User talk:Passionless

ITN: Five-Year Plans of the People's Republic of China
--  tariq abjotu  21:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Unblocked
Following a discussion by email, I have agreed to unblock Passionless. Passionless now understands that HJ Mitchell's block was not prompted by anything personal, and although he does not feel that an indefinite block was warranted, he has agreed that in future he will ensure that his editing is scrupulously in accordance with policy. In turn, I would hope that those who had previous disagreements with him would not raise those disagreements again, provided his editing remains within policy. Let's move on from here in good faith all round. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to say that I'm glad that this was one case where "indefinite" didn't mean "infinite". I hope we can wipe the slate clean and hope that the next time we bump into each other, it will be in more pleasant circumstances. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Honest Answer
Is this oppose because I agreed with HJ Mitchell and I worked on the article, or because you honestly believe it isn't necessary on the front page? -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  •  Coor. Online Amb'dor  • 08:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My world revolves around you, I tried to hide it by going back into the archived discussion and adding multiple comments and writing false time stamps but it appears it did not fool you for a second now did it? you caught me, Passionless   -Talk  08:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And NightW is my meatpuppet....I joke, but really I don't care about you or for your veiled insults. Passionless   -Talk  08:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah...so you just wandered into an ITN discussion you knew nothing about, on a page it seems have never edited before only edited a couple times. Right.  Convince me. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  •  Coor. Online Amb'dor  • 08:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe it would be better if we never talked directly to each other ever again. Agreed? Passionless   -Talk  08:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe if you would stop following me around and trying to torpedo an ITN another editor and I are working on, yeah, we could do that. But since I don't see that happening, I can't agree to that.  I am sorry, but I find it hard to believe you just showed up on ITN and posted to that particular thread.  A thread edited by me, a person who you went into battle-mode with just a week ago on my talk page.  Too much coincidence. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  •  Coor. Online Amb'dor  • 08:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What I am about to say is not battling, it is sticking up for myself, if you make baseless accusations of me doing evil deeds or insult me ever again I will have to ask for comment from our peers. Passionless   -Talk  08:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, for one, that wouldn't work, cause I am not the one who just came off an indef block for BATTLEGROUND violations (among other things) and two, I don't respond well to threats. So, no, I won't agree to anything like that when posed like you posed it above.  You can take me to wherever, but threats will get you nowhere. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  •  Coor. Online Amb'dor  • 08:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should have taken a look at my history, such as my 700+ edits to the current events portal, or the two ITNs I got this month, or the fact I made comments on Frank Buckles 16 days ago which is before I ever met you. Passionless   -Talk  08:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit waring
I believe you are under 1 revert per week for I/P related articles. You made 2 reverts in 5 minutes. Care to revert your reverts back? Besides, when you change the article you'd better look what you have done. See all red not linked references there. --Mbz1 (talk) 02:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I made one revert, I can make multiple reverts and count it as one when they are made in a short period with no other edits by other editors changing the same text, do you understand? And I was still working on the article, I was about to cleanup the references, and no that would not count as another revert. Passionless   -Talk  02:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Now that I am done my revert, I cannot revert on the page for a week. Passionless   -Talk  02:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * --Mbz1 (talk) 03:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

warning
You can't make sundry reverts, with other editors editing between them, and call it one revert (Stoning_murder_of_Israeli_teens). Although you may have thought your edits were only on the edge of 1rr, you breached 1rr. Now you know. Given the background on this, you shouldn't be reverting GF content at all in IP topics. Please use the talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Would you please stop your unwarranted accusations?
as you did here, if of course you know what good faith is? Please assume good faith and discuss the article not a contributor.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't hound me. Passionless   -Talk  19:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed mentioning of your user name from my support vote. I wonder, if you are willing to remove your unwarranted accusations from bot places you added it to? --Mbz1 (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Passionless, please consider this a warning. Do not call other users 'liars'. Comment on the edit (as Mbz1 did in this case), not the editor. Also, do not accuse other editors of hounding you without good reason. It annoyed you no end when Neutralhomer did it to you - do not do it to others. In that case, you had previous involvement with ITN, so it was not unreasonable for you to comment in the area. Mbz1 has a well documented interest in all parts of Wikipedia where items pertaining Israel are concerned. Her appearance is therefore way more likely to be because of the topic, not because of your presence. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It was not just that she followed me there but her comment, which has since been editted, stated What passionless says is simply false. Which is half of what hounding is -following with the intent to "[create] irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor."
 * Also I really don't know where this-"Do not call other users 'liars'." came from, could you provide a diff, because I don't remember anything close to such a statement being uttered by I. Maybe you misunderstood my response to Mbz1's original statement?  Passionless   -Talk  22:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologise - yes indeed I did, and I have maligned you. I have struck the comment above, and can only apologise for my error.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * However, if you look on my talkpage, you will find Mbz1 has posted the audit trail of how she got there. There is absolutely no way she is following you - she would have got there all on her own, I can vouch for that. I think the two of you need to learn how to at least ignore each other, if you can't "kiss and make up." You are coming at this from different angles, you are bound to disagree. You need to work out how to deal with it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I just hope the upcoming RfC some editors have been compiling turns out successfully. Just while typing this another question action has occured. Passionless   -Talk  22:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

