| Revision as of 16:17, 20 July 2006 editPinchasC (talk | contribs)8,782 edits →New arbitratrion case← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:08, 20 July 2006 edit undoFormeruser-82 (talk | contribs)15,744 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ] | |||
| <blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><blockquote style="background: white; border: solid 2px darkblue; padding: 1em;"><big>Thanks for visiting my Talk: page. | |||
| <p>If you are considering posting something to me, please:</big> | |||
| <p><b><big>*Post new messages to the bottom of my talk page.</big> | |||
| <br><big>*Use headlines when starting new talk topics.</big> | |||
| <br><big>*Comment about the content of a specific article on the Talk: page of that article, and not here.</big> | |||
| <br><big>*Do not make personal attacks.</b></big> | |||
| <p><big>Comments which fail to follow the four rules above may be immediately archived or deleted. | |||
| <P>Thanks again for visiting.</big></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote> | |||
| ] | ] | ] | ] | |||
| == Your talk page == | |||
| I'm a bit puzzled- you seem to have a deleted talk page, with no links to archives. Is this correct, and if so why? ] 08:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Ok, thanks for sorting it out now. ] 14:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Possible RfC == | |||
| Homey, I'm seriously considering opening an RfC on Jayjg, Humus and SlimVirgin concerning this out-of-process page move. It's conduct that I wouldn't accept from an editor and I'm frankly appalled that fellow administrators should be behaving this way. Any thoughts? -- ] 22:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Original Research == | |||
| Please stop removing the original research tags. They are there for a reason, and I have at least one editor(Nysin), who has expressed his support on the talk page for my original research concerns. Just because you do not seem to understand the finer points of ] does not give you a license to revert changes. Please re-read ], as I believe you are suffering from a serious misunderstanding as to what makes something original research. ] 22:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] arbitration == | |||
| The move/revert war issue for ] has been referred to arbitration. See ] --] 00:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Whether you admit/want it or not, you are an involved party. This case is not about today only. ←] <sup>]</sup> 07:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == RfM == | |||
| {{RFM-Request|]|Apartheid (disambiguation)}}] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 01:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==BOT - Regarding your recent protection of ]:== | |||
| You recently protected this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on ]. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. ] 02:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Removal of other editors' statements from applications for arbitration== | |||
| Please don't do this unless you're sure you know what you're doing. Despite being banned from editing the article, he may make statements about it. Please restore his statement to ]. --] 16:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Right. We are aware of Zeq and will make our own decisions about his participation in the arbitration. ] 19:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Alternative to checkuser == | |||
| An alternative to check user is to send e-mails (not through wikipedia, but direct from your e-mail program) to a mutually trusted admin (or editor) who can do some verifications. This comes down to the same level of security as checkuser has (or even better). -- ] <sup>]</sup> 13:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Ok. Please go to ] and make your suggestion.] 14:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Answered you on my talk page == | |||
| Answered your question on my talk page (feel free to remove this notice once you've seen it). ] (]:]) 08:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| As you created this article, we thought you'd know. Is this polician Harvey the same Andre Harvey who was awarded the ] award for work with ]? Please respond on the article's talk page. If you have details on this, please let me know or add them to the article. THanks. ] 12:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Hello, | |||
| An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: ]. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, ]. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, ]. | |||
| On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --] 13:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Israeli Barrier et. al. == | |||
| :We had an AFD in which the consensus was to merge apartheid wall with Israel West Bank barrier. Please do not unilaterally overturn that. ] 20:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Also, it's not acceptable to make a major change and pass it off as a minor edit. ] 20:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Seems a chunk of discussion up and a'went missing :) Ah well. It's your page, do as you see fit. | |||
| I'm sorry about the minor change marking; my profile defaults to having minor edit checked. As for the former, the issues are there, but it makes no sense for a section whose primary purpose is apartheid to be in a non-apartheid article. But, if it really concerns you, feel free to revert it and I can put it up for a new merge/delete nomination. -- ] 20:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The other problem with your rewrite was that it left only the criticisms of the term "apartheid wall" with none of the reasons for the description ie it was a very POV rewrite. ] 21:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Funny, I thought I had both: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Israeli_West_Bank_barrier&diff=63109278&oldid=63107482 | |||
