AdamKesher

Look, explain to me what exactly you are against in my edits. You are deleting indiscriminately. I am working on adding citations as fast as I can, it is hard enough without you reverting everything to present the data as Israel's deliberate attacks on civilians while leaving some fishy claims intact. Let's work together on it, tell me what you want changed or downplayed, but do not delete so grossly. Thanks.

• Thanks, I'd like to work on this constructively too. The edits are non-Wiki because they are POV, uncited, and represent a rather radical change in a section contributed by hundreds of people. There has been intentional targeting of civilians by both Hezbollah and Israel, as this balanced (NPOV), cited article explains. A contructive addition to the article would be to cite more evidence where this has occurred, or cited credible evidence why it has not. The edits merely assert that Lebanese casualties inflicted by Israel are "collateral damage," without citation. While it is easy to understand why this claim might be a convenient and comfortable one to make, it is not supported by fact. AdamKesher 13:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Lebanese casualty photos

hey - explain to me again why these photos arent copyrighted? thanks. -Preposterous 14:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You say you compiled those images from "private photos" — whose photos were they and are you sure they released those photos under GFDL and CC-by-sa-2.5? --Cyde↔Weys 14:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

also - i'll grant that the first group of 4 may belong in the article, if you can prove that they're yours, but why are the other two needed? also, they're in the wrong section. -Preposterous 14:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Generally Wikipedia precedent is to not show shock photos, as it just causes the article to degenerate into people finding as many disgusting photographs of civilian casualties from both sides. --Cyde↔Weys 14:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to imply that without actually saying it. -Preposterous 14:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Best not to beat around the bush. --Cyde↔Weys 14:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Cyde and Preposterous, Thanks for your messages. Yes, I'm certain that these montages of private photographs are released under GFDL and CC-by-sa-2.5. As I said in the talk page, the claim that these are from the BBC is not true: I simply included a pointer to the BBC article "Their bodies litter the road" reporting on this incident. Also, thank you for pointing out that I placed these in the incorrect section -- I caught this myself and have since corrected it. And as for the shock value, that really depends upon the viewer -- the reality of civilian casualties is certainly in the news as we type, and would appear to be just as an appropriate inclusion as BBC's shocking title. AdamKesher 14:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is very strict about licensing issues. You say these are montages of "private photographs". We need more source information than that. Who took them? For legal reasons, we need confirmation from each photographer that he intends to release his photographs under both GFDL and CC-by-sa-2.5. --Cyde↔Weys 15:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop adding the images over and over. You may be blocked. You need to answer these source issues first. Copyright law is not insignificant on Wikipedia. --Cyde↔Weys 13:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

adam -- I have had some issues with some of the same people you have, such as tasc, where they made ridiculous edits and said they were removing vandalism. However, I think you are doing a disservice to everyone by insisting on adding victim photos on Wikipedia article pages. That is not where they belong. I fully support you adding external links to photo archives and on-the-scene blogs, as you have done, because theycan potentially give a deeper insight into what is going on -- and I think you have been treated poorly by certain extremist elements on Wikipedia who oppose even just a link to someone who might disagree with them. However, I think that when you add victim photos and shock photos, you are weakening your case and displaying a strong bias of your own. Just my two cents...

BTW, I looked at the mediation you are involved in over the 2006 Arab-Israeli Conflict. Although I do not necessarily agree many of the edits you have made that resulted in the mediation, I am very upset at the tactics employed by some of those on the opposite side of the issue, e.g. attacking the mediator just when a compromise was being established. So I would like to see you succeed -- and I think you hurt your case when you post these photos. --Jaysweet 18:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Jaysweet, thank you for your comments. I appreciate the opportunity to have a civilized discussion about this. By the way, the photos discussed above appeared in Macleans (as discussed elsewhere, I was wrong about the copyright). The current discussion is about a fair use photograph from the news services Agence France-Presse/Getty Images. This appears on CNN's website (link). I would expect that images appropriate for CNN and Macleans magazine should at least be under consideration as appropriate for Wikipedia. Thanks again. AdamKesher 19:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

