Misplaced Pages

User talk:Wikifan12345: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:54, 29 April 2009 editWikifan12345 (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers12,039 edits →Freedom House edits← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:30, 24 November 2024 edit undoBoredintheevening (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,481 edits Notification: listing of Cyber Bandits at WP:Articles for deletion.Tag: Twinkle 
(709 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Archive box|], ], ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]}}
'''Messages will be answered within 48 hours.'''




== Bat Ayin == == WTF ==


I editing rarely so did notice your predicament until right now. How did a sock puppet get to you? --] (]) 18:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I have looked at your evidence. And it will remain as an attack on Palestinian Authority, ] and will only change if Israel gets the land and Bat Ayin in any impending land deal between itself and the Palestinian Authority in any two-state agreement or if Israeli annexs the territory unilaterally. (] (]) 03:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC))
:] filed the last successful AE that ended in a timed topic ban and he/she ended up being a sockpuppet though I was unaware until months later. I'm quite certain ] is not a sock puppet. Like Cptnono said I was "''asking for trouble.''" I'm just glad my last contribution to the area of conflict was a . A timely edit. Thanks for the message Shuki. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 08:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


== Attacks in Gaza == == Hey ==


Just popped in to see what's going on and saw this. Time off might not be such a bad thing. Everyone needs a break. In the meantime, edit productively in other subject areas. I’ve always thought highly of you as an editor. Would be a shame to lose such a valuable contributor. Best,--] (]) 17:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
"Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves." Wikifan12345, it's ok to trash my work but alright for anonymous people to write diatribes full of lies about my work. Are you a Wikifan or a fan to paid Congressional hacks and or certain lobbies that try to stifle debate in this country. Whippersnapper1 11:48, 22 March 2009
:I second the two up above. You got screwed even though you were asking for trouble. I still think that second revert was borderline but hopefully strict enforcement on you will set a precedent (oh wait, it isn't since Supreme Deliciousness is still editing). But I have already sent you an email so you know that I think it doesn't matter. I don't support Israel in all things but I know that they will win off Misplaced Pages and that is what matters. Maybe they shouldn't but they will. ] (]) 06:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
:And I have requested an enforced break for myself. I simply am bored of this. After seeing a good game, having some drinks, or even getting some pussy I find myself coming on here and yelling at Arabs. It isn't healthy. Screw it. They don't need us. They will still be stuck and I personally get a kick out of it.] (]) 07:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


==Orphaned non-free image File:Suits low resolution logo cropped.jpg==
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Whippersnapper1" <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
<span style="font-size:32px; line-height:1em">''']'''</span> Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (see ]).


Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> ] (]) 14:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Please stop inserting grammatical errors and awkward phrasing into a lead that is already quite fine and well-phrased. Also, I'd appreciate it if you could explain to me how preventing people from reaching a hospital constitutes an ''attack''. That information, while important, does not seem relevant. &mdash;<strong>]</strong>] 20:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)\
:Well, how is wounded Palestinians fleeing to Hospital's in Israel not related to the attacks in Gaza?? Also, I fixed the awkward phrasing but the motivation behind my quick rewrites was because your edits were loaded with ] and simply false information. As I stated in the talk, If you plan on removing ENTIRE paragraphs and inserting ], go to '''discussion'''. Thank you.] (]) 20:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
::These are not weasel words. This is trying to maintain some NPOV and appreciating the knowledge we currently have about what's happened. Please, stop altering the phrasing. With your every revert, you keep inserting syntax errors. I honestly don't understand how are phrasings are so different - ''other than the grammatical and formatting errors you keep introducing.'' Please, see reason. &mdash;<strong>]</strong>] 20:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
:Your original phrasing was not NPOV, it was wrong. Please re-read the sources provided in the reference section. ] (]) 20:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
::What part of it was wrong? Explain your objection. &mdash;<strong>]</strong>] 20:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
:::I ''just'' compared the diff. From what I can see, our phrasings were almost the same. I mention how people have been killed - so do you in just a different way. I mention that Hamas may be involved - you just say it in a different way. I mean, please. &mdash;<strong>]</strong>] 20:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
:No, I said they were ], and many were wounded, as the source clearly states. I also said that Hamas claimed at least partial responsibility for the attacks, simply because a leader of the organization highlighted its involvement to "reassert its control of Gaza." Your version didn't even mentioned this, it just said Hamas is suspected of being involved. It's more than a different way, so stop unnecessary reverts. ] (]) 20:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Your failure to appreciate neutrality, especially in the lead, is becoming a detriment to this article. The evidence against Haamas is present in the main body of content, but in the lead a summation is needed, not detailed accusations. We know Hamas is suspected; my phrasing makes a point of articulating that in the initial paragraph. Discussing Hamas' actions and motives is not what the lead should be about. If you read the article, you'll see that plenty of information about Hamas' suspected involvement is given. My phrasing isn't much different to yours; it just uses proper syntax and gives a better overview of the situation. In fact, you just pretty much interchange "killings" with 'execution", which are not fundamentally different and the latter smells of COI or POV. In addition to that, it is entirely unecessary to mention that people were injured; the article is "attacks in gaza"; ever heard of an attack not causing injury? It's obvious and implied. Your claims of "censorship" are quite bogus as I, the creator of the article, was the one to author the information about Hamas' actions and discuss how they might be behind the killings. I have no investment and not interest in censoring material because I have no ties with anything but the good writing standard of the text. For all these reasons, I am going to ask you to stop reverting me, and to not template my talk page again. You are not the owner of the article, and neitehr am I, despite having started it. You seem to have some conflict of interest here, judging by your edit summaries, and I have observed your reversion of other contributors to the article as well. You're attempted monopoly over the content is not appreciated and cannot go on. I ask you to stop. &mdash;<strong>]</strong>] 02:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
::You're confusing neutrality with fallacy. The evidence against Hamas was woefully understated, which I gladly improved. Syntax is a non-issue here; grammar is hardly an excuse for misinformation. I changed killing to execution because Hamas orchestrated a systematic execution of Fatah and its supporters. As in, they lined them up on a wall and shot them in the face. They weren't simply casualties of war, they were executed as individuals. Get it? You being the creator of the article is ], and in no way gives you ownership of articles - per ]. You say you are not the owner of the article, but seem to be infatuated with the fact that you started it, and that somehow gives you the right to tell me and everyone how it should be written. If syntax is your concern, go ahead and edit the article according to your standards of English. But if that conflicts with my concern for facts and ], then I will most certainly edit it. I offered a very lengthy explanation for my edits in the talk section. Also, I didn't mean to edit your user page template. ] (]) 03:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
:::In lieu of our dispute, the phrasing of your edit summaries, and your general manner, I have made a post at ]. Feel free to comment. &mdash;<strong>]</strong>] 05:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


== Please consider ==
== I understand your frustration ==


Please consider the impression given by comments such as : Misplaced Pages does not have a country of its own. If you mean that it is a big shift "where you are", then say that. ] (]) 07:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I fully understand your frustration at what's going on at the Gaza conflict article. The swarm of nasty pov-pushers butchering the article in the name of a consensus are really out of control. I generally avoid the article because I don't want to find myself in a situation where I would lose my control and tell these pov-pushers where to go. If I would lose control I would find myself facing a pretty good block. Hopefully, one day the pov pushers will go back to their porn habit, leave Misplaced Pages alone, and we'll be able to get back to editing neutral articles instead of propaganda pieces. I encourage you to try to edit the article and try to interact civilly on the talkpage, but when things get too crazy just move on to another article that is of interest to you. There have been greater injustices in the world then some hit-piece disguised as a Misplaced Pages article. --'']] ]'' 23:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
:It's a quote from the source, not my voice. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 07:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


== Block == == Response ==


{{Talkback|Bazonka|Question}}
{| width="75%" align="center" class="notice noprint" style="background: none; border: 1px solid #aaa; padding: 0.5em; margin: 0.5em auto;"
|-
| valign="top" style="padding: 0.1em" | ]
| style="padding: 0.1em" |


==Disambiguation link notification==
'''Your request to be unblocked''' has been '''granted''' for the following reason(s):
<br><br>] #1301329 lifted or expired.