In_the_news/Candidates
I don't care who started this conflict between you and Mbz1, but you're now on notice. Keep it off of WP:ITNC.--Chaser (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Just want to make sure you understand
this move will not save it from deletion. You should act on this within a week. Otherwise it will be deleted because it violates many wikipedia policies --Mbz1 (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't harass other editors with groundless claims. It doesn't violate a single Wikipedia policy; you lost that particular argument at the MfD.  Soundly.  It is, however, considered to be bad form and discourteous to keep such "I'm going to file one soon" sub-pages languishing forever.  So hopefully one way or another this can be concluded soon. Tarc (talk) 03:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I will try to have it filled by tomorrow night, but I just don't feel like it tonight. Passionless   -Talk  04:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * A word of advice: don't file an AE report on Mbz. You and Mbz obviously have something of a history, filing an AE may result in a ban for Mbz, but will also be likely to have consequences for yourself. You got blocked three times recently, I offered you a degree of support for an unblock, but since getting unblocked you appear to have taken up where you left off. I strongly advise you to forget your feud with Mbz and go and do some constructive editing somewhere. For someone with your recent record, filing a report on another user is only likely to reinforce the impression of WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, so I think you should just drop this and leave the AE reports to someone else. Gatoclass (talk) 05:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Gatoclass has offered you some first-class advice, Passionless, and I recommend you consider it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yah, I did think about that whole BATTLE thing, but this report is not just me against Mbz, the list of diffs was compiled by four editors and records reprehensible acts between Mbz1 and a whole slew of editors...if I asked someone else who contributed like user:Demiurge1000 or user:Tarc to file the report, would that be acceptable? Passionless   -Talk  05:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think you should do any asking. If Tarc or another editor chooses to start an AE report, or an RfC/U, on Mbz1, let them. I think it would be best for you if you just left things alone. Just my two cents. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have standing to file one myself...I've only left supporting comments in the many, many places where complaints have been filed against mbz...so no, that wouldn't be happening. I'd say just courtesy blank the page then if it won't be used anytime soon, then. Tarc (talk) 05:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Was taking The Sham to AE wrong as well? Passionless  -Talk  06:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess I just have to take this as well. (Haaretz was never even mentioned anywhere in the convo either) Passionless   -Talk  18:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

