Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:51, 3 August 2010

This user has autopatrolled rights on the left. (verify)

Archives

(6/07-8/09)

This user is a participant in WikiProject Albums.

This user is a member of WikiProject Lacrosse.

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your edits to bring Ian Kinsler and Scott Feldman to hopefully a GA status Ositadinma (talk) 21:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag arbitration-related

Encouragement

Please persevere through all the drama surrounding The Shells article and Rjanag. I believe such drama drives many good editors away, and I don't want it to happen to you. You do good work and I appreciate it. - Draeco (talk) 00:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 13:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

		The Resilient Barnstar
		For your your valiant efforts to defend The Shells (folk band) article with your reasoned arguments and perseverance, and for taking conflicts in your stride and continuing undeterred with your good work as a Misplaced Pages editor. Illegitimi non carborundum. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 01:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI--Rjanag; Rjanag Arbitration

With heavy heart, I have reported Rjanag at the ANI here based on what I believe was grossly uncivil behavior during the Shells affair. It is neither a personal attack against him nor a favor to you, but his behavior compelled me to act. As an involved party I think you should know. - Draeco (talk) 06:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your note. My heart too has grown heavier the more the relationship between the nom and the closing admin reveals itself.

As you know, now that that ANI has closed, I've opened up this Rjanag arbitration. Quick question as to your comment there. You indicated that you don't recommend de-sysopping as he didn't abuse admin privileges. My reading of WP:ADMIN, as I quoted it there, was that de-sysopping is one possible appropriate treatment of an admin who displays consistently or egregiously poor judgment, or who seriously, or repeatedly, acts in a problematic manner or has lost the trust or confidence of the community, including repeated/consistent poor judgment, breach of basic policies (attacks, biting/civility, edit warring), "bad faith" adminship (gross breach of trust), and conduct elsewhere incompatible with adminship. Did I miss something (in which case I should amend my request), or do you read it differently? Or perhaps just have a more lenient approach than WP:ADMIN? Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies

This may be too little too late, but I have left you a message with my apologies at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement by Rjanag. Thank you, rʨanaɢ /_contribs 18:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Full reply @ Rjanag Arbitration

• I'm saddened that you did not do so many weeks earlier. But only after being completely unrepentant through dozens of requests/incidents involving me and others, an AN/I, an arb request being filed, evidence pouring forth regarding your extraordinarily close relationship with the closing admin, and arb voters indicating that they do not agree with your pooh-poohing of the matter. And even yesterday you were saying you do not need to apologize. It certainly makes it look as though rather than being heartfelt, this has more to do with your desire to avoid the scrutiny of an arbitration.

Finally, on further inspection, your "apology" is barely an apology at all -- as you fail to admit and to apologize for your persistent incivility, untruthful statements, bullying, wikihounding, gaming the system, edit warring, and knowing COI. Further inspection also reveals that your behavior spreads over a number of matters, and impacts a number of editors. They deserve better. My full comments can be found at Rjanag Arbitration. --Epeefleche (talk) 07:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

A word in your ear

I participated in the first Shells AfD in question. AfD is a frequent stomping ground of mine, and I find it extremely common to see articles like The Shells to be put up for AfD, and just as common to see them deleted as a result of them not satisfying the basic notability and sourcing requirements of WP. Sometimes creators/editors who fail to accept that. There is occasionally dogged opposition to a deletion, which you demonstrated to see the article wasn't deleted, leading to bitter fights which may get personal. The Shells AfD was certainly one of those. I believe the tone set by Rjanag in the AfD was not appropriate, effectively winding up people who would have supported the deletion on the merits of the case alone that prevailed eventually. While I applaud you for your tenacious fight to keep the article, I believe that the lesson to be learned would be to strive for improved sourcing and better writing of an article to avoid the common pitfalls which lead to deletion. I have been upset when articles I have contributed significantly were put to AfD, because it's a natural tendency to want to look after one's baby. I know the above from Rjanag is not the unreserved apology you feel you deserve. But hard as it may be, I hope you will not take the deletion too personally. Perhaps one day, The Shells will be a notable band... I hope you will stay around for when that happens. Ohconfucius 04:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. We can have different views as to the AfD merits. We're not alone--just look at the votes at the two AfDs. That's fair. And needn't be uncivil. I've created nearly 200 articles in my years here, and made more than a few thousand edits, so I have a bit of a sense for notability.

I credit you, however, for agreeing with those of us who believe that the tone set by Rjanag in the AfDs was not appropriate. Not many have crossed the aisle, stood up, and made themselves heard on that point.

