User:Fys/talk archive5

User:PPEist
I've unblocked this user now. Thanks for directing him/her to Jimbo.--Shanel 01:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hakim Amer Article
I know Hakim Amer's fate to be fact as I knew one of the brothers personally and travelled to see him after the 6 day war. His name was Abdel Moneim the elder brother who had been a close friend of the family for years. I arrived in Cairo the day he was released from the Citadel and he related the whole story of what had happened to them and their incaceration. The official version was a cover up in order to allow Nasser to remain in power without the stain of having been involved in killing one of his closest friends hanging over him at a very sensitive time politically. Nobody knows if Nasser ordered his removal or not. He always claimed he didn;t. But when he came back to power he didn;t bring the others back with him which they resented. Nasser's aim at the time was to bring in a more secular government and get rid of the control the Army held over the country. He arrested the Amers, Chams Badran who was the Minister for War and one other commander.

Hakim Amer had in fact disobeyed orders which came from Cairo the week end of the attack by Israel. During the build up to the 6 day war the Egyptian army was encamped for several weeks in the Sinai. Nothing was happening and at week ends the officers used to leave their posts and go home,crossing over the Canal, leaving a very low key command in situ. Nasser personally travelled into the Sinai for talks with Hakim Amer and told him they had reliable information that the Israelis might attack that week end and to be sure that they were all under high alert for it. Hakim Amer had differing information and didn;t believe the Israelis would attack on the Sabbath. He allowed his officers to go home that Friday and he left and went home as well. That is what the Israelis were waiting for. When they attacked on the first morning they swept through Sinai because there were no egyptian officers in place to command the troops; Hakim Amer was caught in the cross fire of bombing on his way back to his post. This is why they lost so swiftly and why Nasser didn;t want them back in power and later had them arrested. On the first morning of the war, Israeli Jets were flying over Cairo and they all knew the war was lost by midday on the first day. History may write different things but the truth comes down to the actions of individuals and their motives. How do you want me to credit my section of Amer's biography?

Harold Francis Davidson - rector of STiffkey
You wanted to feature this article. I am quite happy if you wish to do that. I can;t add any more photographs at the moment but a web page is in progress at the present time and I am hoping to find a good publisher to publish a comkplete biography of the REctor's life including original documents which have never been published before. Thank you. Karilyn

Your vote on the RFR poll
Hi, Dbiv, you voted oppose on the requests for rollback privileges consensus poll, suggesting that people who would like rollback should just become admins instead - that being an admin is "no big deal". While I think that in an "ideal" Wikipedia, this would indeed be the case, I believe that over time standards for becoming an administrator have clearly risen. This is apparent by looking at the RFA system throughout Wikipedia's existence - intially, all one had to do to become an admin was just ask nicely, now we have a complicated procedure. A recent proposal on the RFA talk page for requiring at least 30 minimum support votes and a significant number of existing contributions was given some serious consideration. There is frequent talk of "bad admins slipping through the RFA net", and while you may not agree with that philosophy of adminship it is undeniable that the standards have risen.

