User talk:Nadav1/Archives/May 2007

Please get this straight
Nadav, All that is asked is for people to state if they have an outside interest in the matter. As Ed said above, we don't need to know names and I ask Mr Kirpatrick(if it is indeed him) not to start snooping into people's IP addresses for no reason. nadav 17:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Please look at the post you answered. jeanclauduc is "snooping" the IP Address and pointing to it and saying it is Kirkpatrick. It is NOT Kirkpatrick snooping. jeanclauduc's sockpuppet posted this. Every time since you started the MVDDS article, the people who supposedly have NPOV have lumped MDSA and MDSI together. MDSA people have identified themselves every comment. They have not written "LIES LIES" or made any edits that could even slightly been considered an "edit war" Why would you "Ask Mr. Kirkpatrick" not to start snooping? Why do you and RUSS continue to act like we are? What is the motivation for MDSA not to participate in an edit war if we try the right way but are constantly compared with those who do not? Please correct this comment. 76.109.17.236 16:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't believe I wrote that. I obviously meant Mr. Du Casse! My sincere apologies! nadav 18:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

No Nadav, please forgive me. I did not want this to sound like a rant but you start to see what has happened We are really trying to be constructive in this as well and work within the Wikipedia process. You have not seen any violations from MDSA employees since you started this MVDDS dispute article and I think we are restraining ourselves. Please, we just want you guys to understand that we are trying.

PS Is this serious "I noticed there is no real Jewish hermeneutics article."? You are going to write THIS? That subject might be bigger than Wikipedia, GODSPEED! 76.109.17.236 22:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have indeed noticed your desire to work within the process, and I do appreciate it. I am sorry you got the impression that I am not. I don't know what the final Wikipedian consensus will be, but in any case, your company's voice surely deserves to be heard. nadav 22:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC) Ha, yes it is a huuuge topic. I just want at some point to start that ball roling. nadav 22:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well warn me when you roll THAT ball I want to be out of the way. 76.109.17.236 23:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

MDS America merge
The discussion on the merger is basicly stalled, 2 comments from impartial editors and 2 from company employees. I feel it should be kick started somehow, any ideas? Perhaps a RFC should be opened on MDSA. Russeasby 19:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes I've thought about this problem too. I do want a few more editors on our side, so I was hoping the proposed mergers listing would help. Obviously it hasn't. But is an RfC the right approach? Isn't that usually the first step in an arbitration or mediation process? Maybe we should add another listing to the WP:COI/N noticeboard. nadav 19:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that RFC is probably not the ideal route, but its the best I could come up with to kickstart the dicussion. I will add a comment to the COI noticeboard in hopes that it draws a few more editors to participate.  I think a lot probably get turned off by the complex mess of this particular case, its very difficult to follow, someone newly arriving to it would have to spend a lot of time researching all the history here before they could offer input to the merger i think. Russeasby 19:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment in that Straw poll that mentioned WP:CRYSTAL. That seems like a very clear way of stating the issue. EdJohnston 15:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually I think we are getting near to an answer. I have no objection if the balance of the evidence shows that the article MDS America should be kept. If I can get some time I hope to add some information to one of the articles. EdJohnston 23:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

MVDDS and Fraud Case in MDS America
Nadav, the recent edits to MDS America like "fraud case" are really strange. While they writing style and IP address point to jeanclauduc, however the editor is deliberately trying to make it look like MDSA is adding attack material to this article. No one from MDSA added this. The IP address is not from us or any of our employees. MDSA76.109.17.236 09:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That was definitely a weird edit. It seemed to be an attack against both MDSI and MDSA. It said "As a client of MDS International, same us MDSAmerica, you may have..." I don't know what the meaning of this is, but I stopped caring anyway.  nadav 09:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Navad, this article was indeed fully created by my father. I confirm, this is MDSi IP address (and Wimixtelecom is MDSi). By doing that he is trying to build evidence that MDSi is victim of MDSA, and therefore to look like a victim. I recognize his phrasing "As a client of MDS International, same us MDSAmerica, you may have...". He is trying to write the article like if it was written by MDSA. Then he complains to find tis article on Wikipedia (but it has been posted by JC Ducasse himself). Nothing will stop him. Sometimes it is hard to follow his inconsistencies.... --Fabrice10 12:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I am customer of MDSAmerica who bought system from MDSA and found all is stolen and copies from MDS international of france.

