent vandalism, 3rr and other WP sins. Thanks a lot.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 06:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Muslim military history & Iranian military history

Salam. Can we made a new task force in Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history which includes Ghazwat, Muslim conquests and Civil Wars of the Early Caliphates . --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 13:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

What about Iranian military history--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 14:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi sa. Your idea is being discussed at the wikiproject talk page. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Rex Germanus

Did you not noticed there are 2 cases against him? Kingjeff 04:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes i did. Please do not escalate matters further. It is his time to argue and explain what's going on. I can't do any action now. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It might not be going that much further since I might be going to community sanction place to get him a community ban. Kingjeff 04:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

As you see it. I personally believe he still has to say his word. If it convinces admins and/or it is w/in policy then no problem. If not then he will be blocked w/ a community ban or not. I just would like to see you calming down as it is not helpful for admins. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen his record since he's been on probation? Kingjeff 04:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Kingjeff :) I've seen that as well. Just be patient. If he is going to be blocked he will, if not he won't. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Iranian peoples

Could you please also explain to the people on talk of this article that they should not attack other editors on the grounds of their nationality and assume good faith? It is sad to see the FA article ruined by POV edits, but I really don't see what can be done to stop it. Any attempts to present a different opinion result in accusations of anti-Iranism or pan-Turkism. Grandmaster 06:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:SSP

FayssalF, someone with the block button needs to apply the duck test to this page, for example this report. These kinds of games make a collective fool of us.Proabivouac 09:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pro. I had asked you before if you would like to get the firing tools (kidding) ;) Well, all i had to do for now is to post this issue again at the ANI for more feedback. We can be patient and see. No rush for now. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Good-natured advice?

Fayssal, I'm less than impressed with your (apparently good-natured) advices on WP:ANI. "Don't feed the trolls" is a basic policy that we are required to follow if we don't want the noticeboard to degenerate to the level of a trivial trollfest. I have not seen an editor in good standing converse with Digwuren for a very long time. The Tartu accounts actually attempted to bring their crusade against Petri Krohn to RfC, there was immense amount of cheap accusations and hate talk, but after several days it resulted in this. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

And by "editor in good standing", you mean Ghirlandajo? Digwuren 12:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Mariam

I added some info to Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mariam83. Feel free to add/change/delete as you see fit. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 15:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, someone must really loathe you. —Anas ^talk? 15:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Aren't you aware of this? ;) -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

re:user:wassermann

i am extremely sorry, i followed up the wrong link. Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) 15:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No worries mate. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Jerryseinfeld

please don't mind but i think that this user was one of the most prolific users on wikipedia. no body suggested him to change his username. can you kindly unblock him and suggest him to change his username. Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) 15:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

now you are crossing limits!

hey hey hey, i don't know if it was you but from an IP that was probably yours, i recieved a message. you are an admin and now you are crossing your limits and misusing your power though you are not logged in. Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) 15:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

oh oh i am sorry! Sushant gupta 15:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Muslim history task force

Salam again. I've made a new task force(Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Muslim history task force) in WikiProject Islam and I invite you to participate in it because you active in relevant articles like Muslim history. God bless you.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Morocco Topography.png|thumb|left|300px|Topography of Morocco

What the problem with

Topography of Morocco

? I don't find anything about it at the talk page! The problem gone from the dispute border or what? --Beyond silence 08:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Beyond silence. The issue of the maps has been discussed for a long time as you may have noted in the talk page and its archive. There was a concensus reached that the main map has to be [Image:LocationMorocco striped.png] while having [Image:3 maps morocco.PNG] in the "Administrative divisions" section. That was a middle ground for all parties who participated at the debate.

Now, we can use another image [Image:Modis morocco lrg.jpg] in the "Geography" section instead of the one we are talking about. Thanks for your understanding. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Your Request

I will look into it and take care of it! Arbiteroftruth 14:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I have sent an e-mail to AT&T (which controls SBC) on the issue at hand. I haven't heard back from them yet, and I don't know if I will. But I have sent them an e-mail! Arbiteroftruth 15:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: List_of_Freemasons#S

Thanks for the reminder, bro. Please see my latest proposal at Talk:List_of_Freemasons. Before I came there was completely no information about Smith. Then I added that he was the first Prophet of the Mormon religion and founder of the Latter Day Saint movement. I also gave the information that he was registrar of deeds, country court judge and mayor. This bullyish gang of self-proclaimed freemasons, instead of thanking me for the information, deleted an entire line of what I posted without any discussion or notification. And that is why I vandal tagged the editor the first time. Before I stumbled on the article there was absolutely nothing there on Smith, it appears as if they prefer placing his name there without any reason than citing something that he did to support notability. Now, they have retained half of my entry, saying that he was a religious leader, but he was also a political leader and they refuse to include that part of his personality there. Of course it made me fuming mad. - Watchtower Sentinel 17:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