| {{quotation|'''Some opponents call the barrier the "Apartheid wall", arguing it promotes apartheid by isolating Palestinian communities in the West Bank and consolidating the annexation of Palestinian land by Israeli settlements.''' Opponents of the term reject both the "Apartheid" and "wall" designations, mainly because they disagree with the implicit analogy with South Africa, but also because 93% of barrier is currently fenced while only seven percent is actually walled.|]|Previous revision}} -- ] 21:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks for fixing the link. -- ] 21:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == 3RR at ] == | |||
| Please be aware that you are very close to violating ] with your reverts at ]. As always, you should discuss controversial decisions first, as continuous reverting is not helpful. -- ]<font color="green">]</font> 23:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Drive-by tagging... == | |||
| The reason why I placed the tag on it was my dispute with ] and ] about what I view as their arbitrary deletions of material in the section on biological weapons. As the rest of the article is not disputed, I have replaced the NPOV tag specifically on that section. --] 07:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Read ] == | |||
| I suggest you read all of it. ] 06:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Zeq == | |||
| Okay, fair enough. My apologies. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 12:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Sorry, I have to disagree with the second point you added. He's definitely free to take part in the RfAr. It was never part of any agreement that he wouldn't, if there was no mediation. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 12:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :He can be a party if he wants to be. He can do whatever he wants regarding the arbitration, subject to doing what the committee says. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 12:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :You're forgetting what the agreement was. You were asked to do what you could to get the others on board too (at that point, only BHouston disagreed). Also, you have continued to post to the arbcom case, so far as I know (I'm not following it, so I don't know exactly what has gone on). In any event, given the mediation didn't happen, all bets are off, as I'm sure you know. As you say, there was going to be one process, and the arbitration is it, so Zeq is obviously allowed to take part. No one ever said: "if there was no mediation Zeq would not be part of the RFA." ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 12:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :This is more of the wikilawyering that you and Kim have engaged in, and it's what has caused this whole problem. The deal was designed to faciliate the mediation. But there was none. Therefore, the deal is irrelevant. Had there been mediation, Zeq would not have taken part in the arbcom case, but there ''was'' no mediation, thanks at least in part to you. He can therefore take part in the only process that currently exists. Please give it a rest and stop being so controlling. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 12:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, exactly. I wanted mediation instead of arbitration. And Zeq agreed not to push for arbitration if you would agree to the mediation and help to get the other dissenter on board, so then we'd have only mediation. But you didn't. You hesitated, then agreed at the very last minute, and AFAIK did nothing to ease the process along, so the whole mediation effort was for nothing. You didn't even reply to my last e-mails to you. Therefore, all bets were off. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 14:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| 1806232 5705] 15:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| I'd be happy if you could take a look at the recent 3RR report that ] has filed on me, and take action as you see fit ] 05:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Thnaks for your support on this. I know you and I have had our share of (heated) content disputes, but I've found you to be an editor with integrity. That's something I can't say for FM and his clique of friends. I've been watching their behviour recently and find it to be unacceptable. ] 23:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == 3RR blocking of Zeq == | |||
| Hey Homey, please let me know your side of the recent 3RR-related block of a suspected Zeq IP sock. ]]] ] 05:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Arbitration== | |||
| You presence is requested at the Arbitration Re: Removal of humus sapiens admin privilages due to administrative abuse. | |||
| Please click ] | |||
| Israel Article--] 17:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == I was trying to revert this vanadalism == | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Israel&diff=64696955&oldid=64695160 | |||
| obvioulsy I made a mistake in the revert (between my checking of the logs someone had also reverted it and I by mistake reverted the revert) but you can report it if you want. The fact that you can even think I will delibertly do such stupid vandalism show that you have not really understood ] ] 21:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Fine. You did not really think that I will be enging in such folish vandalism. mistakes occur, it is very tense here as you can imagine and I am more likly to make a mistake. that is all. ] 21:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==New arbitration case== | |||
| An arbitration case regarding you has been raised here at | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Homeontherange_abusing_admin_tools --] | ] 16:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