They are absolutely not. Please see Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Fair use for how we handle unfree and unlicensed content here. I urge you to not upload any more images without first being absolutely clear that they are acceptable for us to publish. Jkelly 18:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

See talk page

See the last topic in the "Discussion about POV" section. Greetings, Sijo Ripa 21:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I replied. Sijo Ripa 21:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit Warring 2006 Arab-Isreal Conflict

Please note that I have put a comment on the talk page. I'm not taking anyone side, but am sick of seeing the edit war. The page has already been semi-protected. If this edit war continues I will ask an admin for full protection of the page. You guys need to discuss stuff on the talk page and start following the rules of Wikipedia. Davidpdx 13:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Please take a look at the information on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view before continuing to edit the article you've been reverting.

At this point I've warned everyone involved, I'll start reporting 3RR violations and ask for page protection if you guys can't control yourselves. Davidpdx 13:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

What, precisely, are you talking about? I made one revert during this time for the reasons stated. The rules of Wiki are to take it to Talk for more than one revert, and this hasn't happened. AdamKesher 17:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah campaign

I'm not quite sure what the goal of your reorganisation was. Could you please explain? Thank you, Tewfik^Talk 21:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are two sections "Hezbollah's rocket campaign" and "(Attacks on cililian targets) By Hezbollah." I moved the civilian-related pp to the second section, so that the first one, which is in a military-oriented major section, is focused mostly on the military aspects of their campaign. I hope that it makes the article mor coherent. AdamKesher 21:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm just moving the list of targeted cities to the "campaign" part, as it is relevant there as well. Good job, Tewfik^Talk 21:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

PS In the future, please respond on my (or whoever is commenting) Talk, as that way I am instantly notified and can respond quickly.

Never mind the last part, I didn't notice they were there already. Tewfik^Talk 21:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Your revert of my deletion

Excuse me, but how can you support leaving that thing in the article? If you press the link, you go to Khaleej times, an Arab newspaper. Arab newspapers can be good source on what is happening on the Arab side, but how can they be a source for something that was supposedly broadcast in Israeli radio, but not reported by anyone else (no Israeli or outside sources?) Especially when this is such a controversial and harsh staterment, and when it is not qualified in any way ("An arab newspaper claims" or so)?

But obviously, this comment will remain unanswered, as are all my comments in the talk page so far. So much for discussion. M. Butterfly 16:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

As I explicitly stated in my comment, it's the reporting of a press release from Agence France-Presse (AFP), "the oldest news agency in the world." The fact that the link provided happends to be from a United Arab Emirates newspaper is irrelevant. The reason you cited in your edit that "there is no way an Arab paper is a goud source for info on Israeli army radio!" is, quite frankly, flagrantly racist, which led to my conclusion that your deletion was vandalism, in spite of the fact that I would very much like assume good faith. And do please show where there are unanswered comments, and I will tend to them. AdamKesher 16:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Then why not link directly to AFP? Or to any other large paper quoting it? Doesn't the fact that there is no source for this in more serious papers amount to a problem here? Also, not linking to the real source could mean that there was some misunderstanding (intended or unintended) of the original report, nut that can't be verified.

Second, I will explain my comment. A lone Arab source cannot be a good source for things that are happening inside Israel, because it's not there! the same way that Haaretz can't be a source for what Hizbullah plans, or for the number of Lebanese casualties. In fact, I have been told that Israeli sources cannot even back up any "neutral" claims, and are only good as sources on the Israeli position. Thus, there is no racism in my position, only realism. This is especially important in this case, where the report talks of something rather extrodinary, that has been supposedly broadcast on Israeli radio - do you suppose something like this could be reported in Israeli radio, and not picked up by Israeli sources, CNN, etc.? Especially when this is supposed to be 'official Israeli policy' and when all reports on stated Israeli policy are so different from it (see same page)? be logical.