And now we have accusations of meatpuppetry. MSJapan 18:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

While I don't appreciate his continued antagonism and accusations... I can let it pass since we seem to have reached agreement (or at least a solution) on the list article in question. Blueboar 19:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see the original ANI thread. some interesting material is there, and for the record, I think you're cutting Watchtower way too much slack based on the prior behavioral pattern I've found through WS's contribs. Encyclopedic or not, "newbie" or not, there is simply no excuse to do what he is doing to the degree he is doing it simply for one line in an article. MSJapan 21:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Fayssal, I think this to be a clear enough violation of NPA, especially when aimed at you. I'll go tag this up on ANI, and that should do it. MSJapan 21:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again Fayssal... and thanks for your note on my talk page. It is nice to know that attempting to be civil and calm was appreciated by someone.  :>) Blueboar 22:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

RFC on Petri Krohn

Yesterday on AN/I, in a thread that has by now been archived into Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive269#User:Ghirlandajo pushing his political POV in inappropriate places, I requested that you check the deleted article of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Petri Krohn, and assess the level of evidence offered. Have you gotten a chance to do so, and if so, could you share your opinion?

I'm actually interested in a broader spectrum of possible problems with this RFC. Some recent events indicate that it may need to be repeated, and I would like to do it better the next time, should there be a next time. Digwuren 20:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Digwuren. Thanks for reminding me. Yes, i've just finished looking at it. I also had a look at some of the articles' histories to check some edit summaries and diffs in some cases. What is my opinion? Well, if that RfC could have had a chance of survival you could have found yourselves being blocked w/ Petri and some other few from both sides. You could have been the subject of a similar RfC. So what? Do you think that blocking him and leaving you or vice versa would help? It is really one of the most tedious content disputes we got here. Worse than that is that POV pushing went too far. In wiki world incivility and al are just the natural outcome and a consequence of unlimited POV pushing. Can you prove to me that you have never been incivil or that you never pushed hard your POV? So both of you would expect and accept incivility as an ugly reward.

What i can do now is protect some of the main articles you are warring at and ask for a mediation. If that won't help and this behaviour continues i'd really not be hesitant to stop it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Stillman's Run

You are right, boy I really goofed that up! I meant to ask for help with the Battle of Stillman's Run that took place in Ogle County, Illinois. We are working on getting Ogle up to GA or even FA with "Feature Topics", and think this would be a great topic to have in conjunction with it since it is really the only named battle that took place in the county (I think). We are also working on Joseph Ogle, who the county was named after. He is another military guy, but you don't have to help out with him unless you would like too. We may try and get Isaiah Stillman up to at least B, maybe GA also (I think he is another one that is tagged by the Military History group, but not sure). So again, thanks for all your assistance, and let me know if you need anything from me (since I do live in the county).--Kranar drogin 20:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Blida airport

I thank you for your expansion. It is worth keeping now. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome Dev. You too. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Tripoli Massacre

Hi, cany you please give your opinion about this article, Massacre of Tripoli. Article is opened in relation with the massacres committed during the greek revolt, Kekrops continuously changing its name to Fall of Tripolitza, and even though i invited him many times he doesnt discuss the issue in the talk page..There is nothing important about the fall tripoli except that up 30.000 civilains were massacred in three days, it wasnt a military success neither, as they simply opened the gates of the city since they were starving..I think brutal murders of that much people deserve to be named as "massacre"..Regards..--laertes d 11:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Estophobia vs Russophobia

Hi! You voted for deletion of the article Estophobia. Are not the same arguments applicable to Russophobia as well?--Mbuk 06:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the protect

Fun stuff those odd little attacks. collounsbury 12:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC).

Need a second opinion on this

Dear Fayssal, how are you? long time no see...

I contact you because, being yourself a member of wikiproject:Spain and being able to contribute in Spanish, I'd love if you could take a look at this article: Flag of Valencia.

I created the article, proving that the flag is of proportions 2:3 (length is 1 ½ times the width). This 2:3 version is sourced by a decree, the Spanish Vexillological Society, a book and pictures on official buildings.