Also, his misconduct included misstatements. That does not lead IMHO to the best decision-making by those who are trying to make a decision based on facts, not misstatements.

Many editors noticed his misconduct. At least 20 discussed it with him in the past few months, with communications ranging from complaints to warnings to AN/Is. Those 20 editors from what I can tell are essentially unrelated--joined only by their common concern over his misconduct.

As to the "ownership" point, I don't get the sense that Draeco brought the Shells AN/I, or that the other editors spoke up about the conduct that led to the Shells and the other AN/Is, because of "ownership" issues. Quite the opposite. Rather, they think as I do that misconduct is bad, they care about this project, and they believe that misconduct of this sort adversely impacts the project.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• I sympathise. With all your experience, he still managed to wind you up. In my previous dealings with him, he's been pretty no-nonsense, occasionally blunt; he's never been abusive, but one can sense what lurks below the surface. I don't know what's got into him. I'll make a mental note but I'd rather not have to spend time looking into it for now. Happy editing! Ohconfucius 02:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• It's not every day I see an admin write one editor: "You can go f_ck yourself" , use the same choice words to another editor, and also write "if you bring them to ANI … you will get bitch-slapped so fast it'll make your head spin … You f_cking moron”. --Epeefleche (talk) 03:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No you don't. Whoever let the lord of the jungle out? ;-) Ohconfucius 18:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		I award Epeefleche the special barnstar for his work on Nidal Malik Hasan's article and for defending the article from POV motivated edits.--Gilisa (talk) 10:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

		The Current Events Barnstar
		Great job in updating Anwar al-Awlaki article. --Firefly322 (talk) 06:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		...is awarded to Epeefleche for major clean-up above and beyond the call of duty on the Inner Temple Library article. Well done! The article will likely survive AfD thanks to you and your addition of quite a few references, among other things! Even an 1897 New York Times article!!!! Fantastic! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Rudy York

I added a footnote pointing to York's HR Log at bb-reference. York hit his 50th on 1938-06-15 which was the 51st game of the Tiger season. York had 107 career games before 1938. So the latest he could have hit his 50th was career game #158.DavidRF (talk) 09:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Help me here ... how do we know it was the 51st game of the season? And we have an RS saying something else--does this fall into the cat of a violation of Misplaced Pages:No original research? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Aafia Siddiqui

Some terrific work there on Aafia Siddiqui Bachcell (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Great work on Aafia, It's more factual now!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.219.88.140 (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Working Man's Barnstar for the Moazzam Begg article

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	for your additions, editing, and Herculean clean-up on the Moazzam Begg article! It is truly impressive. -- Randy2063 (talk) 04:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Moazzam Begg and Cageprisoners

This link is now dead: http://www.cageprisoners.com/campaigns.php?id=818 -- it's not in archive.org.

I could have said this in the talk section of Begg's article, but I wanted to add here that I'm wondering if Cageprisoners may be cleaning up some of their tracks.

I came across this link two years ago. It's a discussion board. On that page they talk about 21st Century Crusaders. The only thing really notable is that it had a link where you could download the entire film. As you can see, the page is now password protected, as is the one taking you to the film.

In light of the disappearing pages, I just used webcitation.org to archive the ones that we have linked in the article that weren't yet deleted. I haven't cited that in the article yet, although that doesn't necessarily matter at the moment. Webcitation has a function to tell you whether or not it's been archived.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Najibullah Zazi

Hi there. Just a quick note: Great job editing the article. It now looks complete. Thanks! Tuscumbia (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Ressam group; goal -- the subject "should be pleased to see they have a WP article"?

http://books.google.ca/books?id=E1_SxOuUHmIC&dq=%22abu+jaffar%22+terrorism&source=gbs_navlinks_s From page 320 onward] has some great information on the various players in the Ressam group. You could add the reference to almost each of the articles, as it discusses each of them. Sherurcij 06:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, my friend. Shall take a look. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, do you think the Montreal mosque (Assuna ... spelled various ways in English ... attracts 1500 to Friday prayers) is worth an article?--Epeefleche (talk) 07:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm generally fairly inclusive when it comes to churches/schools having articles; unless they written largely to "smear" the group. So if you're going to include a "list of notable persons who attended", be sure to balance it out with some positive stories from the media/books as well...basically, the group should be pleased to see they have a WP article...not angry. Sherurcij 06:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's not precisely the way it works, is it. We don't write articles to please the subject. Otherwise, for example, all criminals would rightfully have their articles deleted. What we do, which I'm happy to do with your help if you like, is reflect what is in the RSs. In other words, if x percent of the material in RSs is material that they would be happy to see, we should make certain that x percent of the article is of that ilk. Agreed?--Epeefleche (talk) 06:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Taking your advice