Hi. When you recently edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] (]&nbsp;|&nbsp;]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small>
''Request handled by:'' ] ] 06:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
<!-- Request accepted (after-block request) -->
|}


It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 11:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
== carriage return ==
== ] of ] ==
]


The article ] has been ]&#32; because of the following concern:
Hello, instead of pressing enter when posting your comments it would be easier to read if you instead used break, like this: "<nowiki>this is one part<br>this is the second</nowiki>" will end up like this:<br>this is one part<br>this is the second.<br> The thing with doing it this way is it keeps your previous indent so it doesnt look like it is separate comments. ] (]) 17:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
:'''A murder victim is not inherently notable. Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper. See ] and ]'''


While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be ].
:Yeah I always forget to do that. I'll keep it in mind thanks! ] (]) 17:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
==Arb enforcement==
Thanks for your comment there. Funny how we landed there at the same time. Be civil at talk pages!] (]) 18:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> ] (]) 09:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
==re Lol==
== Nomination of ] for deletion ==


<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].
Thanks for your comments. Much appreciated. Savlanoot. ] (]) 22:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
== Reverting in ] ==


Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. ] (]) 23:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Wikifan. Please don't just revert and wipe out an edit when someone has added information, . Take it to talk instead.


== Red link in AfD link (your comment in the ]) ==
In this case it's not “nitpicky”, because the article entitled “Katyusha” is about a ''rocket launcher''. When you quote a news source which uses the term for a different thing altogether, you have to make this clear.&nbsp;''—]&nbsp;]&nbsp;<small>2009-02-09&nbsp;01:15&nbsp;z</small>''


Purging the page almost always corrects the problem of the AfD red link in the template. See ] for various purging techniques. <small><span style="font-family:arial;"><strong>]</strong><sup>]</sup></span></small> 11:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
: Also, there's already a paragraph about Arab–Israeli conflict covering 1967–2006 in the article. Why on earth would you put the 2003 US invasion of Iraq in the middle of this?&nbsp;''—]&nbsp;]&nbsp;<small>2009-02-09&nbsp;01:22&nbsp;z</small>''


== ITN ==
Hi. Pay more attention to the diffs. What you wrote wasn't removed, only edited, by me. I restored that version, and now you've put it into the article twice. Need a coffee :-) ?&nbsp;''—]&nbsp;]&nbsp;<small>2009-02-09&nbsp;01:59&nbsp;z</small>''


based on ], you could mark it ads "ready"(] (]) 23:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)).
: from before you started editing, so you can clearly see the net result highlighted.&nbsp;''—]&nbsp;]&nbsp;<small>2009-02-09&nbsp;02:01&nbsp;z</small>''


== Norwegian C-130 Hercules plane crash ==
:: No, man, my first revert ''moved'' the information about Hamas up by one paragraph, and also edited it.&nbsp;''—]&nbsp;]&nbsp;<small>2009-02-09&nbsp;02:12&nbsp;z</small>''


Well, you wanted to wait for more info about the accident. Now we have it: all 5 senior military officials on board were killed, plane hit Sweden's highest mountain and exploded into small pieces. ] (]) 02:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
== Hey ==


== Smile! ==
Did you ever think about enabling your email? --'']] ]'' 15:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
{{award2|image=smiley.png|size=100px|topic=A smile for you|text=You’ve just received a random act of kindness! ] (]) 13:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)}}
:Click the "my preferences" section, which is at the top of each page. At the bottom of the page you'll see an E-mail section. Best, --'']] ]'' 22:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


== Thank you == ==Dispute resolution survey==
{| style="background-color: #CCFFFF; border: 4px solid #3399cc; width:100%" cellpadding="5"

| ]
Thank you so much, wikifan. It is my first one, and you know how important that first one is! I seriously appreciate it. :)
<big>'''Dispute Resolution – ''Survey Invite'''''</big>

----
== Yes ==
Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}}. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Misplaced Pages, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

I think it is excellent. ] (]) 05:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I responded on the article talk page and found another recent report reported by YNET ] (]) 06:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

== thanks ==

Thanks for what you said on the Gaza war page. On the actual content, I think the tag thing counts as lame, but your suggestion is spot on. I truly think it is redundant. --] (]) 07:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

== antisemitism and Gaza conflict article ==

Hi. Perhaps a moot point re how to summarise the incidents. The figures, eg CST figures, present the objective facts and it's best they go in imo. Really should be a breakdown of the nature of the incidents. Anyhow, the point I'd like to make concerns the edit comment. "False neutrality" is rather strong: I don't think being logical is "false" neutrality.

But my concern is actually re "Understating firebomings is..."
Perhaps your comment was longer and intended to be factual and no insinuation was intended, but the comment as I could read it troubles me.

- ] (]) 13:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

== Lindsay ==

Would you mind waiting for Cerejota's answer before you remove a tag when the debate is still ongoing. . You use exactly the same arguments on the other side in another article. Please, try also to improve ] and ] and more of everything : have in mind this is a collaborative project based on consensus (100% agreement) and discussion. ] (]) 07:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
:I answered his question. He isn't an admin, so while I value his opinion, it isn't worth anymore than yours. The question posed was secondary sources, I provided information to respond to that statement. Unless you have any evidence that I can respond to, I'm pretty sure it's expected that I remove the tag. The tag shouldn't be used as a badge of shame. I wasn't uncivil or mean so there was no need to include those links. ] (]) 07:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
::His opinion and mine have no more value than yours.
::It doesn't mean you lead the debate.
::I kindly ask you to have in mind this is a collaborative project, based on disucssion and consensus and the use of force is not acceptable.
::So, wait for his answer or ask on his talk page his agreement.] (]) 07:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

== reply ==

Not hostile to her, but you are exhausting her with your unwillingness to listen to rules, logic, and common sense like you have with other users before her. She knows Misplaced Pages guidelines (she is especially familiar with copyright policies) and you can tell she examined the case thoroughly and she gave you a very clear explanation, and she answered all your subsequent questions. But still you continue to rationalize and make excuses, just stop it. I know where it is heading. Also, I told you to not to use Fal when referring to me, so I know you are trying your best to turn this into a hostile situation.
'''Please click to participate.'''<br>
I brought in Moonriddengirl to comment because I knew she was better at explaining copyright infringement than I could. I should have reported you to the admins if I really wanted to do you in. Though now I really don't care if you don't assume good faith--] (]) 03:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

----
What I am trying to say is that even if God Himself were to explain to you what I mean, you still won't comprehend. BTW can you stop with the "I find it odd that other users think it is plagiarism." It is, hello! As for the second set of changes you made, I said it was a violation of the policy regarding the quotation of copyrighted text. Moonriddengirl agrees that it was a violation and she says that you didn't even attribute one of the quotations properly by passing off a Jpost statement as one of Cotler's (which was the problem to begin with!). She told you as it is. What more do you want? I didn't say you were being hostile to Moonriddengirl, so please stop using that argument now. I think the version we have now is okay, if you plan to add back the paragraph consisting of quotations, then we will have to go straight to the admin board. --] (]) 04:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
<small>You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated ]. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">] ] <sup>]</sup></span> 11:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)</small>

== Smile! ==

<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">]

]<sup>'']''</sup> has smiled at you! Smiles promote ] 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, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing! <br /> <small>''Smile at others by adding {{tls|Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.''</small>
</div><!-- Template:smile -->