User Benimerin keeps reverting and reverting claiming unsourced or even "invented by himself" points (like 1:2 proportions are more "representative"). I have already reported him for WP:3RR here [[7]]

Other users have expressed their opinion in my talk page, but having written in spanish, I cannot use it in the article's talk page.

I believe that you are not an expert in flags, but if you would be so nice to take a read at both our versions and the talk page, I'd love to have a second opinion in how to manage this situation. I believe my edits proven and sourced enough for this user to revert them every single time. I also believe this user is preventing WP:V (he is erasing sources given by me) and WP:NOR (is theory that 1:2 is more "representative"), apart is countinuous edit warring.

What do you think?

Any ideas?

Our friend seems to have a bit of a problem with wikiaddiction, and exciting as it is for her, I'm sure I'm not the only one who is bored of these antics. Every IP she uses is a new one, and they are so far apart range-blocking wouldn't work. (I assume the underlying IPs for the various accounts are also widely varying, although I've yet to file a checkuser.) If Wikipedia were a movie, someone would come up with an ingenious idea right about now, but aparently it isn't one, because we don't seem to have anything. :-) Picaroon (Talk) 05:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Anne Parillaud as Nikita. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Mediation, etc.

Hello? I was out for two days, do you have anywhere you want to go with this? Please respond on my talk. Thanks. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I'll be there ASAP. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's start. Which article would you prefer to start w/ ? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Egyptian as modern ethnicity

Hello, I recently stumbled across this article: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Egyptians

It treats modern day Egyptians as an ethnic group, though this view would only be held by a very small minority of Coptic nationalists and similar. Egyptian obviously refers to either the ancient Egyptians or the modern day Egyptians, who are a heterogeneous national group. The users Zerida and Egyegy, who appears to be Zerida's mute sock puppet, keep reverting my proposition for merging the Egyptians article with demographics of Egypt, or simply remove the nonsense about them being an ethnic group, without ever arguing against me on the talk pages. They also keep adding "Egyptians" as an ethnic group of the Middle East, though this is preposterous.

As I believe you are an admin, could you warn them or similar?

Here is my arguments against them which they didn't respond to:

"I'm not talking about whether modern Egyptians are related to ancient Egyptians or not, but the fact that Egyptian doesn't refer to any living ethnic group, but a nationality. Different Egyptian groups identify as Arabs, Copts, Berbers, Nubians, so on, but they are all Egyptians by nationality, which is the only thing the term can be applied to, when it comes to modern, living populations. Otherwise you could say that the Swiss, Belgians, Americans, so on, are all ethnicities, which would be absurd. You don't make an article called "Vikings" and write about modern day Scandinavian either." Funkynusayri 18:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look at the issue. Please remind me in case it would be late. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Embargo again

Hi FayssalF, I think it's time for a long block, perhaps indefinite, of Embargo. See User talk:Embargo#Warning.Proabivouac 23:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. Please avoid commenting on their talkpage to avoid escalations. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Mariam83's latest ghosts

are Cohexer and 66.141.23.186. Could you revert and semi-ptotect the pages (Tunisia, Africa Province among others? Thanks Bouha 13:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I changed the {{Ipsock|Mariam83}} tag you placed on [[user:IndividualBrain]] to {{sock|Mariam83|blocked}}. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 14:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Tripoli Massacre

Hı FayssalF, kekrops is violating three revert rule in this article that i previously mentioned about..--laertes d 15:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've just blocked both of you. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Your statment that you would have blocked me already on AN/I

I would greatly appreciate it if now, that there has been a call for diffs for assessment for blocks, if you would provide yours about my behavior. It really need the feedback.

Expectantly, Alexia Death 16:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message Alexia Death. I must remind you that admins are not policemen. I have no time to check your contribs under the microscope for now but note that pointy behavior warrants a block. i've just started what i've been talking about at the ANI today. So please think twice before you revert, talk w/ others w/ who you disagree or you edit in general. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I will try to think twice. This is not why I came here tho. I don't like people badmouthing others behind their back so i thought you need to know about this [8].--Alexia Death 17:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about the IP. I think you have to think about "This is not why I came here tho" twice as well. Cheers. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Block reasoning

Digwuren's block was long overdue. As for Petri's block, I still question the block reasoning. It was on the basis of WP:OR and NPOV. Well, those are deletion reasons, not block reasons. The block rationale would have to have been disruption and/or 3RR, but the former is not determined by a single person, and the latter doesn't seem to be the case with that user. I don't mean to be legalistic, but we do not *block* for writing with a point of view or writing original research. We *block* for disruption, and having a contrary opinion is not disruption. --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

So you are still questioning my blocking of someone who accuses others of "having Nazi agendas"! Ok. provocative comments and random accusations at AfD was my rationale. Can you prove me wrong?