Taking your advice, I've rolled back my own edit. That aside, please respond to me instead of blanking this message. I have been civil with you, why can't you return the favor and discuss this with me?— Dædαlus 05:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I should have checked the history of this page, and for failing to do so, and assuming bad faith, I apologize. It is fine if you remove this message of course, now that I know. Again, I am sorry. I hope you can forgive me. I understand the need to not have clutter, I just wish that I was so insistent upon it that I could manage to clean my room. I'm actually considering a wikibreak because-(this will continue in email, if you don't mind). I'm experiencing too much stress. I'm even considering changing my 'oppose' to a 'support' regarding the interaction ban with Mb. I don't want there to be an indef ban, but considering things, and .. other things, I may just resolve to, instead of reverting their edits, responding to them, instead, I will simply report the edits to the admin who placed the original 24 hour ban, and let them decide for themselves. If this user continues to personally attack others, then they will get sanctioned.— Dædαlus 06:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

street

I initially made the edit on a "gut" basis; I've been around the Internet a long time (pre-web), and have seen "facts" like that have very bad outcomes, e.g. an acquaintance who had an armed activist drive cross-country and show up at his workplace, which another person had mentioned in an abortion-related forum the two were active in.

Following your serious query, I went looking for policy.

• First, WP:BLP: "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy." The remainder of the policy is also relevant, particularly "When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced." and "Misplaced Pages also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, and omit information that is irrelevant to their notability."
• Second, WP:NOT: "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". I judge that the street name is not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia; the edit comment is based on one of the 5 pillars.
• Third, WP:NPOV: the nutshell "Articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias." On a proportionate basis, how important is the street he lived on?

Studerby (talk) 21:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for the response. I was guessing it was a gut basis. Nice work in doing such a professional job looking for support for the gut feeling. My gut reaction is that different people have different gut reactions, and (moreso elsewhere, admittedly) I sometimes see editors cloak their gut reactions in similar verbiage. As I said, I'm not passionate about the issue in that particular case. My view in general is that if RSs report it, it generally meets the above, just as the name of the former spouse of a suspected killer or their current relatives would meet them if reported in RSs, or the place they are employed, or the city or state or country in which they live (all of which are routinely mentioned in all such bios, without any discussion, and could be attacked as inappropriate in the strictest reading of what you cite -- this is, after all, clearly only a question of degree, as the general place they live is routinely deemed relevant), etc.. The same issues arise in all such instances. Just my opinion. But we don't have a tussle on this particular edit, just an intellectual inquiry. I think based on your research, your response, and my response, it still ultimately comes down to editorial judgment, and in the event there were a tussle on another article there would be a consensus discussion.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. "Editorial judgment" inherently can't be codified, and we're all going to use our gut from time to time - no one has time to research and cite policy for every single edit. However, I also just went back to the version I edited; neither RS referenced in that paragraph has the street (at this moment), so the information was also unsourced, apparently. I'm suspecting that somebody interpolated that from the criminal complaint, which is NOT an RS for all purposes - it's a primary source, inherently one sided, etc.; certainly not subject to the "editorial judgment" that a proper secondary source uses. I generally shy away from controversy, but I think policy on this is absolutely crystal clear and this is one edit I'd go to the mat for, if it was needed.

In the cases you mention, where RSs have included reference to relations or acquaintances of the article subject, I suspect you'll find that those individuals have usually involved themselves in the reporting by becoming information sources on the topic. You won't see very many statements in current event reportage in RSs like " married Jane Doe (born 1955 in Boston) in 1967, had children John (1970), Janette (1971), Chang and Eng (1973) and divorced in 1974. He subsequently married and divorced Floozy Mcsleazy, a pole dancer, in 1980, and cohabitated with a Ima Nicegirl from 1985 to 1992." Instead you get, "His wife, Jane Doe, said: 'Billy-Wayne was such a nice quiet person. I can't believe he kept a collection of human ears in our garage.'". The wife's name is then relevant to the notability, as a source of reported information relevant to the notability of the subject. Or there's some sort of at-least-arguable relevant-to-the-story event involving the relative; in the article under discussion, a protective order and the inability to serve divorce papers arguably are facts that tell us something about the subject's life relevant to his notability; folks with "issues" are thought to be more motivated to do things outside the norm. However, in the reference cited, the wife also injected herself into the story and made several statements in support of subject; that only the negative material relating to the wife is included is an obvious WP:NPOV problem, and which rather seems to undermine any "include all the facts" argument. Studerby (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Cookie

