User talk:FayssalF/Archive W

Random

Please use year categories also as I have done with Battle of Embabo. Thankyou ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you?" Contribs} 14:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiGato

		The Gato/a Barnstar
		Sir! I dunno but i am confused! You merit tons but which kind of barnstars? I just dunno! Well, please accept that. Her name is Wiki. She is 6 months old and she is my cat. I love what she does the way i love your contributions. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh wow thanks thats amazing!!!!! Mr Biggleworth loves it thanks!!!! Hey the List of American films is off and running]] particularly 1920 onwards -this will take some time to complete but will be good when complete. Of late I've been doing much work on Cambodia setting up all the districts (I have a Deforestation in Cambodia article on its way in a few days). Today I've done a fair amount of work on Taiwan! I've uploade dmany images to the commons searching all over flickr for the appropriate licensed ones!!! I'm all over the encyclopedia!!!! Thanks amd keep up the great work yourself! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you?" Contribs} 15:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That really cool!! Have a look at Zhongxiao West Road - this is the kind of image I have been uploading to the commons. I've found a flickr user who has created about 2,500 high quality images and permits them for use!!! Its a shame most flickr uses can't do this!!! Gradually the world film lists are also developing - see List of Bollywood films: 2000s for instance although in many places I haven't got around to development. Thanks again for your great support - Hope you are well. Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you?" Contribs} 15:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Have a read of Cambodian clothing, Tum Teav and Yak racing if you have time!! They were DYKs but I have been reducing my edit count of late! Bye! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you?" Contribs} 15:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look. Thanks.

Look Sir. I am not a fan of "Wiki administration" but i am a fan of Satriani and a few animals and humans posted at your userpage. I am also a fan of you as a contributor. Someone who's spent more than a year w/ us contributing to a wide range of topics merits to be an admin. For those reasons, i am formally requesting from you your acceptance for adminship. Please don't forget to activate your email option at "My preferences". I am not sure if you are interested in this stuff but i'll be looking forward to hear from you. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Admin has its benefits but I must admit I also aren't a fan of "Wiki administration" so I'd have to decline ! Whilst I take my encyclopedic work and the encyclopedia very seriously I often feel that many other users take things far too seriously to the point that it affects peoples pleasure of using wikipedia . For instance User:Polbot has been doing some terrific work on wikipedia -this is why the article count is rocketing since the 1.9 mill mark. Yet all you see on his talk page are negative after negative comments criticising his work -if this were me I'd have given up long ago. He doesn't have to bother with all those edits -this is why I congratulated him. I wish many other users of the "aristocracy" were like you - as an excellent wikipedian and administrator you are able to always encourage contributors and show a friendly attitude which many I've come across don't. Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you?" Contribs} 16:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about all that. Fair enough, i appreciate and respect your position. I'll also have a look at User:Polbot to see if they've been treated unfairly. Happy editing and thanks again for your contributions. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Polbot hasn't been mistreated by an admin I don't think but whilst doing things correctly is important and following guidelines he has been treated a little rudely I think considering he has added some 40,000 new articles on species ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you?" Contribs} 16:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Olala! That's one of the reasons why i said i am not really a "Wiki administration" fan. You proved me right. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah thats good I was afraid you'd think I was overreacting. You'd be amazed at the bullying I've seen going on on wikipedia -nearly every day in fact -it makes me wonder what does go on on the millions of other pages I don't see. Occasionally I find people very offensive indeed -luckily not directed at me but on user talk pages I have come across. I remember somebody telling my good friend User:John Hill, an experienced editor in relation to his work on the Jat people that he is a useless editor and should leave wikipedia for six months to get his facts straight!!! (He is in fact an expert on Central Asian history and a photographer of the region and has had books published) Many people appear to lose sight of what this is about!!! - We need as many people to feel good about wikipedia and build this as possible!! Luckily though many users are not like this and ar enot only superb contributors but are very pleasant to discuss things with. I'll be on my way -I thrive encouragement and I always try to treat others as they treat me. Thankyou -I hope you don't mind me using your cat on my page as a pal for Bigglesworth!!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you?" Contribs} 16:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'be sending you an email asap. Ooops! Please send me a blank email. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou

Thanks for your thoughts Fayssal but I think I'd rather remain amongst the proles- I can get more work done that way you see. One doesn't have to be a coord to keep slogging thru the article assessment drive, for instance. But thanks anyway. Buckshot06 17:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Melilla

Hi Fayssal. Mmm...I guess the "if you don't want to tag it" goes for me. No, I don't want to tag it for the succint reasons I gave in my edit summary, i.e., I think is of little use go "decorating" articles with a tag and then disappear without having engaged in any debate about the reasons of the nice tag.

Anyway, it wasn't you whot tagged it, so I am fine with it. As for the deleting facts, my apologies. I guess I thought that it was clear enough in the rest of the article that it is a quite Berber town (and, therefore, it was a Berber town). Sorry about that if you took this edit, intended as minor, as something else.

Still, now that the topic arises, I'm thinking that Arab has to be also spoken there, no? the article only mentions Spanish and Berber but I am guessing most of Berbers are bilingual in Arab, if only for religious reasons. --Mountolive | Talk 08:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem Mountolive. I hadn't checked who deleted those facts and i didn't even paid attention that you made an edit earlier because i did it in a rush.

Yes, i agree w/ you in that we disagree w/ people tagging articles w/o discussing their concerns at talk pages.

Apart from Spanish, sure, it is Berber (Tarifit) that is spoken in Melilla. Muslim natives in Melilla would only speak Arabic if they are talking to an Arab. Most Berbers speak Berber between eachother. Apart from using Arabic for prayers and reciting the Qur'an, i'd be surprised to hear a Melillan speaking Arabic in Melilla.

In Ceuta, yes, Moroccan Arabic or Darija is spoken more than Berber. I know that Muslim people natives of Ceuta are Jebala (maybe a mix of ethnic berbers and arabs though it is still not resolved scientifically yet) and therefore i believe that those natives speak a kind of Arberbspanish! I am not a linguistic researcher, so don't take my arberbspanish sstuff as something accurate ;) i.e. Fatima mchat aand su abuela l dcher --> Fatima se fue a ver a su abuela en el pueblo where "mchat" is Arabic, "abuela" is Spanish and "dcher" is Berber. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding that

I've sent you mail. Regards, Navou ^banter 02:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Arabs

With all respect Ancient Arabs is hitoric term refering to the period between Ya'rub bin Qahtan and A'ad in the 3rd milenia until the Hellenic invasion of the NearEast 330BC. PreIslamic Arabia is relevant to the rise of Adnan until Islam about 1century AD- 7th century AD, becaus eof that its illogical to merge the two articles.