== title change on OCL article ==

Why oppose? I though you had agreed with it in the past, based on RS evidence. My apologies if I am mistaken.--] (]) 23:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

== the half barnstar ==

{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Half Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For dealing with source verification along with ] in the ] article. This is necessary work, and you guys reached across previous and current differences to make the encyclopedia better. You get the left half ;) --] (]) 02:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
|} |}


{{you've got mail}}
== pchr ==


== Adam Yauch ==
is not Hamas. They are not affiliated with Hamas in any way. You should know that, you use them as a source talking about Hamas executions of Fatah members. Also, read , I know you will likely disagree with me, but please do not continue to equate the PCHR with Hamas. ] (]) 04:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
{{tb|Nableezy|Talk is cramped hope this is ok}}
{{tb|Nableezy|Talk is cramped hope this is ok}}


I see you have twice added an ethnic category to this article on a recently dead person. As ] also applies to the recently dead, you would have to be sure to conform to ] when adding such categories to this article. This entails finding good references that Yauch self-identified with this ethnicity, then attaining a consensus at article talk that this was worth adding to the article. Let me know if you need any help. --] (]) 22:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
== Perception ==
:All right I will address this in talk. I was not the only one who restored the tag. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


== Jeremy Piven ‎ ==
Wikifan, it might be time to ask yourself if you aren't misunderstanding Ceedjee's comments. He has already said that he was misunderstanding yours, and it really seems like you guys are on the same page (both of you want a section which is a balanced representation of academic consensus) but got off on the wrong foot. Assume for a moment that Ceedjee is an expert (as he says) and that you are not (as you say). In such a situation, I can see how the two of you could get very frustrated over a misunderstanding, and start to believe that you are at odds with each other. Why not let him (the expert) write the section in question, and then see what you think. If you are still unsure, you can show it to an expert you know. I can also show it to an Israeli history professor I know for their opinion.


] Please '''stop adding unreferenced or ] biographical content, especially if controversial''' to articles or any other Misplaced Pages page. Content of this nature could be regarded as ] and is in violation of ]. If you continue, '''you may be ] from editing Misplaced Pages'''. <!-- Template:uw-biog3 -->--] (]) 21:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
As for your comments on the talk page, you really really really need to tone them down. You are constantly repeating accusations against Ceedjee which are clearly against editing policy (] and ]). This method of approaching discussion with both guns blazin' (so to speak) is not only not allowed, it is also harmful to the process of creating neutral articles. If you're unsure of what I'm talking about, I can point out some specific passages, but I think it best that you read the policy/guideline pages I listed here first. ] (]) 07:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


==Josh Groban==
:I'm a bit disappointed in your last edit. You start by saying that you like the text (after all, didn't I tell you the two of you were on the same side), then call the discussion a battle. Please try to revise this attitide, as ]. This is official policy because the project is a constructive effort. Believing otherwise will hurt the perception other editors have of you, and will affect the way they respond to your edits. ] (]) 02:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Funny that you should mention Josh Groban. He has quite an interesting "interfaith" background in that not only was his father Jewish, but his maternal grandmother had a Jewish father (and a non-Jewish mother). And they all ended up Christian. Anyway, while I don't want to get involved in these discussions myself, I will say that there are sources where Piven says he is Jewish, i.e. , and that John uses the term "ethnic categories" on the talk page of Jeremy Piven, even though BLPcat does not cover ethnicity, and in fact, the proposal to add ethnicity to BLPcat was not passed through. ] (]) 21:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
:It was just an example. I am quite disturbed John is going around and removing these categories unilaterally when they have been in place for quite some time unchallenged. I don't considered myself qualified as someone experienced in BLP disputes, and I don't want to be reverting John's edits at this point. What do you suggest? ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 23:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
::You really can't do much other than continue to provide opposition. Certainly with Piven, you have a source where he says that he is Jewish, and John's claim that BLPcat has anything to do with ethnicity categories is totally false. ] (]) 23:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
==Talkback==
{{talkback|Talk:Adam_Yauch|RFC_BRENDON|ts=23:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)}}
<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span></small> 23:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
== Orphaned non-free media (File:Franklin and Bash scene 1.jpg) ==
] Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, it is currently ], meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. ] if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see ]).


If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "]" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described on ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Orphaned --> ] (]) 04:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
::The line is called ]. Also, you should not ever try to be pushing your POV into the article. You should be after what is verifiably expert consensus. As for people rejecting your suggestions, this is why I'm trying to give you advise... I think your suggestions are getting rejected because you come in with a POV before you are completely familiar with the literature on the subject (as you stated in this case several times on the talk page). If you approach a topic with humility and genuine curiosity (as you saw me do) rather than with prickly accusations and demands, you will find that it is much easier to get your way or a compromise. You lure more flies with sweetness... ] (]) 02:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
== Orphaned non-free media (File:Franklin and Bash scene 1.jpg) ==
] Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, it is currently ], meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. ] if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see ]).


If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "]" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described on ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Orphaned --> ] (]) 04:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
== Comment ==


== South Sudan internal conflict (2011–present) move ==
Re : when you use a word like "retarded" in this way. some editors might think you're referring to them. I'm also putting a message at ]. <span style="color:Green; font-size:17pt;">☺</span>] (]) 23:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
::Re : LOL! If everybody's happy, that's fine. But, sometimes in written communication it can be hard to tell whether someone is taking something as a joke or not, so it's good to be careful. I'll keep my eye out for comments such as you mentioned. If I'm spoiling a joke, I hereby give you permission to laugh at me for that. <span style="color:Blue; font-size:31pt;">☺</span>] (]) 23:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


Hi, I saw that you put a lot of work into the ] article so I wanted to get your input on moving the bulk of the content that focuses on the Murle-Nuer conflict to a clearer title. At the moment it is a hodge-bodge of several conflicts that are distinct even if they are related by geography. If you're still interested in this topic, could we get your opinion on the talk page? Thanks! ] (]) 06:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
== Work together on List of Terrorist incidents ==
==Orphaned non-free image File:Acaida logo.gif==
<span style="font-size:32px; line-height:1em">''']'''</span> Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (see ]).


Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> ] (]) 14:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
You are extremely intelligent and collect excellent sources that update casualties figures and perpretrators of terrorist attacks well after the fact. I believe you and I can work together in fixing list of terrorist incidents, from now on. All incidents from March 15 to Jan are good and I believe should stay. I think from now on before either of us posts a terrorist incident we send each other and e-mail and link to source. My e-mail is lover_man_86@hotmail.com
==Orphaned non-free image File:294808 arotechlogo.gif==
<span style="font-size:32px; line-height:1em">''']'''</span> Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (see ]).


Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> ] (]) 02:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Also the February 11 source is from a February 23rd incident <ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/africa/la-fg-somalia-car-bomb23-2009feb23,0,5915403.story</ref>. No suicide bombing occured targeting AU peacekeepers on the 11. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
==MfD nomination of ]==
] ], a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for ]. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at ] and please be sure to ] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). You are free to edit the content of ] during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.<!-- Template:MFDWarning --> ] (]) 09:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


== ] ==
== images ==


Hi,<br>
a general sanity test for myself, but i cannot possibly see as appropriate for an article about kindergarten. tell me i am wrong somehow. ] (]) 04:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current ]. The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages ]. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to ] and submit your choices on ]. For the Election committee, ] (]) 13:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
:i meant to ask you if i am wrong for saying that it does not belong in that article. i cant imagine all this bullshit spilling into articles on kindergarten, seriously wtf? do you think i am actually wrong? you disagree with nearly everything with me wanted to see how far that would actually go ] (]) 04:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692203726 -->
:i think i can safely delete the 'dipshit' right? i was actually meaning you as in asking you if i am wrong. ] (]) 04:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].