Fiftytwo thirty has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

This cookie is for coming back so nicely to my somewhat harsh message. Thank you. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Eric Ely

Thank you for your Wikignome-like edits. What do you think, substantively? Bearian (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm puzzling over why the article is up for AfD, frankly. Does the nom dislike you? I'm just poking around the article for the moment and looking at the sources, and curious what others have to say.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

As you can tell from my comments at the AfD, I found Greg L’s analysis somewhat short of what I think you are entitled to when someone reviews your article at an AfD, and suggests deletion of your article.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The Socratic Barnstar

		The Socratic Barnstar
		I was very impressed by your rebuttal to an administrator that wrote, " is an admin ... I'm sorry but in any conflict between the two of you that requires weighing the relative commitment to the goals of the project or of the project's mores, I'll be backing ." -- Rico 03:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The Rescue Barnstar

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For helping to save Eric Ely from sure deletion. Bearian (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

New York energy law

You seem to be everywhere. Thanks for the minor edits. Bearian (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Jon Scheyer GA

Congratulations on the GA. Here are my suggestions for conversion in June:--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Jon Scheyer
Scheyer vs. Long Beach State (December 29, 2009)
College	Duke
Conference	ACC
Sport	Basketball
Position	Guard
Jersey #	30
Class	Senior
Major	History
Nickname	The "Jewish Jordan"
Career	2006–10
Height	6 ft 5 in (1.96 m)
Weight	190 lb (86 kg)
Nationality	American
Born	(1987-08-24) August 24, 1987 (age 37) Northbrook, Illinois
High school	Glenbrook North High School, Northbrook, Illinois
Career highlights
Awards
Honors
2006 Illinois Mr. Basketball 2006 All-American (McDonald's, Jordan, PARADE) 2x Duke team captain 2x All-ACC Tournament First Team (2009 & 2010) 2009 ACC tournament MVP 2009 ACC Academic Honor Roll 2009–10 All-ACC First Team 2010 Consensus All-American (second team); 1st team: Lowe’s Senior First Team and Wooden (10-man team); 2nd team: AP, NABC, TSN, USBWA; 3rd team: FOX, YS 2010 Award lists: Robertson (Top-16 finalist), Wooden (Top-10 finalist), Naismith (Top-30 midseason), Cousy (Top-6 finalist), Lowe's Senior CLASS (Top-10 finalist) ACC single-season minutes record (1,470; 2009–10) 2010 NCAA Championship 2009–10 ACC statistical champion (free throw percentage, three point shot/game, assist/turnover)

Jonathan James "Jon" Scheyer (born August 24, 1987, in Northbrook, Illinois) is an All-American 6' 5" guard, who was selected by the XXX with the Xth overall selection in the 2010 NBA Draft. He led his high school team to an Illinois state basketball championship and the 2009–10 Duke Blue Devils to the 2010 NCAA Basketball Championship. He was a prolific high school scorer who earned numerous individual statistical championships in Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) play, ranging from free throw percentage and three point shots/game to assists/turnover ratio.

A high school All-American, he once scored 21 points in a game's final 75 seconds of play in an attempt to spark a comeback. The 4th-leading scorer in Illinois high school history, he led his team to a state championship in 2005 and was named Illinois Mr. Basketball in 2006. He chose Duke, for whom he moved over from shooting guard to point guard towards the end of the 2008–09 season, and was the Most Valuable Player (MVP) of the 2009 ACC Men's Basketball Tournament.

In his senior year in 2009–10 as Duke's captain, he led the team to ACC regular season and Tournament championships and to the NCAA National Championship. He led the championship team in points per game, assists, free throw percentage, and steals per game. Scheyer was a 2010 consensus All-American (Second Team), a unanimous 2009–10 All-ACC First Team selection, and was named to the 2010 ACC All-Tournament First Team. He played the most consecutive games in Duke history (144), and holds the ACC single-season record for minutes (1,470 in 2009–10) and the Duke freshman free throw record (115), shares the Duke record for points off the bench in a game (27).

Scheyer was drafted by the XXX with the Xth pick of the X round (Xth overall, if 2nd round) of the 2010 NBA Draft. If there was a trade to get the pick to select him mention it here. (He is represented by XXX if he has a famous agent like Rob Pelinka or something).