Third, this is a rather extreme claim, so support from one source, in the form of heresay (we heard that Israeli radio said that...) is, in my opinion, not enough to justify its inclusion.

Last but not least, I do not want to fight, and I am definitely not seeking vandalism. I have raised the issue on the talk page and would like to hear what everyone has to say about it (maybe we should move all of this there). The least that can be done is qualifying the statement by saying who said it, and adding that it has not been verified by other sources; However, I still hold that it shouldn't be there at all. What do you think? M. Butterfly 17:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with M. Butterfly here - this sounds like a case of wartime propaganda, not anything that is actually backed up by facts. --Cyde↔Weys 17:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It is consistent with facts on the ground, and historic responses to attacks on Israeli citizens. For what reasons should we doubt a press release from Agence France-Presse. AdamKesher 17:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll also add this Naharnet link, if that helps, but it's the exact same AFP press release. AdamKesher 17:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

1. How is it "consistent with facts on the ground" when 2000 rockets have already hit Israel? have 20000 buildings in Beirut been demolished? 2. how is it consistent with "historic responses to attacks on Israeli citizens"? 3. Do you have a link to the original press release? as long as you don't I have a feeling this is not really what Agence France-Presse said, but rather a re-working of the article by Arab sites and papers. 4. As you can see, I am not alone in my thoughts on this.M. Butterfly 18:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

M. Butterfly, please read what is written. 1. The direct quote is “Army chief of staff Dan Halutz has given the order to the air force to destroy 10 multi-storey buildings in the Dahaya district (of Beirut) in response to every rocket fired on Haifa.” On Haifa. Not total. How many Hezbollah rockets have hit Haifa? Do this math. I believe the numbers are in the low tens (please confirm), and there have been "block after block" of residential buildings in south Beirut levelled (low hundreds of buildings), so these armchair calculations appear, to me, to be consistent. But I am open to hearing a counter. 3. No, I don't have subscription to any of the news services. For what reasons should we doubt a press release from Agence France-Presse in this particular instance? AdamKesher 18:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I have copied the entire discussion to the POV talk page on the article itself, as I think more users should be involved in it. M. Butterfly 18:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Chronology

Since Hezbollah attacked first, it is logical that it should be mentioned first. Then since Israel responded, Israel should be mentioned second. --128.148.154.119 17:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I definitely agree with this logic for the military section. However, for the civilian section, Israel attacked civilian areas first, then Hezbollah responded with its own attack on civilians. It is true that they've been launching rockets at Israelis for a long time, but in the context of this conflict, that's the chronology for civilans. Also, the number of civilian casualties inflicted by Israel has been much, much higher, and is therefore a much more important part of the story, especially the non-Hezbollah Lebanese, which make their first appearance in this article only in the "By Israel" section. Delaying this important factor has the effect of "burying the lead." Finally, in the neutral reporting of any conflict, it's best logically to mix the sequence of AB and BA. Therefore, I would argue that the sequence in the Civilan section should be Israel-then-Hezbollah, which does follow the Hezbollah-then-Israel sequence in the military section. AdamKesher 17:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Taking this to Talk:2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict/POV. AdamKesher 19:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit war on 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

You have reverted this article more than 3 times in 24 hours. Please be aware that this violates the Three Revert Rule and may cause your account to be blocked. --Denis Diderot 17:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I have made several reverts on parts of the article, as evidenced by my editing comments and on the talk pages here and on the page, but am unaware that I have violated the Three Revert Rule in any single instance—would you please specify exactly the instances ti which you are referring? AdamKesher 17:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It's really your responsibility to keep track of your edits, but here is one example: 17:31, 23 July 2006 11:36, 24 July 2006 13:08, 24 July 2006 13:38, 24 July 2006 --Denis Diderot 18:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this your response to my arguments in the Talk page about deleting this relevant material? I concede your point: I see that I did revert these deletions four times in a 23 hour period—I'll try to do better in the future. How do you respond to your reverts—3 in 5 hour period—on the same subject: Revision as of 07:15, 24 July 2006; Denis Diderot, Revision as of 08:54, 24 July 2006; Denis Diderot, Revision as of 12:59, 24 July 2006; Denis Diderot. Please take this back to the talk page if you have something substantive to add. AdamKesher 18:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No, my point here as with my changes (including reverts) to the page is about Wikipedia. For this project to work, it's necessary that people respect fundamental policies. It's very simple.

