User talk:Tariqabjotu/Archive Thirty-Two

Serious violation of Wikipedia policy on Biographies of Living Person
Hello. The article Moshe Aryeh Friedman is in very serious violation on the policy of living people, as are its attempted deletion log, and talk pages. I put a notice up and reported it, but there are a large number of editors who seem intent on protecting its curent state, and it is already being threatened that the notice will be pulled down. I thought you could check it out. I don't feel comfortable trying to enforce policy on these kind of articles because I fear the editors will attack me on other pages. Basejumper 18:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your assertion that there is a serious violation of the BLP policy. To me, the article looks well-sourced with plenty of reliable sources, especially for the most controversial facts. --  tariq abjotu  22:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at it. I was referring to the origin of some of the sources. Ynetnews is a partisan source, espescially regarding this sort of person. Plus words like "nutjob" and "wacko" on the talk pages. BLP Policy does not allow that even on talk pages. If you feel it is okay, then I will step back however. Basejumper 06:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

my edits
Instead of reversing all my edits, one by one, why don't you work on the article itself, which is really quite sketchy at the moment and in dire need of information about matters other than politics? --Gilabrand 18:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not reversing all your edits one by one. I changed a few section headers, and that was pretty much all I was going to do. I didn't do all of the edits at the same time because it was much easier to utilize section editing (much in the same way you made your 40+ consecutive edits several hours ago). I am in the middle of working on the article and have been doing that for quite some time now. You can work on whatever part of the article you want, but I'm approaching the article (for the most part) from top to bottom, meaning I'm probably going to be wading through quite a bit of political material at the start. --  tariq abjotu  19:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: My recent changes to Israel
Hi Tariq,

The main issue I have is with the nuclear section, which while much shorter than it was, still seems a bit out of proportion to the rest of the section and other entries in general, though if it were shortened by 1/3 I would probably be happy. As for the rest, while Turkey is an important regional ally, a country like Germany would probably fit the definition better, so a rephrasing would probably be in order. The picture might also benefit from a more mainstream representation. If the other picture doesn't cut it (though this would seem to be about half the military ;-]), I'll try to pull something off of He WP.  Tewfik Talk 17:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 16th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 20:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Current events/Inclusion
But when I went to Portal:Current events, I wasn't seeing today's or yesterday's news, and it said that July 19 was Wednesday. When I changed it, that problem went away. Corvus cornix 23:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Now that you've reverted, the error is back again. Corvus cornix 23:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

If I click on this version, it looks fine, but when I click on Current revision, it's wrong. Corvus cornix 23:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying you're hallucinating, but I don't see this in Firefox or Internet Explorer  . --  tariq abjotu  00:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Now it seems to be fine, since I'm looking at it from home, but both home and work are IE7. But Capitalistroadster added the July 21 inclusion, so that might be the reason. Corvus cornix 01:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Happy Tariq's Day!

