User talk:FayssalF/Archive I

Israel and the UN
Being subject to some considerable buffing and POV pushing - can you have a look please? 86.27.55.184 13:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Necesito un favor
Hola Svest, Necesito pedirte un favor. Hace ya tiempo subi una foto del coche de mi ex novia. Esta tarde me ha sonado el móvil y resulta que era ella para quejarse de la foto. Me parece bastante absurdo porque incluso borré la matrícula por si acaso, pero aún así no está muy convencida. El caso es que tengo demasiados dolores de cabeza ahora mismo como para tener que preocuparme también por algo así. He intentado borrar la foto pero como no soy un admin no puedo hacerlo. Te agradecería muchísimo si la pudieras borrar por mi. Ya intentaría encontrar yo una foto alternativa para el artículo luego. Saludos, E    Asterion  u talking to me? 23:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No te preocupes, ya he colgado una foto nueva. La pena es que la calidad es bastante inferior pues está hecha con la cámara del móvil... E    Asterion  u talking to me? 07:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Feedback
FayssalF, Do you have any feedback here? we are trying to write a mannual of style. Thanks --Aminz 04:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

POV organisation
I appreciate that you've read my comments, but the organisation you have made is one that gives undue weight to Robert Fisk (who shouldn't be included at all when we are reducing citations from HRW and Amnesty, and in general creates unnecessary subsectins and confusion. Please revert and we can discuss exactly what to do, but the edit as it stands now is certainly not endorsed by me.  Tewfik Talk


 * Well since I have your attention, someone keeps changing the Lebanese casualty range from that supported by sources (and agreed on by myself and Iorek on Talk). A reversion would be appreciated.  Tewfik Talk 17:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't check the Talk yet, but I may have been mistaken. Thanks anyways,  Tewfik Talk 18:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Please look at the reinstatement of the POV organisation. He is open to discussion, but I can't do it now.  Tewfik Talk 19:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry to bother you again, but re: our previous discussion, what do you think about the Peter Bouckaert quote?  Tewfik Talk 21:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted history
Sorry for any inconvenience. The page froze, and took so long to load (despite a few attempts) that I went off and had dinner and came back later. It's back now, anyway. And by the way, before I deleted the page, it was unprotected from edits and fully protected from moves. The deletion, of course, undid all protection. I see that you've just semi-protected, so in order to respect that and to undo the effects of the deletion, I've changed it to semi-protection for edits and full protection for moves. Regards. AnnH ♫ 19:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict polls
Yeah, imagine having an actual discussion and vote as the headers imply. Craziness!--Sloane 20:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

RE: Muhammad

 * Why don't you simply stop being a pain in the neck?!
 * Read the footnote and kindly accept the indubitable historical fact that Muhammad established the religion of Islam!
 * Editorius 10:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as this point is concerned, there is absolutely nothing left that needs to be discussed again — period. You tactically (mis)use the "NPOV policy" as a pretext in order to cover up the historical facts ideologically. Once again, the formulation you happen to disagree with is scientifically impeccable; so be so prudent as to refrain from becoming a real pain!--Editorius 11:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

On Pape's Characterisation as 3 campaigns
Have you read Pape's book? In it he documents 3 distinct campaigns. This is his view. I am verifiably reporting his view. Therefore, you have no right to revert the edit.


 * 1983-1984 against the US and France - 5 separate acts
 * 1982-1985 against Israel - 11 separate acts
 * 1985-1985 against Israel and South Lebanon Army - 20 separate acts

That is 3 separate campaigns, of which the incidents you mention were 2 acts.

Would you kindly revert your latest edit please?

Jonexsyd 11:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Per your request, I have updated with a specific, verifiable, page reference.

Jonexsyd 12:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Jonexsyd's recent edits
Hi.

I made two edits. I moved it from the Ideology section to the "Stance on the use of terrorist acts" segment because it was out of place where it was. Having done that I realised the text quoted was identical to the text quoted in the paragraph immediately above.

Please review my edits carefully and tell me if you disagree?