The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
== Regarding - User:Yamanam ==


Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.<!-- Template:afd-notice --> ] (]) 23:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you know, I will be on the lookout for ] edits and I already Reverted some of ] work. I have taken the time to crosscheck yamanam's edits and i think a administrator needs to reverse all of his edits. Keep me posted. --] (]) 07:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


== Misplaced Pages Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict...please fill out my survey? ==
== 3rr ==

I have reported you to the edit warring noticeboard, you can see this ] ] (]) 19:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

: 24h ] (]) 21:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

== Mohamed ElBaradei editing ==

] Please do not delete templates from pages on Misplaced Pages, as you did to ], without giving a valid reason for the removal in the ]. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been ]. Please make use of the ] if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Please refrain from removing cited content. Thanks,<!-- Template:uw-delete2 -->--] (]) 03:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
:Criticism sections are discouraged in Misplaced Pages because criticism is most commonly taken to mean negative evaluation. Misplaced Pages is built on a ] which means that no viewpoint is taken to be correct and that multiple viewpoints are presented.--] (]) 03:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Again, Please stop deleting portions of page content, templates or other materials from Misplaced Pages. The template serves a notice to readers and editors that there is an on-going discussion on the talk page. Thanks, --] (]) 14:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
:His view on the Iraq conflict would be a direct reply to her, and the fact that it isn't included is why this section has its POV disputed (apart from the tendentious naming).--] (]) 22:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
:And what exactly are you warning me of?--] (]) 23:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
"Mullah" is a potentially pejorative term, so it would be better if you attributed it when you used it.--] (]) 11:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
:I'm not sure why you keep giving me "last warnings". Last is defined as "occurring or coming after all others, as in time, order, or place", so you would typically only say this one time (the final time). And you can warn me not to use reliable sources, but Misplaced Pages is built on them.--] (]) 12:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I see that your edits are completely baseless propaganda and the removals I made were based on the fact that you are quoting selective articles and nonsence, for every "reference" you have used in the gaza israel conflict I can come with a counter article as well. So please keep it un biased since you are obviously pro israeli. I will continue to remove jibberish and nonsence that is not factual or deems pro israeli propaganda. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Wikifan, it may be a good idea for you to take some time away from this article. Your frustration is evident, and I think that your recent participation on the talkpage hasn't been as constructive as you probably would like. The IP editor makes good points on the talkpage (I haven't yet reviewed the editing history in detail) and if it is difficult to engage in good faith discussion, it would be better to disengage entirely. ]] 15:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

:Yes, he makes great points. Except an admin recently deleted almost 100% of his "editing" because it violated BLP rules and was blatant fluff. Accusing me of promoting Israeli propaganda is extremely inflammatory so I encourage you to report me to the noticeboards. Just because you interpret facts as "propaganda" is not my fault. Those sources were selected based on their importance and relevance to ME. If you want to balance the article with praise I don't care. ] (]) 17:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

::Well, I have no intention of arguing this with you here, but I didn't accuse you of anything nor did I interpret any facts as propaganda or vice versa as far as I'm aware. ]] 18:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
::Sorry that was the editor above. I don't want to argue, I can't go to your page because I've been blocked for the dubious claim of edit warring. ] (]) 18:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

== April 2009 ==
] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]{{#if:2009 Israel Defense Forces T-shirt affair|&#32; according to the reverts you have made on ]}}. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the ]. If you continue, '''you may be ] from editing'''. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a ] among editors. If necessary, pursue ]. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] (]) 16:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
:you have been reported to the edit warring noticeboard, you can view this ]. ] (]) 04:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

<div class="user-block"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for {{#if:48 hours|a period of '''48 hours'''|a short time}} in accordance with ] for violating the ]{{#if:2009 Israel Defense Forces T-shirt affair|&#32;at ]}}. Please be more careful to ] or seek ] rather than engaging in an ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|Your reason here}} below. {{#if:true|] (<small>]</small>) 15:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)}}</div><!-- Template:uw-3block -->

{| width="75%" align="center" class="notice noprint" style="background: none; border: 1px solid #aaa; padding: 0.5em; margin: 0.5em auto;"
|-
| valign="top" style="padding: 0.1em" | ]
| style="padding: 0.1em" |

'''Your request to be unblocked''' has been '''granted''' for the following reason(s):
<br><br>Autoblock removed.

''Request handled by:'' ]]] 17:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

<small> '''Unblocking administrator''': Please check for <span class="plainlinks"> on this user after accepting the unblock request.</small>
<!-- Request accepted (after-block request) -->
|}

== Jersay Notice - Admin's eyes requested ==

It seems a new user, ], has strikling similar editing habits as user ], who was blocked for sock puppeteering documented . He most recently removed , one without a talk rationale and the other . He is also editing the Somalia war articles, which was the staple of Jersay and his sock puppets. Can a non-blocked user or admin ship this off to the appropriate board? I was recently blocked for "edit warring" (emphasize on the quotes) at ].

== Edit Warring ==

Please note that it appears you are engaged in edit warring on ] if you continue to revert without proper discussion you will be blocked. Also, please be respectful of other editors and do not tell them to "go away". <span style="font-family: Palatino;"> ] • ]</span> 04:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
:I am well aware that vandalism is an exception to the 3RR rule. However, it appears to me that the edits ] is making are not vandalism. He has tried to initiate conversation on the talk page about the content. Both of you have made comments in your edit summaries as to why you have both made your reverts , yet you both continue to revert each other's edits after that. Therefore I have to conclude that this is a content dispute that needs to be sorted out on the talk page. As for the sockpuppet investigation, if a checkuser finds him to be avoiding a block his account will be blocked indefinitely. Until a decision is made on Tuesday2009, please assume good faith and treat him like any other user. Cheers, <span style="font-family: Palatino;"> ] • ]</span> 06:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Well you did continue, and no it isn't vandalism as defined by the 3RR exemptions, and yes you have form, so: 72h. Please learn the rules ] (]) 08:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You neglected to include a block template for the second time. Probably did this wrong.

{{unblock reviewed|1=You neglected to include a block template so I did it myself. Second time William. My case: I was reverting a edits. Edits that removed (A.k.a, '''vandalism'''.) Vandalism that has gone routinely ignored. To be honest, I'd like a different admin, one that has been involved in former disputes, like me endorsing your removal of administrator privileges when you deleted an article after an AFD resulted in keep. In regards to the block, even assuming all his edits were in good faith and I was disrespecting the rules and reverting his edits without going to talk, from the history I don't think I violate the 3rr rule. If you combine the various vandalism committed by Tuesday that I reverted in the last 24 years, then yes it '''might''' be more than 3 but it wasn't a single edit. However, I still don't think it was 3. Wait, Eh, it's late. Math could be wrong. Edit: NVM, revert rule isn't limited to one edit. My mistake. The 4th revert wasn't a revert, it was an actual edit. Tuesday believes Bethlehem is located in Israel, seriously. Do I really get blocked for that? I even went to talk.|decline=You were told by several editors before you were blocked that the edits you were reverting were not considered an exception to the rules at ] and yet you kept right on reverting them. Additionally, there does not appear to be any support for your assertion that these edits were made by the sock of a blocked user. Given that, and '''most importantly''', since you have given no assurances you intend to stop making the same sorts of edits over and over I am declining this unblock request. In the future, please realize that use of the talk page is done ''instead of'' and not in addition to, editing the main article. It does not excuse edit warring.


Hello :)
I am writing my MA dissertation on Misplaced Pages Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I noticed that you have contributed to those pages. My dissertation will look at the process of collaborative knowledge production on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the effect it has on bias in the articles. This will involve understanding the profiles and motivations of editors, contention/controversy and dispute resolution in the talk pages, and bias in the final article.
For more information, you can check out my or my , where I will be posting my findings when I am done.
I would greatly appreciate if you could take 5 minutes to fill out ''before 8 August 2021.''