As for your second question, I fail to see your point. I first removed the invalid links and then reverted twice when they were put back (also explaining in detail on the talk page). WP:3RR says more than 3 reverts in 24 hours. --Denis Diderot 18:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Historical support for Israel

As a Wiki member who is posting accounts very critical of Israel, I'm curious what your take is on a Historical support for Israel section in 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. Please join me at the discussion when you have time. FightCancer 01:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Done: Talk:2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict/POV#Support_to_Israel_v._Support_to_Hezbollah, but I am critical of this section. AdamKesher 15:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

External links on 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

I'm duplicated my reply to your unsubstantiated accusations here, to make sure you don't miss it.

The deletion obviously isn't unsubstantiated, and I've explained in detail[1][2][3][4][5][6] why these links clearly violates fundamental Wikipedia policies. The fact, that you don't accept that is irrelevant, since you're obviously more concerned with your political peeves than with building an Encyclopedia. The article is now completely useless as a source of information. That's something you should worry about instead of adding links to unreliable websites that anyone can find anyway in 5 seconds, using Google or Yahoo. --Denis Diderot 12:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Consistent with WP:EL, the links under question are:

• closely related to the article itself
• argued to be of a high standard (web collectives of writers, compendiums of news agency photos, etc.)
• providing a unique resource of frontline observations beyond what the article can provide

These are all excellent reasons to provide these links, which are not a random dump of links somebody added, but argued to possess the qualities above. Will you please take this up at the informal mediation case Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict? AdamKesher 15:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

"Argued to be of a high standard"? The policy says "where the website is of a particularly high standard". Not that someone argues that it's of a high standard. In that case all blogs would be acceptable. Almost any external links will "provide a unique resource beyond what the article can provide" This is a restriction in the policy, not the other way around. It says that we should not link unless it provides a unique resource.

And why do you keep posting exactly the same message to my talk page? What's the point?--Denis Diderot 13:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

These are not the same messages. They change every time you make a disputed deletion without recourse to the proper Wiki channels of the talk page and now informal mediation at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. AdamKesher 16:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice to see the links can stay. :) --Iorek85 03:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Israeli Soldiers with LB Hezbollah Flags.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Israeli Soldiers with LB Hezbollah Flags.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 14:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, as I stated on the page, I believe that the use of this neutral, copyrighted image constitutes Fair use in my understanding of this for the reasons stated. This photograph was my suggestion to represent all sides in the conflict—I am open to others. AdamKesher 14:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is that this image is currently a sort of commercial property. The New York Times had to pay Reuters to get a usage license for the photograph. Posting the photo on 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict has an adverse effect on its market value since it is akin to royalty-free publishing. Check out the second criterion at WP:FUC ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 15:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Quoting Cyde from Image talk:Israeli Soldiers with LB Hezbollah Flags.jpg: "(1) corporations can't enforce restrictions on use that violate fair use rights and (2) your claim that the interpretation of the image matters to fail use is false. --Cyde↔Weys 15:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)"

Neither point is pertinent. Also, stock photo agencies pursue legal remedies quite vigorously. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 17:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The "fair use in" tag

I used it in Image talk:Ahmadinejad-and-Nasrallah.jpg and stated that Nasrallah's education is Qom with his picture next to Ahmadinejad is pertinent for it shows how his ideas about the destruction of Israel as articulated by Ayatollah Khomeini were reinforced and how he created a network of friends among Iranian mullhas.