• The ancient Arab article doesn't relate to the modern Arab identity, I will apreciate it if you can help convince, "Elias" to stop merging / blanking the article Ancient Arabs. The article still needs to be refined, but Elais insists on merging it on a regular basis and a look at the history/talk page will give you a good idea about his Ultra Assyrianist AntiArab/AntiIslamic agenda he is pushing--Skatewalk 12:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

User talk:PeeJay2K3

Hi, this user asked for his block to be reviewed, to have the length shortened. Since I think it's up to your discretion, I let you handle it :). Cheers -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Lucas. I've dealt w/ it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Berber Scouting

Can you help render "Be Prepared", the Scout Motto, into Tifinagh? Thanks! Chris 17:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

ps-what a cute kitty! :) Chris 17:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah a very cute one and she is called Wiki! I am so sorry but i don't know any Berber language. I think my friend User:Read3r can help. Or i'll paste your request at the Berber portal. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I just posted a proposal you might like at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Berbers. Chris 18:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! And I did already send my Scout request to Read3r. Any other users you think would be interested in the proposed WP, please let them know! :) Chris 18:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your initiatives Chris. Much appreciated. I am thinking of User:Domsta333 and User:Toira. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

One question of no real significance

1) What does being rogue mean?—Preceding unsigned comment added by LOZ: OOT (talk • contribs)

Hi. It means a large man-eating crocodile. However, it got nothing to do w/ someone capable of sneaky combat and nimble tricks. --> Category:Rouge admins. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Why Akkadians should be included in the Ancient Arabia article.

• The Akkadians lived in Arabia before they entered Mesopotamia. (even Elias himself knows that and admited to it)

below are links to neutral non Arab websites. The Akkadians Arabian origin, The Akkadians migration from ArabiaFirst result search for Akkadians

• The article is related to the ancient Arabs, not modern Arabs.
• The article mentions the (Akkadians only) as an ancient Arab tribe before entering Mesopotamia, the rest of the Mesopotamian tribes were not considered Arab. That still didnt work well for Elias!
• Elias simply made it clear that the Akkadians should not be mentioned in Ancient Arabia history just because they were not modern Arabs! although the Eastern branch of Semitic is extinct in the North and the only related languages are still spoken in Arabia Eastern South Semitic
• I also added a section that clearly states that modern Christian Assyrians, Arameans are not Arabs.
• Elias is currently Vandalizing another article I created Ancient Arabia (because he protected Ancient Arabs after merging it to PreIslamic Arabia). Although PreIslamic Arabia (refers to 'asr Aljahiliya) and Ancient Arabia starts from the earliest known civilizations in Arabia. And he deleted the Saudi Wiki project template(?)

Quoting Elias: they lived on Arabia that makes them an ancient tribe of Arabia! — It wasn't called Arabia at that time, and they did not live with any Arab people, because they were the first Semitic people. Arabs didn't exist at the same time as the Akkadians. Why should I not mention them! they are a very important group that lived in Arabia! — At some point in time, the people that are now Germans and Japanese, probably also had ancestors who lived in Arabia. It doesn't make them Arabs. — EliasAlucard|Talk 03:02 14 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

So because Arabia wasnt called ARabia back then, we cant have a istory article on Ancient Arabia! Using his rule, we will ave to Delete every anciet article in Wikipedia including Egypt because it wasnt callled Egypt back then!

The ancient Akkadians lived in Arabia, spoke Eastern Semitic. Modern Assyrians speak West Semitic, Eastern Semitic only exists in South Arabia small groups Yemen and Oman today.

• At worse case scenario, Even if the Akkadians spoke an IndoEuropean language, does that exlude them from the history of ancient Arabia!

I will appeciate your help to protect the Ancient Arabia and [[Ancient Arabs articles both are being force-merged by Elias to the smaller Pre-Islamic Arabia article.

A look at Elias history and his sock puppet User:Dbachmann and you will se the organized extremist Assyrianist edits. He will not acept any evidence even if Sargon himself came to beg him to keep the article about his original homeland in Arabia, he will call Sargon an Arabist! And for the record look at my edits. I never delete any work, and my edits in the Arab article had teh ARab population at 200Millions instead of 350million because I disagree with imposing Arab identity on non Arabs. And ancient Arabia doesnt have anything to do with modern political Arabism!--Skatewalk 13:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, this source, makes it very clear that they aren't Arabs. It says, very clearly, that the Akkadians were a Semitic people living originally on what is now known as the Arabian peninsula. This is more like wishful thinking from Skatewalk that the Akkadians were Arabs. Second of all, he hasn't used academic sources (that source is apparently published by Washington State University, but it's just an essay or something, not exactly rock solid content). And really, User:Dbachmann isn't my sockpuppet. I dislike most of his edits, though we can agree sometimes, but that's very rare. Yes, all Semitic peoples probably have a common origin, since they after all, all speak Semitic languages. Doesn't make the Akkadians into Arabs, and they sure as hell didn't call themselves Arabs. They were Proto-Semites, just leave it at that. And no original research please. — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:06 14 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

• First of all it doesn't matter what race or group the Akkadians were they are still a part of Ancient Arabia history! Just like non Italians are part of Ancient Italy history.
• I am not really going to argue who the Akkadians were(because you already proved how closeminded you are in all your arguments with Arameans in other articles). One website said Semitic people living in Arabia, it didnt say non Arabs, the other websites said ancient Arab people and the map clearly puts them in East Arabia!. However, thats not the problem now. The problem is that you are denying the history of ancient Arabia.
• It is simple if they existed in Arabia, they should be listed in the ancient Arabia history.--Skatewalk 21:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The Akkadians lived very briefly on the Arabian peninsula. They were not Arabs. End of discussion. — EliasAlucard|Talk 00:04 15 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

• • The Akkadians are from the Arabian peninsula. Thats not what I call very briefly! Anyways I am glad your exposing yourself with such desperate claims! --Skatewalk 23:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't make a statement yet guys. I am following your very civil discussion here (thanks to you Skate and Elias) and may comment afterwards. Skatewalk, please drop and stop your sockpuppeting accusations. They are inaccurate and baseless. I am hearing both of you. You don't have to be impatient guys. Both of you are good guys. So please, don't put pressure on each other. I'll check all references. Please be patient and give me some few days to update my knowledge. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi FayssalF, I will take your word for it, EliasAlucrad just filed a sockpuppet post against me!. (he listed my IP address _ofcourse it will show as mine! it showed up in few edits (never in reverts) it showed up because I forgot to sign in!