RJ CG was blocked for "Tedious" editing using OR, SYNTH. I am wondering why aren't you talking about the blatant OR he was inserting while violating WP:SYN. Was it the first time? Absolutely not indeed. Can you prove me wrong?

Digwuren was blocked because of tendentious editing and edit warring at Anti-Estonian sentiment. Can you prove me wrong?

After all, have you seen any single admin questioning my actions? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Fayssal, I don't question the block, I question its reasoning and duration. Not sure who RG CG is, presumably some new account from Estonia. As for Digwuren's block, I don't think it will have the intended effect as long as his numerous meatpuppets are still active with such "helpful" comments as this one. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo, please stop trolling. As for Digwuren's block, you (FayssalF) said you blocked him for tendentious editing and edit warring. I only spotted two reverts, and the stub had only one sentence. I don't see how WP:NPOV could have been violated with that sentence. Just my two cents. — Alex^(U|C|E) 20:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment Alex. Well, we block for edit warring. The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence". Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, questioning a block's reasoning and duration is basically the same as questioning the block itself. — Alex^(U|C|E) 20:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

All right. I'm not an administrator, I guess I'm not the one to decide. As for Ghirlandajo, just ignore him. He's been in trouble before, see this for more information. Just don't let him provoke you to get you in trouble. — Alex^(U|C|E) 20:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Alex, please leave him in peace. Digwuren was warned about WP:HARASS. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Leave who in peace? Digwuren or Ghirlandajo? I left Digwuren in peace, the last comment on that issue was on WP:ANI, where I said that the unblock review template was enough to resolve things (I implied that WP:ANI was overkill). — Alex^(U|C|E) 21:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Talking about your comment about Ghirla. Please keep discussions at the ANI. Thank you. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

All right. Just gave you a heads-up. — Alex^(U|C|E) 21:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I was tempted to unblock Digwuren per my reasoning at ANI, but nothing is white and black, and he can certainly use a little time to cool down. Nonetheless I'd like to ask you to shorten his block to 24h; this should be enough to show him he needs to be careful with his edits. PS. What do you mean by LIFO?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Piotrus. Let me explain what LIFO means. I've stated many time at the ANI that i can't block all involved parties who have been creating havoc since a couple of months now. I have two hands. So i decided to start a new sheet. Blocking on the spot (dorénavant in French). So this explains my LIFO. Last In First Out in contrast w/ FIFO (First In Last Out).

As per shortening the block, i'd have no problems if people at the ANI agree. Again, please note that if someone is blocked today for a period of 72h, the next block would be a week and so on. Also note Luna Santin's note re recreating (though it was not true technically) a dead article just after the AfD. I am not taking sides here as i've never ever edited related articles . -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, his unblock request has me convinced that he is acting in good faith. Anyway, I'd prefer it it would be you - the blocking admin - who would shorten his block. As I noted, his previous blocks were for 3RR, and he has been only blocked for 3h for disruption - thus the next disruption block going to a week seems too much. On the other note, if you were going to be blocking users involved in disruption related to that AfD, was he indeed the only disruptive user?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  10:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus. You are an admin and i respect you as i do respect other admins here. So i'd never argue about your actions (i.e. reducing or extending blocks) if you see it appropriate. I just can't reduce his block. As for if he is not the only offender, that i totally agree. However, as i explained many and many times, i decided to block on the spot. Other offenders have been blocked on the spot as well. I am satisfied w/ my decision. Again, if you think otherwise, go on and be bold. Don't forget that there would be always parties or a person who would oppose. Maybe you'd be accused of being an abuser. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Question: do you think such posts are acceptable on this project? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  11:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