 * Hmm... well this is interesting. --  tariq abjotu  14:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yet, nowhere as interesting as you ;)  P h a e d r i e l  - 18:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Israel
I want to apologize if you felt insulted by the tone of my message. I've been accused of bias myself on these boards, namely at Spanish language. As someone who tries to be neutral, I understand how you can feel personally insulted when someone makes that sort of claim about an article you've worked strongly on. I did not mean to imply that there aren't any neutral editors on the Israel article. I know there are some, and mentioned that in my message though I could have used more tact. It's just frustrating to me when good articles are in the process of being made because there ARE neutral editors trying to negotiate, and then people with their own agenda to push come in and totally skew it. This is not a problem exclusive to the Israel article. If you look at my history, you'll see I've raised similar issues on many other pages. It's more of less my frustration with Wikipedia, because there is so much potential and it is such a revolutionary medium in so many ways, and those trying to compromise and make a good academic article get sidelined by others. SpiderMMB 23:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I was wondering if you could take a look at the changes I've made to the article today, my reasoning on the discussion page, as well as several of the reverts that have taken place since then. I have gained much respect for you as a neutral editor of Wikipedia, both in the way you have dealt with me on the talk page and from taking a look at your history.  With respect to the latter, your work on the Jerusalem article, which you self-nominated, has increased my faith that you are one of the best people to neutrally arbitrate the current wave of changes to the Israel article, which I now assume is being done in an attempt to achieve FA status.  Apologies again if my earlier tone offended you, but I hope from here on out we can work together.  To be honest, I'm a bit spent from my recent efforts, and would like to back off a bit and come at it with a fresh perspective.  I hope in the interim that your good judgment can lend balance to the article's development.  Best regards, SpiderMMB 20:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * First, sorry for the late reply; I've been away in New York City the past couple days and have not had access to Wikipedia (or a computer, for that matter). I'm not seeing much response to your comments on Talk:Israel explaining the reasoning for your edits so I feel tempted to support you based on that alone. However, I like the original version a bit better. Although we probably could do without mentioning every stat in the intro, I feel your revisions made the intro a little too vague. The use of "that some consider to be absent from other countries in the region" seems especially unspecific and even "having an array of rights and freedoms" even seems like we're trying not to be too harsh on Israel's Arab neighbors. Saying that Israel is more free in multiple ways than neighboring Mideast countries is not biased or a violation of neutral point-of-view; it's a statement of fact. We don't have to make this an advertisement for Israel, but I don't feel softening Israel's relative successes to such a degree is the best way to write a good intro for this controversial article. --  tariq abjotu  08:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. I have actually been away in NYC myself, ironically enough.  Since you seem supportive of the intro, and in order not to violate 3RR, I don't intend to edit the intro further at this point.  I also fear that my recent edits may have encouraged the "anti" among the editors, in the form of the anonymous IP address that made a slew of recent accusations on the talk page. I hope you see what I mean now by "pro"/"anti" although clearly I could choose better/more descriptive terms.  I just think it is a shame when an article like this one, which could be well written, becomes a battleground for agenda pushers. I only sought to eliminate what I perceived as POV, and feel encouraged that my edits and discussion might have helped facilitate that.  In particular, I'm encouraged by the response I've received from you and Okedem.  Both of you seem at least interested in the topic of Israel, and at most supportive of the nation itself, yet you have also proven an interest in neutral representations.  I'm much encouraged by the responses generated by you two, and I'm hopeful things with the article will work itself out.  Best regards, SpiderMMB 16:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 23rd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Chemmani mass graves mediation
Hi, a lot of lincivility is going on there and accusations of writing for writing for racist websites and flippant commentary is going on by just one editor. How can we carry on mediating in such conditions ? Just a question. Thanks Taprobanus 13:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit Warring on Falkland Islands
I would like you to consider removing the violation of WP:3RR from my block log. If you look at the edit history, in the 24 hr period before I was blocked I'd made 3 edits. In the previous period I'd made a couple, decided that what I'd put in was against the consensus and then self-reverted to the previous consensus. The two other users involved were happy with what I'd put. I'd reverted Rebelguys2 edits because they were changing what was the consensus agreed. Please note my comments on the talk page and given that I'd self-reverted I believe the block for breaking WP:3RR was a mistake. Justin A Kuntz 11:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry to butt in, Tariqabjoutu &mdash; I think he worded his request a bit poorly, so just to clarify: I told him that I'd leave a note in his block log saying that the original block was unjustified if he could show me that he didn't actually break WP:3RR. Obviously, we can't usually remove stuff from block logs ... &mdash; Rebelguys2 talk 12:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * To start, one does not have to make four reverts in twenty-four hours to be blocked for edit-warring. That being said, between 22:35, July 7, and 01:31, July 8, you made five edits to the article (four of which can certainly count as reverts). Less than twelve hours later, you made more two reverts. Thus, Justin made a total of six reverts in twenty-four hours. I'm not sure what you're contesting there. --  tariq abjotu  16:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The point I'm trying to make, is that I was not edit warring. Though I can appreciate it looking from the outside it may have appeared so.  The earlier edits you referred to had the hallmark of the start of an edit war, it ended when I self-reverted to the previous consensus.  The two other editors (Red Hat and John) involved were happy that the article had returned to the consensus view point.  Reading WP:3RR a self-revert is acceptable I believe.


 * Please also note that I didn't in fact make the changes that sparked it off and if you refer to the discussion in the talk page I essentially tried to keep things to a consensus. So rather than edit warring, my actions were to cool things off and prevent an edit war.  I did try to email you explaining this, as I have not had a reply I presume you didn't see it?


 * I think there was a lot of confusion caused when I inadvertently posted the wrong URL in a citation link. Probably compounded by the fact I was relatively new and I was trying to do the right thing.  Also the intervention by Rebelguys2 was not done in a constructive manner and I did not find it helpful.