I can enrich you with informations from the Owner MDSA Company Al Fawares S Ali Khalifa Al Sabah. Type on google the search words Al Fawares Ali khalifa al sabah case fraud oil kotc embezzing siphoning money thousands. Now he steal from us as customer.

What MDSI say is truth and no lies, MDSA is LIER. I read now must that MDSA hire Wikipedia admins FayssalF and EdJohnson to write bad things about patent company MDSI. But you write e-mail us for more informations. Mdsa customr 13:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
for the "Did you know?" nomination. — scribbling  woman  05:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Nadav, I also want to say thanks for your help with all the labeling and tagging, which I keep forgetting to add (or don't know how to add...). What do you think about the pics I uploaded to the Jerusalem page? Is it really going to be featuring tomorrow, on Jerusalem Day?

Best, --Gilabrand 10:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

2007 Israeli student strike
Hi Nadav. I have created a stub. Any input would be apprecialted. Shukran ابو علي (Abu Ali) 11:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Kapela Auctions
Hi Nadav. I created the content based on services we offer. I carefully followed the content of other similar services on Wiki, for example uBid to make sure the content does not violate any rules. Please tell me what's wrong with it. Thanks

Neologisms
Thanks for the heads up. That's really too bad about neologisms, since many of them are such patent nonsense. Hopefully the policy will change? --AndyR 03:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Article
i think the speedy delition of my article was a little uncalled for. i mean, i can see why you would think that a small wrestling orginization would not be notable, but thats the point-its a small orginization.i thought making a wikipedia article and a myspace page for it would help more people know about it, but i guess it is true that wikipedia is not for advertising.

the thing is, though, i wasnt even done with the article. you couldve at least let me finish. i know, there was no way for you to know i wasnt done. i want to try and rewrite it but you will probably just delete it again, so whatever. see you around.The juggreserection 18:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry you feel this way. Responded on your talk page. nadav 01:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

DYK

 * I did not create or expand the article whatsoever. That honor is reserved exclusively for user:scribblingwoman. nadav 20:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

MDS America merge close
Hello. I believe you have been aware to some extent of the MDS International/MDS America saga in its various phases. Following the MDS International deletion debate, I proposed MDS America be merged into a newly created MVDDS dispute article. Discussion about this merge appears to have ended. May I ask a favor of you to close the debate at talk:MVDDS dispute as you see fit (per WP:MERGE)? Thank you very much, nadav 23:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've commented there. Cheers. -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  03:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the thoughtful comments there. I had thought that a "no consensus" close was possible, but I see now that's not one of the options in WP:MERGE. If time passes without further input, would an RfC be a proper tool to get more people's opinions? Best, nadav 03:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Shalom Nadav. Well you can place a request at Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology anytime you want but maybe it would be better to do it after this weekend in case more input would be brought to the poll. If not put it on AfD and sort this issue once and for all (keep, delete, merge etc...). -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  03:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding Bushisms to Theoretical Linguistics
That add may help remove it from a political exercise. Thanks. --Blue Tie 20:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It was only natural. At first I wasn't sure whether it was appropriate, but given all the political debate it must be necessary now. I've also added the expert needed template, though their expert may reject this article as unrelated to their project... nadav 20:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Babatha
An extension would be great. We're actually creating these articles for a class project. If you don't mind waiting another week or two until making extensive changes, that might help our professor grade our contributions first. If it's now or never though, please make additions now. DavidBild 02:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

re (presumably) Jean-Claude Ducasse again
Is 31 hours the standard blocking time for horrific personal attacks from a user? This one really is unbelievable: (even with my terrible French it looks bad), against his son Fabrice. nadav 21:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll w/ the case tomorrow Nadav. No worries. -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  01:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The case was brought to AN/I. -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  12:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

To Fayssalf
Remember Mr Faysall you edit yourself lies in the talk of MDSAmerica against Myself when you said in French that I said you and this are what you said on this Talk Pages.

This are easy to you to remove the evidences of your lies to help fabrice and MDSAmerica but fortunately and Daily the bailliff make copies of your pages, Thanks to launch a case, this are a good idea to wash the Mud what are said now and before are Nothing for what can be said for the next step! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.224.137.86 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 16 May 2007

I thought that IP addresses we supposed to be WP:SHUN. Did I mistake something? 14:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered
Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 05:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The Adam d'Auna Collection
Thanks for taking care of the two movies and bio article. Could you also do the honors with Love is Blind (2007) and Sheena (2007)? It really is a shame his whole portfolio is getting deleted, though... nadav 09:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Done- thanks for letting me know. It is a shame, but it will always live on in YouTube...  Cat tleG irl  '' talk 09:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

New project page
I saw your reply to Michael Safyan at the Palestin project. I liked what you said, and wrote a reply to him also. however, then I thought better about doing it. however, i wanted to share it with someone. what do you think of this reply? thanks.