No. And he got my last warning. Thank you. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Let the Arbitrators to issue "last warnings" in this case. Thanks. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This is disturbing along many different axes. First, "prove me wrong" in response to Ghirla is pretty much the wrong foot. That looks and sounds like intentionally combative statements designed to provoke a "proof" of whether or not another user is X, Y, and Z value and emotional judgments. I'm sure no one can prove to you, or to anyone, that another user is not arguing. I agree with Ghirla's point: we do not block for NPOV or NOR violations. We block for edit warring. Further, we do not open the bid with 72 hours. As for Piotrus, I'm not sure what it is that your diff was supposed to show. What it actually shows is an edit saying that your stress level went up. Ok. Is that allowable at Wikipedia? You bet. In fact, statements of opinion -- even that a group of editors are operating out of "Nazi" (more precisely they seem to mean "neo-Nazi" or "fascist") motives. In many European nations neo-Nazism is a substantial presence and a distorted presence on the web. It's not out of bounds if a person honestly believes that a group of editors represent a real life group that is pursuing such an agenda. It may be incorrect, but it's not, by itself, blockable. Finally, what really seems to be going on here is a block for "civility." That is never something the offended individual should decide, and the comments here really make it seem as though you feel personally involved, personally offended, personally besieged. I hope that I am wrong. Geogre 12:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi George. I am not feeling personally involved, personally offended or personally besieged. I've got the stick which i use when it is needed. I told folks more than 6 times that i am w/ ending this mess. There are other admins who agree and are still ready to do that. I can't block all offenders by myself, it is time consuming and all what i did is apply common sense and start blocking on the spot. As for blocking because of POV, i haven't. Petri for uncivility and he apologized which means that the block got its aim. RJ CG for tendentious editing and edit warring introducing original research a few times. Luna Santin has explained to him that it was an appropriate block and declined the unblock request. As for Digwuren, he was blocked for the same reasons, tendentious editing trying to make a point (recreating a deleted article). So all in all. I stand w/ my decisions and until now no single admin has objected and i am feeling fine. Let me assure you George that i have no single hard feeling for their conflicts. I am doing my job as an admin. If someone is not happy (and there is always some who is) than s/he has the right to appeal. Please tell me what have i done wrong for once. I can't be responding to both sides because they didn't like it. I therefore ask for proofs and that's why i've asked the same question to all parties involved. So why are you singling out Ghirla? Thank you George. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your support in my successful RfA. I appreciate the trust you and the WP community have in me. Muchas gracias! Carlossuarez46 22:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection request for Budapest

I've been acting as an informal mediator in a content dispute at Budapest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which you fully protected a few days back. We have come to an agreement about certain content changes, so I was wondering if you could please unprotect the page. I will caution both parties that should the warring resume, I will immediately request full protection again. Thanks, Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 14:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Y Done by user:DrKiernan. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 14:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Notability of World Transport Press

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on World Transport Press, by Vegaswikian (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because World Transport Press seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting World Transport Press, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 10:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

A consideration

Sorry to bother you about this but I am inclined to think Digwuren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) did not act in particularly bad faith and has been remorseful on IRC. Considering a growing opinion, I think he can be unblocked as he understands the situation now. GDonato (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Donato. I've explained myself a couple of times at the ANI and my actions have been reviewed by a few admins who agreed w/ my actions. If you have a look at prior discussions you'd see that i started blocking violators just after discussing the issue w/ other admins. If you believe his block deserves to be reduced go ahead and reduce it and post it at the related ANI thread. I'd not object anyway but i don't personally reduce blocks of people who have violated Wiki rules several times, otherwise everybody would ask for their blocks to be reduced and we'd end up having another mess. But again, if you are convinced by his words at IRC go ahead. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I can tell this is something you are not keen on and I totally respect your opinion so I will leave it at the moment, GDonato (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and please note that the admin who declined his unblock request is a member of the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee and this means a lot. Again, it is up to you and not me. I really won't object or think bad about your action if you'd be unblocking him. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't count on AT&T being responsive

We've got a similar problem with Mmbabies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who gets Internet service from a corporate sister of SBC Global ... as you can see at WP:ANI, all efforts to contact them have been met with no response even though the guy's been doing things that put the project in severe legal jeopardy. Worth a try, I know ... Blueboy96 19:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi BlueBoy. Thanks for letting me know. Well, WP:RBI is the best way to deal w/ it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

RfC / Mediation case regarding User:Digwuren

Hi FayssalF. I was wondering, if I were to unblock Digwuren on the strict condition that he only used his unblock to participate in an RfC and/or mediation case, would you object? --Deskana (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course not. If it would make Wikipedia a better place, yeah! Which RfC by the way? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

He suggested it would be an RfC on him, and his conduct, presumably with the end hopes of being unblocked permenantly. Thank you, I just wanted to run this by you. --Deskana (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No worries Deskana. Could we please announce this at the AN/I? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It's only a possible option at the minute. In the eventuality that I do unblock, I will announce it at ANI. Thanks. --Deskana (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, this is just a notification that he's been unblocked. He's been told he is only to make edits relating to an RFC case and/or mediation ONLY and that any other edits will result in a reblock with extended expiry. Thanks for your help. --Deskana (talk) 00:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This might not have been the wisest thing to do. Give him a sandbox, any sandbox, and he will find ways of harassing other editors. Wikipedia really needed the week's rest.