 * Also I think if you look at the edit history, I was not the only editor to make that many edits but I was the only one blocked. I did think that was unfair and unjust, since wiki policy is supposed to apply equally.  Justin A Kuntz 17:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm still not seeing your point. I'm not seeing the self-reverts and "my actions were to cool things off and prevent an edit war" is not a valid defense. --  tariq abjotu  18:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm asking you to consider the complete picture, to consider that my revert at 01:31, July 8, 2007 was actually a self-revert to the previous consensus. To consider that the other editors involved considered my actions were a self-revert e.g. quoting from Rebelguys2 talk page:


 * I had actually self reverted myself because I didn't at first realise that the previous edit by Mr Kuntz was also a self-revert, to a previous version that contained both "sides" and a tag. I would encourage you to revert yourself. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 19:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As you yourself pointed out one does not have to make four reverts in twenty-four hours to be blocked for edit-warring. but WP:3RR is in fact a guideline for conduct. I'd have no problem with being blocked for breaking the rules, its just I don't believe I'm in fact guilty of edit warring.


 * I would also ask why the rules were not applied equally. Justin A Kuntz 21:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * An example of a self revert be:
 * Person A makes an edit.
 * Person B makes an edit.
 * Person A reverts back to his original version.
 * Person A reverts back to Person B's version (the version just prior to Person A's revert). <-- That's a self-revert.
 * Even if I were to consider one of your reverts a self-revert, that would still make five reverts in twenty-four hours. The reason I didn't block any of the other editors is that you were the primary editor warrior. --  tariq abjotu  02:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand your example but equally I think what I did stands as a self-revert, particularly as the others involved considered it a self-revert and were happy for things to go back to the consensus. I'm asking you to have a look at the discussion page and see how this unfolded.  I'd also ask you to consider the conduct of some of the other people involved and ask yourself whether I was really the the primary editor warrior as you put it.  Would you be able to do that please?


 * I also ask if you received my email on this? Justin A Kuntz 07:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Unindent.

Below is the complete summary of all the edits I made over the period, together with all the others. Noting the comments again I would ask who is the primary editor warrior as you put it? Note also that if you add them up Rebelguys2 had also breached WP:3RR and WP:CIVIL. With the exception of one tetchy comment in response to a rather rude posting by Rebelguys2 I was polite and civil throughout.

Regards, Justin A Kuntz 13:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

''Rebelguys2 reverts again. No attempt to discuss. When I went to post my explanation I'm blocked.''

23:18, July 8, 2007 Rebelguys2 (36,834 bytes) (Reverted edits by Justin A Kuntz (talk) to last version by Rebelguys2) (undo)

''I revert referring to the cite of the mirror in the discussion page. 2nd revert.''

22:39, July 8, 2007 Justin A Kuntz (37,381 bytes) (Revert. Please take this to discussion before editing. Cite of mirror was to indicate that someone removed relevant reference in a previous edit,.) (undo)

''He reverts again without responding to my request to take it to talk first. I misunderstood the comment about the wiki mirror as I’d included that URL in the talk page. There is also a series of comments in the talk page that are quite aggressive, that didn’t really help and were certainly not constructive or helpful. Language in the edit summary is also less than civil.''

22:10, July 8, 2007 Rebelguys2 (36,834 bytes) (rv, please see WP:V and WP:RS. your citation of a wikipedia mirror as a source is completely absurd. do not revert.) (undo)

''I revert asking politely for this to be taken to talk first as this is a controversial topic. There is a request to discuss any proposed change there first. My first revert following my earlier self-revert. By the way this is nearly 24 hrs later not 12.''

21:45, July 8, 2007 Justin A Kuntz (37,381 bytes) (Reverted to previous consensus - presenting both views. Please take this to Discussion before editing controversial topics.) (undo)

''Rebelguys2 makes a series of edits without discussing proposed changes in the talk page. Red Hat places a note in the talk pages explaining my last revision was a self-revert he agreed with and suggests Rebelguys2 also reverts as the edit overturns the consensus text. John had also responded that it was OK.''

20:00, July 8, 2007 Rebelguys2 (36,834 bytes) (uncited weasel wording) (undo) 19:54, July 8, 2007 Rebelguys2 (36,969 bytes) (rm this paragraph -- two tags, one  tag, and a citation of a Wikipedia mirror is just ridiculous) (undo) 19:53, July 8, 2007 Rebelguys2 (37,396 bytes) (Reverted edits by Rebelguys2 (talk) to last version by John) (undo) 19:18, July 8, 2007 Rebelguys2 (36,878 bytes) (neither revision is sourced particularly well, but the new language is simply too weasel worded; i think red hat of pat reverted himself as he was approaching too many reverts) (undo)

John adds a citation request.