Plus, I gave lengthy explanations to justify fair use. Everyone turned against me and I have decided to avoid usage of "fair use" when possible like in this television snapshot.--Patchouli 02:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Additionally, some Wikipedians look for excuses to remove pictures that don't like. If you use the "fair use in" tag, they object and demand "tv-screenshot" and vice versa. Or they call for the deletion thereof altogether.

I am tired of these arguments. Do what you like with Nasrallah's image on TV.--Patchouli 02:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh. I was trying to be helpful -- didn't know this history. The image is obviously fair use. AdamKesher 03:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Lebanese Areas Targeted 7-15 to 7-21.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Lebanese Areas Targeted 7-15 to 7-21.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Slip of the finger -- GFDL added now. Thanks, bot. AdamKesher 17:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Adam, I know you're just trying to improve the article, but merely changing one word doesn't change the copyright status of the map, because it is based off of a copyrighted source, and it can't be labeled GFDL. What I recommend is that we wither get permission to use it from the authro, or make our own copy, which we have done most successfully in the past. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 22:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:Lebanese Areas Targeted 7-15 to 7-21.png

An image that you uploaded, Image:Lebanese Areas Targeted 7-15 to 7-21.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Tewfik^Talk 02:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tewfik. Sending an email is easier than figuring out image copyright information. Bottom line: I wrote and asked, and they gave permission. Please see the page. AdamKesher 02:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Many people would not take the time to do that. Good job, Tewfik^Talk 02:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Unverifiable-external-links

The links to almashriq.hiof.no and hirhome.com, and the image collection sites, mean that the Unverifiable-external-links template belongs at the top of the section. --Barberio 17:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

But the template now is before verifiable news sources, which also isn't correct. I propose to delete these links, as I don't believe that they add to the article, then move the template down before the blogs, which is where we originally discussed it to go at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. If anyone wants to add non-WP:V links, then these should go below the template, so long as they adhere to the exceptions of WP:EL. Agreed? Your thoughts? AdamKesher 02:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I would firmly opose deleting the links to the verifiable news sites, the updated news maps they provide do give a unique resource we can not provide. The template is at the top of the links because of the inclusion of an unverifiable Google Earth layer, and hirhome.com and such. I'd agree to moving the templates below the reputable sites, if the unverifiable sites were moved or removed from those lists. --Barberio 09:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, dangling modifier—I wasn't clear. Obviously keep the links to the WP:V news sites. But just remove (or move) the two links you mention above that you say that the template applies to from amongt these WP:V news sites. That way, the template will not be above the WP:V news sites, as it had been in one edit. AdamKesher 11:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The infobox picture on Israel/Lebanon

I buggered up the link in my edit summary, sorry. Pity you can't edit edit summaries. Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Pictures Is the right link. --Iorek85 02:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Mediation cabal

Hi, there! I see you had a bit of trouble creating a case page :). I have listed the incorrectly placed redirects for speedy deletion and have moved your case request to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-02 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict Photographs. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 16:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the botched botches on my botched fix. AdamKesher 17:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Dahaya district

Hello, those images look good- I think you are trying to illustrate bombing damage to that area, described by Halutz?.

Are they ok for copyright? I think also there might be some questions raised on the timestamp for the images. Have they been used by an reputable organisation, journalist, military official to describe bombing damage? That could help in allowing their fair use. 82.29.227.171 02:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

They're both from DigitalGlobe/Getty Images (links provided on the respective pages) and certainly fair use on Wikipedia because these are the only (public) images that exist. AdamKesher 03:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Israeli soldiers mourn during a funeral.jpg

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jkelly 16:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

High resolution unlicensed images

Please use the lowest resolution possible when claiming Wikipedia:Fair use. High-resolution unlicensed images are subject to deletion. Thanks. Jkelly 16:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I have addressed this policy explicitly now with low resolution images. Please see Image:Haret Hreik Before After 22 July 2006.png. AdamKesher 13:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Lebanese Areas Targeted 7-15 to 7-27.jpg