• and the other account is of friend I know (alameer). The third I dont know who? Maybe it was setup? to discredit me?, also please notice the last edit on the Arab article. It added by IP 66.171.223.109 the Babylonians and Assyrians are Arab. That was never heard off before and I reverted it so Elias doesnt come and use it as evidence that that IP is me!!.
• Because he has been trying to brush me with the Arabist brush. Although my history edits are all related to ancient Arabia and always oppoesed the Mass Arabization of on Arabs. Instead focusing on the people of ancient Arabia. (never did I mention Egyptians or North Africans as Arabs, I let them decide on their own and I never disrespected those who identify as Arabs, Egyptians or Berber.

Today the easiest thing is pick cheap shots against anything Arab (thats why Elias is so confident he can omit the Akkadians origin from every article, (I didnt even edited it in the Akkadians main page, although their origin remained mysterious, jut so I dont arouse their feelings and because it was a Mesopotamian page). However, Elias doesn't see any need to showrespect to Ancient Arabian pages and made a nam for himself by deleting efforts by atleast 7different users to improve the pages Ancient Arabia and Ancient Arabs. I will let yo to decide y yourself the true reason why Dbachmann joined him the Arab stabbing carnival...(you decide by yourself)

He deliberatley linkd Ancient Arabia article to the modern Arabs so he can get suport from the modern Anti Arabs, even if it was ancient history that doesn't relate anything to whats going on today! Elias made alot of enemies already and I refused to turn this into a piss-off game or I could easily joined the Arameans or Syriacs that he constantly offended by rejecting their self-identifying claims. I never imposed identity on any person. I only state historic facts that he knows! So whats wrong with the Akkadians being listed in Ancient Arabi history? ask him and hear it from him again.--Skatewalk 00:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of User:His excellency

User:Cheszmastre‎.Proabivouac 23:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Already blocked by Tom harrison.Proabivouac 00:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi mate Pro. I was on my way to use my microscope when i received your update. I was also going to talk w/ you about User:Matt57 and the recent AN/I apparitions. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi mate. This is the second user he's successfully set up to be blocked. Who's next? There may (or may not) be some problem with Matt57's edits to the "Elonka articles," but the fact is that the ANI thread wouldn't exist if it weren't for our number one resident jokester's latest tricks.Proabivouac 00:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Pro. User:SlimVirgin and User:Elonka. Who is next? Me? I just don't think so. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I got your e-mail, thanks, and responded. Please let me know what you're thinking.Proabivouac 01:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Link

You wrote:

I can't recall the [AN/I thread] which lead to the following but i'll leave that to maybe someone else who can find the link.

Actually, I gave this link in my statement. It is at the same archive page as the one you cited, just several threads above.

Here is the starting threads which continues into a couple of threads that immediately follow it. I could have just posted "1 " into your statement directly, but I figure I leave it up to you. Regards, --Irpen 23:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. Could you do me a small favor? You wrote here "This is the link which i got from 'user:Irpen." I make no secret that I found this link since I gave it in my own statement posted at the very top of this case, well before posting to your talk. But could you make your statement say clearly something like "reminded to me at my talk" or something to that extent. You may just as well not give me the credit for "finding this link". This was not difficult at all to worry about credit.

I don't want any ambiguity that I might have secretly forwarded you this link by email or otherwise tried to influence in the backstage what others post to breed accusations that I do things like that in general. I am on record consistently opposing any such the backstage communication (last example and you might have heard of the IRC ArbCom), unless the need for the off-line mode is real (much less often than it it used.) In this case, I just don't want to breed the paranoia that I am there "to get" anyone. I saw that the solution to this drama is long overdue and I wrote what I thought. There is none of my participation on this outside of what I posted on-wiki. Thanks again, --Irpen 05:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Did I tell you that I wholly agree with your past actions in relation to this mess? Anyway, I do. --Irpen

Second opinion on Ancient Arabia

I tried to make sense of things by seeking the opinion of a Christian Mesopotamian Chaldean who might see things in a similar way to Elias. He is Chritian and not an Arab.--Skatewalk 05:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• I think Elias is taking it too serious. It is a well known fact that the roots of the Akkadians were more Southerner then they established their empire centuries later. So no, I don't get offended (and even if I did, what does it matter, facts count on wiki) if Akkad was listen in Ancient Arabia. But lets get this straight - its Ancient Arabia, not Ancient Arabs, right? Is that how every ChaldoAssyrian is ? - No, absolutely not. in the Iraqi websites they say ChaldoAssyrians and I thought ChaldoAssyrian is proper beause I saw your edit n the ANcient Arabia page, where you said Chaldean = Assyria - ChaldoAssyrian is a term used by political parties, not on a encyclopedia. Chaldean just means Catholic. I don't think its important to list the religion of a group. Ethnic group is enough. Chaldean 03:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Their are many Arabs who will be offended by what Elias did, but I am not quoting Arabs or Arameans who might have ill feelings towards Elias due to his editing history. I am not trying to prove a point I just want to edit an article that many worked for and want to see! Chaldean made an important point by asking to name the article Ancient Arabia only because Ancient Arabs might emphasize an ethnic term which arouses emotions of Non Arabs. I dont object that and I was always been considerate towards Non Arabs. Can Elias do the same? --Skatewalk 05:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I checked my logs

I just checked my intrusion logs and it seems I have been repeatedly portscanned from Morocco. Also many random attempts to connect at SSH, SMB and other ports. I am a programmer, so I know what I am talking about. Unfortunately I can't release the information because if it wasn't you who tried to attack me, then you could prove me wrong.

P.S. Apparently I have thousands of similar attacks from all other places around the world aswell, but I guess the others are just spam bots and zombied computers. Suva 05:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

TOR

I know nothing about TOR servers and very little about our open proxy policies, but I noticed the IP that left a message on SOD's talk page comes up as "The IP Address you entered matches one or more active Tor servers" when entered into torstatus.kgprog.com. Is this an address that needs an indef block and {{tor}} tag? - auburnpilot talk 00:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi APilot. The IP is hailing from Germany. According to that link it is an active Tor server. For the rest i am sorry because i don't know how to deal w/ TOR proxies. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, that same individual has been reverting Prester John and Karl Meier with pop-ups:

• 84.138.70.157 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 85.31.186.224 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 85.214.122.80 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 89.247.28.215 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 89.247.124.11 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Naturally, when I ask who he is on ANI, someone pops up and says "AGF!" The socks are running the show, FayssalF.Proabivouac 01:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

But i don't know how to block TOP proxies Pro! I said it to APilot above. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Military history of the Ottoman Empire task

I saw that you are editor of this portal so I have one proposition. Can you add task Ottoman-Hungarian Wars. Greatings --Vojvodaen 17:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi and welcome Vojvodaen. You mean Ottoman-Habsburg wars? Have you visited Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Ottoman military history task force? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I saw article Ottoman-Habsburg wars but I think about figts before year 1526. In article Siege of Belgrade we have navigation template Ottoman-Hungarian War but Ottoman-Hungarian War is not linked. --Vojvodaen 18:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I see now. You are totally right. So you suggest that we merge the template together. Right? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I don't answer earlier. I don't think to merge templates but to make new article. I already do on article about Ottoman-Hungerian fights on Serbian wikipedia. I will try to translate that article on english wiki. --Vojvodaen 07:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

I've put a request for arbitration on the sockpuppet accusations here As the blocking admin perhaps you'd care to make a statement? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Problems with the Hezbollah article

Some POV has been put in the Hezbollah article. I cannot revert anymore so I'm asking you to take a look (if you have time). Count Iblis 21:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Essay on how 3RR hurts the project and a proposal to fix it.