15:13, July 8, 2007 John (37,396 bytes) (→Name - tags) (undo)

''Red Hat reverts on realising what I’d done. Peace reigns.''

01:37, July 8, 2007 The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick (37,381 bytes) (Undid revision 143206056 by The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick (talk) - self rv) (undo)

Red Hat reverts, not realising my last revision was a self-revert.

01:35, July 8, 2007 The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick (36,878 bytes) (rv - you've got to be kidding - the section talking about offence is a Wikipedia mirror) (undo)

''I self-revert back to a version that contains both sides, having found a mirror that referred to a previous version. This contains the reference that was the original source of the view that the Islanders view the term Malvinas offensive, I tried to put the reference back but screw up by accidentally placing the URL for the mirror instead. I also placed a comment in the talk pages. Note John’s comments agreeing with my change.''

01:31, July 8, 2007 Justin A Kuntz (37,381 bytes) (undo)

Red Hat reverts pointing me to WP:V, I take the time to read it first.

00:39, July 8, 2007 The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick (36,878 bytes) (please read WP:V before reverting this again. TALK PAGES ARE NOT REFERENCES, and the reference you provided is not suitable.) (undo)

''I revert pointing out that there is a supporting reference in the talk pages, ref email from FIG official. 2nd revert.''

00:37, July 8, 2007 Justin A Kuntz (37,110 bytes) (Revert to prior established fact. Supporting argument with reference reproduced in Discussion.) (undo)

Red Hat Reverts

00:22, July 8, 2007 The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick (36,878 bytes) (Undid revision 143181412 by Justin A Kuntz (talk) - talk pages do not constitute refs, I'm afraid. Provide a source!) (undo)

I revert to what I believe was consensus, I point to the talk page 1st revert

22:58, July 7, 2007 Justin A Kuntz (37,110 bytes) (Revert to prior established fact. Talk Pages continue email from FI Government official confirming term is considered offensive.) (undo)

Rebelguys2 reverts my edit 5 minutes later.

22:45, July 7, 2007 Rebelguys2 (36,878 bytes) (rv - no, we need reliable outside sources, not vague references to Wikipedia talk pages!) (undo)

''By now I’ve logged in and added an edit summary, accidentally revert John’s changes as I was adding an edit summary whilst John made changes. That would be 1 revert if you’re being pedantic but it was accidental so I’d suggest it isn’t counted.''

22:40, July 7, 2007 Justin A Kuntz (37,110 bytes) (Sorry forgot to log in. Reference to offensive use of term Malvinas in Talk:Falkland Islands/Archive2) (undo)

In the mean time, John reverts my edit

22:38, July 7, 2007 John (36,878 bytes) (npov, rem unreferenced statement about offence) (undo)

My first edit, I’d forgotten to log in

22:35, July 7, 2007 81.104.36.101 (Talk) (37,110 bytes) (→Name) (undo)


 * The edit at 22:40, July 7, was a revert. Making a revert so you can put an edit summary is not a reasonable excuse. The edit at 22:58, July 7, was a revert -- that's two. As you said, the edit at 00:37, July 8, was a revert -- that's three. For your 01:31, July 8, revert you say "I self-revert back to a version that contains both sides". That's not what a self-revert is; as I tried to explain earlier, a self-revert is a revert of your own (just-preceding) edit. You reverted over someone else's edit, so it is not a self-revert. So, that's four. You mention that 21:45, July 8, happened within twenty-four hours, not twelve. Okay fine, but it's still within twenty-four hours. That's five. I don't know how you can say the revert at 22:39, July 8, is the second revert even by your counting. By my counting, that makes six. QED, the block was more than justified. --  tariq abjotu  15:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually as I pointed out the edit at 22:40 producing a revert was completely accidental. John put his edit in whilst I logged in and added an edit summary.  Sorry but I really think you're being overly pedantic on that one.  It was a genuine mistake.


 * The revert at 01:31 is the one that I think you're being most harsh over. If you want to stick to a formula definition of what counts as a self-revert then fine I accept it doesn't meet your criteria.  But as I point out, the spirit of the edit was to take things back to what they were and everyone was happy.  Your first comment when I contact you was that 4 edits was a guideline, not an absolute i.e. it was the spirit of the rules that were more important.  I certainly feel I was within the spirit of the rules if not within the strict interpretation of them.  As the old saying goes, rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.