Because of this, candidates who pass are already very experienced with Wikipedia. While this in itself is no bad thing, it means that for the month or so before they become admins they are not being given the tools an admin has which would help them to improve Wikipedia, by removing vandalism and performing administrative tasks such as moving pages. The qualities which make a good administrator are not determined by length of stay on Wikipedia or number of friends you have, but by personality and character. Time at Wikipedia only gives familiarity with the way things are done here. However, being at Wikipedia for an extra month doesn't grant any special insight into the ability to determine which edits are vandalism and which are not. This is why I believe that we should hand out rollback to contributors who are clearly here to improve Wikipedia but won't pass the RFA procedure because of their percieved lack of familiarity with policy by some Wikipedians. I think that adminship should be no big deal, like you, however I see just two ways to make sure Wikipedians can quickly and efficiently remove vandalism - either by all those who believe adminship should be no big deal involving themselves much more in RFA, or by supporting this proposal and giving out rollback to good contributors who have not yet been here long enough to become admins. We have to remember that our ultimate aim here is to produce an encyclopedia, and we should balance the idealism of "adminship should be no big deal" with the pragmatism of granting rollback to our best non-admin contributors. I would be very grateful if you would reconsider your viewpoint on this issue. Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 13:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:JWterbraak.jpg
Good job. So it's Crown copyright. Was it published? If so, CC expired 50 years after the initial publication, and the image enters the public domain world-wide. Lupo 14:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * So far as I can find, its first publication was not until 2000. It was obviously taken in 1941, but as the National Archives have it in a KV file (Security Service) I imagine it wasn't widely seen. However, it may have been part of "A Digest of Ham" written by 'Tin-Eye' Stephens of Camp 020 which was compiled in 1946. This wasn't published to the general public but it was distributed within the service. David | Talk 14:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That doesn't count anyway if it was only circulated within the service. Ah well... Lupo 14:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Oops. I see you added the "with" I read although it wasn't there! Shame on me. Of course, your "used to kill" makes perfect sense now. Sorry. Lupo 16:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Blair
Sorry for re-adding the common name; I was trying to come up with something that no-one would revert. Close enough...Mackensen (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Harry's Place
"Harry's Place consistently features articles that seek to put an anti Islamic spin on news events and never prints anything that is critical of the state of Israel.

The above is factual and nothing to do with my opinion.

I took your first warning in good faith and modified my entry to reflect simple facts only.

You have consistently removed it for reasons unknown.

Are you a contributor to Harry's Place?

Because if you are this is a disgraceful conflict of interest.

What gives you the right to sanitise the description of a site that routinely and consistently dehumanises Muslims and promotes division and hate.

I have visited Harry’s Place for over a year. I have never seen a word of criticism against Israel and there is a never ending stream of articles that put an anti Islamic spin on news events. This is true and it is verifiable.

Your entry is a disgrace as you are promoting racists.

The least you can do is allow some factual comment that highlights some of it’s less attractive characteristics. 85.70.184.85 12:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "Harry's Place consistently features articles that seek to put an anti Islamic spin on news events and never prints anything that is critical of the state of Israel" is an opinion. If I wrote to the contributors of Harry's Place, they would disagree with it. Under Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, articles should describe disputes and not take sides in them. The article already states that the editorial line is supportive of Israel. The site is critical of some Muslims but not of all Muslims as a class of people, and to say so is in any case an expression of opinion.


 * If you want to look at some other articles, you will see how matters of controversy are dealt with. The DailyKos article is another political blog which has been highly controversial. For the record, I'm not a contributor to Harry's Place although I have met David T and put occasional comments there. David | Talk 13:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * (Note: I have absolutely no idea what Harry's place is.) Even if it was true that "Harry's Place consistently features articles that seek to put an anti Islamic spin on news events and never prints anything that is critical of the state of Israel", how do you know it? Let's see, you know it because "I have visited Harry’s Place for over a year. I have never seen a word of criticism against Israel and there is a never ending stream of articles that put an anti Islamic spin on news events." That's Original research, not allowed, and doesn't satisfy wikipedia's definition of Verifiable either. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Cheadle graph
Any better? Do you think it's worth indicating the relatively minor changes before 1983 and 1997? Dmn € &#1332;&#1396;&#1398; 12:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That is better, but there were also major boundary changes in 1983 (they coincidentally produced a constituency which voted almost the same). I would also put a dotted line for a minor boundary change in 1997. The vote changes based on estimates for the previous election are known in some cases (they are in the article). David | Talk 12:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Harry's Place
"Duke is a self-styled white nationalist widely regarded as a "white supremacist" and "neo-Nazi" by mainstream political and civil organizations, including the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the Southern Poverty Law Center. He denies this description, stating that he "strongly condemn[s] any effort of any race to be supreme over or control other races or nations.""

So David why is it ok to include adverse 'opinions' on the likes of David Duke and not Harry's Place?

As stated above he denies these opinions, which you cite as the test, yet the opinions are included.