"...participate in RFC and/or mediation cases ONLY" - Does this give him the right to initiate RFCs and mediation cases? A good way of punishing a blocking admin, would be to include him in a long mediation case... -- Petri Krohn 02:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Assuming bad faith again Petri? Martintg 04:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Nah, just talking out of orifices not designated for this purpose.

The relevant links are Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Digwuren and Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Anti-Estonian sentiment. I constructed a summary and evidence list for the former yesternight, but then, my browser crashed before submitting, and restoration is underway. The next time, I'll use a text editor ... Digwuren 12:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Illuminati

GlassFET took the MJ12 link out, but I've removed it before as well - it was a US government project, and therefore in no way meets the definition of Illuminati. MSJapan 21:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that. Thanks anyway. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Administrator with balls

I hereby award you these balls...
...for having balls.
Petri Krohn 23:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Human_rights_of_Kurdish_people_in_Turkey#Request for Comment: genocide of Kurds?

I've started an RfC, feel free to contribute. Thanks, --A.Garnet 09:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

List of Tamils of Sri Lanka

Hi, FayssaIF. This page was protected by you over 2 months ago. I think it is safe to take off the protection now . Watchdogb 23:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Jajouka-cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Jajouka-cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 01:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Wahhabi feud

Can I trouble you for a favour please? Could you please take a look at a couple of messages left on my talk pages here and see what you can do (if anything) to calm it down? I thought of you because you'll understand the issues better than most admins and, if necessary, understand the sources (some of which are in Arabic). Many thanks --ROGER ^TALK 21:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Anti-Estonian sentiment. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 12:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC).

User BKLisenbee removing links he doesn't like

User: BKLisenbee has removed my external links on the Paul Bowles and Mohammed Mrabet pages by using an anonymous IP address in Morocco of 196.217.29.71

I know this is BKLisenbee from the user talk of 196.217.29.71 in his dispute with Jajouka/Joujouka.

The links I added are valid external links and after some research I found that his comment of IPBS being a 'scam' is a comment directed at The International Paul Bowles Society at paulbowles.com

He is webmaster of paulbowles.org, has his own external links on the Paul Bowles and Mohammed Mrabet pages and thus has a biased POV and is vandalizing other external links to these two pages.

Fayssal, please can you reinstate my two external links on the Paul Bowles and Mohammed Mrabet pages and protect the external links on these two pages?

Macwoman 18:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[[User:BKLisenbee|BKLisenbee has not made any changes on Wikipedia since he is in Morocco.

Untrue. The editing in this very subject shows that [[User:BKLisenbee| has been making changes on Wikipedia. The edits on this page show this is true.

Fayssal, please can you reinstate my two external links on the Paul Bowles and Mohammed Mrabet pages and protect the external links on these two pages?

Macwoman 09:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Connell66 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks!

		My RFA
		User:TenPoundHammer and his romp of Wikipedia-editing otters thank you for participating in Hammer's failed request for adminship, and for the helpful tips given to Hammer for his and his otters' next run at gaining the key. Also, Hammer has talked to the otters, and from now on they promise not to leave fish guts and clamshells on the Articles for Deletion pages anymore. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 16:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Military peer review

I'm sorry it has taken me so long to get round to commenting on this. --ROGER ^TALK 08:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Brian Jones Presents The Pipes of Pan at Jajouka

Greetings, I noticed that you had edited this article a few times, so I suppose you might be interested: Someone's edit has turned all of the references beginning with ref. 4 into HTML gibberish. How might we fix this? Cheers, Dogru144 03:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Wroxbook.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Wroxbook.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Moroccan-folktales.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Moroccan-folktales.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

elections

Hi Fayssal, wanna miss the fun? Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/August 2007 Greetings Wandalstouring 09:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Chemical Weapons in the Rif War edits

Hi, I edited the article to clean up the prose a little bit and make it easier to read. You obviously know a lot more about it than I do, so I didn't change any of the statements of fact. One thing that does concern me is that it reads more like it's trying to prove itself rather than an article about the incident. A thought I just had would be to have one section of the article being devoted to the facts of the incident as reported, and then relegate all the 'proof' to a separate "evidence" section. Just a thought! --The Centipede 20:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Awaiting your input

Mediation Over at Talk:Legal status of Western Sahara. What should we do next? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)