Hi! I would appreciate it, if you could give me your thoughts on this essay: Accusations of collaboration: 3RR hurts Wikipedia --Alexia Death the Grey 09:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Legal status of Western Sahara

Man oh man Seriously, take a look over there and at Wikima's recent contributions. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Still Would you look at Wikima's contribs? *All* he is doing is reverting me. He is not even referring to talk on most of the pages, and his Byzantine arguments on Talk:Legal status of Western Sahara are sheer nonsense. Would you please do something to stop this behavior? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• It's fascinating how you complain about things you are a true champion of.
• You manage to editwar everyone who does not think like you and polisario on western sahara.
• Your blocks are impressive and your blind reverts could go in guinness record book
• And you dare to play victim??
• You behaviour is just shamefull, really!!

wikima 19:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No I'm not doing this; I'm not going to stalk you around Wikipedia responding to your bombast. I'm trying to talk with an admin about your inappropriate behavior and if you think I'm going to get dragged into some kind of petty fight, you're wrong. If you have nothing to add, don't write anything, Wikima. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Just joined Berber wiki project

I can contribute to the early Berber period in Iberia (711-756). Then the second berber period Almurabiteen, Muwahideen, Marinids in Iberia. Nusayri just started an Arab wiki project, both Bereber and Arab wiki projects are connected at some point of time, so I thought you should consider joinning the Arab wiki project in order to improve the berber related issues--Skatewalk 22:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

more disruptive editing

I'm not sure if you remember this case, but the user Frikkers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who you applied the most recent of his three successive blocks to, is back and at it again. He has reverted, without any new discussion, twice just today. do you suggest I bring a new ANI case now or wait for his inevitable new violation of the 3RR? Thank you so much for any advice on the matter. VanTucky ^(talk) 03:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Warned and it is made sure now that any further revert from his part w/o discussing he'd be off. Please let me know if it happens again. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Frikkers has made another revert to the article. The sad part is, they seem to be perfectly intelligent and articulate. Just completely recalcitrant to the idea of participating in the Wikipedia way of collaborative editing. VanTucky ^(talk) 04:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

From your contrib history, you're not online at the moment. Because I'm honestly getting impatient for this nonsense to end, I have presently filed a 3RR case. Thank you for all your help and interest. I greatly appreciate it. VanTucky ^(talk) 05:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

More subjective editing by van tucky

I am finding this whole Wikipedia exercise one big sham. If wikipedi is to be at all credible then people who try and lay down the law as to what, who and when an edit can take place, should actually have a firm understanding of the subject involved, otherwise it becomes no more than a subjective and irrational little game. Van tucky has repeatedly vandalised the Boerboel entry from start make vast block changes that are time cinsuming and often difficult to repair, and it seems they are not being held accountable at all. With due respect for anyone who is seriously motivated to trying to make wikipedia a credible source of information, this is unacceptable. Do we as guardians or custodians of information, or in this instance a living breed of dog have a choice in the matter. If I could I would request the entry be removed entirely, as miss information is worse than none at all. Or are we to entirely discredit Wikipedia as a source of credible information, because that is what the end result of this little edit war ends up being, as I am sure now, many others end up being too.

From the very beginning of the Boerboel entry a few editors have miss represented the breed entirely at their own whims, and worse because of personal agendas involving the AKC or American Kennel club, this level of subjectivity and mistaken patriotism proffered as encyclopaedic content is damaging wikipedias image as a whole and proper information about the breed of dog concerned. It is not the place supposedly for personal agendas and bias, but perhaps also it is not the place for administrators with no particular knowledge of a subject , to draw any conclusions without adequate discussion, and trying to limited specialist editors contributions. Do I hear a clamouring for administrative know how?

Perhaps the entire concept of Wikipedia is so flawed, and I should not be wasting my time further? I had thought not, but real experience here has taught me that perhaps it is time for a rethink on the concept, it is simply too easily abused, in fact leaving all its content in serious doubt. While I know that Wikipedia is not a source of information that is eligible in any academic sense yet, it remains a worthy exercise to try and achieve such recognition, does it not? This however is surely not going to happen any time soon the way things look now.

Frikkers — added by Frikkers (talk • contribs) 03:39, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Hi Frikkers. If you had read my note carefully you'd have noted that i asked you to discuss. I indeed have no knowledge about the breed of dogs but please understand that administrators have NO right to decide on content when there is a dispute. So me knowing the subject or not is not important. Administrators are just reminders of policies and guidelines. They may also block users who revert w/o discussing to prevent that behavior in the future. They may also protect the page as it is the case w/ Samir in order for editors to discuss and reach a consensus. If the dispute is not settled at the talk page than it would be the time to follow the dispute resolution process. The only thing which is unacceptable is blind reverting w/o discussing. Hope you'd sort out the issue at the talk page. Good luck. If not, please follow the dispute resolution process (url above). -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust denial talk page

Hello, I see you are an admin here and have seen some of your userboxes (about personal attacks and systemic bias), so I think this page can be interesting to you because of it's (IMHO) long-period systemic bias against holocaust revisionists and multiple personal attacks (mainly by admins), absense of assuming good faith and so on. I was blocked then I called Squiddy a troll for reverting lots of my edits, despite he called me troll before more then once and wasn't blocked, so I understand it like carte-blanche for me to doing the same. Judje yourself, who are the trolls there - admins or me. I was surprised then aknowledged that actually nobody is allowed to edit this article except some admins. Even if they can't resist logic anymore, they revert my edit, then write it themselves and claim that they did it not me (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Holocaust_denial/Archive_9#Night_and_Day). Holocaust revisionism ("denial") is not my only interest in Wikipedia, but most my edits are related to it mainly because of fierce and (IMHO) unfear resistence to any change in those articles. Now I go to appeal to the Arbitration committee to rule this matter. I think, this page have no chances to become neutral until Jpgordon, Stephan Shultz and Squiddy will be kicked out of Wikipedia. --Igor "the Otter" 16:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Igor. i am really sorry. I am mediating 3 other issues for the meantime and working w/ other projects for now. All i can tell you is that you edit w/o consensus. If you think that is not correct than please leave a note at WT:BIAS or contact someone of its members. User:Richardshusr is a very fair admin and you should listen to him and not argue about his judgment/opinion in a confrontational way. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hilarious block message.