I see above, you said that you received permission from the copyright holder to use this image. If that is the case, would you consider removing the references to "fair use" from the image description page? This image obviously does not qualify for fair use and having the tag on there places it in a category where it does not belong. Just the CC license tag is sufficient. Also, please consider adding to the page a note saying that you received via email permission to release the image under the CC license so that people don't bother looking at the source website for the permission. Thank you. BigDT 00:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Non-derivative use

Seems that it got dropped out of I3 somehow. I just clarified it there. For what it is worth, Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat, which you used on the image, makes this clear. Jkelly 02:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I see that you found commons:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. There are some protest images on that page that can be used freely. Jkelly 03:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Name

That is really unfortunate; we can't delete accounts. This is not only an annoyance to you, it is also problematic for the "single login" Wikimedia fix. Can I ask you to use your en: account to confirm that this is the same person as en:User:AdamKesher? I don't doubt that it is, but I am planning to block User:AdamKesher as an imposter after consultation with another admin, and I want to be able to demonstrate the connection to anyone that asks. Jkelly 02:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, this is me. Thanks for the help. And thanks for clarifying the isse with the other image -- I'll attempt to sort that one out offline. AdamKesher 03:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I nominate myself for an idiot-star. I created that account and just remembered that fact and the login. Never mind. Thanks for your help and patience. AdamKesher 03:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:Unverifiable-external-links

A new tfd discussion has been started because usage guidelines have been added on the template page and because the {tfd} notice was missing for most of the duration of the last discussion. Please review the recently-created usage guidelines before casting your vote. Although my delete vote remained unchanged, I would appreciate your renewed input in this discussion whether or not you agree. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

I noticed you've asked for arbitration. Well, I'm not sure it's the right way (see my talk page, I've replied to your last comment there). ArbCom might decide to implement the safest, not the best solution, which is most strict policy compliance, and inclusion here has both pro- and con- points, though the pro- seem to be stronger. Possibly a poll or other less strong way would be better for the article.

If you decide to resolve this via arbitration, would you liker me to participate (as third party, not in categories)? -- CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 20:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

CP/M, thanks for your message and offer -- I didn't see your response on your talk page. I'll take this there. AdamKesher 20:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. BTW, I've posted a reply there (to avoid breaking conversations into unreadable separate statements). Also, one note about policies - they mostly restrict inclusion, but not removal (except for vandalism), so deletionist position always has advantage here; that's why a less formal process might be better. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 21:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Care to comment?

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

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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 18:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Editors are cautioned that there may be exceptions to Wikipedia Guidelines and Style Guides due to unusual circumstances such as an important current event. Decisions need to be based on utility of the article to readers, not to literal compliance with Wikipedia rules. A diverse mix of blogs is recommended, but the extent and selection of specific blogs is a matter of content to be determined by the editors of the article. Any user, particularly Tasc, who engages in edit warring with respect to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict may be banned from the article for an appropriate period. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee. FloNight 03:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Mediation case still active?

Is this case still active or can I close it? --Ideogram 09:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Child male victim of the 2006 Israeli Airstrike on Qana.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Child male victim of the 2006 Israeli Airstrike on Qana.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 22:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Economist Cover 20060819.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Economist Cover 20060819.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Formal WP:BLP warning

Don't defame me or my edits with scurrilous charges like this. I challenge you to substantiate these empty charges with specific links and citations to Wikipedia policy, rather than waving around wikilinks to WP:BLP and empty threats of account blocking. Indeed, you have failed to cite even a single word from WP:BLP that supports the action of censoring the reliable fact that author Jay McInerney names the basis of his principal character for his novel Story of My Life. AdamKesher (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Please follow up comments here. AdamKesher (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Rielle Hunter

You're vindicated - congratulations! I understand exactly how you must feel - I helped write Ashley Alexandra Dupré and went through two AfDs in short order on that one - plus I've gotten a bunch of scurrilous accusations for writing John Edwards extramarital affair. Keep watching the news feeds and update the article as reliable sources check in with verified information (they now are being forced to do so). Let me know if you need any help! Kelly ^hi! 23:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