How about this, I'll bring a non I-P article from poor quality to good then featured, then can I get my respect back and be able to defend myself from attacks? Passionless  -Talk  04:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You don't have to go that far. But certainly, people like to see positive contributions. If you spend all your time running from one dispute resolution process to another, sooner or later overworked admins are going to get irritated and decide the project would be better off without you. If on the other hand you have an established track record of content creation or some other positive contribution, it's much less likely that people will do that.   Gatoclass (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Expand a few stubs, source some BLPs, get a few articles up to GA - every little helps. If you're not going to take action at the moment, could you consider blanking the content on the sandbox page, or taking a copy and requesting it to be deleted.  It's existence is ratcheting up the tension at the moment. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's blanked. Passionless   -Talk  17:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually blanking is not good enough. I hope that as a reasonable user, as I am sure you are, you understand that accusing an editor in so many things as I was accused of without giving this editor an opportunity to defend herself is not the right thing to. The best case scenario for me now would have been, if somebody acted on that page. Then I would have been given an opportunity to defend myself, but because at this point it looks highly unlikely somebody would ever act on it it means I would never be given an opportunity to defend myself. I believe you'd agree that page should be deleted. You could copy it to your home computer, print it out, do with it as you wish, but keeping on wikipedia is not the right thing to do. What say you?--Mbz1 (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We both wish you could defend yourself. Passionless   -Talk  17:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Then act on it, or request it to be deleted. It would be the right thing to do. The best case scenario for me would have been, if somebody acted on it, and I mean it, but of course I do not urge you to act on it. Gato was right, if you are to act on it, it could end up with you being topic banned. There's no single reason to keep that page now, except of course continuation of harassment that started a month ago! I personally would have never ever done such thing as creating and maintaining such pages to anybody.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not visible, let it drop. If you managed to find a way to co-exist with Passionless, he would probably want to delete it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Elen, I am afraid I do not find your comment to be helpful at all. IMO that page that was created and maintained with the only reason to harass me without ever giving me an opportunity to defend myself should be deleted. It actually should have never been created in the first place. user:passionless should not have hounded me to that page as he did. The deletion of this page should not depend on user:passionless fining my behavior to be good enough to delete that page.


 * With this I "drop it" as suggested, and unwatching that user talk page.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Mbz1, I think it would be best if you stop editing my talk page and sub pages for at least awhile, no response is required. Thanks, Passionless   -Talk  06:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Breast shaped hill
The term is a serious anthropologic term and it is of very ancient origin. In Wikipedia it appeared already (without link) in the etymology of the name of the city of Manchester, for example.Xufanc (talk) 06:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The inhabitants of the British Isles seem to have attached great import to breast shaped hills (Paps of Jura Paps of Anu Paps of Fife etc. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Because a mother's breast feeds us humans when we are very small and weak and was a very important symbol of survival in ancient times. In present-day politically correct and mercenary society the original significance of female breasts is very much dilluted. Xufanc (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, I believe you now, I don't come from a really hilly area, and the small hills we do have that are sort of breast shaped are refered to as tear drop shaped among professionals in my field. Passionless   -Talk  22:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Teardrop is politically correct, yes. But I'd say that rudeness, or intention to offend, didn't enter the picture in the naming of most breast shaped hills. In ancient traditional cultures the earth was seen like a mother, caring for her children and feeding the people. They saw those hills as a manifestation of the mother in the earth. That is why until recently Tierra del Fuego people (Ona, Alakaluf, Yagan) or Australian Aboriginals, among others, didn't have the concept of land ownership for example. They ignored the fences of the foreign farmers because one doesn't divide the earth, the earth is for all to enjoy. Land ownership was as much of a sin, an outrage and an absurdity as, say, hacking a mother to pieces and dividing the pieces among the sons and daughters. Xufanc (talk) 11:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

You should be aware that
"BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, and categories." Jayjg (talk) 23:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Must be hard for people who edit BLP article to talk if there is no privilege. Passionless   -Talk  23:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

April fools
Hi, i was confused with your comments whether they were in support or not... ignore my comment if they were... thanks -- Ashish-g55 02:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I was the one who kicked started the planning of april fools on ITN, so I'm clearly in support, my comment you quoted was me summarizing an opposer's comments in more truthful words, far from me agreeing with them. Passionless   -Talk  02:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ya i figured that afterwards. but my point was same as yours so i didnt wanna delete -- Ashish-g55 02:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement: topic ban from Palestine-Israel articles
Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement and ARBPIA, you are topic banned from all articles and discussions related to Palestine, Israel, or the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, for a period of one year (2012-04-07). This topic ban applies explicitly to all pages in all namespaces, with the sole exception of any arbitration enforcement discussion of an alleged violation. You may request that this ban be modified or lifted after a period of three months; a proven record of productive contributions in other topic areas will be considered in any request. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement: interaction ban from Mbz1
Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement and ARBPIA, you have been interaction banned with respect to. Please do not comment to, on, or about this user, undo or preferentially modify their edits, or otherwise interact on any page. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...
I admit to an unintended goof which led to that ANI. Thanks for weighing in. That's one mistake I don't ever plan on making again. Best, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