Jonexsyd 12:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR warning
You have violated 3RR by reverting 2006 Qana airstrike 4 times in the last 24 hours. Please take a short break from editing this article, or you will be reported and blocked. Isarig 17:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You have twice added "alleged" to the captions of IDF video, and have an additional 2 edits in the last 24 hours in which your own edit summary says it is a revert. Take a break. Isarig 17:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please acquaint yourself with WP:3RR. On my Talk page you admit to twice adding "alleged" to the captions of IDF video, but claim that "that's not a revert edit." WP:3RR very clearly and explictly says "A revert may involve as little as adding or deleting a few words or even one word. Your other two edits are self-described by you as reverts. I have been very civil with you and gave you some friendly advice. If you choose to interpret that as a threat, don't go whining when you are reported. Take a break from editing that page.Isarig 18:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

 * I didn't realise you hadn't banned him/her, oh well you can keep the Barnstar.
 * Ok, well if they are temporarily stopped, they probably (hopefully) won't come back.

Wide dispersal pattern weapons
Hi Fayssal,

The HRW report about Israeli cluster bombs and Hezbollah ball-bearings was removed due to space constraints to Targeting of civilian areas in the [[2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. While I don't think there is any reason to restore it to the main page (we really are tight on room, and there are basic HRW, Amnesty Int'l, etc statements), if it is, it should be in the vetted, NPOV form included there (which includes both issues. Let me know what you think. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 17:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If balance is the concern, then we should use a neutral description of the HRW report - one that mentions both problems. I only suggest using the one above because it was in the main article for a time (until space demanded it be removed), and is consensus/NPOV. I'm not sure what these two claims would add to balance of the article specifically. Human-sheilds is its own issue; balance would be including claims of Israeli use of human shields, not just reporting something else critical of Israel. If we took this path, we would end up restoring all of the numerous reports and supposed violations on both sides. (What did Avraham do? =D) Let me know,  Tewfik Talk 17:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi again, and sorry for unilatterally removing before getting your response, however I'm still not sure why anything other than the version at 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict should be inserted, or why the set of claims should be inserted at all. It doesn't balance the human shield section, but adds a new section. Let me know,  Tewfik Talk 18:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not in Israel, though I appreciate your concern

. My family is originally from Iraq as well as Palestine and Israel, and I'm currently studying in the West.  Tewfik Talk 18:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologise for the faulty link/s, take a look at this (Targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict), and then maybe my comments will make more sense =D.  Tewfik Talk 18:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * (Feel free to paste this all to the Talk; I just have few words right now) It may well need to be removed and replaced with a short but detailed summary of all the claims, but I think with the amount of claims and counter-claims, that may get unwieldy. In the meantime, if you feel that the wide pattern weapon claims are important enough to merit their own inclusion, then it should be the NPOV and vetted (its a great word) version that I linked to. As an entirely separate note, I'm not sure how you see this as providing balance, as if the pair of claims are added, then any percieved imbalance in the shields section will still exist. Let me know,  Tewfik Talk 18:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

My main issue is that the NPOV version of the HRW statement, that dealt with both Israeli and Hezbollah actions, should be used. I say NPOV, because it was up on the main page for a long time and went through many revisions to reach its current state. I'm getting the feeling we may be talking about different things.

My secondary point isn't one of content (at least I don't percieve it as such =D). It is that while the human shields claim may be given undue prominence in the main, I'm not sure what distinguishes the wide-dispersal weapon critiques from the other half-dozen critiques. I think that a detailed but short summary may be in order. To that effect, general accusations of mutual war-crimes are already mentioned under UN and HRW sections. Let me know,  Tewfik Talk 19:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

After you .  Tewfik Talk 19:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've only had good experiences when in discussion with you. I'm glad you are part of this article.  Tewfik Talk 19:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I meant that the facts' presentation was skewed by having a separate section for the critique on Israel, while merging Hezbollah critiques, especially as HRW saw fit to analyse the two issues (cluster-bombs, ball-bearings) under one subheading. Cheers,  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 17:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That would be true if all claims for each side were relegated to their relative sections, but as it stands now, there are multiple sections dealing with Israel, and one dealing with Hezbollah. As an aside, while HRW makes individual detailed reports for each of these problems, they deal with both issues under a single heading in their summary. I find this to be an extremely important issue. If the information is presented, it must be balanced. I await your reply,  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 17:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Advance warnings of attacks by Israel
 * Allegations and criticism of cluster bombs used by Israel

VS


 * Allegations of Hezbollah's use of human shields and shrapnel in weapons

and while I think the pilots can go either way (and don't care if the section is included or not), you end up with two section on Israel, and one section that deals with two claims on Hezbollah. If you like, I can separate the two and add more details, as there was also an HRW report dedicated only to the ball-bearings, and then we could have four medium-sized sections. But that isn't good for size, and frankly, I don't see how presenting the two (cluster & bearings) together is unbalanced, especially coming from an organisation like HRW. Let me know,  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 18:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thats fine, but why do you think I err? What do you think of the points I raised in the last comment? I'd much rather understand why you believe I'm wrong than merely disengage. Let me know (if you've the patience ),  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 22:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Happy editing,  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 22:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