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, thanks

This user helped promote Jon Scheyer to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

2010 Times Square car bomb attempt

You've been doing incredible work on this article and I wanted to make it clear how much I appreciate your work on it. You've been prolific in editing the article, and adding in relevant information, and while I've followed this story myself, in all of your edits I've not disagreed with you once (maybe I missed something... or maybe I thought the police commissioner should be facing the other direction....). Thank you, and please keep up the good work. I'll try to help as much as I can. Shadowjams (talk) 10:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar suggestions for Jimbo

I've never given out a barnstar. But I imagine Jimbo deserves one for this.

Can anyone suggest which template I might consider using? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Coat-racking; Cameron Scott

Actually, I understand it fine thanks, since you had to told by a number of different editors that you didn't understand it in regards to that article, I suggest you step out of your greenhouse before you attempt to throw stones. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want to write an article on her, write an article on her but we don't stick bios of other individuals within bio articles. If you are unhappy about this, I suggest you mention it on the talkpage, I suspect you will get the same response you got last time, you tried to coatrack an article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You have not responded to my questions.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Epeefleche I can sympathise with your editorial issues. It would appear that some editors delete the regularly clear the contents of their discussion page without using an one of the archiving options so as to conceal their editor dispute history from other editors especially the most recently to be upset by more recent editing activities. dolfrog (talk) 12:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It is fundementally very easy to understand when something is a coat-rack, it's not that obscures details about La Rose, but it provides nothing additional about La Rose - for example, how does it expand our understanding of the BLP Subject La Rose to know that Paulin-Ramirez changed the name of her son? How does it expand our understanding of La Rose that Paulin-Ramirez was getting married? etc etc. The relevent information about Paulin-Ramirez in the context of a bio of La Rose is covered in the previous paragraph. Why don't you simply take the deleted material and create a seperate article and link to it, it's sourced so not a problem. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• You "fundementally" don't understand wp:coatrack.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Replacing Passengers with Activists

Interested to know the reasons for replacing 'Passengers' with 'Activists' on the Gaza flotilla raid. . The change does not seem very Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view. Firefishy (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Passenger is a "set" used to distinguish between crew member and others who are not crew members. But it is less descriptive of the role of the people and their purpose than is the term activist. Most passengers are not activists, and it is not the activity that the term passenger brings to mind. But here the purpose of the activity was one of activism. The preferred approach is to use the most descriptive term that is accurate (we could also use the less descriptive term "people", but wouldn't for the same reason).--Epeefleche (talk) 00:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thank you for the explanation. -- Firefishy (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Background section of Gaza flotilla article

Another thing in relation to the background - I removed the statement regarding the blockade and 4th Geneva convention that I think you may have restored in the past. I did put a note on the talk page, but since that's getting archived I thought I'd make a note here also. Anyway, reason I removed it is because the reference was to the Australian SMH newspaper, stating regarding the legality of the blockade under the convention. The article was a little amibguous and it appeared to be an opinion from the journalist rather than Israel itself. It got my attention as it contradicted Israel's previous statements regarding Gaza and the Geneva conventions (See Gaza blockade). Hope this makes sense, cheers Clovis Sangrail (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Will see if I can figure out where that was. Was it being put in the legality section, and just a question of attribution?--Epeefleche (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No its in the background. I think you have have brought it in restoring other material. I've just removed the same statement again. I'd be grateful for your opinion on whether I'm right though - as I dont want to remove valid material. The line in question is

Israel responded that the blockade is pursuant to Article 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, saying it indicates that if goods entering enemy territory contribute to the enemy's war effort, they can be blocked

with this reference , which is an opinion piece. As far as I can tell the Geneva convention statement is from the articles author and not official Israelii sources. I think Israel's past statements on the Gaza blockade have stated Geneva is not appopriate, and I think for the flotilla they've invoked the San Remo convention. Cheers Clovis Sangrail (talk) 09:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Lacrosse

Hi, I noticed your contributions and thought you might be interested in joining WikiProject Lacrosse. If you are interested in contributing more to Lacrosse related articles you may want to join WikiProject Lacrosse (signup here). --Yarnalgo _talk to me 17:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

You have been granted the 'reviewer' userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC). Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Misplaced Pages:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here. If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. –xeno 13:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

-- φ OnePt618 φ has given you a pie! Pies promote the kind of hearty eating that puts a smile on your face and a sustaining meal in your stomach. Hopefully this pie has made your day better. Spread the goodness by giving someone else a pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy eating! Spread the goodness of pie by adding {{subst:Wikipie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For turning this into this. Fences&Windows 13:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

On July 20, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article C. J. Stevens, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

On July 25, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Joe Plumeri, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)