Why is it not acceptable to point out that Harry's Place always takes an anti islamic stance in EVERY article that dscusses the middle east and goes to extraordinary lengths to omit any critisim of Israel. These are verifiable facts.

For the record I despise Duke as much as Harry's Place. They are different sides of the same foul coin.

Yet an appropriate caveat is included in Duke's entry while you present Harry's Place as some innocent political blog.

You sir are a blatant hypocrite.

You are working hard to promote a racist website and you are clearly 'in bed' with the foulest hate mongers.

Your argument about not allowing opinion do not withstand five minutes of scrutiny.

Why the bias? Is anti muslim hate more acceptable to you than anti black or anti jewish hate.

Shame

85.70.184.85 14:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Please read the 'no personal attacks' policy of Wikipedia: we comment on content and do not attack other contributors based on their personality.


 * Check carefully the David Duke article which you quote and you will see that those statements are not statements of the article, but statements reported in the article that have been made by David Duke himself and by others (outside Wikipedia) in criticising him. Where a critical comment is disputed, the article then reports his response to it. This is a good 'neutral point of view' article: it describes the dispute, but it does not take a side. Your edits were different in that they were not opinions of other people described on Wikipedia, but your own opinions which you wanted the article to endorse. This isn't the way encyclopaedia articles work. The Harry's Place article already describes the political stance that the blog takes. David | Talk 14:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Tony Blair
If you look at any official government website, the Prime Minister, and indeed any Cabinet minister are afforded the prefix "The Right Honourable". If the Wikipedia Style Manual says otherwise then I would suggest to you that it is wrong and needs changing. User:Toryboy 17:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Lord Birlestone
Sorry if I jumped the gun on putting this in AfD. I actually got there and was putting it in when you made your first edit, and I got the "Edit conflict" page. But hey, way to hustle! --DanielCD 14:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No harm done, the pages were indeed total garbage. How on earth creator thought they would go undetected is an interesting point to ponder. David | Talk 14:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Joke's RfA
Hi David, thanks for your support in my (successful) RfA! –Joke 16:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Swing
David, I seem to recall you have an opinion or two on Lab/LibDem swings, so I think the current editing of Dunfermline and West Fife by-election, 2006 may be of interest to you =) doktorb | words 09:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Swing (definition of)
I've edited the Swing (politics) article to try to make it more NPOV and less POV. I'm trying to redirect disputes about what Swing is away from individual election pages to the swing page and its talk page rather than having dozens of copies of the same dispute, one for each election.

I guess presentation of election results is really a Manual of Style question, rather than a question for talk:swing, but I have no idea whereabouts on manual of style to start.

Elections in Mid Ulster in the 1950s
Your knowledge would be valuable at Talk:List of UK by-elections

The Independent's error
Rather ironic, don't you think, in an article about Wikipedia's accuracy! Robdurbar 15:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

On the News of the World video
Please do not write this as a POV section. You obviously missed the Ten'o'clock news on BBC One last night. David | Talk 16:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did not see it. I regard it as POV if people here call beaten up teenagers terrorists and try to hide the fact that they were kicked in the genitals while forced to the ground. Get-back-world-respect 16:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Looked at the BBC video, did not see any mortar attack, and if there is anything newsworthy besides the abuse I would say it is that Basra broke up relations with the British troops and that someone has been arrested. That is what major news services report, nothing of a mortar attack. Get-back-world-respect 16:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There was a mortar attack on the video shown on the BBC last night. The item shouldn't say that the Iraqis taken into the compound were terrorists or protesters, although some kind of stone-throwing protest had been going on. Going into details about what happened to the Iraqis is however excessive. David | Talk 16:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I regard it as quite offensive to mark a revert as minor when you remove factual information about the abuse. They were forced to the ground while beaten and kicked, that is important. Get-back-world-respect 17:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's excessive detail, that's what it is, and you're skirting a 3RR violation for insisting on including it. Also, what was that big explosion in the middle of the compound right at the start of the video linked on the BBC site? (Clue: A mortar attack on the compound) David | Talk 17:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I am quite puzzled by the insistence of some here to downplay the abuse. Others agree with me that it is not excessive detail to cover that the teenagers were forced to the ground while kicked at and beaten. You have no right to mark a revert about a content dispute as minor, and you violated 3RR yourself. Get-back-world-respect 18:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