RM alert
There's a move request discussion going on at Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority, with which you were previously involved. I'd be grateful if you could contribute to the new discussion.  Night w   08:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd love to come and support it, but some admins decided to block me without ever giving a reason and refuse to reply when I try to talk to them, fucking admins piss me off, always have time to drop a line to condemn you and block you, but always too busy to listen to you. Passionless   -Talk  17:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I excepted you'd use the word "fuck" in connection to your absolutely fair ban, but to use "fucking admins" is off civility limits. Please redact that comment. Broccolo (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think if admins have a problem with it they can voice that concern themselves, though some small amount of latitude has been allowed from time to time to users "blowing off steam" on their on user page. As this user has been topic-banned for a year now, perhaps it is time for the I-P wiki-opponents to unwatch the page and walk away. Tarc (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Changed it to mean the exact same thing, does this make you happy, good, now please never speak to me again. Passionless   -Talk  18:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And to Tarc, I would be happy if admins had commented just so I could talk to them as currently they are all avoiding me like the plague. Admins. Passionless   -Talk  18:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure what to tell you. These cases are a lot like the NBA when guys get into a bit of a scuffle; rather than taking time and diligence to determine who the actual instigator was, the refs just T them both because it is the easiest thing to do.  The best way to get topic bans lifted is to spend a few months in a wholly different topic area and show that, when left alone, you can make positive contributions. Tarc (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Surely you can contribute to talk page discussions???  Night w   19:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, they blocked me from everything, and I can't argue that I should be able to talk about I-P articles because they continue to refuse to tell me what I did wrong. Starting to feel like the only move I have left is to make drama. Passionless   -Talk  19:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You could lodge a formal request for appeal, if only for talk page contributions. I don't really know the background details, but that seems pretty unorthadox...  Night w   20:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Due to bureaucracy they will not let me appeal until July, I tried anyways but an admin replied that I should review comments on my talk page and that he refuses to speak with me about it again. Passionless   -Talk  20:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Bummer. Nothing else to say really... Good luck?   Night w   20:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh and remember: It's only Wikipedia!  Night w   20:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The Future of Iraq
Well the user's other article was speedy deleted based on the fact that it did not contain anything other than "coming soon", or something to that effect. This article has been filled out. I agree there is probably a reason this should not be on Wikipedia, maybe because it's almost like a report, but I'm not really sure, and either way, there is no CSD criteria that I think this would fall under. Your best bet will be to either PROD it, or take it to AFD. Let me know if you need anything else. MrKIA11 (talk) 09:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Battleground
I do not know what grievances you have, but whatever they are, your recent two edits to Administrators are not the correct approach. Please do not use Wikipedia for pointy edits. Johnuniq (talk) 01:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll use wikipedia however I please from now on, admins can't touch me no more. They will shit on you even if you are a good editor, so what is the point in trying to keep a good record? None, no point, so why would I keep this stained account when I can drop it and all the admin harassment with it? Congrats to those admins who have got this editor, one of the top 2000 in activity, to quit.
 * Special shoutouts to HJ Mitchell for blocking me for edit warring when I only made a single revert, and blocking me a second time because I brought him to ANI for admin abuse, and to Ed Johnson and 2over0 for topic banning me without providing any reasons or diffs, and for their silence after the fact as well. Biatch. Passionless   -Talk  03:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not as if you can't say you weren't warned. One thing you should understand about dispute resolution processes is that, when confronted with a dispute, many admins will resort to collective punishment, probably for a number of reasons, including that it enables them to avoid charges of bias by one side or another. So unless it's a clearcut case of wrongdoing by just one party, resorting to DR is always a hazardous business. With your recent record of blocks, justified or not, you were always likely to cop some sort of sanction yourself by going to AE.