And in return
I have no idea what I did to deserve such a pleasant surprise, but thank you 8-D. -- Avi 17:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I really appreciate that. It bolsters my faith in the wiki process when I interact with intellectually honest people that can come to a consensus, that while not perfect, is at least mutually agreed upon as accurate, representative, and balanced. I look forward to working with you further :) -- Avi 19:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Read3r's Star
Hi Fyssal, i wonder how old you have to be to learn all those languages you can use. But i won't ask there about. I've another question. Do you know alot about the pre-islamic beliefs of Morocco? ...Before I forget, this is my Star: Read3r 17:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

User pages
There is no need to create other users' pages for them unless there's a significant reason for it; if users wish to have red links for their user pages, that's just as well. --Emufarmers(T/C) 19:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:QanaII.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:QanaII.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jkelly 20:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me
Salam

Your last edition is mised because of interfere between editions. I apologize you.--Accessible 10:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Formatting for the Israel Lebanon conflict - Strikes in civilian areas
I removed the headers because we're trying to keep the article as short as possible, and they don't really add anything but length. I don't think the three groups need to be separated, since they are all similar. Can I ask why you separate them out? --Iorek85 10:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree it's a very important section; I'm not asking to cut any of the information out, just the headers that you've put in, leaving the content in, like as it was here. I didn't remove the content. --Iorek85 10:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Aisha
I am not sure what your edit here accomplished or what was the intent. The quote that you deleted referred to her virginity, so unless you beleive she was not a virgin when the marraige was consumated it would probably be appropiate to reinsert that quote beside the citation it was attached to but left behind after your edit and now seems to be a citation for a totally different thing i.e her being 9 when she was married. I will leave it to you to fix for now.--Tigeroo 13:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The quote is referenced, so it is allowed since it sourced as long the person claiming it has likely reviewed other sources and can be deemed enough of an authority to do make a statement such as that after a review of sources. Do you dispute his claim? or do you have reason to dispute his claim? I agree that I am not sure what purpose the sentence serves or even if it is important enough for inclusion, but I was more curious on seeing why you beleive he is not either a) qualified to make such a statement after an approporiate review of sources b) the statement is factually incorrect.--Tigeroo 06:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Tigeroo, Well, I think the reason was clear. There were no mention that "Aisha stayed in her parents' home till she had reached puberty." Being virgin was not the point of that quote. The point was that Muhammad didn't marry with Aisha when she hadn't reached puberty; this is what the quote was supposed to say. Putting it in that context in front of what critics say was not a good idea in my mind. I think FayssalF was right in removing the quote from where it was, but it was much better if he could have moved it to somewhere else. --Aminz 06:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:X-chair.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:X-chair.gif. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 20:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Islamofascism
Yes, I do. I moved it to Islamofascism (term) to make sure it was only the term that was discussed, but sadly it didn't stay that way. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 23:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Care to comment?
There is a discussion on Roles of non-combatant State and non-State actors in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict talkpage about the inclusion of detail for Israel. I am of the view that Israel should be included but the detail is being continually removed by User:Tewfik.

Tewfik's argument is what he considers the illegality of Hezbollah under UN 1559 as the reason he removed the detail. However, Tewfik has not removed recent requests of arms sales to Israel such as jet fuel and GBU-28's. I believe he is pushing the POV that aid to Israel is only in response to the current crisis or the illegality of Hezbollah under 1559. US aid to Israel is in fact a long standing agreement responsible for the size and makeup of the IDF. Without the aid they would not have a military capable of engaging in conflict. If you can take a look and support my position (was working under 82.29.227.171) that would be great. RandomGalen 11:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Robert Fisk references
I don't see the problem: I used the same reference for both statements (the general one about hate mail and the one about the Malkovich incident). This is fine; references could be reused. Not to say that perhaps those statements couldn't be better written, but that's a different kettle of fisk. So I didn't actually remove anything; that second reference was the same as the one I inserted as a proper reference. OK? +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion without any given reason
According to what speedy deletion criterion did you speedily delete Arabic sandwich after a mere 27 minutes of AFD discussion? Neither your deletion summary nor the closure notice that you added to the AFD discussion say. Uncle G 00:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hagarism
Why did you lock this Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World? There is a healthy debate going on regarding this article, but no reason to lock the page , as demonstrated by the fact thgat there was not edits for 16 hours until tigeroo came along making his own edits then asking you to lock the page, which you did and to his version. --CltFn 00:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The edits before I came along flat out look like a revert war to me. I've been the following "discussion" for a while without interfering, but the sudden flurry of rv's and disputed edits made me step in and refer it. if the others agree it was only a healthy discussion we can open it back up, I have no issues, but maybe that discussion should be take up there?--Tigeroo 12:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There has been absolutely zero discussions on the talk page. so its time to unlock.--CltFn 23:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