3RR on Current events
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. -- Tom Harrison Talk 00:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Um how so? when ur edits were all different? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.169.47.206 (talk • contribs)

Regarding your email to me, at least four times, you removed some variation of the phrase about "kicking while forced to the ground." Your edit warring disrupted the page for some time. Take your complaint to whomever you think appropriate. I will certainly not unblock you. Tom Harrison Talk 19:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It has always been a matter of netiquette that private emails may only be made public with permission of the author and I didn't give you permission. Please do not do this. You are a relatively new admin and clearly do not understand the 3RR, and I advise you to read carefully Revert because you clearly do not understand that either (the phrase you use "some variation of the phrase about" gives it away). Edits that attempt to reach a consensus are definitely not covered by the 3RR. If the 3RR acts to dissuade editors from trying to reach a consensus then it is actively hindering the task of writing a good encyclopaedia. There was no edit warring on my part and it didn't disrupt the page for any time. David | Talk 01:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You had deleted the same words that were inserted by two different users six times, twice even after warnings from two admins. Then you threaten an admin and now you complain? Get-back-world-respect 01:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * When I was browsing the page throughout the dispute, it seemed to me that the changes were not reverts. Although each change was close in the sense that it involved making similar edits, each edit was, in fact, different, and you can see an overall shift in tone from one change to the next. Thus, 3RR doesn't really seem applicable here. Even if it were, it seems in bad taste to block both users with nary a warning. My two cents. -- Hinotori(talk) 01:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I have unblocked you. Many people agree that you did not violate the 3RR. My action in blocking both of you was probably heavy-handed. I regret not responding to your email more quickly. I am sorry that your first impression of me was negative. I hope you will excuse my mistakes, and that we will be able to work together in the future. Tom Harrison Talk 15:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

GBWR
deletion of CSD opposition comments isn't vandalism? Deletion of warnings isn't vandalism? It's written right into wikipedia policy that those both are. &rArr;   SWAT Jester     Ready    Aim    Fire!  00:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * He's on his own user talk page. He's also probably quite pissed off. I think the best thing to do is to leave him alone, and if he's really interested in continuing as a Wikipedian, he'll remove it of his own accord. If he's not, then he won't make any edits and nobody will be interested in the talk page of a departed user, and it won't matter that much. David | Talk 00:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

But my point is look at the actions he's taking: He's hiding his warnings and stuff behind a deletion, so he can continue with a clean slate. That shouldn't be allowed, and I'm pretty sure it's not. &rArr;   SWAT Jester     Ready    Aim    Fire!  00:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * He can't hide the block, because we have the block log. You're right that no admin should speedy delete a user talk page merely because the user concerned has put a speedy tag on it, and in fact none has done so in this case. I just think he should be left to simmer down, and the speedy delete template will be gone from the page without much delay. Getting tough on someone for a minor dispute just tends to escalate it, in my experience. David | Talk 00:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but that'd be if it WAS just a minor dispute, but GBWR hasn't shown to be the best behaved editor ever, far from it, and pretty much manages to find trouble wherever he goes, be it revert wars here, on the Iraq War page, on the Crimes against Humanity Page, on talk pages, on the CSD page, on the WP:3O page....and those are only the ones I know about! &rArr;   SWAT Jester     Ready    Aim    Fire!  08:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking yourself
Could you explain your actions in unblocking yourself? Your excuse is not consistant with your editing pattern. It was also the excuse tried by User:Stevertigo. It doesn't appear have been accpeted on that occation.Geni 03:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry David, but I'm going to reapply the 24 hour block. You do not unblock yourself, no matter how unfair it may be. Please get another sysop to agree and do it for you. Discuss and take it up with Tom via email. There are hundreds of sysops that you can email to contact. By getting another admin to do the unblock, it is also a sign vindication and having your name cleared. 24 hours isn't that long. - Sincerely, Mailer Diablo 03:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the initial 3RR block was unjust (those were absolutely not reverts), and had you not unblocked yourself I would have done it for you. But I also agree with Mailer Diablo - there are other ways to deal with your situation (saving the long edit in a text file, which is how I tend to work on major edits anyway).  You could have waited a few hours.  --ajn (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * While I agree with what's been said above, I'd like to comment on the Stevertigo parallel. I was a blocking admin in that case (weren't you as well, Geni?), and I don't find the comparison apt. For one thing, the Stevertigo block was wholly justified–he was revert-warring at that time For another, he then turned around and blocked me for blocking him. This appears an isolated incident, caused by an unfortunate and unnecessary block. Mackensen (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