I like your idea. As we all know, Palestinians generally disagree with any pro-Israel editors as to whether Israel has a right to exist, has a right to assert itself, to defend itself, or to express itself, or to get out of bed, go to the mirror and brush its teeth. So by giving every single article disputed status, we can point out that while we don't actually dislike Jews or Israel,we do dispute everything they say; however, this is only because Israel's misdeeds are so huge and enormous, and so uttterly eclipse thoise of any nation in the history of the world, that there is no reason to grant validity to anything they say. however, we would be happy to do so if Isrel wasn't so bad. In other words, we want to make clear that while we dispute everything the Israelis say, their right to say them, and their right to defend their right to say them, no one can say we're actually anti-Israel, or anti-Semitic, or possess any unfair bias at all.

(By the way, i was kidding when i wrote this.

Thanks, nadav. --Sm8900 17:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's probably good that you didn't include this there; sarcasm can cause some misunderstandings on WIkipedia. (Somone even wrote a funny essay about it WP:SARCASM.) But I get your message and of course agree with it.  nadav 22:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * thanks. I agrree with you also, re use of sarcasm. good to be in touch. I'm sure we'll talk again sometime here and there. see you. --Sm8900 16:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Award

 * I'm honored! Though a lot of the credit should be shared. Thank you so much for this! nadav (talk) 12:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi there
Wussup?

Why did you remove the gallery section from Ben Gurion Airport? It's too dull now and lacking pictures. How can I bring it back?
 * Hello! (please sign your comments with four tildes ~ ) The reason I removed it is that people on the article's talk page—including myself—did not consider it professional to have galleries in featured articles. Hopefully, the photos will be incorporated into the article proper soon. Best, and please join Wikipedia! nadav (talk) 03:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Watching Jerusalem
I hope you are not planning to stay up all night to guard the page! I'll keep watch till 12:00 UTC, and others I'm sure are checking the page. The only thing I am concerned about is revert wars. What dod I do about 3RR? nadav (talk) 04:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * See Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. --  tariq abjotu  05:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: Jerusalem (international law on 1967 annexation issue)
I know it doesn't really work to just add in a phrase without a citation. I don't really know how to use Wikipedia, true, so, likely, I'm not the one to properly make this change. Yet it is incontrovertible fact that the annexation of East Jerusalem was and remains illegal under international law. To ignore that, and instead characterize the issue as merely "highly controversial," is not just "finding middle ground," but actually mis-stating the facts -- essentially, whitewashing the issue. There will always be plenty of debate -- extremely heated, lord knows -- about whether the law is actually fair on the subject. But the law is the law, AS FAR as it goes. As far as I can see, the proper thing to do is to add a statement after "it's illegal" to the basic effect that "the Israelis and their supporters hotly contest the justice of this law" or whatnot.

Just a thought. It's a serious issue, and someone should rectify this properly -- someone who knows the rules and coding, not me, by all means. --Grinq 06:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Rockville, Maryland
Per the arguments at Redirect, I reverted your edit to Rockville, Maryland. I am presently working on a separate article at Capital Traction Company, and I may do the same with other companies. It might be a good idea to make redirects for now, but the links should not be piped to the main article. Thank you. --NE2 12:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If that were the practice, I would have to look through every link to Washington streetcars every time I made a new article. --NE2 12:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the guideline you gave may not apply, but nevertheless, if you feel that a red link is better and more precise in this case, then I fully support that. Perhaps we should put the link to washington streetcars in the see also section for now. nadav (talk) 12:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The guideline doesn't strictly apply, but the same arguments do. The best option for now is probably to make a redirect. --NE2 12:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That would solve the problem nicely. nadav (talk) 12:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:Year links in Jerusalem
The reason I reverted it is because MoS:L says "Low added-value items are linked without reason — such as, 1995, 1980s, and 20th century make the article overlinked." If I am wrong, please correct me. Anyway, the article has gone through a FAC, so I won't revert it if you decide to link it again. It was originally added by Editore99, so perhaps you can bring it up with him if you want. Spellcast 12:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am trying to only revert vandalism today to avoid 3RR. This will be discussed on the talk page and resolved soon enough, since it is not urgent. Thanks, nadav (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Your note
I need to be offline for a while, so I can't pursue it right now. I think the current amount of vandalism more than justifies an sprotect. If others disagree, let them do the minute-by-minute reversions, which makes us look silly. Crum375 14:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I agree with you. nadav (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Jerusalem
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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 three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-05-23 18:07Z
 * Responded on your talk page. nadav (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Doyle Holly
I saw your note on the talk page – thanks very much for your kind words!