AfD closures
Are you an administrator? If yes, could I ask why you're not deleting pages you're closing as speedy deleted? If not, could I ask why you're doing the closures in the first place? It's quite misleading to see a closed AfD that hasn't been deleted. Thanks. theProject 01:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You seem to have the inverse problem as well; if you speedy an article that was on AfD; please close the AfD nom. Peyna 03:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

And how does one talk to you
Seems like you are trying to quite ppl down if their views dont match yours??? And how do i get to talk to you? unsigned comment by User:DE1

Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (10th nomination)
I noticed you were the one who reverted the AfD tag on Daniel Brandt, although, its already made it to AfD. I've requested a speedy keep, and I'd like to know if you wouldnt mind closing. SynergeticMaggot 01:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Hardee67's block
Why did you choose to limit it to 48 hours?? He might come back, nomination more unnecessary Afd nominations. Georgia guy 01:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

If you wouldn't mind cleaning up the mess you left after blocking this user and removing all of the AfD tags he left behind, otherwise a lot of users are going to be engaging in fruitless AfD discussions. Peyna 02:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Violation on Muhammad
Material has been copied from http://experts.about.com/e/m/mu/Muhammad.htm.
 * It's the other way around. Replied at the article talk page. -- Szvest 02:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Negotiations for ceasefire in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict
Hi FayssalF, I just want to let you know that I've just re-inserted the illustration you just removed from the article, as I feel it's a very good illustration to what has been going on - if you know what I mean. I've just completed a major re-edit of the article, although the introduction needs a bit more work (it's very poor at the moment), and perhaps the article would do with a better name eventually, as it's mainly about the calls for ceasefire and piece, rather than the negotiations. Regards Thomas Blomberg 02:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Morroco
Hi!, I`m write because, you always reverts my changes:


 * Arsacid Dinasty and Parthian Emnpire, is the same I want to write Saadian, Wattasid Dinastyes... are dynasty, but was a country too.

If read; resolution of International Court of Justice in 1975, about Western Sahara, this court reconoce that Morroco isnt heirless of Almohades,Almoravides,Wattasides,Marinids....Moi 13:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC) unsigned comment by User:Bokpasa

Hi Hitler! ,,, vandalismo isn`t put here image= Flag of Morocco.svg, its thrue , you are pro-Morroco, and hate saharawis


 * If you think are different are country and a dynasty.... why dont write Amohads and Amohad dynasty... is the same of Spain and Habsburgs..

One dynasty in one country, like Arsacid dynasty in Parthia.(Moi 11:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)).

Personal attack
Oh very horrible!, you can delete my contribuitions, because you live in Morocco and you are an administrator, and write if I write the thrue about Morroco, you censure my contribuition and block my Ip... personal attack? or defense? Moi 11:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Svest! I dont quite get what you guys are quarelling about. The personal attacks seem quite out of place. What I have understood is that this guy considers that a number of Moroccan dynasties should not be considered Moroccan...--Burgas00 17:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you considerate dynasty?, because if I write that you want (you reverts my contribuition), but If I write the thrue, you reverts my contribuition....

Morroco only have one dynasty, in http://4dw.net/royalark/ you can see the only moroccan dynasty... And is the 3rd time I wrote you about if the read the resolution of International Court of Justice in 1975. This resolution talk about Morroco, and this dynastys aren`t moroccan, Morroco was born in 1631, not before.Moi 23:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ref
I think you mistakenly reverted an inserted ref. If I'm missing something, let me know.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 16:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