Participation in this survey is entirely voluntary and anonymous. There are no foreseeable risks nor benefits to you associated with this project.
Thanks so much,
].].] 17:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)}}


{{unblock reviewed|1=Lol. The '''one''' The other user who "warned" me was none other than Tuesday. Please tell me how my reverts qualified as edit warring. Please, look at the diffs I provided and tell me. Tuesday removed cited material, I put it back in. Period. Does that not qualify as appropriate editing? Also, my final edit (the one following the admins warning) was not a revert. I was correcting a . . My accusation of Tuesday being a sock of Jersay is pretty cut and dry. Also, it is suspect that I'm being blocked (for reverting vandalism), while Tuesday is not: , . , . I would like a '''3rd opinion''', as stupid as that sounds. Someone who actually looks at the diffs and the facts. If you can prove Tuesday's edits were not vandalism (or in the least, removing cited material that justified any and all reverts in spite of continued warnings), I will never, ever, ever edit wikipedia again. Seriously. I won't. In case no wants to read all that crap: A) I consider Tuesday's edits vandalism. P.S Tuesday is a suspected Sock of ]. . B) I reverted said vandalism and warned him via rationale. C) Admin did not consider edits vandalism. D) I explained why, no response. E) I get blocked for a 4th edit, (see above for more). F) Block denied, accusation of sock dismissed and Tuesday's edits not considered vandalism. So again, hypothetically, even under the assumption that all my edits violated AGF and Tuesday's editing was spot-on, I still didn't violate the rule. I stopped the reverting following the admins warning. Right? ] (]) 18:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)|decline=Given your apparent perennial reliance on ] to get you out of 3rr blocks, I'd have thought you might have given the thing a read by now. Read particularly carefully ]. ] (<small>]</small>) 03:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)}}] (]) 18:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems Tuesday has been blocked for 24hours. Too bad he'll have 48hr to fuck up the article before I'm unblocked, assuming this request fails. :D ] (]) 18:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

::::Nice '''save''' admin. Please, '''tell HOW''' the diffs I provided are not vandalism? He removed CITED, SOURCED, and REFERENCED material, over a dozen times. And I get blocked for reverting/removing/fixing. ] (]) 03:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
::::::Edit, wait, it's supposed to be a '''different''' admin. You can't rule twice, that's a COI. I'm going to paste and copy again. ] (]) 03:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock reviewed|1=
Lol. The '''one''' The other user who "warned" me was none other than Tuesday. Please tell me how my reverts qualified as edit warring. Please, look at the diffs I provided and tell me. Tuesday removed cited material, I put it back in. Period. Does that not qualify as appropriate editing? Also, my final edit (the one following the admins warning) was not a revert. I was correcting a . . My accusation of Tuesday being a sock of Jersay is pretty cut and dry. Also, it is suspect that I'm being blocked (for reverting vandalism), while Tuesday is not: , . , .

I would like a '''3rd opinion''', as stupid as that sounds. Someone who actually looks at the diffs and the facts. If you can prove Tuesday's edits were not vandalism (or in the least, removing cited material that justified any and all reverts in spite of continued warnings), I will never, ever, ever edit wikipedia again. Seriously. I won't.

In case no wants to read all that crap:

A) I consider Tuesday's edits vandalism. P.S Tuesday is a suspected Sock of ]. .
B) I reverted said vandalism and warned him via rationale.
C) Admin did not consider edits vandalism.
D) I explained why, no response.
E) I get blocked for a 4th edit, (see above for more).
F) Block denied, accusation of sock dismissed and Tuesday's edits not considered vandalism.

So again, hypothetically, even under the assumption that all my edits violated AGF and Tuesday's editing was spot-on, I still didn't violate the rule. I stopped the reverting following the admins warning. Right? ] (]) 18:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)|2=I agree with my admin colleagues. While the edits you reverted may have been ones you (1) disagreed with, (2) against consensus, and (3) made by a user you suspect is evading a block, that does ''not'' give you license to revert arbitrarily. The ] exceptions are quite clear that only "blatant, obvious" vandalism reverts are considered allowable. This is some kind of factual dispute. The proper response to the edits, after reverting once or twice, is to report the user for blocking and/or sockpuppetry and wait for that to be resolved. Frankly, I feel like you are wasting my time here, because you've been told as much by several other admins and have quite a number of 3RR blocks; you are apparently well aware of the exemption, so there's no excuse for not having read it. Further requests for review on this same issue, especially with a cut & pasted reason, will lead to you losing the privilege to use this talk page during the block. ]]<sup>]</sup> 14:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)}} ] (]) 18:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

::Thanks for the response. At this point I found it to be highly unlikely a block would be reversed, especially when that would put 3 admins in the cross-hairs. However, you failed to address two important points, which I made explicitly clear: A) How is this a content dispute? The diffs I provided, like this one , show Tuesday removing cited material. This became habitual, he removed over 9 edits of cited material in spite of warnings. If I go to an article you've been collaborating on and remove a paragraph of cited information 9 times, is that a "content dispute", or vandalism? Would you block yourself for reverting the edits? :D I'd like to know. Tuesday never went to talk, well, except for this: . I'm making things as simple as they came and it baffles me how such information can be ignored willingly. I will be forwarding this off to the appropriate noticeboard if one exists when my block runs up.
I can appreciate the concept that I should have gone through a more formal process instead of removing false and biased information as quickly as possible, but at the same time it is suspect an admin would not even notice Tuesday's editing or his sockpuppetry report. Wouldn't be appropriate for you admins to AGF since I believed I was reverting blatant vandalism? And according to the rule books which you provided, the edits clearly qualify. Cheers. ] (]) 19:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Posted for uninvolved/impartial admin. Can't rule twice. ] (]) 03:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

::Also, this is straight from the link you suggested I read (which I have done days ago): Some material - sometimes even factually correct material - does not belong on Misplaced Pages, and '''removing it is not vandalism.''' Check to make sure that the addition was in line with Misplaced Pages standards before restoring it or reporting its removal as vandalism.

:::Seeing as how I was reverting material that fit the above qualities, whatever excessive reverts I may have made were just and appropriate. Also, you failed to recognize something very, very important: My 4th revert was NOT a revert. I stopped the reverting (even though it was justified) after Ice's warning, yet I was still blocked with William saying "I did it again." Even under the assumption that what changes I made warranted a friggin block (lol), I still shouldn't have been blocked. At this point I don't care too much about the block, I would like for it to be released purely out of principal but to be honest I'd prefer you would simply accept the facts, or in the least, respond to them. I'm sick and tired of short-sighted blocks. ] (]) 04:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

:I find this very troubling. Look, the point is, no matter ''how'' right you are about the edits there comes a point when edit warring just has to stop and take a back seat to discussion. If other users won't engage and you feel their actions are inappropriate, report them and ''wait.'' That's why the 3RR exists, to protect Misplaced Pages against disruptive edit-warring. The 3RR contains a very limited exception so that users don't get penalized for reverting ] images during a period of intense editing. That is the kind of thing the vandalism ''exception'' of the 3RR refers to: obvious vandalism that all good-faith users would immediately agree needs instant reverting. Your reverts do not qualify as that: the fact that you've had to try so hard to explain why they do is ''prima facie'' evidence that they do not (even you see that it's not obvious!). If you are unable to understand this about the rule as it is written, you could at least trust me that this is how admins interpret and enforce that rule, and even if you won't do ''that'' you can at least take my advice that you ought to interpret rules conservatively if you don't like being blocked. And, point of fact, your last revert was after Ice's warning and was certainly a revert in part, which is also explicitly covered by the 3RR. ]]<sup>]</sup> 20:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

