User talk:6SJ7/Archive 2

RFC
I'm writing to let you know that Requests for comment/Commodore Sloat has been resolved and archived. Thanks for participating. Bigglove 23:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for clarification
Please see my response to your comments on Articles for deletion/Pallywood (2nd nomination). -- ChrisO 20:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi 6SJ7
From the current issue of the New York Review of Books: Max Rodenbeck is one of the best-informed, fairest, and most perceptive journalists writing about the Middle East ["Lebanon's Agony," NYR, June 28], but even he occasionally lapses. Rodenbeck's analysis hints at but ultimately ignores one of the fundamental reasons for Lebanon's agony: the anti-Palestinian apartheid practiced more thoroughly in Lebanon... I promised you I'd stand on a box and bark like a seal of approval if someone came out and said this, so I thought I'd let you know what's going on in my household right now. The neighbors are wondering wtf... :)--G-Dett 04:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. Just dropped by to thank you for helping keep AoIA on track. But since I hear a funny barking noise out back, I hope G-Dett's not creating AoLA just yet! :--) Best wishes. HG | Talk 04:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know that I replied to your comment about the AfDs. At Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid. My reply is above 6 paras after yours. Ciao. HG | Talk 16:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL, sorry if I look like I'm asking you twice -- had a minor edit conflict with myself?! HG | Talk 16:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Kelly RFA
Howdy, I've reverted your last edit to the RFA, it was more than a typo fix. Regards, Navou banter 01:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oops, I see the typo, I found and fixed it. Navou banter 01:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What are the chances we both say "oops". ;) Navou banter 01:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Kelly's RfA
Hi 6SJ7, your edit to Kelly Martin's RfA was reverted by another user. Generally, when an RfA is closed for whatever reason, the "Voice your opinion" link is replaced with the final statistics for the RfA. This is because when it's closed, there should be no more opinions voiced ;) Just a friendly reminder. Take care, ~ Sebi   [talk] 01:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please ignore my previous message, only just realised there was a thread just above ;) ~ Sebi   [talk] 01:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you e-mail me ?
Tnx. Zeq 04:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This can be generalized a 100 times in wiki
"BYT, I think what you are doing is defining your own POV as "neutral", with the obvious result that anyone who disagrees with you (and believes their own view is neutral) is seen by you as "biased." That's why this whole thing (or indeed any POV dispute on Wikipedia) is so difficult to resolve. The point is that no matter how you phrase it, you are just stating one point of view" Zeq 04:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

About an extremist source
Hi. I deleted remarks taken from David Duke's hate page from the article about Mearsheimer and Walt's essay, and you reverted my deletion. According to Wikipedia RS policy, extremist sources should be used very carefully and only in articles about themselves. Since the article is about Mearsheimer and Walt, not about David Duke, any remarks from this extremist do not belong in it, and hence my deletion is fully justified.

Since I prefer to talk rather than revert-war, I'd like to know your views about how the present version of the article can be reconciled with a Wikipedia policy that is absolutely clear and unequivocal. Thanks. --Abenyosef 21:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

List of massacres during the Second Intifada
Talk:List of massacres during the Second Intifada Looking for outside input into a long-term controversy over the naming and scope of this list. As you participated in the afd, please help us out. Thanks. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 11:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD comment
"As for "what matters", we shall see."...Sorry, I guess I didn't phrase it right. Thats not what I meant. I meant that even if the nom had bad intentions, that is no reason to close the debate since people have left comments in support and opposition to keeping the article. And when I said "There is a clear consensus building here", well, obviously that can change at any moment, as it did. Now, I would expect the debate to close as no consensus, as I assume you do also. Sorry about the confusion. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections
Hi 6SJ7. Thanks a lot for your participation at my ArbCom nomination's vote. I just want you to read my addendum where i explicitly explained my position. I hope receiving a feedback from you. Thanks again. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  17:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

rfm
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Palestinian people, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Within You Without You
First of all, great subject reference :)