God vs Allah
Because of your previous activity with regard to your topic, I thought I'd let you know that there is a poll going on at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)/God vs Allah. It'd be great if you could vote. Thanks! Starwarp2k2 04:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Mauritania is no longer under dictatorship
Are you sure about this? There seems to be a dispute between your edit and the current version.--Antispammer 22:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So what do we do with the entry in list of dictators? Do we put 2005–2006? or what?--Antispammer 14:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok so what years in power do we put for Maaouya Ould Sid'Ahmed Taya ? Can you make the edits yourself? I'm not familiar with that country.--Antispammer 14:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Formatting
What else needs to be formatted on the list of dictators? align=center the country and years in power? Anything else?--Antispammer 14:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

List of dictators currently in power
Join the discussion. I need your support. Thanks --Antispammer 14:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Arabic writing lessons
Hello,

I saw your name in the list of Arabic-speaking volunteer translators and I wondered whether you'd help me create lessons teaching people how to read the Arabic script on Wikibooks. You don't have to invest much time, just adding a few words to the list at will already help a lot. Thank you and good luck with your work on Wikipedia!

Junesun 15:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

List of dictators edit
I believe you may have misunderstood the criteria and procedure for the list. Please see my comment at the foot of Talk:List of dictators for some clarification. And read the stated criteria several times over, as they were very carefully drafted through much negotiation. I defer to your judgement on the factual matter, but it is not procedure to substitute one name for another: each individual leader either does or does not meet the criteria themselves (or perhaps does for certain years, but not other years); there is no succession of listing, nor any "one per country" rule. LotLE × talk 18:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Part of the casus belli
Also, if Hezbollah had been disarmed as stated in the United Nations Security Resolution 1559, this conflict would not have happened. There would have been no Hezbollah and therefore no Hezbollah raid. This is part of the casus belli. Let's keep the facts! --68.1.182.215 20:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Casus Belli again
Please read the article on wikipedia for United Nations Security Resolution 1559. It is REAL and it EXISTS!

I will repeat what I stated earlier: On top of what we already have for the casus belli, it should be added that if Hezbollah had been disarmed as stated in the United Nations Security Resolution 1559, this conflict would not have happened. There would have been no Hezbollah and therefore no Hezbollah raid. This is part of the casus belli. Let's keep the facts!

On another note, it is pretty outrageous to call this a vandalism. Please read the wikipedia article on the United Nations Security Resolution 1559. It specifically states that Hezbollah must be disarmed. Many nations and media sources have stated that if the resolution had been followed, this conflict would not have happened. --68.1.182.215 20:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I am respectfully not a Vandal. :>)
Hello Fayssal,

You warned me to not edit a page on the subject of the term 'Allah' accusing me of vandalism. I am not a vandal and am very interested in the clarity of this word as it relates to other Abrahamic traditions. I am curious as to what your criteria is for calling another user a vandal and why you found my refinements to that excellent article as incorrect. Please reply. Respectfully, 'iammichelle'

My user page etc.
I've noticed that you've only protected my user talk page, and not my front user page (even though it is a redirect) or my talk page archive. I'd like to have those two pages protected in addition to my talk page, if this has not yet been done by someone else.

In addition, I'd like the second sentence of my statement on my talk page to be modified from "Future messages should be sent in your imagination." to "If you would like to send me a message, please do so in your imagination." (The message should still be in bold, however). Editor88 22:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ouch, blocking AOL users
Hello Szvest, sorry to bother you but this block is of an AOL IP address. There's very likely a decent amount of collateral damage in such a block. (→ Netscott ) 22:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Rejection of protection request
I would like to ask you to please reconsider semi-protection for Bible scientific foresight. The individual is shifting IP addresses with every edit, has made the same edit twice in the past 24 hours, and 3 times in the past 48 hours, and 10 times in the past 6 weeks. It is getting more frequent and is not going to stop. If I have to continue reverting what has now become chronic vandalism, I would like at least to require him to log in to generate an audit trail for further action RFA. Thanks for your consideration. The Crow 23:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow Edit
Hi,

You reverted my edit on the Wow article, where I removed reference to a star at RA 19h 08m and the implication that it might somehow be the source.

I've studied the Wow for 25 years, am familiar with the OSU telescope, and have done the only follow-up Wow observations ever reported, so you might consider my edit as well informed. There are a number of strong reasons to not associate the Wow with a star:

1. RA 19h 08m is far from the Wow RA, which was in the realm of 19h 22m or 19h 25m (1950). 2. The Palomar plate for that sky area shows hundreds of stars in the beam(s).

I don't have the time or inclination to revise it again, but you might consider these facts (and/or consult with the folks at OSU) and restore my edit(s) - which are intended to make Wiki a more reliable reference resource.

Bob Gray