::Thank you for finally recognizing the last part. Are you telling me I should have left in a blatant geographical error for 24hours or risk *gasp* being blocked? I went to talk to provide (lol) evidence as to how . Really, someone with such a lack of understanding of basic geography and political governance should go edit ]. I'm sick and tired of Tuesday's sockpuppetry and when he gets blocked I'll be forwarding you the link. Apologies for being blunt, but cordiality doesn't seem to work around here. What a joke. ] (]) 20:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

== Edit warring update ==

I think I've informed most of the admins/users involved, but for those who don't know, An was discovered immediately after Tuesday's ban and was blocked for 1 week. Good job admins. ] (]) 11:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

== Continued vandalism at List of terrorist incidents, 2009 ==

]

According to his userpage, by admin ] for edit warring, but that seems to not have taken effect. I'm truly surprised none of the admins involved, including William, have ]. Perhaps they have a good reason. :D ] (]) 19:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
:The block was from yesterday and it has expired. –<font face="Verdana">] (])</font> 19:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
::Oh right. Just expired like an hour ago lol. My bad. ] (]) 19:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
:::Well, since you're here, does his edits concern you? LOL. ] (]) 19:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
::::Haven't reviewed them at this time... Not sure why I'm here, to be honest. <small>(Ah, I see I previously declined an unblock request for one of your prior blocks...as such I should probably just let a fresh admin review this)</small> –<font face="Verdana">] (])</font> 19:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
:::::Sounds good. ] (]) 19:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

== WMC ==
Hello again Wikifan. Just saw you having some misunderstandings at WMC's talk page, and I hoped to clear them up. A block template is never ''required'' when there is a block. You can always put the unblock template on your page, even without the block template. Second, when someone deletes something (other than an active block notice) from their page, you shouldn't replace it as this can be seen as harassment (see ]). Finally, you were blocked for a 3rr violation. That's standard and automatic, so the question of impartiality doesn't really come into play very much. See ] for more information on that. WMC just said that since you now have a demonstrated history of editwarring, you'd better stick to 1rr and discussion from now on, at least until you get the hang of consensus building through ]. Hope this clears things up. ] (]) 21:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

:Like I said, 3rr is automatic. It is not possible by definition for a regular editor to be a vandal. They can be wrong, mean, or ignorant, but they are not vandals until there is consensus that they are vandals. Under certain circumstances it is obvious to ''everyone'', and then consensus is obvious too, but this obviously wasn't such a case. A sock is not a sock until there is consensus of such. Take this as friendly advice to help you from getting permanently banned. I offer this because I know you've had misunderstandings of policy in the past. Read ] and ] very closely so that you understand without the need for warnings. ] (]) 06:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

::Also, if you want 3rd parties to be aware of the conversation WMC is not having with you, the place to do so is at one of the noticeboards, not WMC's talk page. Continued similar behaviour would be called "wikihounding" by any neutral observer. ] (]) 06:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

:::For sock puppet investigations, you need to be short and sweet. "''A did this , B did the same thing . A did this , B did the same thing . A talks like this, B talks the same way .''" Simply linking to their contributions will almost never get any attention, though there may be a backlog of cases, as I have a case in que that has also not been looked at. Until there is evidence that a person is a sock, '''it is not vandalism'''. Very simple, sad but true. You revert someone that is not a proven sock/vandal, you are violating 3rr. A 3rd party observer has to be able to be shown "''Here is where we have agreed that Such-and-such is a sock/vandal.''" If you keep pushing as hard as you push, you will end up being asked or even told not to edit anymore. Learn to work with the community, because without the community there is no encyclopedia, just as without '''all''' of society there is no volume of human knowledge. ] (]) 06:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

== Re: T-shirt affair ==

I think it's too early, but the article is already clearly non-notable. For a start, all the links pointing to it that aren't relevant need to be removed (which were usually added as a result of recentism). The article should be AfDd when it's completely clear that it was based on one non-notable event. -- ] <sup>(])</sup> 23:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
:] ;) -- ] <sup>(])</sup> 23:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

== Jerusalemcenter ==
Hey wikifan, I noticed that a new user intriguingly called Jerusalemcenter has started making updates to the ] article. I contacted them to ask for a ref because that page is hopelessly lacking in refs given that it's 'biographical material about a living person' but they didn't respond. I thought you might be interested/want to adopt them. Some people might argue that the user name implies a conflict of interest. Not me, I hope it is the Jerusalem center as they're well placed to add a lot of well sourced information to that article. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 05:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
::I don't know how the adoption-system works and to be honest I doubt I'd make an appropriate handler. I do see the COI and I could imagine editors using JC as ammo in future-battles. I'll message him and see what's up. ] (]) 05:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

== April 2009 ==
] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]{{#if:Charities accused of ties to terrorism‎|&#32; according to the reverts you have made on ]}}. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the ]. If you continue, '''you may be ] from editing'''. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a ] among editors. If necessary, pursue ]. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] (]) 01:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
:There is an RFC ongoing, let that finish before you keep trying to war the info out. An RFC is part of 'dispute resolution' let it run its course. If you want to reply do it here. ] (]) 01:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
::I've played nice. You obviously want to leave the source in as long as possible. An edit war is a nice distraction, eh? Many users have listed quality reasons why it should be removed. Your argument that we should simply sit on it and wait for the dispute to be magically resolved is rather silly if you fail to respond. I could report you for edit warring (you're at 3) but I don't plan on doing that. I don't I've ever reported you for edit warring LOL. ] (]) 02:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
:::many? really, just as many said it should stay. wait until the rfc is finished, that is all i am saying. and also, learn how to tell time, your diffs below are 48 hours apart, not 'just over 24' ] (]) 02:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
::::Uhh, correct. Yet your persistent reverting exceeds my own (check the diff.) Should have warned yourself. ] (]) 02:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
:::::How could it possibly exceed your own, they are all reverts of your reverts. ] (]) 02:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
:::::::As in, you have more reverts in a shorter amount of time. All my reverts, as well as several other users, have also removed your edits. ] (]) 02:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
::::::::Several other users have also restored the edit (and it is not mine, been there for a long time). But you again miss the main point. There is an RFC ongoing about this very issue. Just stop fucking with it while the RFC is ongoing, give others a chance to look at it. The user that originally disputed the edit opened an RFC to get a wider audience to weigh in. Just wait and see what happens with that. You doing all this by yourself is both pointless and useless. Pointless because of the RFC which should help decide the issue, and useless because it will not stick. ] (]) 02:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::Where is this RFC?] (]) 02:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::It is the thread you have been responding to this whole time. Look at the top of the section. And the edit was added in , well before my time here. ] (]) 02:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::And it is listed ] ] (]) 02:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::The RFC has brought several users into the circle. You can't simply say "wait for RFC" indefinitely or until people get bored and move on. You are the one saying no and you refuse to respond. Also, don't spam my page with edit warring crap. Cut and dry COI and probably qualifies for ] ] (]) 02:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::::The RFC ends at a certain time, and my counting is 2 users who categorically say it should not be there (you and the user who initiated it), 3 who say it is fine (me and 2 others) and 2 (tundra and the ip) who actually responded about inclusion criteria. ] (]) 02:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::::And the warning is needed if I were to report you for edit warring, so sorry, but if you keep edit-warring I will keep placing the warnings. You certainly can delete whatever you want from the your talk, but the warning is a formality that is needed. ] (]) 02:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::::And you should have consensus for removing long standing (3 years) cited text. ] (]) 02:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Just because an edit sits for 3 years does not mean it is somehow more valid. There is a rule for that somewhere on here. An editor obviously couched it in before the article became relatively heated, as the talk has no rationale or discussion for its original inclusion. ] (]) 02:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Plus Wikifan is right about the burden of evidence being on he who wants to include it. Nableezy should not be putting this in until he gets consensus and certainly not edit-warring or being disruptive over it and then accusing someone else. ] (]) 03:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
:The burden has been met, and edit warring over it during an RFC is not proper behavior. ] (]) 03:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
::You were edit warring. Burden has not been met, Tundra and I explained why. Continuing to say "No, I disagree, No I disagree, NO..." is not persuasive nor an effective contribution to RFC. I'm about to send this off to a higher authority and end this. ] (]) 04:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
::feel free, im done here ] (]) 04:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

== Nableezy Archive ==

Just an archive of my responses to his frequent edit warnings and general spammage, most of which have been removed:

"Stop baiting me. It's a COI, since you are the principal character who is evading talk discussions. I've had 2 reverts in the last 24 hours, all of which have been your dubious edits. You, on the other hand, have managed 3 reverts in a little over 24 hours. , , . Please spam my userpage again. It's good evidence. :D ] (]) 01:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)"

.