Hi, I don't know if you realised this, but you managed to block 70.167.65.144 for a period of "Julius Caesar". Hilarious. Capuchin 13:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Hahahaha. Well that sounds like if the vandal was re-running again for the President of Vandals position. I've just seen him back (returning) today. Thanks for the reminder. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm still alive and kicking :)

I hope you are having a nice Summer. Weather is all miserable in England for a change... Thanks a lot for the support at Talk:Spanish literature. I have been away from wikipedia for quite a few months. Now that I have some more time, I am trying to expand and clean-up some articles. I have recently got access to several databases and electronic journals. So if you need anything, just drop me a line or two. Cheers, --Asterion^talk 17:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh great i'll surely bother you from time to time. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Arab

Hi FayssalF. It is good that you clarified that Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia and that there are no teams built to exclusively edit articles. I would just say that I think people are just excited about the prospect of the WikiProject and jumped the gun buy organizing at the Arab talk page instead of where they would if the project goes ahead. I also wasn't sanctioning the idea that people have to specify their country of origins to get involved (in case your comments were directed to me). I only mentioned my own by way of voluntary introduction and general sharing. Anyway, I think being firm about what Wikipedia is and isn't is good, but perhaps we could be more understanding of what I as an optimist would like to see as enthusiasm that needs a little guidance. Tiamat 17:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tiamut. Noway, i was talking to the users who signed. My userpage tells you from where i come so that's not the point. But creating Team A and B based on nationalities is nonsense. I was talking to the users who used the tiny flags. Nonsense.

We'll get the WikiProject. I understand that some people would think of the project as a threat if i'd exaggerate. That is normal as it happens at WP Spain Vs WP Catalonia and WP Valencian Community. However, i made it clear at the WP Council yesterday that WikiProjects are to enhance the quality of articles according to wikipedia policies. No POV agendas and no disruprion would be tolerated in the project BUT today there come some users (i don't know but they just appeared!) talking about building a team to write a simple article! Nonsense. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey FayssalF, thanks for clarifying. I agree fully with your comments. I would also say that after having reviewed some more of the comments on the page that the "team" is mostly not part of the Arab WikiProject proposal and seems to be a parallel effort. (Very confusing!) In any case, I'll be keeping my eye on things as well. We really do need an Arab WikiProject though we definitely do not need people misunderstanding what it is about. It's not a private "Arab" club, but a way of coordinating efforts to improving and expanding Arab-related articles to bring them in line with Wiki policies like NPOV and NOR, which they badly need right now. See you around. Tiamat 18:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems that this "team" is increasing in number on the Arab article talk page. I've no doubt that this is a sincere effort to instill some organisation and discipline in an editorial process that has become quite messy. However, I think that it is an eccentric method of organisation within Wikipedia and I for one see no reason to declare my citizenship or anything else that is irrelevant to editing Wikipedia and I don't want to be a member of a "team". It would be good if you could give some advice on the talk page and help structure the debate so that no-one feels the need to resort to creating teams.--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 11:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi FayssalF, I was contacting you for the same reason! Can we organize a similar team in the Egyptians talk page?--Skatewalk 11:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand you don't understand that the term "team" is not on my dictionary Skate. We don't have teams in Wikipedia. People work w/in the scope of WikiProjects and that's all. I don't know what is all this fuss about "teams". All i know is WikiProjects. I participate in WikiProjects as you may notice from my userboxes but i never participate in teams as i never heard of such terminology here before. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

wiki teams

don't understand! c article Muhammad a team of Jewish that lead the contributions for example Sefringle [1], c last edit by Proabivouac [2] "Muhammad . . . in which he recognized the validity of three Meccan". my friend X-Force try to correct the article then he get blocked "This user is a suspected sock puppet of His excellency, and has been blocked indefinitely." what u called this. <<Smart_Viral 17:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)>>

Hi Smart Viral. Look, Wikipedia is not a battleground. So the user who you are thinking is your friend is just a vandal. Someone who comes and removes edits w/o discussing is a WP:VANDAL. This is the problem. Wikipedia hurts but not only you. Many people from around the world feel the same (including the Vatican, including the Republicans, including Africans, including Jews, including Sikhs, including Chinese, including animals, etc...) Editing here consists of consensus. Consensus can only be reached through discussions. You have to get good arguments in order for you to get your edit approved. Why were you not blocked? Because you could discuss, not him.

P.S.Consensus can change but not this way. Consensus can change via discussions. Removing comments and images from the articles is plain vandalism. Please click on this image . -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

thanx ... i have to learn more about wikipeda. <<Smart_Viral 18:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)>>

Well said. I am still learning myself. Everybody. The important thing you have to learn about first is WP:TROLL. Just never follow the trolls whoever may be. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

An Award for You!

		The Golden Wiki
		You've done great as a sysop today! So I'm giving you this!

--  PNiddy  Go!  23:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice. Thank you. Any particular example? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm giving this to sysops who worked harder and revert extreme vandalism. Right here in Wikipedia! --  PNiddy  Go!  00:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

WPARAB- "Istifsar/استفسار"

Great job with the Arab Wiki Project...

there is this part i didnt really get, but first to understand my concern, i need to inform you that most of My Contributions are related to Map making... especially the Arab related ones, some in the following topics:

• Arabic
• Arab League
• Arab Maghreb Union
• Comesa
• IGAD
• Gafta
• Agadir Agreement
• Demographics of the Arab League
• List of Arab League Countries By GDP
• Largest Cities of the Arab League

and planning a Massive update for the Arab Empire's Dynasty maps...

i also Started the Life in the Arab League, after finding a similar Project for the EU and AU...

anyways, what is exactly needed to create Arab Wiki Project Maps???, since it is considered alot of my contributions??