AdamKesher, since you are the person who first brought information about the horse-killing scandal into the Rielle Hunter bio (and THANK YOU for that great work) i wanted you to knowt that there is more about Lisa Druck and the horse-killing scandal in the news today at ESPN and that i have brought a link and some data from that article to the Hunter talk page to discuss. Please go to the talk page and let us know what you think about the two new topics there -- whether the new information at ESPN warrants our making a break-out sub-section on the horse scandal in Hunter's bio (i think it does, and i nominate you to do it!) and also an informal poll or call for concensus on whether there will be an AfD attempt on the article at some future point in time (which i am beginning to think will not come to pass, in part because of Druck's involvement in the horse scandal). Thanks! cat yronwode a.k.a. "64" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Horse murders article request for editors

Adam, this is a piece of text i placed on the talk pages of a half-dozen portal-equine (or whatever it is called) editors, and at a couple of horse topic talk pages. I know it's old hat to you, but while i was in the process of placing it, someone created the horse murders article -- and YIKES! It needs help! Stat! cat

Here's the text i used:

Hello, all --

I realize that this is a distasteful subject to many in the horse field, especially among those with a love of show jumpers, but the John Edwards and Rielle Hunter affair currently in the news has opened up many, many questions on the subject of the late 20th century horse murders scandal. The reason for that, in case you don't know, is that Rielle Hunter was formerly Lisa Druck, whose father, James Druck, conspired to have her beloved show jumper Henry the Hawk electrocuted to collect the insurance money on him. This tragedy formed the background for a 1988 novel based on Lisa Druck's life, called Story of my Life by Jay McInerney. Later, in the early to mid 1990s, the actual horse killing scandal was exposed to the public through articles in the New York Times and Sports Illustrated, and then through a full-length book called "Hot Blood." An FBI investigation into the horse murders led to the conviction of a number of highly placed people in the show jumper and general equestrian sports world on charges of insurance fraud.

When Rielle Hunter's background was probed, due to her affair with John Edwards, it turned out that she and her horse were prominent victims of the horse murder insurance scam, and her own father was one of the orchestrators of the criminal activities. But in trying to link this information up to her bio article, it turned up that there wss no article on the subject of the horse murders at Wikipedia, doubtless because the scandal occured before the development of the world wide web. An article was just created today, but it is not comprehensive in scope and needs to be expanded greatly lest it be deleted. There is an article on the murder of the millionairess Helen Brach whose death, in 1977, was also connected to the horse murders scandal, and it too could use improvement.

I am looking for a few good editors who have the brackground to write the horse murders article, and to link it to the Helen Brach murder, show jumping, and Rielle Hunter articles. No need to reply to me -- if you are interested, you know what to do. I will try to help, also, as best i can, but the topic is far from my usual field of writing, and i would prefer to see it handled by those with the greatest depth of knowledge on the subject.

If you need sources to cite, you can find the best of them at the Rielle Hunter page in the section on her early life and family. Here are two more:

[[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE0D8173FF936A3575AC0A965958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all New York Times, On Killing Horses for Money: A Craftsman's Dirty Secrets, by Don Terry, Published: September 5, 1993]]

[[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9803E5DF1639F933A05753C1A963958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all New York Times, Horse Show; Equestrians Facing Competition and Lingering Scandal, by Robin Finn, Published: October 30, 1995]]

I am posting this identical request to a number of horse-related talk pages, so you may see it more than once, for which i apologize in advance.

Sincerely, catherine yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 02:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

File:Haret Hreik Before After 22 July 2006.png

I have asken some questions regarding the file you uploaded. It would be good if you could respond. Beit Or 18:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Non Free Images in you User Space

Hey there AdamKesher, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free images are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some images that I found on User talk:AdamKesher. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use images to your user-space drafts or your talk page. See a log of images removed today here, shutoff the bot here and report errors here. Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Tyre Mass Graves (PBS NewsHour).png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Tyre Mass Graves (PBS NewsHour).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)