] (]) 02:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Another cautionary warning that was *shock here, brace yourself* removed: ] (]) 11:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Another removed post:

] has developed potential for tag-teaming.] ] (]) 21:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

More:

] (]) 02:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

==AfD nomination of James G. Lindsay==
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>I have nominated ], an article that you created, for ]. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at ]. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.{{-}}Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. <!-- Template:AFDWarning --> ] (]) 10:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

]. ] (]) 11:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
:WF, I don't think further argument is going to move this one along the right path. If I were you I would put a copy of it in your user space and work on it in your spare time; making sure that as many salient points get into the UNWRA article as possible. It looks like it may be a delete or a merge. Put it in your user space for now and continue expanding as you can, then put it up again later when there might be fewer objections. Don't argue so much, it will get you into hot water. (I should have to tell you!) As for using my arguments, you are more than welcome to. My ideas are your ideas. Mi casa, su casa. Best, TB
::Ok thank you. It can be discouraging at times. ] (]) 03:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

== proper place ==

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring
Will try to work on it today. Also the AfD below may be seen as "harassment" in my view. It hardly seems good faith, especially coming on the heels of this. ] (]) 13:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

::Of course it isn't canvassing. For one thing, both your talk page and that article is automatically on my watch page since I have edited both. Since the article is of interest to both I/P people, I asked Coppertwig to put it up in that area so we can get more input. Hopefully more input is better. ] (]) 02:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Actaully, a better place would be ]. This is a serious BLP issue, and it is surprising to see an admin on the side of the BLP violators. ] (]) 03:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
:Wait, do you think Lindsay should be deleted? ] (]) 03:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

::Oops, you're referring to the charity bit. ] (]) 03:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the Charities page should be protected. NoCal, will you put it up, then? This edit-warring, tag-teaming will continue indefinitely. Nableezy has had good results by using this method of edit-warring to the line and then reporting and/or warning others! Can we get an admin to put a lock on the article until this can be resolved? ] (]) 03:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

== Hi ==

Thanks for your interest in my home page; at least someone liked it. ] (]) 22:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

== ad hominem attacks ==

If you continue questioning the motives of every user that disagrees with you I will make a complaint. ] (]) 04:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

:Make a complaint. ] (]) 04:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
::do it again and I will ] (]) 04:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
::::I question the motivates of any user who demonstrates editing in a POV and non-neutral matter. This includes: removing cited material and bitterly reverting even after a talk, creating AFDs following a pathetic personal feud with a fellow editor, using logical fallacies to support arguments continuously in spite of recognition, and not assuming good faith for single edits (regardless of prior history.) I also question the motivates of anyone who follows me around, spams my pages with warnings, and threatens me with reports. So please, file a complaint. I'll respond when I have time. ] (]) 04:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
:::::] ] (]) 04:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, I tried to re-collapse your response and subsequent discussion to a user's AFD post as a distraction not relevant to the substance of AFD; a slow page load screwed me so that instead of clicking Undo, it became a click on ]'s Rollback Vandalism button, which isn't cancellable. Oops, sorry. Anyway, please leave it collapsed, the issue has been resolved andisn't relevant to the AFD, and the AFD is extremely long already - which I'm sure is one reason why there hasn't been more involvement by people not previously interested in the topic. ] <sup>]</sup> 11:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


Hi Wikifan, just in case, I suggest you keep a copy of the article on your computer. Even it the article is deleted, it may be possible to re-use some of the most important material in a different article later. ] (]) 18:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

:Hi Malcolm, great minds think alike. I just put the same suggestion above and saw you had already done so. Or one could put it in one's user space as an article ie ]. ] (]) 03:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

::I copied and pasted but made the mistake of using that link. I'm wikifan12345, that's wikifan. A different user...lol. ] (]) 03:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
:::remove the categories, they dont belong in userspace ] (]) 03:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Even though you have not asked my opinion, I have two suggestions:
#Be careful about ], because in that sort of situation you are fighting in the conditions others have chosen as being to their advantage.
#Edit some articles other than Israel/Palestine conflict. It is too intense for anyone normal to do all the time, and you will be branded a single purpose account to boot. Even non-conflict articles about Israel would give a break from the stuff that goes on in the other articles.
] (]) 18:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
::::::I've edited a wide-range of articles. Most of my edits tend to be in talks and those that aren't are relatively minor IMO. ] (]) 22:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


Sarah Sanbar
== hi ==


] <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 21:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
I commented on the tshirt page. Please email me by clicking the link on the left side of my page. --] (]) 13:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


== CfD nomination at {{Section link|Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1#Category:WikiProject X members}} ==
== Adding where you found your information ==


<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the ] guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at '''{{Section link|Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1#Category:WikiProject X members}}''' on the ] page.<!-- Template:Cfd mass notify--> Thank you. ]] 09:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
In fact, all material on Misplaced Pages must be ]. This means there is a ref tag referring editors and readers to the source of the information.--] (]) 01:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
<div class="afd-notice">
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0;">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ] is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].


The article will be discussed at ''']''' until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
::I suggest you read what you linked. The source is verifiable. It is an editorial written by notable authors. They assert x, they cite x US government document as evidence. Whatever holes you identify is irrelevant. Again I said, it is an ] published by a reliable source. Something this article seriously lacks. A ref tag is not necessary for an already referenced edit. Just as you listed some unknown Iranian doctor who promotes ME, none of what he said can be verified. It is however referenced, though by a non-RS. I've used talk extensively, listed vast amounts of guidelines to support my edits. I wish you would do the same. ] (]) 02:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
:::::Actually it can be verified at the given link. To attribute something, you at least add a ref tag with the name of the document and the author(s). It is also nice to include the date the work was published or other information if possible. The source isn't disputed, just add a ref saying Wall Street Journal, the authors, and try to get the name of the article. It shouldn't be a big deal.--] (]) 02:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::I did. The reference is the New York Times. What is the issue? In an editorial, 2 notable journalists assert x. That fits well with BLP guidelines. You're right, it shouldn't be that big of deal...because it isn't. See talk for further elaboration or review the guidelines I listed. That should clear things up, though I have my doubts. :D ] (]) 02:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.<!-- Template:Afd notice --></div> ] (]) 13:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
==Freedom House edits==
Could you tell me how you got on to the ] article so that I don't have to feel that you are following me? Thanks,--] (]) 23:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
:It's just looking at its history I hadn't seen you editing it since 2007 and then I saw you start editing it directly to take issue with some of my edits. Could you just temporarily ] from editing it please? Thanks, --] (]) 23:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
::Uh, what? I re-organized the article and am considering submitting it for POV violations. The criticism section was bloated, I added a tag, and fixed a few words. I didn't really "edit," to the extent of adding new material. I encourage you to collaborate instead of asking users to leave. ] (]) 23:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
:::edit: Wait, I did get to the article from your IP. I'm just looking at my history. I was probably going to send you a message and clicked on your username. I'm not hounding you or anything. I didn't even realize LOL. Sorry for the confusion, I will recuse from editing outside of my original edits. ] (]) 23:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
::::It was just really short after my edits and you specifically reverted my moving of some of the information, so I guess I had taken it that way but was trying not to. Anyways, I don't mind if you edit it in a few weeks when I will be much less sensitive about it. Thanks!--] (]) 23:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
::::::I didn't check your diffs. If you left better summaries I might not have changed them. But then again, the article is better with my edits. ] (]) 23:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:30, 24 November 2024

Archiving icon
Archives

/Archive 1, /Archive 2, /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6 /Archive 7 /Archive 8 /Archive 9 /Archive 10


I made this for you.