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arab League (talk • contribs) 23:54, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Great job. Thanks for letting me know about your field of contributions because i can now create a new department for maps, images and media (including news articles and books related to the Arab world). I am working on it and i'll be updating you once it is ready. That way you would coordinate w/ other project members on maps and other stuff. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Here are you new spaces of work → WP:ARBMED and WP:ARBMEDG. Please read to understand about their functioning and don't forget to add them on your watchlist. Also don't hesitate to ask me if you got any question استفسار or comment regarding any changes you want to see in the project. See you around. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

E-Mail

Hi FayssalF, I'm about to send you mail. Are you online?Proabivouac 02:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes sure. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Sent.Proabivouac 02:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Ummm. nothing yet. FayssalF

Same problem as last time, probably. I'll try from my Yahoo account, since that seemed to be faster.Proabivouac 02:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No fine now. I sent you a short reply. Got it? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yup, thanks!Proabivouac 03:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

p.s. you can sign your comments with four tildes ~~~~ ;)Proabivouac 03:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I do it in purpose to avoid cluttering talkpages w/ my lovely colors. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Mother Teresa

Hi Fayssal, I see you're back on the MT talk page. There seems to be something about how the page is functioning that gets people angry very soon after they get there. I only joined a few days before you and you can see some of the things I said if you look at the history.

My post at Talk:Mother Teresa#What to say about the journals? was actually intended to get people talking systematically about what points should be covered and before moving onto how to phrase things. I obviously did something wrong because it is not getting the response I hoped. But if you are able to come up with things I've not thought of, suggest the best quotations to use etc., then please add them below my comment.--Peter cohen 22:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Peter. Thanks for your message. Actually i was coming from ANI while tracing a case involving User:Mutwandi and User:Phral to find out that Phral wikistalked Mutwandi until he reverted his edit at Mother Teresa w/o any edit summary, no discussion for his first ever edit at MT article. Well, as an admin i had to check whether Mutwandi was trolling or Phral being disruptive. What i did i typed "Mother Teresa letter" on google news to see it was only Time magazine or some others. Well, a found a few. It means plain disruption for what he got an immediate 24h block . What followed was another indef block by another admin Haemo as a sock of a banned user who created havoc today at the ANI.

So what i did is to keep the material but this time w/ what i found and put it very neutral as per [WP:NPOV]. The articles were more POV. Later on Anietor tries to mislead me and everybody. Look at what he wrote in his edit summary Move reference to letters/diary to Spirituality section. In fact he moved nothing but reverted me and restored half of what had been there before Phral plus a new reference of hims talk about everything except the "doubts". I tried to merge w/ a proper section and get rid of the "controversy" title. I indeed left what he had edited earlier. Wasn't that a consensus/deal. Not for him, he reverted again. Jesus!!!! I didn't come there to edit war. I don't know how to edit war. That i didn't like and expressed it immediately at the talk page. I left and came today directly to talkpage and i m sorry if i was a bit too offensive but you already now know why. It was more a misguidance of the part of Anietor to deal w/ the issue. Something like [WP:OWN] coupled w/ aggressive POV pushing and edit warring. But at least i meant i won't get back to that issue and i am sorry for the mess. I was just tracing a dispute as an admin and well i'll of course leave it there. I am unprotecting the article of course. I really appreciate you contacting me Peter. Happy editing. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

And thanks for your reply. You'll have seen that I too have problems with Anietor misleading comments e.g.:

• Claiming he's been exonerated by Wikiadmins over the 3RR that is still open. Personally, I think an official admin warning for him and Sfacets over their 3RR breaking might have made them both less complacent about it being everybody's fault but theirs.
• Implying that the Good article reviews said that there was no need for more coverage of criticism. Several reviewers said that there should be.
• Various other edit summaries which did far more than they said.

Add you make the third person I know who came with good faith from and admin or review page and then got hauled into the poisonous goings on. Anyway, good to do business with you, --Peter cohen 13:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually I've got a question for you as an admin as I didn't get a reply from the admin who closed my sockpuppetry allegations. How would you advice me in future to deal with an account with this sort of edit history [3]? Note particularly the use of acronyms by a supposed neophyte and the rush into the middle of a revert war. Thanks--Peter cohen 17:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Peter. Could you please give me diffs to all what you are referring to above? I mean starting from the admin who EXONERATED him to the various EDIT SUMMARIES. That would help for verification. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Fayssal Thanks for agreeing to help me understand how to deal with this in future. The two sockpuppetry files will answer most of your question and contain the investigating admin's reasons. The files are Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Anietor and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Majoreditor.

These were my first ever sockpuppetry allegations, so my question on what to do differently next time is based on my lack of success in the first attempt and inexperience. So, if there are other channels for raising queries of a suspicious user that I might have used, arguments for the suspected puppet actually being an innocent editor that I should have put to myself etc. then do let me know.

One of the problems is that I thought the sockpuppet's appearance followed on from one editor's (Majoreditor) use of their third revert and only noticed later that there was a second editor (Anietor) in the same position. So a subsidiary question which I would be grateful if you could answer is what do I do if I think I've spotted a sockpuppet but don't know who is using it.

The only four edits ever by the suspected sockpuppet are:

• A revert of text inserted that day, but in a situation where something had to be done. (The paragraph was garbled because a reference to a different critic had been removed so that their comments were made to seem like MacIntyre's.)
• A revert in support of Anietor (Anietor and Sfacets were reverting each other on the way to both breaking WP:3RR. Anietor had just reached his 3rd revert.)
• The same revert again, after Sfacets reverted again(The use of various wiki acronyms made me particularly suspicious of this as the actions of a neophyte editor.)
• The same revert yet again. (This time Nodekeeper had done the previous revert.)

I'm going to also list my contributions to Mother Teresa up to I made the sockpuppet report as part of the reasons for the rejection was that I was deemed part of the edit war. I had first joined the page less than a day before the sockpuppet complaint and am not aware of ever being on the same page as either of the editors concerned before. I've put the potentially controversial edits in italics.

• a spelling correction
• Mentioning criticism in lede in what I considered a balanced way This was reverted by Majoreditor with a comment of not in the lede. I therefore moved my attention to the body of the page.
• Just a copy edit
• reworking criticisms section largely to add in more information on who and what have criticised MT
• starting to address a citation tag added to my last edit
• naming a ref for re-use
• using that refname
• adding final citation and removing cite tag
• copyediting, adding one more source of criticism I suppose the edit title is slightly misleading
• very minor copyedit
• copyedit-rewording
• added one more critic
• Reverting Majoreditor's rollback of my previous 8 edits (i.e. "starting to address.." down The Majoreditor revert was this [4]
• Mentioning what are probably that the two major medical journals in the world have criticised MT This was reverted as part of this misleadingly named rollback of Anietor's [5]
• correcting misattributed citation
• removing citation that does not support text where cited

Note: these last two edits were among those being removed and inserted in the Anietor/Sfacets/IP/Nodekeeper revert war.

My contributions to the talk page before the sockpuppet report are listed below. You may detect a familiar tone of frustration building.