 * Also as I've pointed out to you, I wasn't the only involved in what you classed as an edit war. I've asked you to look at the discussion page, where with one exception, you will see I was the only one who remained totally civil in all of this.  I was a newbie, the others involved were all experienced editors and one was an admin who really should have known better or perhaps given some guidance as to the correct way to behave.  In light of the fact that I was being civil, encouraging everyone to take it to talk, your labelling of me as the primary editor warrior is I think more than a little unfair.  Justin A Kuntz 15:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sticking to "a formula definition" or even violating the "spirit of the edit"; that wasn't a self-revert by any measure. I am not compelled to review a talk page before blocking someone for violating the three-revert rule, and I'm not going to do that now; it has been nearly a month since your block and there's no reason to block other edit-warring users (if there were others) so long after the fact. Also, I'm not convinced by your explanation for your first revert. I hope you can just drop this matter as I'm really not going to change my mind here. I have explained clearly why you did not just make four reverts within twenty-four hours, but six. Even if you want to contest one or two, as you did here, there are still four -- a violation of the three-revert rule. --  tariq abjotu  15:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I emailed you whilst the block was in force, I've asked you several times now whether you received it and I really would like to know?


 * I realise that you're not compelled to review a talk page, I've asked you to do so as a courtesy to me because I was unhappy about the decision you'd made. If as a result of doing so, you would still consider me as being the primary edit warrior as you put it, then fine I'll accept your decision.  Also I'm not asking you to discipline others, merely to consider their conduct and ask yourself whether you made the right call on this occasion.  Would you be prepared to do that?  Justin A Kuntz 16:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I did get your e-mail, but I didn't notice it until you mentioned it in this recent conversation. I'm not going to review the talk page; I have other tasks on Wikipedia I've long been putting off but want to get back to. There is nothing on the talk page that could get me to change my mind; the 3RR violation is obvious. --  tariq abjotu  18:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine thats your prerogative. I was of the impression that a persons conduct was important, hence policies like WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.  I guess I was wrong.  Justin A Kuntz 18:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Mediation
Giovanni has now responded - please advance this to the next step. John Smith&#39;s 13:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 30th, 2007.
Apologies for the late delivery this week; my plans to handle this while on vacation went awry. Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 00:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Primary/Elementary School
Hi. I'm afraid I've reverted your edits that redirected Elementary school to Primary school. There was some debate about the use of the different labels in recent months, mainly due to rash actions of a poster (who I believe has since been banned). The general consensus of thse debates was to incorporate two separate articles. Notably, the UK definitions of primary & elementary education are very different, and so not synonymous. I realise the edits were done in good faith, but refer you to discussions at Talk:Primary education amongst others to see the issues raised in the past. Regards Tafkam 21:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I still believe it's a bad solution and I don't find the discussion on Talk:Primary education as extensive as you make it sound. Certainly the articles can easily be merged. --  tariq abjotu  22:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I grant you that the discussions at that page are not comprehensive, but there were considerably discussions lost with various moves, redirects, and page-blanking activities that were carried out at the time. I'd also argue that the articles are sufficiently distinctive as to warrant separate pages. Any generalities would be best covered in the Primary education page. The two school entries deal only with each type of school, and while there are marked similarities between what US users call elementary school, and what UK users call primary school, there are equally marked differences between the use of the terms within each country. For example, if you read the UK entry on Elementary school you will see that it refers to a now disfunct category of school which provided full education from 5-14 - very different from the current primary schools that serve only pupils up to 11 before a further 5-7 years of secondary education. As such, the articles cover quite distinct issues and should, in my opinion, remain separate. Tafkam 00:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

RE:Regions of the Middle East
Well, I am a new user and I may have made an error. And, Afghanistan is not a part of Middle East. It should not be listed in Category:Middle Eastern countries. How can I correct the error? Thank you, RS2007 07:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian territories
I think Palestinian territories can be included in Category:Regions of the Middle East. RS2007 07:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR Noticeboard
I've replied to your assessment of my 3RR posting here. Please review it--I really do think that user has gone overboard too many times. Regardless of your reply, thanks for stepping up and responding to my request!--Dali-Llama 03:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 6th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:United Kingdom constituents and affiliations
An admin User:John removed all the flagicon Here to prevent them edit warring, could you store the template back to this version. He also place an message on the talk page here at the time explaining this.--padraig 16:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

See Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-05-20 Lists of Marilyns- this issue has been ruled on before and it is agreed that these flag icons can be used in templates- the templates themselves do not address flag issues. In anycase, protection does not mean that the admin has "sided" with any one user. Astrotrain 16:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That case has nothing to do with, You and User:Biofoundationsoflanguage have been editwarring on loads of templates pushing your POV, in this case you ignored the ruling of an admin User:John who also warned you about edit warring.--padraig 16:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Naturally you will think that the template has been protected in the "wrong version". We think the same about some of the templates you had protected. We can hardly be accused of edit-warring. It takes two to tango. Biofoundationsoflanguage 17:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Can the admin that has this talk page remove the protection on the Template:United Kingdom constituents and affiliations page. You (most likely inadvertantly) protected a biased version of the page which includes the Ulster banner, a defunct and offensive flag that has not been in official use for over 30 years. I understand that you protected the page to encourage discussion, but no discussion is taking place, mainly becuse the edit war was orgionally started by only two or three zealots who made extensive use of sockpuppets. In any case, the issue has been largely resolved on the Template:United Kingdom regions talk page by another admin. I feel the quicker this issue is corrected, the quicker the biased edit wars involving the Ulster banner will end. Fennessy 13:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * See The Wrong Version. No discussion has taken place, as you noted, lending credence to continuing the protection. I am not convinced that once the page is unprotected the edit-warring over the flag(s) will end. --  tariq abjotu  16:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

POTD
Hi there. Just wanted to you to know that User:Zzyzx11 has set up something on Commons (see Commons:User:Zzyzx11/En main page, which is cascade-protected) that no longer necessitates the c-uploading of POTD (as well as TFA and SA) pictures. I think it's maintained by script or bot or something. Regards,  howcheng  {chat} 17:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Suspicious
Does this edit seem wonky to you? It looks as though an editor is trying to conceal his ID. Maybe I am wrong, but you have more experience with this, and I didn't want to waste the time of the people who do checkuser. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  17:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't seem strange to me. What seems more strange is the previous edit where the person signs with a username even though it's an IP. But I believe the issue might be that the user is not familiar with how to sign up for a username and get his or her signature added automatically. --  tariq abjotu  17:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks for getting back to me so quick. I guess I am not really sure what to look for in the case of socks (aside fromt he obvious: writing style and argument construction, etc). Any tips? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  17:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Climate in Jerusalem
A template you created, Template:Climate in Jerusalem, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the   tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. --MZMcBride 19:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Barry Bonds
In cricket, people say that a batsman has [figuratevly] "hit" or "put" or "lifted" the bowler into the crowd, when it actually refers to him hitting the ball into the crowd. So, that was figurative and perhaps not appropriate, although it seems to pass on cricket bios. Maybe in the the US, people will think the batter actually hit the pitcher with a stick and he flew 100+ metres.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 04:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That would explain why I couldn't imagine what the "mistake" was. Sorry if I offended over a cultural difference, but I'm sure you could imagine how strange that looked to me (and, I presume, David Levy). --  tariq abjotu  04:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Not at all offended. See Maiden and over (cricket). When the bowler had delivered an over that is a "maiden" the commentator will say "he's bowled a maiden". In one cricket novel I read "Johnny Whistler and the madcap cricket match", an American comes to Australia [or England] and plays in an invitational cricket match. When they said "oh, he's bowled a maiden" [as in bowled an over (cricket) without conceding a run], the American fictional character thought that he bowler had knocked over a girl!  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 09:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Israel and Jerusalem
I'm pleased to present you with:

GAnominee
Please see the move proposal here. Regards, Lara  ♥Love  05:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn socks
I don't know if you remember blocking a series of obvious sock/meatpuppets on this article, but I believe I've finally identified the puppetmaster. Please see Suspected sock puppets/Kephera975. Thanks. IPSOS (talk) 23:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Your recent removal of Feast Day of Saint Roch from Selected anniversaries/August 16
Just letting you know that the addition & removal of this Feast Day is being discussed here. -- Boracay Bill 23:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I responded. --  tariq abjotu  01:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

C-3PO
Hi! I requested semi-protection of C-3PO a few days back and you declined due to a lack of recent examples. I have still been reverting vandalism on this page for the past few days and I was wondering if you could reconsider? Otherwise could you please let me know what is considered enough activity to justify protection so I know for next time. =) Thanks, SMC89 ( talk • contribs ) 14:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 13th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 21:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)