I'm not a country music fan at all, but I have a real soft spot for Buck Owens and the Buckaroos. There's Hee Haw and "Gloom, despair, and agony on me", but As a child, we spent every Christmas Eve at my grandparents' (G-ma and G-dad) house for a big family dinner and gift exchange – there were always at least 12 people there, all family. Every year since I was in kindergarten or first grade, after dinner was over, G-dad would get out this double album of country Christmas carols – Ferlin Husky, Conway Twitty, Jim Reeves, and others. It was an RCA album but I can't remember the title. The big highlight of the whole evening – besides the presents – was when G-dad dropped the needle on the first track on the third side, which was Buck Owens singing "Santa Looked A Lot Like Daddy," which he co-wrote with Don Rich. (I didn't know that as a six-year-old, though.) As soon as the guitar intro started, my cousins and my brother and I would all jump up and start dancing with my dad, uncle, and G-dad. It was very happy, very silly, and an indelible memory for me.

I still hear that song in my head every Christmas. In the chorus when it goes, "He didn't come down the chimney," G-dad would pick me up in the air and drop me during the word "dow-w-w-w-n." We did that every year for 25 years, and he even got to do it with my son, his great-grandson. I'd probably cry if I heard it again because my grandparents are both gone now and I miss them so much. Anyway, thanks again, and if I find more info I'll add it to the article. Have a good weekend! - Krakatoa  Katie  13:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What a sweet, beautiful story! I can just picture the scene in my head. It makes me want to use the long weekend to hear a lot of Buck Owens. Best, nadav (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

tagging BH Graphic Design
G'day Nadav,

thanks for your message. Determining A7 (as opposed to simple deletability) for companies is quite difficult, and I wasn't sure that the article met the criterion. Given that the article was otherwise quite good (compared to its peers), I decided that AfD would be a more appropriate venue. However, if The Rest of the World is convinced that it's a speedy and that AfD is a waste of time, I won't complain. I won't speedy the article myself, though. Cheers, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

All-American Girl Racing
Are you satisified that the article demonstrated enough notability now? I cited an article where the drivers and team are featured in the USA Today. Please leave me a message either way. Cheers! Royal broil 13:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

RefDeskBot
I'm not really in front of my computer right now, but by tomorrow night I should be in a position to restore all of the missing archives, including tonight's archive, which will probably also fail until Martin can find out what's causing all of his bots to log out-- VectorPotential Talk 22:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
...for the award. I'll display it proudly. You yourself seem pretty laid back as well. :-) I suggested a few new possible solutions to the Category:East Jerusalem issue which you commented on earlier, do you think any of them have merit?  --Abnn 04:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Photographs of details of automobiles
Hello. I noticed you reverted my addition of a non-free logo tag to Image:Lancia logo.jpg and Image:Logoautobianchi1.gif, but I don't understand why. Are you claiming that the logos of these car companies are ineligible for copyright or that the copyright has been released into the public domain? If you are not claiming this, then the images are guaranteed to be copyrighted, since they are derivative works (i.e. a close up photo of a copyrighted work is still subject to copyright). Best, nadav (talk) 11:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * These photographs have been moved here from the Commons according to a consensus with Commons administrators, who, I believe, are well-versed in what should and should not be used in Wikimedia projects. I also believe being overzealous here does not benefit Wikipedia, but is rather an emanation of Copyright paranoia. PrinceGloria 11:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * These images definitely can be used on Wikipedia. There's no problem since usage would obviously qualify as fair use. However, we cannot pretend the images are not copyrighted. nadav (talk) 11:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[rest of discussion at Image talk:Lancia logo.jpg]. nadav (talk) 12:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Point 2 is contestable, IMHO - I do not think it is a derivative work. Secondly, all templates used to feature a logo sometime ago, but most of them were logos themselves, so they were duly removed. We still don't have free photographs for every template, but we were fortunate enough for an artist to have made a really wonderful photograph for Lancia, so a new template was built around it. PrinceGloria 12:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)