• commenting that my edit to lede - previously suggested by another editor Casliber - had been reverted
• disagreeing with Majoreditor that reporting criticism is by definition a controversial topic and explaining why I think my adding discription of critics improved the article.
• Exclamation of WTF about the Majoreditor rollback of my 8 edits discussed above and response to very WP:OWNish we've been her before.
• reply to Anietor who deprecated my edits and seemed to accuse me of trolling and Accusing him and Majoreditor of WP:OWN.
• reply to what I still consider a patronising suggestion by Majoreditor that I tak a break to cool off given he was responsible for warming me up
• general complaint about recent slapdash editing

Thanks again for agreeing to offer advice for how to deal with similar events in future.--Peter cohen 20:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi FayssalF, thanks for informing me of this discussion. You mentioned that from the information here, you know who User:72.220.146.66 is connected with. It looks to me like you're talking about Anietor, and I agree that the evidence is pretty suggestive. If the evidence had been this clearly presented in the SSP cases, I probably would have blocked. But since you're looking at the situation right now, what do you think the appropriate course of action is? --Akhilleus (talk) 04:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ArbComBot 00:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Arab article

Hi Boss...sorry to give you more headache, but Egyegy seems to ignore the fact that we have to talk on the discussion page before editing the article.

• Me and other users agreed to remove the incomplete and POV/blog references. Egyegy came back to the article reverting it 3 times and refused to discuss the changes. (Although we didn't remove the text that he/she tried to reference). Can you please take a look at what I am talking about when you have time--Skatewalk 03:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Skatewalk, thanks for letting me know. I've left a thread at the article talk page. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Aschoeff

Please remind user Aschoeff that personal attacks and incivility is not tolerated on Wikipedia. He has attacked me here [6]. He said "...you are disingenuous. I do not trust your intentions. I believe you are Evil." --Agha Nader 06:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just left him a note. Please leave him alone. he may cool down so don't be impatient. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Teresa Hayden

If you go to Aug. 13, 2007 you will see attacks on a few Wikipedia editors. http://www.nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/ I see you protected the page, why? --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no clear consensus about Attack Sites. Aren't you following longish discussions at ANI?

I protected the page as per WP:PROTECT#Content disputes. Please have a look at it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. I will take a look at the link you supplied in the morning. I do have a couple of questions if you don't mind. First, isn't an external link that slams editors automatically deleted? Also, I though blogs were not allowed, are they? Thank you again. --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Well, the thing about Atk Sts is that Wikipedia, as always has been the case, never generalize policies or guidelines. Wikipedia gives much weight to a case-by-case analysis. It means AtK Sts does not apply to all because if we'd apply it we'd be ending up w/ thousands of blacklisted sites just because some of our editors had done something odd and that the subject is not happy w/. So what we do is judge cases on a c-b-c basis.

Re blogs. It is highly discouraged to use blogs as external links. BUT it would be insane to not use them when they are the main blog of the bio in question. It is like having a bio of Sarkozy w/o a link to his blog. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

So in brief, in delicate situation we use common sense. In other words, we discuss it at the ANI and see how people would judge that particular situation. Please read this thread about Michael Moore.

As for the protected version please read The Wrong Version.

Again, thanks for your concerns. Much appreciated. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

(copied from my page to make sure you see my response) Thanks again, I will also check out the other links you supply in the morning. I need to eat dinner now and get to bed. Crohn's can be a pain! Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)--

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Crohnie" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crohnie (talk • contribs) 23:12, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Grazie

A year ago you greeted me and I just saw you again for the first time! :) Italia^vivi 04:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

yeah while checking your talkpage earlier tonight i found my welcoming message. This is weird! -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact it was at your userpage and not here to make your link working. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I know greetings are only a superficial big deal on Wiki, but its nice to know that you are still around too! I have had ups and downs since I started here (mostly personality conflicts) but I would like to think I am finally settling in some kind of normalness. Italia^vivi 04:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

never take what happens here too seriously. i suffer insomnia already! probably it is wikipedia. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Protection on Teresa Nielsen Hayden

Hi FayssalF, I was wondering if you could remove the protection on Teresa Nielsen Hayden--it looks like the situation that led to the edit war has been resolved, and on the talk page an editor has mentioned that he wanted to add some sources but couldn't edit the article. I'd remove the protection myself, but since I recently edited the article I probably shouldn't. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Akhilleus (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for information

Hello, I just wanted to ask you if it is possible that another user can get my email address and sned messages. I putted today for deletion Quackwatch nad soon enough I got some threatening and harassing mails which I could not trace as were websent. I tried to see who is involved in defending that page and the trace carried me to an arbitration involving one of the users defending that page in which you declare that he has done this kind of things. I just want to know if could have been him for taking my own protective measures, nothing Wiki, your answer will help Thanx Jenny^Len☤ 15:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to ask you if it is possible that another user can get my email address and sned messages. Yes anyone w/ an account can email you as you have your email configured.

the trace carried me to an arbitration involving one of the users defending that page in which you declare that he has done this kind of things. Having a look at the AfD, i don't really think so and i'd advice you to have a look at WP:DENY or blocking their emails if they are harassing you. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your information and time, I really appreciate it Jenny^Len☤ 06:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you please explain your decision

Hello FayssalF. Could you please comment on this? Thank you in advance, RJ CG 16:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It is on the title of that same thread! Blocked for tedious editing at Russo-Estonian relations while violating WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. It has been discussed in multiple ANI threads. Weren't you doing that when i blocked you? As for your block by ProhibitOnions, i don't know what you did and if that is right or wrong RJ CG. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for being so insistent, but I wasn't part of any ANI thread, except one (where I did not voice my opinion but pointed on pretty coordinated effort of so-called "Tartu accounts" to cover each other's back within 3 minutes after one of self-confessed warriors exhausted his/her revert limit), so I can't find where specific accusations against yours truly had been discussed. I have no inclination to jump into those ANI either, having experienced firsthand the poisonous atmosphere you're breathing now there. Again, I am deeply sorry, but as things are going now, your initial accusations are actively used to build the case against myself, so I need them either to be proven or to be striken out. I'm not asking you to explain rationale of ProhibitOnions decision, I've asked him/her to explain grounds for decision (except carbon-copying your decision) already. Thank you in advance, RJ CG 17:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

When i say it was discussed multiple times at the ANI, i mean the block of both of you, Peter Krohn and Digwuren were reviewed by other admins. If you couldn't find a link to the thread where i was accused of alleged abuse of my admin tools, here it is. If you believe you have been treated unfairly, please look for a venue to express your feelings as everyone does. Cheers. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Request

Salam (peace),

I have seen you editing many articles related Islam or Muslim culture. I have also never seen you edit-warring or holding strong prejudices. For these reasons, I request that you take a look at Islamic military jurisprudence.