 * I haven't found time to take a good look through your editing record yet, but if I do so I may support an appeal at a future date. In the meantime, it's not going to help your case to be making pointy edits like those referred to above. Gatoclass (talk) 04:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but there is no point in helping this account any, I don't want it anymore, and when an editor does not care for their account that means they are free, free to make pointy edits that's for damn sure. The only reason people don't break policy is so that their accounts stay respectful and they do not have to restart again. But what happens when your account is heavily stained for things you didn't do, well then you lose all your good intentions and become wikipedia's nightmare, angry, knowledgeable, and don't give a fuck. Passionless   -Talk  04:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Reputations on Wikipedia can usually be rehabilitated, but of course if you're just going to act like a vandal because something didn't go your way then you are only going to vindicate the people who sanctioned you in the first place, as well as making any potential rehabilitation that much more difficult. Gatoclass (talk) 09:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Passionless, you might not think much of me and frankly I don't give a shit what you do or don't think of me. However, you're clearly a very intelligent person and you clearly have it in you to be a real asset to Wikipedia. You would be insulting yourself if you were to go down the path it seems you're beginning to tread. The best way to prove me and all the other horrible admins wrong is to prove that you can be genuine asset to Wikipedia—just snap yourself out of your self-destruct mode and write a few bloody articles. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   14:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would write an article and not break any policies, but an admin would come along and block me and refuse to tell me what for. And if you complain about the admin, that same admin will block you for it. The admin will continue to hurt wikipedia by locking down a page for a week when the small revert war was over and ignore the fact a major contributor to the war was an obvious sock. Passionless   -Talk  21:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Passionless, please take some friendly advice. Put this behind you and move on. Surely something must interest you beside Palestine and Israel. Write an article about something and show everybody that you care enough about Wikipedia to make positive contributions—or continue the pity party, throw in a little more vandalism, and expect to be blocked or banned. The choice is yours. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the god damn principle, I did not break any policy, so you can give me liberty, to edit everything, or give me death. No good faithed editors should be blocked the way I have been multiple times. And this is no 'pity party' and I am not trying to get editors to say 'please stay' or shit like that, this account is finished, it has been dying for months, these last wordz are only to show you why editors leave wikipedia, and to try and make admins realize they should only block those who have broken policy in bad faith. Passionless   -Talk  22:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
Notification. Broccolo (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011
To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. T. Canens (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC) Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."
 * This is for the violation of your interaction ban at . T. Canens (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Fucking admins blocking people when they point out that admins are editting on behalf of banned editors, editors who continue to bring mass POV to wikipedia and continue to insult editors, but thats ok because some admins like that POV. Passionless   -Talk  17:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Passionless, take it easy. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Yo Ed, you sure you want to be doing things like this "The article on 1982 Lebanon War ought to be fixed. The wrong statement is still there in the first sentence of 1982 Lebanon War#Precursors to war.", as you must know, being an admin and all, that working on behalf on a banned editor is against wiki policy. How can I expect a fair case here when the judges both act above the law, and act in favour of banned users they like, and against those they dislike. Passionless -Talk 16:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * That's not a biased statement, the comment on the Lebanon War is a simple statement of fact. I think you must have misread the comments. Gatoclass (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I was not talking about what the requested edit was about at all, I was saying it is wrong for people to make ANY edit whether good or bad to an article on behalf of a banned editor. Ed should definitely not be making requests to edit an I-P article because banned editors tell him to, pretend that entire comment of Ed's had the banned editor's signiture... that banned editor would than be blocked of course. Passionless   -Talk  17:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Banned editors should not be allowed to skirt their bans by sending out mass amount of emails about the I/P conflict or for insulting people off wiki. Anyone who receives such emails should bring this attempted meatpuppetry to ANI. Passionless   -Talk  18:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked
You have been blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry. –MuZemike 05:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

You may contest this block by adding the text below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.

As ✅ by CheckUser. Please see Sockpuppet investigations/Passionless. Regards, –MuZemike 05:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As the old saying goes "Give 'em enough rope, and they'll hang themselves." -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 06:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

RM alert
The move request at Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority was closed, so we're now taking suggestions for an alternative. As you were involved in the previous discussion, I'd be grateful if you could contribute to the new one. Please lodge your support for a proposal, or make one of your own. Night w2 (talk) 04:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of United Nations resolution on Israeli settlement activity, 2011 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article United Nations resolution on Israeli settlement activity, 2011 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/United Nations resolution on Israeli settlement activity, 2011 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Shrike (talk) 09:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)
Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:


 * Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasit &#124; c 17:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as: is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.
 * File:B11architecture exteriors040.jpg

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo&#39;s Little Bot (talk) 01:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as: is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
 * File:B11architecture exteriors040.jpg

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo&#39;s Little Bot (talk) 02:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

File:B11architecture exteriors040.jpg missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as: is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
 * File:B11architecture exteriors040.jpg

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 22:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:B11architecture exteriors040.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:B11architecture exteriors040.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Better source request for File:B11architecture exteriors040.jpg
Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia: You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.
 * File:B11architecture exteriors040.jpg

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you.