WTF

I editing rarely so did notice your predicament until right now. How did a sock puppet get to you? --Shuki (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Sol Goldstone filed the last successful AE that ended in a timed topic ban and he/she ended up being a sockpuppet though I was unaware until months later. I'm quite certain Jim Sukwutput is not a sock puppet. Like Cptnono said I was "asking for trouble." I'm just glad my last contribution to the area of conflict was a self-revert. A timely edit. Thanks for the message Shuki. Wikifan 08:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey

Just popped in to see what's going on and saw this. Time off might not be such a bad thing. Everyone needs a break. In the meantime, edit productively in other subject areas. I’ve always thought highly of you as an editor. Would be a shame to lose such a valuable contributor. Best,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I second the two up above. You got screwed even though you were asking for trouble. I still think that second revert was borderline but hopefully strict enforcement on you will set a precedent (oh wait, it isn't since Supreme Deliciousness is still editing). But I have already sent you an email so you know that I think it doesn't matter. I don't support Israel in all things but I know that they will win off Misplaced Pages and that is what matters. Maybe they shouldn't but they will. Cptnono (talk) 06:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
And I have requested an enforced break for myself. I simply am bored of this. After seeing a good game, having some drinks, or even getting some pussy I find myself coming on here and yelling at Arabs. It isn't healthy. Screw it. They don't need us. They will still be stuck and I personally get a kick out of it.Cptnono (talk) 07:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Suits low resolution logo cropped.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Suits low resolution logo cropped.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 14:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Please consider

Please consider the impression given by comments such as this: Misplaced Pages does not have a country of its own. If you mean that it is a big shift "where you are", then say that. Kevin McE (talk) 07:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a quote from the source, not my voice. Wikifan 07:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Response

Hello, Wikifan12345. You have new messages at Bazonka's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Sudan-Iran relations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chinese (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Gabriel Cadis

The article Gabriel Cadis has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A murder victim is not inherently notable. Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper. See WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bgwhite (talk) 09:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Gabriel Cadis for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gabriel Cadis is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gabriel Cadis until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Bgwhite (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Red link in AfD link (your comment in the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gabriel Cadis)

Purging the page almost always corrects the problem of the AfD red link in the template. See WP:PURGE for various purging techniques. Northamerica1000 11:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

ITN

based on Misplaced Pages:In_the_news/Candidates#Nigeria_attacks, you could mark it ads "ready"(Lihaas (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)).

Norwegian C-130 Hercules plane crash

Well, you wanted to wait for more info about the accident. Now we have it: all 5 senior military officials on board were killed, plane hit Sweden's highest mountain and exploded into small pieces. Nanobear (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Smile!

A Barnstar! A smile for you
You’ve just received a random act of kindness! 66.87.0.48 (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Wikifan12345. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Misplaced Pages, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang 11:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 



Hello, Wikifan12345. Please check your email; you've got mail! 
 It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Adam Yauch


I see you have twice added an ethnic category to this article on a recently dead person. As WP:BLP also applies to the recently dead, you would have to be sure to conform to WP:BLPCAT when adding such categories to this article. This entails finding good references that Yauch self-identified with this ethnicity, then attaining a consensus at article talk that this was worth adding to the article. Let me know if you need any help. --John (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)



All right I will address this in talk. I was not the only one who restored the tag. Wikifan  22:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)



Jeremy Piven ‎


 Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial to articles or any other Misplaced Pages page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Misplaced Pages policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. --John (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)



Josh Groban


Funny that you should mention Josh Groban. He has quite an interesting "interfaith" background in that not only was his father Jewish, but his maternal grandmother had a Jewish father (and a non-Jewish mother). And they all ended up Christian. Anyway, while I don't want to get involved in these discussions myself, I will say that there are sources where Piven says he is Jewish, i.e. this, and that John uses the term "ethnic categories" on the talk page of Jeremy Piven, even though BLPcat does not cover ethnicity, and in fact, the proposal to add ethnicity to BLPcat was not passed through. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)



It was just an example. I am quite disturbed John is going around and removing these categories unilaterally when they have been in place for quite some time unchallenged. I don't considered myself qualified as someone experienced in BLP disputes, and I don't want to be reverting John's edits at this point. What do you suggest? Wikifan  23:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You really can't do much other than continue to provide opposition. Certainly with Piven, you have a source where he says that he is Jewish, and John's claim that BLPcat has anything to do with ethnicity categories is totally false. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)



Talkback


Hello, Wikifan12345. You have new messages at  Talk:Adam_Yauch.
Message added 23:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 Brendon is here 23:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)



Orphaned non-free media (File:Franklin and Bash scene 1.jpg)


 Thanks for uploading File:Franklin and Bash scene 1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (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 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)



Orphaned non-free media (File:Franklin and Bash scene 1.jpg)


 Thanks for uploading File:Franklin and Bash scene 1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (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 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)



South Sudan internal conflict (2011–present) move


Hi, I saw that you put a lot of work into the South Sudan internal conflict (2011–present) article so I wanted to get your input on moving the bulk of the content that focuses on the Murle-Nuer conflict to a clearer title. At the moment it is a hodge-bodge of several conflicts that are distinct even if they are related by geography. If you're still interested in this topic, could we get your opinion on the talk page? Thanks! Keitsist (talk) 06:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)



Orphaned non-free image File:Acaida logo.gif


⚠
⚠
 Thanks for uploading File:Acaida logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)



Orphaned non-free image File:294808 arotechlogo.gif


⚠
⚠
 Thanks for uploading File:294808 arotechlogo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)



MfD nomination of User:Wikifan12345/Arab League Monitors in Syria


 User:Wikifan12345/Arab League Monitors in Syria, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wikifan12345/Arab League Monitors in Syria and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).  You are free to edit the content of User:Wikifan12345/Arab League Monitors in Syria during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion.  Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)



ArbCom elections are now open!


Hi,

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)



Nomination of 2011 Tel Aviv nightclub attack for deletion


A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2011 Tel Aviv nightclub attack is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2011 Tel Aviv nightclub attack until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)



Misplaced Pages Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict...please fill out my survey?


Hello :)
I am writing my MA dissertation on Misplaced Pages Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I noticed that you have contributed to those pages. My dissertation will look at the process of collaborative knowledge production on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the effect it has on bias in the articles. This will involve understanding the profiles and motivations of editors, contention/controversy and dispute resolution in the talk pages, and bias in the final article.

For more information, you can check out my meta-wiki research page or my user page, where I will be posting my findings when I am done.

I would greatly appreciate if you could take 5 minutes to fill out this quick survey before 8 August 2021.

Participation in this survey is entirely voluntary and anonymous. There are no foreseeable risks nor benefits to you associated with this project.

Thanks so much,

Sarah Sanbar

Sarabnas  Questions? 21:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)



CfD nomination at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1 § Category:WikiProject X members


A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1 § Category:WikiProject X members on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Qwerfjkltalk 09:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)



Nomination of Cyber Bandits for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cyber Bandits is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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


Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. 
Boredintheevening (talk) 13:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)