Please give feedback (either on the article's talk page, or mine) about the quality of the article. It would be appreciated if you gave back constructive criticism, keeping in mind that I eventually want to nominate this article for WP:GA status.Bless sins 17:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually this article is related to WP:MILHIST. Please follow these steps to get the article reviewed by the community. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 22:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Question about spam

Hi FayssalF, Thanks for your good admin-coaching advice about watchlisting WP:ANI, WP:RFPP, WP:AFD etc. I will continue to pay attention to these with the goal of jumping into the WP:ANI conversation at some point.

—I have a specific question on which (if you have a chance)I would really appreciate your advice. I want to let people know about a task force I and some other editors have been working on, but today user:ST47 asked me to stop "spamming" (here). This is the first such message I have received--should I stop writing other editors about the task force? What would be an acceptable way to contact editors about the task force?

Cheers, Cyrusc 18:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Great job Cyrusc. I see that your task force is ready to fly. What happened is that your engine was a bit noisy for the people who live around ;) I saw a complaint at your talk page :) but one discouraging message is necessary for anyone. It makes people do it better.

Good question. A simple answer and effective way to inform people is to go step by step. You can attract users via the parent project itself. You can have links to different task forces from the main Politics WP. How? You don't have to follow the design or the layout but just the idea. Well, this is a good example. → Military history task forces . This would have a double effect both for the task force and the main project itself. Try that and see if it would work. This is also a good example of a working task force African military history task force. Also it is a good idea to talk about the task force implicitly while discussing in a policts/money related article. If you need more details ask me again. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Isarig

Hello, Fayssal. Would you be willing to step in as a mentor for Isarig, or could you suggest someone? Thank you. -- Avi 18:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Avi. Of course no problem. I'd be needing your help as well in case or it would be better if we were both of us. Because, i am afraid one mentor would not be able to do all the work alone. Any thoughts? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I thought of you as someone whose background is significantly enough different from Isarig's to prevent any appearances of impropriety, and you are one of the most level-headed, fair-minded, calm, and respected editors that I know of. I would be glad to help out, but I am afraid that there will be allegations if I were to do it myself, since my background and upbringing is more close to Isarig's than not. -- Avi 19:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If you would become lead mentor I would be glad to be backup (time permitting both of us). Perhaps the community would accept such a joint mentorship? -- Avi 19:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Good deal. Note that your presence with me would be important as you are also a very level-headed contributor and i've always respected and trusted your judgments. I also the community and Isarig himself would be much reassured. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. Although wikipedia edit histories are open to all, I still believe the community would accept the proposal more readily coming from you than from me. May I trouble you to suggest it? -- Avi 19:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure but i thought i declared it already. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Coordinator election

This is to inform you that you have been re-elected to serve another term as a coordinator of the Military history WikiProject. Congratulations! Kirill 00:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem, congratz ! I'm too lazy to run for it, so I know that we need you guys. (Wikimachine 01:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC))

Congrats!

Assistant Cooridinator of the Military History Wikiproject, August 2007 — February 2008

Congrats on your election as an assistant coordinator. In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. I wish you luck in the coming term. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

sigh

i don't mean to be disrespectful, but could you please take some type of steps so that this issue which you archived would be properly resolved and not repeated?
p.s. i'm watching your page so you can reply here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jaakobou. I think you are unaware of this block and the discussion which was going on at this board. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

no offense, but a 15 minute block and a note that he should select a mentor is really not what i had hoped for after all the breaches he's done since he was assigned the sock mentor. to be frank i'm at the point of exhausted patience and think that, if not some type of deterrent block, at the very least he should be given a proper warning by a user that is not me... so he will not keep stretching the boundaries of good taste checking how far he can go. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The situation is heated Jaakobou and everyone got its share in all this. We don't really punish Jaakobou. Whenever people can find a better solution the better. Let's suppose i'd have blocked him for 48h but what i did is much more better. He'd really think about it in a different way. I remember your case when you apologized and went on. This is how it works and the most important thing here is not the period but if one is going to do it again and again. If you think otherwise, you can undo my archiving and wait for other admins but the last comment was at 18h. So why no one dared to intervene. Maybe because they thought there was no need to escalate problems when we can deal w/ them otherwise. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

please read my comment again and notice i did not request a ban but rather something else (far more effective than a mere 15 min(?) block). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I read it Jaakobou. What i was saying is that we were in the middle of a discussion about mentorship for users. So think about this. Blocking him or looking for a mentor for him? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

(e/c) I still think the solution is to match him up with a mentor as soon as possible. It's not his fault the mentorship decision wasn't implemented, and that no one checked up on the guy that came forward. We can't move up to a more stringent penalty if the current step has not even been tried. By the way, I myself would have volunteered for the job, but unfortunately, I do not expect to have regular internet access for the next two months. nadav (talk) 03:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Nadav for stepping in. I really was thinking about you but said let's wait and see people's reaction. So the idea is there. Well, I and Avi can do the job while you are away. I don't know. Something like that. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If you and Avi are willing to handle the extra weight until I move into my new university housing, then I of course would be glad to do the job at every moment I have internet access. Once I move in in October, I will be able to take over completely. In the mean time, I'll also activate my e-mail so I can be easily reached. Also, I should mention that there was one content disagreement between me and PR (you can see it on my talk page). If that's a problem, I can refrain from working on articles on which PR is working on at the same time. nadav (talk) 03:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Duly noted. I'll check w/ Avi and PR tomorrow then. If not, i'd check w/ some other admins and see what we can do. Good luck nadav in your move to the univ housing. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• comment - it's most certainly not PR's fault that the assigned mentor was a hoax, however, during this time he has not taken a step back but rather continued pushing the envelope. i'm asking that at the very least he'd be given a proper warning by a user that is not me. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Jaakobou, i see you insisting now instead of requesting. Have you got my last message? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

i received it now, and i note you that while you are looking for a second mentor, i'm a free target to insults, false accusations and chasing around with irrelevant accusative questions on multiple subsections. i hope you understand that also when you shrug off my request that at the very least a warning be issued. if you wish to read some personal vendetta into this, then i have nothing to do but accept the fact that when these breaches reoccur, he could claim it was the first time someone else noted this issue to him. :/ Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh no we will not take ages to find a mentor. In fact we already found nadav and likely that me and Avi would do it. But let's wait for a Avi to see if he'd help. Now, this is what we can do and hope you also show some helping efforts by avoid escalation. Think about the outcome and not about the instant. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

very well, i hope things will work out for the best so i can look back at this moment and chuckle at myself for this request. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!

On becoming a coordinator. However, I've seen you somewhere before the MILHIST elections. Do you have an idea where? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flubeca (talk • contribs) 02:19, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Esperanza maybe? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)