UK WWI Vets Butcher and Newcombe
I suggest you put a note beside their names in the list on Surviving veterans of World War I mentioning that they were not in combat, but are recognised, a-la the notes on some of the French vets. That might help prevent people from removing them unnecessarily. - Rye1967 19:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Harry's Place
Hi there, I have a question about the article Harry's Place, which I stumbled upon. It seems to have been deleted in November (apparently called Harry's_place at the time), and you created it again in December. Were you perhaps unaware of the result of the AfD? Anyway, the blog looks non-notable to me (the current Alexa rating is 136,284 ). Cheers, David Sneek 19:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Traffic count isn't everything. In this case, it is quality not quantity: it is an influential blog. An AfD consensus does not preclude the rewriting of a new article if the subject becomes more notable and there had been a material change between the AfD and the recreation in that it had been nominated in the best Weblog awards. Does this explain it? David | Talk 19:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Can't say I'm completely convinced regarding its notability, but at least I know why it was recreated. David Sneek 19:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for your support of my request for adminship. I'm delighted that the RfA ultimately succeeded with a final consensus of 52/1/0, so I am now an administrator. If you ever have any comments regarding my editing, or I can help you at any point in the future, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Again, thank you! └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 10:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for an explanation of your actions as an Administrator
You have just removed the following from Administrator intervention against vandalism :
 * Normalmouth (talk &bull; contribs &bull; [ page moves] &bull; block user &bull; [ block log]) has admitted on their own Talk page to creating a sockpuppet account: Goatmix (talk &bull; contribs &bull; [ page moves] &bull; block user &bull; [ block log]) . They are also waging a POV campaign against a political party: Plaid Cymru.--Mais oui! 10:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * - :Not in my judgment. Normalmouth is a newbie, there is no evidence of abusive sockpuppetry. WP:BITE. David | Talk 10:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you please expand on your reasons. I am very concerned with your interventions in this particular case, because Normalmouth is a fellow Labour Party colleague of yours, and has been persistently applying POV edits to the Plaid Cymru article, acting in pure bad faith. Also, you have not addressed the serious, and proven, case of Sockpuppetry. I would like the input of other Admins in this circumstance. I request that you restore that posting and let another Admin deal with it.--Mais oui! 12:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've only your word for the fact that Normalmouth is a Labour Party member. His edits are certainly not vandalism (strongly POV edits are not vandalism). Sockpuppetry is not banned on Wikipedia, merely abusive sockpuppetry to evade enforcement. Finally WP:AIV is only for urgent action. Does this explain it? David | Talk 12:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
--Matth e w UND (talk) 05:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Candidates for the 54th United Kingdom Parliament
Thanks for the tips. I am trying to complile data of candidates for the next general election. So far i've only found around 15 Conservative candidates which i've obtained from the Conservative Party website.

Brayson 17:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Opinions on this may differ but I would quite happily put in the sitting MP in all seats except those in which they have already announced their retirement. I can tell you that the Labour Party has not yet begun its selection procedures. The Liberal Democrats have selected in some of their target seats. David | Talk 17:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Pdshore.jpg
Hi, could you please provide a source for this image? Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 20:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Squidward Vandals
Can you block indef per WP:OP - these are all open proxies. Thanks Tawker 23:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Just done my two with permablocks. David | Talk 23:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)