Thanks for notifying me -- that's one of the few Signpost typos where it is probably a good idea to notify me, since it was a direct quote sent to me via e-mail. Ral315 (talk) 12:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Zionist attitudes toward the Palestinian Arabs
Hi. Thanks for your comment. I came to the conclusion of the AFD on several matters. Manyof the Delete arguments were along the lines of "POV Fork", yet no one that said delete actually goes into detail about it and what makes them think that. I never looked at the related user contributions, but the reasonings are alarmingly similar along the same lines. This made me think "sockpuppetry". I'm not accusing anyone of it (and I'm pretty sure you aren't a sockpuppet), however it just seems weird that many people said delete with a reason along the same lines as someone else. Some were saying "Delete - POV fork"; without justification why they think that; yet some of the Keep reasons went in depth. I hope I have cleared some things up here. I apologise if it seems like I am accussing you of sockpuppetry. Cheers, D.M.N. (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal
A case has opened in the WP:Mediation Cabal and a user has listed you as an involved party, related to edits/comments at Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The case is located at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-09 Israeli-Palestinian conflict‎, please feel free to comment on the article talk page. Thank you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * PS. I felt like it was time to open a mediation case, since in spite of all the contention, dissent and new proceedings curently going on, as well as edit-protections on several entries, there are actually very few active mediation efforts for any articles right now. so this is a step in hopefully a right direction. by the way, did you know that a single MedCab case can cover a few articles at once? so this seems like possibly an appropriate way to go. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 22:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Article discussion
Re Talk:Palestinian people, I don't see the value of reopening discussion. I feel we should uphold the compromise which we agreed to, and which no editors even suggested going back on. i do appreciate your interesting insights though. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 05:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Super Duper Tuesday
Just a quick note to say that I too am super-pumped. Lemme vote. Now that Chris Dodd's out of the game, I am beginning to mull over a Giuliani-Kucinich ticket. I also think Pee-wee Herman would be excellent, but I'm beginning to sense that he isn't running.--G-Dett (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was supposed to be a link. Are you on board for Peewee or what?--G-Dett (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Low tension collaboration on Israel Palestine issues
Greetings 6SJ7, glad to see your comment at the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration about editing a low-tension article to help foster collaboration. Maybe you could help us out on this. Can you think of an article, within the scope of the Isr-Pal conflict, that we might choose to collaborate on? Not one that is already under serious dispute, but I suppose still would potentially appeal to some folks? I suggested a few on the WikiProj talk page, but I'd really like to come up with better options. Thanks. HG | Talk 23:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa
Well, not this time anyway it seems...my effort to regain my adminship was unsuccessful, but your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 07:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:IPCOLL
Thanks for your recent comment, which I agree with. Glad to have your input. I encourage you to sign up as a member on the project page, which would help give us more balance (and your fine thinking), but in any case I welcome your ad hoc involvement. Kol tuv, HG | Talk 18:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Privacy
I don't mind having no tag on it. The claim that it was proposed as a guideline and failed to gain consensus does seem supported by history, though. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply to comment
Hi. I replied to your comment regarding the proposal at Talk:Palestinian people. When you get back to editing, I'd like to hear your response to the questions I posed to you. Thanks.  T i a m u t talk —Preceding comment was added at 09:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi
How are you? Good to have you here. i actually wasn;'t sure if you were still here, but I see you;'ve been here all along, just in different places. How are things? Hope all's well. good to see you. let me know where you've been runing around wikipedia. :-) see you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

article efforts
Hi. I could use a little help. please take a look at the following talk pages when you have a chance, and keep an eye on my efforts. it would be good to have some other editors add their views to the process and discussions as well. thanks. Talk:Israeli settlement, Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Pallywood
Please note the discussion at Talk:Pallywood for a detailed explanation of why the version you reverted to (by Jaakobou) isn't adequate - it doesn't attribute the use of the term properly, it isn't what the cited source says and it's largely original research. Please also bear in mind that whatever you add to Wikipedia needs to be compliant with WP:V and WP:OR, which that version fails quite badly. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

My RfB
I wanted to personally thank you, 6SJ7, for your support in my recent RfB. I am thankful and appreciative that you feel that I am worthy of the trust the community requires of its bureaucrats, and I hope to continue to behave in a way that maintains your trust in me and my actions. I have heard the community's voice that they require more of a presence at RfA's of prospective bureaucrats, and I will do my best over the near future to demonstrate such a presence and allow the community to see my philosophy and practices in action. I hope I can continue to count on your support when I decide to once again undergo an RfB. If you have any suggestions, comments, or constructive criticisms, please let me know via talkpage or e-mail. Thank you again. -- Avi (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Archiving
6SJ7, I noticed that your talkpage is getting a bit long, over 60K, and some people's browsers start having trouble with anything over 32K. May I set up an archiving bot for you? That would automatically archive any threads that had been inactive for a certain amount of time (like 30 days or whatever you like), and then you wouldn't have to worry about it anymore. :) Let me  know, Elonka 16:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)